Journal of critical care · 2024
Vasopressor utilization in septic shock patients receiving propofol versus midazolam.
Equivalence TrialСтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Weger Brittany R, Carabetta Shannon Marie, Gignac Lindsey, Hayes Sarah, Johnson J Totty
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of propofol versus midazolam on vasopressor requirements in patients with septic shock to better guide sedative selection.
METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational, IRB-approved, non-inferiority cohort study. Included individuals were ≥ 18 years of age, had a diagnosis of septic shock, and exclusive administration of propofol or midazolam for at least 12 h. The primary outcome was maximum increase in vasopressor requirements within the first 12 h following sedative initiation.
RESULTS: For the primary outcome of maximum increase in norepinephrine equivalents (NEE) within 12 h, propofol was non-inferior to midazolam (0.09 vs. 0.129 μg/kg/min, p = 0.002). No difference was seen between the propofol and midazolam groups for the secondary outcome of maximum increase in NEE within 3 h (0.02 vs 0.04 μg/kg/min, p = 0.208), however, the propofol group had a significantly lower increase within 6 h (0.06 vs 0.086 μg/kg/min, p = 0.043) and 24 h (0.11 vs 0.25 μg/kg/min, p = 0.013).
CONCLUSION: In patients with septic shock, vasopressor requirement increases with propofol were non-inferior to midazolam within the first 12 h.
METHODS: This was a multicenter, retrospective, observational, IRB-approved, non-inferiority cohort study. Included individuals were ≥ 18 years of age, had a diagnosis of septic shock, and exclusive administration of propofol or midazolam for at least 12 h. The primary outcome was maximum increase in vasopressor requirements within the first 12 h following sedative initiation.
RESULTS: For the primary outcome of maximum increase in norepinephrine equivalents (NEE) within 12 h, propofol was non-inferior to midazolam (0.09 vs. 0.129 μg/kg/min, p = 0.002). No difference was seen between the propofol and midazolam groups for the secondary outcome of maximum increase in NEE within 3 h (0.02 vs 0.04 μg/kg/min, p = 0.208), however, the propofol group had a significantly lower increase within 6 h (0.06 vs 0.086 μg/kg/min, p = 0.043) and 24 h (0.11 vs 0.25 μg/kg/min, p = 0.013).
CONCLUSION: In patients with septic shock, vasopressor requirement increases with propofol were non-inferior to midazolam within the first 12 h.