PURPOSE: To compare two protocols for sedation and analgesia during therapeutic hypothermia: midazolam and fentanyl versus propofol and remifentanil. The primary outcome was the time from discontinuation of infusions to extubation or decision not to extubate (offset time). Secondary outcomes were blood pressure, heart rate, use of vasopressors and inotropic drugs, pneumonia and neurological outcome. METHODS: This was an open, randomised, controlled trial on 59 patients treated with therapeutic hypothermia (33-34 °C for 24 h) after cardiac arrest in two Norwegian university hospitals between April 2008 and May 2009. The intervention was random allocation to sedation and analgesia with propofol/remifentanil or midazolam/fentanyl. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients received propofol and remifentanil, and 30 midazolam and fentanyl. Baseline characteristics were similar. Sedation and analgesia were stopped in 35 patients, and extubation was performed in 17 of these. Sedation had to be continued for 24 patients. Time to offset was significantly lower in patients given propofol and remifentanil [mean (95 % confidence intervals) 13.2 (2.3-24) vs. 36.8 (28.5-45.1) h, respectively, p < 0.001]. Patients given propofol and remifentanil needed norepinephrine infusions twice as often (23 vs. 12 patients, p = 0.003). Incidence of pneumonia and 3-month neurological outcome were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Time to offset was significantly shorter in patients treated with propofol and remifentanil. However, the clinical course in 40 % of patients prevented discontinuation of sedation and potential benefits from a faster recovery. The propofol and remifentanil group required norepinephrine twice as often, but both protocols were tolerated in most patients.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To compare two protocols for sedation and analgesia during therapeutic hypothermia: midazolam and fentanyl versus propofol and remifentanil. The primary outcome was the time from discontinuation of infusions to extubation or decision not to extubate (offset time). Secondary outcomes were blood pressure, heart rate, use of vasopressors and inotropic drugs, pneumonia and neurological outcome. METHODS: This was an open, randomised, controlled trial on 59 patients treated with therapeutic hypothermia (33-34 °C for 24 h) after cardiac arrest in two Norwegian university hospitals between April 2008 and May 2009. The intervention was random allocation to sedation and analgesia with propofol/remifentanil or midazolam/fentanyl. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients received propofol and remifentanil, and 30 midazolam and fentanyl. Baseline characteristics were similar. Sedation and analgesia were stopped in 35 patients, and extubation was performed in 17 of these. Sedation had to be continued for 24 patients. Time to offset was significantly lower in patients given propofol and remifentanil [mean (95 % confidence intervals) 13.2 (2.3-24) vs. 36.8 (28.5-45.1) h, respectively, p < 0.001]. Patients given propofol and remifentanil needed norepinephrine infusions twice as often (23 vs. 12 patients, p = 0.003). Incidence of pneumonia and 3-month neurological outcome were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Time to offset was significantly shorter in patients treated with propofol and remifentanil. However, the clinical course in 40 % of patients prevented discontinuation of sedation and potential benefits from a faster recovery. The propofol and remifentanil group required norepinephrine twice as often, but both protocols were tolerated in most patients.
Authors: R O Cummins; D A Chamberlain; N S Abramson; M Allen; P J Baskett; L Becker; L Bossaert; H H Delooz; W F Dick; M S Eisenberg Journal: Circulation Date: 1991-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Robert W Neumar; Jerry P Nolan; Christophe Adrie; Mayuki Aibiki; Robert A Berg; Bernd W Böttiger; Clifton Callaway; Robert S B Clark; Romergryko G Geocadin; Edward C Jauch; Karl B Kern; Ivan Laurent; W T Longstreth; Raina M Merchant; Peter Morley; Laurie J Morrison; Vinay Nadkarni; Mary Ann Peberdy; Emanuel P Rivers; Antonio Rodriguez-Nunez; Frank W Sellke; Christian Spaulding; Kjetil Sunde; Terry Vanden Hoek Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-10-23 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Claudia Spies; Martin Macguill; Anja Heymann; Christina Ganea; Daniel Krahne; Angelika Assman; Heinrich-Rudolf Kosiek; Kathrin Scholtz; Klaus-Dieter Wernecke; Jörg Martin Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2010-12-17 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: David Hostler; Jiangquan Zhou; Michael A Tortorici; Robert R Bies; Jon C Rittenberger; Philip E Empey; Patrick M Kochanek; Clifton W Callaway; Samuel M Poloyac Journal: Drug Metab Dispos Date: 2010-02-17 Impact factor: 3.922
Authors: Teresa L May; Richard R Riker; Gilles L Fraser; Karen G Hirsch; Sachin Agarwal; Christine Duarte; Hans Friberg; Eldar Søreide; John McPherson; Robert Hand; David Kent; Niklas Nielsen; David B Seder Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Christina S Boncyk; Kimberly F Rengel; Pratik P Pandharipande; Christopher G Hughes Journal: Curr Opin Crit Care Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 3.687
Authors: Yew Woon Chia; Shir Lynn Lim; Julian Kenrick Loh; Benjamin Sieu-Hon Leong; Marcus Eng Hock Ong Journal: Singapore Med J Date: 2021-08 Impact factor: 1.858
Authors: Ameldina Ceric; Teresa L May; Anna Lybeck; Tobias Cronberg; David B Seder; Richard R Riker; Christian Hassager; Jesper Kjaergaard; Zana Haxhija; Hans Friberg; Josef Dankiewicz; Niklas Nielsen Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2022-07-28 Impact factor: 3.532
Authors: Teresa L May; David B Seder; Gilles L Fraser; Philip Stone; Barbara McCrum; Richard R Riker Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Jerry P Nolan; Claudio Sandroni; Bernd W Böttiger; Alain Cariou; Tobias Cronberg; Hans Friberg; Cornelia Genbrugge; Kirstie Haywood; Gisela Lilja; Véronique R M Moulaert; Nikolaos Nikolaou; Theresa Mariero Olasveengen; Markus B Skrifvars; Fabio Taccone; Jasmeet Soar Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 17.440