The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A randomized trial of intermittent lorazepam versus propofol with daily interruption in mechanically ventilated patients*
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare duration of mechanical ventilation for patients randomized to receive lorazepam by intermittent bolus administration vs. continuous infusions of propofol using protocols that include scheduled daily interruption of sedation. DESIGN: A randomized open-label trial enrolling patients from October 2001 to March 2004. SETTING: Medical intensive care units of two tertiary care medical centers. PATIENTS: Adult patients expected to require mechanical ventilation for >48 hrs and who required > or =10 mg of lorazepam or a continuous infusion of a sedative to achieve adequate sedation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive lorazepam by intermittent bolus administration or propofol by continuous infusion to maintain a Ramsay score of 2-3. Sedation was interrupted on a daily basis for both groups. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was median ventilator days. Secondary outcomes included 28-day ventilator-free survival, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and hospital mortality. Median ventilator days were significantly lower in the daily interruption propofol group compared with the intermittent bolus lorazepam group (5.8 vs. 8.4, p = .04). The difference was largest for hospital survivors (4.4 vs. 9.0, p = .006). There was a trend toward greater ventilator-free survival for patients in the daily interruption propofol group (median 18.5 days for propofol vs. 10.2 for lorazepam, p = .06). Hospital mortality was not different. CONCLUSIONS: For medical patients requiring >48 hrs of mechanical ventilation, sedation with propofol results in significantly fewer ventilator days compared with intermittent lorazepam when sedatives are interrupted daily.
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
Cites
Vincent, J. L., Moreno, R., Takala, J., Willatts, S., De Mendonça, A., Bruining, H., Reinhart, C. K., Suter, P. M., & Thijs, L. G. (1996) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf01709751 · Cited by 11,674
Sessler, C. N., Gosnell, M. S., Grap, M. J., Brophy, G. M., O'Neal, P. V., Keane, K. A., Tesoro, E. P., & Elswick, R. K. (2002) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/rccm.2107138 · Cited by 3,695
Ely, E. W., Inouye, S. K., Bernard, G. R., Gordon, S., Francis, J., May, L., Truman, B., Speroff, T., Gautam, S., Margolin, R., et al. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.286.21.2703 · Cited by 3,210
Delirium as a Predictor of Mortality in Mechanically Ventilated Patients in the Intensive Care Unit
Ely, E. W. (2004) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.291.14.1753 · Cited by 3,073
COMPARISON OF PROPOFOL AND MIDAZOLAM FOR SEDATION IN CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS
Aitkenhead, A., Willatts, S., Park, G., Collins, C., Ledingham, I., Pepperman, M., David Coates, P., Bodenham, A., Smith, M., & Wallace, P. M. (1989) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(89)90770-8 · Cited by 213 · cited 2×
“0) Diagnosis, n (%) Pneumonia and/or ARDS 27 (42) 30 (43) Septic shock 13 (20) 13 (19) Other shock 3 (5) 5 (7) Hemoptysis/alveolar hemorrhage 2 (3) 2 (3) Sickle cell chest syndrome 3 (5) 0 (0) COPD/asthma 4 (6) 5 (7) Upper airway obstruction 1 (2) 4 (6) Cystic fibrosis 4 (6) 1 (2) Interstitial lung diseases 4 (6) 1 (2…”
Cited by
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016.
Rhodes, A., Evans, L. E., Alhazzani, W., Levy, M. M., Antonelli, M., Ferrer, R., Kumar, A., Sevransky, J. E., Sprung, C. L., Nunnally, M. E., et al. (2017) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-017-4683-6 · Cited by 6,621
Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International guidelines for management of sepsis and septic shock: 2016.
Rhodes, A., Evans, L. E., Alhazzani, W., Levy, M. M., Antonelli, M., Ferrer, R., Kumar, A., Sevransky, J. E., Sprung, C. L., Nunnally, M. E., et al. (2017) · Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1097/ccm.0000000000002255 · Cited by 3,652
Girard, T. D., Kress, J. P., Fuchs, B. D., Thomason, J. W., Schweickert, W. D., Pun, B. T., Taichman, D. B., Dunn, J. G., Pohlman, A. S., Kinniry, P. A., et al. (2008) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(08)60105-1 · Cited by 2,055
Self-citationJakob, S. M. (2012) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2012.304 · Cited by 980
Nelson, J. E., Cox, C. E., Hope, A. A., & Carson, S. S. (2010) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/rccm.201002-0210ci · Cited by 616
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Carson, S. S., Kress, J. P., Rodgers, J. E., Vinayak, A., Campbell-Bright, S., Levitt, J., Bourdet, S., Ivanova, A., Henderson, A. G., Pohlman, A., Chang, L., Rich, P. B., & Hall, J.
- Venue
- Critical Care Medicine
- Published
- 2006-05
- Volume
- 34
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1326-1332
- ISSN
- 0090-3493 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2151086162
- Cited by
- 327
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 19.49
- 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: A randomized trial of intermittent lorazepam versus propofol with daily interruption in mechanically ventilated patients*. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.ccm.0000215513.63207.7f
- The paper
- Carson, S. S., Kress, J. P., Rodgers, J. E., Vinayak, A., Campbell-Bright, S., Levitt, J., Bourdet, S., Ivanova, A., Henderson, A. G., Pohlman, A., Chang, L., Rich, P. B., & Hall, J. (2006). A randomized trial of intermittent lorazepam versus propofol with daily interruption in mechanically ventilated patients*. Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ccm.0000215513.63207.7f
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.