Knott Jonathan C, Taylor David McD, Castle David J
Emergency Medicine Research Unit, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
Ann Emerg Med. 2006 Jan;47(1):61-7. doi: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2005.07.003. Epub 2005 Aug 18.
We compare intravenous midazolam and droperidol for the onset of sedation of acutely agitated patients in the emergency department (ED).
This was a double-blind, randomized, clinical trial set in the ED of a university teaching hospital. Subjects were adults, acutely agitated because of mental illness, intoxication, or both, who received midazolam or droperidol, 5 mg intravenously, every 5 minutes until sedated. We analyzed time to sedation using survival analysis, median times to sedation, and proportions sedated at 5 and 10 minutes.
Seventy-four patients received midazolam; 79 patients, droperidol. Survival analysis showed no difference in time to sedation (hazard ratio 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61 to 1.23), P=.42. Median time to sedation was 6.5 minutes for midazolam (median dose 5 mg) and 8 minutes for droperidol (median dose 10 mg), P=.075 (effect size 1.5 minutes; 95% CI 0 to 4 minutes). At 5 minutes, 33 of 74 (44.6%) patients from the midazolam group were adequately sedated compared with 13 of 79 (16.5%) patients from the droperidol group, a difference of 28.1% (95% CI 12.9% to 43.4%; P<.001). By 10 minutes, 41 of 74 (55.4%) from the midazolam group were sedated compared to 42 of 79 (53.2%) from droperidol, a difference of 2.2% (95% CI -14.9% to 19.3%; P=.91). Eleven adverse events occurred in the midazolam group and 10 in the droperidol group. Three patients required active airway management (3 patients with assisted ventilation and 1 patient intubated); all received midazolam.
There is no difference in onset of adequate sedation of agitated patients using midazolam or droperidol. Patients sedated with midazolam may have an increased need for active airway management.
我们比较静脉注射咪达唑仑和氟哌利多在急诊科(ED)对急性躁动患者产生镇静作用的起效情况。
这是一项在大学教学医院急诊科开展的双盲、随机临床试验。受试者为因精神疾病、中毒或两者兼具而急性躁动的成年人,他们接受静脉注射咪达唑仑或氟哌利多,每次5毫克,每5分钟注射一次,直至达到镇静状态。我们使用生存分析、镇静的中位时间以及5分钟和10分钟时达到镇静状态的比例来分析达到镇静的时间。
74例患者接受了咪达唑仑治疗;79例患者接受了氟哌利多治疗。生存分析显示达到镇静的时间没有差异(风险比0.86;95%置信区间[CI]0.61至1.23),P = 0.42。咪达唑仑(中位剂量5毫克)达到镇静的中位时间为6.5分钟,氟哌利多(中位剂量10毫克)为8分钟,P = 0.075(效应大小1.5分钟;95%CI 0至4分钟)。5分钟时,咪达唑仑组74例患者中有33例(44.6%)达到充分镇静,而氟哌利多组79例患者中有13例(16.5%)达到充分镇静,差异为28.1%(95%CI 12.9%至43.4%;P < 0.001)。到10分钟时,咪达唑仑组74例中有41例(55.4%)达到镇静,氟哌利多组79例中有42例(53.2%)达到镇静,差异为2.2%(95%CI -14.9%至19.3%;P = 0.91)。咪达唑仑组发生11例不良事件,氟哌利多组发生10例。3例患者需要进行积极气道管理(3例接受辅助通气,1例接受插管);所有这些患者均接受了咪达唑仑治疗。
使用咪达唑仑或氟哌利多对躁动患者进行充分镇静的起效情况没有差异。接受咪达唑仑镇静的患者可能对积极气道管理的需求增加。