Display Settings:

Format

Send to:

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Chest. 1998 Aug;114(2):541-8.

The use of continuous i.v. sedation is associated with prolongation of mechanical ventilation.

Author information

  • 1Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO 63110, USA.

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE:

To determine whether the use of continuous i.v. sedation is associated with prolongation of the duration of mechanical ventilation.

DESIGN:

Prospective observational cohort study.

SETTING:

The medical ICU of Barnes-Jewish Hospital, a university-affiliated urban teaching hospital.

PATIENTS:

Two hundred forty-two consecutive ICU patients requiring mechanical ventilation.

INTERVENTIONS:

Patient surveillance and data collection.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS:

The primary outcome measure was the duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcome measures included ICU and hospital lengths of stay, hospital mortality, and acquired organ system derangements. A total of 93 (38.4%) mechanically ventilated patients received continuous i.v. sedation while 149 (61.6%) patients received either bolus administration of i.v. sedation (n=64) or no i.v. sedation (n=85) following intubation. The duration of mechanical ventilation was significantly longer for patients receiving continuous i.v. sedation compared with patients not receiving continuous i.v. sedation (185+/-190 h vs 55.6+/-75.6 h; p<0.001). Similarly, the lengths of intensive care (13.5+/-33.7 days vs 4.8+/-4.1 days; p<0.001) and hospitalization (21.0+/-25.1 days vs 12.8+/-14.1 days; p<0.001) were statistically longer among patients receiving continuous i.v. sedation. Multiple linear regression analysis, adjusting for age, gender, severity of illness, mortality, indication for mechanical ventilation, use of chemical paralysis, presence of a tracheostomy, and the number of acquired organ system derangements, found the adjusted duration of mechanical ventilation to be significantly longer for patients receiving continuous i.v. sedation compared with patients who did not receive continuous i.v. sedation (148 h [95% confidence interval: 121, 175 h] vs 78.7 h [95% confidence interval: 68.9, 88.6 h]; p<0.001).

CONCLUSION:

We conclude from these preliminary observational data that the use of continuous i.v. sedation may be associated with the prolongation of mechanical ventilation. This study suggests that strategies targeted at reducing the use of continuous i.v. sedation could shorten the duration of mechanical ventilation for some patients. Prospective randomized clinical trials, using well-designed sedation guidelines and protocols, are required to determine whether patient-specific outcomes (eg, duration of mechanical ventilation, patient comfort) can be improved compared with conventional sedation practices.

Comment in

PMID:
9726743
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments
How to join PubMed Commons

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Silverchair Information Systems
    Loading ...
    Write to the Help Desk