Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorWeisbrodt, Leonieen_US
dc.contributor.authorMcKinley, Sharonen_US
dc.contributor.authorP. Marshall, Andreaen_US
dc.contributor.authorCole, Louiseen_US
dc.contributor.authorM. Seppelt, Ianen_US
dc.contributor.authorDelaney, Anthonyen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-04-24T12:21:32Z
dc.date.available2017-04-24T12:21:32Z
dc.date.issued2011en_US
dc.date.modified2012-03-29T05:10:50Z
dc.identifier.issn10623264en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.4037/ajcc2011415en_US
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.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_US
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.publisherAmerican Journal of Critical Careen_US
dc.publisher.placeUnited Statesen_US
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_US
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrome90en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpagetoe98en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue4en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalAmerican Journal of Critical Careen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume20en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchNursing not elsewhere classifieden_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode111099en_US
dc.titleDaily interruption of sedation in patients receiving mechanical ventilationen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
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.en_US
gro.date.issued2011
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text


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