Diazepam or midazolam for orotracheal intubation in the ICU?

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Gehrke,Lísia
Data de Publicação: 2015
Outros Autores: Oliveira,Roselaine P, Becker,Maicon, Friedman,Gilberto
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302015000100011
Resumo: Objective: to compare clinical and cost effectiveness of midazolam and diazepam for urgent intubation. Methods: patients admitted to the Central ICU of the Santa Casa Hospital Complex in Porto Alegre, over the age of 18 years, undergoing urgent intubation during 6 months were eligible. Patients were randomized in a single-blinded manner to either intravenous diazepam or midazolam. Diazepam was given as a 5 mg intravenous bolus followed by aliquots of 5 mg each minute. Midazolam was given as an intravenous bolus of 5 mg with further aliquots of 2.5 mg each minute. Ramsay sedation scale 5-6 was considered adequate sedation. We recorded time and required doses to reach adequate sedation and duration of sedation. Results: thirty four patients were randomized, but one patient in the diazepam group was excluded because data were lost. Both groups were similar in terms of illness severity and demographics. Time for adequate sedation was shorter (132 ± 87 sec vs. 224 ± 117 sec, p = 0.016) but duration of sedation was similar (86 ± 67 min vs. 88 ± 50 min, p = 0.936) for diazepam in comparison to midazolam. Total drug dose to reach adequate sedation after either drugs was similar (10.0 [10.0-12.5] mg vs. 15.0 [10.0-17.5] mg, p = 0.248). Arterial pressure and sedation intensity reduced similarly overtime with both drugs. Cost of sedation was lower for diazepam than for midazolam (1.4[1.4-1.8] vs. 13.9[9.4-16.2] reais, p <0.001). Conclusions: intubation using intravenous diazepam and midazolam is effective and well tolerated. Sedation with diazepam is associated to a quicker sedation time and to lower costs.
id AMB-1_1abbad8df1f0e43c6cca618034863fd1
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0104-42302015000100011
network_acronym_str AMB-1
network_name_str Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Diazepam or midazolam for orotracheal intubation in the ICU?deep sedationdrug costsintubationrandomized controlled trialdiazepammidazolam Objective: to compare clinical and cost effectiveness of midazolam and diazepam for urgent intubation. Methods: patients admitted to the Central ICU of the Santa Casa Hospital Complex in Porto Alegre, over the age of 18 years, undergoing urgent intubation during 6 months were eligible. Patients were randomized in a single-blinded manner to either intravenous diazepam or midazolam. Diazepam was given as a 5 mg intravenous bolus followed by aliquots of 5 mg each minute. Midazolam was given as an intravenous bolus of 5 mg with further aliquots of 2.5 mg each minute. Ramsay sedation scale 5-6 was considered adequate sedation. We recorded time and required doses to reach adequate sedation and duration of sedation. Results: thirty four patients were randomized, but one patient in the diazepam group was excluded because data were lost. Both groups were similar in terms of illness severity and demographics. Time for adequate sedation was shorter (132 ± 87 sec vs. 224 ± 117 sec, p = 0.016) but duration of sedation was similar (86 ± 67 min vs. 88 ± 50 min, p = 0.936) for diazepam in comparison to midazolam. Total drug dose to reach adequate sedation after either drugs was similar (10.0 [10.0-12.5] mg vs. 15.0 [10.0-17.5] mg, p = 0.248). Arterial pressure and sedation intensity reduced similarly overtime with both drugs. Cost of sedation was lower for diazepam than for midazolam (1.4[1.4-1.8] vs. 13.9[9.4-16.2] reais, p <0.001). Conclusions: intubation using intravenous diazepam and midazolam is effective and well tolerated. Sedation with diazepam is associated to a quicker sedation time and to lower costs. Associação Médica Brasileira2015-02-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302015000100011Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira v.61 n.1 2015reponame:Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)instname:Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)instacron:AMB10.1590/1806-9282.61.01.030info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessGehrke,LísiaOliveira,Roselaine PBecker,MaiconFriedman,Gilbertoeng2015-07-27T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0104-42302015000100011Revistahttps://ramb.amb.org.br/ultimas-edicoes/#https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||ramb@amb.org.br1806-92820104-4230opendoar:2015-07-27T00:00Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online) - Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Diazepam or midazolam for orotracheal intubation in the ICU?
title Diazepam or midazolam for orotracheal intubation in the ICU?
spellingShingle Diazepam or midazolam for orotracheal intubation in the ICU?
Gehrke,Lísia
deep sedation
drug costs
intubation
randomized controlled trial
diazepam
midazolam
title_short Diazepam or midazolam for orotracheal intubation in the ICU?
title_full Diazepam or midazolam for orotracheal intubation in the ICU?
title_fullStr Diazepam or midazolam for orotracheal intubation in the ICU?
title_full_unstemmed Diazepam or midazolam for orotracheal intubation in the ICU?
title_sort Diazepam or midazolam for orotracheal intubation in the ICU?
author Gehrke,Lísia
author_facet Gehrke,Lísia
Oliveira,Roselaine P
Becker,Maicon
Friedman,Gilberto
author_role author
author2 Oliveira,Roselaine P
Becker,Maicon
Friedman,Gilberto
author2_role author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Gehrke,Lísia
Oliveira,Roselaine P
Becker,Maicon
Friedman,Gilberto
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv deep sedation
drug costs
intubation
randomized controlled trial
diazepam
midazolam
topic deep sedation
drug costs
intubation
randomized controlled trial
diazepam
midazolam
description Objective: to compare clinical and cost effectiveness of midazolam and diazepam for urgent intubation. Methods: patients admitted to the Central ICU of the Santa Casa Hospital Complex in Porto Alegre, over the age of 18 years, undergoing urgent intubation during 6 months were eligible. Patients were randomized in a single-blinded manner to either intravenous diazepam or midazolam. Diazepam was given as a 5 mg intravenous bolus followed by aliquots of 5 mg each minute. Midazolam was given as an intravenous bolus of 5 mg with further aliquots of 2.5 mg each minute. Ramsay sedation scale 5-6 was considered adequate sedation. We recorded time and required doses to reach adequate sedation and duration of sedation. Results: thirty four patients were randomized, but one patient in the diazepam group was excluded because data were lost. Both groups were similar in terms of illness severity and demographics. Time for adequate sedation was shorter (132 ± 87 sec vs. 224 ± 117 sec, p = 0.016) but duration of sedation was similar (86 ± 67 min vs. 88 ± 50 min, p = 0.936) for diazepam in comparison to midazolam. Total drug dose to reach adequate sedation after either drugs was similar (10.0 [10.0-12.5] mg vs. 15.0 [10.0-17.5] mg, p = 0.248). Arterial pressure and sedation intensity reduced similarly overtime with both drugs. Cost of sedation was lower for diazepam than for midazolam (1.4[1.4-1.8] vs. 13.9[9.4-16.2] reais, p <0.001). Conclusions: intubation using intravenous diazepam and midazolam is effective and well tolerated. Sedation with diazepam is associated to a quicker sedation time and to lower costs.
publishDate 2015
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2015-02-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302015000100011
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0104-42302015000100011
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/1806-9282.61.01.030
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Médica Brasileira
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Associação Médica Brasileira
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira v.61 n.1 2015
reponame:Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
instname:Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
instacron:AMB
instname_str Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
instacron_str AMB
institution AMB
reponame_str Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
collection Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista da Associação Médica Brasileira (Online) - Associação Médica Brasileira (AMB)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||ramb@amb.org.br
_version_ 1754212831479201792