Critical care (London, England) · 2022
Remimazolam besylate versus propofol for long-term sedation during invasive mechanical ventilation: a pilot study.
СтатьяРандомизированное 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.
Tang Yun, Yang Xiaobo, Yu Yuan, Shu Huaqing, Yuan Yin, Liu Hong, Zou Xiaojing, Yuan Shiying, Shang You
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam besylate compared with propofol in maintaining mild-to-moderate sedation in patients receiving long-term mechanical ventilation.
METHODS: In this single-centered randomized pilot study, adult patients mechanically ventilated longer than 24 h were randomized to receive remimazolam besylate or propofol. The target sedation range was - 3 to 0 on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS). The primary outcome was the percentage of time in the target sedation range without rescue sedation. The secondary outcomes were ventilator-free days at day 7, the length of ICU stay and 28-day mortality.
RESULTS: Thirty patients were assigned to each group. No difference was identified between the remimazolam group and propofol group in median age [60.0 (IQR, 51.5-66.3) years vs. 64.0 (IQR, 55.0-69.3) years, respectively, p = 0.437] or the median duration of study drug infusion [55.0 (IQR, 28.3-102.0) hours vs. 41.0 (IQR, 24.8-74.3) hours, respectively, p = 0.255]. The median percentage of time in the target RASS range without rescue sedation was similar in remimazolam and propofol groups [73.2% (IQR, 41.5-97.3%) vs. 82.8% (IQR, 65.6-100%), p = 0.269]. No differences were identified between the two groups in terms of ventilator-free days at day 7, length of ICU stay, 28-day mortality or adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggested that remimazolam besylate was effective and safe for long-term sedation in mechanically ventilated patients compared with propofol.
METHODS: In this single-centered randomized pilot study, adult patients mechanically ventilated longer than 24 h were randomized to receive remimazolam besylate or propofol. The target sedation range was - 3 to 0 on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS). The primary outcome was the percentage of time in the target sedation range without rescue sedation. The secondary outcomes were ventilator-free days at day 7, the length of ICU stay and 28-day mortality.
RESULTS: Thirty patients were assigned to each group. No difference was identified between the remimazolam group and propofol group in median age [60.0 (IQR, 51.5-66.3) years vs. 64.0 (IQR, 55.0-69.3) years, respectively, p = 0.437] or the median duration of study drug infusion [55.0 (IQR, 28.3-102.0) hours vs. 41.0 (IQR, 24.8-74.3) hours, respectively, p = 0.255]. The median percentage of time in the target RASS range without rescue sedation was similar in remimazolam and propofol groups [73.2% (IQR, 41.5-97.3%) vs. 82.8% (IQR, 65.6-100%), p = 0.269]. No differences were identified between the two groups in terms of ventilator-free days at day 7, length of ICU stay, 28-day mortality or adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggested that remimazolam besylate was effective and safe for long-term sedation in mechanically ventilated patients compared with propofol.