Cisatracurium ups some ARDS outcomes versus vecuronium

Cisatracurium ups some ARDS outcomes versus vecuronium

(HealthDay)—Among patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), cisatracurium does not improve mortality versus vecuronium but is associated with improvements in other outcomes, according to a study published online in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine.

Peter D. Sottile, M.D., from the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Aurora, and colleagues compared outcomes with cisatracurium and vecuronium in patients at risk for and with ARDS. The authors used propensity matching to balance patient- and hospital-specific factors in a cohort of 3,082 patients (1,901 per group).

The researchers found that there was no significant between-group difference in mortality (odds ratio, 0.932; P = 0.4) or hospital days (−0.66; P = 0.411). Fewer ventilator days (−1.01; P = 0.005) and days (−0.98; P = 0.28) were seen for patients treated with cisatracurium; however, they were equally likely to be discharged home (odds ratio, 1.19; P = 0.056).

"When compared to vecuronium, cisatracurium was not associated with a difference in , but was associated with improvements in other clinically important outcomes," the authors write. "These data suggest that cisatracurium may be the preferred neuromuscular blocking agent for patients at risk for and with ARDS."

More information: Abstract
Full Text (subscription or payment may be required)

Copyright © 2017 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Citation: Cisatracurium ups some ARDS outcomes versus vecuronium (2017, December 20) retrieved 24 April 2024 from https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-12-cisatracurium-ups-ards-outcomes-vecuronium.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Explore further

Higher positive end-expiratory pressure no benefit in ARDS

2 shares

Feedback to editors