Laboratory for Clinical and Experimental Research on Vascular Biology-BioVasc, Biomedical Center, State University of Rio de Janeiro (UERJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Intensive Care Unit, Casa de Saúde São José, State University of Rio de Janeiro (UERJ), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
J Crit Care. 2013 Oct;28(5):825-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2013.03.012. Epub 2013 May 15.
The goal of this study was to explore possible microcirculatory alterations by changing sedative infusion from propofol to midazolam in patients with septic shock.
Patients (n=16) were sedated with propofol during the first 24 hours after intubation, then with midazolam, following a predefined algorithm. Systemic hemodynamics, perfusion parameters, and microcirculation were assessed at 2 time points: just before stopping propofol and 30 minutes after the start of midazolam infusion. Sublingual microcirculation was evaluated by sidestream dark-field imaging.
The microvascular flow index and the proportion of perfused small vessels were greater when patients were on midazolam than when on propofol infusion (2.8 [2.4-2.9] vs 2.3 [1.9-2.6] and 96.4% [93.7%-97.6%] vs 92.7% [88.3%-94.7%], respectively; P<.005), and the flow heterogeneity index was greater with propofol than with midazolam use (0.49 [0.2-0.8] vs 0.19 [0.1-0.4], P<.05). There were no significant changes in systemic hemodynamics and perfusion parameters either during propofol use or during midazolam infusions. Data are presented as median (25th-75th percentiles).
In this study, sublingual microcirculatory perfusion improved when the infusion was changed from propofol to midazolam in patients with septic shock. This observation could not be explained by changes in systemic hemodynamics.
本研究旨在探讨在感染性休克患者中,将镇静输注药物从异丙酚转换为咪达唑仑后可能发生的微循环改变。
患者(n=16)在插管后 24 小时内接受异丙酚镇静,然后根据预设的算法接受咪达唑仑镇静。在两个时间点评估全身血流动力学、灌注参数和微循环:停止异丙酚输注前和咪达唑仑输注开始后 30 分钟。通过边流暗场成像评估舌下微循环。
与使用异丙酚输注相比,患者使用咪达唑仑时微血管血流指数和灌注小血管比例更高(2.8 [2.4-2.9] 比 2.3 [1.9-2.6] 和 96.4% [93.7%-97.6%] 比 92.7% [88.3%-94.7%],P<.005),且使用异丙酚时血流异质性指数高于使用咪达唑仑时(0.49 [0.2-0.8] 比 0.19 [0.1-0.4],P<.05)。在使用异丙酚或咪达唑仑输注期间,全身血流动力学和灌注参数均无显著变化。数据以中位数(25 至 75 百分位数)表示。
在本研究中,感染性休克患者从异丙酚转换为咪达唑仑输注后,舌下微循环灌注得到改善。这种观察结果不能用全身血流动力学的变化来解释。