Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWeisbrodt, Leonie
dc.contributor.authorMcKinley, Sharon
dc.contributor.authorMarshall, Andrea P
dc.contributor.authorCole, Louise
dc.contributor.authorSeppelt, Ian M
dc.contributor.authorDelaney, Anthony
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T14:56:45Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T14:56:45Z
dc.date.issued2011
dc.date.modified2012-03-29T05:10:50Z
dc.identifier.issn1062-3264
dc.identifier.doi10.4037/ajcc2011415
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/44092
dc.description.abstractBackground Daily interruption of continuous infusion of sedatives has improved outcomes in patients receiving mechanical ventilation in open-label studies. Objectives To assess the feasibility of a protocol for a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial study on the impact of routine daily interruption of sedation in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Methods A total of 50 patients receiving mechanical ventilation were randomized to daily interruption of fentanyl and/or midazolam infusions for up to 6 hours or to usual management of sedation. Blinding was achieved by using replacement infusions (saline or active drug in saline). Results The recruitment target of 80 patients was not met in an extended time frame. Propofol was used outside the protocol in 27% of patients in the intervention group and 17% of patients in the control group (P = .10). A total of 15% of the intervention group and 12% of the control group never had replacement infusions started (P = .77), and replacement infusions were started on only approximately one-third of eligible days in patients who received replacement infusions. The mean doses of fentanyl and midazolam were similar. The blinding strategy was safe and effective: no patients had unplanned extubations, and the most frequent reason for ending replacement infusions was completion of the maximum 6-hour period. Conclusions The double-blinded design for assessment of sedation interruption in patients receiving mechanical ventilation was safe and effective. Slow recruitment of patients and frequent noncompliance with the protocol suggest that modifications to the protocol are needed.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.description.publicationstatusYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherAmerican Journal of Critical Care
dc.publisher.placeUnited States
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationN
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrome90
dc.relation.ispartofpagetoe98
dc.relation.ispartofissue4
dc.relation.ispartofjournalAmerican Journal of Critical Care
dc.relation.ispartofvolume20
dc.rights.retentionY
dc.subject.fieldofresearchNursing
dc.subject.fieldofresearchNursing not elsewhere classified
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode4205
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode420599
dc.titleDaily interruption of sedation in patients receiving mechanical ventilation
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
gro.rights.copyrightSelf-archiving of the author-manuscript version is not yet supported by this journal. Please refer to the journal link for access to the definitive, published version or contact the author[s] for more information.
gro.date.issued2011
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorMarshall, Andrea


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record