Dataset Information

Non-sedation versus sedation with a daily wake-up trial in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation (NONSEDA Trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Through many years, the standard care has been to use continuous sedation of critically ill patients during mechanical ventilation. However, preliminary randomised clinical trials indicate that it is beneficial to reduce the sedation level. No randomised trial has been conducted comparing sedation with no sedation, a priori powered to have all-cause mortality as primary outcome.The objective is to assess the benefits and harms of non-sedation versus sedation with a daily wake-up trial in critically ill patients.

Methods/design

The non-sedation (NONSEDA) trial is an investigator-initiated, randomised, clinical, parallel-group, multinational trial designed to include 700 patients from at least six ICUs in Denmark, Norway and Sweden.Inclusion criteria are mechanically ventilated patients with expected duration of mechanical ventilation >24 hours.Exclusion criteria are non-intubated patients, patients with severe head trauma, coma at admission or status epilepticus, patients treated with therapeutic hypothermia, patients with PaO2/FiO2?DiscussionThe trial investigates potential benefits of non-sedation. This might have large impact on the future treatment of mechanically ventilated critically ill patients.

Trial register

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT0196768, 09.01.2014.

SUBMITTER: Toft P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4307177 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Non-sedation versus sedation with a daily wake-up trial in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation (NONSEDA Trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Toft Palle P Olsen Hanne Tanghus HT Jørgensen Helene Korvenius HK Strøm Thomas T Nibro Helle Lykkeskov HL Oxlund Jacob J Wian Karl-Andre KA Ytrebø Lars Marius LM Kroken Bjørn Anders BA Chew Michelle M

Trials 20141220

<h4>Background</h4>Through many years, the standard care has been to use continuous sedation of critically ill patients during mechanical ventilation. However, preliminary randomised clinical trials indicate that it is beneficial to reduce the sedation level. No randomised trial has been conducted comparing sedation with no sedation, a priori powered to have all-cause mortality as primary outcome.The objective is to assess the benefits and harms of non-sedation versus sedation with a daily wake- ...[more]

PMID: 25528350

Similar Datasets

Project description:Critically ill patients rapidly loose much of their muscle mass and strength. This can be attributed to prolonged admission, prolonged mechanical ventilation and increased mortality, and it can have a negative impact on the degree of independence and quality of life. In the NONSEDA trial we randomize critically ill patients to non-sedation or sedation with a daily wake-up trial during mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit. It has never been assessed whether non-sedation affects physical function. The aim of this study is to assess the effects of non-sedation versus sedation with a daily wake-up trial on physical function after discharge from intensive care unit.Investigator-initiated, randomized, clinical, parallel-group, superiority trial, including 700 patients in total, with a substudy concerning 200 of these patients. Inclusion criteria will be intubated, mechanically ventilated patients with expected duration of mechanical ventilation >24 h. Exclusion criteria will be patients with severe head trauma, coma at admission or status epilepticus, patients treated with therapeutic hypothermia, patients with PaO2/FiO2<9 where sedation might be necessary to ensure sufficient oxygenation or placing the patient in a prone position. The experimental intervention will be non-sedation supplemented with pain management during mechanical ventilation. The control intervention will be sedation with a daily wake-up trial. The co-primary outcome will be quality of life regarding physical function (SF-36, physical component) and degree of independence in activities of daily living (Barthel Index), and this will be assessed for all 700 patients participating in the NONSEDA trial. The secondary outcomes, which will be assessed for the subpopulation of 200 NONSEDA patients in the trial site, Kolding, will be 6-min walking distance, handgrip strength, muscle size (ultrasonographic measurement of the rectus femoris muscle cross-sectional area) and biomechanical data on lower extremity function (maximal voluntary contraction, rate of force development and endurance).This study is the first to investigate the effect of no sedation during critical illness on physical function. If an effect is found, it will add important information on how to prevent muscle weakness following critical illness.The study has been approved by the relevant scientific ethics committee and is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: NCT02034942, 9 January 2014).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although routine administration of pharmacologic sedation or analgesia during mechanical ventilation in preterm neonates is not recommended, its use in clinical practice remains common. Alpha-2 agonists, mainly clonidine and dexmedetomidine, are used as adjunctive (or alternative) sedative agents alongside opioids and benzodiazepines. Clonidine has not been systematically assessed for use in neonatal sedation during ventilation. OBJECTIVES:To assess whether clonidine administered to term and preterm newborn infants receiving mechanical ventilation reduces morbidity and mortality rates. To compare the intervention versus placebo, no treatment, and dexmedetomidine; and to assess the safety of clonidine infusion for potential harms.To perform subgroup analyses according to gestational age; birth weight; administration method (infusion or bolus therapy); dose, duration, and route of clonidine administration; and pharmacologic sedation as a co-intervention. SEARCH METHODS:We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Neonatal Review Group to search the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 12) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via PubMed (1966 to January 10, 2017), Embase (1980 to January 10, 2017), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to January 10, 2017). We also searched clinical trials databases, conference proceedings, and the reference lists of retrieved articles for randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized trials. SELECTION CRITERIA:We searched for randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, and cluster trials comparing clonidine versus placebo, no treatment, or dexmedetomidine administered to term and preterm newborns receiving mechanical ventilation via an endotracheal tube. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:For the included trial, two review authors independently extracted data (e.g. number of participants, birth weight, gestational age, all-cause death during initial hospitalization, duration of respiratory support, sedation scale, duration of hospital stay) and assessed risk of bias (e.g. adequacy of randomization, blinding, completeness of follow-up). This review considered primary outcomes of all-cause neonatal death, all-cause death during initial hospitalization, and duration of mechanical ventilation in days. MAIN RESULTS:One trial, which included 112 infants, met the inclusion criteria for this review. Term newborn infants on mechanical ventilation with the need for continuous analgesia and sedation with fentanyl and midazolam were eligible for enrollment during the first 96 hours of ventilation. Study authors administered clonidine 1 ?g/kg/h or placebo on day 4 after intubation.We found no differences between the two groups in all-cause death during hospitalization (risk ratio [RR] 0.69, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.12 to 3.98). The quality of the evidence supporting these findings is low owing to imprecision of the estimates (one study; few events). The median (interquartile range) duration of mechanical ventilation was 7.1 days (5.7 to 9.1 days) in the clonidine group and 5.8 days (4.9 to 7.9 days) in the placebo group, respectively (P = 0.070). Among secondary outcomes, we found no differences in terms of duration of stay in the intensive care unit. Sedation scale values (COMFORT) and analgesia scores (Hartwig) during the first 72 hours of infusion of study medication were lower in the clonidine group than in the placebo group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:At present, evidence is insufficient to show the efficacy and safety of clonidine for sedation and analgesia in term and preterm newborn infants receiving mechanical ventilation.

Project description:BackgroundIn intensive care unit (ICU) patients, diaphragmatic dysfunction (DD) can occur on admission or during the subsequent stay. The respective incidence of these two phenomena has not been previously studied in humans. The study was designed to describe temporal trends in diaphragm function in mechanically ventilated (MV) patients.MethodsAncillary study of a prospective, 6-month, observational cohort study conducted in two ICUs. MV patients were studied within 24 h following intubation (day-1) and every 48-72 h thereafter. Diaphragm function was assessed by twitch tracheal pressure (Ptr,stim) in response to bilateral anterior magnetic phrenic nerve stimulation. Diaphragm dysfunction was defined as Ptr,stim < 11 cmH2O. Patients who received MV for at least 5 days were retained, and the first and the last measures were analysed.ResultsForty-three patients were included. Overall, 79 % of patients developed DD at some point during their ICU stay: 23 (53 %) patients presented DD on initiation of mechanical ventilation, 14 (33 %) of whom had persistent DD, while diaphragm function improved in 9 (21 %). Among the remaining 20 (47 %) patients who did not present DD on initiation of MV, 11 (26 %) developed DD during the ICU stay, while 9 (21 %) did not. Mortality was higher in patients with DD either on initiation of mechanical ventilation or during the subsequent ICU stay than in those who never developed DD (35 vs. 0 %, p = 0.04). Duration of MV was higher in patients with DD on initiation of MV that subsequently persisted than in patients who never exhibited diaphragm dysfunction (18 vs. 5 days, p = 0.04). Factors associated with a change in Ptr,stim were: age [linear coefficient regression (Coeff.) -0.097, standard error (SD) 0.047, p = 0.046], PaO2/FiO2 ratio (Coeff. 0.014, SD 0.006, p = 0.0211) and the proportion of the time under MV with sedation (per 10 %, Coeff. -5.359, SD 2.451, p = 0.035).ConclusionsDD is observed in a large majority of MV patients ≥5 days at some point of their ICU stay. Various patterns of DD are observed, including DD on initiation of mechanical ventilation and ICU-acquired DD. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier # NCT00786526.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Daily sedative interruption and intermittent sedation are effective in abbreviating the time on mechanical ventilation. Whether one is superior to the other has not yet been determined. Our aim was to compare daily interruption and intermittent sedation during the mechanical ventilation period in a low nurse staffing ICU. METHODS:Adult patients expected to need mechanical ventilation for more than 24 hours were randomly assigned, in a single center, either to daily interruption of continuous sedative and opioid infusion or to intermittent sedation. In both cases, our goal was to maintain a Sedation Agitation Scale (SAS) level of 3 or 4; that is patients should be calm, easily arousable or awakened with verbal stimuli or gentle shaking. Primary outcome was ventilator-free days in 28 days. Secondary outcomes were ICU and hospital mortality, incidence of delirium, nurse workload, self-extubation and psychological distress six months after ICU discharge. RESULTS:A total of 60 patients were included. There were no differences in the ventilator-free days in 28 days between daily interruption and intermittent sedation (median: 24 versus 25 days, P?=?0.160). There were also no differences in ICU mortality (40 versus 23.3%, P?=?0.165), hospital mortality (43.3 versus 30%, P?=?0.284), incidence of delirium (30 versus 40%, P?=?0.472), self-extubation (3.3 versus 6.7%, P?=?0.514), and psychological stress six months after ICU discharge. Also, the nurse workload was not different between groups, but it was reduced on day 5 compared to day 1 in both groups (Nurse Activity Score (NAS) in the intermittent sedation group was 54 on day 1 versus 39 on day 5, P?<?0.001; NAS in daily interruption group was 53 on day 1 versus 38 on day 5, P?<?0.001). Fentanyl and midazolam total dosages per patient were higher in the daily interruption group. The tidal volume was higher in the intermittent sedation group during the first five days of ICU stay. CONCLUSIONS:There was no difference in the number of ventilator-free days in 28 days between both groups. Intermittent sedation was associated with lower sedative and opioid doses. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00824239.

Dataset Information

Non-sedation versus sedation with a daily wake-up trial in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation (NONSEDA Trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Background

Methods/design

Trial register

Publications

Non-sedation versus sedation with a daily wake-up trial in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation (NONSEDA Trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets