American College of Clinical Pharmacy
      Search      Cart
         
  Poster Hall

Sat-36 - A Retrospective Cohort Study on Time at Target Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Patients with Malignancies

Scientific Poster Session I - Original Research

Original Research
  Saturday, October 12, 2024
  11:30 AM–01:00 PM

Abstract

Introduction: There is limited literature exploring the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and propofol in the critically ill mechanically ventilated oncology population. Patients with an underlying malignancy may benefit from the analgesic properties of dexmedetomidine, optimizing analgesia and sedation.

Research Question or Hypothesis: Does dexmedetomidine (D group) for mechanically ventilated (= 24 hours) adult patients with malignancies improve time at target sedation (TTS) when compared to propofol (P group) or the combination of propofol and dexmedetomidine (P&D group)?

Study Design: Retrospective, single center, cohort study.

Methods: The primary outcome was the percentage of time RASS scores was within goal (TTS). Continuous outcomes were examined using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. Fisher's exact test and logistic regression were used to compare categorical outcomes. A post-hoc secondary analysis of two groups was conducted by reassigning the P&D patients to either the P or D group based on longer infusion time.

Results: A total of 113 patients were included (P group: n=94, D group: n=12, P&D group: n=7). The median TTS was 29.7% in the P group, 24.2% in the D group, and 32.3% in the P&D group (p=0.7492). More patients in the P&D group (71.5%) and the P group (55.3%) required the use of as needed propofol, compared to the D group (16.7%). The MDD of as needed fentanyl was significantly higher in the P&D group (125mcg/day, IQR 92.5-165) compared to the P (75mcg/day, IQR 50-100) and D group (50mcg/day, IQR 50-61.9) (p=0.0136). There was no statistically significant difference in all other secondary outcomes. The secondary analysis (P group: n=99; D group: n=14) found more hypotension (92.9% vs 63.6%; p =0.0334) and vasopressor use (100% vs 73.7%; p =0.0372 ) in the D group.

Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine for mechanically ventilated patients with malignancies did not result in a difference in TTS compared to propofol or the combination.

Presenting Author

Aisha Siddique BSc, PharmD
Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center

Authors

Christina Candeloro PharmD
Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center

Aubrey Defayette PharmD
Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center

Ananda Dharshan MD
Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center

Mengyu Fang MS
Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center

Brian Ho PharmD
University at Buffalo School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences

Amy Thoby PharmD
Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center

Han Yu PhD Biostatistics
Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center

Cookies

This website uses cookies to help ACCP provide you with the best user experience. If you continue to use our services, ACCP will assume that you agree to the use of such cookies. You can find out how to update your settings by referring to ACCP’s Policy on Cookies.