Suppr超能文献

成人重症监护病房(ICU)患者中丙泊酚与咪达唑仑镇静效果的系统评价与荟萃分析。

A systematic review and meta-analysis of propofol versus midazolam sedation in adult intensive care (ICU) patients.

作者信息

Garcia Raphaela, Salluh Jorge I F, Andrade Teresa Raquel, Farah Daniela, da Silva Paulo S L, Bastos Danielle F, Fonseca Marcelo C M

机构信息

AxiaBio Life Sciences International ltda, São Paulo, Brazil; Health Technologies Assessment Center - Department of Gynecology, Escola Paulista de Medicina - Federal University of Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Instituto D'Or de Pesquisa e Ensino, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

出版信息

J Crit Care. 2021 Aug;64:91-99. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2021.04.001. Epub 2021 Apr 6.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Compare outcomes of adult patients admitted to ICU- length of ICU stay, length of mechanical ventilation (MV), and time until extubation- according to the use of propofol versus midazolam.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and Cochrane databases to retrieve RCTs that compared propofol and midazolam used as sedatives in adult ICU patients. We applied a random-effects, meta-analytic model in all calculations. We applied the Cochrane collaboration tool and GRADE. We separated patients into two groups: acute surgical patients (hospitalization up to 24 h) and critically-ill patients (hospitalization over 24 h and whose articles mostly mix surgical, medical and trauma patients).

RESULTS

Globally, propofol was associated with a reduced MV time of 4.46 h (MD: -4.46 [95% CI -7.51 to -1.42] p = 0.004, I2 = 63%, 6 studies) and extubation time of 7.95 h (MD: -7.95 [95% CI -9.86 to -6.03] p < 0.00001, I2 = 98%, 16 studies). Acute surgical patients sedation with propofol compared to midazolam was associated with a reduced ICU stay of 5.07 h (MD: -5.07 [95% CI -8.68 to -1.45] p = 0.006, I2 = 41%, 5 studies), MV time of 4.28 h (MD: -4.28; [95% CI -4.62 to -3.94] p < 0.0001, I2 = 0%, 3 studies), extubation time of 1.92 h (MD: -1.92; [95% CI -2.71 to -1.13] p = 0.00001, I2 = 89%, 9 studies). In critically-ill patients sedation with propofol compared to midazolam was associated with a reduced extubation time of 32.68 h (MD: -32.68 [95% CI -48.37 to -16.98] p = 0.0001, I2 = 97%, 9 studies). GRADE was very low for all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation with propofol compared to midazolam is associated with improved clinical outcomes in ICU, with reduced ICU stay MV time and extubation time in acute surgical patients and reduced extubation time in critically-ill patients.

摘要

目的

比较使用丙泊酚与咪达唑仑的成年重症监护病房(ICU)患者的预后——ICU住院时长、机械通气(MV)时长及拔管时间。

方法

我们检索了MEDLINE、EMBASE、LILACS和Cochrane数据库,以获取比较丙泊酚和咪达唑仑作为成年ICU患者镇静剂的随机对照试验(RCT)。我们在所有计算中应用随机效应荟萃分析模型。我们应用了Cochrane协作工具和GRADE。我们将患者分为两组:急性外科手术患者(住院时间长达24小时)和重症患者(住院时间超过24小时,其文章大多混合了外科、内科和创伤患者)。

结果

总体而言,丙泊酚与MV时间缩短4.46小时相关(MD:-4.46 [95% CI -7.51至-1.42],p = 0.004,I² = 63%,6项研究),拔管时间缩短7.95小时(MD:-7.95 [95% CI -9.86至-6.03],p < 0.00001,I² = 98%,16项研究)。与咪达唑仑相比,急性外科手术患者使用丙泊酚镇静与ICU住院时间缩短5.07小时相关(MD:-5.07 [95% CI -8.68至-1.45],p = 0.006,I² = 41%,5项研究),MV时间缩短4.28小时(MD:-4.28;[95% CI -4.62至-3.94],p < 0.0001,I² = 0%,3项研究),拔管时间缩短1.92小时(MD:-1.92;[95% CI -2.71至-1.13],p = 0.00001,I² = 89%,9项研究)。与咪达唑仑相比,重症患者使用丙泊酚镇静与拔管时间缩短32.68小时相关(MD:-32.68 [95% CI -48.37至-16.98],p = 0.0001,I² = 97%,9项研究)。所有结局的GRADE均非常低。

结论

与咪达唑仑相比,丙泊酚镇静与ICU临床预后改善相关,急性外科手术患者的ICU住院时间、MV时间和拔管时间缩短,重症患者的拔管时间缩短。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验