镇静方法对 COVID-19 相关成人呼吸窘迫综合征患者死亡率的影响:一项多中心回顾性描述性研究。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine Pub Date : 2024-07-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-09 DOI:10.1177/08850666231224395
Mahmoud Alwakeel, Yan Wang, Heather Torbic, Gretchen L Sacha, Xiaofeng Wang, Francois Abi Fadel, Abhijit Duggal
{"title":"镇静方法对 COVID-19 相关成人呼吸窘迫综合征患者死亡率的影响:一项多中心回顾性描述性研究。","authors":"Mahmoud Alwakeel, Yan Wang, Heather Torbic, Gretchen L Sacha, Xiaofeng Wang, Francois Abi Fadel, Abhijit Duggal","doi":"10.1177/08850666231224395","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Reduction in sedation exposure is an important metric in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, challenges arose during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in adhering to this practice, driven by concerns on transmission and disease severity issues. Accordingly, diverse sedation approaches emerged, although the effect on mortality has not been studied thoroughly. <b>Methods:</b> Retrospective cohort study in the medical ICU of seven hospitals within a major Health System in Northeast Ohio. We included all adult patients admitted with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) from March 2020 to December 2021. <b>Results:</b> Study included 2394 COVID-19 patients requiring IMV. Across waves, sample included 55-63% male subjects, with an average age of 61-68 years (<i>P</i> < 0.001), Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE)-III score 65.8-68.9 (<i>P</i> = 0.37), median IMV duration 8-10 days (<i>P</i> = 0.14), and median ICU duration 9.8-11.6 days (<i>P</i> = 0.084). Propofol remained the primary sedative (84-92%; <i>P</i> = 0.089). Ketamine use increased from the first (9.7%) to fourth (19%) wave (<i>P</i> = 0.002). Midazolam use decreased from the first (27.4%) to third (9.4%) wave (<i>P</i> = 0.001). Dexmedetomidine use declined from 35% to 27-28% (<i>P</i> = 0.002) after the first wave. A multivariable regression analysis indicated clinical variables explained 34% of the variation in hospital mortality (R<sup>2</sup>). Factors associated with higher mortality included age [aOR = 1.059 (95% CI 1.049-1.069); <i>P</i> < 0.001], COVID-19 wave, especially fourth wave [aOR = 2.147, (95% CI 1.370-3.365); <i>P</i> = 0.001], and higher number of vasopressors [aOR = 31.636, (95% CI 17.603-56.856); <i>P</i> < 0.001]. Addition of sedative medications to a second model led to an increase in the R<sup>2</sup> by only 1.6% to 35.6% [aOR = 1 (95% CI 1-1); <i>P</i> > 0.05] for propofol, ketamine, and midazolam. Dexmedetomidine demonstrated a decrease in the odds of mortality [aOR = 0.96 (95% CI 0.94-0.97); <i>P</i> < 0.001]. <b>Conclusion:</b> Mortality in critical COVID-19 patients was mostly driven by illness severity, and the choice of sedation might have minimal impact when other factors are controlled.</p>","PeriodicalId":16307,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of Sedation Practices on Mortality in COVID-19-Associated Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Descriptive Study.\",\"authors\":\"Mahmoud Alwakeel, Yan Wang, Heather Torbic, Gretchen L Sacha, Xiaofeng Wang, Francois Abi Fadel, Abhijit Duggal\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08850666231224395\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Reduction in sedation exposure is an important metric in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, challenges arose during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in adhering to this practice, driven by concerns on transmission and disease severity issues. Accordingly, diverse sedation approaches emerged, although the effect on mortality has not been studied thoroughly. <b>Methods:</b> Retrospective cohort study in the medical ICU of seven hospitals within a major Health System in Northeast Ohio. We included all adult patients admitted with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) from March 2020 to December 2021. <b>Results:</b> Study included 2394 COVID-19 patients requiring IMV. Across waves, sample included 55-63% male subjects, with an average age of 61-68 years (<i>P</i> < 0.001), Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE)-III score 65.8-68.9 (<i>P</i> = 0.37), median IMV duration 8-10 days (<i>P</i> = 0.14), and median ICU duration 9.8-11.6 days (<i>P</i> = 0.084). Propofol remained the primary sedative (84-92%; <i>P</i> = 0.089). Ketamine use increased from the first (9.7%) to fourth (19%) wave (<i>P</i> = 0.002). Midazolam use decreased from the first (27.4%) to third (9.4%) wave (<i>P</i> = 0.001). Dexmedetomidine use declined from 35% to 27-28% (<i>P</i> = 0.002) after the first wave. A multivariable regression analysis indicated clinical variables explained 34% of the variation in hospital mortality (R<sup>2</sup>). Factors associated with higher mortality included age [aOR = 1.059 (95% CI 1.049-1.069); <i>P</i> < 0.001], COVID-19 wave, especially fourth wave [aOR = 2.147, (95% CI 1.370-3.365); <i>P</i> = 0.001], and higher number of vasopressors [aOR = 31.636, (95% CI 17.603-56.856); <i>P</i> < 0.001]. Addition of sedative medications to a second model led to an increase in the R<sup>2</sup> by only 1.6% to 35.6% [aOR = 1 (95% CI 1-1); <i>P</i> > 0.05] for propofol, ketamine, and midazolam. Dexmedetomidine demonstrated a decrease in the odds of mortality [aOR = 0.96 (95% CI 0.94-0.97); <i>P</i> < 0.001]. <b>Conclusion:</b> Mortality in critical COVID-19 patients was mostly driven by illness severity, and the choice of sedation might have minimal impact when other factors are controlled.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16307,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/08850666231224395\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/9 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08850666231224395","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/9 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:减少镇静暴露是重症监护病房(ICU)患者的一项重要指标。然而,在冠状病毒病-2019(COVID-19)大流行期间,由于担心传播和疾病严重性问题,在坚持这一做法方面出现了挑战。因此,出现了多种镇静方法,但对死亡率的影响尚未进行深入研究。研究方法在俄亥俄州东北部一家大型医疗系统的七家医院的内科重症监护室进行回顾性队列研究。我们纳入了 2020 年 3 月至 2021 年 12 月期间因 COVID-19 而入院、需要进行有创机械通气 (IMV) 的所有成人患者。研究结果研究纳入了 2394 名需要进行 IMV 的 COVID-19 患者。在各个波次中,样本包括 55-63% 的男性受试者,平均年龄为 61-68 岁(P P = 0.37),中位 IMV 持续时间为 8-10 天(P = 0.14),中位 ICU 持续时间为 9.8-11.6 天(P = 0.084)。丙泊酚仍是主要镇静剂(84-92%;P = 0.089)。氯胺酮的使用从第一波(9.7%)增加到第四波(19%)(P = 0.002)。咪达唑仑的使用率从第一波(27.4%)下降到第三波(9.4%)(P = 0.001)。右美托咪定的使用率在第一波之后从 35% 降至 27-28%(P = 0.002)。多变量回归分析表明,临床变量解释了 34% 的住院死亡率变化(R2)。与死亡率较高相关的因素包括年龄[aOR = 1.059 (95% CI 1.049-1.069);P P = 0.001]、血管加压剂数量较多[aOR = 31.636, (95% CI 17.603-56.856);P 2仅为1.6%至35.6%[aOR = 1 (95% CI 1-1);P > 0.05]、异丙酚、氯胺酮和咪达唑仑。右美托咪定降低了死亡几率[aOR = 0.96 (95% CI 0.94-0.97); P 结论:COVID-19 危重患者的死亡率主要受病情严重程度的影响,在控制其他因素的情况下,镇静剂的选择可能影响甚微。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact of Sedation Practices on Mortality in COVID-19-Associated Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Descriptive Study.

Background: Reduction in sedation exposure is an important metric in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, challenges arose during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in adhering to this practice, driven by concerns on transmission and disease severity issues. Accordingly, diverse sedation approaches emerged, although the effect on mortality has not been studied thoroughly. Methods: Retrospective cohort study in the medical ICU of seven hospitals within a major Health System in Northeast Ohio. We included all adult patients admitted with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) from March 2020 to December 2021. Results: Study included 2394 COVID-19 patients requiring IMV. Across waves, sample included 55-63% male subjects, with an average age of 61-68 years (P < 0.001), Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE)-III score 65.8-68.9 (P = 0.37), median IMV duration 8-10 days (P = 0.14), and median ICU duration 9.8-11.6 days (P = 0.084). Propofol remained the primary sedative (84-92%; P = 0.089). Ketamine use increased from the first (9.7%) to fourth (19%) wave (P = 0.002). Midazolam use decreased from the first (27.4%) to third (9.4%) wave (P = 0.001). Dexmedetomidine use declined from 35% to 27-28% (P = 0.002) after the first wave. A multivariable regression analysis indicated clinical variables explained 34% of the variation in hospital mortality (R2). Factors associated with higher mortality included age [aOR = 1.059 (95% CI 1.049-1.069); P < 0.001], COVID-19 wave, especially fourth wave [aOR = 2.147, (95% CI 1.370-3.365); P = 0.001], and higher number of vasopressors [aOR = 31.636, (95% CI 17.603-56.856); P < 0.001]. Addition of sedative medications to a second model led to an increase in the R2 by only 1.6% to 35.6% [aOR = 1 (95% CI 1-1); P > 0.05] for propofol, ketamine, and midazolam. Dexmedetomidine demonstrated a decrease in the odds of mortality [aOR = 0.96 (95% CI 0.94-0.97); P < 0.001]. Conclusion: Mortality in critical COVID-19 patients was mostly driven by illness severity, and the choice of sedation might have minimal impact when other factors are controlled.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
3.20%
发文量
107
期刊介绍: Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (JIC) is a peer-reviewed bi-monthly journal offering medical and surgical clinicians in adult and pediatric intensive care state-of-the-art, broad-based analytic reviews and updates, original articles, reports of large clinical series, techniques and procedures, topic-specific electronic resources, book reviews, and editorials on all aspects of intensive/critical/coronary care.
×
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