↓ Skip to main content

Clinical effectiveness of a sedation protocol minimizing benzodiazepine infusions and favoring early dexmedetomidine: a before-after study

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 Mendeley
Title
Clinical effectiveness of a sedation protocol minimizing benzodiazepine infusions and favoring early dexmedetomidine: a before-after study
Published in
Critical Care, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/s13054-015-0874-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lee P Skrupky, Anne M Drewry, Brian Wessman, R Ryan Field, Richard E Fagley, Linda Varghese, Angela Lieu, Joshua Olatunde, Scott T Micek, Marin H Kollef, Walter A Boyle

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials suggest clinical outcomes may be improved with dexmedetomidine as compared to benzodiazepines, however further study and validation is needed. The objective of this study was to determine the clinical effectiveness of a sedation protocol minimizing benzodiazepine use in favor of early dexmedetomidine. This was a before-after study including adult surgical and medical ICU patients requiring mechanical ventilation and continuous sedation for at least 24 hours. The before phase included consecutive patients admitted between April 1 and August 31, 2011. Subsequently, the protocol was modified to minimize use of benzodiazepines in favor of early dexmedetomidine through a multidisciplinary approach and staff education was provided. The after phase included consecutive eligible patients between May 1 and October 31, 2012. 199 patients were included, with 97 patients in the before and 102 in the after phase. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups. Use of midazolam as initial sedation (58% vs. 27%, p < 0.0001) or at any point during the ICU stay (76% vs. 48%, p < 0.0001) was significantly reduced in the after phase. Dexmedetomidine use as initial sedation (2% vs. 39%, p < 0.0001) or at any point during the ICU stay (39% vs. 82%, p < 0.0001) significantly increased. Both the prevalence (81% vs. 93%, p =0.013) and median percent of days with delirium (55% (IQR 18-83) vs. 71% (IQR 45-100), p = 0.001) were increased in the after phase. The median duration of mechanical ventilation was significantly reduced in the after phase (110 (IQR 59-192) vs. 74.5 (IQR 42-148) hrs, p = 0.029) and significantly fewer patients required tracheostomy (20% vs. 9%, p = 0.040). The median ICU length of stay was 8 (IQR 4-12) days in the before phase and 6 (IQR 3-11) days in the after phase (p = 0.252). Implementing a sedation protocol that targeted light sedation and reduced benzodiazepine use led to significant improvements in the duration of mechanical ventilation and requirement for tracheostomy despite increases in the prevalence and duration of ICU delirium.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 103 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 16%
Student > Bachelor 17 16%
Researcher 13 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Other 8 7%
Other 24 22%
Unknown 21 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 43 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 17%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 4%
Psychology 3 3%
Social Sciences 3 3%
Other 8 7%
Unknown 29 27%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 April 2015.
All research outputs
#17,286,379
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,469
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,675
of 395,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#455
of 466 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 395,421 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 466 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.