Daily interruption of sedation in patients receiving mechanical ventilation

There are no files associated with this record.

Title Daily interruption of sedation in patients receiving mechanical ventilation
Author Weisbrodt, Leonie; McKinley, Sharon; Marshall, Andrea; Cole, Louise; Seppelt, Ian M.; Delaney, Anthony
Journal Name American Journal of Critical Care
Year Published 2011
Place of publication United States
Publisher American Journal of Critical Care
Abstract Background Daily interruption of continuous infusion of sedatives has improved outcomes in patients receiving mechanical ventilation in open-label studies. Objectives To assess the feasibility of a protocol for a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial study on the impact of routine daily interruption of sedation in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Methods A total of 50 patients receiving mechanical ventilation were randomized to daily interruption of fentanyl and/or midazolam infusions for up to 6 hours or to usual management of sedation. Blinding was achieved by using replacement infusions (saline or active drug in saline). Results The recruitment target of 80 patients was not met in an extended time frame. Propofol was used outside the protocol in 27% of patients in the intervention group and 17% of patients in the control group (P = .10). A total of 15% of the intervention group and 12% of the control group never had replacement infusions started (P = .77), and replacement infusions were started on only approximately one-third of eligible days in patients who received replacement infusions. The mean doses of fentanyl and midazolam were similar. The blinding strategy was safe and effective: no patients had unplanned extubations, and the most frequent reason for ending replacement infusions was completion of the maximum 6-hour period. Conclusions The double-blinded design for assessment of sedation interruption in patients receiving mechanical ventilation was safe and effective. Slow recruitment of patients and frequent noncompliance with the protocol suggest that modifications to the protocol are needed.
Peer Reviewed Yes
Published Yes
Alternative URI http://dx.doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2011415
Copyright Statement Self-archiving of the author-manuscript version is not yet supported by this journal. Please refer to the journal link for access to the definitive, published version or contact the author[s] for more information.
Volume 20
Issue Number 4
Page from e90
Page to e98
ISSN 1062-3264
Date Accessioned 2012-03-14; 2012-03-29T05:10:50Z
Research Centre Centre for Health Practice Innovation
Faculty Griffith Health Faculty
Subject Nursing
URI http://hdl.handle.net/10072/44092
Publication Type Journal Articles (Refereed Article)
Publication Type Code c1x

Show simple item record

Griffith University copyright notice