• Xuehui Gao, Xiaobo Yang, Yun Tang, Xiangzhi Fang, Yin Yuan, Hong Qi, Ruiting Li, Huaqing Shu, Xiaojing Zou, and You Shang.
• Department of Critical Care Medicine, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, China.
• J Clin Anesth. 2024 Aug 1; 95: 111442111442.

Study ObjectiveFospropofol disodium is a propofol prodrug that is water-soluble and has a reduced risk of bacterial contamination and hypertriglyceridemia compared with propofol. Prior to implementing a large randomized trial, we investigated the feasibility, initial efficacy, and safety of fospropofol disodium compared with propofol in long-term mild-to-moderate sedation in intensive care units (ICUs).DesignSingle-centered, prospective, unblind, randomized, parallel-group clinical trial.SettingThe general ICU of university-affiliated teaching hospital.PatientsAdult patients (n = 60) expected to have mechanical ventilation for >24 h were enrolled and randomly assigned to the fospropofol or propofol group.InterventionsThe fospropofol group received continuous fospropofol disodium infusions and the propofol group received continuous propofol infusions. The sedation goal was a score of -3 to 0 on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS).MeasurementsThe primary outcome was the percentage of time spent in the target sedation range without rescue sedation. Safety outcomes were based on adverse events. Blood samples were collected to measure formate concentration in plasma.Main ResultsThe median dose was 4.33 (IQR, 3.08-4.94) mg/kg/h in the fospropofol group and 1.96 (IQR, 1.44-2.94) mg/kg/h in the propofol group. The median percentage of time spent in the target RASS range without rescue sedation was identical in both groups, with 83.33% (IQR, 74.43%-100.00%) in the fospropofol group and 83.33% (IQR, 77.45%-100.00%) in the propofol group (p = 0.887). At least one adverse event was identifed in 23 (76.7%) fospropofol patients and 27 (90.0%) propofol patients. The most common adverse events were tachycardia and hypotension. No paresthesia, catheter-related bloodstream infection or propofol infusion syndrome in both groups was reported. Three patients in the fospropofol group had mild hypertriglyceridemia, and nine patients in propofol group had hypertriglyceridemia (mild in eight patients and moderate in one patient) (10% versus 30%, p = 0.104). The formate concentration in plasma was very low, and no significant difference was identified at any time point between the two groups.ConclusionsFospropofol disodium appears to be a feasible, effective and safe sedative for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation with long-term sedation.Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

32 keywords...

hide…