Suppr超能文献

丙泊酚与咪达唑仑作为机械通气患者初始镇静策略的比较:来自沙特阿拉伯的单中心经验

Propofol vs Midazolam As the Initial Sedation Strategy for Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Single-Center Experience From Saudi Arabia.

作者信息

Al-Shareef Ali S, Babkair Kholoud, Baljoon Jamil M, Alkhamisi Tiaf A, Altwairqi Areen, Bogari Hassan, Altirkistani Bsaim, Alsukhayri Najd, Ramadan Majed

机构信息

Department of Emergency Medicine, Ministry of National Guard-Health Affairs, Jeddah, SAU.

Research Department, King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Jeddah, SAU.

出版信息

Cureus. 2024 Aug 3;16(8):e66090. doi: 10.7759/cureus.66090. eCollection 2024 Aug.

Abstract

Background Propofol and midazolam are the most common sedative agents used in critical settings. Propofol and midazolam might have different mortality rates after sedation administration. Some studies mention that propofol is associated with a lower mortality rate than midazolam in mechanically ventilated patients, but other studies have contradicting results. This study aims to compare the 28-day mortality of propofol versus midazolam for patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in the National Guard Hospital Health Affairs (NGHA)-Western Region (WR). Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted at (NGHA-WR) from March 2016 to July 2022. The inclusion criteria were those mechanically ventilated patients aged 18 years or older who were admitted to ICU, where they were given either propofol or midazolam as the initial sedative agent. Those who signed DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) or were contraindicated to sedation, such as allergy, were excluded from the study. Data were retrospectively retrieved and obtained from the Hospital Information System (HIS-BestCare, Saudi-Korean Health Informatics Company, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) and the Office of Data Intelligence. Results There is a significant difference between the type of sedation and the 28-day mortality rate. Midazolam was associated with higher rates of mortality - 104 (47.93%) when compared to propofol - three (14.29%). Also, patients who used midazolam had longer durations of ICU stay compared to propofol, with a mean number of 19.23 days vs 7.55 days, respectively. Conclusion There is a significant difference regarding the 28-day mortality between patients who were given propofol or midazolam as an initial sedative agent for mechanical ventilation ≥ 24 hours. Moreover, the use of propofol is associated with fewer days of being intubated or being in ICU when compared to midazolam.

摘要

背景

丙泊酚和咪达唑仑是危重症环境中最常用的镇静剂。丙泊酚和咪达唑仑在给药镇静后可能有不同的死亡率。一些研究提到,在机械通气患者中,丙泊酚的死亡率低于咪达唑仑,但其他研究有相反的结果。本研究旨在比较国民警卫队医院卫生事务部(NGHA)西部地区(WR)接受机械通气患者使用丙泊酚与咪达唑仑后的28天死亡率。

方法

2016年3月至2022年7月在(NGHA-WR)进行了一项回顾性病历审查。纳入标准为入住重症监护病房(ICU)、年龄18岁及以上、接受机械通气且最初使用丙泊酚或咪达唑仑作为镇静剂的患者。签署了“不要复苏”(DNR)或有镇静禁忌证(如过敏)的患者被排除在研究之外。数据通过回顾性检索,从医院信息系统(HIS-BestCare,沙特-韩国健康信息公司,沙特阿拉伯利雅得)和数据情报办公室获取。

结果

镇静类型与28天死亡率之间存在显著差异。与丙泊酚组的3例(14.29%)相比,咪达唑仑组的死亡率更高,为104例(47.93%)。此外,与丙泊酚组相比,使用咪达唑仑的患者在ICU的住院时间更长,平均住院天数分别为19.23天和丙泊酚组的7.55天。

结论

对于接受机械通气≥24小时的患者,以丙泊酚或咪达唑仑作为初始镇静剂,其28天死亡率存在显著差异。此外,与咪达唑仑相比,使用丙泊酚时气管插管或入住ICU的天数更少。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/489d/11297677/1ace5e980ebf/cureus-0016-00000066090-i01.jpg

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