The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Comparison of propofol and midazolam for sedation in intensive care unit patients
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the comparative safety and effectiveness of intravenous infusion of propofol or midazolam when used for 12 to 24 hrs of sedation and to evaluate the quality of sedation during stimulation. DESIGN: An open, comparative, prospective, randomized study. SETTING: Surgical intensive care unit (ICU) in a university hospital. PATIENTS: Postoperative, intubated, general surgical, and orthopedic patients requiring mechanical ventilation (n = 60). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: Assessments were made at baseline (0 time), 5, 10, 15, 30, 45, and 60 mins; at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24 hrs; and at the end of sedation. The assessments included systolic, mean, and diastolic blood pressures, heart rate, two-lead electrocardiogram, pulse oximetry oxygen saturation, FIO2, end-tidal CO2, respiratory rate, ventilator rate, tidal volume, and sedation scale. Vital signs and the sedation scale were obtained at 30, 60, and 90 mins and at 2, 4, 12, and 24 hrs after the end of sedation. At approximately 8 hrs and 24 hrs (or at the end of sedation), the patient's CO2 production was calculated over a 5-min interval. Every 4 hrs, the nurse would summarize and rate patient response during stimulation as well as the overall rating of the sedation and patient ability to tolerate the ICU setting. MAIN RESULTS: There were no significant differences in pulse oximetry, arterial blood gas values, or respiratory measurements during sedation with propofol or midazolam. The mean heart rate was slower in the propofol group throughout the sedation and postsedation periods. The rating of sedation and tolerance of the ICU environment were significantly better for the propofol-treated group. Postsedation, the propofol group woke up faster on discontinuation of the sedative. CONCLUSIONS: Propofol was as safe and as efficacious as midazolam for continuous intravenous sedation. The quality of sedation was better in the propofol group.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Jacobi, J., Fraser, G. L., Coursin, D. B., Riker, R. R., Fontaine, D., Wittbrodt, E. T., Chalfin, D. B., Masica, M. F., Bjerke, H. S., Coplin, W. M., et al. (2002) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/00003246-200201000-00020 · Cited by 1,895
Prospective evaluation of the Sedation-Agitation Scale for adult critically ill patients
Riker, R. R., Picard, J. T., & Fraser, G. L. (1999) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/00003246-199907000-00022 · Cited by 961
Propofol vs Midazolam for ICU Sedation
Hall, R. I., Sandham, D., Cardinal, P., Tweeddale, M., Moher, D., Wang, X., & Anis, A. H. (2001) · Chest · doi:10.1378/chest.119.4.1151 · Cited by 414
Shafer, A. (1998) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/00003246-199805000-00034 · Cited by 398
Devlin, J. W., Boleski, G., Mlynarek, M., Nerenz, D. R., Peterson, E., Jankowski, M., Horst, H. M., & Zarowitz, B. J. (1999) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/00003246-199907000-00008 · Cited by 328
Metadata
- Authors
- Ronan, K. P., Gallagher, T. J., George, B., & Hamby, B.
- Venue
- Critical Care Medicine
- Published
- 1995-02
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 286-293
- ISSN
- 0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1999453458
- Cited by
- 173
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of propofol and midazolam for sedation in intensive care unit patients. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00003246-199502000-00014
- The paper
- Ronan, K. P., Gallagher, T. J., George, B., & Hamby, B. (1995). Comparison of propofol and midazolam for sedation in intensive care unit patients. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-199502000-00014
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.