Efficacy of Continuous Infusion Ketamine for Analgosedation in the Medical Intensive Care Unit: A Propensity-Weighted Analysis.

IF 1 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Journal of pharmacy practice Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-22 DOI:10.1177/08971900231191154
BrookeAnne Magrum, Jessica L Elefritz, Greg Eisinger, Eric McLaughlin, Bruce Doepker
{"title":"Efficacy of Continuous Infusion Ketamine for Analgosedation in the Medical Intensive Care Unit: A Propensity-Weighted Analysis.","authors":"BrookeAnne Magrum, Jessica L Elefritz, Greg Eisinger, Eric McLaughlin, Bruce Doepker","doi":"10.1177/08971900231191154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Few randomized controlled trials have evaluated the use of ketamine vs opiate-based analgosedation. <b>Methods:</b> A retrospective cohort analysis of 169 mechanically ventilated patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit (MICU) at an academic medical center was conducted to evaluate efficacy of ketamine vs opiate-based analgosedation by comparing the percentage of time within target sedation range. The primary outcome was percentage of time within target sedation range (RASS -1 to +1) within first 72 hours of primary sedation initiation. Secondary outcomes including percentage of time under-sedated, over-sedated, and in coma; use of concomitant analgesic, sedative, and antipsychotic agents; presence of delirium; percentage of CPOT scores at goal; and hemodynamic effects were also evaluated. <b>Results:</b> After weighting, the mean percentage of time at RASS goal for ketamine patients was 43.0% compared to 41.4% for opiate-based sedation patients. Ketamine was not significantly non-inferior to opiate-based sedation for the mean percentage of time at RASS goal (<i>P</i> = .11). The median percentage of CPOT scores at goal was 13.3% higher in the ketamine group (<i>P</i> = .042). Patients in the ketamine group received significantly less additional sedative agents than the patients in the opiate-based sedation group. <b>Conclusion:</b> A similar percent of time at RASS goal was found for the ketamine analgosedation group compared to the opiate-based sedation group, although this did not reach statistical signicance for non-inferiority due to lack of statistical power. This study found a higher percentage of CPOT scores within goal with less additional sedative agents required compared to an opiate-based sedation regimen.</p>","PeriodicalId":16818,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pharmacy practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of pharmacy practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08971900231191154","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Few randomized controlled trials have evaluated the use of ketamine vs opiate-based analgosedation. Methods: A retrospective cohort analysis of 169 mechanically ventilated patients admitted to the medical intensive care unit (MICU) at an academic medical center was conducted to evaluate efficacy of ketamine vs opiate-based analgosedation by comparing the percentage of time within target sedation range. The primary outcome was percentage of time within target sedation range (RASS -1 to +1) within first 72 hours of primary sedation initiation. Secondary outcomes including percentage of time under-sedated, over-sedated, and in coma; use of concomitant analgesic, sedative, and antipsychotic agents; presence of delirium; percentage of CPOT scores at goal; and hemodynamic effects were also evaluated. Results: After weighting, the mean percentage of time at RASS goal for ketamine patients was 43.0% compared to 41.4% for opiate-based sedation patients. Ketamine was not significantly non-inferior to opiate-based sedation for the mean percentage of time at RASS goal (P = .11). The median percentage of CPOT scores at goal was 13.3% higher in the ketamine group (P = .042). Patients in the ketamine group received significantly less additional sedative agents than the patients in the opiate-based sedation group. Conclusion: A similar percent of time at RASS goal was found for the ketamine analgosedation group compared to the opiate-based sedation group, although this did not reach statistical signicance for non-inferiority due to lack of statistical power. This study found a higher percentage of CPOT scores within goal with less additional sedative agents required compared to an opiate-based sedation regimen.

持续输注氯胺酮用于内科重症监护室镇痛的疗效:倾向性加权分析
背景:很少有随机对照试验对氯胺酮与阿片类镇痛药的使用进行评估。研究方法对一家学术医疗中心医学重症监护室(MICU)收治的 169 名机械通气患者进行回顾性队列分析,通过比较目标镇静范围内的时间百分比,评估氯胺酮与阿片类药物镇痛的疗效。主要结果是在开始使用主要镇静剂后的 72 小时内,在目标镇静范围(RASS -1至+1)内的时间百分比。还评估了次要结果,包括镇静不足、镇静过度和昏迷时间的百分比;同时使用镇痛剂、镇静剂和抗精神病药物的情况;是否出现谵妄;CPOT评分达到目标的百分比;以及血液动力学效应。结果加权后,氯胺酮患者达到 RASS 目标时间的平均百分比为 43.0%,而鸦片类镇静剂患者为 41.4%。在达到 RASS 目标的平均时间百分比方面,氯胺酮与阿片类镇静剂相比无明显劣势(P = .11)。氯胺酮组 CPOT 评分达标的中位百分比比阿片类镇静剂组高 13.3% (P = .042)。氯胺酮组患者额外使用的镇静剂明显少于鸦片类镇静剂组患者。结论氯胺酮镇痛组达到 RASS 目标时间的百分比与鸦片类镇静组相似,但由于缺乏统计能力,这没有达到非劣效性的统计学意义。这项研究发现,与使用鸦片制剂的镇静方案相比,CPOT评分达标的比例更高,所需的额外镇静剂更少。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of pharmacy practice
Journal of pharmacy practice PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
7.70%
发文量
184
期刊介绍: The Journal of Pharmacy Practice offers the practicing pharmacist topical, important, and useful information to support pharmacy practice and pharmaceutical care and expand the pharmacist"s professional horizons. The journal is presented in a single-topic, scholarly review format. Guest editors are selected for expertise in the subject area, who then recruit contributors from that practice or topic area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信