Intensive care medicine

Publication date: 1990-01
Volume: 16 Pages: 312 -
ISSN: 0342-4642, 1432-1238 PMID: 2212256
DOI: 10.1007/BF01706356
Publisher: Springer (part of Springer Nature)

Author:

Snellen, F
Lauwers, Peter ; Demeyere, Roland ; Byttebier, G ; Van Aken, H

Keywords:

Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Coronary Artery Bypass, Female, Hemodynamic Processes, Humans, Infusions, Intravenous, Male, Midazolam, Middle Aged, Pain, Postoperative, Propofol, Respiration, Artificial, Ventilator Weaning, Science & Technology, Life Sciences & Biomedicine, Critical Care Medicine, General & Internal Medicine, Hemodynamics, 1103 Clinical Sciences, 1117 Public Health and Health Services, Emergency & Critical Care Medicine

Abstract:

Midazolam and propofol were compared in an open randomized study for postoperative sedation during 12 h of mechanical ventilation in 40 patients following coronary artery bypass grafting. After an intravenous loading dose of midazolam (50 micrograms.kg-1) or propofol (500 micrograms.kg-1), a titrated continuous infusion was administered of midazolam (mean dose 38.1 micrograms.kg-1.h-1 (SEM 2.6)) or propofol (mean dose 909 micrograms.kg-1.h-1 (SEM 100)) together with a narcotic analgesic infusion. During mechanical ventilation midazolam and propofol produced a similar quality of sedation, but recovery (midazolam 66 min (SEM 16); propofol 24 min (SEM 7)) and weaning from the ventilator (midazolam 243 min (SEM 44); propofol 154 min (SEM 33)) where faster with propofol. In the 2 groups administration of an intravenous loading dose caused a significant decrease in mean arterial pressure but hemodynamic tolerance during maintenance infusion was good.