CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Boyd, O.
Right arrow Articles by Grounds, R. M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Boyd, O.
Right arrow Articles by Grounds, R. M.

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol 40, 1142-1147, Copyright © 1993 by Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society

ARTICLES

Propofol or midazolam for short-term alterations in sedation

O Boyd, CJ Mackay, F Rushmer, ED Bennett and RM Grounds
Division of Medicine, St. George's Hospital, London, UK.

It is often necessary to adjust a patient's sedation level while they are in the intensive care unit. The purpose of this study was to compare propofol with midazolam for controlling short-term alterations in sedation. Twenty-three patients undergoing an interactive procedure, physiotherapy, during mechanical ventilation of the lungs were studied. The patients were randomly assigned to receive infusions of propofol or midazolam for sedation. Sedation was assessed using the method of Ramsay, where 3 is drowsy responding only to commands; and 5 is asleep with a slow response to light glabellar tap. Prior to physiotherapy sedation was deepened from 3 to 5 by increasing the sedative infusion rate, and level 5 was maintained during physiotherapy by adjusting the infusion rate whenever necessary. After physiotherapy, the sedative dose was reduced until level 3 was again achieved. During physiotherapy, sedation level 5 was achieved for 53.9% of the time with propofol but for only 25.7% with midazolam (P < 0.01). After physiotherapy, those patients sedated with propofol re-awakened to level 3 faster (8.3 +/- 2.3 min, mean +/- SE) than those receiving midazolam (92.8 +/- 35.0 min, P < 0.05). After physiotherapy, a further 1.8 +/- 0.5 dose adjustments were required to the midazolam infusion while only 0.4 +/- 0.2 adjustments were required to the propofol infusion (P < 0.05). During physiotherapy 3.0 +/- 0.5 dose adjustments to the propofol dose were required compared with 3.6 +/- 0.5 adjustments to the midazolam dose (NS).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ChestHome page
R. I. Hall, D. Sandham, P. Cardinal, M. Tweeddale, D. Moher, X. Wang, and A. H. Anis
Propofol vs Midazolam for ICU Sedation : A Canadian Multicenter Randomized Trial
Chest, April 1, 2001; 119(4): 1151 - 1159.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Anesth. Analg.Home page
B. Walder, N. Elia, I. Henzi, J. R. Romand, and M. R. Tramer
A Lack of Evidence of Superiority of Propofol Versus Midazolam for Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Patients: A Qualitative and Quantitative Systematic Review
Anesth. Analg., April 1, 2001; 92(4): 975 - 983.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JAMAHome page
M. E. Ostermann, S. P. Keenan, R. A. Seiferling, and W. J. Sibbald
Sedation in the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review
JAMA, March 15, 2000; 283(11): 1451 - 1459.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1993 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.