We have located links that may give you full text access.
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Single-drug sedation with fentanyl for prehospital postintubation sedation in trauma patients.
Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 2012 April
BACKGROUND: A fentanyl-only (FO) regimen for prehospital postintubation sedation in trauma patients was compared with the standard protocol (SP) of fentanyl + benzodiazepine.
METHODS: Intubated patients transported to a Level I trauma center from December 1, 2005, to April 30, 2009, were retrospectively reviewed. Before 2007, only SP was used; afterward both regimens were used. Groups were compared for hemodynamic and neurologic parameters in the prehospital setting and trauma bay, fluid volumes, time until general or neurosurgical intervention (NSI), and other outcomes.
RESULTS: Groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, mechanism, alcohol level, intensive care unit length of stay, and hospital length of stay. Comorbidities were similar except hypertension (p = 0.019), and stroke (p = 0.029) were more frequent in FO patients. Prehospital heart rate and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) were similar. Trauma bay hemodynamic parameters and fluid resuscitation volumes were comparable, but pupil nonreactivity was more frequent in the FO group both overall (p = 0.032) and when comparing only patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI; p = 0.014). The incidence of TBI was comparable. Although the frequency of craniotomy (13% FO vs. 7% SP) and mortality (17% FO vs. 11% SP) were not statistically different overall, in patients with TBI, there was a higher incidence of NSI (28% vs. 14%, p = 0.015), craniotomy (14% vs. 3%, p = 0.02), and time to initial NSI (446 minutes vs. 193 minutes, p = 0.042) in the FO patients.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, an FO regimen was associated with similar hemodynamic but worse neurologic variables compared with the SP regimen. Prospective evaluation is warranted before adoption of this regimen, especially in TBI patients.
METHODS: Intubated patients transported to a Level I trauma center from December 1, 2005, to April 30, 2009, were retrospectively reviewed. Before 2007, only SP was used; afterward both regimens were used. Groups were compared for hemodynamic and neurologic parameters in the prehospital setting and trauma bay, fluid volumes, time until general or neurosurgical intervention (NSI), and other outcomes.
RESULTS: Groups were comparable with respect to age, sex, mechanism, alcohol level, intensive care unit length of stay, and hospital length of stay. Comorbidities were similar except hypertension (p = 0.019), and stroke (p = 0.029) were more frequent in FO patients. Prehospital heart rate and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) were similar. Trauma bay hemodynamic parameters and fluid resuscitation volumes were comparable, but pupil nonreactivity was more frequent in the FO group both overall (p = 0.032) and when comparing only patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI; p = 0.014). The incidence of TBI was comparable. Although the frequency of craniotomy (13% FO vs. 7% SP) and mortality (17% FO vs. 11% SP) were not statistically different overall, in patients with TBI, there was a higher incidence of NSI (28% vs. 14%, p = 0.015), craniotomy (14% vs. 3%, p = 0.02), and time to initial NSI (446 minutes vs. 193 minutes, p = 0.042) in the FO patients.
CONCLUSIONS: In this study, an FO regimen was associated with similar hemodynamic but worse neurologic variables compared with the SP regimen. Prospective evaluation is warranted before adoption of this regimen, especially in TBI patients.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app