Skip to main content

Volume 3 Supplement 1


Comparison between dexmetomidine and midazolam on early extubation and hemodynamic profile. a randomized double-blind study


Patients under mechanical ventilation in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) require sedation in order to facilitate ventilator and endotracheal tube tolerance. The sedative agent that must be used should not interfere with early extubation of patients. Midazolam is a benzodiazepine, a common sedative agent used in the ICU, while dexmetomidine is an alpha 2 adrenergic receptor agonist, that is used over the last years. It has both sedative and analgesic effects.


The scientific objective of the study was to compare dexmedetomidine and midazolam regarding their extubation profile, as well as their cardiovascular response.


The present study included forty (40) mechanically ventilated patients of both sexes, aged 20-60 years, who were meeting the standard criteria for weaning. Patients were randomly allocated into 2 groups. Each group included 20 patients (n = 20). Patients in group D (Dexmetomidine) received intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine (0.2-0.7 mcg/kg/h), while in group M (Midazolam), patients received midazolam (0.04-0.2 mg/kg/h) in order to achieve a Ramsay sedation scale of 2-4. Extubation was performed after standard extubation protocol was completed. Time for extubation and vital parameters were recorded periodically.


Time to extubation in the dexmedetomidine group was significantly lower than in the midazolam group. Blood pressure and heart rate was most of the times significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group than in the midazolam group. (p < 0.05)


Dexmedetomidine has obvious clinical benefits compared to midazolam regarding extubation. This occurs due to its shorter extubation time, better hemodynamics, easy arousability and lack of respiratory depression.


  1. Kollef MH, Levy NT, Ahrens TS, et al: The use of continuous i.v. sedation is associated with prolongation of mechanical ventilation. Chest. 1998, 114: 541-8. 10.1378/chest.114.2.541.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Soliman HM, Mélot C, Vincent JL: Sedative and analgesic practice in the intensive care unit: The results of a European survey. Br J Anaesth. 2001, 87: 186-92. 10.1093/bja/87.2.186.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Jakob SM, Ruokonen E, Grounds RM, et al: Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam or propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation: Two randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2012, 307: 1151-60. 10.1001/jama.2012.304.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Rights and permissions

Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

To view a copy of this licence, visit

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mavri, M., Rellos, K., Pantazopoulos, I. et al. Comparison between dexmetomidine and midazolam on early extubation and hemodynamic profile. a randomized double-blind study. ICMx 3 (Suppl 1), A327 (2015).

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: