Pata Ramakanth, Sandeep Pagali, Aung Htun Min, Patel Meet J, Dolkar Tsering, Nway Nway, Bhanu Kosuru, Ahmady Abolfazl, Kiani Roudabeh, Swaroop Ramaiah, Schmidt Frances, Enriquez Danilo
Department of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Interfaith Medical Center, Brooklyn, NY, USA.
Department of Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, USA.
J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect. 2021 Sep 20;11(5):619-623. doi: 10.1080/20009666.2021.1948669. eCollection 2021.
Ketamine has been used as a sedative analgesic in trauma setting, but data regarding its efficacy and safety is lacking in severe ARDS. This retrospective study aims to determine if Ketamine is safer as a sedative agent in mechanically ventilated patients. During the COVID pandemic, as there was a shortage of sedative agents, Ketamine was used.
The primary objective was to compare the safety of ketamine to other sedatives. The secondary objective was to compare the effect of ketamine to other sedatives regarding the need for vasopressor, incidence of delirium, infectious complications, acute kidney injury, hospital length of stay, and length of ventilator days.
A retrospective, observational cohort study was conducted.
One hundred and twenty-four patients (63 men and 61 women) were included. Thirty-four patients received ketamine, while 90 patients received other traditionally used sedatives such as propofol and midazolam. The patients' median age was 64 years in the ketamine group and 68 years in the non-ketamine group. Seventeen patients in the ketamine group (50%) and 65 patients (72%) in the non-ketamine group had mortality (p < 0.02). The hospital length of stay was 22.85 days (± 16.36) in the ketamine group and 15.62 days (± 14.63) in the non-ketamine group (p < 0.02). There was no statistically significant difference among the outcomes of the need for vasopressor, the incidence of delirium, infectious complications, and acute kidney injury.
Ketamine as a sedative-analgesic agent in COVID-19 patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome demonstrated safety with reduced mortality. The ketamine group had a higher hospital length of stay, but a similar complication profile compared to the non-ketamine group. Further prospective randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm these findings.
氯胺酮已被用作创伤环境中的镇静镇痛药,但在严重急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)中,关于其疗效和安全性的数据尚缺。这项回顾性研究旨在确定氯胺酮作为机械通气患者的镇静剂是否更安全。在新冠疫情期间,由于镇静剂短缺,使用了氯胺酮。
主要目的是比较氯胺酮与其他镇静剂的安全性。次要目的是比较氯胺酮与其他镇静剂在血管升压药需求、谵妄发生率、感染并发症、急性肾损伤、住院时间和机械通气天数方面的效果。
进行了一项回顾性观察队列研究。
纳入124例患者(63例男性和61例女性)。34例患者接受氯胺酮治疗,而90例患者接受其他传统使用的镇静剂,如丙泊酚和咪达唑仑。氯胺酮组患者的中位年龄为64岁,非氯胺酮组为68岁。氯胺酮组有17例患者(50%)死亡,非氯胺酮组有65例患者(72%)死亡(p<0.02)。氯胺酮组的住院时间为22.85天(±16.36),非氯胺酮组为15.62天(±14.63)(p<0.02)。在血管升压药需求、谵妄发生率、感染并发症和急性肾损伤的结果方面,没有统计学上的显著差异。
氯胺酮作为新冠病毒19感染的严重急性呼吸窘迫综合征患者的镇静镇痛药显示出安全性,死亡率降低。氯胺酮组的住院时间较长,但与非氯胺酮组相比,并发症情况相似。需要进一步进行前瞻性随机对照试验来证实这些发现。