% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded.  This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.

@ARTICLE{Scherer:164041,
      author       = {Scherer, Clemens and Kleeberger, Jan and Kellnar, Antonia
                      and Binzenhöfer, Leonhard and Lüsebrink, Enzo and Stocker,
                      Thomas J and Berghoff, Stefan A and Keutner, Alix and
                      Thienel, Manuela and Deseive, Simon and Stark, Konstantin
                      and Braun, Daniel and Orban, Mathias and Petzold, Tobias and
                      Brunner, Stefan and Hagl, Christian and Hausleiter, Jörg
                      and Massberg, Steffen and Orban, Martin},
      title        = {{P}ropofol versus midazolam sedation in patients with
                      cardiogenic shock - an observational propensity-matched
                      study.},
      journal      = {Journal of critical care},
      volume       = {71},
      issn         = {0883-9441},
      address      = {Philadelphia, Pa.},
      publisher    = {Saunders},
      reportid     = {DZNE-2022-00704},
      pages        = {154051},
      year         = {2022},
      abstract     = {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 $38\%$ in
                      the propofol and $52\%$ in the midazolam group after 30 days
                      (p = 0.002). Rate of ≥BARC3 bleeding was significantly
                      lower in the propofol group compared to the midazolam group
                      (p = 0.008). Sedation with midazolam was significantly
                      associated with ICU mortality.In this observational cohort
                      study, sedation with propofol in comparison to midazolam was
                      linked to a reduced dose of catecholamines, decreased
                      mortality and bleeding rates for patients with cardiogenic
                      shock. Based on this study and in contrast to current
                      recommendations, propofol should be given consideration for
                      sedation in cardiogenic shock patients.},
      keywords     = {Conscious Sedation / Humans / Hypnotics and Sedatives:
                      therapeutic use / Midazolam: therapeutic use / Propofol:
                      adverse effects / Respiration, Artificial / Retrospective
                      Studies / Shock, Cardiogenic: drug therapy / Anesthetics
                      (Other) / Cardiogenic shock (Other) / Midazolam (Other) /
                      Propofol (Other) / Sedation (Other) / VA-ECMO (Other)},
      cin          = {AG Simons},
      ddc          = {610},
      cid          = {I:(DE-2719)1110008},
      pnm          = {351 - Brain Function (POF4-351)},
      pid          = {G:(DE-HGF)POF4-351},
      typ          = {PUB:(DE-HGF)16},
      pubmed       = {pmid:35526506},
      doi          = {10.1016/j.jcrc.2022.154051},
      url          = {https://pub.dzne.de/record/164041},
}