4.4 Article

Is Propofol a Friend or a Foe of the Pediatric Intensivist? Description of Propofol Use in a PICU

期刊

PEDIATRIC CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
卷 15, 期 2, 页码 E66-E71

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000000021

关键词

critical care; pediatric intensive care unit; propofol; propofol infusion syndrome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The primary objective is to describe the practice patterns of nonprocedural propofol use in a single-center referral PICU. The secondary objective is to describe the rate of concordance of propofol use with the PICU local practice of a maximum mean rate of 4 mg/kg/hr and a maximum duration of 24 hours and to assess for signs and symptoms of propofol infusion syndrome. Design: Retrospective descriptive cohort study. Setting: PICU of a tertiary care teaching hospital and referral hospital for the Western Canada. Patients: Children 1 month to 17 years old who received a nonprocedural propofol infusion between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2009. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Two hundred twenty-three infusions (representing 210 unique patients) were included in the study. The median average infusion rate (interquartile range) including boluses was 2.7 mg/kg/hr (1.9-3.6 mg/kg/hr), and the mean infusion duration (sd) was 10.3 hours (6.7 hr). Eighty-seven percent and 98% of infusions were concordant with PICU intensivists self-reported practice maximum rate and duration, respectively. No cases of propofol-related infusion syndrome or deaths associated with propofol infusions were identified. Conclusions: The use of propofol infusions was in concordance with PICU local practice, and propofol infusion syndrome did not developed in patients. In agreement with previous recommendations, propofol infusions in the PICU appear to be safe when limiting doses to 4 mg/kg/hr and for less than 24 hours; however, appropriate monitoring of adverse effects is still warranted due to absence of robust evidence.

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

4.4
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