• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

机械通气期间重症患者的镇静。丙泊酚与咪达唑仑的比较。

Sedation of critically ill patients during mechanical ventilation. A comparison of propofol and midazolam.

作者信息

Kress J P, O'Connor M F, Pohlman A S, Olson D, Lavoie A, Toledano A, Hall J B

机构信息

University of Chicago, Department of Medicine, Illinois 60637, USA.

出版信息

Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1996 Mar;153(3):1012-8. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.153.3.8630539.

DOI:10.1164/ajrccm.153.3.8630539
PMID:8630539
Abstract

Propofol (P) and midazolam (M) are frequently given by continuous infusion for sedation in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients. We compared these drugs with regard to: (1) time-to-awaken; (2) reproducibility of bedside assessments of level of sedation; (3) time-to-sedation; and (4) change in oxygen consumption (V O2) from awake to sedated state. Seventy-three patients were prospectively randomized to receive either P (n=37) or M (n=36). Wake-up times after stopping the drug were assessed by blinded and unblinded observers, by asking patients to perform simple tasks. Times to sedate were assessed by consensus agreement among nurses and investigators. Demographics and APACHE II scores were not different between P and M. The P group had a significantly narrower range of wake-up times with a higher likelihood of waking in less than 60 min. Blinded versus unblinded observations had excellent correlation. Average time to sedate and decrease in V O2 were not different. We conclude that in this patient population: (1) both P and M achieved optimal sedation in a large fraction of patients when administered by specified dosing protocols; (2) P had a faster, more reliable, wake-up time; (3) assessments of time-to-awaken were objective and reproducible; (4) time to sedation was not significantly different; (5) V O2 decreased similarly with both.

摘要

丙泊酚(P)和咪达唑仑(M)常用于对危重症机械通气患者进行持续输注镇静。我们比较了这两种药物在以下方面的情况:(1)苏醒时间;(2)床边镇静水平评估的可重复性;(3)镇静起效时间;(4)从清醒状态到镇静状态时耗氧量(VO₂)的变化。73例患者被前瞻性随机分为接受P组(n = 37)或M组(n = 36)。停药后的苏醒时间由不知情和知情的观察者通过要求患者执行简单任务来评估。镇静起效时间由护士和研究人员共同商定评估。P组和M组在人口统计学和急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统(APACHE II)评分方面无差异。P组的苏醒时间范围明显更窄,在60分钟内苏醒的可能性更高。不知情观察与知情观察具有极好的相关性。平均镇静起效时间和VO₂的降低无差异。我们得出结论,在该患者群体中:(1)按照特定给药方案给药时,P和M在大部分患者中均能实现最佳镇静;(2)P的苏醒时间更快、更可靠;(3)对苏醒时间的评估客观且可重复;(4)镇静起效时间无显著差异;(5)两者使VO₂降低的情况相似。

相似文献

1
Sedation of critically ill patients during mechanical ventilation. A comparison of propofol and midazolam.机械通气期间重症患者的镇静。丙泊酚与咪达唑仑的比较。
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1996 Mar;153(3):1012-8. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.153.3.8630539.
2
A protocol of no sedation for critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a randomised trial.无镇静方案用于接受机械通气的危重症患者的研究方案:一项随机试验。
Lancet. 2010 Feb 6;375(9713):475-80. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)62072-9. Epub 2010 Jan 29.
3
Continuous infusions of lorazepam, midazolam, and propofol for sedation of the critically ill surgery trauma patient: a prospective, randomized comparison.持续输注劳拉西泮、咪达唑仑和丙泊酚用于重症外科创伤患者的镇静:一项前瞻性随机对照研究。
Crit Care Med. 1999 Nov;27(11):2454-8. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199911000-00022.
4
Early goal-directed sedation versus standard sedation in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a pilot study*.早期目标导向镇静与机械通气危重症患者常规镇静的比较:一项初步研究*。
Crit Care Med. 2013 Aug;41(8):1983-91. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31828a437d.
5
Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling of propofol for long-term sedation in critically ill patients: a comparison between propofol 6% and propofol 1%.丙泊酚用于重症患者长期镇静的群体药代动力学和药效学建模:丙泊酚6%与丙泊酚1%的比较
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2002 Dec;72(6):670-84. doi: 10.1067/mcp.2002.129500.
6
[Comparison of sedative effects of propofol and midazolam on emergency critical patients on mechanical ventilation].丙泊酚与咪达唑仑对急诊重症机械通气患者镇静效果的比较
Zhonghua Wei Zhong Bing Ji Jiu Yi Xue. 2013 Jun;25(6):356-9. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.2095-4352.2013.06.010.
7
Randomized controlled trial of interrupted versus continuous sedative infusions in ventilated children.随机对照试验中断与连续镇静输注在通气儿童。
Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2012 Mar;13(2):131-5. doi: 10.1097/PCC.0b013e31820aba48.
8
Prolonged sedation of critically ill patients with midazolam or propofol: impact on weaning and costs.使用咪达唑仑或丙泊酚对重症患者进行长时间镇静:对脱机及成本的影响。
Crit Care Med. 1997 Jan;25(1):33-40. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199701000-00009.
9
Sedation in the ICU.重症监护病房中的镇静
Dan Med J. 2012 May;59(5):B4458.
10
[Protocol based sedation versus conventional treatment in critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation].[机械通气的重症患者基于方案的镇静与传统治疗对比]
Rev Med Chil. 2008 Jun;136(6):711-8. Epub 2008 Aug 26.

引用本文的文献

1
N-Acetylcysteine in the Treatment of Acute Lung Injury: Perspectives and Limitations.N-乙酰半胱氨酸治疗急性肺损伤:前景与局限
Int J Mol Sci. 2025 Mar 15;26(6):2657. doi: 10.3390/ijms26062657.
2
Effect of propofol versus midazolam on short-term outcomes in patients with sepsis-associated acute kidney injury.丙泊酚与咪达唑仑对脓毒症相关性急性肾损伤患者短期预后的影响。
Front Med (Lausanne). 2024 Sep 6;11:1415425. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1415425. eCollection 2024.
3
Efficacy and Safety of Different Doses of Remimazolam Tosilate Applied in Upper Gastrointestinal Endoscopy: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Double-Blind Trial.
不同剂量甲苯磺酸瑞马唑仑用于上消化道内镜检查的有效性和安全性:一项前瞻性随机对照双盲试验。
Drug Des Devel Ther. 2023 Sep 20;17:2889-2896. doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S422531. eCollection 2023.
4
Seeking the Light in Intensive Care Unit Sedation: The Optimal Sedation Strategy for Critically Ill Patients.在重症监护病房镇静中探寻光明:重症患者的最佳镇静策略
Front Med (Lausanne). 2022 Jun 24;9:901343. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2022.901343. eCollection 2022.
5
A dual-center cohort study on the association between early deep sedation and clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: The COVID-SED study.一项关于 COVID-19 大流行期间机械通气患者早期深度镇静与临床结局之间关联的中心队列研究:COVID-SED 研究。
Crit Care. 2022 Jun 15;26(1):179. doi: 10.1186/s13054-022-04042-9.
6
A Dual-Center Cohort Study on The Association Between Early Deep Sedation and Clinical Outcomes in Mechanically Ventilated Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: the COVID-SED Study.一项关于新型冠状病毒肺炎大流行期间机械通气患者早期深度镇静与临床结局之间关联的双中心队列研究:COVID-SED研究
Res Sq. 2022 Mar 1:rs.3.rs-1389892. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-1389892/v1.
7
Acute respiratory distress syndrome.急性呼吸窘迫综合征。
Lancet. 2021 Aug 14;398(10300):622-637. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(21)00439-6. Epub 2021 Jul 1.
8
ICU Survivorship-The Relationship of Delirium, Sedation, Dementia, and Acquired Weakness.ICU 后综合征——谵妄、镇静、痴呆和获得性虚弱的关系。
Crit Care Med. 2021 Aug 1;49(8):1227-1240. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000005125.
9
Differences in efficacy and safety of midazolam vs. dexmedetomidine in critically ill patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial.咪达唑仑与右美托咪定在重症患者中的疗效和安全性差异:一项随机对照试验的荟萃分析
Exp Ther Med. 2021 Feb;21(2):156. doi: 10.3892/etm.2020.9297. Epub 2020 Dec 17.
10
Evolving targets for sedation during mechanical ventilation.机械通气镇静治疗的目标不断变化。
Curr Opin Crit Care. 2020 Feb;26(1):47-52. doi: 10.1097/MCC.0000000000000687.