Observational studyCritical care explorations2025
Hemodynamic Effects of Guideline-Based Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Adults: A Multicenter Observational Analysis.
Observational study in Critical care explorations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Safety and efficacy of remimazolam in critical illness.Journal of intensive care · 2026Review
- Real-World Evidence for Combination Sedation: Propofol Plus Dexmedetomidine and Clinical Outcomes in Mechanically Ventilated ICU Patients.Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
importancePropofol is a first-line sedative for adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). However, it can contribute to hemodynamic instability, especially during intubation. The magnitude, timing, risk factors, and variability of sedation-associated mean arterial pressure (MAP) changes remain poorly characterized in ICU settings.
objectivesTo quantify MAP changes following propofol sedation, identify risk factors for hemodynamic instability, and characterize associated interventions.
designRetrospective cohort study. The primary outcome was MAP change within 2 hours following sedation. Secondary outcomes included vasopressor use and hypotension (MAP ≤ 60 mm Hg). Mixed-effects modeling was used to account for individual patient differences. SETTING AND
participantsAdults (≥ 18 yrs old) who required IMV and received greater than or equal to 6 consecutive hours of propofol infusion, between May 5th, 2018, and July 31st, 2024, in 11 ICUs across the Mayo Clinic, spanning 5 hospitals in 4 states. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the change in MAP within 2 hours following the initiation of propofol-based sedation.
resultsAcross 16,418 patients, 25.2% were on vasopressors before sedation initiation. Among the remaining 12,281 patients, 40.3% required vasopressors and 7.7% experienced hypotension within 2 hours of sedation. Propofol-based sedation was associated with a MAP reduction within the first 30 minutes (-6.58 mm Hg; 95% CI, -6.85 to -6.32; p < 0.001). There was substantial interpatient variability in both baseline MAP, and MAP decline after sedation (9.5 and 40.9% between-patient differences, respectively). Higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (-0.31 mm Hg/point), older age (-0.04 mm Hg/yr), and male sex (-0.47 mm Hg) were associated with lower MAP. Patients with higher illness severity experienced progressively greater MAP decline over time (-0.20 mm Hg/hr/SOFA point; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Propofol-based sedation was associated with clinically significant hemodynamic effects requiring intervention in the early post-intubation period. The marked interpatient variability in hemodynamic responses highlights the importance of personalized management approaches, including risk stratification based on age, sex, and illness severity.
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.