COVID-19 与非 COVID-19 体外膜氧合患者镇痛需求的回顾性队列分析。

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Journal of Intensive Care Medicine Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-06-05 DOI:10.1177/08850666241259960
Alyssa M Schaller, Joel T Feih, Janelle J Juul, Lisa E Rein, Brittney E Duewell, Hemanckur Makker
{"title":"COVID-19 与非 COVID-19 体外膜氧合患者镇痛需求的回顾性队列分析。","authors":"Alyssa M Schaller, Joel T Feih, Janelle J Juul, Lisa E Rein, Brittney E Duewell, Hemanckur Makker","doi":"10.1177/08850666241259960","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Reports have described increased sedation requirements in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) while on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and for intubated COVID-19 patients. Thus, the objective of this study was to assess the analgosedation requirements of COVID-19 patients receiving ECMO compared to non-COVID-19 ECMO patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective, observational cohort study included adult patients with ARDS requiring venovenous or venopulmonary arterial ECMO admitted to a single intensive care unit from January 2017 to December 2021. Patients were categorized as COVID-19 ECMO or non-COVID-19 ECMO. The primary outcome was median daily dosing of parenteral analgosedative medications. Pertinent secondary outcomes included incidence of extubation or tracheostomy and change in sedation following tracheostomy or addition of oral agents.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 109 patients were evaluated; 63 COVID-19 ECMO patients and 46 non-COVID ECMO patients. The primary outcome was statistically higher in the COVID-19 compared to non-COVID-19 patients for propofol (4131.0 mg vs 2704.8 mg, <i>P</i> < .001), dexmedetomidine (1581.4 mcg vs 1081.3 mcg, <i>P</i>  =  .016), and parenteral morphine equivalents ([PME], 209.3 mg vs 154.1 mg, <i>P</i>  =  .027), but only propofol remained significant after adjustment for weight (31.1 mcg/kg/day vs 37.7 mcg/kg/day, <i>P</i>  =  .014). COVID-19 was significantly associated with increased propofol and PME requirements after adjustment for confounders on linear regression analysis. COVID-19 patients had more days with non-zero dose for propofol (8 days vs 7 days), dexmedetomidine (13 days vs 8.5 days), and PME (17 days vs 8.5 days). The only interventions that were associated with reductions in propofol dose were tracheostomy and antipsychotics.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>COVID-19 patients on ECMO had significantly longer durations and higher doses of propofol, dexmedetomidine, and parenteral opioids over the first 28 days of cannulation. The only interventions that were associated with statistical reductions in propofol were antipsychotics and tracheostomy.</p>","PeriodicalId":16307,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"32-39"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Retrospective Cohort Analysis of Analgosedation Requirements in COVID-19 Compared to Non-COVID-19 Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Patients.\",\"authors\":\"Alyssa M Schaller, Joel T Feih, Janelle J Juul, Lisa E Rein, Brittney E Duewell, Hemanckur Makker\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08850666241259960\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Reports have described increased sedation requirements in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) while on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and for intubated COVID-19 patients. Thus, the objective of this study was to assess the analgosedation requirements of COVID-19 patients receiving ECMO compared to non-COVID-19 ECMO patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective, observational cohort study included adult patients with ARDS requiring venovenous or venopulmonary arterial ECMO admitted to a single intensive care unit from January 2017 to December 2021. Patients were categorized as COVID-19 ECMO or non-COVID-19 ECMO. The primary outcome was median daily dosing of parenteral analgosedative medications. Pertinent secondary outcomes included incidence of extubation or tracheostomy and change in sedation following tracheostomy or addition of oral agents.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 109 patients were evaluated; 63 COVID-19 ECMO patients and 46 non-COVID ECMO patients. The primary outcome was statistically higher in the COVID-19 compared to non-COVID-19 patients for propofol (4131.0 mg vs 2704.8 mg, <i>P</i> < .001), dexmedetomidine (1581.4 mcg vs 1081.3 mcg, <i>P</i>  =  .016), and parenteral morphine equivalents ([PME], 209.3 mg vs 154.1 mg, <i>P</i>  =  .027), but only propofol remained significant after adjustment for weight (31.1 mcg/kg/day vs 37.7 mcg/kg/day, <i>P</i>  =  .014). COVID-19 was significantly associated with increased propofol and PME requirements after adjustment for confounders on linear regression analysis. COVID-19 patients had more days with non-zero dose for propofol (8 days vs 7 days), dexmedetomidine (13 days vs 8.5 days), and PME (17 days vs 8.5 days). The only interventions that were associated with reductions in propofol dose were tracheostomy and antipsychotics.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>COVID-19 patients on ECMO had significantly longer durations and higher doses of propofol, dexmedetomidine, and parenteral opioids over the first 28 days of cannulation. The only interventions that were associated with statistical reductions in propofol were antipsychotics and tracheostomy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16307,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Intensive Care Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"32-39\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"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/10.1177/08850666241259960\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/5 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/10.1177/08850666241259960","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:有报告称,急性呼吸窘迫综合征(ARDS)患者在接受体外膜肺氧合(ECMO)和插管 COVID-19 患者时需要更多镇静剂。因此,本研究旨在评估与非 COVID-19 ECMO 患者相比,接受 ECMO 的 COVID-19 患者的镇静需求:这项回顾性、观察性队列研究纳入了 2017 年 1 月至 2021 年 12 月期间入住单个重症监护病房、需要静脉或静脉肺动脉 ECMO 的 ARDS 成人患者。患者被分为 COVID-19 ECMO 和非 COVID-19 ECMO 两类。主要结果是肠外镇痛药物的日剂量中位数。相关次要结果包括拔管或气管切开的发生率以及气管切开或添加口服药物后镇静效果的变化:共对 109 名患者进行了评估,其中 COVID-19 ECMO 患者 63 名,非 COVID ECMO 患者 46 名。与非 COVID-19 患者相比,COVID-19 患者在异丙酚(4131.0 毫克 vs 2704.8 毫克,P = .016)和肠外吗啡当量([PME],209.3 毫克 vs 154.1 毫克,P = .027)方面的主要结果具有统计学意义,但只有异丙酚在调整体重后仍具有显著性(31.1 毫克/千克/天 vs 37.7 毫克/千克/天,P = .014)。根据线性回归分析,在调整了混杂因素后,COVID-19 与异丙酚和 PME 需求量的增加明显相关。COVID-19 患者使用异丙酚(8 天 vs 7 天)、右美托咪定(13 天 vs 8.5 天)和 PME(17 天 vs 8.5 天)的非零剂量天数较多。唯一与异丙酚剂量减少相关的干预措施是气管切开术和抗精神病药物:结论:接受 ECMO 的 COVID-19 患者在插管后的前 28 天,异丙酚、右美托咪定和肠外阿片类药物的使用时间明显更长,剂量也更大。只有抗精神病药物和气管切开术与异丙酚的统计减少相关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Retrospective Cohort Analysis of Analgosedation Requirements in COVID-19 Compared to Non-COVID-19 Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Patients.

Background: Reports have described increased sedation requirements in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) while on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and for intubated COVID-19 patients. Thus, the objective of this study was to assess the analgosedation requirements of COVID-19 patients receiving ECMO compared to non-COVID-19 ECMO patients.

Methods: This retrospective, observational cohort study included adult patients with ARDS requiring venovenous or venopulmonary arterial ECMO admitted to a single intensive care unit from January 2017 to December 2021. Patients were categorized as COVID-19 ECMO or non-COVID-19 ECMO. The primary outcome was median daily dosing of parenteral analgosedative medications. Pertinent secondary outcomes included incidence of extubation or tracheostomy and change in sedation following tracheostomy or addition of oral agents.

Results: A total of 109 patients were evaluated; 63 COVID-19 ECMO patients and 46 non-COVID ECMO patients. The primary outcome was statistically higher in the COVID-19 compared to non-COVID-19 patients for propofol (4131.0 mg vs 2704.8 mg, P < .001), dexmedetomidine (1581.4 mcg vs 1081.3 mcg, P  =  .016), and parenteral morphine equivalents ([PME], 209.3 mg vs 154.1 mg, P  =  .027), but only propofol remained significant after adjustment for weight (31.1 mcg/kg/day vs 37.7 mcg/kg/day, P  =  .014). COVID-19 was significantly associated with increased propofol and PME requirements after adjustment for confounders on linear regression analysis. COVID-19 patients had more days with non-zero dose for propofol (8 days vs 7 days), dexmedetomidine (13 days vs 8.5 days), and PME (17 days vs 8.5 days). The only interventions that were associated with reductions in propofol dose were tracheostomy and antipsychotics.

Conclusions: COVID-19 patients on ECMO had significantly longer durations and higher doses of propofol, dexmedetomidine, and parenteral opioids over the first 28 days of cannulation. The only interventions that were associated with statistical reductions in propofol were antipsychotics and tracheostomy.

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