The use of midazolam versus propofol for short-term sedation following coronary artery bypass grafting.
rct · Level II
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 2212256.
- No licence information is recorded for this record.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
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.
Medical subject headings
- Coronary Artery Bypass
- Midazolam
- Postoperative Pain
- Propofol
- Respiration, Artificial