• Critical care medicine · Feb 1995

    Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative Study Clinical Trial

    Comparison of propofol and midazolam for sedation in intensive care unit patients.

    • K P Ronan, T J Gallagher, B George, and B Hamby.
    • Department of Anesthesiology, University of Florida-College of Medicine, Gainesville.
    • Crit. Care Med. 1995 Feb 1;23(2):286-93.

    ObjectivesTo evaluate the comparative safety and effectiveness of intravenous infusion of propofol or midazolam when used for 12 to 24 hrs of sedation and to evaluate the quality of sedation during stimulation.DesignAn open, comparative, prospective, randomized study.SettingSurgical intensive care unit (ICU) in a university hospital.PatientsPostoperative, intubated, general surgical, and orthopedic patients requiring mechanical ventilation (n = 60).InterventionsNone.MeasurementsAssessments were made at baseline (0 time), 5, 10, 15, 30, 45, and 60 mins; at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24 hrs; and at the end of sedation. The assessments included systolic, mean, and diastolic blood pressures, heart rate, two-lead electrocardiogram, pulse oximetry oxygen saturation, FIO2, end-tidal CO2, respiratory rate, ventilator rate, tidal volume, and sedation scale. Vital signs and the sedation scale were obtained at 30, 60, and 90 mins and at 2, 4, 12, and 24 hrs after the end of sedation. At approximately 8 hrs and 24 hrs (or at the end of sedation), the patient's CO2 production was calculated over a 5-min interval. Every 4 hrs, the nurse would summarize and rate patient response during stimulation as well as the overall rating of the sedation and patient ability to tolerate the ICU setting.Main ResultsThere were no significant differences in pulse oximetry, arterial blood gas values, or respiratory measurements during sedation with propofol or midazolam. The mean heart rate was slower in the propofol group throughout the sedation and postsedation periods. The rating of sedation and tolerance of the ICU environment were significantly better for the propofol-treated group. Postsedation, the propofol group woke up faster on discontinuation of the sedative.ConclusionsPropofol was as safe and as efficacious as midazolam for continuous intravenous sedation. The quality of sedation was better in the propofol group.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.