ArticleBMC neurology2024
Comparative analysis of dexmedetomidine, midazolam, and propofol impact on epilepsy-related mortality in the ICU: insights from the MIMIC-IV database.
Article in BMC neurology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDexmedetomidine (Dex), midazolam, and propofol are three distinct sedatives characterized by varying pharmacological properties. Previous literature has indicated the positive impact of each of these sedatives on ICU patients. However, there is a scarcity of clinical evidence comparing the efficacy of Dex, midazolam, and propofol in reducing mortality among people with epilepsy (PWE). This study aimed to assess the impact of Dex, midazolam, and propofol on the survival of PWE.
methodsThe data were retrospectively retrieved from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-IV database (version 2.0). PWE were categorized into Dex, midazolam, and propofol groups based on the intravenously administered sedatives. PWE without standard drug therapy were included in the control group. Comparative analyses were performed on the data among the groups.
resultsThe Dex group exhibited a significantly lower proportion of in-hospital deaths and a markedly higher in-hospital survival time compared to the midazolam and propofol groups (p < 0.01) after propensity score matching. Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated a significant improvement in survival rates for the Dex group compared to the control group (p = 0.025). Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) revealed no significant differences in survival rates among the Dex, midazolam, and propofol groups (F = 1.949, p = 0.143). The nomogram indicated that compared to midazolam and propofol groups, Dex was more effective in improving the survival rate of PWE.
conclusionDex might improve the survival rate of PWE in the ICU compared to no standard drug intervention. However, Dex did not exhibit superiority in improving survival rates compared to midazolam and propofol.
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.