Comparative Effectiveness of Midazolam, Propofol, and Dexmedetomidine in Patients With or at Risk for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

Background: Sedatives are commonly used in patients with or at risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) during mechanical ventilation. To systematically compare the outcomes of sedation with midazolam, propofol, and dexmedetomidine in patients with or at risk for ARDS.Methods: We develope...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: An-Min Hu (Author), Xiong-Xiong Zhong (Author), Zhen Li (Author), Zhong-Jun Zhang (Author), Hui-Ping Li (Author)
Format: Book
Published: Frontiers Media S.A., 2021-03-01T00:00:00Z.
Subjects:
Online Access:Connect to this object online.
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

MARC

LEADER 00000 am a22000003u 4500
001 doaj_3d4a039d85e24e06b4319e76c3bcb8ca
042 |a dc 
100 1 0 |a An-Min Hu  |e author 
700 1 0 |a An-Min Hu  |e author 
700 1 0 |a An-Min Hu  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Xiong-Xiong Zhong  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Zhen Li  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Zhong-Jun Zhang  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Zhong-Jun Zhang  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Zhong-Jun Zhang  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Hui-Ping Li  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Hui-Ping Li  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Hui-Ping Li  |e author 
245 0 0 |a Comparative Effectiveness of Midazolam, Propofol, and Dexmedetomidine in Patients With or at Risk for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study 
260 |b Frontiers Media S.A.,   |c 2021-03-01T00:00:00Z. 
500 |a 1663-9812 
500 |a 10.3389/fphar.2021.614465 
520 |a Background: Sedatives are commonly used in patients with or at risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) during mechanical ventilation. To systematically compare the outcomes of sedation with midazolam, propofol, and dexmedetomidine in patients with or at risk for ARDS.Methods: We developed a dataset of real-world data to enable the comparison of the effectiveness and safety of sedatives and the associated outcomes from the MIMIC-III database and the eICU Collaborative Research database. We performed a systematic study with six cohorts to estimate the relative risks of outcomes among patients administered different sedatives. Propensity score matching was performed to generate a balanced 1:1 matched cohort and to identify potential prognostic factors. The outcomes included hospital mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care unit stay, length of hospitalization, and likelihood of being discharged home.Results: We performed 60 calibrated analyses among all groups and outcomes with 17,410 eligible patients. Sedation with dexmedetomidine was associated with a lower in-hospital mortality rate than sedation with midazolam and propofol or sedation without dexmedetomidine (p < 0.001). When compared with no sedation, the use of midazolam, propofol or dexmedetomidine was associated with a longer ICU stay and longer hospitalization duration (p < 0.01). Patients treated with midazolam were relatively less likely to be discharged home (p < 0.05).Conclusion: Patients treated with dexmedetomidine had a reduced risk of mortality. These data suggest that dexmedetomidine may be the preferred sedative in patients with or at risk for ARDS. 
546 |a EN 
690 |a sedative agents 
690 |a Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome 
690 |a intensive care unit care 
690 |a mortality effects 
690 |a comparative effectiveness research 
690 |a Therapeutics. Pharmacology 
690 |a RM1-950 
655 7 |a article  |2 local 
786 0 |n Frontiers in Pharmacology, Vol 12 (2021) 
787 0 |n https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2021.614465/full 
787 0 |n https://doaj.org/toc/1663-9812 
856 4 1 |u https://doaj.org/article/3d4a039d85e24e06b4319e76c3bcb8ca  |z Connect to this object online.