咪达唑仑与吗啡对伴有左心室收缩功能障碍的急性肺水肿患者的影响:对 MIMO 试验数据的二次分析。

Alberto Domínguez-Rodríguez, Daniel Hernández-Vaquero, Coral Suero-Méndez, Guillermo Burillo-Putze, Victor Gil, Rafael Calvo-Rodríguez, Pascual Piñera-Salmerón, Pere Llorens, Francisco J Martín-Sánchez, Pedro Abreu-González, Francesco Formica, Òscar Miró
{"title":"咪达唑仑与吗啡对伴有左心室收缩功能障碍的急性肺水肿患者的影响:对 MIMO 试验数据的二次分析。","authors":"Alberto Domínguez-Rodríguez, Daniel Hernández-Vaquero, Coral Suero-Méndez, Guillermo Burillo-Putze, Victor Gil, Rafael Calvo-Rodríguez, Pascual Piñera-Salmerón, Pere Llorens, Francisco J Martín-Sánchez, Pedro Abreu-González, Francesco Formica, Òscar Miró","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The midazolam vs morphine (MIMO) trial showed that patients treated with midazolam had fewer serious adverse events than those treated with morphine. In many patients with acute pulmonary edema, the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is preserved, at 50% or higher. We aimed to determine whether left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction (D), defined by an LVEF of less than 50%, modifies the protective effect of midazolam vs morphine.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>The MIMO trial randomized 111 patients with acute pulmonary edema to receive intravenous midazolam in 1-mg doses to a maximum of 3 mg (n = 55) or morphine in 2- to 4-mg doses to a maximum of 8 mg (n= 56). We calculated the relative risk (RR) for a serious adverse event in patients with and without systolic LVD.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>LVEF was preserved in 84 (75.7%) of the patients with acute pulmonary edema. In patients with systolic LVD, 4 patients (26.9%) in the midazolam arm vs 6 (50%) in the morphine arm developed serious adverse events (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.2-1.4). In patients without systolic LVD, 6 patients (15%) in the midazolam arm vs 18 (40.9%) in the morphine arm experienced such events (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.16-0.83). The presence of systolic LVD did not modify the protective effect of midazolam on serious adverse effects (P=.57).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The effect of midazolam vs morphine in protecting against the development of serious adverse events or death is similar in patients with and without systolic LVD.</p>","PeriodicalId":11644,"journal":{"name":"Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias","volume":"35 1","pages":"25-30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effects of midazolam vs morphine in patients with acute pulmonary edema with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a secondary analysis of data from the MIMO trial.\",\"authors\":\"Alberto Domínguez-Rodríguez, Daniel Hernández-Vaquero, Coral Suero-Méndez, Guillermo Burillo-Putze, Victor Gil, Rafael Calvo-Rodríguez, Pascual Piñera-Salmerón, Pere Llorens, Francisco J Martín-Sánchez, Pedro Abreu-González, Francesco Formica, Òscar Miró\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The midazolam vs morphine (MIMO) trial showed that patients treated with midazolam had fewer serious adverse events than those treated with morphine. In many patients with acute pulmonary edema, the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is preserved, at 50% or higher. We aimed to determine whether left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction (D), defined by an LVEF of less than 50%, modifies the protective effect of midazolam vs morphine.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>The MIMO trial randomized 111 patients with acute pulmonary edema to receive intravenous midazolam in 1-mg doses to a maximum of 3 mg (n = 55) or morphine in 2- to 4-mg doses to a maximum of 8 mg (n= 56). We calculated the relative risk (RR) for a serious adverse event in patients with and without systolic LVD.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>LVEF was preserved in 84 (75.7%) of the patients with acute pulmonary edema. In patients with systolic LVD, 4 patients (26.9%) in the midazolam arm vs 6 (50%) in the morphine arm developed serious adverse events (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.2-1.4). In patients without systolic LVD, 6 patients (15%) in the midazolam arm vs 18 (40.9%) in the morphine arm experienced such events (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.16-0.83). The presence of systolic LVD did not modify the protective effect of midazolam on serious adverse effects (P=.57).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The effect of midazolam vs morphine in protecting against the development of serious adverse events or death is similar in patients with and without systolic LVD.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11644,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias\",\"volume\":\"35 1\",\"pages\":\"25-30\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Emergencias : revista de la Sociedad Espanola de Medicina de Emergencias","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:咪达唑仑与吗啡(MIMO)对比试验表明,使用咪达唑仑治疗的患者比使用吗啡治疗的患者发生的严重不良反应更少。许多急性肺水肿患者的左心室射血分数(LVEF)保持在 50%或以上。我们旨在确定左心室收缩功能障碍(D),即 LVEF 低于 50%,是否会改变咪达唑仑与吗啡的保护作用:MIMO试验随机抽取了111名急性肺水肿患者,分别静脉注射咪达唑仑1毫克至最大3毫克(n=55)或吗啡2至4毫克至最大8毫克(n=56)。我们计算了有收缩性 LVD 和无收缩性 LVD 患者发生严重不良事件的相对风险 (RR):84例(75.7%)急性肺水肿患者的LVEF得到保留。在收缩性 LVD 患者中,咪达唑仑治疗组有 4 名患者(26.9%)与吗啡治疗组的 6 名患者(50%)发生了严重不良事件(RR,0.53;95% CI,0.2-1.4)。在无收缩性 LVD 的患者中,咪达唑仑组 6 例(15%)与吗啡组 18 例(40.9%)发生了此类事件(RR,0.37;95% CI,0.16-0.83)。咪达唑仑对严重不良反应的保护作用不因收缩期低密度脂蛋白血症的存在而改变(P=.57):结论:咪达唑仑与吗啡对有收缩性心血管疾病和无收缩性心血管疾病患者发生严重不良反应或死亡的保护效果相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effects of midazolam vs morphine in patients with acute pulmonary edema with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a secondary analysis of data from the MIMO trial.

Objectives: The midazolam vs morphine (MIMO) trial showed that patients treated with midazolam had fewer serious adverse events than those treated with morphine. In many patients with acute pulmonary edema, the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is preserved, at 50% or higher. We aimed to determine whether left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction (D), defined by an LVEF of less than 50%, modifies the protective effect of midazolam vs morphine.

Material and methods: The MIMO trial randomized 111 patients with acute pulmonary edema to receive intravenous midazolam in 1-mg doses to a maximum of 3 mg (n = 55) or morphine in 2- to 4-mg doses to a maximum of 8 mg (n= 56). We calculated the relative risk (RR) for a serious adverse event in patients with and without systolic LVD.

Results: LVEF was preserved in 84 (75.7%) of the patients with acute pulmonary edema. In patients with systolic LVD, 4 patients (26.9%) in the midazolam arm vs 6 (50%) in the morphine arm developed serious adverse events (RR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.2-1.4). In patients without systolic LVD, 6 patients (15%) in the midazolam arm vs 18 (40.9%) in the morphine arm experienced such events (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.16-0.83). The presence of systolic LVD did not modify the protective effect of midazolam on serious adverse effects (P=.57).

Conclusion: The effect of midazolam vs morphine in protecting against the development of serious adverse events or death is similar in patients with and without systolic LVD.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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