Comparison of the effect of protocol-directed sedation with propofol vs. midazolam by nurses in intensive care: Efficacy, haemodynamic stability and patient satisfaction

Liou Huey-Ling, Shih Chun-Che, Tang Jen-Jen, Lai Shau-Ting, Chen Hsing-I

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

16 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Aim. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of protocol-directed sedation propofol vs. midazolam by nurses in intensive care on efficacy, haemodynamic stability and patient satisfaction. Background. Protocols represent one method potentially to reduce treatment delays and ensure that medical care is administered in a standardised manner. Propofol and midazolam are often used for sedation in intensive care units. Method. A randomised, prospective cohort study and data were collected in 2003. The subjects were randomised either into propofol (n = 32) or into midazolam (n = 28) group. Efficacy of sedation, haemodynamic stability, pulse oximetry saturation, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II score), weaning time from mechanical ventilation, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay at intensive care unit, sedative drugs cost and patient satisfaction were measured. Results. The nursing staff were able to maintain patients at Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) 3-4 during the sedative period. The efficacy of sedation was 74·2% and 66·9% of time in propofol and midazolam group respectively. Both sedatives reduced the arterial blood pressure and heart rate, but did not alter haemodynamic stability. The mean score of satisfactory sedation was not significantly different between the two groups (propofol: 11·4 SEM 0·2 vs. midazolam: 11·5 SEM 0·7). Conclusion. Protocol-directed sedation with propofol vs. midazolam by nurses were similar in quality during the sedative period. Relevance to clinical practice. This sedation practice for titration of propofol and midazolam by nurses was of similar quality and able to achieve an appropriate depth of sedation during the sedative period. Furthermore, they should provide care for patients' needs during the sedative period.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1510-1517
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Clinical Nursing
Volume17
Issue number11
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 1 2008
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Midazolam
Propofol
Critical Care
Patient Satisfaction
Hypnotics and Sedatives
Hemodynamics
Nurses
APACHE
Artificial Respiration
Intensive Care Units
Drug Costs
Oximetry
Nursing Staff
Weaning
Length of Stay
Patient Care
Arterial Pressure
Cohort Studies
Heart Rate
Prospective Studies

Keywords

  • Efficacy
  • Intensive care
  • Nurses
  • Nursing
  • Patient satisfaction
  • Sedation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)

Cite this

Comparison of the effect of protocol-directed sedation with propofol vs. midazolam by nurses in intensive care : Efficacy, haemodynamic stability and patient satisfaction. / Huey-Ling, Liou; Chun-Che, Shih; Jen-Jen, Tang; Shau-Ting, Lai; Hsing-I, Chen.

In: Journal of Clinical Nursing, Vol. 17, No. 11, 01.06.2008, p. 1510-1517.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{492808865f4746f891847bb8082646ac,
title = "Comparison of the effect of protocol-directed sedation with propofol vs. midazolam by nurses in intensive care: Efficacy, haemodynamic stability and patient satisfaction",
abstract = "Aim. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of protocol-directed sedation propofol vs. midazolam by nurses in intensive care on efficacy, haemodynamic stability and patient satisfaction. Background. Protocols represent one method potentially to reduce treatment delays and ensure that medical care is administered in a standardised manner. Propofol and midazolam are often used for sedation in intensive care units. Method. A randomised, prospective cohort study and data were collected in 2003. The subjects were randomised either into propofol (n = 32) or into midazolam (n = 28) group. Efficacy of sedation, haemodynamic stability, pulse oximetry saturation, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II score), weaning time from mechanical ventilation, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay at intensive care unit, sedative drugs cost and patient satisfaction were measured. Results. The nursing staff were able to maintain patients at Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) 3-4 during the sedative period. The efficacy of sedation was 74·2{\%} and 66·9{\%} of time in propofol and midazolam group respectively. Both sedatives reduced the arterial blood pressure and heart rate, but did not alter haemodynamic stability. The mean score of satisfactory sedation was not significantly different between the two groups (propofol: 11·4 SEM 0·2 vs. midazolam: 11·5 SEM 0·7). Conclusion. Protocol-directed sedation with propofol vs. midazolam by nurses were similar in quality during the sedative period. Relevance to clinical practice. This sedation practice for titration of propofol and midazolam by nurses was of similar quality and able to achieve an appropriate depth of sedation during the sedative period. Furthermore, they should provide care for patients' needs during the sedative period.",
keywords = "Efficacy, Intensive care, Nurses, Nursing, Patient satisfaction, Sedation",
author = "Liou Huey-Ling and Shih Chun-Che and Tang Jen-Jen and Lai Shau-Ting and Chen Hsing-I",
year = "2008",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02128.x",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "1510--1517",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Nursing",
issn = "0962-1067",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of the effect of protocol-directed sedation with propofol vs. midazolam by nurses in intensive care

T2 - Efficacy, haemodynamic stability and patient satisfaction

AU - Huey-Ling, Liou

AU - Chun-Che, Shih

AU - Jen-Jen, Tang

AU - Shau-Ting, Lai

AU - Hsing-I, Chen

PY - 2008/6/1

Y1 - 2008/6/1

N2 - Aim. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of protocol-directed sedation propofol vs. midazolam by nurses in intensive care on efficacy, haemodynamic stability and patient satisfaction. Background. Protocols represent one method potentially to reduce treatment delays and ensure that medical care is administered in a standardised manner. Propofol and midazolam are often used for sedation in intensive care units. Method. A randomised, prospective cohort study and data were collected in 2003. The subjects were randomised either into propofol (n = 32) or into midazolam (n = 28) group. Efficacy of sedation, haemodynamic stability, pulse oximetry saturation, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II score), weaning time from mechanical ventilation, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay at intensive care unit, sedative drugs cost and patient satisfaction were measured. Results. The nursing staff were able to maintain patients at Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) 3-4 during the sedative period. The efficacy of sedation was 74·2% and 66·9% of time in propofol and midazolam group respectively. Both sedatives reduced the arterial blood pressure and heart rate, but did not alter haemodynamic stability. The mean score of satisfactory sedation was not significantly different between the two groups (propofol: 11·4 SEM 0·2 vs. midazolam: 11·5 SEM 0·7). Conclusion. Protocol-directed sedation with propofol vs. midazolam by nurses were similar in quality during the sedative period. Relevance to clinical practice. This sedation practice for titration of propofol and midazolam by nurses was of similar quality and able to achieve an appropriate depth of sedation during the sedative period. Furthermore, they should provide care for patients' needs during the sedative period.

AB - Aim. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of protocol-directed sedation propofol vs. midazolam by nurses in intensive care on efficacy, haemodynamic stability and patient satisfaction. Background. Protocols represent one method potentially to reduce treatment delays and ensure that medical care is administered in a standardised manner. Propofol and midazolam are often used for sedation in intensive care units. Method. A randomised, prospective cohort study and data were collected in 2003. The subjects were randomised either into propofol (n = 32) or into midazolam (n = 28) group. Efficacy of sedation, haemodynamic stability, pulse oximetry saturation, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II score), weaning time from mechanical ventilation, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay at intensive care unit, sedative drugs cost and patient satisfaction were measured. Results. The nursing staff were able to maintain patients at Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) 3-4 during the sedative period. The efficacy of sedation was 74·2% and 66·9% of time in propofol and midazolam group respectively. Both sedatives reduced the arterial blood pressure and heart rate, but did not alter haemodynamic stability. The mean score of satisfactory sedation was not significantly different between the two groups (propofol: 11·4 SEM 0·2 vs. midazolam: 11·5 SEM 0·7). Conclusion. Protocol-directed sedation with propofol vs. midazolam by nurses were similar in quality during the sedative period. Relevance to clinical practice. This sedation practice for titration of propofol and midazolam by nurses was of similar quality and able to achieve an appropriate depth of sedation during the sedative period. Furthermore, they should provide care for patients' needs during the sedative period.

KW - Efficacy

KW - Intensive care

KW - Nurses

KW - Nursing

KW - Patient satisfaction

KW - Sedation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=43749099013&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=43749099013&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02128.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2007.02128.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 18482144

AN - SCOPUS:43749099013

VL - 17

SP - 1510

EP - 1517

JO - Journal of Clinical Nursing

JF - Journal of Clinical Nursing

SN - 0962-1067

IS - 11

ER -