IntroductionMidazolam and propofol used alone for long-term sedation are associated with adverse effects. Sequential use may reduce the adverse effects, and lead to faster recovery, earlier extubation and lower costs. This study evaluates the effects, safety, and cost of midazolam, propofol, and their sequential use for long-term sedation in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients.MethodsA total of 135 patients who required mechanical ventilation for >3 days were randomly assigned to receive midazolam (group M), propofol (group P), or sequential use of both (group M-P). In group M-P, midazolam was switched to propofol until the patients passed the spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) safety screen. The primary endpoints included recovery time, extubation time and mechanical ventilation time. The secondary endpoints were pharmaceutical cost, total cost of ICU stay, and recollection to mechanical ventilation-related events.ResultsThe incidence of agitation following cessation of sedation in group M-P was lower than group M (19.4% versus 48.7%, P = 0.01). The mean percentage of adequate sedation and duration of sedation were similar in the three groups. The recovery time, extubation time and mechanical ventilation time of group M were 58.0 (interquartile range (IQR), 39.0) hours, 45.0 (IQR, 24.5) hours, and 192.0 (IQR, 124.0) hours, respectively; these were significantly longer than the other groups, while they were similar between the other two groups. In the treatment-received analysis, ICU duration was longer in group M than group M-P (P = 0.016). Using an intention-to-treat analysis and a treatment-received analysis, respectively, the pharmaceutical cost of group M-P was lower than group P (P <0.01) and its ICU cost was lower than group M (P <0.01; P = 0.015). The proportion of group M-P with unbearable memory of the uncomfortable events was lower than in group M (11.7% versus 25.0%, P <0.01), while the proportion with no memory was similar (P >0.05). The incidence of hypotension in group M-P was lower than group (P = 0.01).ConclusionSequential use of midazolam and propofol was a safe and effective sedation protocol, with higher clinical effectiveness and better cost-benefit ratio than midazolam or propofol used alone, for long-term sedation of critically ill mechanically ventilated patients.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN01173443. Registered 25 February 2014.

IntroductionA number of published studies have revealed that lung recruitment can improve oxygenation, shorten the duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) and decrease mortality in adults with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, especially patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, few articles have assessed lung recruitment in paediatric patients, especially after cardiac surgery. This clinical trial aimed to determine whether lung recruitment can reduce the duration of MV in paediatric patients with hypoxaemic respiratory failure after cardiac surgery.Method and analysisIn this trial, we will randomly assign 234 paediatric patients (aged 28 days to 14 years) within 72 hours after cardiac surgery with an arterial oxygen tension (PaO2) to fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ratio (PaO2/FiO2) of <300 to either a lung recruitment group or a conventional group. The primary endpoint will be the duration of MV. The secondary endpoints will be ventilator-free days, PaO2/FiO2, respiratory system compliance, duration of non-invasive ventilation, reintubation rate, length of intensive care unit stay, length of hospital stay, occurrence of serious adverse events (barotrauma, persistent hypotension and arrhythmia), postoperative pulmonary complications.Ethics and disseminationThe ethics committee of West China Hospital of Sichuan University granted ethics approval for this study (20 August 2019). The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences.Trial registration numberChiCTR1900025990.