Dexmedetomidine versus propofol for prolonged sedation in critically ill trauma and surgical patients

and Purpose: Currently, dexmedetomidine versus propofol has primarily been studied in medical and cardiac surgery patients with outcomes indicating safe and effective sedation. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for prolonged sedation in trauma an...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The surgeon (Edinburgh) 2021-06, Vol.19 (3), p.129-134
Hauptverfasser: Winings, Natalie A., Daley, Brian J., Bollig, Reagan W., Roberts, R. Frank, Radtke, Jennifer, Heidel, R. Eric, Taylor, Jessica E., McMillen, James C.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 134
container_issue 3
container_start_page 129
container_title The surgeon (Edinburgh)
container_volume 19
creator Winings, Natalie A.
Daley, Brian J.
Bollig, Reagan W.
Roberts, R. Frank
Radtke, Jennifer
Heidel, R. Eric
Taylor, Jessica E.
McMillen, James C.
description and Purpose: Currently, dexmedetomidine versus propofol has primarily been studied in medical and cardiac surgery patients with outcomes indicating safe and effective sedation. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for prolonged sedation in trauma and surgical patients. This was a single-center prospective study conducted in the Trauma/Surgical Intensive Care Unit (ICU) at a Level I academic trauma center. It included patients 18 years of age or older requiring mechanical ventilation who were randomly assigned based on unit bed location to receive either dexmedetomidine or propofol. The primary outcome was duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes included mortality; proportion of time in target sedation; incidence of delirium, hypotension, and bradycardia; and ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS). A total of 57 patients were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. There was no significant difference in duration of mechanical ventilation (median [IQR]) between the dexmedetomidine (78.5[125] hours) and propofol (105[130] hours; p = 0.15) groups. There was no difference between groups in ICU mortality, ICU and hospital LOS, or incidence of delirium. Safety outcomes were also similar. Patients in the dexmedetomidine group spent a significantly greater percentage of time in target sedation (98[8] %) compared to propofol group (92[10] %; p = 0.02). Our results suggest that, similar to medical and cardiac surgery patients, dexmedetomidine and propofol are safe and effective sedation agents in critically ill trauma and surgical patients; however, dexmedetomidine achieves target sedation better than propofol for this specific population. •No difference in duration of mechanical ventilation between the sedation groups.•No difference between groups in mortality, ICU and hospital LOS, or delirium.•Safety outcomes were similar between sedation agents.•The dexmedetomidine group spent a greater percentage of time in target sedation.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.surge.2020.04.003
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2395620991</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S1479666X20300470</els_id><sourcerecordid>2395620991</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-f5768efe33511566c9b6f8d5b5b5fc8d616b618aa47dc637be34622218326fd13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1v1DAQQC0EapfSX4CEfOSSMLZjb3LggEpLK1XiAhI3y7HHlVdOvNhJRf89Dls4ojmMRn7z4UfIWwYtA6Y-HNqy5gdsOXBooWsBxAuy4x3IRvYdvCQ71u2HRin145y8LuUAwKUAeUbOBRcd9AA7gp_x14QOlzQFF2akj5jLWugxp2PyKVKf8lbEND-gowWdWUKaaZipzWEJ1sT4REOMdMlmnQw1c6XqXdsLPVYY56W8Ia-8iQUvn_MF-X5z_e3qtrn_-uXu6tN9Y4UclsbLverRoxCSMamUHUbleyfHGt72TjE1KtYb0-2dVWI_ougU55z1givvmLgg709z68U_VyyLnkKxGKOZMa1FczFIxWEYNlScUJtTKRm9PuYwmfykGejNrz7oP3715ldDp6vf2vXuecE6Vm3_ev4KrcDHE4D1m48Bsy62KrDoQka7aJfCfxf8Bi7vjso</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2395620991</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Dexmedetomidine versus propofol for prolonged sedation in critically ill trauma and surgical patients</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Winings, Natalie A. ; Daley, Brian J. ; Bollig, Reagan W. ; Roberts, R. Frank ; Radtke, Jennifer ; Heidel, R. Eric ; Taylor, Jessica E. ; McMillen, James C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Winings, Natalie A. ; Daley, Brian J. ; Bollig, Reagan W. ; Roberts, R. Frank ; Radtke, Jennifer ; Heidel, R. Eric ; Taylor, Jessica E. ; McMillen, James C.</creatorcontrib><description>and Purpose: Currently, dexmedetomidine versus propofol has primarily been studied in medical and cardiac surgery patients with outcomes indicating safe and effective sedation. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for prolonged sedation in trauma and surgical patients. This was a single-center prospective study conducted in the Trauma/Surgical Intensive Care Unit (ICU) at a Level I academic trauma center. It included patients 18 years of age or older requiring mechanical ventilation who were randomly assigned based on unit bed location to receive either dexmedetomidine or propofol. The primary outcome was duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes included mortality; proportion of time in target sedation; incidence of delirium, hypotension, and bradycardia; and ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS). A total of 57 patients were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. There was no significant difference in duration of mechanical ventilation (median [IQR]) between the dexmedetomidine (78.5[125] hours) and propofol (105[130] hours; p = 0.15) groups. There was no difference between groups in ICU mortality, ICU and hospital LOS, or incidence of delirium. Safety outcomes were also similar. Patients in the dexmedetomidine group spent a significantly greater percentage of time in target sedation (98[8] %) compared to propofol group (92[10] %; p = 0.02). Our results suggest that, similar to medical and cardiac surgery patients, dexmedetomidine and propofol are safe and effective sedation agents in critically ill trauma and surgical patients; however, dexmedetomidine achieves target sedation better than propofol for this specific population. •No difference in duration of mechanical ventilation between the sedation groups.•No difference between groups in mortality, ICU and hospital LOS, or delirium.•Safety outcomes were similar between sedation agents.•The dexmedetomidine group spent a greater percentage of time in target sedation.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1479-666X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2405-5840</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.surge.2020.04.003</identifier><identifier>PMID: 32340800</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Scotland: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Critical care ; Dexmedetomidine ; ICU ; Propofol ; Sedation ; Trauma</subject><ispartof>The surgeon (Edinburgh), 2021-06, Vol.19 (3), p.129-134</ispartof><rights>2020 Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (Scottish charity number SC005317) and Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (Scottish charity number SC005317) and Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-f5768efe33511566c9b6f8d5b5b5fc8d616b618aa47dc637be34622218326fd13</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-f5768efe33511566c9b6f8d5b5b5fc8d616b618aa47dc637be34622218326fd13</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1479666X20300470$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3537,27901,27902,65306</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32340800$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Winings, Natalie A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Daley, Brian J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bollig, Reagan W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberts, R. Frank</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Radtke, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heidel, R. Eric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taylor, Jessica E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McMillen, James C.</creatorcontrib><title>Dexmedetomidine versus propofol for prolonged sedation in critically ill trauma and surgical patients</title><title>The surgeon (Edinburgh)</title><addtitle>Surgeon</addtitle><description>and Purpose: Currently, dexmedetomidine versus propofol has primarily been studied in medical and cardiac surgery patients with outcomes indicating safe and effective sedation. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for prolonged sedation in trauma and surgical patients. This was a single-center prospective study conducted in the Trauma/Surgical Intensive Care Unit (ICU) at a Level I academic trauma center. It included patients 18 years of age or older requiring mechanical ventilation who were randomly assigned based on unit bed location to receive either dexmedetomidine or propofol. The primary outcome was duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes included mortality; proportion of time in target sedation; incidence of delirium, hypotension, and bradycardia; and ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS). A total of 57 patients were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. There was no significant difference in duration of mechanical ventilation (median [IQR]) between the dexmedetomidine (78.5[125] hours) and propofol (105[130] hours; p = 0.15) groups. There was no difference between groups in ICU mortality, ICU and hospital LOS, or incidence of delirium. Safety outcomes were also similar. Patients in the dexmedetomidine group spent a significantly greater percentage of time in target sedation (98[8] %) compared to propofol group (92[10] %; p = 0.02). Our results suggest that, similar to medical and cardiac surgery patients, dexmedetomidine and propofol are safe and effective sedation agents in critically ill trauma and surgical patients; however, dexmedetomidine achieves target sedation better than propofol for this specific population. •No difference in duration of mechanical ventilation between the sedation groups.•No difference between groups in mortality, ICU and hospital LOS, or delirium.•Safety outcomes were similar between sedation agents.•The dexmedetomidine group spent a greater percentage of time in target sedation.</description><subject>Critical care</subject><subject>Dexmedetomidine</subject><subject>ICU</subject><subject>Propofol</subject><subject>Sedation</subject><subject>Trauma</subject><issn>1479-666X</issn><issn>2405-5840</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kE1v1DAQQC0EapfSX4CEfOSSMLZjb3LggEpLK1XiAhI3y7HHlVdOvNhJRf89Dls4ojmMRn7z4UfIWwYtA6Y-HNqy5gdsOXBooWsBxAuy4x3IRvYdvCQ71u2HRin145y8LuUAwKUAeUbOBRcd9AA7gp_x14QOlzQFF2akj5jLWugxp2PyKVKf8lbEND-gowWdWUKaaZipzWEJ1sT4REOMdMlmnQw1c6XqXdsLPVYY56W8Ia-8iQUvn_MF-X5z_e3qtrn_-uXu6tN9Y4UclsbLverRoxCSMamUHUbleyfHGt72TjE1KtYb0-2dVWI_ougU55z1givvmLgg709z68U_VyyLnkKxGKOZMa1FczFIxWEYNlScUJtTKRm9PuYwmfykGejNrz7oP3715ldDp6vf2vXuecE6Vm3_ev4KrcDHE4D1m48Bsy62KrDoQka7aJfCfxf8Bi7vjso</recordid><startdate>202106</startdate><enddate>202106</enddate><creator>Winings, Natalie A.</creator><creator>Daley, Brian J.</creator><creator>Bollig, Reagan W.</creator><creator>Roberts, R. Frank</creator><creator>Radtke, Jennifer</creator><creator>Heidel, R. Eric</creator><creator>Taylor, Jessica E.</creator><creator>McMillen, James C.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202106</creationdate><title>Dexmedetomidine versus propofol for prolonged sedation in critically ill trauma and surgical patients</title><author>Winings, Natalie A. ; Daley, Brian J. ; Bollig, Reagan W. ; Roberts, R. Frank ; Radtke, Jennifer ; Heidel, R. Eric ; Taylor, Jessica E. ; McMillen, James C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c359t-f5768efe33511566c9b6f8d5b5b5fc8d616b618aa47dc637be34622218326fd13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Critical care</topic><topic>Dexmedetomidine</topic><topic>ICU</topic><topic>Propofol</topic><topic>Sedation</topic><topic>Trauma</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Winings, Natalie A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Daley, Brian J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bollig, Reagan W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Roberts, R. Frank</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Radtke, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Heidel, R. Eric</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Taylor, Jessica E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McMillen, James C.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The surgeon (Edinburgh)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Winings, Natalie A.</au><au>Daley, Brian J.</au><au>Bollig, Reagan W.</au><au>Roberts, R. Frank</au><au>Radtke, Jennifer</au><au>Heidel, R. Eric</au><au>Taylor, Jessica E.</au><au>McMillen, James C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Dexmedetomidine versus propofol for prolonged sedation in critically ill trauma and surgical patients</atitle><jtitle>The surgeon (Edinburgh)</jtitle><addtitle>Surgeon</addtitle><date>2021-06</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>19</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>129</spage><epage>134</epage><pages>129-134</pages><issn>1479-666X</issn><eissn>2405-5840</eissn><abstract>and Purpose: Currently, dexmedetomidine versus propofol has primarily been studied in medical and cardiac surgery patients with outcomes indicating safe and effective sedation. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for prolonged sedation in trauma and surgical patients. This was a single-center prospective study conducted in the Trauma/Surgical Intensive Care Unit (ICU) at a Level I academic trauma center. It included patients 18 years of age or older requiring mechanical ventilation who were randomly assigned based on unit bed location to receive either dexmedetomidine or propofol. The primary outcome was duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes included mortality; proportion of time in target sedation; incidence of delirium, hypotension, and bradycardia; and ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS). A total of 57 patients were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. There was no significant difference in duration of mechanical ventilation (median [IQR]) between the dexmedetomidine (78.5[125] hours) and propofol (105[130] hours; p = 0.15) groups. There was no difference between groups in ICU mortality, ICU and hospital LOS, or incidence of delirium. Safety outcomes were also similar. Patients in the dexmedetomidine group spent a significantly greater percentage of time in target sedation (98[8] %) compared to propofol group (92[10] %; p = 0.02). Our results suggest that, similar to medical and cardiac surgery patients, dexmedetomidine and propofol are safe and effective sedation agents in critically ill trauma and surgical patients; however, dexmedetomidine achieves target sedation better than propofol for this specific population. •No difference in duration of mechanical ventilation between the sedation groups.•No difference between groups in mortality, ICU and hospital LOS, or delirium.•Safety outcomes were similar between sedation agents.•The dexmedetomidine group spent a greater percentage of time in target sedation.</abstract><cop>Scotland</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>32340800</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.surge.2020.04.003</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1479-666X
ispartof The surgeon (Edinburgh), 2021-06, Vol.19 (3), p.129-134
issn 1479-666X
2405-5840
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2395620991
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Critical care
Dexmedetomidine
ICU
Propofol
Sedation
Trauma
title Dexmedetomidine versus propofol for prolonged sedation in critically ill trauma and surgical patients
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T23%3A16%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Dexmedetomidine%20versus%20propofol%20for%20prolonged%20sedation%20in%20critically%20ill%20trauma%20and%20surgical%20patients&rft.jtitle=The%20surgeon%20(Edinburgh)&rft.au=Winings,%20Natalie%20A.&rft.date=2021-06&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=129&rft.epage=134&rft.pages=129-134&rft.issn=1479-666X&rft.eissn=2405-5840&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.surge.2020.04.003&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2395620991%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2395620991&rft_id=info:pmid/32340800&rft_els_id=S1479666X20300470&rfr_iscdi=true