Background and objective <p>Sepsis is a major cause of mortality, particularly in patients with myocardial injury. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of dexmedetomidine, propofol, and midazolam on mortality and various outcomes in this population.</p> Methods <p>A retrospective cohort study was performed using the eICU database, encompassing 2,171 septic patients with myocardial injury. Patients were categorized into single- and multiple-sedative groups. The primary endpoint was 100-day mortality, with secondary endpoints encompassing hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, mechanical ventilation (MV), and dialysis. Statistical analysis was conducted using Cox regression, Kaplan-Meier curves, and propensity score matching.</p> Results <p>Among 2,171 patients, dexmedetomidine was associated with lower 100-day mortality in patients with APACHE IV scores &lt; 78.9, particularly in specific subgroups. In patients with APACHE IV scores ≥ 78.9, dexmedetomidine provided no mortality advantage over propofol. Midazolam was linked to higher mortality across all score ranges, and its combination with propofol resulted in worse outcomes compared to dexmedetomidine-propofol. No significant differences were found in hospital stay, ICU stay, or MV rates between the groups.</p> Conclusion <p>Dexmedetomidine improves prognosis in septic patients with myocardial injury, particularly in those with lower severity of illness, highlighting its potential as a preferred sedative choice in this population.</p>

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Dexmedetomidine improves prognosis in septic patients with myocardial injury and lower APACHE IV scores: a retrospective cohort study

  • Xuan Dai,
  • Hongyan Wei,
  • Dezhi Zou,
  • Yilin Yang,
  • Chenyu Zhang,
  • Jie Chen,
  • Chunlin Hu

摘要

Background and objective

Sepsis is a major cause of mortality, particularly in patients with myocardial injury. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of dexmedetomidine, propofol, and midazolam on mortality and various outcomes in this population.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed using the eICU database, encompassing 2,171 septic patients with myocardial injury. Patients were categorized into single- and multiple-sedative groups. The primary endpoint was 100-day mortality, with secondary endpoints encompassing hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, mechanical ventilation (MV), and dialysis. Statistical analysis was conducted using Cox regression, Kaplan-Meier curves, and propensity score matching.

Results

Among 2,171 patients, dexmedetomidine was associated with lower 100-day mortality in patients with APACHE IV scores < 78.9, particularly in specific subgroups. In patients with APACHE IV scores ≥ 78.9, dexmedetomidine provided no mortality advantage over propofol. Midazolam was linked to higher mortality across all score ranges, and its combination with propofol resulted in worse outcomes compared to dexmedetomidine-propofol. No significant differences were found in hospital stay, ICU stay, or MV rates between the groups.

Conclusion

Dexmedetomidine improves prognosis in septic patients with myocardial injury, particularly in those with lower severity of illness, highlighting its potential as a preferred sedative choice in this population.