Cardiovascular toxicity associated with sedative drug use: Post-market pharmacovigilance study with disproportionality analysis.

IF 0.9 4区 医学 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Pei Ye, Hewei Zhang, Qiang Lyu, Wangzheqi Zhang, Yidi Xu, Xiaofei Ye, Xiaojing Guo
{"title":"Cardiovascular toxicity associated with sedative drug use: Post-market pharmacovigilance study with disproportionality analysis.","authors":"Pei Ye, Hewei Zhang, Qiang Lyu, Wangzheqi Zhang, Yidi Xu, Xiaofei Ye, Xiaojing Guo","doi":"10.5414/CP204796","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the toxicity of sedatives in critically ill intensive care unit patients and investigate safety concerns using the United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System and VigiBase databases.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Disproportionality analysis was used to assess the relationships among midazolam, propofol, and dexmedetomidine and suspected adverse drug reactions. Adverse drug reactions related to sedation in the intensive care unit were identified through systematic organ classification and assessed using Standardized Regulatory Activities Medical Dictionary Analysis Queries.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 12,102 adverse drug reactions were identified with midazolam, propofol, or dexmedetomidine as the primary suspected drug. The cardiovascular system accounted for a significant proportion of the drug reaction systems with strong signals. The strongest preferred term was neonatal hypertension (N = 9; information component = 7.11 (95% confidence interval: 5.97 - 7.87)), propofol infusion syndrome (N = 482; information component = 10.88 (95% confidence interval: 10.73 - 10.99)), and the trigemino-cardiac reflex (N = 7; information component = 10.36 (95% confidence interval: 9.06 - 11.21)) for midazolam, propofol, and dexmedetomidine, respectively. The Standardized Regulatory Activities Medical Dictionary Analysis Queries with the strongest signal across all sedatives were torsade de pointes and shock-associated conditions (N = 679; information component = 4.24 (95% confidence interval: 4.12 - 4.34)).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings highlight the need for clinicians to consider cardiovascular toxicity when administering sedatives in the intensive care unit, as different sedatives exhibit different adverse reaction profiles.</p>","PeriodicalId":13963,"journal":{"name":"International journal of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5414/CP204796","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To compare the toxicity of sedatives in critically ill intensive care unit patients and investigate safety concerns using the United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System and VigiBase databases.

Materials and methods: Disproportionality analysis was used to assess the relationships among midazolam, propofol, and dexmedetomidine and suspected adverse drug reactions. Adverse drug reactions related to sedation in the intensive care unit were identified through systematic organ classification and assessed using Standardized Regulatory Activities Medical Dictionary Analysis Queries.

Results: A total of 12,102 adverse drug reactions were identified with midazolam, propofol, or dexmedetomidine as the primary suspected drug. The cardiovascular system accounted for a significant proportion of the drug reaction systems with strong signals. The strongest preferred term was neonatal hypertension (N = 9; information component = 7.11 (95% confidence interval: 5.97 - 7.87)), propofol infusion syndrome (N = 482; information component = 10.88 (95% confidence interval: 10.73 - 10.99)), and the trigemino-cardiac reflex (N = 7; information component = 10.36 (95% confidence interval: 9.06 - 11.21)) for midazolam, propofol, and dexmedetomidine, respectively. The Standardized Regulatory Activities Medical Dictionary Analysis Queries with the strongest signal across all sedatives were torsade de pointes and shock-associated conditions (N = 679; information component = 4.24 (95% confidence interval: 4.12 - 4.34)).

Conclusion: These findings highlight the need for clinicians to consider cardiovascular toxicity when administering sedatives in the intensive care unit, as different sedatives exhibit different adverse reaction profiles.

与镇静药物使用相关的心血管毒性:上市后药物警戒研究与歧化分析。
目的:利用美国食品和药物管理局不良事件报告系统和VigiBase数据库,比较重症监护病房患者镇静药物的毒性,并调查安全性问题。材料与方法:采用歧化分析评价咪达唑仑、异丙酚和右美托咪定与疑似药物不良反应的关系。重症监护病房与镇静相关的药物不良反应通过系统的器官分类进行识别,并使用标准化监管活动医学词典分析查询进行评估。结果:共鉴定出12102例不良反应,以咪达唑仑、异丙酚、右美托咪定为主要可疑药物。在具有强信号的药物反应系统中,心血管系统占很大比例。最强的首选术语是新生儿高血压(N = 9;信息成分= 7.11(95%可信区间:5.97 ~ 7.87)),异丙酚输注综合征(N = 482;信息分量= 10.88(95%可信区间:10.73 ~ 10.99)),三叉神经-心脏反射(N = 7;咪达唑仑、异丙酚和右美托咪定的信息成分分别为10.36(95%可信区间:9.06 ~ 11.21)。标准化监管活动医学词典分析在所有镇静剂中信号最强的查询是扭转点和休克相关条件(N = 679;信息成分= 4.24(95%可信区间:4.12 - 4.34))。结论:这些发现强调了临床医生在重症监护病房使用镇静剂时考虑心血管毒性的必要性,因为不同的镇静剂表现出不同的不良反应。
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
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
12.50%
发文量
116
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics appears monthly and publishes manuscripts containing original material with emphasis on the following topics: Clinical trials, Pharmacoepidemiology - Pharmacovigilance, Pharmacodynamics, Drug disposition and Pharmacokinetics, Quality assurance, Pharmacogenetics, Biotechnological drugs such as cytokines and recombinant antibiotics. Case reports on adverse reactions are also of interest.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信