Effects of dexmedetomidine versus propofol on outcomes in critically ill patients with different sedation depths: a propensity score-weighted cohort study

Objective

We explored the effects of dexmedetomidine (DEX) versus propofol on outcomes in critically ill patients and to assess whether these effects are dissimilar under different sedation depths.

Methods

A stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting cohort study was conducted using data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care IV database from 2008 to 2019. Adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients who were administered DEX or propofol as the primary sedative were identified. Various statistical methods were used to evaluate the effects of DEX versus propofol on outcomes.

Results

Data on 107 and 2318 patients in DEX and propofol groups, respectively, were analyzed. Compared to the propofol group, the DEX group exhibited longer ventilator-free days on day 28 and a shorter ICU stay. Conversely, it showed null associations of DEX with the risk of 90-day ICU mortality, the odds of persistent organ dysfunction on day 14 and acute kidney injury, and the duration of vasopressor-free days on day 28. Subgroup analyses revealed that DEX positively impacted persistent organ dysfunction on day 14, ventilator-free days on day 28, and ICU stay in the subgroup with a Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) score of ≥−2. However, DEX negatively impacted 90-day ICU mortality, persistent organ dysfunction on day 14, and ventilator-free days on day 28 in the subgroup with a RASS score of <−2.

Conclusion

Our results indicated that, compared with propofol, DEX had beneficial and adverse impacts on certain ICU outcomes in critically ill patients, and these impacts appeared to depend on sedation depths.