Effects of propofol on vasopressor use in patients with sepsis and severe sepsis: A pilot study

被引:12
作者
Marler, Jacob [1 ,2 ]
Mohrien, Kerry [3 ]
Kimmons, Lauren A. [1 ,2 ]
Vandigo, Joseph E. [4 ]
Oliphant, Carrie S. [1 ,2 ]
Boucher, Adam N. [2 ]
Jones, G. Morgan [1 ,2 ,5 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Methodist Univ Hosp, Dept Pharm, Memphis, TN 38104 USA
[2] UTHSC, Dept Clin Pharm, Memphis, TN 38163 USA
[3] Temple Univ Hosp & Med Sch, Dept Pharm, Philadelphia, PA 19140 USA
[4] Univ Maryland, Sch Pharm, Dept Pharmaceut Hlth Serv Res, Baltimore, MD 21201 USA
[5] UTHSC, Dept Neurol, Memphis, TN 38163 USA
[6] UTHSC, Dept Neurosurg, Memphis, TN 38163 USA
关键词
Propofol; Sepsis; Vasopressor; Hypotension; Continuous sedation; GOAL-DIRECTED THERAPY; EMERGENCY-DEPARTMENT; SEPTIC SHOCK; INDUCTION DRUG; DEFINITIONS; MORTALITY;
D O I
10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.05.015
中图分类号
R4 [临床医学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100602 ;
摘要
Purpose: Propofol is one of the most commonly used sedatives in the intensive care unit (ICU) despite its undesirable hypotensive effects. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of continuous intravenous (CIV) propofol on vasopressor requirements in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis. Materials and methods: A multicenter, retrospective, propensity-matched pilot study was conducted comparing patients with sepsis or severe sepsis who received CIV propofol for sedation to those who did not. The primary outcome was incidence of vasopressor support. Secondary outcomes included change in mean arterial pressure, mortality, and length of stay. Results: A total of 279 patients (149 CIV propofol, 130 non-CIV propofol) were evaluated, with 174 patients matched 1: 1 based on propensity score. There was no difference in vasopressor support requirements (49.4% vs 54%; P=.65) or in those experiencing a greater than 20% decrease in mean arterial pressure from baseline (58.6% vs 63.2%; P=.53) in the CIV propofol and non-CIV propofol groups. Furthermore, there were no differences in any secondary outcomes including hospital mortality (32.2% vs 33.3%; P=.87). Conclusions: Continuous intravenous propofol for sedation did not increase vasopressor requirements in this septic population. Furthermore, CIV propofol was not associated with significant differences in the use of multiple vasopressors, change in mean arterial pressure, length of stay, or mortality. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:155 / 160
页数:6
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]   Effects of etomidate on vasopressor use in patients with sepsis or severe sepsis: A propensity-matched analysis [J].
Alday, Nerissa J. ;
Jones, G. Morgan ;
Kimmons, Lauren A. ;
Phillips, Gary S. ;
McCallister, Jennifer W. ;
Doepker, Bruce A. .
JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE, 2014, 29 (04) :517-522
[2]  
Anger Kevin E, 2010, Crit Pathw Cardiol, V9, P221, DOI 10.1097/HPC.0b013e3181f4ec4a
[4]  
[Anonymous], CRIT CARE MED
[5]  
[Anonymous], CRIT CARE MED
[6]  
[Anonymous], PROP
[7]   Optimal caliper widths for propensity-score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies [J].
Austin, Peter C. .
PHARMACEUTICAL STATISTICS, 2011, 10 (02) :150-161
[8]   Rapid sequence induction in the emergency department: induction drug and outcome of patients admitted to the intensive care unit [J].
Baird, C. R. W. ;
Hay, A. W. ;
McKeown, D. W. ;
Ray, D. C. .
EMERGENCY MEDICINE JOURNAL, 2009, 26 (08) :576-579
[9]   DEFINITIONS FOR SEPSIS AND ORGAN FAILURE AND GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF INNOVATIVE THERAPIES IN SEPSIS [J].
BONE, RC ;
BALK, RA ;
CERRA, FB ;
DELLINGER, RP ;
FEIN, AM ;
KNAUS, WA ;
SCHEIN, RMH ;
SIBBALD, WJ .
CHEST, 1992, 101 (06) :1644-1655
[10]   A randomized trial of intermittent lorazepam versus propofol with daily interruption in mechanically ventilated patients [J].
Carson, SS ;
Kress, JP ;
Rodgers, JE ;
Vinayak, A ;
Campbell-Bright, S ;
Levitt, J ;
Bourdet, S ;
Ivanova, A ;
Henderson, AG ;
Pohlman, A ;
Chang, L ;
Rich, PB ;
Hall, J .
CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE, 2006, 34 (05) :1326-1332