Propofol Sedation Strategies Following Hypertriglyceridemia in Critically-Ill Adults Requiring Invasive Mechanical Ventilation: A Target Trial Emulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale: Propofol can increase the risk of hypertriglyceridemia and subsequent pancreatitis in critically ill patients. It is unclear whether modifying or continuing sedation regimens in patients experiencing hypertriglyceridemia while on propofol infusion influences the development of adverse events such as acute pancreatitis. This study compared the clinical outcomes of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) who had their propofol regimen modified versus continued following the detection of hypertriglyceridemia. Methods: A targeted trial emulation was conducted using retrospective data from 5 Mayo Clinic hospitals between 05/05/2018 and 06/30/2023. Inclusion criteria included: 1) receiving IMV and continuous propofol infusion for >24 hours, 2) experiencing triglyceride level >400 mg/dL while on propofol, and 3) still requiring IMV at 24-hours after hypertriglyceridemia onset. Patients were then categorized based on whether they had their propofol regimen modified (i.e., dose reduction by ≥50% or any reduction with alternative sedatives started) versus continued (no reduction or <50% reduction without alternative sedative initiation). Outcomes included 30-day ventilator-free days, successful extubation, acute pancreatitis (determined by chart review, in-duplicate), ICU and hospital length of stay, 30- and 90-days alive and at home, as well as all-cause mortality. Analyses were conducted using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weights with adjustments for covariates selected a priori. Sensitivity analyses, where only benzodiazepines or benzodiazepines and ketamine were considered to be eligible alternative sedatives, were done. Results: During the study period, 728 patients were included, of whom 422 had their propofol regimen modified (Image). The two groups had similar demographics, comorbidities, and illness severity. We identified 14 cases of acute pancreatitis possibly attributable to propofol, with 9 cases in the modified and 5 cases in the continued regimen group (2.1% versus 1.6%; P=0.63). Following adjustment for covariates, there were no significant differences in any outcomes of interest. After censoring for mortality, there was no significant difference in the 30-day cumulative incidence of successful extubation when comparing those with their regimen modified versus continued (Hazard ratio [HR] 0.95; 95% confidence intervals [CI] 0.77 to 1.18; P=0.70). There was also no significant difference in the 90-day survival rate between the two groups (HR 0.89; 95% CI 0.71 to 1.11; P=0.34). These findings remained consistent upon sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: There were no differences in outcomes among patients who had their propofol regimens modified versus continued following the detection of hypertriglyceridemia. Further prospective investigations are needed to identify the optimal strategy for managing sedative regimens in this patient population.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".