来自19个国家的机械通气神经危重症患者的镇静实践:一项国际队列研究。

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neurocritical Care Pub Date : 2025-01-07 DOI:10.1007/s12028-024-02200-1
Shi Nan Feng, Lindsay H Laws, Camilo Diaz-Cruz, Raphael Cinotti, Marcus J Schultz, Karim Asehnoune, Robert D Stevens, Chiara Robba, Sung-Min Cho
{"title":"来自19个国家的机械通气神经危重症患者的镇静实践:一项国际队列研究。","authors":"Shi Nan Feng, Lindsay H Laws, Camilo Diaz-Cruz, Raphael Cinotti, Marcus J Schultz, Karim Asehnoune, Robert D Stevens, Chiara Robba, Sung-Min Cho","doi":"10.1007/s12028-024-02200-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Our objective was to characterize the impact of common initial sedation practices on invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) duration and in-hospital outcomes in patients with acute brain injury (ABI) and to elucidate variations in practices between high-income and middle-income countries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a post hoc analysis of a prospective observational data registry of neurocritically ill patients requiring IMV. The setting included 73 intensive care units (ICUs) in 18 countries, with a total of 1,450 patients with ABI requiring IMV. There were no interventions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients were categorized into day 1 propofol, midazolam, propofol and midazolam, dexmedetomidine, or sodium thiopental. The primary outcome was duration of IMV. Secondary outcomes were ICU and hospital mortality, ICU length of stay, days to first extubation, extubation failure, and withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. Multivariable analyses were adjusted for clinically preselected covariates. Of 1,450 included patients (median age 54 years, 66% male), 41.2% (n = 597) were started on propofol, 26.1% (n = 379) were started on midazolam, 19.9% were started on propofol and midazolam, 0.3% (n = 5) were started on sodium thiopental, 0.7% (n = 10) were started on dexmedetomidine, and 11.8% (n = 171) were treated without sedation. After adjustment, there was no significant difference in IMV duration between patients who received midazolam (aβ = 0.64, p = 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.96 to 2.24) or propofol and midazolam (aβ = 0.32, p = 0.46, 95% CI - 1.44 to 2.12) compared with patients who received propofol. Patients who were started on midazolam had an average length of ICU stay that was 2.78 days longer than patients started on propofol (p = 0.003, 95% CI 0.94-4.63). There were no differences in mortality, days to first extubation, extubation failure, or withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. Patients from high-income countries (n = 1,125) were more likely to receive propofol on day 1 (45.7 vs. 25.5%), whereas patients from middle-income countries (n = 325) were more likely to receive midazolam (32.6 vs. 24.3%) (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In an international registry of patients with ABI requiring IMV, IMV duration did not differ significantly relative to initial sedation strategy. However, patients started on midazolam had longer ICU stay.</p>","PeriodicalId":19118,"journal":{"name":"Neurocritical Care","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Sedation Practices in Mechanically Ventilated Neurocritical Care Patients from 19 Countries: An International Cohort Study.\",\"authors\":\"Shi Nan Feng, Lindsay H Laws, Camilo Diaz-Cruz, Raphael Cinotti, Marcus J Schultz, Karim Asehnoune, Robert D Stevens, Chiara Robba, Sung-Min Cho\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12028-024-02200-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Our objective was to characterize the impact of common initial sedation practices on invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) duration and in-hospital outcomes in patients with acute brain injury (ABI) and to elucidate variations in practices between high-income and middle-income countries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a post hoc analysis of a prospective observational data registry of neurocritically ill patients requiring IMV. The setting included 73 intensive care units (ICUs) in 18 countries, with a total of 1,450 patients with ABI requiring IMV. There were no interventions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Patients were categorized into day 1 propofol, midazolam, propofol and midazolam, dexmedetomidine, or sodium thiopental. The primary outcome was duration of IMV. Secondary outcomes were ICU and hospital mortality, ICU length of stay, days to first extubation, extubation failure, and withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. Multivariable analyses were adjusted for clinically preselected covariates. Of 1,450 included patients (median age 54 years, 66% male), 41.2% (n = 597) were started on propofol, 26.1% (n = 379) were started on midazolam, 19.9% were started on propofol and midazolam, 0.3% (n = 5) were started on sodium thiopental, 0.7% (n = 10) were started on dexmedetomidine, and 11.8% (n = 171) were treated without sedation. After adjustment, there was no significant difference in IMV duration between patients who received midazolam (aβ = 0.64, p = 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.96 to 2.24) or propofol and midazolam (aβ = 0.32, p = 0.46, 95% CI - 1.44 to 2.12) compared with patients who received propofol. Patients who were started on midazolam had an average length of ICU stay that was 2.78 days longer than patients started on propofol (p = 0.003, 95% CI 0.94-4.63). There were no differences in mortality, days to first extubation, extubation failure, or withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. Patients from high-income countries (n = 1,125) were more likely to receive propofol on day 1 (45.7 vs. 25.5%), whereas patients from middle-income countries (n = 325) were more likely to receive midazolam (32.6 vs. 24.3%) (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In an international registry of patients with ABI requiring IMV, IMV duration did not differ significantly relative to initial sedation strategy. However, patients started on midazolam had longer ICU stay.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19118,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurocritical Care\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurocritical Care\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-024-02200-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurocritical Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-024-02200-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:我们的目的是描述常见的初始镇静做法对急性脑损伤(ABI)患者有创机械通气(IMV)持续时间和住院结果的影响,并阐明高收入和中等收入国家之间做法的差异。方法:这是一项对需要IMV的神经危重症患者的前瞻性观察性数据登记的事后分析。该环境包括18个国家的73个重症监护病房(icu),共有1450名ABI患者需要IMV。没有干预。结果:患者分为第1天异丙酚、咪达唑仑、异丙酚和咪达唑仑、右美托咪定或硫喷妥钠。主要观察指标为IMV持续时间。次要结局是ICU和住院死亡率、ICU住院时间、首次拔管天数、拔管失败和停止生命维持治疗。对临床预选协变量进行多变量分析调整。在1450例纳入的患者中(中位年龄54岁,66%为男性),41.2% (n = 597)开始使用异丙酚,26.1% (n = 379)开始使用咪达唑仑,19.9%开始使用异丙酚和咪达唑仑,0.3% (n = 5)开始使用硫喷妥钠,0.7% (n = 10)开始使用右美托咪定,11.8% (n = 171)不使用镇静治疗。调整后,与接受异丙酚的患者相比,接受咪达唑仑(aβ = 0.64, p = 0.43, 95%可信区间[CI] - 0.96 ~ 2.24)或异丙酚和咪达唑仑(aβ = 0.32, p = 0.46, 95% CI - 1.44 ~ 2.12)的患者IMV持续时间无显著差异。开始使用咪达唑仑的患者在ICU的平均住院时间比开始使用异丙酚的患者长2.78天(p = 0.003, 95% CI 0.94-4.63)。在死亡率、首次拔管天数、拔管失败或停止生命维持治疗方面没有差异。来自高收入国家的患者(n = 1125)更有可能在第1天接受异丙酚(45.7%对25.5%),而来自中等收入国家的患者(n = 325)更有可能接受咪达唑仑(32.6对24.3%)(p结论:在ABI患者需要IMV的国际注册中,IMV持续时间与初始镇静策略没有显著差异。然而,开始服用咪达唑仑的患者在ICU的住院时间更长。
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
Sedation Practices in Mechanically Ventilated Neurocritical Care Patients from 19 Countries: An International Cohort Study.

Background: Our objective was to characterize the impact of common initial sedation practices on invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) duration and in-hospital outcomes in patients with acute brain injury (ABI) and to elucidate variations in practices between high-income and middle-income countries.

Methods: This was a post hoc analysis of a prospective observational data registry of neurocritically ill patients requiring IMV. The setting included 73 intensive care units (ICUs) in 18 countries, with a total of 1,450 patients with ABI requiring IMV. There were no interventions.

Results: Patients were categorized into day 1 propofol, midazolam, propofol and midazolam, dexmedetomidine, or sodium thiopental. The primary outcome was duration of IMV. Secondary outcomes were ICU and hospital mortality, ICU length of stay, days to first extubation, extubation failure, and withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. Multivariable analyses were adjusted for clinically preselected covariates. Of 1,450 included patients (median age 54 years, 66% male), 41.2% (n = 597) were started on propofol, 26.1% (n = 379) were started on midazolam, 19.9% were started on propofol and midazolam, 0.3% (n = 5) were started on sodium thiopental, 0.7% (n = 10) were started on dexmedetomidine, and 11.8% (n = 171) were treated without sedation. After adjustment, there was no significant difference in IMV duration between patients who received midazolam (aβ = 0.64, p = 0.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] - 0.96 to 2.24) or propofol and midazolam (aβ = 0.32, p = 0.46, 95% CI - 1.44 to 2.12) compared with patients who received propofol. Patients who were started on midazolam had an average length of ICU stay that was 2.78 days longer than patients started on propofol (p = 0.003, 95% CI 0.94-4.63). There were no differences in mortality, days to first extubation, extubation failure, or withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy. Patients from high-income countries (n = 1,125) were more likely to receive propofol on day 1 (45.7 vs. 25.5%), whereas patients from middle-income countries (n = 325) were more likely to receive midazolam (32.6 vs. 24.3%) (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: In an international registry of patients with ABI requiring IMV, IMV duration did not differ significantly relative to initial sedation strategy. However, patients started on midazolam had longer ICU stay.

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
Neurocritical Care
Neurocritical Care 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
8.60%
发文量
221
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Neurocritical Care is a peer reviewed scientific publication whose major goal is to disseminate new knowledge on all aspects of acute neurological care. It is directed towards neurosurgeons, neuro-intensivists, neurologists, anesthesiologists, emergency physicians, and critical care nurses treating patients with urgent neurologic disorders. These are conditions that may potentially evolve rapidly and could need immediate medical or surgical intervention. Neurocritical Care provides a comprehensive overview of current developments in intensive care neurology, neurosurgery and neuroanesthesia and includes information about new therapeutic avenues and technological innovations. Neurocritical Care is the official journal of the Neurocritical Care Society.
期刊最新文献
Palliative Care Spiritual Assessment and Goals-of-Care Discussions in the Neurocritical Care Unit: Collaborating with Chaplains. States Do Not Delineate the "Accepted Medical Standards" for Brain Death/Death by Neurologic Criteria Determination. Does Celecoxib Actually Reduce Mortality in Patients with Spontaneous Intracerebral Hemorrhage? Hemoglobin Decrements are Associated with Ischemic Brain Lesions and Poor Outcomes in Patients with Intracerebral Hemorrhage. Safety Analysis of Visual Percutaneous Tracheostomy in Neurocritical Care Patients with Anticoagulation and Antithrombosis.
×
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