Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark.
Lancet. 2010 Feb 6;375(9713):475-80. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)62072-9. Epub 2010 Jan 29.
Standard treatment of critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation is continuous sedation. Daily interruption of sedation has a beneficial effect, and in the general intesive care unit of Odense University Hospital, Denmark, standard practice is a protocol of no sedation. We aimed to establish whether duration of mechanical ventilation could be reduced with a protocol of no sedation versus daily interruption of sedation.
Of 428 patients assessed for eligibility, we enrolled 140 critically ill adult patients who were undergoing mechanical ventilation and were expected to need ventilation for more than 24 h. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio (unblinded) to receive: no sedation (n=70 patients); or sedation (20 mg/mL propofol for 48 h, 1 mg/mL midazolam thereafter) with daily interruption until awake (n=70, control group). Both groups were treated with bolus doses of morphine (2.5 or 5 mg). The primary outcome was the number of days without mechanical ventilation in a 28-day period, and we also recorded the length of stay in the intensive care unit (from admission to 28 days) and in hospital (from admission to 90 days). Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00466492.
27 patients died or were successfully extubated within 48 h, and, as per our study design, were excluded from the study and statistical analysis. Patients receiving no sedation had significantly more days without ventilation (n=55; mean 13.8 days, SD 11.0) than did those receiving interrupted sedation (n=58; mean 9.6 days, SD 10.0; mean difference 4.2 days, 95% CI 0.3-8.1; p=0.0191). No sedation was also associated with a shorter stay in the intensive care unit (HR 1.86, 95% CI 1.05-3.23; p=0.0316), and, for the first 30 days studied, in hospital (3.57, 1.52-9.09; p=0.0039), than was interrupted sedation. No difference was recorded in the occurrences of accidental extubations, the need for CT or MRI brain scans, or ventilator-associated pneumonia. Agitated delirium was more frequent in the intervention group than in the control group (n=11, 20%vs n=4, 7%; p=0.0400).
No sedation of critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation is associated with an increase in days without ventilation. A multicentre study is needed to establish whether this effect can be reproduced in other facilities.
Danish Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, the Fund of Danielsen, the Fund of Kirsten Jensa la Cour, and the Fund of Holger og Ruth Hess.
对接受机械通气的危重症患者进行标准治疗是持续镇静。镇静的每日中断有有益效果,在丹麦欧登塞大学医院的普通重症监护病房,标准做法是无镇静方案。我们旨在确定无镇静方案与每日镇静中断相比是否可以减少机械通气时间。
在评估的 428 名符合条件的患者中,我们纳入了 140 名接受机械通气且预计需要通气超过 24 小时的成年危重症患者。患者被随机分为 1:1 比例(未设盲),分别接受:无镇静(n=70 例);或镇静(48 小时给予 20 mg/mL 丙泊酚,此后给予 1 mg/mL 咪达唑仑),直至清醒时每日中断镇静(n=70 例,对照组)。两组均给予吗啡(2.5 或 5 mg)推注剂量。主要结局为 28 天内无机械通气天数,我们还记录了重症监护病房(从入院至 28 天)和医院(从入院至 90 天)的住院时间。分析按意向治疗进行。这项研究在 ClinicalTrials.gov 注册,编号为 NCT00466492。
27 名患者在 48 小时内死亡或成功拔管,根据我们的研究设计,这些患者被排除在研究和统计分析之外。接受无镇静治疗的患者无通气天数明显多于接受间断镇静治疗的患者(n=55;平均 13.8 天,SD 11.0),而接受间断镇静治疗的患者为 58 例(n=58;平均 9.6 天,SD 10.0;平均差异 4.2 天,95%CI 0.3-8.1;p=0.0191)。无镇静治疗还与重症监护病房住院时间较短(HR 1.86,95%CI 1.05-3.23;p=0.0316)相关,并且在研究的前 30 天,在医院的住院时间(3.57,1.52-9.09;p=0.0039)也较短。无镇静治疗与意外拔管、需要 CT 或 MRI 脑扫描或呼吸机相关性肺炎的发生无差异。与对照组相比,干预组发生激越性谵妄的患者更多(n=11,20%vs n=4,7%;p=0.0400)。
对接受机械通气的危重症患者进行无镇静治疗与无通气天数增加有关。需要进行一项多中心研究,以确定这种效果是否可以在其他机构中重现。
丹麦麻醉学和重症监护医学学会、Danielsen 基金、Kirsten Jensa la Cour 基金和 Holger og Ruth Hess 基金。