• Jacob Marler, Kerry Mohrien, Lauren A Kimmons, Joseph E Vandigo, Carrie S Oliphant, Adam N Boucher, and G Morgan Jones.
• Department of Pharmacy, Methodist University Hospital, Memphis, TN 38104; Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Tennessee Health Sciences Center (UTHSC), Memphis, TN 38163. Electronic address: Jacob.marler@mlh.org.
• J Crit Care. 2016 Oct 1; 35: 155-60.

PurposePropofol is one of the most commonly used sedatives in the intensive care unit (ICU) despite its undesirable hypotensive effects. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of continuous intravenous (CIV) propofol on vasopressor requirements in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis.Materials And MethodsA multicenter, retrospective, propensity-matched pilot study was conducted comparing patients with sepsis or severe sepsis who received CIV propofol for sedation to those who did not. The primary outcome was incidence of vasopressor support. Secondary outcomes included change in mean arterial pressure, mortality, and length of stay.ResultsA total of 279 patients (149 CIV propofol, 130 non-CIV propofol) were evaluated, with 174 patients matched 1:1 based on propensity score. There was no difference in vasopressor support requirements (49.4% vs 54%; P= .65) or in those experiencing a greater than 20% decrease in mean arterial pressure from baseline (58.6% vs 63.2%; P= .53) in the CIV propofol and non-CIV propofol groups. Furthermore, there were no differences in any secondary outcomes including hospital mortality (32.2% vs 33.3%; P= .87).ConclusionsContinuous intravenous propofol for sedation did not increase vasopressor requirements in this septic population. Furthermore, CIV propofol was not associated with significant differences in the use of multiple vasopressors, change in mean arterial pressure, length of stay, or mortality.Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

39 keywords...

hide…