Brittany R. Weger, Shannon Marie Carabetta, Lindsey Gignac, Sarah Hayes, J. Totty Johnson
{"title":"Vasopressor utilization in septic shock patients receiving propofol versus midazolam","authors":"Brittany R. Weger, Shannon Marie Carabetta, Lindsey Gignac, Sarah Hayes, J. Totty Johnson","doi":"10.1016/j.jcrc.2024.154935","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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, <em>p</em> = 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, <em>p</em> = 0.208), however, the propofol group had a significantly lower increase within 6 h (0.06 vs 0.086 μg/kg/min, <em>p</em> = 0.043) and 24 h (0.11 vs 0.25 μg/kg/min, <em>p</em> = 0.013).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>In patients with septic shock, vasopressor requirement increases with propofol were non-inferior to midazolam within the first 12 h.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":15451,"journal":{"name":"Journal of critical care","volume":"85 ","pages":"Article 154935"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of critical care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0883944124004222","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
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.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Critical Care, the official publication of the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine (WFSICCM), is a leading international, peer-reviewed journal providing original research, review articles, tutorials, and invited articles for physicians and allied health professionals involved in treating the critically ill. The Journal aims to improve patient care by furthering understanding of health systems research and its integration into clinical practice.
The Journal will include articles which discuss:
All aspects of health services research in critical care
System based practice in anesthesiology, perioperative and critical care medicine
The interface between anesthesiology, critical care medicine and pain
Integrating intraoperative management in preparation for postoperative critical care management and recovery
Optimizing patient management, i.e., exploring the interface between evidence-based principles or clinical insight into management and care of complex patients
The team approach in the OR and ICU
System-based research
Medical ethics
Technology in medicine
Seminars discussing current, state of the art, and sometimes controversial topics in anesthesiology, critical care medicine, and professional education
Residency Education.