右美托咪定改善脓毒症患者心肌损伤和较低APACHE IV评分的预后:一项回顾性队列研究

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Xuan Dai, Hongyan Wei, Dezhi Zou, Yilin Yang, Chenyu Zhang, Jie Chen, Chunlin Hu
{"title":"右美托咪定改善脓毒症患者心肌损伤和较低APACHE IV评分的预后:一项回顾性队列研究","authors":"Xuan Dai, Hongyan Wei, Dezhi Zou, Yilin Yang, Chenyu Zhang, Jie Chen, Chunlin Hu","doi":"10.1186/s12871-025-02906-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Sepsis is a major cause of mortality, particularly in patients with myocardial injury. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of dexmedetomidine, propofol, and midazolam on mortality and various outcomes in this population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort study was performed using the eICU database, encompassing 2,171 septic patients with myocardial injury. Patients were categorized into single- and multiple-sedative groups. The primary endpoint was 100-day mortality, with secondary endpoints encompassing hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, mechanical ventilation (MV), and dialysis. Statistical analysis was conducted using Cox regression, Kaplan-Meier curves, and propensity score matching.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 2,171 patients, dexmedetomidine was associated with lower 100-day mortality in patients with APACHE IV scores < 78.9, particularly in specific subgroups. In patients with APACHE IV scores ≥ 78.9, dexmedetomidine provided no mortality advantage over propofol. Midazolam was linked to higher mortality across all score ranges, and its combination with propofol resulted in worse outcomes compared to dexmedetomidine-propofol. No significant differences were found in hospital stay, ICU stay, or MV rates between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Dexmedetomidine improves prognosis in septic patients with myocardial injury, particularly in those with lower severity of illness, highlighting its potential as a preferred sedative choice in this population.</p>","PeriodicalId":9190,"journal":{"name":"BMC Anesthesiology","volume":"25 1","pages":"145"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11959799/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Dexmedetomidine improves prognosis in septic patients with myocardial injury and lower APACHE IV scores: a retrospective cohort study.\",\"authors\":\"Xuan Dai, Hongyan Wei, Dezhi Zou, Yilin Yang, Chenyu Zhang, Jie Chen, Chunlin Hu\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12871-025-02906-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objective: </strong>Sepsis is a major cause of mortality, particularly in patients with myocardial injury. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of dexmedetomidine, propofol, and midazolam on mortality and various outcomes in this population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective cohort study was performed using the eICU database, encompassing 2,171 septic patients with myocardial injury. Patients were categorized into single- and multiple-sedative groups. The primary endpoint was 100-day mortality, with secondary endpoints encompassing hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, mechanical ventilation (MV), and dialysis. Statistical analysis was conducted using Cox regression, Kaplan-Meier curves, and propensity score matching.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 2,171 patients, dexmedetomidine was associated with lower 100-day mortality in patients with APACHE IV scores < 78.9, particularly in specific subgroups. In patients with APACHE IV scores ≥ 78.9, dexmedetomidine provided no mortality advantage over propofol. Midazolam was linked to higher mortality across all score ranges, and its combination with propofol resulted in worse outcomes compared to dexmedetomidine-propofol. No significant differences were found in hospital stay, ICU stay, or MV rates between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Dexmedetomidine improves prognosis in septic patients with myocardial injury, particularly in those with lower severity of illness, highlighting its potential as a preferred sedative choice in this population.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9190,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Anesthesiology\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"145\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11959799/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Anesthesiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-025-02906-5\",\"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/s12871-025-02906-5","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

背景和目的:脓毒症是死亡的主要原因,尤其是心肌损伤患者。本研究的目的是评估右美托咪定、异丙酚和咪达唑仑对该人群死亡率和各种结局的影响。方法:采用eICU数据库进行回顾性队列研究,纳入2171例脓毒性心肌损伤患者。将患者分为单药组和多药组。主要终点是100天死亡率,次要终点包括住院时间、重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间、机械通气(MV)和透析。统计学分析采用Cox回归、Kaplan-Meier曲线和倾向评分匹配。结果:在2171例患者中,右美托咪定与APACHE IV评分患者的100天死亡率降低相关。结论:右美托咪定改善了脓毒症合并心肌损伤患者的预后,特别是那些病情严重程度较低的患者,突出了其作为该人群首选镇静剂的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Dexmedetomidine improves prognosis in septic patients with myocardial injury and lower APACHE IV scores: a retrospective cohort study.

Background and objective: Sepsis is a major cause of mortality, particularly in patients with myocardial injury. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of dexmedetomidine, propofol, and midazolam on mortality and various outcomes in this population.

Methods: A retrospective cohort study was performed using the eICU database, encompassing 2,171 septic patients with myocardial injury. Patients were categorized into single- and multiple-sedative groups. The primary endpoint was 100-day mortality, with secondary endpoints encompassing hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, mechanical ventilation (MV), and dialysis. Statistical analysis was conducted using Cox regression, Kaplan-Meier curves, and propensity score matching.

Results: Among 2,171 patients, dexmedetomidine was associated with lower 100-day mortality in patients with APACHE IV scores < 78.9, particularly in specific subgroups. In patients with APACHE IV scores ≥ 78.9, dexmedetomidine provided no mortality advantage over propofol. Midazolam was linked to higher mortality across all score ranges, and its combination with propofol resulted in worse outcomes compared to dexmedetomidine-propofol. No significant differences were found in hospital stay, ICU stay, or MV rates between the groups.

Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine improves prognosis in septic patients with myocardial injury, particularly in those with lower severity of illness, highlighting its potential as a preferred sedative choice in this population.

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