4.8 Article

Daily interruption of sedative infusions in critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation

期刊

NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE
卷 342, 期 20, 页码 1471-1477

出版社

MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1056/NEJM200005183422002

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Continuous infusions of sedative drugs in the intensive care unit may prolong the duration of mechanical ventilation, prolong the length of stay in the intensive care unit and the hospital, impede efforts to perform daily neurologic examinations, and increase the need for tests to assess alterations in mental status. Whether regular interruption of such infusions might accelerate recovery is not known. Methods: We conducted a randomized, controlled trial involving 128 adult patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation and continuous infusions of sedative drugs in a medical intensive care unit. In the intervention group, the sedative infusions were interrupted until the patients were awake, on a daily basis; in the control group, the infusions were interrupted only at the discretion of the clinicians in the intensive care unit. Results: The median duration of mechanical ventilation was 4.9 days in the intervention group, as compared with 7.3 days in the control group (P=0.004), and the median length of stay in the intensive care unit was 6.4 days as compared with 9.9 days, respectively (P=0.02). Six of the patients in the intervention group (9 percent) underwent diagnostic testing to assess changes in mental status, as compared with 16 of the patients in the control group (27 percent, P=0.02). Complications (e.g., removal of the endotracheal tube by the patient) occurred in three of the patients in the intervention group (4 percent) and four of the patients in the control group (7 percent, P=0.88). Conclusions: In patients who are receiving mechanical ventilation, daily interruption of sedative-drug infusions decreases the duration of mechanical ventilation and the length of stay in the intensive care unit. (N Engl J Med 2000;342:1471-7.) (C)2000, Massachusetts Medical Society.

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

4.8
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