Department of Pharmacy, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Crit Care Med. 2012 Feb;40(2):406-11. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31822f0af5.
To measure the impact of a national propofol shortage on the duration of mechanical ventilation.
Before-after study.
Three, noncardiac surgery, adult intensive care units at a 320-bed academic medical center.
Consecutive patients requiring mechanical ventilation ≥48 hrs, administered a continuously infused sedative ≥24 hrs, extubated, and successfully discharged from the intensive care unit were compared between before (December 1, 2008 to May 31, 2009) and after (December 1, 2009, to May 31, 2010) a propofol shortage.
None.
Sedation drug use and common factors affecting time on mechanical ventilation were collected and if found either to differ significantly (p ≤ .10) between the two groups or to have an unadjusted significant association (p ≤ .10) with time on mechanical ventilation were included in a multivariable model. The unadjusted analyses revealed that the median (interquartile range) duration of mechanical ventilation increased from 6.7 (9.8; n = 153) to 9.6 (9.5; n = 128) days (p = .02). Fewer after-group patients received ≥24 hrs of continuously infused propofol (94% vs. 15%, p < .0001); more received ≥24 hrs of continuously infused lorazepam (7% vs. 15%, p = .037) and midazolam (30% vs. 81%, p < .0001). Compared with the before group, the after group was younger, had a higher admission Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, was more likely to be admitted by a surgical service, have acute alcohol withdrawal, and be managed with pressure-controlled ventilation as the primary mode of mechanical ventilation. Of these five factors, only the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, admission service, and use of a pressure-controlled ventilation affected duration of mechanical ventilation across both groups. Although a regression model revealed that Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (p < .0001), admission by a medical service (p = .009), and use of pressure-controlled ventilation (p = .02) each affected duration of mechanical ventilation in both groups, inclusion in either the before- or after-propofol shortage groups (i.e., high vs. low use of propofol) did not affect duration of mechanical ventilation (p = .35).
An 84% decrease in propofol use in the adult intensive care units at our academic institution as a result of a national shortage did not affect duration of mechanical ventilation.
测量全国丙泊酚短缺对机械通气时间的影响。
前后对照研究。
一家 320 床位的学术医疗中心的三个非心脏手术成人重症监护病房。
连续接受机械通气≥48 小时、连续输注镇静剂≥24 小时、拔管并成功从重症监护病房出院的患者,在丙泊酚短缺前后(2008 年 12 月 1 日至 2009 年 5 月 31 日和 2009 年 12 月 1 日至 2010 年 5 月 31 日)进行比较。
无。
收集镇静药物使用情况和影响机械通气时间的常见因素,如果两组之间差异显著(p ≤.10)或与机械通气时间无调整显著关联(p ≤.10),则纳入多变量模型。未经调整的分析显示,机械通气的中位(四分位距)时间从 6.7(9.8;n = 153)增加到 9.6(9.5;n = 128)天(p =.02)。接受≥24 小时连续输注丙泊酚的患者在后组中减少(94% vs. 15%,p <.0001);更多的患者接受了≥24 小时的连续输注劳拉西泮(7% vs. 15%,p =.037)和咪达唑仑(30% vs. 81%,p <.0001)。与前组相比,后组患者年龄较小,入院急性生理学和慢性健康评估 II 评分较高,更可能由外科服务入院,有急性酒精戒断,采用压力控制通气作为主要机械通气模式。在这五个因素中,只有急性生理学和慢性健康评估 II 评分、入院科室和使用压力控制通气这三个因素在两组中均影响机械通气时间。虽然回归模型显示急性生理学和慢性健康评估 II 评分(p <.0001)、内科科室入院(p =.009)和压力控制通气(p =.02)均影响两组患者的机械通气时间,但无论是在前丙泊酚短缺组还是在后丙泊酚短缺组(即高 vs. 低丙泊酚使用率),纳入患者都不会影响机械通气时间(p =.35)。
由于全国短缺,我们学术机构的成人重症监护病房丙泊酚使用率下降 84%,但并未影响机械通气时间。