Abstract
Purpose: The optimal agent for deep sedation in patients undergoing continuous infusion (CI) neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) use for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is unknown. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of propofol and midazolam in ARDS patients requiring CI NMBA. Methods: A multi-center, retrospective study was performed in mechanically ventilated (MV) adult patients requiring CI NMBA for management of ARDS. The primary outcome was to compare the time to liberation from MV in patients sedated with propofol vs midazolam. Results: In the 109 patients included, there was no difference in time to MV liberation with propofol as compared to midazolam (121 hr [Interquartile range (IQR) 67 195] vs 98 hr [IQR 48, 292], P = .72). Median time to sedation emergence after NMBA discontinuation was shorter in patients receiving propofol (12.9 hr [IQR 19.8, 72.5] vs 31.5 hr [IQR 6.4, 34.6], P < .01). There were no significant differences in time to therapeutic sedation, ICU stay, mortality, and adverse events. Conclusion: Propofol may be an effective and safe alternative to midazolam for patients undergoing CI NMBA for ARDS. Additionally, patients receiving propofol may have a quicker return to light sedation after NMBA discontinuation.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call