4.7 Article

Impact of Vasoactive Medications on ICU-Acquired Weakness in Mechanically Ventilated Patients

期刊

CHEST
卷 154, 期 4, 页码 781-787

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.chest.2018.07.016

关键词

critical illness; critical care outcomes; humans; ICUs; muscle weakness; vasoconstrictor agents

资金

  1. NIH/NHLBI [T32 HL007605]
  2. Parker B. Francis Fellowship [FP062541-01-PR]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Vasoactive medications are commonly used in the treatment of critically ill patients, but their impact on the development of ICU-acquired weakness is not well described. The objective of this study is to evaluate the relationship between vasoactive medication use and the outcome of ICU-acquired weakness. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of mechanically ventilated patients (N = 172) enrolled in a randomized clinical trial of early occupational and physical therapy vs conventional therapy, which evaluated the end point of ICU-acquired weakness on hospital discharge. Patients underwent bedside muscle strength testing by a therapist blinded to study allocation to evaluate for ICU-acquired weakness. The effects of vasoactive medication use on the incidence of ICU-acquired weakness in this population were assessed. RESULTS: On logistic regression analysis, the use of vasoactive medications increased the odds of developing ICU-acquired weakness (odds ratio [OR], 3.2; P = .01) independent of all other established risk factors for weakness. Duration of vasoactive medication use (in days) (OR, 1.35; P = .004) and cumulative norepinephrine dose (mu g/kg/d) (OR, 1.01; P = .02) (but not vasopressin or phenylephrine) were also independently associated with the outcome of ICU-acquired weakness. CONCLUSIONS: In mechanically ventilated patients enrolled in a randomized clinical trial of early mobilization, the use of vasoactive medications was independently associated with the development of ICU-acquired weakness. Prospective trials to further evaluate this relationship are merited.

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

4.7
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