Comparison of programmed sedation care with conventional care in patients receiving mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of planned sedation therapy in comparison to standard care for patients receiving mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure (ARF).

METHOD

The research included a total of sixty individuals who underwent mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure (ARF). Utilizing the random number table method, these patients were randomized at random to either the planned sedation care group (Group PSC) or the conventional care group (Group C). The objective was to assess and contrast the impact of treatment on the two groups. Significantly shorter durations of mechanical ventilation, sedative use, ICU therapy, length of stay, incidence of delirium, and adverse events were observed in Group PSC compared with Group C (P < 0.05). A higher 1-month survival rate following mechanical ventilation, a higher post-intervention forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) as a percentage of the expected value, a higher post-intervention forced vital capacity (FVC), and a higher patient family care satisfaction rate were observed in Group PSC compared to Group C (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The scheduled administration of sedative therapy in patients receiving mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory failure (ARF) offers significant, reliable, and effective therapeutic benefits.