Key result
Propofol 2% for prolonged ICU sedation resulted in a 19.6% therapeutic failure rate compared to 33.4% with propofol 1% (p=0.127), but significantly reduced hypertriglyceridemia (3.9% vs 20.4%, p=0.016).
Why the study?
Does propofol 2% improve therapeutic failure rates and weaning times compared to propofol 1% and midazolam in ICU patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation?
Population
51 consecutive patients admitted to a community hospital intensive care unit requiring mechanical…
Comparison
Propofol 2% and morphine chloride targeted to a… vs Two historical control groups sedated with…
Design
Cohort, Open-label
Follow-up
122.4 +/- 89.2 hours (duration of sedation)
Authors
Loading...
May reduce hypertriglyceridemia risk with prolonged propofol sedation; hypothesis-generating for therapeutic failure benefits in ICU cohorts.
Cohort (n=51)
Open-label
No
Does propofol 2% improve therapeutic failure rates and weaning times compared to propofol 1% and midazolam in ICU patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation?
Absolute Event Rate: 19.6% vs 33.4%
p-value: p=0.127
Propofol 2% is an effective and safe sedative for prolonged ICU mechanical ventilation, offering lower hypertriglyceridemia rates than propofol 1% and shorter weaning times than midazolam, though requiring higher initial doses.
Barrientos-Vega et al. (2001) conducted a cohort in Prolonged sedation requiring mechanical ventilation (n=51). Propofol 2% vs. Propofol 1% and midazolam was evaluated on Therapeutic failure (inability to attain desired sedation level or hypertriglyceridemia >500 mg/dL) (p=0.127). Propofol 2% for prolonged ICU sedation resulted in a 19.6% therapeutic failure rate compared to 33.4% with propofol 1% (p=0.127), but significantly reduced hypertriglyceridemia (3.9% vs 20.4%, p=0.016).