右美托咪定与异丙酚在心脏手术术后恢复中的对比:一项历史队列研究。

IF 3.4 3区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie Pub Date : 2024-11-19 DOI:10.1007/s12630-024-02877-0
Aubrey A Euteneuer, Misty A Radosevich, Toby N Weingarten, Troy G Seelhammer, Darrell Schroeder, Erica D Wittwer
{"title":"右美托咪定与异丙酚在心脏手术术后恢复中的对比:一项历史队列研究。","authors":"Aubrey A Euteneuer, Misty A Radosevich, Toby N Weingarten, Troy G Seelhammer, Darrell Schroeder, Erica D Wittwer","doi":"10.1007/s12630-024-02877-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The impact of postoperative dexmedetomidine sedation on outcomes following cardiac surgery remains controversial. We sought to compare postoperative sedation techniques with dexmedetomidine vs propofol infusions on postoperative recovery outcomes following cardiac surgery to assess whether dexmedetomidine is associated with longer time to achieve recovery milestones.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this historical cohort study, we abstracted the electronic medical records of a convenience sample of cardiac surgery patients either receiving dexmedetomidine (0.5-1.5 µg·kg<sup>-1</sup>·hr<sup>-1</sup>) or propofol (5-80 µg·kg<sup>-1</sup>·min<sup>-1</sup>) infusions for postoperative sedation. The study period included time periods where the standard postoperative sedation practice included dexmedetomidine (March 2019-January 2022) or propofol (January 2022-June 2022) infusions. Measured outcomes for both groups included time to tracheal extubation and intensive care unit and hospital length of stay.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two thousand and sixty-five patients receiving dexmedetomidine and 510 patients receiving propofol were included. Postoperative sedation after cardiac surgery with dexmedetomidine was associated with a 1.8-hr longer time to tracheal extubation than propofol (98.3% confidence interval, 1.5 to 2.1; P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Dexmedetomidine administration for postoperative sedation in a convenience sample of over 2,000 cardiac surgery patients was associated with a longer time to tracheal extubation than propofol.</p>","PeriodicalId":56145,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dexmedetomidine versus propofol for postoperative recovery after cardiac surgery: a historical cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Aubrey A Euteneuer, Misty A Radosevich, Toby N Weingarten, Troy G Seelhammer, Darrell Schroeder, Erica D Wittwer\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12630-024-02877-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The impact of postoperative dexmedetomidine sedation on outcomes following cardiac surgery remains controversial. We sought to compare postoperative sedation techniques with dexmedetomidine vs propofol infusions on postoperative recovery outcomes following cardiac surgery to assess whether dexmedetomidine is associated with longer time to achieve recovery milestones.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this historical cohort study, we abstracted the electronic medical records of a convenience sample of cardiac surgery patients either receiving dexmedetomidine (0.5-1.5 µg·kg<sup>-1</sup>·hr<sup>-1</sup>) or propofol (5-80 µg·kg<sup>-1</sup>·min<sup>-1</sup>) infusions for postoperative sedation. The study period included time periods where the standard postoperative sedation practice included dexmedetomidine (March 2019-January 2022) or propofol (January 2022-June 2022) infusions. Measured outcomes for both groups included time to tracheal extubation and intensive care unit and hospital length of stay.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two thousand and sixty-five patients receiving dexmedetomidine and 510 patients receiving propofol were included. Postoperative sedation after cardiac surgery with dexmedetomidine was associated with a 1.8-hr longer time to tracheal extubation than propofol (98.3% confidence interval, 1.5 to 2.1; P < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Dexmedetomidine administration for postoperative sedation in a convenience sample of over 2,000 cardiac surgery patients was associated with a longer time to tracheal extubation than propofol.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56145,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-024-02877-0\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12630-024-02877-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:术后右美托咪定镇静对心脏手术后疗效的影响仍存在争议。我们试图比较右美托咪定与异丙酚输注的术后镇静技术对心脏手术术后恢复结果的影响,以评估右美托咪定是否会延长达到恢复里程碑的时间:在这项历史性队列研究中,我们抽取了方便抽样的心脏手术患者的电子病历,这些患者要么接受右美托咪定(0.5-1.5 µg-kg-1-hr-1)输注,要么接受异丙酚(5-80 µg-kg-1-min-1)输注进行术后镇静。研究期间包括标准术后镇静实践包括右美托咪定(2019 年 3 月至 2022 年 1 月)或异丙酚(2022 年 1 月至 2022 年 6 月)输注的时间段。两组的测量结果包括气管拔管时间、重症监护室和住院时间:结果:纳入了265名接受右美托咪定治疗的患者和510名接受异丙酚治疗的患者。心脏手术后使用右美托咪定进行术后镇静比使用异丙酚延长了1.8小时的气管拔管时间(98.3%置信区间,1.5-2.1;P 结论:心脏手术后使用右美托咪定进行术后镇静比使用异丙酚延长了1.8小时的气管拔管时间(98.3%置信区间,1.5-2.1;P):在 2000 多名心脏手术患者的方便样本中,使用右美托咪定进行术后镇静比使用异丙酚拔除气管的时间更长。
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
Dexmedetomidine versus propofol for postoperative recovery after cardiac surgery: a historical cohort study.

Purpose: The impact of postoperative dexmedetomidine sedation on outcomes following cardiac surgery remains controversial. We sought to compare postoperative sedation techniques with dexmedetomidine vs propofol infusions on postoperative recovery outcomes following cardiac surgery to assess whether dexmedetomidine is associated with longer time to achieve recovery milestones.

Methods: In this historical cohort study, we abstracted the electronic medical records of a convenience sample of cardiac surgery patients either receiving dexmedetomidine (0.5-1.5 µg·kg-1·hr-1) or propofol (5-80 µg·kg-1·min-1) infusions for postoperative sedation. The study period included time periods where the standard postoperative sedation practice included dexmedetomidine (March 2019-January 2022) or propofol (January 2022-June 2022) infusions. Measured outcomes for both groups included time to tracheal extubation and intensive care unit and hospital length of stay.

Results: Two thousand and sixty-five patients receiving dexmedetomidine and 510 patients receiving propofol were included. Postoperative sedation after cardiac surgery with dexmedetomidine was associated with a 1.8-hr longer time to tracheal extubation than propofol (98.3% confidence interval, 1.5 to 2.1; P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine administration for postoperative sedation in a convenience sample of over 2,000 cardiac surgery patients was associated with a longer time to tracheal extubation than propofol.

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
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
161
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Canadian Journal of Anesthesia (the Journal) is owned by the Canadian Anesthesiologists’ Society and is published by Springer Science + Business Media, LLM (New York). From the first year of publication in 1954, the international exposure of the Journal has broadened considerably, with articles now received from over 50 countries. The Journal is published monthly, and has an impact Factor (mean journal citation frequency) of 2.127 (in 2012). Article types consist of invited editorials, reports of original investigations (clinical and basic sciences articles), case reports/case series, review articles, systematic reviews, accredited continuing professional development (CPD) modules, and Letters to the Editor. The editorial content, according to the mission statement, spans the fields of anesthesia, acute and chronic pain, perioperative medicine and critical care. In addition, the Journal publishes practice guidelines and standards articles relevant to clinicians. Articles are published either in English or in French, according to the language of submission.
期刊最新文献
Methods for determining optimal positive end-expiratory pressure in patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation: a scoping review. Dexmedetomidine versus propofol for postoperative recovery after cardiac surgery: a historical cohort study. Important features of hospitals, intensive care unit waiting rooms, and patient care rooms: perspectives of intensive care unit visitors. Squats, spinach, and soul: considering disparities in prehabilitation medicine before programmatic implementation. The implementation of preoperative optimization in British Columbia: a quality improvement initiative.
×
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