4.6 Article

Dexmedetomidine versus propofol/midazolam for long-term sedation during mechanical ventilation

期刊

INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE
卷 35, 期 2, 页码 282-290

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-008-1296-0

关键词

Dexmedetomidine; Sedatives; Deep sedation; Conscious sedation; Intensive care; Critical care; Mechanical ventilation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

To compare dexmedetomidine (DEX) with standard care (SC, either propofol or midazolam) for long-term sedation in terms of maintaining target sedation and length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay. A pilot, phase III, double-blind multicenter study in randomized medical and surgical patients (n = 85) within the first 72 h of ICU stay with an expected ICU stay of a parts per thousand yen48 h and sedation need for a parts per thousand yen24 h after randomization. Patients were assigned to either DEX (a parts per thousand currency sign1.4 mu g kg(-1) h(-1); n = 41) or SC (n = 44), with daily sedation stops. Non-inferiority of DEX versus SC was not confirmed. Target Richmond agitation-sedation score (RASS) was reached a median of 64% (DEX) and 63% (SC) of the sedation time (ns). The length of ICU stay was similar in DEX and SC. Patients with RASS target 0-3 (DEX 78%, SC 80%) were at target sedation 74% (DEX) and 64% (SC) of the time (ns), whereas those with RASS target -4 or less reached the target 42% (DEX) and 62% (SC) of the time (P = .006). Post hoc analyses suggested shorter duration of mechanical ventilation for DEX (P = 0.025). This pilot study suggests that in long-term sedation, DEX is comparable to SC in maintaining sedation targets of RASS 0 to -3 but not suitable for deep sedation (RASS -4 or less). DEX had no effect on length of ICU stay. Its effects on other relevant clinical outcomes, such as duration of mechanical ventilation, should be tested further.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据