Propofol associated with a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation than scheduled intermittent lorazepam: A database analysis using Project IMPACT

School of Pharmacy, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Annals of Pharmacotherapy (Impact Factor: 2.06). 01/2008; 41(12):1986-91. DOI: 10.1345/aph.1K296
Source: PubMed


While one prospective controlled study in medical intensive care unit (ICU) patients demonstrated that sedation with propofol leads to a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation compared with scheduled intermittent intravenous lorazepam, its conclusions may not be applicable to surgical ICU patients and institutions not using daily sedation interruption.
To compare the duration of mechanical ventilation between medical and surgical ICU patients receiving propofol versus scheduled intermittent lorazepam in routine clinical practice.
Retrospective data (January 2001-December 2005) were obtained from the Project IMPACT database for medical and surgical ICU patients at Tufts-New England Medical Center, a 450 bed academic hospital. These patients had been mechanically ventilated for 24 hours or more and had received 24 hours or more of either propofol or scheduled intermittent lorazepam as the sole sedative. Clinically relevant variables were identified a priori, and their influence on duration of mechanical ventilation was evaluated. Differences in these variables between propofol and scheduled intermittent lorazepam groups within the ICU cohorts were then measured.
Of 4608 database patients, 287 met criteria. Factors associated with a prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation for the medical ICU cohort included sedation use for 5 or more days (OR 13.8; 95% CI 8.3 to 19.4), narcotic use (OR 7.6; 95% CI 2.3 to 13), and scheduled intermittent lorazepam use (OR 7.0; 95% CI 0.4 to 13.7). For the surgical ICU cohort, these factors included sedation use for 5 or more days (OR 15; 95% CI 11.4 to 19.4), APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II) score equal to or greater than 18 (OR 4.1; 95% CI 0.4 to 7.8), and scheduled intermittent lorazepam use (OR 4.0; 95% CI 0.2 to 7.7). Duration of mechanical ventilation was the only variable that differed significantly between propofol and scheduled intermittent lorazepam in both the medical ICU, with a median (range) of 6 (3-12) versus 11 (5-25; p = 0.03), and surgical ICU, with a median of 4 (2-15) versus 9 (4-20; p = 0.001), groups.
Sedation with propofol in the naturalistic setting appears to be associated with a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation compared with scheduled intermittent lorazepam in both medial and surgical ICU patients when only one sedative drug is used. Data from this uncontrolled observational study are consistent with findings from a randomized clinical trial.

Download full-text


Available from: Jeffrey Fong, May 13, 2014
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To review pharmacological-related factors that affect the incidence of oversedation in mechanically ventilated adults. Recent epidemiologic studies have identified a high frequency of oversedation in the ICU that is attributable, in part, to a number of pharmacokinetic, pharmacogenetic, and pharmacodynamic factors. New evidence suggests that the administration of benzodiazepines, even when dosed intermittently, will lead to more oversedation than either propofol or dexmedetomidine and is associated with greater healthcare costs. Based on this data, clinicians should limit the use of benzodiazepines to those patients with anxiety, seizures, alcohol withdrawal, or in whom a deeper level of sedation or therapeutic paralysis is required. Recognition of these new advances will help liberate patients from mechanical ventilation sooner, without compromising patient comfort.
    Current opinion in critical care 09/2008; 14(4):403-7. DOI:10.1097/MCC.0b013e32830280b3 · 2.62 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit routinely require sedative and analgesic medications to manage pain and anxiety. These medications may have unpredictable effects with long-term use. Strategies that may help to improve patient outcomes include thoughtful selection of medications, use of objective sedation and pain scales, and implementation of protocolized sedation.
    Clinics in chest medicine 04/2009; 30(1):131-41, ix. DOI:10.1016/j.ccm.2008.09.001 · 2.07 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Sedation and analgesia constitute a fundamental part of the daily clinical practice in intensive care units (ICUs). Its use is necessary to provide comfort, pain relief, anxiolysis, and amnesia to patients subjected to distressing procedures such as mechanical ventilation. It has been demonstrated that adequate sedoanalgesia lessens stress-related events in the critically ill patients, facilitating their management and improving their outcomes. However, misuse of sedatives and analgesics may carry the risk of unrecognized enduring deleterious immediate and long-term consequences such as prolonged mechanical ventilation, ICU and hospital time, and psychological distress. For these reasons, a number of sedation and analgesia strategies have been proposed to provide the minimal effective dose during the shortest possible time to avoid the adverse effects derived from agent accumulation. Patient-targeted sedation protocols, analgesia-based sedation strategies, and several interventions such as daily interruption or sequential use of sedatives have been proven to optimize patient comfort whereas minimizing awakening time or mechanical ventilator duration and maximizing patient awareness of their surroundings. However, despite the proven beneficial effects of these strategies, their implementation continues to be a challenge to the ICU professionals. Sedation and analgesia strategies should be designed to meet the particular physical and human characteristics of the area where it is to be implemented. Similarly, their implementation should be carried out by multidisciplinary teams that focus on the specific characteristics and circumstances of the patient.
    Clinical Pulmonary Medicine 10/2010; 17(6):290-299. DOI:10.1097/CPM.0b013e3181fa1613
Show more