医学
神经重症监护
右美托咪定
格拉斯哥昏迷指数
回顾性队列研究
异丙酚
麻醉
镇静
不利影响
机械通风
创伤中心
观察研究
急诊医学
内科学
作者
Kent A. Owusu,Lisa Kurczewski,Michael Armahizer,Albert Zichichi,Carolina B. Maciel,Mojdeh Heavner
标识
DOI:10.1016/j.jcrc.2020.07.021
摘要
Although guidelines recommend dexmedetomidine (DEX) or propofol (PRO) as preferred sedatives in critically ill adults, comparisons in neurocritical care (NCC) are limited. We aimed to evaluate the clinical utility and safety of DEX compared with PRO in NCC setting. This retrospective, multicenter, observational cohort study conducted at three tertiary academic hospitals with Level 1 Trauma Center and Comprehensive Stroke Center designations, compared the clinical indication and safety of DEX vs PRO in patients in NCC setting. 179 patients were included (94 DEX and 85 PRO), median age of 58, 49% were male (DEX) and 58% were male (PRO). PRO was more commonly used to manage agitation. DEX was more commonly used for facilitating extubation, alcohol withdrawal, and sedation during frequent neurologic assessments. Mean Glasgow Coma Scale scores were higher in DEX group (11 vs. 9; p = .04). The duration of either infusions, mechanical ventilation, and lengths of stay were similar. No difference was observed in hypotension or bradycardia rates. Death was significantly higher with PRO (DEX 10% vs. PRO 22%; p = .02). DEX and PRO were used for distinct indications in our cohort. Adverse effect profiles and clinical outcome, in the cohorts are largely similar.
科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI