Dexmedetomidine versus propofol for prolonged sedation in critically ill trauma and surgical patients

Backgroundand Purpose: Currently, dexmedetomidine versus propofol has primarily been studied in medical and cardiac surgery patients with outcomes indicating safe and effective sedation. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for prolonged sedation in trauma and surgical patients.MethodsThis was a single-center prospective study conducted in the Trauma/Surgical Intensive Care Unit (ICU) at a Level I academic trauma center. It included patients 18 years of age or older requiring mechanical ventilation who were randomly assigned based on unit bed location to receive either dexmedetomidine or propofol. The primary outcome was duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes included mortality; proportion of time in target sedation; incidence of delirium, hypotension, and bradycardia; and ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS).ResultsA total of 57 patients were included. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. There was no significant difference in duration of mechanical ventilation (median [IQR]) between the dexmedetomidine (78.5[125] hours) and propofol (105[130] hours; p = 0.15) groups. There was no difference between groups in ICU mortality, ICU and hospital LOS, or incidence of delirium. Safety outcomes were also similar. Patients in the dexmedetomidine group spent a significantly greater percentage of time in target sedation (98[8] %) compared to propofol group (92[10] %; p = 0.02).ConclusionsOur results suggest that, similar to medical and cardiac surgery patients, dexmedetomidine and propofol are safe and effective sedation agents in critically ill trauma and surgical patients; however, dexmedetomidine achieves target sedation better than propofol for this specific population.