Fong Jeffrey J, Kanji Salmaan, Dasta Joseph F, Garpestad Erik, Devlin John W
School of Pharmacy, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Ann Pharmacother. 2007 Dec;41(12):1986-91. doi: 10.1345/aph.1K296. Epub 2007 Oct 23.
While one prospective controlled study in medical intensive care unit (ICU) patients demonstrated that sedation with propofol leads to a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation compared with scheduled intermittent intravenous lorazepam, its conclusions may not be applicable to surgical ICU patients and institutions not using daily sedation interruption.
To compare the duration of mechanical ventilation between medical and surgical ICU patients receiving propofol versus scheduled intermittent lorazepam in routine clinical practice.
Retrospective data (January 2001-December 2005) were obtained from the Project IMPACT database for medical and surgical ICU patients at Tufts-New England Medical Center, a 450 bed academic hospital. These patients had been mechanically ventilated for 24 hours or more and had received 24 hours or more of either propofol or scheduled intermittent lorazepam as the sole sedative. Clinically relevant variables were identified a priori, and their influence on duration of mechanical ventilation was evaluated. Differences in these variables between propofol and scheduled intermittent lorazepam groups within the ICU cohorts were then measured.
Of 4608 database patients, 287 met criteria. Factors associated with a prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation for the medical ICU cohort included sedation use for 5 or more days (OR 13.8; 95% CI 8.3 to 19.4), narcotic use (OR 7.6; 95% CI 2.3 to 13), and scheduled intermittent lorazepam use (OR 7.0; 95% CI 0.4 to 13.7). For the surgical ICU cohort, these factors included sedation use for 5 or more days (OR 15; 95% CI 11.4 to 19.4), APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II) score equal to or greater than 18 (OR 4.1; 95% CI 0.4 to 7.8), and scheduled intermittent lorazepam use (OR 4.0; 95% CI 0.2 to 7.7). Duration of mechanical ventilation was the only variable that differed significantly between propofol and scheduled intermittent lorazepam in both the medical ICU, with a median (range) of 6 (3-12) versus 11 (5-25; p = 0.03), and surgical ICU, with a median of 4 (2-15) versus 9 (4-20; p = 0.001), groups.
Sedation with propofol in the naturalistic setting appears to be associated with a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation compared with scheduled intermittent lorazepam in both medial and surgical ICU patients when only one sedative drug is used. Data from this uncontrolled observational study are consistent with findings from a randomized clinical trial.
虽然一项针对医学重症监护病房(ICU)患者的前瞻性对照研究表明,与定时静脉注射劳拉西泮相比,使用丙泊酚进行镇静可缩短机械通气时间,但其结论可能不适用于外科ICU患者以及未采用每日镇静中断的机构。
比较在常规临床实践中,接受丙泊酚与定时静脉注射劳拉西泮治疗的医学和外科ICU患者的机械通气时间。
回顾性数据(2001年1月至2005年12月)取自塔夫茨新英格兰医疗中心(一家拥有450张床位的教学医院)的IMPACT项目数据库中的医学和外科ICU患者。这些患者接受机械通气24小时或更长时间,并且接受了24小时或更长时间的丙泊酚或定时静脉注射劳拉西泮作为唯一的镇静剂。预先确定临床相关变量,并评估它们对机械通气时间的影响。然后测量ICU队列中丙泊酚组和定时静脉注射劳拉西泮组之间这些变量的差异。
在4608名数据库患者中,287名符合标准。医学ICU队列中与机械通气时间延长相关的因素包括使用镇静剂5天或更长时间(比值比13.8;95%置信区间8.3至19.4)、使用麻醉剂(比值比7.6;95%置信区间2.3至13)以及使用定时静脉注射劳拉西泮(比值比7.0;95%置信区间0.4至13.7)。对于外科ICU队列,这些因素包括使用镇静剂5天或更长时间(比值比15;95%置信区间11.4至19.4)、急性生理与慢性健康状况评估II(APACHE II)评分等于或大于18(比值比4.1;95%置信区间0.4至7.8)以及使用定时静脉注射劳拉西泮(比值比4.0;95%置信区间0.2至7.7)。在医学ICU中,丙泊酚组和定时静脉注射劳拉西泮组之间唯一有显著差异的变量是机械通气时间,中位数(范围)分别为6(3 - 12)天和11(5 - 25)天(p = 0.03);在外科ICU中,中位数分别为4(2 - 15)天和9(4 - 20)天(p = 0.001)。
在自然环境中,对于医学和外科ICU患者,当仅使用一种镇静药物时,与定时静脉注射劳拉西泮相比,使用丙泊酚进行镇静似乎与较短的机械通气时间相关。这项非对照观察性研究的数据与一项随机临床试验的结果一致。