Mendes Ciro Leite, Vasconcelos Lívia Carolina Santos, Tavares Jordana Soares, Fontan Silvia Borges, Ferreira Daniela Coelho, Diniz Lígia Almeida Carlos, Alves Elayne Souza, Villar Erick José Morais, Albuquerque César de Farias, Silva Sérgio Luz Domingues da
Unidade de Terapia Intensiva, Hospital Universitário Lauro Wanderley, João Pessoa, PB, Brasil.
Clínica Médica, Hospital Universitário Lauro Wanderley, João Pessoa, PB, Brasil.
Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2008 Dec;20(4):344-8.
The main purpose of this study was to compare performance of the Ramsay and Richmond sedation scores on mechanically ventilated critically ill patients, in a university-affiliated hospital.
This was a 4-month prospective study, which included a total of 45 patients mechanically ventilated, with at least 48 hours stay in the intensive care unit. Each patient was assessed daily for sedation mode, sedative and analgesic doses and sedation level using the Ramsay and Richmond scores. Statistical analysis was made using Student's t-test, Pearson's and Spearman's correlation, and constructing ROC-curves.
A high general mortality of 60% was observed. The length of sedation and daily dose of medication did not correlate with mortality. Deep sedation (Ramsay > 4 or Richmond < -3) was positively correlated with probability of death with an AUC > 0.78. An adequate level of sedation (Ramsay 2 to 4 or Richmond 0 to -3) was sensitively correlated with probability of survival with an AUC > 0.80. A low level of sedation was observed in 63 days evaluated (8.64%), and no correlation was found between occurrence of agitation and unfavorable outcomes. Correlation between Ramsay and Richmond scores (Pearson's > 0.810 - p<0.0001) was good.
In this study, Ramsay and Richmond sedation scores were similar for the assessment of deep, insufficient and adequate sedation. Both have good correlation with mortality in over sedated patients.
本研究的主要目的是在一家大学附属医院中,比较Ramsay镇静评分和Richmond镇静评分在机械通气重症患者中的表现。
这是一项为期4个月的前瞻性研究,共纳入45例机械通气患者,这些患者在重症监护病房至少停留48小时。每天使用Ramsay评分和Richmond评分对每位患者的镇静模式、镇静剂和镇痛剂剂量以及镇静水平进行评估。采用学生t检验、Pearson相关性分析、Spearman相关性分析以及构建ROC曲线进行统计分析。
观察到总体死亡率较高,为60%。镇静时间和每日药物剂量与死亡率无关。深度镇静(Ramsay>4或Richmond<-3)与死亡概率呈正相关,AUC>0.78。适当的镇静水平(Ramsay 2至4或Richmond 0至-3)与生存概率呈显著相关,AUC>0.80。在评估的63天中观察到低水平镇静(8.64%),且未发现躁动的发生与不良结局之间存在相关性。Ramsay评分和Richmond评分之间的相关性良好(Pearson相关性>0.810 - p<0.0001)。
在本研究中,Ramsay镇静评分和Richmond镇静评分在评估深度、不足和适当镇静方面相似。两者在过度镇静患者中与死亡率均具有良好的相关性。