外伤性脑损伤的早期镇静:一项多中心国际观察研究

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE Critical Care and Resuscitation Pub Date : 2022-12-05 DOI:10.51893/2022.4.OA2
Giovanni Russo , Anatole Harrois , James Anstey , Mathieu Van Der Jagt , Fabio Taccone , Andrew Udy , Giuseppe Citerio , Jacques Duranteau , Carole Ichai , Rafael Badenes , John Prowle , Ari Ercole , Mauro Oddo , Antoine Schneider , Stefan Wolf , Raimund Helbok , David Nelson , Jamie Cooper , For the TBI Collaborative Investigators
{"title":"外伤性脑损伤的早期镇静:一项多中心国际观察研究","authors":"Giovanni Russo ,&nbsp;Anatole Harrois ,&nbsp;James Anstey ,&nbsp;Mathieu Van Der Jagt ,&nbsp;Fabio Taccone ,&nbsp;Andrew Udy ,&nbsp;Giuseppe Citerio ,&nbsp;Jacques Duranteau ,&nbsp;Carole Ichai ,&nbsp;Rafael Badenes ,&nbsp;John Prowle ,&nbsp;Ari Ercole ,&nbsp;Mauro Oddo ,&nbsp;Antoine Schneider ,&nbsp;Stefan Wolf ,&nbsp;Raimund Helbok ,&nbsp;David Nelson ,&nbsp;Jamie Cooper ,&nbsp;For the TBI Collaborative Investigators","doi":"10.51893/2022.4.OA2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><strong>Objectives:</strong> We aimed to investigate the use of sedation in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), focusing on the choice of sedative agent, dose, duration, and their association with clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Design:</strong> Multinational, multicentre, retrospective observational study.</p><p><strong>Settings:</strong> 14 trauma centres in Europe, Australia and the United Kingdom.</p><p><strong>Participants:</strong> A total of 262 adult patients with severe TBI and intracranial pressure monitoring.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures:</strong> We described how sedative agents were used in this population. The primary outcome was 60-day mortality according to the use of different sedative agents. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale at hospital discharge.</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> Propofol and midazolam were the most commonly used sedatives. Propofol was more common than midazolam as first line therapy (35.4% <em>v</em> 25.6% respectively). Patients treated with propofol had similar Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in Traumatic Brain Injury (IMPACT) scores to patients treated with midazolam, but lower Injury Severity Score (ISS) (median, 26 [IQR, 22–38] <em>v</em> 34 [IQR, 26–44]; <em>P</em> = 0.001). The use of propofol was more common in heavier patients, and midazolam use was strongly associated with opioid co-administration (OR, 12.9; 95% CI, 3.47–47.95; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001). Sixty-day mortality and hospital mortality were predicted by a higher IMPACT score (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.001) and a higher ISS (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.001), but, after adjustment, were not related to the choice of sedative agent.</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Propofol was used more often than midazolam, and large doses were common for both sedatives. The first choice was highly variable, was affected by injury severity, and was not independently associated with 60-day mortality.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49215,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care and Resuscitation","volume":"24 4","pages":"Pages 319-329"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1441277223000388/pdfft?md5=6185b21053f5cf95ad12fe48b5b91d14&pid=1-s2.0-S1441277223000388-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Early sedation in traumatic brain injury: a multicentre international observational study\",\"authors\":\"Giovanni Russo ,&nbsp;Anatole Harrois ,&nbsp;James Anstey ,&nbsp;Mathieu Van Der Jagt ,&nbsp;Fabio Taccone ,&nbsp;Andrew Udy ,&nbsp;Giuseppe Citerio ,&nbsp;Jacques Duranteau ,&nbsp;Carole Ichai ,&nbsp;Rafael Badenes ,&nbsp;John Prowle ,&nbsp;Ari Ercole ,&nbsp;Mauro Oddo ,&nbsp;Antoine Schneider ,&nbsp;Stefan Wolf ,&nbsp;Raimund Helbok ,&nbsp;David Nelson ,&nbsp;Jamie Cooper ,&nbsp;For the TBI Collaborative Investigators\",\"doi\":\"10.51893/2022.4.OA2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p><strong>Objectives:</strong> We aimed to investigate the use of sedation in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), focusing on the choice of sedative agent, dose, duration, and their association with clinical outcomes.</p><p><strong>Design:</strong> Multinational, multicentre, retrospective observational study.</p><p><strong>Settings:</strong> 14 trauma centres in Europe, Australia and the United Kingdom.</p><p><strong>Participants:</strong> A total of 262 adult patients with severe TBI and intracranial pressure monitoring.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures:</strong> We described how sedative agents were used in this population. The primary outcome was 60-day mortality according to the use of different sedative agents. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale at hospital discharge.</p><p><strong>Results:</strong> Propofol and midazolam were the most commonly used sedatives. Propofol was more common than midazolam as first line therapy (35.4% <em>v</em> 25.6% respectively). Patients treated with propofol had similar Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in Traumatic Brain Injury (IMPACT) scores to patients treated with midazolam, but lower Injury Severity Score (ISS) (median, 26 [IQR, 22–38] <em>v</em> 34 [IQR, 26–44]; <em>P</em> = 0.001). The use of propofol was more common in heavier patients, and midazolam use was strongly associated with opioid co-administration (OR, 12.9; 95% CI, 3.47–47.95; <em>P</em> &lt; 0.001). Sixty-day mortality and hospital mortality were predicted by a higher IMPACT score (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.001) and a higher ISS (<em>P</em> &lt; 0.001), but, after adjustment, were not related to the choice of sedative agent.</p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> Propofol was used more often than midazolam, and large doses were common for both sedatives. The first choice was highly variable, was affected by injury severity, and was not independently associated with 60-day mortality.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49215,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical Care and Resuscitation\",\"volume\":\"24 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 319-329\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-12-05\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1441277223000388/pdfft?md5=6185b21053f5cf95ad12fe48b5b91d14&pid=1-s2.0-S1441277223000388-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical Care and Resuscitation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1441277223000388\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care and Resuscitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1441277223000388","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:我们旨在调查镇静在严重创伤性脑损伤(TBI)患者中的应用,重点关注镇静药物的选择、剂量、持续时间及其与临床结果的关系。设计:多国、多中心、回顾性观察性研究。地点:欧洲、澳大利亚和英国的14个创伤中心。参与者:262例有颅内压监测的严重TBI成年患者。主要结局指标:我们描述了在这一人群中使用镇静剂的情况。主要结局是根据使用不同镇静剂的60天死亡率。次要结局包括重症监护病房和住院时间,以及出院时的扩展格拉斯哥结局量表。结果:异丙酚和咪达唑仑是最常用的镇静剂。异丙酚比咪达唑仑更常作为一线治疗(分别为35.4%和25.6%)。异丙酚组患者的急性生理和慢性健康评估(APACHE) II和国际创伤性脑损伤预后和临床试验分析任务(IMPACT)评分与咪达唑仑组相似,但损伤严重程度评分(ISS)较低(中位数,26 [IQR, 22-38] vs 34 [IQR, 26 - 44];P = 0.001)。异丙酚的使用在体重较重的患者中更为常见,咪达唑仑的使用与阿片类药物的共同给药密切相关(OR, 12.9;95% ci, 3.47-47.95;P & lt;0.001)。较高的IMPACT评分可预测60天死亡率和住院死亡率(P <0.001)和更高的ISS (P <0.001),但经调整后,与镇静剂的选择无关。结论:异丙酚的使用频率高于咪达唑仑,且两种镇静剂均大剂量使用。第一种选择是高度可变的,受损伤严重程度的影响,与60天死亡率没有独立的相关性。
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
Early sedation in traumatic brain injury: a multicentre international observational study

Objectives: We aimed to investigate the use of sedation in patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI), focusing on the choice of sedative agent, dose, duration, and their association with clinical outcomes.

Design: Multinational, multicentre, retrospective observational study.

Settings: 14 trauma centres in Europe, Australia and the United Kingdom.

Participants: A total of 262 adult patients with severe TBI and intracranial pressure monitoring.

Main outcome measures: We described how sedative agents were used in this population. The primary outcome was 60-day mortality according to the use of different sedative agents. Secondary outcomes included intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale at hospital discharge.

Results: Propofol and midazolam were the most commonly used sedatives. Propofol was more common than midazolam as first line therapy (35.4% v 25.6% respectively). Patients treated with propofol had similar Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical Trials in Traumatic Brain Injury (IMPACT) scores to patients treated with midazolam, but lower Injury Severity Score (ISS) (median, 26 [IQR, 22–38] v 34 [IQR, 26–44]; P = 0.001). The use of propofol was more common in heavier patients, and midazolam use was strongly associated with opioid co-administration (OR, 12.9; 95% CI, 3.47–47.95; P < 0.001). Sixty-day mortality and hospital mortality were predicted by a higher IMPACT score (P < 0.001) and a higher ISS (P < 0.001), but, after adjustment, were not related to the choice of sedative agent.

Conclusions: Propofol was used more often than midazolam, and large doses were common for both sedatives. The first choice was highly variable, was affected by injury severity, and was not independently associated with 60-day mortality.

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
Critical Care and Resuscitation
Critical Care and Resuscitation CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
3.40%
发文量
44
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: ritical Care and Resuscitation (CC&R) is the official scientific journal of the College of Intensive Care Medicine (CICM). The Journal is a quarterly publication (ISSN 1441-2772) with original articles of scientific and clinical interest in the specialities of Critical Care, Intensive Care, Anaesthesia, Emergency Medicine and related disciplines. The Journal is received by all Fellows and trainees, along with an increasing number of subscribers from around the world. The CC&R Journal currently has an impact factor of 3.3, placing it in 8th position in world critical care journals and in first position in the world outside the USA and Europe.
期刊最新文献
Recommendations for the College of Intensive Care Medicine (CICM) trainee research project: A modified Delphi study ARDS, guidelines and ANZ practice: The persistent disconnect Management of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome in Australia and New Zealand (SAGE-ANZ): An observational study Sonographic evaluation of intracranial hemodynamics and pressure after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: An exploratory sub-study of the TAME trial A retrospective registry-based study into the proportion of patients admitted to intensive care who have anaphylaxis as a principal diagnosis and their outcomes in Australia and New Zealand
×
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