ClinicalTrials.gov
public full text
Public Domain
Early Sedation With Dexmedetomidine vs. Placebo in Older Ventilated Critically Ill Patients
Sedation remains a ubiquitous and crucial component of intensive care treatments in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. Sedation relieves anxiety, reduces distress, and promotes tolerance of endotracheal intubation and associated life-sustaining interventions such as mechanical ventilation, cardiovascular assistance, and renal support. Thus, choosing the optimal sedative agent is vital to patient comfort, safety, and survival. Despite more than 20 years of intensive care sedation research, there is still no consensus on what constitutes best sedation practice. The Society of Critical Care Medicine, the premier critical care organisation in North America, published the 2018 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility and Sleep (PADIS) disruption (chaired by our primary applicant W.A.) and issued weak recommendations to provide analgesia before sedation, to target light sedation whenever clinically feasible, and to use either dexmedetomidine or propofol over midazolam for the sedation of mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Similarly, the American Thoracic Society produced a set of Clinical Practice Guidelines to promote liberation and weaning from mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients, with weak recommendations for the use of non-benzodiazepines as primary sedatives and to target light sedation when clinically possible. A weak recommendation was issued in an Intensive Care Medicine Rapid Practice Guideline published in 2022 to use dexmedetomidine over propofol for sedation of critically ill adults, if the desired outcome is a reduction in delirium. These guidelines, however, do not consider age-dependent pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, illness severity, timing of sedative administration, operative vs medical reason for admission, or the changing dynamics of sedation practice at different phases of critical illness. The lack of high-level evidence to inform sedation practi
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Comparing the Effect of Dexmedetomidine With Midazolam on Sedation, Oxidative Stress, and Microcirculation in Intensive Care Unit#1340228
- The Effect of Early Mobilization on Sleep, Physiological Parameters, and Length of Stay in ICU#827141
- Early Goal-Directed Sedation Compared With Standard Care in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Patients#1127552
- Sedation Regimen in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Electrophysiology Study and Ablation : a Comparison Between Dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and Midazolam-remifentanil Combinations#911525
- A Study Comparing Two Analgesia/Sedation Regimens, Remifentanil/Propofol Versus Sufentanil/Propofol In Mechanically Ventilated Intensive Care Patients Requiring Analgesia And Sedation.#899828
Record · ID 1197173
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive