Midazolam and 2% propofol in long-term sedation of traumatized, critically ill patients: Efficacy and safety comparison

ObjectiveWe proposed to compare the efficacy and safety of midazolam and propofol in its new preparation (2% propofol) when used for prolonged, deep sedation in traumatized, critically ill patients. We also retrospectively compared 2% propofol with its original preparation, 1% propofol, used in a previous study in a similar and contemporary set of patients. DesignA prospective, randomized, unblinded trial (midazolam and 2% propofol) and a retrospective, contemporary trial (2% propofol and 1% propofol). SettingsA trauma intensive care unit in a tertiary university hospital. PatientsA total of 63 consecutive trauma patients, admitted within a period of 5 months and requiring mechanical ventilatory support for >48 hrs, 43 of whom (73%) suffered severe head trauma. We also retrospectively compared the 2% propofol group with a series of patients in whom 1% propofol was used. InterventionsFor the prospective trial, we randomized two groups—a midazolam group with continuous administration of midazolam at dosages 0.1–0.35 mg/kg/hr, and a 2% propofol group with continuous infusion at dosages 1.5–6 mg/kg/hr. Equal dosages of analgesics were administered. Similar management protocols were applied in the 1% propofol group, used in the retrospective analysis with 2% propofol. Measurements and Main ResultsEpidemiologic and efficacy variables were recorded. Hemodynamic and biochemical variables were also monitored on a regular basis. Neuromonitoring was also performed on those patients with head trauma. Sedation adequacy was similar and patient behavior after drug discontinuation was not different in either prospective group (midazolam and 2% propofol). Hemodynamic or neuromonitoring variables were also similar for both groups. Triglyceride levels were significantly higher in the 2% propofol group compared with the midazolam group. A higher number of therapeutic failures because of sedative inefficacy was seen in the 2% propofol group compared with the midazolam group, especially during the first sedation days. When comparing 2% propofol and 1% propofol, a significantly higher number of therapeutic failures because of hypertriglyceridemia were found in the 1% propofol group, as opposed to a major number of therapeutic failures because of inefficacy, found in the 2% propofol group. ConclusionsPropofol’s new preparation is safe when used in severely traumatized patients. Its more concentrated formula improves the lipid overload problem seen with the prolonged use of the previous preparation. Nevertheless, a major number of therapeutic failures were detected with 2% propofol because of the need for dosage increase. This fact could be caused by a different disposition and tissue distribution pattern of both propofol preparations. New studies will be needed to confirm these results.

[1]  G. Fraser,et al.  Assessing sedation during intensive care unit mechanical ventilation with the Bispectral Index and the Sedation-Agitation Scale. , 1999, Critical care medicine.

[2]  M. Struys,et al.  Use of continuous bispectral EEG monitoring to assess depth of sedation in ICU patients , 1998, Intensive Care Medicine.

[3]  E. Alted-López,et al.  Propofol Versus Midazolam: Safety and Efficacy for Sedating the Severe Trauma Patient , 1998, Anesthesia and analgesia.

[4]  W. Ebling,et al.  Emulsion Formulation Reduces Propofol's Dose Requirements and Enhances Safety , 1997, Anesthesiology.

[5]  R. Barrientos-Vega,et al.  Prolonged sedation of critically ill patients with midazolam or propofol: impact on weaning and costs. , 1997, Critical care medicine.

[6]  M. Barrios,et al.  Comparative study of propofol versus midazolam in the sedation of critically ill patients: results of a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. , 1996, Critical care medicine.

[7]  J. Kress,et al.  Sedation of critically ill patients during mechanical ventilation. A comparison of propofol and midazolam. , 1996, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[8]  E. Sorkin,et al.  Propofol. An overview of its pharmacology and a review of its clinical efficacy in intensive care sedation. , 1995, Drugs.

[9]  R. Goris,et al.  Inflammatory mediators in relation to the development of multiple organ failure in patients after severe blunt trauma. , 1995, Critical care medicine.

[10]  T J Gallagher,et al.  Comparison of propofol and midazolam for sedation in intensive care unit patients. , 1995, Critical care medicine.

[11]  N. Bruder,et al.  Energy expenditure and withdrawal of sedation in severe head‐injured patients , 1994, Critical care medicine.

[12]  R. Polomano,et al.  Beyond the Ramsay scale: need for a validated measure of sedating drug efficacy in the intensive care unit. , 1994, Critical care medicine.

[13]  H. Van Aken,et al.  A comparison of the 2% and 1% formulations of propofol during anaesthesia for craniotomy , 1994, Anaesthesia.

[14]  G. Carrasco,et al.  Propofol vs midazolam in short-, medium-, and long-term sedation of critically ill patients. A cost-benefit analysis. , 1993, Chest.

[15]  P. Suter,et al.  Pharmacokinetics of midazolam administered by continuous intravenous infusion to intensive care patients , 1992, Critical care medicine.

[16]  M. Morgan,et al.  2% propofol for sedation in the intensive care unit , 1992, Anaesthesia.

[17]  Sung C. Choi,et al.  NINDS Traumatic Coma Data Bank: intracranial pressure monitoring methodology , 1991 .

[18]  M. Gottardis,et al.  Effect of prolonged sedation with propofol on serum triglyceride and cholesterol concentrations. , 1989, British journal of anaesthesia.

[19]  Rob Janknegt,et al.  Clinical pharmacokinetics of midazolam in intensive care patients, a wide interpatient variability? , 1988, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[20]  P. Wallace,et al.  Propofol infusion for sedation in intensive care , 1987, Anaesthesia.

[21]  J. M. Evans,et al.  Computer Controlled Anaesthesia , 1983 .