Propofol (P) and midazolam (M) are frequently given by continuous infusion for sedation in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients. We compared these drugs with regard to: (1) time-to-awaken; (2) reproducibility of bedside assessments of level of sedation; (3) time-to-sedation; and (4) change in oxygen consumption (V O2) from awake to sedated state. Seventy-three patients were prospectively randomized to receive either P (n=37) or M (n=36). Wake-up times after stopping the drug were assessed by blinded and unblinded observers, by asking patients to perform simple tasks. Times to sedate were assessed by consensus agreement among nurses and investigators. Demographics and APACHE II scores were not different between P and M. The P group had a significantly narrower range of wake-up times with a higher likelihood of waking in less than 60 min. Blinded versus unblinded observations had excellent correlation. Average time to sedate and decrease in V O2 were not different. We conclude that in this patient population: (1) both P and M achieved optimal sedation in a large fraction of patients when administered by specified dosing protocols; (2) P had a faster, more reliable, wake-up time; (3) assessments of time-to-awaken were objective and reproducible; (4) time to sedation was not significantly different; (5) V O2 decreased similarly with both.

Objective To explore the use of sedatives and analgesics, tools for scoring level of sedation, sedation and pain protocols, and daily interruptions in sedation in Australian and New Zealand intensive care units and to examine doctors' and nurses' opinions about the sedation management of critically ill patients. Methods A cross-sectional Internet-based survey design was used. In total, 2146 members of professional critical care organizations in Australia and New Zealand were e-mailed the survey during a 4-month period in 2006 through 2007. Results Of 348 members (16% response rate) who accessed the survey, 246 (71%) completed all sections. Morphine, fentanyl, midazolam, and propofol were the most commonly used medicines. Newer medicines, such as dexmedetomidine and remifentanil, and inhalant medications, such as nitrous oxide and isoflurane, were rarely used by most respondents. Respondents used protocols to manage sedatives (54%) and analgesics (51%), and sedation assessment tools were regularly used by 72%. A total of 62% reported daily interruption of sedation; 23% used daily interruption for more than 75% of patients. A disparity was evident between respondents' opinions on how deeply patients were usually sedated in practice and how deeply patients should ideally be sedated. Conclusions Newer medications are used much less than are traditional sedatives and analgesics. Sedation protocols are increasingly used in Australasia, despite equivocal evidence supporting their use. Similarly, daily interruption of sedation is common in management of patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Research is needed to explore contextual and personal factors that may affect sedation management.

No abstract

No abstract