Cargando…

Comparison of Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Sepsis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of dexmedetomidine compared with propofol in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of dexmedetomidine versus prop...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ding, Hua-Ze, Dong, Yi-Ling, Zhang, Kai-Yue, Bai, Jia-Yu
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9178291/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35694263
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.901898
_version_ 1784723028793360384
author Ding, Hua-Ze
Dong, Yi-Ling
Zhang, Kai-Yue
Bai, Jia-Yu
author_facet Ding, Hua-Ze
Dong, Yi-Ling
Zhang, Kai-Yue
Bai, Jia-Yu
author_sort Ding, Hua-Ze
collection PubMed
description Purpose: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of dexmedetomidine compared with propofol in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of dexmedetomidine versus propofol in septic patients requiring mechanical ventilation from inception to December 2021. The primary outcome was 28/30-day mortality and secondary outcomes were ventilator-free days and the length of ICU stay. Pooled relative risk (RR), mean deviation (MD), along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to express outcomes by the software of Review Manager 5.3. Results: Seven studies with a total of 1,212 patients were eligible for meta-analysis. The results primarily showed that dexmedetomidine had no significant effects on the 28/30-day mortality (RR = 1.04 [0.85–1.26], p = 0.70, I(2) = 3%). As for secondary outcomes, the administration of dexmedetomidine was not associated with longer-ventilator-free days (MD = 0.50 [−2.15, 3.15], p = 0.71, I(2) = 24%) compared with propofol. However, our results revealed dexmedetomidine could shorten the length of ICU stay (MD = −0.76 [−1.34, −0.18], p = 0.01, I(2) = 33%). Conclusion: Administration of dexmedetomidine for sedation in septic patients who required mechanical ventilation had no effect on 28/30-day mortality and ventilator-free days, but it could shorten the length of ICU stay.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9178291
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91782912022-06-10 Comparison of Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Sepsis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Ding, Hua-Ze Dong, Yi-Ling Zhang, Kai-Yue Bai, Jia-Yu Front Pharmacol Pharmacology Purpose: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of dexmedetomidine compared with propofol in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of dexmedetomidine versus propofol in septic patients requiring mechanical ventilation from inception to December 2021. The primary outcome was 28/30-day mortality and secondary outcomes were ventilator-free days and the length of ICU stay. Pooled relative risk (RR), mean deviation (MD), along with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to express outcomes by the software of Review Manager 5.3. Results: Seven studies with a total of 1,212 patients were eligible for meta-analysis. The results primarily showed that dexmedetomidine had no significant effects on the 28/30-day mortality (RR = 1.04 [0.85–1.26], p = 0.70, I(2) = 3%). As for secondary outcomes, the administration of dexmedetomidine was not associated with longer-ventilator-free days (MD = 0.50 [−2.15, 3.15], p = 0.71, I(2) = 24%) compared with propofol. However, our results revealed dexmedetomidine could shorten the length of ICU stay (MD = −0.76 [−1.34, −0.18], p = 0.01, I(2) = 33%). Conclusion: Administration of dexmedetomidine for sedation in septic patients who required mechanical ventilation had no effect on 28/30-day mortality and ventilator-free days, but it could shorten the length of ICU stay. Frontiers Media S.A. 2022-05-26 /pmc/articles/PMC9178291/ /pubmed/35694263 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.901898 Text en Copyright © 2022 Ding, Dong, Zhang and Bai. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Pharmacology
Ding, Hua-Ze
Dong, Yi-Ling
Zhang, Kai-Yue
Bai, Jia-Yu
Comparison of Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Sepsis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title Comparison of Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Sepsis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_full Comparison of Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Sepsis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_fullStr Comparison of Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Sepsis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Sepsis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_short Comparison of Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Sepsis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
title_sort comparison of dexmedetomidine versus propofol in mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
topic Pharmacology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9178291/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35694263
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.901898
work_keys_str_mv AT dinghuaze comparisonofdexmedetomidineversuspropofolinmechanicallyventilatedpatientswithsepsisametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT dongyiling comparisonofdexmedetomidineversuspropofolinmechanicallyventilatedpatientswithsepsisametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT zhangkaiyue comparisonofdexmedetomidineversuspropofolinmechanicallyventilatedpatientswithsepsisametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT baijiayu comparisonofdexmedetomidineversuspropofolinmechanicallyventilatedpatientswithsepsisametaanalysisofrandomizedcontrolledtrials