There are two main clinical trials that studied the use of continuous sedation compared to intermittent sedation in the critical care setting. In one study, a prospective, randomized, multicenter, open-labeled trial compared intermittent IV lorazepam with continuous infusion midazolam. The investigators concluded that intermittent lorazepam and continuous midazolam had similar levels of sedation and anxiolysis as measured by objective hemodynamic and laboratory data, along with patient and nurse scoring systems. However, it was determined that higher doses of continuous infusion midazolam were required to obtain adequate sedation and anxiolysis. In another prospective, cohort study, mechanically ventilated patients received either continuous or intermittent doses of sedation using a targeted Ramsay Scale of 3. Patients in the intermittent group required less hours on mechanical ventilation compared to the continuous IV sedation group, p<0.001. The authors of this trial concluded that continuous sedation may be associated with prolongation of mechanical ventilation. These two clinical trials conclude that the use of intermittent sedation may provide additional benefit to sedated patients in decreasing the days on mechanical ventilation and cumulative doses of sedative agents.