miércoles, 1 de julio de 2015


Guías para el uso seguro de sedación y analgesia en procedimientos diagnósticos y terapéuticos en adultos: 2010
Guidelines for the safe use of procedural sedation and analgesia for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures in adults: 2010
Comparación de los efectos de ketamina, ketamina-dexmedetomidina y ketamina -midazolam en los pacientes quemados sometidos a cambios de apósitos
Comparison of effects of ketamine, ketamine-dexmedetomidine and ketamine-midazolam on dressing changes of burn patients. Gunduz M, Sakalli S, Gunes Y, Kesiktas E, Ozcengiz D, Isik G.
J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2011 Apr;27(2):220-4. doi: 10.4103/0970-9185.81823.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this randomized, controlled study was to compare the sedoanalgesic effects of ketamine-dexmedetomidine and ketamine-midazolam on dressing changes of burn patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Following Ethics Committee approval and informed patient consent, 90 ASA physical statuses I and II adult burn patients were included in the study. Patients were randomly divided into three groups. Ten minutes before dressing change, the dexmedetomidine group (group KD) (n = 30) received a continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine at a rate of 1 μg kg(-1), the midazolam group (group KM) (n = 30) received a continuous infusion of midazolam at a rate of 0.05 mg kg(-1) and the saline group (group KS) (n = 30) received a continuous infusion of saline intravenously. One minute before dressing change, each patient was administered 1 mg kg(-1) ketamine intravenously. Hemodynamic variables, pain and sedation scores, the number of patients requiring additional ketamine, time to dressing change and recovery time were recorded. RESULTS: Systolic blood pressure (SBP) values were significantly lower at, before and after ketamine administration; and 5, 10 and 15 minutes after the procedure in group KD in comparison with the other groups (P <0.05). There was no significant difference in pain scores among the groups during the study period. Sedation scores were significantly higher in group KD than in groups KM and KS at the end of the first hour (P <0.05). Time to dressing change and recovery time were similar in all the groups. CONCLUSION: In burn patients undergoing dressing changes, although both combinations ketamine-dexmedetomidine and ketamine-midazolam offered an effective sedoanalgesia without causing any significant side effect, the former resulted in higher sedation and lower hemodynamic discrepancy.
KEYWORDS: Burn; dexmedetomidine; dressing changes; ketamine; midazolam
Dexmedetomidina vs sedación estándar con propofol o midazolam en UCI. Evaluación económica
Dexmedetomidine versus standard care sedation with propofol or midazolam in intensive care: an economic evaluation.
Turunen H1, Jakob SM2, Ruokonen E3, Kaukonen KM4,5, Sarapohja T6, Apajasalo M7, Takala J8. Crit Care. 2015 Feb 19;19:67. doi: 10.1186/s13054-015-0787-y.
INTRODUCTION: Dexmedetomidine was shown in two European randomized double-blind double-dummy trials (PRODEX and MIDEX) to be non-inferior to propofol and midazolam in maintaining target sedation levels in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Additionally, dexmedetomidine shortened the time to extubation versus both standard sedatives, suggesting that it may reduce ICU resource needs and thus lower ICU costs. Considering resource utilization data from these two trials, we performed a secondary, cost-minimization analysis assessing the economics of dexmedetomidine versus standard care sedation. METHODS: The total ICU costs associated with each study sedative were calculated on the basis of total study sedative consumption and the number of days patients remained intubated, required non-invasive ventilation, or required ICU care without mechanical ventilation. The daily unit costs for these three consecutive ICU periods were set to decline toward discharge, reflecting the observed reduction in mean daily Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS) points between the periods. A number of additional sensitivity analyses were performed, including one in which the total ICU costs were based on the cumulative sum of daily TISS points over the ICU period, and two further scenarios, with declining direct variable daily costs only. RESULTS: Based on pooled data from both trials, sedation with dexmedetomidine resulted in lower total ICU costs than using the standard sedatives, with a difference of €2,656 in the median (interquartile range) total ICU costs-€11,864 (€7,070 to €23,457) versus €14,520 (€7,871 to €26,254)-and €1,649 in the mean total ICU costs. The median (mean) total ICU costs with dexmedetomidine compared with those of propofol or midazolam were €1,292 (€747) and €3,573 (€2,536) lower, respectively. The result was robust, indicating lower costs with dexmedetomidine in all sensitivity analyses, including those in which only direct variable ICU costs were considered. The likelihood of dexmedetomidine resulting in lower total ICU costs compared with pooled standard care was 91.0% (72.4% versus propofol and 98.0% versus midazolam). CONCLUSIONS: From an economic point of view, dexmedetomidine appears to be a preferable option compared with standard sedatives for providing light to moderate ICU sedation exceeding 24 hours. The savings potential results primarily from shorter time to extubation.
Opciones de sedación para el paciente con obesidad mórbida en UCI. Encuesta concisa y una agenda para el desarrollo.
Sedation options for the morbidly obese intensive care unit patient: a concise survey and an agenda for development.
Aantaa R, Tonner P, Conti G, Longrois D, Mantz J, Mulier JP.
Multidiscip Respir Med. 2015 Mar 7;10(1):8. doi: 10.1186/s40248-015-0007-2. eCollection 2015.
BACKGROUND: We offer some perspectives and commentary on the sedation of obese patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). DISCUSSION: Sedation in morbidly obese patients should conform to the same broad principles now current in ICU practice. These include a general presumption against benzodiazepines as first-line agents. Opioids should be avoided in any situation where spontaneous breathing is required. Remifentanil is the preferred agent where continuous stable opioid levels using an infusion are required, because of its lack of context-sensitive accumulation. Volatile anaesthetics may be an option for the same reason but there are no substantial, controlled demonstrations of effectiveness/safety in short-term use in the ICU setting. Propofol is a valuable resource in the morbidly obese patients but the duration of continuous sedation should not exceed 6 days, in order to avoid propofol infusion syndrome. Alpha-2 agonists offer a range of theoretically positive features for the sedation of morbidly obese patients, but at present there is a lack of pharmacokinetic data and a critical mass of high-grade clinical data. Dexmedetomidine has the attraction of not causing respiratory depression or obstructive breathing during sedation and its sympatholytic effects should help deliver stable blood pressure and heart rate. Ketamine has a poor tolerability profile in adults so its use in the ICU context is largely confined to paediatrics. CONCLUSION: None of the agents currently available is ideal for every situation encountered in the management of morbidly obese patients. This article identifies additional research needed to place sedation practice of obese patients on a more systematic footing.
KEYWORDS: Benzodiazepines; Clonidine; Dexmedetomidine; Intensive care; Ketamine; Obesity; Opioids; Propofol; Sedation; Volatile anaesthetics
Anestesia y Medicina del Dolor
Publicar un comentario en la entrada