ABSTRACT
La sedoanalgesia en pacientes bajo ventilación mecánica artificial se recomienda para lograr una mejor satisfacción del paciente y prevenir complicaciones. El objetivo de este trabajo fue realizar una revisión bibliográfica sobre la acción sedoanalgésica de la combinación de midazolam-morfina comparado con midazolam-ketamina en pacientes críticos tratados con ventilación mecánica artificial. Se realizó una búsqueda manual y digital en diferentes bases de datos como Scielo, IBECS, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Cochrane y Wh, con los descriptores en inglés siguientes: sedation, midazolam-ketamine, midazolam-morfina AND mechanical ventilation AND crtical illness [MeSH Terms]. Se encontró un total de 60 artículos, todos realizados en seres humanos, 32 en los últimos 5 años, pero solo 16 a texto completo. De ellos, 7 eran revisiones sistemáticas sobre el tema y solo 4 ensayos clínicos. Ninguno utilizó la asociación midazolam-ketamina para la sedación. En la revisión realizada no se encontró ningún artículo que informara sobre las ventajas de la asociación midazolam-ketamina en la sedación del paciente crítico ventilado mecánicamente, lo que le confiere novedad a la investigación(AU)
The sedoanalgesia is recommended for patients under artificial mechanical ventilation in order to achieve better patient satisfaction and to prevent complications. The objective of this work was to carry out a literature review about the sedoanalgesic effect to the combination of midazolam-morphine compared with comidazolam-ketamine in critically ill patients treated with artificial mechanical ventilation. A manual and digital search was carried out in different databases such as Scielo, IBECS, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and Wh, using the following descriptors in English: sedation, midazolam-ketamine, midazolam-morphine, AND mechanical ventilation AND critical illness (MeSH terms). We found 60 articles, all of which reported human-related cases, 32 in the last 5 years, but only 16 at full text. Out of these, seven were systematic reviews about the subject and only four, clinical trials. We did not find any articles in the review that reported about the advantages of the association midazolam-ketamine in sedation of mechanically ventilated critically ill patients, a fact that confers novelty to the investigation.
Subject(s)
Humans , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Midazolam/therapeutic use , Critical Care/methods , Ketamine/therapeutic use , Drug Therapy, Combination/standards , Deep Sedation/methodsABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The afferent and efferent pathways of fentanyl cough response (FCR) and central organization are poorly understood at present. The aim of this study was to investigate the pretreatment effects of morphine, propofol, atropine, and midazolam on FCR. METHOD: The 120 healthy patients were randomly assigned to six equal pretreatment groups. They received 2ug/kg fentanyl rapidly through a peripheral venous catheter. The patients in each group were pretreated before the time necessary for peak plasma levels with different drugs as follows: group 1, no premedication; group 2, morphine 0.05 mg/kg iv; group 3, morphine 0.05 mg/kg iv naloxone 0.01mg/kg iv; group 4, propofol 0.5 mg/kg iv; group 5, atropine 0.01 mg/kg iv; group 6, midazolam 0.05 mg/kg iv. The patients were observed for any coughing or side effects, including oxygen desaturation, bronchoconstriction, chest wall rigidity and seizure. RESULT: 40% of patients in group 1 (control) had a cough response to fentanyl. Group 2 (morphine) and group 3 (morphine naloxone) showed a reduced FCR of 10%. The incidence of coughing was 60% of the patients in group 4 (propofol), 30% in group 5 (atropine), and 40% in group 6 (midazolam). These were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: FCR is not altered by pretreatment with propofol, atropine, or midazolam, but morphine inhibits cough response and this antitussive effect was not antagonized by naloxone.