• D L Herr, K Kelly, J B Hall, J Ulatowski, G J Fulda, B Cason, R Hickey, A M Nejman, G P Zaloga, and D Teres.
• Washington Hospital Center, Washington DC 20010, USA.
• Intensive Care Med. 2000 Jan 1;26 Suppl 4:S452-62.

ObjectiveTo compare propofol with disodium edetate (EDTA) and propofol without EDTAwhen used for the sedation of critically ill surgical intensive care unit (ICU) patients.DesignProspective, randomised, multicentre trial.PatientsA total of 122 surgical ICU patients who required intubation and mechanical ventilation.InterventionsPatients were randomised to receive either propofol or propofol plus EDTA (propofol EDTA) by continuous infusion for sedation.Measurements And ResultsThe addition of EDTA to propofol had no effect on calcium or magnesium homeostasis, renal function, haemodynamic function, or efficacy when used for the sedation of surgical patients in the ICU. The most common adverse events were hypotension, atrial fibrillation, and hypocalcaemia. In this trial, a greater number of serious adverse events and adverse events leading to withdrawal occurred in the propofol group relative to the propofol EDTA group. There was a significantly lower crude mortality rate at 7 and 28 days for the propofol EDTA group compared with the propofol group. There were no statistically significant differences between groups with respect to depth of sedation.ConclusionThe propofol EDTA formulation had no effect on calcium or magnesium homeostasis, renal function, or sedation efficacy compared with propofol alone when used for sedation in critically ill surgical ICU patients. There was a significant decrease in mortality in the propofol EDTA group compared with the propofol group. Further investigations are needed to validate this survival benefit and elucidate a possible mechanism.

40 keywords...

hide…