Show simple item record

Authordc.contributor.authorTobar Almonacid, Eduardo 
Authordc.contributor.authorMontecinos, Alejandra es_CL
Authordc.contributor.authorPino P., Sandra es_CL
Authordc.contributor.authorAspée L., Paulina es_CL
Authordc.contributor.authorRivas V., Sandra es_CL
Authordc.contributor.authorPrat R., Daniela es_CL
Authordc.contributor.authorAsenjo B., Rosmi es_CL
Authordc.contributor.authorCastro Ormazábal, José es_CL
Admission datedc.date.accessioned2010-01-20T16:48:16Z
Available datedc.date.available2010-01-20T16:48:16Z
Publication datedc.date.issued2008-06
Cita de ítemdc.identifier.citationREVISTA MEDICA DE CHILE. Volume: 136, Issue: 6, Pages: 711-718, 2008en_US
Identifierdc.identifier.issn0034-9887
Identifierdc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/128272
Abstractdc.description.abstractSedatives and analgesic drugs give comfort and allow adequate respiratory support to critically ill patients in mechanical ventilation (MV). Its improper use may increase the duration of MV. Clinical guidelines suggest implementation of protocols, however this is seldom done in clinical practice. Aim: To compare in MV patients, nurse-applied guided by protocol administration of sedatives and analgesic drugs (protocol: group P) with the habitual practice using physicians criteria (control: group C). Material and methods: Inclusion criteria was the need of MV more than 48 h. The exclusion criteria were acute neurological diseases, hepatic cirrhosis, chronic renal failure and limitation of therapeutic efforts. Midazolam and fentanyl were used in both groups. The level of sedation was monitored with the Sedation Agitation Scale (SAS). In the P group, trained nurses applied algorithms to adjust the sedative doses according to a predefined SAS goal. Results: Forty patients were included, 22 aged 65±19 years in group P and 18 aged 54±21 years in group C. Apache II scores were 16±8 and 19±8 in each group. SAS score was more frequently evaluated within goal boundaries in group P than in group C (44% and 32%, respectively, p =0.001). No differences in the proportion of patients with inadequate sedation were observed between treatment groups. Midazolam doses were lower in P than in C group (0.04 (0.02-0.07) and 0.06 (0.03-0.08) mg/kg/h respectively, p =0.005). Conclusions: The implementation of sedation protocol applied by nurses improved the quality of sedation and reduced the doses of Midazolam in mechanically ventilated patientsen_US
Lenguagedc.language.isoesen_US
Publisherdc.publisherSOC MEDICA SANTIAGOen_US
Keywordsdc.subjectHypnotics and sedativesen_US
Títulodc.titleSedación guiada por protocolo versus manejo convencional en pacientes críticos en ventilación mecánicaen_US
Title in another languagedc.title.alternativeProtocol based sedation versus conventional treatment in critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation
Document typedc.typeArtículo de revista


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record