BACKGROUND: Current drugs for induction and maintenance of sedation in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit have limitations. Fospropofol, a prodrug of propofol, has not been studied as a sedative in the ICU setting. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label pilot study, patients received 1 of 3 regimens with a goal of maintaining a Ramsay Sedation Score of 2 to 5: (1) fospropofol IV infusion with a bolus and increased infusion rate for agitation events (infusion/bolus); (2) fospropofol IV infusion with an increased infusion rate for agitation events (infusion only); or (3) propofol IV infusion with an increased infusion rate for agitation events. RESULTS:Sixty patients received study drug and were included in the safety and efficacy analyses. Because incidence rates for adverse events were similar between fospropofol groups, and because the study was not powered to determine significant differences between treatment groups for safety variables, adverse events for both fospropofol groups were combined. In the fospropofol groups, 28 out of 38 patients (74%) experienced treatment-emergent adverse events in comparison with 14 out of 22 patients (64%) in the propofol group. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with fospropofol were procedural pain (21.1%) and nausea (13.2%). Two patients (1 each in the fospropofol infusion/bolus and the propofol groups) experienced hypotension during the study as a potential sedation-related adverse event. Mean plasma formate levels were not significantly different among groups. Patients in all 3 treatment groups maintained Ramsay Sedation Scores of 2 to 5 for >90% of the time they were sedated. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that fospropofol, administered in either an infusion/bolus or infusion-only regimen, is tolerable and effective for short-term induction and maintenance of sedation in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Current drugs for induction and maintenance of sedation in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit have limitations. Fospropofol, a prodrug of propofol, has not been studied as a sedative in the ICU setting. METHODS: In this randomized, open-label pilot study, patients received 1 of 3 regimens with a goal of maintaining a Ramsay Sedation Score of 2 to 5: (1) fospropofol IV infusion with a bolus and increased infusion rate for agitation events (infusion/bolus); (2) fospropofol IV infusion with an increased infusion rate for agitation events (infusion only); or (3) propofol IV infusion with an increased infusion rate for agitation events. RESULTS: Sixty patients received study drug and were included in the safety and efficacy analyses. Because incidence rates for adverse events were similar between fospropofol groups, and because the study was not powered to determine significant differences between treatment groups for safety variables, adverse events for both fospropofol groups were combined. In the fospropofol groups, 28 out of 38 patients (74%) experienced treatment-emergent adverse events in comparison with 14 out of 22 patients (64%) in the propofol group. The most common treatment-emergent adverse events with fospropofol were procedural pain (21.1%) and nausea (13.2%). Two patients (1 each in the fospropofol infusion/bolus and the propofol groups) experienced hypotension during the study as a potential sedation-related adverse event. Mean plasma formate levels were not significantly different among groups. Patients in all 3 treatment groups maintained Ramsay Sedation Scores of 2 to 5 for >90% of the time they were sedated. CONCLUSION: This pilot study suggests that fospropofol, administered in either an infusion/bolus or infusion-only regimen, is tolerable and effective for short-term induction and maintenance of sedation in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients.