[A comparison of propofol and midazolam in sedation of mechanically-ventilated postoperative patients].
To compare the quality of sedation using propofol (n = 8) vs midazolam (n = 7) we evaluated their effectiveness, safety, and recovery time after their continuous infusion in patients who required mechanical ventilation after cervical spine surgery. We also calculated the cost of drugs used during the mechanical ventilation. In addition, processed electroencephalogram (pEEG) was monitored employing spectral edge frequency 90 (SEF 90) as an indicator of sedation. Both drugs produced good sedation without any complication. The patients who had received propofol were extubated significantly earlier than those who had received midazolam (P; 35 +/- 18 mins, M; 97 +/- 55 mins). However, the mean drug cost in the propofol group was five times higher than that in the midazolam group (P; yen 15,881 +/- 7,788, M; yen 3,355 +/- 1,187). There was no correlation between the value of SEF 90 and the depth of sedation during mechanical ventilation. In conclusion, propofol exhibited the shorter recovery time after cessation of the continuous infusion than midazolam, but it costed five times compared with midazolam. SEF 90 failed to indicate the depth of sedation during mechanical ventilation.
Makino
A
A
Department of Anesthesia, Yamaguchi Rosai Hospital, Onoda 756-0095.
Miyake
N
N
Yamasaki
T
T
Murakawa
T
T
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D002574:Cervical Vertebrae / Q000601:surgery; D016292:Procedural Sedation; D016527:Drug Costs; D004569:Electroencephalography; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D006993:Hypnotics and Sedatives; D008297:Male; D008874:Midazolam / Q000191:economics; D008875:Middle Aged; D008991:Monitoring, Physiologic; D011182:Postoperative Care; D015742:Propofol / Q000191:economics; D012121:Respiration, Artificial
D006993:Hypnotics and Sedatives; D008874:Midazolam; D015742:Propofol