Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness of Midazolam, Propofol, and Dexmedetomidine in Patients With or at Risk for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT: Background: Sedatives are commonly used in patients with or at risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) during mechanical ventilation. To systematically compare the outcomes of sedation with midazolam, propofol, and dexmedetomidine in patients with or at risk for ARDS. Methods: We developed a dataset of real-world data to enable the comparison of the effectiveness and safety of sedatives and the associated outcomes from the MIMIC-III database and the eICU Collaborative Research database. We performed a systematic study with six cohorts to estimate the relative risks of outcomes among patients administered different sedatives. Propensity score matching was performed to generate a balanced 1:1 matched cohort and to identify potential prognostic factors. The outcomes included hospital mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care unit stay, length of hospitalization, and likelihood of being discharged home. Results: We performed 60 calibrated analyses among all groups and outcomes with 17,410 eligible patients. Sedation with dexmedetomidine was associated with a lower in-hospital mortality rate than sedation with midazolam and propofol or sedation without dexmedetomidine (p < 0.001). When compared with no sedation, the use of midazolam, propofol or dexmedetomidine was associated with a longer ICU stay and longer hospitalization duration (p < 0.01). Patients treated with midazolam were relatively less likely to be discharged home (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Patients treated with dexmedetomidine had a reduced risk of mortality. These data suggest that dexmedetomidine may be the preferred sedative in patients with or at risk for ARDS.

SUBMITTER: Hu AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8044880 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is one of the pulmonary complications after hematopoietic cell transplantation (HSCT) with a poor prognosis. The effects of corticosteroid therapy in HSCT patients with ARDS have never been described. In this study, we aim to evaluate the effect of corticosteroid on hospital mortality and other outcomes in patients with HSCT and ARDS.MethodsIn this bicenter retrospective study, data were collected from patients diagnosed with ARDS and HSCT. Patients were divided into an early high dose steroids group (receiving a cumulative dose ⩾480 mg of methylprednisolone or its equivalent within the first 3 days after ARDS onset) and a no early high dose steroids group. Univariate and multivariate analyses were used to determine the risk factors of hospital mortality. Cox regression was performed to assess the effect of early high dose steroids on patient survival. A propensity score matched cohort was built to validate the results from the original study cohort.ResultsTwo hundred and sixty-four patients were included in the original study cohort; 89 (33.71%) patients received early high dose steroids; these patients had higher ventilator free days at day 28 (7.68 ± 4.32 versus 6.48 ± 4.76, p = 0.046); there was no difference in hospital mortality (64.04% versus 53.14%, p = 0.091). Patients with early high dose steroids had a higher incidence of new onset bacteremia (17.98% versus 4%, p < 0.001) and viremia (13.48% versus 3.43%, p = 0.002). The results were further confirmed in the propensity score matched cohort, except for the improvement of ventilator free days (6.02 ± 5.51 versus 5.57 ± 5.54, p = 0.643).ConclusionIn this cohort of HSCT patients with ARDS, early high dose coticosteroids had no effect on hospital mortality. In addition, the incidences of new onset bacteremia and viremia were increased after early high dose steroids.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

Project description:Dexmedetomidine was shown in two European randomized double-blind double-dummy trials (PRODEX and MIDEX) to be non-inferior to propofol and midazolam in maintaining target sedation levels in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Additionally, dexmedetomidine shortened the time to extubation versus both standard sedatives, suggesting that it may reduce ICU resource needs and thus lower ICU costs. Considering resource utilization data from these two trials, we performed a secondary, cost-minimization analysis assessing the economics of dexmedetomidine versus standard care sedation.The total ICU costs associated with each study sedative were calculated on the basis of total study sedative consumption and the number of days patients remained intubated, required non-invasive ventilation, or required ICU care without mechanical ventilation. The daily unit costs for these three consecutive ICU periods were set to decline toward discharge, reflecting the observed reduction in mean daily Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS) points between the periods. A number of additional sensitivity analyses were performed, including one in which the total ICU costs were based on the cumulative sum of daily TISS points over the ICU period, and two further scenarios, with declining direct variable daily costs only.Based on pooled data from both trials, sedation with dexmedetomidine resulted in lower total ICU costs than using the standard sedatives, with a difference of €2,656 in the median (interquartile range) total ICU costs-€11,864 (€7,070 to €23,457) versus €14,520 (€7,871 to €26,254)-and €1,649 in the mean total ICU costs. The median (mean) total ICU costs with dexmedetomidine compared with those of propofol or midazolam were €1,292 (€747) and €3,573 (€2,536) lower, respectively. The result was robust, indicating lower costs with dexmedetomidine in all sensitivity analyses, including those in which only direct variable ICU costs were considered. The likelihood of dexmedetomidine resulting in lower total ICU costs compared with pooled standard care was 91.0% (72.4% versus propofol and 98.0% versus midazolam).From an economic point of view, dexmedetomidine appears to be a preferable option compared with standard sedatives for providing light to moderate ICU sedation exceeding 24 hours. The savings potential results primarily from shorter time to extubation.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00479661 (PRODEX), NCT00481312 (MIDEX).

Project description:Objectives In Germany, behavioural medical rehabilitation programmes have been implemented for patients with musculoskeletal disorders and additional mental health comorbidity. The aim of this cohort study is to assess the relative effectiveness of behavioural medical rehabilitation under real-life conditions. Design Participants received either a common or behavioural medical rehabilitation programme. Propensity score matching was used to provide balanced samples of both groups (German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00016404). Participants A total of 360 patients treated in behavioural medical rehabilitation were compared with 360 matched controls. The mean age of study participants was approximately 53.5 years (standard deviation (SD)=7.0 years) and 74.0% were women. Results No significant and clinical meaningful differences were found in return to work, applications for disability pension, and the number of patients receiving social security benefits in the year after rehabilitation. However, participants in behavioural medical rehabilitation reported better self-rated work ability, physical functioning and self-management skills, and decreased pain disability and fear-avoidance beliefs 10 months after rehabilitation. Standardized effect sizes were between 0.13 and 0.22. Conclusion Behavioural medical rehabilitation had no clinical meaningful effect on maintaining and restoring work ability. However, behavioural medical rehabilitation affected pain and disease management skills 10 months after completing the rehabilitation programme. LAY ABSTRACT Mental health comorbidity increases the risk for patients with musculoskeletal disorders to receive a disability pension despite participating in a multimodal rehabilitation programme. In Germany, behavioural medical rehabilitation programmes were therefore developed for people who are affected from both musculoskeletal and mental health disorders. These programmes integrate additional psychological treatment into the standard multimodal rehabilitation approach. To test whether these programmes are more effective in enabling a stable return to work and improving self-rated health, this study compared 360 patients treated in behavioural medical rehabilitation with 360 comparable controls treated in conventional medical rehabilitation. The results indicate that participants could benefit more from a behavioural medical rehabilitation programme. Patients did not return to work significantly more often. However, they reported better self-rated work ability, better pain and health-related outcomes, and fewer days with unemployment benefits. In conclusion, more consistent implementation of the programme offers the opportunity to further improve these outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundInpatient rehabilitation is an expensive option following total hip arthroplasty (THA). We aimed to determine if THA patients who receive inpatient rehabilitation report better hip and quality of life scores post-surgery compared to those discharged directly home.MethodsProspective, propensity score matched cohort involving 12 private hospitals across five Australian States. Patients undergoing THA secondary to osteoarthritis were included. Those receiving inpatient rehabilitation for reasons other than choice or who experienced significant health events within 90-days post-surgery were excluded. Comparisons were made between those who did and did not receive inpatient rehabilitation for patient-reported hip pain and function (Oxford Hip Score, OHS) and 'today' health rating (EuroQol 0-100 scale). Rehabilitation provider charges were also estimated and compared.ResultsTwo hundred forty-six patients (123 pairs, mean age 67 (10) yr., 66% female) were matched on 19 covariates for their propensity to receive inpatient rehabilitation. No statistically nor clinically significant between-group differences were observed [OHS median difference (IQR): 0 (- 3, 3), P = 0.60; 0 (- 1 to 1), P = 0.91, at 90 and 365-days, respectively; EuroQol scale median difference 0 (- 10, 12), P = 0.24; 0 (- 10, 10), P = 0.49; 5 (- 10, 15), P = 0.09, at 35-, 90- and 365-days, respectively]. Median rehabilitation provider charges were 10-fold higher for those who received inpatient rehabilitation [median difference $7582 (5649, 10,249), P < 0.001]. Sensitivity analyses corroborated the results of the primary analyses.ConclusionUtilization of inpatient rehabilitation pathways following THA appears to be low value healthcare. Sustainability of inpatient rehabilitation models may be enhanced if inpatient rehabilitation is reserved for those most impaired or who have limited social supports.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01899443 .

Dataset Information

Comparative Effectiveness of Midazolam, Propofol, and Dexmedetomidine in Patients With or at Risk for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets