苯巴比妥与苯二氮卓对原发性神经损伤的重症患者戒酒的安全性对比。

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-08-20 DOI:10.1177/10600280241271156
Robert Deveau, Adrian Wong, Mary Eche, Tuyen Yankama, Corey R Fehnel
{"title":"苯巴比妥与苯二氮卓对原发性神经损伤的重症患者戒酒的安全性对比。","authors":"Robert Deveau, Adrian Wong, Mary Eche, Tuyen Yankama, Corey R Fehnel","doi":"10.1177/10600280241271156","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is a complication of alcohol use disorder that manifests as a range of symptoms. Symptom-triggered benzodiazepines (BZDs) are often used as first-line treatment of AWS. However, recent literature suggests phenobarbital (PHB) may be safer and more efficacious, but studies are limited by exclusion of patients with neurological injuries.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to evaluate the safety of PHB compared to BZDs for the management of AWS among patients with primary neurologic injuries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective cohort study of patients with primary neurologic injuries admitted to an ICU who received PHB or symptom-triggered BZD for AWS between December 2013 and February 2020. The primary outcome was incidence of oversedation, defined as Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) scores from -5 to -3 within 24 hours of initial PHB or BZD dose. Secondary outcomes included largest decrease in RASS, need for mechanical ventilation, and additional sedative use within 24 hours of initial PHB or BZD dose. A multivariable analysis was performed to evaluate the association of PHB administration with the primary outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 600 patients treated for AWS, 84 patients were included in our analysis (PHB, n = 56; BZD, n = 28). In the unadjusted analysis, there were no differences between the PHB and BZD groups for the primary outcome of oversedation (21.4 vs. 7.1%, <i>P</i> = 0.13), or secondary outcomes of decrease in RASS (<i>P</i> = 0.34), or new ventilator requirement (<i>P</i> = 0.55). Patients who received PHB had higher rates of additional sedative use (<i>P</i> < 0.01). Multivariable regression revealed an increase in oversedation among intubated patients (<i>P</i> = 0.014), while PHB administration was not independently associated with oversedation (<i>P</i> = 0.516).</p><p><strong>Conclusion and relevance: </strong>Phenobarbital did not independently increase the risk of oversedation compared to BZD for AWS in patients with primary neurologic injuries. Future studies should determine optimal dosing of PHB in this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Safety of Phenobarbital Versus Benzodiazepines for Alcohol Withdrawal in Critically Ill Patients With Primary Neurologic Injuries.\",\"authors\":\"Robert Deveau, Adrian Wong, Mary Eche, Tuyen Yankama, Corey R Fehnel\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10600280241271156\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is a complication of alcohol use disorder that manifests as a range of symptoms. Symptom-triggered benzodiazepines (BZDs) are often used as first-line treatment of AWS. However, recent literature suggests phenobarbital (PHB) may be safer and more efficacious, but studies are limited by exclusion of patients with neurological injuries.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to evaluate the safety of PHB compared to BZDs for the management of AWS among patients with primary neurologic injuries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Retrospective cohort study of patients with primary neurologic injuries admitted to an ICU who received PHB or symptom-triggered BZD for AWS between December 2013 and February 2020. The primary outcome was incidence of oversedation, defined as Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) scores from -5 to -3 within 24 hours of initial PHB or BZD dose. Secondary outcomes included largest decrease in RASS, need for mechanical ventilation, and additional sedative use within 24 hours of initial PHB or BZD dose. A multivariable analysis was performed to evaluate the association of PHB administration with the primary outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 600 patients treated for AWS, 84 patients were included in our analysis (PHB, n = 56; BZD, n = 28). In the unadjusted analysis, there were no differences between the PHB and BZD groups for the primary outcome of oversedation (21.4 vs. 7.1%, <i>P</i> = 0.13), or secondary outcomes of decrease in RASS (<i>P</i> = 0.34), or new ventilator requirement (<i>P</i> = 0.55). Patients who received PHB had higher rates of additional sedative use (<i>P</i> < 0.01). Multivariable regression revealed an increase in oversedation among intubated patients (<i>P</i> = 0.014), while PHB administration was not independently associated with oversedation (<i>P</i> = 0.516).</p><p><strong>Conclusion and relevance: </strong>Phenobarbital did not independently increase the risk of oversedation compared to BZD for AWS in patients with primary neurologic injuries. Future studies should determine optimal dosing of PHB in this population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":2,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ACS Applied Bio Materials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10600280241271156\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10600280241271156","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:酒精戒断综合征(AWS)是酒精使用障碍的一种并发症,表现为一系列症状。症状触发型苯二氮卓(BZD)通常被用作戒酒综合征的一线治疗药物。然而,最近的文献表明苯巴比妥(PHB)可能更安全、更有效,但由于排除了神经损伤患者,因此研究受到了限制:我们旨在评估在治疗原发性神经损伤患者的 AWS 时,PHB 与 BZD 相比的安全性:回顾性队列研究:2013 年 12 月至 2020 年 2 月期间,入住 ICU 并接受 PHB 或症状触发 BZD 治疗 AWS 的原发性神经损伤患者。主要结果是过度镇静的发生率,定义为在首次服用 PHB 或 BZD 的 24 小时内,里士满躁动镇静量表(RASS)评分从-5 到-3。次要结果包括 RASS 的最大降幅、机械通气需求以及在首次服用 PHB 或 BZD 的 24 小时内额外使用镇静剂。我们进行了一项多变量分析,以评估PHB用药与主要结果之间的关系:在 600 名接受 AWS 治疗的患者中,有 84 名患者纳入了我们的分析(PHB,56 人;BZD,28 人)。在未经调整的分析中,PHB 组和 BZD 组在过度镇静这一主要结果(21.4% vs. 7.1%,P = 0.13)、RASS 下降这一次要结果(P = 0.34)或新的呼吸机需求(P = 0.55)方面没有差异。接受 PHB 治疗的患者额外使用镇静剂的比例更高(P < 0.01)。多变量回归显示,插管患者的过度镇静率有所上升(P = 0.014),而服用 PHB 与过度镇静无独立关联(P = 0.516):与 BZD 相比,苯巴比妥不会独立增加原发性神经损伤患者 AWS 的过度惊厥风险。未来的研究应确定 PHB 在这一人群中的最佳剂量。
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
Safety of Phenobarbital Versus Benzodiazepines for Alcohol Withdrawal in Critically Ill Patients With Primary Neurologic Injuries.

Background: Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is a complication of alcohol use disorder that manifests as a range of symptoms. Symptom-triggered benzodiazepines (BZDs) are often used as first-line treatment of AWS. However, recent literature suggests phenobarbital (PHB) may be safer and more efficacious, but studies are limited by exclusion of patients with neurological injuries.

Objective: We aimed to evaluate the safety of PHB compared to BZDs for the management of AWS among patients with primary neurologic injuries.

Methods: Retrospective cohort study of patients with primary neurologic injuries admitted to an ICU who received PHB or symptom-triggered BZD for AWS between December 2013 and February 2020. The primary outcome was incidence of oversedation, defined as Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) scores from -5 to -3 within 24 hours of initial PHB or BZD dose. Secondary outcomes included largest decrease in RASS, need for mechanical ventilation, and additional sedative use within 24 hours of initial PHB or BZD dose. A multivariable analysis was performed to evaluate the association of PHB administration with the primary outcome.

Results: Among 600 patients treated for AWS, 84 patients were included in our analysis (PHB, n = 56; BZD, n = 28). In the unadjusted analysis, there were no differences between the PHB and BZD groups for the primary outcome of oversedation (21.4 vs. 7.1%, P = 0.13), or secondary outcomes of decrease in RASS (P = 0.34), or new ventilator requirement (P = 0.55). Patients who received PHB had higher rates of additional sedative use (P < 0.01). Multivariable regression revealed an increase in oversedation among intubated patients (P = 0.014), while PHB administration was not independently associated with oversedation (P = 0.516).

Conclusion and relevance: Phenobarbital did not independently increase the risk of oversedation compared to BZD for AWS in patients with primary neurologic injuries. Future studies should determine optimal dosing of PHB in this population.

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
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
期刊最新文献
A Systematic Review of Sleep Disturbance in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension. Advancing Patient Education in Idiopathic Intracranial Hypertension: The Promise of Large Language Models. Anti-Myelin-Associated Glycoprotein Neuropathy: Recent Developments. Approach to Managing the Initial Presentation of Multiple Sclerosis: A Worldwide Practice Survey. Association Between LACE+ Index Risk Category and 90-Day Mortality After Stroke.
×
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