Suppr超能文献

机械通气期间右美托咪定与丙泊酚/咪达唑仑用于长期镇静的比较

Dexmedetomidine versus propofol/midazolam for long-term sedation during mechanical ventilation.

作者信息

Ruokonen Esko, Parviainen Ilkka, Jakob Stephan M, Nunes Silvia, Kaukonen Maija, Shepherd Stephen T, Sarapohja Toni, Bratty J Raymond, Takala Jukka

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Kuopio University Hospital, P.O. Box 1777, 70211, Kuopio, Finland.

出版信息

Intensive Care Med. 2009 Feb;35(2):282-90. doi: 10.1007/s00134-008-1296-0. Epub 2008 Sep 16.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To compare dexmedetomidine (DEX) with standard care (SC, either propofol or midazolam) for long-term sedation in terms of maintaining target sedation and length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay.

METHODS

A pilot, phase III, double-blind multicenter study in randomized medical and surgical patients (n = 85) within the first 72 h of ICU stay with an expected ICU stay of >or=48 h and sedation need for >or=24 h after randomization. Patients were assigned to either DEX (<or=1.4 microg kg(-1) h(-1); n = 41) or SC (n = 44), with daily sedation stops.

RESULTS

Non-inferiority of DEX versus SC was not confirmed. Target Richmond agitation-sedation score (RASS) was reached a median of 64% (DEX) and 63% (SC) of the sedation time (ns). The length of ICU stay was similar in DEX and SC. Patients with RASS target 0-3 (DEX 78%, SC 80%) were at target sedation 74% (DEX) and 64% (SC) of the time (ns), whereas those with RASS target -4 or less reached the target 42% (DEX) and 62% (SC) of the time (P = .006). Post hoc analyses suggested shorter duration of mechanical ventilation for DEX (P = 0.025).

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study suggests that in long-term sedation, DEX is comparable to SC in maintaining sedation targets of RASS 0 to -3 but not suitable for deep sedation (RASS -4 or less). DEX had no effect on length of ICU stay. Its effects on other relevant clinical outcomes, such as duration of mechanical ventilation, should be tested further.

摘要

目的

比较右美托咪定(DEX)与标准护理(SC,丙泊酚或咪达唑仑)用于长期镇静时在维持目标镇静及重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间方面的效果。

方法

一项试点性、III期、双盲多中心研究,纳入ICU住院前72小时内预期ICU住院时间≥48小时且随机分组后镇静需求≥24小时的内科和外科随机患者(n = 85)。患者被分配至DEX组(≤1.4微克/千克/小时;n = 41)或SC组(n = 44),每日进行镇静中断。

结果

未证实DEX不劣于SC。达到目标里士满躁动 - 镇静评分(RASS)的时间分别为DEX组镇静时间的中位数64%和SC组的63%(无显著差异)。DEX组和SC组的ICU住院时间相似。RASS目标为0 - 3的患者(DEX组78%,SC组80%)达到目标镇静的时间分别为DEX组的74%和SC组的64%(无显著差异),而RASS目标为 - 4或更低的患者达到目标的时间分别为DEX组的42%和SC组的62%(P = 0.006)。事后分析提示DEX组机械通气时间较短(P = 0.025)。

结论

这项试点研究表明,在长期镇静中,DEX在维持RASS 0至 - 3的镇静目标方面与SC相当,但不适用于深度镇静(RASS - 4或更低)。DEX对ICU住院时间无影响。其对其他相关临床结局(如机械通气时间)的影响应进一步研究。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验