内科重症监护室(ICU)中苯巴比妥与苯二氮杂卓治疗酒精戒断:回顾性队列研究

IF 1 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Journal of pharmacy practice Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2024-09-11 DOI:10.1177/08971900241273144
Megan Ingebrigtson, Sarah Schang, Robert C Hyzy, Jakob I McSparron, Xi Chen, Elliot B Tapper, Michael T Kenes
{"title":"内科重症监护室(ICU)中苯巴比妥与苯二氮杂卓治疗酒精戒断:回顾性队列研究","authors":"Megan Ingebrigtson, Sarah Schang, Robert C Hyzy, Jakob I McSparron, Xi Chen, Elliot B Tapper, Michael T Kenes","doi":"10.1177/08971900241273144","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Phenobarbital (PHB) is a safe and efficacious alternative to benzodiazepines (BZD) for treating severe alcohol withdrawal (AWS). However, the safety of utilizing PHB for patients initially treated with BZD is unknown. <b>Objective:</b> To evaluate the safety and efficacy of PBH compared to BZDs in severe AWS in the medical intensive care unit (ICU). <b>Methods:</b> This was a retrospective cohort study comparing critically ill patients admitted for AWS who received BZDs or PHB. The primary outcome was time to persistent resolution of altered mentation. Secondary outcomes included development and duration of delirium, need for mechanical ventilation, development of withdrawal seizures, and ICU and hospital length of stay. <b>Results:</b> Ninety-five patients were evaluated (53 in PHB group, 42 in BZD group). Before study medication, less BZD patients demonstrated abnormal mentation compared with PHB patients (RASS < -2: 2.39% vsvs. 28.12%, respectively, and RASS > +2: 9.9% vsvs. 48.76%; <i>P</i> <0.001 for both). No difference was seen between groups for the primary outcome (1.8 hours for BZD cohort vsvs. 13.81 hours for PHB cohort; <i>P</i> =0.22). More patients in the BZD cohort developed a seizure after study medication administration (5.67% vs 0%, respectively; <i>P</i> =0.02). No significant difference was seen in other secondary outcomes. <b>Conclusions:</b> This study provides support for use of PHB after BZD if patients remain in uncontrolled withdrawal. Despite significant doses of BZDs before PHB, patients in the PHB cohort demonstrated similar clinical and safety outcomes compared to BZD alone.</p>","PeriodicalId":16818,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pharmacy practice","volume":" ","pages":"231-236"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Phenobarbital Versus Benzodiazepines for Alcohol Withdrawal in the Medical Intensive Care Unit (ICU): A Retrospective Cohort Study.\",\"authors\":\"Megan Ingebrigtson, Sarah Schang, Robert C Hyzy, Jakob I McSparron, Xi Chen, Elliot B Tapper, Michael T Kenes\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/08971900241273144\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Phenobarbital (PHB) is a safe and efficacious alternative to benzodiazepines (BZD) for treating severe alcohol withdrawal (AWS). However, the safety of utilizing PHB for patients initially treated with BZD is unknown. <b>Objective:</b> To evaluate the safety and efficacy of PBH compared to BZDs in severe AWS in the medical intensive care unit (ICU). <b>Methods:</b> This was a retrospective cohort study comparing critically ill patients admitted for AWS who received BZDs or PHB. The primary outcome was time to persistent resolution of altered mentation. Secondary outcomes included development and duration of delirium, need for mechanical ventilation, development of withdrawal seizures, and ICU and hospital length of stay. <b>Results:</b> Ninety-five patients were evaluated (53 in PHB group, 42 in BZD group). Before study medication, less BZD patients demonstrated abnormal mentation compared with PHB patients (RASS < -2: 2.39% vsvs. 28.12%, respectively, and RASS > +2: 9.9% vsvs. 48.76%; <i>P</i> <0.001 for both). No difference was seen between groups for the primary outcome (1.8 hours for BZD cohort vsvs. 13.81 hours for PHB cohort; <i>P</i> =0.22). More patients in the BZD cohort developed a seizure after study medication administration (5.67% vs 0%, respectively; <i>P</i> =0.02). No significant difference was seen in other secondary outcomes. <b>Conclusions:</b> This study provides support for use of PHB after BZD if patients remain in uncontrolled withdrawal. Despite significant doses of BZDs before PHB, patients in the PHB cohort demonstrated similar clinical and safety outcomes compared to BZD alone.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16818,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of pharmacy practice\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"231-236\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"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/10.1177/08971900241273144\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/9/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of pharmacy practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08971900241273144","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/9/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:苯巴比妥(PHB)是治疗严重酒精戒断(AWS)的苯二氮卓类药物(BZD)的一种安全有效的替代药物。然而,最初接受 BZD 治疗的患者使用 PHB 的安全性尚不清楚。目的评估在重症医学监护室(ICU)中使用 PHBH 与 BZD 相比治疗严重戒酒的安全性和有效性。方法: 这是一项回顾性队列研究:这是一项回顾性队列研究,比较了因 AWS 入院并接受 BZDs 或 PHB 治疗的重症患者。主要结果是持续缓解精神改变的时间。次要结果包括谵妄的发生和持续时间、机械通气需求、戒断性癫痫发作的发生以及重症监护室和住院时间。结果共对 95 名患者进行了评估(PHB 组 53 人,BZD 组 42 人)。与 PHB 患者相比,BZD 患者在用药前出现精神异常的比例较低(RASS < -2:2.39% vs. 28.12%;RASS > +2:9.9% vs. 48.76%;P P =0.22)。BZD 组群中有更多患者在用药后出现癫痫发作(分别为 5.67% 对 0%;P =0.02)。其他次要结果无明显差异。结论如果患者仍处于不受控制的戒断状态,本研究支持在服用 BZD 后使用 PHB。尽管在使用 PHB 之前服用了大量的 BZDs,但 PHB 队列中的患者与单用 BZD 相比,表现出了相似的临床和安全性结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Phenobarbital Versus Benzodiazepines for Alcohol Withdrawal in the Medical Intensive Care Unit (ICU): A Retrospective Cohort Study.

Background: Phenobarbital (PHB) is a safe and efficacious alternative to benzodiazepines (BZD) for treating severe alcohol withdrawal (AWS). However, the safety of utilizing PHB for patients initially treated with BZD is unknown. Objective: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of PBH compared to BZDs in severe AWS in the medical intensive care unit (ICU). Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study comparing critically ill patients admitted for AWS who received BZDs or PHB. The primary outcome was time to persistent resolution of altered mentation. Secondary outcomes included development and duration of delirium, need for mechanical ventilation, development of withdrawal seizures, and ICU and hospital length of stay. Results: Ninety-five patients were evaluated (53 in PHB group, 42 in BZD group). Before study medication, less BZD patients demonstrated abnormal mentation compared with PHB patients (RASS < -2: 2.39% vsvs. 28.12%, respectively, and RASS > +2: 9.9% vsvs. 48.76%; P <0.001 for both). No difference was seen between groups for the primary outcome (1.8 hours for BZD cohort vsvs. 13.81 hours for PHB cohort; P =0.22). More patients in the BZD cohort developed a seizure after study medication administration (5.67% vs 0%, respectively; P =0.02). No significant difference was seen in other secondary outcomes. Conclusions: This study provides support for use of PHB after BZD if patients remain in uncontrolled withdrawal. Despite significant doses of BZDs before PHB, patients in the PHB cohort demonstrated similar clinical and safety outcomes compared to BZD alone.

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 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