Factors influencing decline of physical functional status among icu survivors: a prospective cohort study

Oliveira, Renata Cabrera de; Rosa, Régis Goulart; Ascoli, A; Rutzen, W; Madeira, L; Ghizzoni, Flávia; Khummer, R; Vargas, Fernando Silva; Lago, Lissandra Dal; Dietrich, Camila; CERON, Camila Ferreira; Guterres, Cátia Moreira; Vesz, Patrini Silveira; Schaefer, Andrew P.; Falavigna, Maicon; Lima, K; Robinson, Caroline Cabral; Ribeiro, Rodrigo Martins; Maccari, Juçara Gasparetto; Teixeira, Cassiano

doi:10.1186/2197-425x-3-s1-a361

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, unfortunately, there are no clear recommendations favoring one sedation regimen over another. The introduction of new sedative drugs, such as remifentanil and dexmedetomidine, has added to the complexity of combining sedative regimens [7][8][9][10][11].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although the current guidelines recommend the combined use of an opioid and midazolam for 3 bronchoscopy sedation [3], physicians often use a single drug, or a combination of benzodiazepines, propofol, and opioids in this setting [5,6]. In addition, with the development of new drugs, remifentanil and dexmedetomidine have been introduced as options for analgosedation for flexible bronchoscopy in adults [7][8][9][10][11]. Accordingly, the combination of new drugs and conventional drugs has enabled a wide variety of combinations of drugs to be used for analgosedation for flexible bronchoscopy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Analgosedation during flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy: Comparing the clinical effectiveness and safety of remifentanil versus midazolam/propofol

Lee

Choe

Park³

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There are limited data regarding the efficacy and safety of remifentanil sedation for diagnostic bronchoscopy. Methods: A retrospective study of 186 patients who underwent diagnostic bronchoscopy at Chonbuk National University Hospital was performed. Patients were classified into the remifentanil group and midazolam/propofol group according to the drugs used during bronchoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of remifentanil by comparing it with those of the conventional drugs, midazolam and propofol. Results: Of the 186 patients, 111 patients received remifentanil and 75 received midazolam/propofol during the bronchoscopy. The proportion of patients who required bronchoscopy for endobronchial inspection alone was significantly higher in the midazolam/propofol group than in the remifentanil group (93.3% vs. 71.2%; p < 0.001). In contrast, the proportion of patients who required more invasive procedures, such as bronchoscopic biopsy, bronchoalveolar lavage, or transbronchial lung biopsy, was significantly higher in the remifentanil group than in the midazolam/propofol group (27.8% vs. 6.7%; p < 0.001). The recovery time was significantly shorter in the remifentanil group than in the midazolam/propofol group (mean 6.4 min vs. 11.6 min, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to safety events including desaturation, hypotension, and arrhythmia. Conclusions: Despite the higher proportion of patients who underwent more invasive procedures in the remifentanil group than in the midazolam/propofol group, there was no significant difference in safety events between the groups. Those in the remifentanil group also demonstrated a faster recovery time than those in the midazolam/propofol group.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analgosedation during flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy: Comparing the clinical effectiveness and safety of remifentanil versus midazolam/propofol

Lee

Choe

Park³

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analgosedation during flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy: Comparing the clinical effectiveness and safety of remifentanil versus midazolam/propofol

Lee

Choe

Park³

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There are limited data regarding the efficacy and safety of remifentanil sedation for diagnostic bronchoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of remifentanil by comparing it with those of the conventional drugs, midazolam and propofol. Methods: A retrospective study of 186 patients who underwent diagnostic bronchoscopy at Chonbuk National University Hospital was performed. Patients were classified into the remifentanil group and midazolam/propofol group according to the drugs used during bronchoscopy. Results: Of the 186 patients, 111 patients received remifentanil and 75 received midazolam/propofol during the bronchoscopy. The proportion of patients who required bronchoscopy for endobronchial inspection alone was significantly higher in the midazolam/propofol group than in the remifentanil group (93.3% vs. 71.2%; p < 0.001). In contrast, the proportion of patients who required more invasive procedures, such as bronchoscopic biopsy, bronchoalveolar lavage, or transbronchial lung biopsy, was significantly higher in the remifentanil group than in the midazolam/propofol group (27.8% vs. 6.7%; p < 0.001). The recovery time was significantly shorter in the remifentanil group than in the midazolam/propofol group (mean 6.4 min vs. 11.6 min, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to safety events including desaturation, hypotension, and arrhythmia. Conclusions: Despite the higher proportion of patients who underwent more invasive procedures in the remifentanil group than in the midazolam/propofol group, there was no significant difference in safety events between the groups. Those in the remifentanil group also demonstrated a faster recovery time than those in the midazolam/propofol group.

show abstract

“…(5,6) Functional status deterioration (FS↓) occurs to some degree in at least 50% of critically ill survivors. (7)(8)(9)(10) In those greater than 80 years of age, functional status limitations can be as high as 97%. (11) Alarmingly, deficits in physical and cognitive functioning have been shown to persist for months following recovery from critical illness.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

National Trends and Variation of Functional Status Deterioration in the Medically Critically Ill*

Ingraham

Vakayil

Pendleton

et al. 2020

Critical Care Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Factors influencing decline of physical functional status among icu survivors: a prospective cohort study

Cited by 6 publications

References 2 publications

Analgosedation during flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy: Comparing the clinical effectiveness and safety of remifentanil versus midazolam/propofol

Analgosedation during flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy: Comparing the clinical effectiveness and safety of remifentanil versus midazolam/propofol

Analgosedation during flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy: Comparing the clinical effectiveness and safety of remifentanil versus midazolam/propofol

National Trends and Variation of Functional Status Deterioration in the Medically Critically Ill*

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About