ArticleCureus2024
Propofol vs Midazolam As the Initial Sedation Strategy for Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Single-Center Experience From Saudi Arabia.
Article in Cureus, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Propofol and midazolam are the most common sedative agents used in critical settings. Propofol and midazolam might have different mortality rates after sedation administration. Some studies mention that propofol is associated with a lower mortality rate than midazolam in mechanically ventilated patients, but other studies have contradicting results. This study aims to compare the 28-day mortality of propofol versus midazolam for patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in the National Guard Hospital Health Affairs (NGHA)-Western Region (WR). Methods A retrospective chart review was conducted at (NGHA-WR) from March 2016 to July 2022. The inclusion criteria were those mechanically ventilated patients aged 18 years or older who were admitted to ICU, where they were given either propofol or midazolam as the initial sedative agent. Those who signed DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) or were contraindicated to sedation, such as allergy, were excluded from the study. Data were retrospectively retrieved and obtained from the Hospital Information System (HIS-BestCare, Saudi-Korean Health Informatics Company, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia) and the Office of Data Intelligence. Results There is a significant difference between the type of sedation and the 28-day mortality rate. Midazolam was associated with higher rates of mortality - 104 (47.93%) when compared to propofol - three (14.29%). Also, patients who used midazolam had longer durations of ICU stay compared to propofol, with a mean number of 19.23 days vs 7.55 days, respectively. Conclusion There is a significant difference regarding the 28-day mortality between patients who were given propofol or midazolam as an initial sedative agent for mechanical ventilation ≥ 24 hours. Moreover, the use of propofol is associated with fewer days of being intubated or being in ICU when compared to midazolam.
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.