PURPOSE: To evaluate midazolam sequential with dexmedetomidine for agitated patients undergoing weaning to implement light sedation in ICU. METHODS: This randomized, prospective study was conducted in Tianjin Third Central Hospital, China. Using a sealed-envelope method, the patients were randomly divided into 2 groups (40 patients per group). Each patient of group A received an initial loading dose of midazolam at 0.3-3mg/kg·h 24 h before extubation, followed by an infusion of dexmedetomidine at a rate of 0.2-1 μg/kg·h until extubation. Each patient of group B received midazolam at a dose of 0.3-3 mg/kg·h until extubation. The dose of sedation was regulated according to RASS sedative scores maintaining in the range of -2-1. All patients were continuously monitored for 60 min after extubation. During the course, heart rate (HR), mean artery pressure (MAP), extubation time, adverse reactions, ICU stay, and hospital stay were observed and recorded continuously at the following time points: 24 h before extubation (T1), 12 h before extubation (T2), extubation (T3), 30 min after extubation (T4), 60 min after extubation (T5). RESULTS: Both groups reached the goal of sedation needed for ICU patients. Dexmedetomidine was associated with a significant increase in extubation quality compared with midazolam, reflected in the prevalence of delirium after extubation (20% (8/40) vs 45% (18/40)), respectively (p= 0.017). There were no clinically significant decreases in HR and MAP after infusing dexmedetomidine or midazolam. In the group A, HR was not significantly increased after extubation; however, in the group B, HR was significantly increased compared with the preextubation values (p < 0.05). HR was significantly higher in the group B compared with the group A at 30 and 60 min after extubation (both, p <0.05). Compared with preextubation values, MAP was significantly increased at extubation in the group B (p < 0.05) and MAP was significantly higher at T3, T4, T5 in the group B than group A (p < 0.05). There was a significant difference in extubation time ((3.0 ± 1.5) d vs (4.3 ± 2.2) d, p < 0.05), ICU stay ((5.4 ± 2.1) d vs (8.0 ± 1.4) d, p < 0.05), hospital stay ((10.1 ± 3.0) d vs (15.3 ± 2.6) d, p <0.05) between group A and B. CONCLUSION: Midazolam sequential with dexmedetomidine can reach the goal of sedation for ICU agitated patients, meanwhile it can maintain the respiratory and circulation parameters and reduce adverse reactions.
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 ormidazolam 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.
CONTEXT: Sleep deprivation is a common problem on intensive care units (ICUs) influencing not only cognition, but also cellular functions. An appropriate sleep-wake cycle should therefore be maintained to improve patients' outcome. Multiple disruptive factors on ICUs necessitate the administration of sedating and sleep-promoting drugs for patients who are not analgo-sedated. AIMS: The objective of the present study was to evaluate sleep quantity and sleep quality in ICU patients receiving either propofol or flunitrazepam. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: Monocentric, randomized, double-blinded trial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 66 ICU patients were enrolled in the study (flunitrazepam n = 32, propofol n = 34). Propofol was injected continuously (2 mg/kg/h), flunitrazepam as a bolus dose (0.015 mg/kg). Differences between groups were evaluated using a standardized sleep diary and the bispectral index (BIS). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Group comparisons were performed by Mann-Whitney U-Test. P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. RESULTS: Sleep quality and the frequency of awakenings were significantly better in the propofol group (Pg). In the same group lower BIS values were recorded (median BIS propofol 74.05, flunitrazepam 78.7 [P = 0.016]). BIS values had to be classified predominantly to slow-wave sleep under propofol and light sleep after administration of flunitrazepam. Sleep quality improved in the Pg with decreasing frequency of awakenings and in the flunitrazepam group with increasing sleep duration. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous low-dose injection of propofol for promoting and maintaining night sleep in ICU patients who are not analgo-sedated was superior to flunitrazepam regarding sleep quality and sleep structure. KEYWORDS: Bispectral index; intensive care unit; propofol; sleep