Department of Pharmacy Services, University of California Davis Health, 2315 Stockton Blvd, Sacramento, CA 95817, USA.
J Burn Care Res. 2024 Mar 4;45(2):410-415. doi: 10.1093/jbcr/irad164.
Lighter sedation targets over the past decade have resulted in improved outcomes for critically ill populations. Although guidelines exist for the general ICU population, these recommendations often exclude the burn population. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of the initial continuous sedative on coma- and delirium-free days in critically ill patients with burns. This retrospective cohort study evaluated adult patients admitted to a burn intensive care unit at an academic medical center between January 2010 and September 2019. Patients were enrolled into 3 groups based on the depth of initial continuous sedation received (deep, light, or analgosedation). Intubated patients were randomly assessed for inclusion from the National V6 Burn Registry. Patients were included if they received a continuous sedative infusion for at least 48 h. A total of 107 patients were included in the study with 36, 41, and 30 patients receiving deep, light, and analgosedation, respectively. The primary outcome of coma- and delirium-free days was significantly different between sedation types with the most days free in analgosedation and the fewest in deep sedation (8 versus 3 days; P = 0.024). The composite primary outcome was divided into secondary outcomes of coma-free days and delirium-free days, with coma-free days being different (P = 0.00008). Other secondary outcomes of length of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital, time on mechanical ventilation, and survival to discharge were not statistically significant; however, a trend toward higher mortality in deep sedation was noted.
在过去十年中,较轻的镇静目标导致危重病患者的预后得到改善。尽管有针对普通 ICU 人群的指南,但这些建议通常不包括烧伤人群。本研究的目的是评估初始连续镇静对烧伤危重病患者昏迷和谵妄无天数的影响。这项回顾性队列研究评估了 2010 年 1 月至 2019 年 9 月期间在一家学术医疗中心烧伤重症监护病房住院的成年患者。根据初始连续镇静的深度(深、浅或镇痛镇静),将患者分为 3 组。从国家 V6 烧伤登记处随机评估插管患者是否符合纳入标准。如果患者接受持续镇静输注至少 48 小时,则将其纳入研究。共有 107 例患者纳入研究,分别有 36、41 和 30 例患者接受深度、轻度和镇痛镇静治疗。镇静类型之间的昏迷和谵妄无天数的主要结局差异显著,镇痛镇静组的无天数最多,深度镇静组的无天数最少(8 天与 3 天;P = 0.024)。复合主要结局分为无昏迷天数和无谵妄天数的次要结局,无昏迷天数存在差异(P = 0.00008)。其他次要结局,包括 ICU 和医院的住院时间、机械通气时间和出院时的生存率,无统计学意义;然而,深度镇静组的死亡率较高。