Use of Propofol Plus Dexmedetomidine in Patients Experiencing Severe Alcohol Withdrawal in the Intensive Care Unit
Abstract
Alcohol abuse and alcohol withdrawal syndrome are major problems in the United States. This retrospective chart review assessed efficacy and safety of propofol plus dexmedetomidine used in combination as adjunctive therapy to benzodiazepines compared with either agent used alone in the treatment of severe alcohol withdrawal. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit and experiencing severe alcohol withdrawal between September 1, 2015 and September 30, 2018 were assessed for eligibility. Primary end points were change in the revised Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol scale (CIWA-Ar) score and incidence of bradycardia and hypotension. The combination of propofol and dexmedetomidine was associated with a change in CIWA-Ar score of -10.4 (95%CI -13.5 to -7.3) points compared with -4.7 (95%CI -6.6 to -2.8) points with propofol and -4.4 (95%CI -7.4 to -1.4) with dexmedetomidine (P = .21). Bradycardia was experienced by 11.1% of patients receiving the combination, 15.4% of patients receiving propofol, and 28.6% of patients receiving dexmedetomidine (P = .40). Patients receiving dexmedetomidine experienced hypotension at a rate of 21.4% compared with 22.2% of patients receiving the combination and 38.5% of patients receiving propofol (P = .08). Patients in the combination group also had a shorter length of hospital and intensive care unit stay and shorter time to extubation when compared with the propofol and dexmedetomidine groups. Although no statistical significance was found, the combination was associated with better efficacy and safety outcomes than produced by either agent used alone.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In a recent retrospective study on severe AWS in the ICU, the combination of propofol and dexmedetomidine demonstrated a higher reduction in CIWA-Ar scores within 24 h compared to their individual use, but the results did not reach statistical significance due to a small population size.
“In a recent retrospective study [27] on severe AWS in the ICU, the combination of propofol and dexmedetomidine demonstrated a higher reduction in CIWA-Ar scores within 24 h compared to their individual use.”
From A Narrative Review of Current and Emerging Trends in the Treatment of Alcohol Use Disorder (2024) · cites this paper as [27]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 16 · Cited by 14
- Authors
- Love, K., & Zimmermann, A. E.
- Affiliations
- Mercy Medical Center (US)
- Western New England University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Love, Kaylie
- Venue
- The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-10-29
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 439-443
- ISSN
- 0021-9754 (ISSN-L)
- 0091-2700
- 1552-4604
- OpenAlex
- W2982510075
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 2.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Anesthesia and Sedative Agents
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Alcoholism and Thiamine Deficiency
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Intensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
- Keywords
- propofol, dexmedetomidine, alcohol withdrawal, intensive care unit, bradycardia, hypotension, CIWA-Ar, length of hospital stay, extubation time, drug combination therapy
- MeSH terms
- Alcoholism, Bradycardia, Critical Care, Drug Therapy, Combination, Female, Humans, Hypnotics and Sedatives, Hypotension, Intensive Care Units, Length of Stay, Male, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Substance Withdrawal Syndrome, Propofol, Dexmedetomidine
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review