Restricted Polypharmacy Compared to Usual Care in Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Author:

Bose Somnath1,Lehman Li-Wei23,Talmor Daniel1,Shahn Zachary24

Affiliation:

1. Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

2. Massachusetts Institute of Technology IBM Watson, AI Laboratory, Cambridge, Massachusetts

3. Institute for Medical Engineering and Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts

4. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, CUNY Graduate School of Public Health and Public Policy, New York, New York.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Adverse effects of excessive sedation in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients are well described. Although guidelines strongly recommend minimizing sedative use, additional agents are added as infusions, often empirically. The tradeoffs associated with such decisions remain unclear. METHODS: To test the hypothesis that a pragmatic propofol-based sedation regimen with restricted polypharmacy (RP; ie, prohibits additional infusions unless a predefined propofol dosage threshold is exceeded) would increase coma-and ventilator-free days compared with usual care (UC), we performed a retrospective cohort study of adults admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) of a tertiary-level medical center who were mechanically ventilated, initiated on propofol infusion, and had >50% probability of need for continued ventilation for the next 24 hours. We compared RP to UC, adjusting for baseline and time-varying confounding (demographics, care unit, calendar time of admission, vitals, laboratories, other interventions such as vasopressors and fluids, and more) through inverse probability weighting in a target trial framework. Ventilator-free days and coma-free days within 30 days of intubation and in-hospital mortality were the outcomes of interest. RESULTS: A total of 7974 patients were included in the analysis, of which 3765 followed the RP strategy until extubation. In the full cohort under UC, mean coma-free days were 23.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], [23.3–23.7]), mean ventilator-free days were 20.6 (95% CI, [20.4–20.8]), and the in-hospital mortality rate was 22.0% (95% CI, [21.2–22.8]). We estimated that an RP strategy would increase mean coma-free days by 1.0 days (95% CI, [0.7–1.3]) and ventilator-free days by 1.0 days (95% CI, [0.7–1.3]) relative to UC in our cohort. Our estimate of the confounding-adjusted association between RP and in-hospital mortality was uninformative (−0.5%; 95% CI, [−3.0 to 1.9]). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with UC, RP was associated with more coma- and ventilator-free days. Restricting addition of adjunct infusions to propofol may represent a viable strategy to reduce duration of coma and mechanical ventilation. These hypothesis-generating findings should be confirmed in a randomized control trial.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3