ArticleBMC cardiovascular disorders2021
Comparing the impact on the prognosis of acute myocardial infarction critical patients of using midazolam, propofol, and dexmedetomidine for sedation.
Article in BMC cardiovascular disorders, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dexmedetomidine improves prognosis in septic patients with myocardial injury and lower APACHE IV scores: a retrospective cohort study.BMC anesthesiology · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Protective Effects of Lugol's Solution in Rats Poisoned with Aluminum Phosphide (Rice Tablets).Cardiovascular toxicology · 2024Article
- Dexmedetomidine administration is associated with improved outcomes in critically ill patients with acute myocardial infarction partly through its anti-inflammatory activity.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Effect of different sedatives on the prognosis of patients with mechanical ventilation: a retrospective cohort study based on MIMIC-IV database.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Article
- Sodium intake and the risk of various types of cardiovascular diseases: a Mendelian randomization study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2023Article
- Minimal residual disease (MRD) detection in solid tumors using circulating tumor DNA: a systematic review.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are less studies focusing on the sedative therapy of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) critical patients. This study aim to compare the impact on the prognosis of AMI critical patients of using midazolam, propofol and dexmedetomidine.
methodsWe collected clinical data from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III (MIMIC III) database. Data on 427 AMI patients with sedatives using were recruited from in Coronary Heart Disease Intensive Care unit (CCU).
resultsThere were 143 patients in midazolam using, 272 in propofol using and 28 in dexmedetomidine using. The rate of 28-days mortality was 23.9% in overall patients. Through logistic regression analysis, only midazolam using was significant association with increased 28-days mortality when compared with propofol or dexmedetomidine using. In the subgroup analysis of age, gender, body mass index (BMI), white blood cell (WBC), beta-block, and revascularization, the association between midazolam using and increased 28-days mortality remained significantly. Through propensity score matching, 140 patients using midazolam and 192 using non-midazolam were successfully matched, the midazolam using presented with higher rate of CCU mortality, hospital mortality and 28-days mortality, longer of mechanical ventilation time and CCU duration. E-value analysis suggested robustness to unmeasured confounding.
conclusionPropofol or dexmedetomidine are preferred to be used in AMI critical patients for sedative therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.