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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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