Cargando…
Remifentanil versus dexmedetomidine for treatment of cardiac surgery patients with moderate to severe noninvasive ventilation intolerance (REDNIVIN): a prospective, cohort study
BACKGROUND: The use of sedation to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) patients remains controversial, however, for intolerant patients who are uncooperative, administration of analgesics and sedatives may be beneficial before resorting to intubation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
AME Publishing Company
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7656397/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33209418 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-20-1678 |
_version_ | 1783608374464610304 |
---|---|
author | Hao, Guang-Wei Luo, Jing-Chao Xue, Yan Ma, Guo-Guang Su, Ying Hou, Jun-Yi Yu, Shen-Ji Liu, Kai Zheng, Ji-Li Tu, Guo-Wei Luo, Zhe |
author_facet | Hao, Guang-Wei Luo, Jing-Chao Xue, Yan Ma, Guo-Guang Su, Ying Hou, Jun-Yi Yu, Shen-Ji Liu, Kai Zheng, Ji-Li Tu, Guo-Wei Luo, Zhe |
author_sort | Hao, Guang-Wei |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The use of sedation to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) patients remains controversial, however, for intolerant patients who are uncooperative, administration of analgesics and sedatives may be beneficial before resorting to intubation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of remifentanil (REM) versus dexmedetomidine (DEX) for treatment of cardiac surgery (CS) patients with moderate to severe NIV intolerance. METHODS: This prospective cohort study of CS patients with moderate to severe NIV intolerance was conducted between January 2018 and March 2019. Patients were treated with either REM or DEX, decided by the bedside intensivist. Depending on the treatment regimen, the patients were allocated to one of two groups: the REM group or DEX group. RESULTS: A total of 90 patients were enrolled in this study (52 in the REM group and 38 in the DEX group). The mitigation rate, defined as the percentage of patients who were relieved from the initial moderate to severe intolerant status, was greater in the REM group than DEX group at 15 min and 3 h (15 min: 83% vs. 61%, P=0.029; 3 h: 92% vs. 74%, P=0.016), although the mean mitigation rate (81% vs. 85%, P=0.800) was comparable between the two groups. NIV failure, defined as reintubation or death over the course of study, was comparable between the two groups (19.2% vs. 21.1%, respectively, P=0.831). There were no significant differences between the two groups in other clinical outcomes, including tracheostomy (15.4% vs. 15.8%, P=0.958), in-hospital mortality (11.5% vs. 10.5%, P=0.880), ICU length of stay (LOS) (7 vs. 7 days, P=0.802), and in-hospital LOS (17 vs. 19 days, P=0.589). CONCLUSIONS: REM was as effective as DEX in CS patients with moderate to severe NIV intolerance. Although the effect of REM was better than that of DEX over the first 3 h, the cumulative effect was similar between the two treatments. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7656397 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | AME Publishing Company |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76563972020-11-17 Remifentanil versus dexmedetomidine for treatment of cardiac surgery patients with moderate to severe noninvasive ventilation intolerance (REDNIVIN): a prospective, cohort study Hao, Guang-Wei Luo, Jing-Chao Xue, Yan Ma, Guo-Guang Su, Ying Hou, Jun-Yi Yu, Shen-Ji Liu, Kai Zheng, Ji-Li Tu, Guo-Wei Luo, Zhe J Thorac Dis Original Article BACKGROUND: The use of sedation to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) patients remains controversial, however, for intolerant patients who are uncooperative, administration of analgesics and sedatives may be beneficial before resorting to intubation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of remifentanil (REM) versus dexmedetomidine (DEX) for treatment of cardiac surgery (CS) patients with moderate to severe NIV intolerance. METHODS: This prospective cohort study of CS patients with moderate to severe NIV intolerance was conducted between January 2018 and March 2019. Patients were treated with either REM or DEX, decided by the bedside intensivist. Depending on the treatment regimen, the patients were allocated to one of two groups: the REM group or DEX group. RESULTS: A total of 90 patients were enrolled in this study (52 in the REM group and 38 in the DEX group). The mitigation rate, defined as the percentage of patients who were relieved from the initial moderate to severe intolerant status, was greater in the REM group than DEX group at 15 min and 3 h (15 min: 83% vs. 61%, P=0.029; 3 h: 92% vs. 74%, P=0.016), although the mean mitigation rate (81% vs. 85%, P=0.800) was comparable between the two groups. NIV failure, defined as reintubation or death over the course of study, was comparable between the two groups (19.2% vs. 21.1%, respectively, P=0.831). There were no significant differences between the two groups in other clinical outcomes, including tracheostomy (15.4% vs. 15.8%, P=0.958), in-hospital mortality (11.5% vs. 10.5%, P=0.880), ICU length of stay (LOS) (7 vs. 7 days, P=0.802), and in-hospital LOS (17 vs. 19 days, P=0.589). CONCLUSIONS: REM was as effective as DEX in CS patients with moderate to severe NIV intolerance. Although the effect of REM was better than that of DEX over the first 3 h, the cumulative effect was similar between the two treatments. AME Publishing Company 2020-10 /pmc/articles/PMC7656397/ /pubmed/33209418 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-20-1678 Text en 2020 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Open Access Statement: This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), which permits the non-commercial replication and distribution of the article with the strict proviso that no changes or edits are made and the original work is properly cited (including links to both the formal publication through the relevant DOI and the license). See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Hao, Guang-Wei Luo, Jing-Chao Xue, Yan Ma, Guo-Guang Su, Ying Hou, Jun-Yi Yu, Shen-Ji Liu, Kai Zheng, Ji-Li Tu, Guo-Wei Luo, Zhe Remifentanil versus dexmedetomidine for treatment of cardiac surgery patients with moderate to severe noninvasive ventilation intolerance (REDNIVIN): a prospective, cohort study |
title | Remifentanil versus dexmedetomidine for treatment of cardiac surgery patients with moderate to severe noninvasive ventilation intolerance (REDNIVIN): a prospective, cohort study |
title_full | Remifentanil versus dexmedetomidine for treatment of cardiac surgery patients with moderate to severe noninvasive ventilation intolerance (REDNIVIN): a prospective, cohort study |
title_fullStr | Remifentanil versus dexmedetomidine for treatment of cardiac surgery patients with moderate to severe noninvasive ventilation intolerance (REDNIVIN): a prospective, cohort study |
title_full_unstemmed | Remifentanil versus dexmedetomidine for treatment of cardiac surgery patients with moderate to severe noninvasive ventilation intolerance (REDNIVIN): a prospective, cohort study |
title_short | Remifentanil versus dexmedetomidine for treatment of cardiac surgery patients with moderate to severe noninvasive ventilation intolerance (REDNIVIN): a prospective, cohort study |
title_sort | remifentanil versus dexmedetomidine for treatment of cardiac surgery patients with moderate to severe noninvasive ventilation intolerance (rednivin): a prospective, cohort study |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7656397/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33209418 http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-20-1678 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT haoguangwei remifentanilversusdexmedetomidinefortreatmentofcardiacsurgerypatientswithmoderatetoseverenoninvasiveventilationintolerancerednivinaprospectivecohortstudy AT luojingchao remifentanilversusdexmedetomidinefortreatmentofcardiacsurgerypatientswithmoderatetoseverenoninvasiveventilationintolerancerednivinaprospectivecohortstudy AT xueyan remifentanilversusdexmedetomidinefortreatmentofcardiacsurgerypatientswithmoderatetoseverenoninvasiveventilationintolerancerednivinaprospectivecohortstudy AT maguoguang remifentanilversusdexmedetomidinefortreatmentofcardiacsurgerypatientswithmoderatetoseverenoninvasiveventilationintolerancerednivinaprospectivecohortstudy AT suying remifentanilversusdexmedetomidinefortreatmentofcardiacsurgerypatientswithmoderatetoseverenoninvasiveventilationintolerancerednivinaprospectivecohortstudy AT houjunyi remifentanilversusdexmedetomidinefortreatmentofcardiacsurgerypatientswithmoderatetoseverenoninvasiveventilationintolerancerednivinaprospectivecohortstudy AT yushenji remifentanilversusdexmedetomidinefortreatmentofcardiacsurgerypatientswithmoderatetoseverenoninvasiveventilationintolerancerednivinaprospectivecohortstudy AT liukai remifentanilversusdexmedetomidinefortreatmentofcardiacsurgerypatientswithmoderatetoseverenoninvasiveventilationintolerancerednivinaprospectivecohortstudy AT zhengjili remifentanilversusdexmedetomidinefortreatmentofcardiacsurgerypatientswithmoderatetoseverenoninvasiveventilationintolerancerednivinaprospectivecohortstudy AT tuguowei remifentanilversusdexmedetomidinefortreatmentofcardiacsurgerypatientswithmoderatetoseverenoninvasiveventilationintolerancerednivinaprospectivecohortstudy AT luozhe remifentanilversusdexmedetomidinefortreatmentofcardiacsurgerypatientswithmoderatetoseverenoninvasiveventilationintolerancerednivinaprospectivecohortstudy |