Literature DB >> 10579264

Continuous infusions of lorazepam, midazolam, and propofol for sedation of the critically ill surgery trauma patient: a prospective, randomized comparison.

J S McCollam1, M G O'Neil, E D Norcross, T K Byrne, S T Reeves.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy, safety, and cost of continuous infusions of lorazepam, midazolam, and propofol in a critically ill trauma/surgery patient population.
DESIGN: A prospective, randomized, nonblinded, single center.
SETTING: A 16-bed intensive care unit. PATIENTS: A total of 30 ventilated patients who were 18-70 yrs of age and required pharmacologic sedation. Patients with renal and/or liver failure, a history of alcohol abuse, a head injury, or in a coma were excluded.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized by block design to receive lorazepam, midazolam, or propofol. Initial boluses and infusion rates were as follows: lorazepam 0.05 mg/kg, then 0.007 mg/kg/hr; midazolam 0.05 mg/kg, then 0.003 mg/kg/hr; and propofol 0.25 mg/kg, then 0.06 mg/kg/hr. Sedation was assessed and agents titrated every 5-10 mins to achieve > or =2 and <5 on the modified Ramsay scale. Once adequate response was achieved, agents were titrated to maintain the desired level of sedation.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Maintenance doses of lorazepam 0.02+/-0.01 mg/kg/hr, midazolam 0.04+/-0.03 mg/kg/hr, and propofol 2.0+/-1.5 mg/kg/hr achieved the desired level of sedation 68%, 79%, and 62% of the time, respectively. Oversedation occurred most often with lorazepam, compared with midazolam and propofol, at 14%, 6%, and 7% of the assessment times, respectively. Undersedation occurred most frequently with propofol compared with lorazepam and midazolam, at 31%, 18%, and 16% of the assessment times, respectively. The mean number of dosage changes per day was 7.8+/-4.3 for lorazepam, 4.4+/-2.9 for midazolam, and 5.6+/-6.0 for propofol (p = .91). Sedation costs per patient day (mean +/- SD) were $48+/-$76 (lorazepam), $182+/-$98 (midazolam), and $273+/-$200 (propofol) (p = .005). The potential savings, if all study patients had received lorazepam, is $14,208 compared with $8,808 if all received midazolam.
CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that lorazepam appears to be a cost-effective choice for sedation; however, oversedation may be problematic. Midazolam is the most titratable drug in our population, avoiding excessive oversedation or undersedation. Trauma patients may respond inadequately to propofol even at higher doses. Lorazepam may be the sedative of choice in critically ill trauma/surgery patients.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10579264     DOI: 10.1097/00003246-199911000-00022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care Med        ISSN: 0090-3493            Impact factor:   7.598


  12 in total

Review 1.  Comparative tolerability of sedative agents in head-injured adults.

Authors:  Susan C Urwin; David K Menon
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 5.606

Review 2.  Sedation for critically ill or injured adults in the intensive care unit: a shifting paradigm.

Authors:  Derek J Roberts; Babar Haroon; Richard I Hall
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2012-10-01       Impact factor: 9.546

3.  Robust control of burst suppression for medical coma.

Authors:  M Brandon Westover; Seong-Eun Kim; ShiNung Ching; Patrick L Purdon; Emery N Brown
Journal:  J Neural Eng       Date:  2015-05-28       Impact factor: 5.379

Review 4.  Propofol: a review of its use in intensive care sedation of adults.

Authors:  Kate McKeage; Caroline M Perry
Journal:  CNS Drugs       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 5.749

5.  Evidence and consensus-based German guidelines for the management of analgesia, sedation and delirium in intensive care--short version.

Authors:  Jörg Martin; Anja Heymann; Katrin Bäsell; Ralf Baron; Rolf Biniek; Hartmut Bürkle; Peter Dall; Christine Dictus; Verena Eggers; Ingolf Eichler; Lothar Engelmann; Lars Garten; Wolfgang Hartl; Ulrike Haase; Ralf Huth; Paul Kessler; Stefan Kleinschmidt; Wolfgang Koppert; Franz-Josef Kretz; Heinz Laubenthal; Guenter Marggraf; Andreas Meiser; Edmund Neugebauer; Ulrike Neuhaus; Christian Putensen; Michael Quintel; Alexander Reske; Bernard Roth; Jens Scholz; Stefan Schröder; Dierk Schreiter; Jürgen Schüttler; Gerhard Schwarzmann; Robert Stingele; Peter Tonner; Philip Tränkle; Rolf Detlef Treede; Tomislav Trupkovic; Michael Tryba; Frank Wappler; Christian Waydhas; Claudia Spies
Journal:  Ger Med Sci       Date:  2010-02-02

Review 6.  Economic evaluation of propofol and lorazepam for critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation.

Authors:  Christopher E Cox; Shelby D Reed; Joseph A Govert; Jo E Rodgers; Stacy Campbell-Bright; John P Kress; Shannon S Carson
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 7.598

Review 7.  Pain management in neurocritical care.

Authors:  Axel Petzold; Armand Girbes
Journal:  Neurocrit Care       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 3.210

Review 8.  Dexmedetomidine Based Sedation for Post-surgery Critically Ill Adults: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Authors:  Heng Fan; Yu Zhao; Min Sun; Ji-Hui Ye; Guo-Dong Chen; Jian-Hua Zhu
Journal:  Iran J Public Health       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 1.429

Review 9.  The incidence of sub-optimal sedation in the ICU: a systematic review.

Authors:  Daniel L Jackson; Clare W Proudfoot; Kimberley F Cann; Tim S Walsh
Journal:  Crit Care       Date:  2009-12-16       Impact factor: 9.097

10.  The efficacy of the COMFORT scale in assessing optimal sedation in critically ill children requiring mechanical ventilation.

Authors:  Hyun Seung Jin; Mi Sun Yum; Seoung Lan Kim; Hye Young Shin; Eun Hee Lee; Eun Ju Ha; Soo Jong Hong; Seong Jong Park
Journal:  J Korean Med Sci       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 2.153

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.