ArticleCureus2025
Feasibility of Targeted Light Sedation Strategy in Open Abdomen Management: A Retrospective Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimOpen abdomen management (OAM) is now used for non-traumatic conditions like gastrointestinal ischemia. The optimal sedation strategy for patients undergoing OAM is unclear, especially for light sedation. We evaluate the feasibility of targeted lighter sedation in patients undergoing OAM.
methodsWe retrospectively studied non-trauma patients undergoing OAM in the ICU. A lighter sedation was implemented for a cohort of patients than the conventional sedation target in an earlier cohort. In our strategy, we set a goal of sedation depth of 0 to -2 on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) for patients without abdominal compartment syndrome, active bleeding, or requiring continuous muscle relaxants. Primary outcomes were whether or not each patient experienced light sedation (RASS -2 to 0) at least once during OAM and propofol dosage during OAM, calculated as milligrams per kilogram of body weight per hour (mg/kg/h).
resultsThirty-two patients were included in each cohort. The primary indications for OAM were gastrointestinal ischemia and gastrointestinal perforation. Before implementation of the strategy, 13 patients (41%) had lighter sedation at least once during OAM, compared with 27 (84%) after implementation. The mean propofol dosage during OAM was 1.30 ± 0.94 before and 1.07 ± 0.68 after (adjusted mean difference -0.27 mg/kg/h; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.71 to 0.17). After abdominal closure, patients with lighter sedation could be weaned from ventilation faster than those with deeper sedation (P=0.015) and were also discharged from the ICU earlier (P=0.013). There were no adverse events requiring emergent abdominal exploration during OAM.
conclusionsA targeted light sedation strategy for non-trauma patients undergoing OAM was suggested to be feasible, safe, and associated with earlier liberation from mechanical ventilation and ICU, suggesting potential clinical benefits. These findings should be confirmed in future prospective, multicenter studies.
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.