Article

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: 2.92). 01/2008; 41(12):1986-91. DOI: 10.1345/aph.1K296
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

0 Followers
 · 
104 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: In 2013, the American College of Critical Care Medicine published a revised version of the pain, agitation, and delirium guidelines. The guidelines included an ICU pain, agitation, and delirium care bundle designed to facilitate implementation of the pain, agitation, and delirium guidelines. Design: Review article. Setting: Multispecialty critical care units. Patients: Adult ICU patients. Interventions: This article describes: 1) the ICU pain, agitation, and delirium care bundle in more detail, linking pain, sedation/agitation, and delirium management in an integrated and interdisciplinary fashion; 2) pain, agitation, and delirium implementation strategies; and 3) the potential synergistic benefits of linking pain, agitation, and delirium management strategies to other evidence-based ICU practices, including spontaneous breathing trials, ICU early mobility programs, and ICU sleep hygiene programs, in order to improve ICU patient outcomes and to reduce costs of care. Results: Linking the ICU pain, agitation, and delirium management strategies with spontaneous awakening trials, spontaneous breathing trials, and early mobility and sleep hygiene programs is associated with significant improvements in ICU patient outcomes and reductions in their costs of care. Conclusions: The 2013 ICU pain, agitation, and delirium guidelines provide critical care providers with an evidence-based, integrated, and interdisciplinary approach to managing pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium. The ICU pain, agitation, and delirium care bundle provides a framework for facilitating implementation of the pain, agitation, and delirium guidelines. Widespread implementation of the ICU pain, agitation, and delirium care bundle is likely to result in large-scale improvements in ICU patient outcomes and significant reductions in costs.
    Critical Care Medicine 01/2013; 41:S99-S115. DOI:10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182a16ff0 · 6.15 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background: Use of dexmedetomidine or propofol rather than a benzodiazepine sedation strategy may improve ICU outcomes. We reviewed randomized trials comparing a benzodiazepine and nonbenzodiazepine regimen in mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients to determine if differences exist between these sedation strategies with respect to ICU length of stay, time on the ventilator, delirium prevalence, and short-term mortality. Methods: We searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, the Cochrane databases, and the American College of Critical Care Medicine’s Pain, Agitation, Delirium Management Guidelines’ literature database from 1996 to 2013. Citations were screened for randomized trials that enrolled critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults comparing an IV benzodiazepine-based to a nonbenzodiazepine-based sedative regimen and reported duration of ICU length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, delirium prevalence, and/or short-term mortality. Trial characteristics and results were abstracted in duplicate and independently, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used for quality assessment. We performed random effects model meta-analyses where possible. Results: We included six trials enrolling 1,235 patients: midazolam versus dexmedetomidine (n = 3), lorazepam versus dexmedetomidine (n = 1), midazolam versus propofol (n = 1), and lorazepam versus propofol (n = 1). Compared to a benzodiazepine sedative strategy, a nonbenzodiazepine sedative strategy was associated with a shorter ICU length of stay (n = 6 studies; difference = 1.62 d; 95% CI, 0.68–2.55; I2 = 0%; p = 0.0007) and duration of mechanical ventilation (n = 4 studies; difference = 1.9 d; 95% CI, 1.70–2.09; I2 = 0%; p < 0.00001) but a similar prevalence of delirium (n = 2; risk ratio = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.61–1.11; I2 = 84%; p = 0.19) and short-term mortality rate (n = 4; risk ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.76–1.27; I2 = 30%; p = 0.88). Conclusions: Current controlled data suggest that use of a dexmedetomidine- or propofol-based sedation regimen rather than a benzodiazepine-based sedation regimen in critically ill adults may reduce ICU length of stay and duration of mechanical ventilation. Larger controlled studies are needed to further define the impact of nonbenzodiazepine sedative regimens on delirium and short-term mortality.
    Critical Care Medicine 09/2013; 41(9):S30-S38. DOI:10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182a16898 · 6.15 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:: Intensive care unit (ICU) readmission rates are commonly viewed as indicators of ICU quality. However, definitions of ICU readmissions vary, and it is unknown which, if any, readmissions are associated with ICU quality. OBJECTIVE:: Empirically derive the optimal interval between ICU discharge and readmission for purposes of considering ICU readmission as an ICU quality indicator. RESEARCH DESIGN:: Retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS:: A total of 214,692 patients discharged from 157 US ICUs participating in the Project IMPACT database, 2001-2008. MEASURES:: We graphically examined how patient characteristics and ICU discharge circumstances (eg, ICU census) were related to the odds of ICU readmissions as the allowable interval between ICU discharge and readmission was lengthened. We defined the optimal interval by identifying inflection points where these relationships changed significantly and permanently. RESULTS:: A total of 2242 patients (1.0%) were readmitted to the ICU within 24 hours; 9062 (4.2%) within 7 days. Patient characteristics exhibited stronger associations with readmissions after intervals >48-60 hours. By contrast, ICU discharge circumstances and ICU interventions (eg, mechanical ventilation) exhibited weaker relationships as intervals lengthened, with inflection points at 30-48 hours. Because of the predominance of afternoon readmissions regardless of time of discharge, using intervals defined by full calendar days rather than fixed numbers of hours produced more valid results. DISCUSSION:: It remains uncertain whether ICU readmission is a valid quality indicator. However, having established 2 full calendar days (not 48 h) after ICU discharge as the optimal interval for measuring ICU readmissions, this study will facilitate future research designed to determine its validity.
    Medical care 05/2013; 51(8). DOI:10.1097/MLR.0b013e318293c2fa · 2.94 Impact Factor