Atracurium Versus Cisatracurium in the Treatment of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

IF 1.3 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Journal of Pharmacy Technology Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-19 DOI:10.1177/87551225231194031
Shannon M Carabetta, Bryan Allen, Chad Cannon, Kirubel Hailu, Totty Johnson
{"title":"Atracurium Versus Cisatracurium in the Treatment of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.","authors":"Shannon M Carabetta, Bryan Allen, Chad Cannon, Kirubel Hailu, Totty Johnson","doi":"10.1177/87551225231194031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Neuromuscular blocking agents are one of the few medication classes that have demonstrated a clinical benefit in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, most literature utilized cisatracurium, and utilization of atracurium is limited to 1 small study. <b>Objective:</b> The purpose of this study was to provide further evidence comparing the safety and efficacy of atracurium versus cisatracurium for the treatment of ARDS. <b>Methods:</b> This multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort noninferiority study was conducted at 3 hospitals within a tertiary health care system. We included subjects diagnosed with ARDS who received either atracurium or cisatracurium for at least 12 hours. The primary outcome measured the change in PaO<sub>2</sub>/FiO<sub>2</sub> (P/F) ratio from baseline to 48 hours after initiation. <b>Results:</b> Baseline characteristics were similar between groups except for a higher median age and a higher proportion of subjects who were COVID-positive in the atracurium group. There were also some noted differences in the baseline P/F ratios. In a multivariable model adjusting for baseline characteristics, the change in the P/F ratio for atracurium was noninferior to cisatracurium at 24, 48, and 72 hours. A significant cost reduction, measured as cost per patient per day, was seen with the use of atracurium ($14.81-$25.16 vs $33.86-$41.91). <b>Conclusion:</b> Atracurium appears to be a safe and cheaper alternative agent in the management of ARDS.</p>","PeriodicalId":16796,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacy Technology","volume":"39 5","pages":"212-217"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10515971/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmacy Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/87551225231194031","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Neuromuscular blocking agents are one of the few medication classes that have demonstrated a clinical benefit in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, most literature utilized cisatracurium, and utilization of atracurium is limited to 1 small study. Objective: The purpose of this study was to provide further evidence comparing the safety and efficacy of atracurium versus cisatracurium for the treatment of ARDS. Methods: This multicenter, retrospective, observational cohort noninferiority study was conducted at 3 hospitals within a tertiary health care system. We included subjects diagnosed with ARDS who received either atracurium or cisatracurium for at least 12 hours. The primary outcome measured the change in PaO2/FiO2 (P/F) ratio from baseline to 48 hours after initiation. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar between groups except for a higher median age and a higher proportion of subjects who were COVID-positive in the atracurium group. There were also some noted differences in the baseline P/F ratios. In a multivariable model adjusting for baseline characteristics, the change in the P/F ratio for atracurium was noninferior to cisatracurium at 24, 48, and 72 hours. A significant cost reduction, measured as cost per patient per day, was seen with the use of atracurium ($14.81-$25.16 vs $33.86-$41.91). Conclusion: Atracurium appears to be a safe and cheaper alternative agent in the management of ARDS.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
阿曲库铵与西曲库铵治疗急性呼吸窘迫综合征。
背景:神经肌肉阻滞剂是为数不多的对严重急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)患者具有临床益处的药物类别之一。然而,大多数文献都使用顺式阿曲库铵,阿曲库胺的使用仅限于1项小型研究。目的:本研究的目的是提供进一步的证据,比较阿曲库铵和顺阿曲库胺治疗ARDS的安全性和有效性。方法:这项多中心、回顾性、观察性队列非劣效性研究在三级医疗保健系统内的3家医院进行。我们纳入了被诊断为ARDS的受试者,他们接受阿曲库铵或顺阿曲库胺治疗至少12年 小时。主要结果测量了从基线到48的PaO2/FiO2(P/F)比率的变化 启动后数小时。结果:除了阿曲库铵组的中位年龄较高和新冠肺炎阳性受试者比例较高外,各组之间的基线特征相似。基线P/F比率也存在一些显著差异。在调整基线特征的多变量模型中,在24、48和72时,阿曲库铵的P/F比变化不劣于顺阿曲库 小时。阿曲库铵的使用显著降低了成本,以每位患者每天的成本衡量(14.81美元-25.16美元vs 33.86美元-41.91美元)。结论:阿曲库胺似乎是治疗ARDS的一种安全、廉价的替代药物。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Pharmacy Technology
Journal of Pharmacy Technology PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
49
期刊介绍: For both pharmacists and technicians, jPT provides valuable information for those interested in the entire body of pharmacy practice. jPT covers new drugs, products, and equipment; therapeutic trends; organizational, legal, and educational activities; drug distribution and administration; and includes continuing education articles.
期刊最新文献
Short-Course Therapy for Uncomplicated VRE Bacteremia: This is Us Trying (to Shorten Therapy). An Analysis of Initial Loop Diuretic Dosing Strategies and Its Association with Time to Decongestion. Treatment of Histoplasmosis With Posaconazole in the Setting of a Severe Itraconazole Hypersensitivity Reaction: A Case Report. Pharmacological Management of Agitation in Hospitalized Elderly Patients: Evaluating Appropriateness and Standard Practices. Clesrovimab for the Prevention of Respiratory Syncytial Virus Lower Respiratory Tract Disease in Infants.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1