• Wolfgang Lamm, Bernhard Nagler, Alexander Hermann, Oliver Robak, Peter Schellongowski, Nina Buchtele, Andja Bojic, Monika Schmid, Christian Zauner, Gottfried Heinz, Roman Ullrich, and Thomas Staudinger.
• 1 Department of Medicine I, Intensive Care Unit 13i2, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
• Int J Artif Organs. 2019 May 1; 42 (5): 233-240.

ObjectivePatients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation are frequently in need for sedation. Use of propofol has been associated with impaired oxygenator function due to adsorption to the membrane as well as lipid load. The aim of our retrospective analysis was to compare two different sedation regimens containing either propofol or midazolam with respect to oxygenator running time.MethodsMidazolam was used in 73 patients whereas propofol was used in 49 patients, respectively. In the propofol group, veno-arterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was used predominantly (84%), while veno-venous-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was used more often in the midazolam group (64%).ResultsOxygenator running time until first exchange was 7 days in both groups ( p = 0.759). No statistically significant differences could be observed between the subgroup of patients receiving lipid-free (n = 24) and lipid-containing (n = 31) parenteral nutrition, respectively. Laboratory parameters like triglycerides, free hemoglobin, fibrinogen, platelets, and activated partial thromboplastin time were not significantly different between both sedation regimens ( p = 0.462, p = 0.489, p = 0.960, p = 0.134, and p = 0.843) and were not associated with oxygenator running time.ConclusionThe use of propofol as sedative seems suitable in patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy.

23 keywords...

hide…