The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Sedation of critically ill patients during mechanical ventilation. A comparison of propofol and midazolam.
Abstract
Propofol (P) and midazolam (M) are frequently given by continuous infusion for sedation in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients. We compared these drugs with regard to: (1) time-to-awaken; (2) reproducibility of bedside assessments of level of sedation; (3) time-to-sedation; and (4) change in oxygen consumption (V O2) from awake to sedated state. Seventy-three patients were prospectively randomized to receive either P (n=37) or M (n=36). Wake-up times after stopping the drug were assessed by blinded and unblinded observers, by asking patients to perform simple tasks. Times to sedate were assessed by consensus agreement among nurses and investigators. Demographics and APACHE II scores were not different between P and M. The P group had a significantly narrower range of wake-up times with a higher likelihood of waking in less than 60 min. Blinded versus unblinded observations had excellent correlation. Average time to sedate and decrease in V O2 were not different. We conclude that in this patient population: (1) both P and M achieved optimal sedation in a large fraction of patients when administered by specified dosing protocols; (2) P had a faster, more reliable, wake-up time; (3) assessments of time-to-awaken were objective and reproducible; (4) time to sedation was not significantly different; (5) V O2 decreased similarly with both.
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
Schweickert, W. D., Pohlman, M. C., Pohlman, A. S., Nigos, C., Pawlik, A. J., Esbrook, C. L., Spears, L., Miller, M., Franczyk, M., Deprizio, D., et al. (2009) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(09)60658-9 · Cited by 3,339
Self-citationJacobi, 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
The Use of Continuous IV Sedation Is Associated With Prolongation of Mechanical Ventilation
Kollef, M. H., Levy, N. T., Ahrens, T. S., Schaiff, R., Prentice, D., & Sherman, G. (1998) · Chest · doi:10.1378/chest.114.2.541 · Cited by 916
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
Neurologic status, cough, secretions and extubation outcomes
Salam, A., Tilluckdharry, L., Amoateng-Adjepong, Y., & Manthous, C. A. (2004) · Intensive Care Medicine · doi:10.1007/s00134-004-2231-7 · Cited by 349
Metadata
- Authors
- Kress, J. P., O'Connor, M. F., Pohlman, A. S., Olson, D., Lavoie, A., Toledano, A., & Hall, J. B.
- Venue
- American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 1996-03
- Volume
- 153
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 1012-1018
- ISSN
- 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
- 1535-4970
- OpenAlex
- W2153016874
- Cited by
- 178
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.49
- 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: Sedation of critically ill patients during mechanical ventilation. A comparison of propofol and midazolam. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1164/ajrccm.153.3.8630539
- The paper
- Kress, J. P., O'Connor, M. F., Pohlman, A. S., Olson, D., Lavoie, A., Toledano, A., & Hall, J. B. (1996). Sedation of critically ill patients during mechanical ventilation. A comparison of propofol and midazolam. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1164/ajrccm.153.3.8630539
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.