top of page


Name of Media:

Sedation in the intensive care unit with remifentanil/propofol versus midazolam/fentanyl: a randomised, open-label, pharmacoeconomic trial


Muellejans B, Matthey T, Scholpp J, Schill M

Publisher or Source:

University of York- the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination

Type of Media:

Medical Journal

Media Originally for:

Critical Care Physicians

Country of Origin:

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (the)

Primary Focus of Media:

Pre-Use of PICS Designation

COVID-19 Related:



Record Status
This is a critical abstract of an economic evaluation that meets the criteria for inclusion on NHS EED. Each abstract contains a brief summary of the methods, the results and conclusions followed by a detailed critical assessment on the reliability of the study and the conclusions drawn.
Health technology
This article compared an analgesia-based sedation regimen with remifentanil and propofol versus a conventional regimen with midazolam and fentanyl in patients requiring postoperative mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) following cardiac surgery. Remifentanil was administered at 6 to 12 microg/kg per hour, or up to a maximum of 60 microg/kg per hour. Propofol supplementation, where required, was given at 0.3 to 1.0 mg/kg per hour, or up to a maximum of 4 mg/kg per hour. The conventional midazolam/fentanyl regimen comprised an initial dose of fentanyl of 1 to 2 microg/kg, followed by a dose of 1 to 2 microg/kg per hour (or up to a maximum of 7 microg/kg per hour) plus an initial dose of 0.03 to 0.2 mg/kg midazolam.

To view the attached Video media file, Click Icon:

PostICU, Inc's library staff reviewed this copyrighted material contained in the library and reasonably believes that its inclusion in our library complies with the "Fair Use Doctrine" because: (1) our library's is for nonprofit and educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work is related to our mission; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole is fair and reasonable; and (4) the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work will if impacted, should be enhanced, by its presence in our library.

bottom of page