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
36 Reads
  • 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
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Management of pain and sedation therapy is a vital component of optimizing patient outcomes; however, the ideal pharmacotherapy regimen has not been identified in the postoperative cardiac surgery population. We sought to evaluate efficacy and safety outcomes between postoperative mechanically ventilated cardiac surgery patients receiving dexmedetomidine versus propofol therapy upon arrival to the intensive care unit (ICU). We conducted a single center, descriptive study of clinical practice at a 20-bed cardiac surgery ICU in a tertiary academic medical center. Adult mechanically ventilated postcardiac surgery patients who received either dexmedetomidine or propofol for sedation therapy upon admission to the ICU between October 20, 2006 and December 15, 2006 were evaluated. A pharmacy database was used to identify patients receiving dexmedetomidine or propofol therapy for perioperative sedation during cardiac surgery. Patients were matched according to surgical procedure type. Fifty-six patients who received either dexmedetomidine (n = 28) or propofol (n = 28) were included in the analysis. No differences in the ICU length of stay (58.67 ± 32.61 vs. 61 ± 33.1 hours; P = 0.79) and duration of mechanical ventilation (16.21 ± 6.05 vs. 13.97 ± 4.62 hours; P = 0.13) were seen between the propofol and dexmedetomidine groups, respectively. Hypotension (17 [61%] vs. 9 [32%]; P = 0.04), morphine use (11 [39.3%] vs. 1 [3.6%]; P = 0.002), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory use (7 [25%] vs. 1 [3.6%]; P = 0.05) occurred more during dexmedetomidine therapy versus propofol. Dexmedetomidine therapy resulted in a higher incidence of hypotension and analgesic consumption compared with propofol-based sedation therapy. Further evaluation is needed to assess differences in clinical outcomes of propofol and dexmedetomidine-based therapy in mechanically ventilated cardiac surgery patients.
    Critical pathways in cardiology 12/2010; 9(4):221-6. DOI:10.1097/HPC.0b013e3181f4ec4a
Show more