In this study, we questioned whether propofol provided clinical benefits compared with midazolam in terms of neuropsychometric recovery, safety profile and patient tolerance.Patients, aged .18 yrs, were randomised to receive midazolam or propofol, given by nonanaesthetist physicians to achieve moderate levels of sedation as assessed by the electroencephalographic bispectral index (BIS; between 70 and 85). The primary end-point was the time delay until recovery of the BIS above 90. Other end-points included a neuropsychometric continuous performance test (CPT), serious respiratory adverse events, patient tolerance and physician satisfaction.Neuropsychometric recovery was improved in the propofol compared to the midazolam group as evidenced by faster normalisation of BIS index (5.4¡4.7 min versus 11.7¡10.2 min; p50.001) and better results at the CPT. In the midazolam group, 15% of patients presented profound sedation precluding CPT completion and one patient required mechanical ventilatory support. Patient tolerance was significantly better in the propofol group, whereas the operator's assessment was comparable in both groups.Compared with midazolam, propofol provided a higher quality of sedation in terms of neuropsychometric recovery and patient tolerance. BIS-guided propofol administration represents a safe sedation technique that can be performed by the non-anaesthesiologist.

Protein S-100 beta has been suggested as a prognostic marker in traumatic brain injury. However, little is known of its behaviour in the immediate post-injury period. With Ethics Committee approval, we recruited 30 patients with a history of head injury presenting to our Accident and Emergency Department. Blood was taken on arrival and at four hours post-injury. Serum S-100 beta was estimated using an immunoluminometric assay. Levels of S-100 beta were seen to fall rapidly with time. Half-time was distributed non-parametrically with a median of 198 minutes. Using the Mann-Whitney U test we found a statistically significant difference between non-desirable (Glasgow Outcome Score 1-3) and desirable (Glasgow Outcome Score 4-5) outcome on admission (p = 0.0155) but not at four hours (p = 0.1336). Levels of S-100 beta fell rapidly after its release following traumatic brain injury. Time after injury is therefore critical in assessing the significance of levels of S-100 beta, and sampling should be as early as possible to gain maximum information. If S-100 beta is to be assessed as a monitor of ongoing brain injury in the intensive therapy unit sampling must be frequent (e.g. every 4 hours) to be able to detect rises in serum levels before they have decayed to baseline.

SummaryOne hundred and jorty,five men were rundom1.y allocated on u double-blind busis 10

No abstract

No abstract