Searle N R, Côté S, Taillefer J, Carrier M, Gagnon L, Roy M, Lussier D
Department of Anaesthesia, Montreal Heart Institute, Canada.
Can J Anaesth. 1997 Jun;44(6):629-35. doi: 10.1007/BF03015447.
The purpose of this randomized, double-blind study was to evaluate the efficacy of midazolam and propofol for postoperative sedation and early extubation following cardiac surgery.
ASA physical status II-III patients scheduled to undergo elective first-time cardiac surgery with an ejection fraction > 45% were eligible. All patients received a standardized sufentanil/isoflurane anaesthesia. During cardiopulmonary bypass 100 micrograms.kg-1.min-1 propofol was substituted for isoflurane. Upon arrival in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), patients were randomized to either 10 micrograms.kg-1.min-1 propofol (n = 21) or 0.25 microgram.kg-1.min-1 midazolam (n = 20). Infusion rates were adjusted to maintain sedation within a predetermined range (Ramsay 2-4). The infusion was terminated after four hours. Patients were weaned from mechanical ventilation and their tracheas extubated when Haemodynamic stability, haemostasis, normothermia and mental orientation were confirmed. Haemodynamic measurements, arterial blood gas tensions and pulmonary function tests were recorded at specified times.
There were no differences between the two groups for the time spent at each level of sedation, number of infusion rate adjustments, amount of analgesic and vasoactive drugs, times to awakening and extubation. The costs of propofol were higher than those of midazolam. There were no differences in haemodynamic values, arterial blood gas tensions and pulmonary function.
We conclude that midazolam and propofol are safe and effective sedative agents permitting early extubation in this selected cardiac patient population but propofol costs were higher.
