Scientific article
Meta-analysis
English

A Lack of Evidence of Superiority of Propofol Versus Midazolam for Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Patients : A Qualitative and Quantitative Systematic Review

Published inAnesthesia and analgesia, vol. 92, no. 4, p. 975-983
Publication date2001-04
Abstract

Unlabelled: Propofol and midazolam are often used for sedation in the intensive care unit. The aim of this systematic review was to estimate the efficacy and harm of propofol versus midazolam in mechanically ventilated patients. A systematic search (Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, bibliographies), any language, up to June 1999 was performed for reports of randomized comparisons of propofol with midazolam. Data from 27 trials (1624 adults) were analyzed. The average duration of sedation varied between 4 and 339 h. In 10 trials, the duration of adequate sedation was longer with propofol (weighted mean difference 2.9 h; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.2-5.6 h). In 13 trials (mostly postoperative), sedation lasted 4 to 35 h; in 9 of those, average weaning time from mechanical ventilation with propofol was 0.8-4.3 h; with midazolam it was 1.5-7.2 h (weighted mean difference 2.2 h [95% CI, 0.8 to 3.7 h]). In 8 trials, sedation lasted 54 to 339 h; there was a lack of evidence for difference in weaning times. Arterial hypotension (relative risk 2.5 [95% CI, 1.3 to 4.5]; number-needed-to-treat, 12), and hypertriglyceridemia (relative risk 12.1 [95%CI, 2.9 to 49.7]; number-needed-to-treat, 6) occurred more often with propofol. The duration of adequate sedation time is longer with propofol compared with midazolam. In postoperative patients with sedation <36 h, weaning is faster with propofol.

Implications: The duration of adequate sedation time is longer with propofol compared with midazolam. In postoperative patients with sedation < 36 h, weaning is faster with propofol.

Keywords
  • Critical Care
  • Critical Illness / therapy
  • Humans
  • Hypnotics and Sedatives / adverse effects
  • Hypnotics and Sedatives / therapeutic use
  • Midazolam / adverse effects
  • Midazolam / therapeutic use
  • Propofol / adverse effects
  • Propofol / therapeutic use
  • Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
  • Respiration, Artificial
  • Time Factors
  • Ventilator Weaning
Citation (ISO format)
WALDER, Bernhard et al. A Lack of Evidence of Superiority of Propofol Versus Midazolam for Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Patients : A Qualitative and Quantitative Systematic Review. In: Anesthesia and analgesia, 2001, vol. 92, n° 4, p. 975–983. doi: 10.1097/00000539-200104000-00033
Main files (1)
Article (Published version)
accessLevelRestricted
Identifiers
Additional URL for this publicationhttps://journals.lww.com/00000539-200104000-00033
Journal ISSN0003-2999
14views
0downloads

Technical informations

Creation29/09/2025 14:18:04
First validation07/10/2025 14:56:12
Update07/10/2025 14:57:18
Status update07/10/2025 14:57:18
Last indexation07/10/2025 14:57:19
All rights reserved by Archive ouverte UNIGE and the University of GenevaunigeBlack