贝磺酸雷马唑仑对老年机械通气患者的影响:一项单中心随机对照研究。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Yihui Li, Yamin Yuan, Jinquan Zhou, Li Ma
{"title":"贝磺酸雷马唑仑对老年机械通气患者的影响:一项单中心随机对照研究。","authors":"Yihui Li, Yamin Yuan, Jinquan Zhou, Li Ma","doi":"10.1186/s12871-025-02903-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the clinical prognosis and offline strategy differences between remimazolam besylate and propofol for sedation in elderly patients undergoing mechanical ventilation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center prospective randomized controlled study included elderly patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation in the Emergency Intensive Care Unit (EICU) at The Second Hospital & Clinical Medical School of Lanzhou University from October 2021 to October 2023. Patients were randomly assigned to the remimazolam group (experimental) or propofol group (control) using respective sedation treatments. Clinical treatments remained uninfluenced. After improvement and meeting offline conditions, a cluster offline strategy guided evaluation and treatment. Data on patient demographics, vital signs, clinical outcomes, and adverse events were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences in invasive mechanical ventilation time (107.50 vs. 104.50 h, P = 0.969), ICU stay (7 days for both groups, P = 0.603), in-hospital mortality (22.5% vs. 15.0%, P = 0.39), or 28-day survival rate (69.57% vs. 69.23%, P = 0.98) between the control and experimental groups. Tracheotomy was performed in 5 control group patients and 2 experimental group patients (P = 0.235). Sedation-related delirium rates were 7.5% (control) and 5.0% (experimental) (P = 0.613).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Remimazolam besylate and propofol showed no significant differences in safety or effectiveness for elderly patients undergoing mechanical ventilation when using the clustered offline strategy.</p>","PeriodicalId":9190,"journal":{"name":"BMC Anesthesiology","volume":"25 1","pages":"65"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11809043/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of remimazolam besylate on elderly patients with mechanical ventilation: a single-center randomized controlled study.\",\"authors\":\"Yihui Li, Yamin Yuan, Jinquan Zhou, Li Ma\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12871-025-02903-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the clinical prognosis and offline strategy differences between remimazolam besylate and propofol for sedation in elderly patients undergoing mechanical ventilation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center prospective randomized controlled study included elderly patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation in the Emergency Intensive Care Unit (EICU) at The Second Hospital & Clinical Medical School of Lanzhou University from October 2021 to October 2023. Patients were randomly assigned to the remimazolam group (experimental) or propofol group (control) using respective sedation treatments. Clinical treatments remained uninfluenced. After improvement and meeting offline conditions, a cluster offline strategy guided evaluation and treatment. Data on patient demographics, vital signs, clinical outcomes, and adverse events were recorded.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were no significant differences in invasive mechanical ventilation time (107.50 vs. 104.50 h, P = 0.969), ICU stay (7 days for both groups, P = 0.603), in-hospital mortality (22.5% vs. 15.0%, P = 0.39), or 28-day survival rate (69.57% vs. 69.23%, P = 0.98) between the control and experimental groups. Tracheotomy was performed in 5 control group patients and 2 experimental group patients (P = 0.235). Sedation-related delirium rates were 7.5% (control) and 5.0% (experimental) (P = 0.613).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Remimazolam besylate and propofol showed no significant differences in safety or effectiveness for elderly patients undergoing mechanical ventilation when using the clustered offline strategy.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9190,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Anesthesiology\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"65\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11809043/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-025-02903-8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Anesthesiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-025-02903-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较甲磺酸雷马唑仑与丙泊酚用于老年机械通气患者镇静的临床预后及线下策略差异。方法:本研究为单中心前瞻性随机对照研究,纳入2021年10月至2023年10月在兰州大学第二医院及临床医学院急诊重症监护室(EICU)需要有创机械通气的老年患者。患者随机分为雷马唑仑组(实验组)和异丙酚组(对照组),采用不同的镇静治疗方法。临床治疗未受影响。在改善并满足线下条件后,采用集群线下策略指导评价和处理。记录患者人口统计学、生命体征、临床结果和不良事件的数据。结果:两组患者有创机械通气时间(107.50 h vs 104.50 h, P = 0.969)、ICU住院时间(两组均为7 d, P = 0.603)、住院死亡率(22.5% vs 15.0%, P = 0.39)、28天生存率(69.57% vs 69.23%, P = 0.98)差异均无统计学意义。对照组5例,实验组2例(P = 0.235)行气管切开术。镇静相关谵妄率分别为7.5%(对照组)和5.0%(实验组)(P = 0.613)。结论:贝磺酸雷马唑仑与异丙酚在老年机械通气患者使用集群离线策略时,安全性和有效性无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effect of remimazolam besylate on elderly patients with mechanical ventilation: a single-center randomized controlled study.

Objective: To compare the clinical prognosis and offline strategy differences between remimazolam besylate and propofol for sedation in elderly patients undergoing mechanical ventilation.

Methods: This single-center prospective randomized controlled study included elderly patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation in the Emergency Intensive Care Unit (EICU) at The Second Hospital & Clinical Medical School of Lanzhou University from October 2021 to October 2023. Patients were randomly assigned to the remimazolam group (experimental) or propofol group (control) using respective sedation treatments. Clinical treatments remained uninfluenced. After improvement and meeting offline conditions, a cluster offline strategy guided evaluation and treatment. Data on patient demographics, vital signs, clinical outcomes, and adverse events were recorded.

Results: There were no significant differences in invasive mechanical ventilation time (107.50 vs. 104.50 h, P = 0.969), ICU stay (7 days for both groups, P = 0.603), in-hospital mortality (22.5% vs. 15.0%, P = 0.39), or 28-day survival rate (69.57% vs. 69.23%, P = 0.98) between the control and experimental groups. Tracheotomy was performed in 5 control group patients and 2 experimental group patients (P = 0.235). Sedation-related delirium rates were 7.5% (control) and 5.0% (experimental) (P = 0.613).

Conclusions: Remimazolam besylate and propofol showed no significant differences in safety or effectiveness for elderly patients undergoing mechanical ventilation when using the clustered offline strategy.

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
BMC Anesthesiology
BMC Anesthesiology ANESTHESIOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
349
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Anesthesiology is an open access, peer-reviewed journal that considers articles on all aspects of anesthesiology, critical care, perioperative care and pain management, including clinical and experimental research into anesthetic mechanisms, administration and efficacy, technology and monitoring, and associated economic issues.
×
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