重症患者机械通气期间的间歇镇静与持续镇静

Y. Rizk, Mohamed Abdel Rhman, Dina Abdel Rhman, Ahmed Refaat
{"title":"重症患者机械通气期间的间歇镇静与持续镇静","authors":"Y. Rizk, Mohamed Abdel Rhman, Dina Abdel Rhman, Ahmed Refaat","doi":"10.21608/bjas.2023.222626.1206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background :In order to reduce patient pain and agitation during mechanical breathing, sedation has grown to be a crucial component of critical care management (MV). Patients' short-and long-term outcomes will alter as a result of pharmaceutical treatment that is evidence-based. The study's objective is to assess the effects of intermittent and continuous sedation on mechanically ventilated patients' length of stay in the critical care unit, frequency of adverse events, and MV duration. Methods :This randomised clinical research included 100 critically sick patients who had recently needed mechanical ventilation and were anticipated to need it for more than 24 hours. The patients were divided into two groups at random: group A, which received midazolam infusions of 1 to 8 mg/hour or 0.01 to 0.1 mg/kg/hour, titrated to the desired level of sedation, and morphine infusions of 2 to 30 mg/hour when they became agitated with a sedation agitation score (SAS) of 5 or higher. Group B, which received intermittent sedation, received morphine when they became agitated Results : When compared to patients receiving continuous sedation, those receiving intermittent sedation showed considerably greater SAS (P 0.001). Within 3 days of the follow-up, NAS was substantially different and lower when dealing with patients on intermittent sedation as opposed to those on continuous sedation (P values 0.001). When compared to patients receiving continuous sedation (median duration: 105 hr), those receiving intermittent sedation (median time: 47 hr, HR (95 percent CI): 4.686 (2.799: 7.847)), were on MV for a considerably shorter period of time with a greater HR of being extubated (P 0.001). While tracheostomy was not a predictor, the APACHE II score, being reintubated, and the incidence of delirium all significantly predicted the length of MV (coefficient: 2.361, 95 percent CI: 1.175 to 3.548, P0.001, coefficient: 28.411, 95 percent CI: 10.134 to 46.688, P=0.003, and coefficient: 21.222, 95 percent CI: 10.348 to 32.097, P0.001). Conclusions :Patients who had intermittent sedation experienced considerably lower rates of reintubation, NAS, brief MV stays, and longer hospital stays than those under continuous sedation, but significantly greater SAS.","PeriodicalId":8745,"journal":{"name":"Benha Journal of Applied Sciences","volume":"84 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Intermittent versus Continuous Sedation during Mechanical Ventilation in Critically Ill Patient\",\"authors\":\"Y. Rizk, Mohamed Abdel Rhman, Dina Abdel Rhman, Ahmed Refaat\",\"doi\":\"10.21608/bjas.2023.222626.1206\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background :In order to reduce patient pain and agitation during mechanical breathing, sedation has grown to be a crucial component of critical care management (MV). Patients' short-and long-term outcomes will alter as a result of pharmaceutical treatment that is evidence-based. The study's objective is to assess the effects of intermittent and continuous sedation on mechanically ventilated patients' length of stay in the critical care unit, frequency of adverse events, and MV duration. Methods :This randomised clinical research included 100 critically sick patients who had recently needed mechanical ventilation and were anticipated to need it for more than 24 hours. The patients were divided into two groups at random: group A, which received midazolam infusions of 1 to 8 mg/hour or 0.01 to 0.1 mg/kg/hour, titrated to the desired level of sedation, and morphine infusions of 2 to 30 mg/hour when they became agitated with a sedation agitation score (SAS) of 5 or higher. Group B, which received intermittent sedation, received morphine when they became agitated Results : When compared to patients receiving continuous sedation, those receiving intermittent sedation showed considerably greater SAS (P 0.001). Within 3 days of the follow-up, NAS was substantially different and lower when dealing with patients on intermittent sedation as opposed to those on continuous sedation (P values 0.001). When compared to patients receiving continuous sedation (median duration: 105 hr), those receiving intermittent sedation (median time: 47 hr, HR (95 percent CI): 4.686 (2.799: 7.847)), were on MV for a considerably shorter period of time with a greater HR of being extubated (P 0.001). While tracheostomy was not a predictor, the APACHE II score, being reintubated, and the incidence of delirium all significantly predicted the length of MV (coefficient: 2.361, 95 percent CI: 1.175 to 3.548, P0.001, coefficient: 28.411, 95 percent CI: 10.134 to 46.688, P=0.003, and coefficient: 21.222, 95 percent CI: 10.348 to 32.097, P0.001). Conclusions :Patients who had intermittent sedation experienced considerably lower rates of reintubation, NAS, brief MV stays, and longer hospital stays than those under continuous sedation, but significantly greater SAS.\",\"PeriodicalId\":8745,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Benha Journal of Applied Sciences\",\"volume\":\"84 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Benha Journal of Applied Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21608/bjas.2023.222626.1206\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Benha Journal of Applied Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21608/bjas.2023.222626.1206","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景 :为了减少患者在机械呼吸过程中的疼痛和躁动,镇静已成为重症监护管理(MV)的重要组成部分。以证据为基础的药物治疗将改变患者的短期和长期预后。本研究的目的是评估间歇性镇静和持续性镇静对机械通气患者在重症监护病房的住院时间、不良事件发生频率和重症监护持续时间的影响。方法 :这项随机临床研究包括 100 名近期需要机械通气且预计需要机械通气超过 24 小时的重症患者。这些患者被随机分为两组:A组接受咪达唑仑注射,剂量为1至8毫克/小时或0.01至0.1毫克/千克/小时,滴定至所需的镇静水平;当患者出现躁动,镇静躁动评分(SAS)达到或超过5分时,接受吗啡注射,剂量为2至30毫克/小时。结果:与接受持续镇静的患者相比,接受间歇镇静的患者的镇静躁动评分要高得多(P 0.001)。在随访的 3 天内,接受间歇性镇静剂的患者与接受持续性镇静剂的患者相比,NAS 显著不同且更低(P 值为 0.001)。与接受持续镇静的患者(中位持续时间:105 小时)相比,接受间歇镇静的患者(中位持续时间:47 小时,HR(95%):0.001)的NAS更低:47 小时,HR(95% CI):4.686(2.799:7.847)),使用 MV 的时间更短,拔管的 HR 更大(P 0.001)。虽然气管切开术不是预测因素,但 APACHE II 评分、再次插管和谵妄发生率都能显著预测 MV 的持续时间(系数:2.361,95% CI:1.175 至 3.548,P0.001;系数:28.411,95% CI:10.134 至 46.688,P=0.003;系数:21.222,95% CI:10.348 至 32.097,P0.001)。结论 :与持续镇静法相比,间歇镇静法患者的再插管率、NAS、短暂MV停留时间和住院时间更长,但SAS明显更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Intermittent versus Continuous Sedation during Mechanical Ventilation in Critically Ill Patient
Background :In order to reduce patient pain and agitation during mechanical breathing, sedation has grown to be a crucial component of critical care management (MV). Patients' short-and long-term outcomes will alter as a result of pharmaceutical treatment that is evidence-based. The study's objective is to assess the effects of intermittent and continuous sedation on mechanically ventilated patients' length of stay in the critical care unit, frequency of adverse events, and MV duration. Methods :This randomised clinical research included 100 critically sick patients who had recently needed mechanical ventilation and were anticipated to need it for more than 24 hours. The patients were divided into two groups at random: group A, which received midazolam infusions of 1 to 8 mg/hour or 0.01 to 0.1 mg/kg/hour, titrated to the desired level of sedation, and morphine infusions of 2 to 30 mg/hour when they became agitated with a sedation agitation score (SAS) of 5 or higher. Group B, which received intermittent sedation, received morphine when they became agitated Results : When compared to patients receiving continuous sedation, those receiving intermittent sedation showed considerably greater SAS (P 0.001). Within 3 days of the follow-up, NAS was substantially different and lower when dealing with patients on intermittent sedation as opposed to those on continuous sedation (P values 0.001). When compared to patients receiving continuous sedation (median duration: 105 hr), those receiving intermittent sedation (median time: 47 hr, HR (95 percent CI): 4.686 (2.799: 7.847)), were on MV for a considerably shorter period of time with a greater HR of being extubated (P 0.001). While tracheostomy was not a predictor, the APACHE II score, being reintubated, and the incidence of delirium all significantly predicted the length of MV (coefficient: 2.361, 95 percent CI: 1.175 to 3.548, P0.001, coefficient: 28.411, 95 percent CI: 10.134 to 46.688, P=0.003, and coefficient: 21.222, 95 percent CI: 10.348 to 32.097, P0.001). Conclusions :Patients who had intermittent sedation experienced considerably lower rates of reintubation, NAS, brief MV stays, and longer hospital stays than those under continuous sedation, but significantly greater SAS.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Study of Cardiac Injury In Post COVID Children Etiopathogenesis of Acne Vulgaris Effect of Paternalistic Leadership Educational Program For Head Nurses on Staff Nurses’ psychological Empowerment Quality of Life among Patients with Helicobacter Pylori Infection Enhancing Nursing Personnel- physicians' Communication and Collaboration: Its Effect on Nursing Productivity
×
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:481959085
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