4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

The relationship of sedation to deliberate self-extubation

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ANESTHESIA
卷 13, 期 1, 页码 24-29

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0952-8180(00)00237-3

关键词

purposeful self-extubation; sedation; agitation; midazolam; critical illness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Study Objectives: To evaluate the relationship between sedative therapy and self-extubation in a large medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU). Design: Retrospective, case-controlled study. Setting: Large teaching hospital. Patients: All adult patients who underwent unplanned self-extubation during a 12-month period (n = 50). Each patient was matched to two control patients who did not self-extubate based on age, gender, dates in hospital and diagnosis. Interventions: none. Measurements: Data collected included time to self extubation, dosages and types of benzodiazepines, opioid analgesics, antipsychotics, and hypnotics. Data on the degree of agitation as assessed by nursing staff also were obtained. Main results: When compared to controls, patients in the self-extubation group were more likely to have received benzodiazepines (59% vs. 35%; p < 0.05), but equally likely to have received opioids and/or paralytic drugs. Patients who self-extubated were twice as likely as controls to be agitated (54% vs. 22%; p < 0.05). Use of benzodiazepines was more common in agitated patients than in nonagitated patients (62% vs. 35%; p < 0.02). Among nonagitated patients who self-extubated, increased use of benzodiazepines (57% vs. 29%; p < 0.05) was noted when compared to nonagitated controls. Conclusions: In intubated ICU patients, benzodiazepines may not consistently treat agitation effectively or prevent self-extubation. Such an effect may be due to paradoxical eh citation, disorientation during long-term administration, or differences in drug administration between ICU and operating room (OR) environments. (C) 2001 by Elsevier Science Inc.

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