Cai Yan, Li Yong, Ji Musen, Yang Hongfeng, Zhang Qingyan, Jin Zhaochen
The Affiliated People's Hospital of Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang 212002, China.
The Affiliated People's Hospital of Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang 212002, China. Email:
Zhonghua Jie He He Hu Xi Za Zhi. 2014 Nov;37(11):820-3.
To compare the effect of slight and usual sedation on the prognosis and inflammatory marker levels in patients receiving mechanical ventilation in ICU.
We enrolled 78 critically ill adult patients who were undergoing mechanical ventilation and were expected to need ventilation for more than 48 h. The patients were prospectively and randomly assigned to receive: slight sedation (Richmond Agitation Sedation Score -1 to 0, n = 38 patients) or usual sedation (Richmond Agitation Sedation Score -3 to -2, n = 40 patients). Sedative dosages, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU stay, complications (ventilator-associated pneumonia, tracheotomy) , adverse reactions (accidental extubation, reintubation, barotrauma) and levels of inflammatory markers on the day of sedation time for 48 h were recorded.
When compared with the usual sedation group, duration of mechanical ventilation (d) ( 8 ± 5 vs 13 ± 8, P < 0.05) and length of ICU stay (d) ( 12 ± 10 vs 22 ± 9, P < 0.05) were significantly shorter in the slight sedation group. The total doses of midazolam (mg) , propofol (mg) and fentany (µg) were lower in the slight sedation group than those in the usual sedation group (275 ± 85 vs 575 ± 142, 4 562 ± 1 128 vs 7 434 ± 1 712 and 2 332 ± 1 458 vs 4 124 ± 2 743, P < 0.05) . Accidental extubation (5% vs 3%) , reintubation (5% vs 10%) and barotraumas (3% vs 8%) showed no differences between the 2 groups (P > 0.05). In the slight sedation group, the incidences of ventilator-associated pneumonia (26% vs 53%) and tracheotomy (18% vs 48%) were significantly decreased compared with those in the usual group. The levels of IL-1 (35 ± 12 vs 47 ± 18, P < 0.05) ng/L, IL-6 (49 ± 21 vs 62 ± 27, P < 0.05) ng/L, TNF-α ( 39 ± 16 vs 52 ± 25, P < 0.05) ng/L and CRP (95 ± 41 vs 125 ± 45, P < 0.05) mg/L were also lower in the slight sedation group than those in the conventional group. There were no differences in ICU mortality and 28 d-survival rate between the 2 groups.
Slight sedation was shown to reduce the length of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay. It also decreased the levels of inflammatory markers while didn't increase the incidence of adverse reactions.
比较轻度镇静与常规镇静对重症监护病房(ICU)接受机械通气患者预后及炎症标志物水平的影响。
我们纳入了78例接受机械通气且预计需要通气超过48小时的成年危重症患者。这些患者被前瞻性随机分配接受:轻度镇静(里士满躁动镇静评分-1至0,n = 38例患者)或常规镇静(里士满躁动镇静评分-3至-2,n = 40例患者)。记录镇静剂剂量、机械通气持续时间、ICU住院时间、并发症(呼吸机相关性肺炎、气管切开术)、不良反应(意外拔管、重新插管、气压伤)以及镇静48小时当天的炎症标志物水平。
与常规镇静组相比,轻度镇静组的机械通气持续时间(天)(8±5 vs 13±8,P<0.05)和ICU住院时间(天)(12±10 vs 22±9,P<0.05)显著缩短。轻度镇静组咪达唑仑(毫克)、丙泊酚(毫克)和芬太尼(微克)的总剂量低于常规镇静组(275±85 vs 575±142、4562±1128 vs 7434±1712以及2332±1458 vs 4124±2743,P<0.05)。两组间意外拔管(5% vs 3%)、重新插管(5% vs 10%)和气压伤(3% vs 8%)无差异(P>0.05)。与常规组相比,轻度镇静组呼吸机相关性肺炎(26% vs 53%)和气管切开术(18% vs 48%)的发生率显著降低。轻度镇静组白细胞介素-1(35±12 vs 47±18,P<0.05)纳克/升、白细胞介素-6(49±21 vs 62±27,P<0.05)纳克/升、肿瘤坏死因子-α(39±16 vs 52±25,P<0.05)纳克/升和C反应蛋白(95±41 vs 125±45,P<0.05)毫克/升水平也低于常规组。两组间ICU死亡率和28天生存率无差异。
轻度镇静可缩短机械通气时间和ICU住院时间。它还能降低炎症标志物水平,同时不增加不良反应发生率。