Propofol or midazolam--which is best for the sedation of adult ventilated patients in intensive care units? A systematic review

Successful Use of Propofol After Failed Palliative Sedation in Patients With Refractory Symptoms

Context: Propofol is a general anesthetic used in multiple clinical scenarios. Despite growing evidence supporting its use in palliative care, propofol is rarely used in palliative sedation. Reluctance toward the adoption of propofol as a sedative agent is often associated with fear of adverse events such as respiratory arrest. Objectives: We aimed to describe efficacy and safety of palliative sedation in refractory sedation with propofol using a protocol based on low, incremental dosing. Methods: A retrospective observational study featuring inpatients receiving sedative treatment with propofol in our palliative care unit in Madrid (Spain) between March 1, 2018 and February 28, 2023, following a newly developed protocol. Results: During the study period, 22 patients underwent sedation with propofol. Propofol was used successfully to control different refractory symptoms, mainly psychoexistential suffering and delirium. All patients had undergone previous failed attempts at sedation with other medications (midazolam or lemovepromazine) and presented risk factors for complicated sedation. All patients achieved satisfactory (profound) levels of sedation measured with the Ramsay Sedation Scale, but total doses varied greatly between patients. Most patients (17, 77%) received combined therapy with propofol and other sedative medications to harness synergies. The median time between start of sedation with propofol and death was 26.0 hours. No cases of apnea or death during induction were recorded. Conclusion: A protocol for palliative sedation with propofol based on low, incremental dosing, with the option of administering an initial induction bolus, shows excellent results regarding adequate levels of sedation, without observing apnea or respiratory depression. Our results promote the use of propofol to achieve palliative sedation in patients with refractory symptoms and risk factors for complicated sedation at the end of life.

Alpha-2 agonists for sedation in mechanically ventilated neurocritical care patients: a systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

Sedation is an important consideration in the care of the neurocritically ill patient. It provides anxiety and relief, facilitates procedures and nursing tasks, and minimizes intolerance of mechanical ventilation. Alpha-2 agonists such as dexmedetomidine and clonidine have been shown to be an effective alternative in the general critical care population by reducing duration of mechanical ventilation and length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU), as compared to traditional sedative agents such as propofol or benzodiazepines. However, there is a paucity of literature detailing their utility and safety in neurocritical care, a population that presents unique considerations for management of global and cerebral hemodynamics, agitation, and facilitation of neurological assessments. The objective of this review is to assess the efficacy and safety of alpha-2 agonists for non-procedural sedation in mechanically ventilated brain-injured patients.

METHODS

We will search the Embase and MEDLINE databases for all randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort studies examining neurocritically ill adult patients aged 18 years and older who are on mechanical ventilation and receiving alpha-2 agonists for non-procedural sedation. Primary outcomes of interest include effect on mean arterial pressure (MAP), intracranial pressure (ICP), and cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP). Secondary outcomes include adverse events, duration of mechanical ventilation, 30-day mortality, ICU length of stay, incidence of delirium, and quality of sedation. Continuous outcomes will be presented as means and mean differences and discrete counting events will be presented as event rates. Pre-defined criteria for heterogeneity are provided for determination of pooling eligibility. Where appropriate, we will pool estimates for individual outcomes. Planned subgroup analyses include specific alpha-2 agonist agent, study design, clinical diagnosis, dosing regimen, and use of adjunctive agents. Quality of evidence for the recommendation will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach where appropriate.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review will summarize the evidence on the efficacy and safety for the use of alpha-2 agonists as sedative agents in the neurocritical care population.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016037045.

Propofol is associated with favorable outcomes compared with benzodiazepines in ventilated intensive care unit patients

RATIONALE

Mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients are frequently managed using a continuous-infusion sedative. Although recent guidelines suggest avoiding benzodiazepines for sedation, this class of drugs is still widely used. There are limited data comparing sedative agents in terms of clinical outcomes in an ICU setting.

OBJECTIVES

Comparison of propofol to midazolam and lorazepam in adult ICU patients.

METHODS

Data were obtained from a multicenter ICU database (2003-2009). Patient selection criteria included age greater than or equal to 18 years, single ICU admission with single ventilation event (>48 h), and treatment with continuously infused sedation (propofol, midazolam, or lorazepam). Propensity score analysis (1:1) was used and mortality measured. Cumulative incidence and competing risk methodology were used to examine time to ICU discharge and ventilator removal.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

There were 2,250 propofol-midazolam and 1,054 propofol-lorazepam matched patients. Hospital mortality was statistically lower in propofol-treated patients as compared with midazolam- or lorazepam-treated patients (risk ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.82 and risk ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.68-0.89, respectively). Competing risk analysis for 28-day ICU time period showed that propofol-treated patients had a statistically higher probability for ICU discharge (78.9% vs. 69.5%; 79.2% vs. 71.9%; P < 0.001) and earlier removal from the ventilator (84.4% vs. 75.1%; 84.3% vs. 78.8%; P < 0.001) when compared with midazolam- and lorazepam-treated patients, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In this large, propensity-matched ICU population, patients treated with propofol had a reduced risk of mortality and had both an increased likelihood of earlier ICU discharge and earlier discontinuation of mechanical ventilation.

Comparison of the safety and efficacy of propofol with midazolam for sedation of patients with severe traumatic brain injury: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To perform a meta-analysis to compare the safety and efficacy of propofol with midazolam for sedation of patients with severe traumatic brain injury.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Studies were included in the meta-analysis if they met the following criteria: randomized controlled trial of sedative-hypnotic agents including propofol and midazolam; patients had severe traumatic brain injury; the primary outcome was the Glasgow Outcome Scale score; secondary outcomes included mortality, therapeutic failure, intracranial pressure, and cerebral perfusion pressure. The data were analyzed using software for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Seven relevant studies were identified. Three of these studies were excluded: one was a single-arm study, one compared morphine and propofol, and for one the full text article could not be obtained. The remaining 4 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis showed that propofol and midazolam have similar effects on the Glasgow Outcome Scale score, mortality, intracranial pressure, and cerebral perfusion pressure.

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis of 4 studies showed that there are no important differences between propofol and midazolam when administered to provide sedation for patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Further randomized, controlled trials comparing propofol with midazolam for sedation of such patients are needed.

Sedation for critically ill or injured adults in the intensive care unit: a shifting paradigm

As most critically ill or injured patients will require some degree of sedation, the goal of this paper was to comprehensively review the literature associated with use of sedative agents in the intensive care unit (ICU). The first and selected latter portions of this article present a narrative overview of the shifting paradigm in ICU sedation practices, indications for uninterrupted or prolonged ICU sedation, and the pharmacology of sedative agents. In the second portion, we conducted a structured, although not entirely systematic, review of the available evidence associated with use of alternative sedative agents in critically ill or injured adults. Data sources for this review were derived by searching OVID MEDLINE and PubMed from their first available date until May 2012 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses and economic evaluations. Advances in the technology of mechanical ventilation have permitted clinicians to limit the use of sedation among the critically ill through daily sedative interruptions or other means. These practices have been reported to result in improved mortality, a decreased length of ICU and hospital stay and a lower risk of drug-associated delirium. However, in some cases, prolonged or uninterrupted sedation may still be indicated, such as when patients develop intracranial hypertension following traumatic brain injury. The pharmacokinetics of sedative agents have clinical importance and may be altered by critical illness or injury, co-morbid conditions and/or drug-drug interactions. Although use of validated sedation scales to monitor depth of sedation is likely to reduce adverse events, they have no utility for patients receiving neuromuscular receptor blocking agents. Depth of sedation monitoring devices such as the Bispectral Index (BIS©) also have limitations. Among existing RCTs, no sedative agent has been reported to improve the risk of mortality among the critically ill or injured. Moreover, although propofol may be associated with a shorter time to tracheal extubation and recovery from sedation than midazolam, the risk of hypertriglyceridaemia and hypotension is higher with propofol. Despite dexmedetomidine being linked with a lower risk of drug-associated delirium than alternative sedative agents, this drug increases risk of bradycardia and hypotension. Among adults with severe traumatic brain injury, there are insufficient data to suggest that any single sedative agent decreases the risk of subsequent poor neurological outcomes or mortality. The lack of examination of confounders, including the type of healthcare system in which the investigation was conducted, is a major limitation of existing pharmacoeconomic analyses, which likely limits generalizability of their results.

Effect of a nurse-implemented sedation protocol on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia*

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the use of a nurse-implemented sedation protocol could reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients.

DESIGN

Two-phase (before-after), prospective, controlled study.

SETTING

University-affiliated, 11-bed medical intensive care unit.

PATIENTS

Patients requiring mechanical ventilation for >or=48 hrs and sedative infusion with midazolam or propofol alone.

INTERVENTIONS

During the control phase, sedatives were adjusted according to the physician's decision. During the protocol phase, sedatives were adjusted according to a protocol developed by a multidisciplinary team including nurses and physicians. The protocol was based on the Cambridge scale, and sedation level was adjusted every 3 hrs by the nurses. Standard practices, including weaning from the ventilator and diagnosis of VAP, were the same during both study phases.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 423 patients were enrolled (control group, n = 226; protocol group, n = 197). The incidence of VAP was significantly lower in the protocol group compared with the control group (6% and 15%, respectively, p = .005). By univariate analysis (log-rank test), only use of a nurse-implemented protocol was significantly associated with a decrease of incidence of VAP (p < .01). A nurse-implemented protocol was found to be independently associated with a lower incidence of VAP after adjustment on Simplified Acute Physiology Score II in the multivariate Cox proportional hazards model (hazard rate, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-0.95; p = .03). The median duration of mechanical ventilation was significantly shorter in the protocol group (4.2 days; interquartile range, 2.1-9.5) compared with the control group (8 days; interquartile range, 2.2-22.0; p = .001), representing a 52% relative reduction. Extubation failure was more frequently observed in the control group compared with the protocol group (13% and 6%, respectively, p = .01). There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality (38% vs. 45% in the protocol vs. control group, respectively, p = .22).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients receiving mechanical ventilation and requiring sedative infusions with midazolam or propofol, the use of a nurse-implemented sedation protocol decreases the rate of VAP and the duration of mechanical ventilation.

Sedation in neurointensive care: advances in understanding and practice

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To evaluate the rationale and the pharmacologic options for sedating neurointensive care patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Sedation is a fundamental element in the neurointensive care unit. Even if the sedative strategy in the neurointensive care unit shares the same general aims with intensive care, the characteristics of the patients in the neurointensive care unit pose other unique challenges and some specific indications. The primary aim of neurointensive care is to maintain adequate cerebral perfusion pressure, to control intracranial pressure, and to maintain an adequate mean arterial pressure. Reducing the brain's metabolic demand is an important treatment strategy, and analgesic and sedative agents are used to prevent undesirable increases in intracranial pressure. There are many different pharmacologic agents available, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages.

SUMMARY

The pharmacokinetic and pharmacologic effects of the available sedatives used in neurointensive care patients are reviewed.