Volume 44, Issue 1 (3-2020)
Research in Medicine 2020, 44(1): 282-285 |
Back to browse issues page
Department of Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran , dr.maryam.ghasemi61@gmail.com
Abstract: (2714 Views)
Abstract
Background and Aim: Patients undergoing mechanical ventilation require continuous sedation to reduce anxiety; however, the type of sedative is controversial. In spite of the widespread use of propofol in such patients, propofol administration is associated with different complications such as increased vascular resistance, depression, and blood pressure drop; the evidence is extensively observed in the literature. The current study aimed at comparing the characteristics of patients receiving and not receiving propofol during the treatment.
Materials and Methods: In the current historical cohort study, 500 patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of Masih Daneshvari Hospital were selected using purposive sampling method. Accordingly, 250 patients were assigned to the propofol group and 250 others to the non-propofol group. The study groups were analyzed based on Richmond agitation-sedation scale (RASS), the critical-care pain observation tool (CPOT), hypotension, and length of hospital/ICU stay using Chi-square, the Fisher exact, and t-test.
Results: Comparison of the two groups showed that the CPOT score was significantly lower in the non-propofol group (1.5±0.7) compared with the propofol group (2.9±1) (p = 0.036). Also, the level of blood pressure drop in the propofol group was significantly higher than that of the non-propofol group (p = 0.023). Comparison of the two groups in terms of the quality of sedation based on RASS score indicated the superiority of the non-propofol group to the propofol group; therefore, the comparison of mean scores (-1.2±0.2 vs -0.7±0.2) showed a significant difference between the two groups (p=0.036).
Conclusion: Based on the results of the current study, it seems that receiving propofol increases the probability of hypotension and the length of hospital/ICU stay, and based on the studied variables, propofol has a lower sedative quality and pain control capability in patients.
Background and Aim: Patients undergoing mechanical ventilation require continuous sedation to reduce anxiety; however, the type of sedative is controversial. In spite of the widespread use of propofol in such patients, propofol administration is associated with different complications such as increased vascular resistance, depression, and blood pressure drop; the evidence is extensively observed in the literature. The current study aimed at comparing the characteristics of patients receiving and not receiving propofol during the treatment.
Materials and Methods: In the current historical cohort study, 500 patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of Masih Daneshvari Hospital were selected using purposive sampling method. Accordingly, 250 patients were assigned to the propofol group and 250 others to the non-propofol group. The study groups were analyzed based on Richmond agitation-sedation scale (RASS), the critical-care pain observation tool (CPOT), hypotension, and length of hospital/ICU stay using Chi-square, the Fisher exact, and t-test.
Results: Comparison of the two groups showed that the CPOT score was significantly lower in the non-propofol group (1.5±0.7) compared with the propofol group (2.9±1) (p = 0.036). Also, the level of blood pressure drop in the propofol group was significantly higher than that of the non-propofol group (p = 0.023). Comparison of the two groups in terms of the quality of sedation based on RASS score indicated the superiority of the non-propofol group to the propofol group; therefore, the comparison of mean scores (-1.2±0.2 vs -0.7±0.2) showed a significant difference between the two groups (p=0.036).
Conclusion: Based on the results of the current study, it seems that receiving propofol increases the probability of hypotension and the length of hospital/ICU stay, and based on the studied variables, propofol has a lower sedative quality and pain control capability in patients.
Type of Study: Original |
Subject:
Anesthesia and special care
Received: 2018/10/21 | Accepted: 2019/09/2 | Published: 2020/04/11
Received: 2018/10/21 | Accepted: 2019/09/2 | Published: 2020/04/11
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |