%0 Journal Article
%A Scherer, Clemens
%A Kleeberger, Jan
%A Kellnar, Antonia
%A Binzenhöfer, Leonhard
%A Lüsebrink, Enzo
%A Stocker, Thomas J
%A Berghoff, Stefan A
%A Keutner, Alix
%A Thienel, Manuela
%A Deseive, Simon
%A Stark, Konstantin
%A Braun, Daniel
%A Orban, Mathias
%A Petzold, Tobias
%A Brunner, Stefan
%A Hagl, Christian
%A Hausleiter, Jörg
%A Massberg, Steffen
%A Orban, Martin
%T Propofol versus midazolam sedation in patients with cardiogenic shock - an observational propensity-matched study.
%J Journal of critical care
%V 71
%@ 0883-9441
%C Philadelphia, Pa.
%I Saunders
%M DZNE-2022-00704
%P 154051
%D 2022
%X Benzodiazepines are recommended as first line sedative agent in ventilated cardiogenic shock patients, although data regarding the optimal sedation strategy are sparse. The aim of this study was to investigate the hemodynamic effects of propofol versus midazolam sedation in our cardiogenic shock registry.Mechanically ventilated patients suffering from cardiogenic shock were retrospectively enrolled from the cardiogenic shock registry of the university hospital of Munich. 174 patients treated predominantly with propofol were matched by propensity-score to 174 patients treated predominantly with midazolam.Catecholamine doses were similar on admission but significantly lower in the propofol group on days 1-4 of ICU stay. Mortality rate was 38
%K Conscious Sedation
%K Humans
%K Hypnotics and Sedatives: therapeutic use
%K Midazolam: therapeutic use
%K Propofol: adverse effects
%K Respiration, Artificial
%K Retrospective Studies
%K Shock, Cardiogenic: drug therapy
%K Anesthetics (Other)
%K Cardiogenic shock (Other)
%K Midazolam (Other)
%K Propofol (Other)
%K Sedation (Other)
%K VA-ECMO (Other)
%F PUB:(DE-HGF)16
%9 Journal Article
%$ pmid:35526506
%R 10.1016/j.jcrc.2022.154051
%U https://pub.dzne.de/record/164041