Kress J P, O'Connor M F, Pohlman A S, Olson D, Lavoie A, Toledano A, Hall J B
University of Chicago, Department of Medicine, Illinois 60637, USA.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1996 Mar;153(3):1012-8. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.153.3.8630539.
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.
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。