Dataset Information

Enteral versus intravenous approach for the sedation of critically ill patients: a randomized and controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:ICU patients must be kept conscious, calm, and cooperative even during the critical phases of illness. Enteral administration of sedative drugs might avoid over sedation, and would be as adequate as intravenous administration in patients who are awake, with fewer side effects and lower costs. This study compares two sedation strategies, for early achievement and maintenance of the target light sedation. METHODS:This was a multicenter, single-blind, randomized and controlled trial carried out in 12 Italian ICUs, involving patients with expected mechanical ventilation duration >?72?h at ICU admission and predicted mortality >?12% (Simplified Acute Physiology Score II >?32 points) during the first 24 h on ICU. Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous (midazolam, propofol) or enteral (hydroxyzine, lorazepam, and melatonin) sedation. The primary outcome was percentage of work shifts with the patient having an observed Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS)?=?target RASS ±1. Secondary outcomes were feasibility, delirium-free and coma-free days, costs of drugs, length of ICU and hospital stay, and ICU, hospital, and one-year mortality. RESULTS:There were 348 patients enrolled. There were no differences in the primary outcome: enteral 89.8% (74.1-100), intravenous 94.4% (78-100), p?=?0.20. Enteral-treated patients had more protocol violations: n = 81 (46.6%) vs 7 (4.2%), p?

SUBMITTER: Mistraletti G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6323792 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Enteral versus intravenous approach for the sedation of critically ill patients: a randomized and controlled trial.

Mistraletti Giovanni G Umbrello Michele M Salini Silvia S Cadringher Paolo P Formenti Paolo P Chiumello Davide D Villa Cristina C Russo Riccarda R Francesconi Silvia S Valdambrini Federico F Bellani Giacomo G Palo Alessandra A Riccardi Francesca F Ferretti Enrica E Festa Maurilio M Gado Anna Maria AM Taverna Martina M Pinna Cristina C Barbiero Alessandro A Ferrari Pier Alda PA Iapichino Gaetano G

Critical care (London, England) 20190107 1

<h4>Background</h4>ICU patients must be kept conscious, calm, and cooperative even during the critical phases of illness. Enteral administration of sedative drugs might avoid over sedation, and would be as adequate as intravenous administration in patients who are awake, with fewer side effects and lower costs. This study compares two sedation strategies, for early achievement and maintenance of the target light sedation.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a multicenter, single-blind, randomized and contro ...[more]

PMID: 30616675

Similar Datasets

Project description:A relevant innovation about sedation of long-term Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients is the 'conscious target': patients should be awake even during the critical phases of illness. Enteral sedative administration is nowadays unusual, even though the gastrointestinal tract works soon after ICU admission. The enteral approach cannot produce deep sedation; however, it is as adequate as the intravenous one, if the target is to keep patients awake and adapted to the environment, and has fewer side effects and lower costs.A randomized, controlled, multicenter, single-blind trial comparing enteral and intravenous sedative treatments has been done in 12 Italian ICUs. The main objective was to achieve and maintain the desired sedation level: observed RASS = target RASS ± 1. Three hundred high-risk patients were planned to be randomly assigned to receive either intravenous propofol/midazolam or enteral melatonin/hydroxyzine/lorazepam. Group assignment occurred through online minimization process, in order to balance variables potentially influencing the outcomes (age, sex, SAPS II, type of admission, kidney failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, sepsis) between groups. Once per shift, the staff recorded neurological monitoring using validated tools. Three flowcharts for pain, sedation, and delirium have been proposed; they have been designed to treat potentially correctable factors first, and, only once excluded, to administer neuroactive drugs. The study lasted from January 24 to December 31, 2012. A total of 348 patients have been randomized, through a centralized website, using a specific software expressly designed for this study. The created network of ICUs included a mix of both university and non-university hospitals, with different experience in managing enteral sedation. A dedicated free-access website was also created, in both Italian and English, for continuous education of ICU staff through CME courses.This 'educational research' project aims both to compare two sedative strategies and to highlight the need for a profound cultural change, improving outcomes by keeping critically-ill patients awake.Clinicaltrials.gov #NCT01360346.

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.

Project description:Background:Stress induced by pain and anxiety is common in pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) patients. Sedation/analgesia in PICU is usually achieved through various analgesics and sedatives. Excessive use of these drugs can put patients at risk for hemodynamic/respiratory instability, prolonged ventilation, withdrawal, delirium, and critical illness polyneuromyopathy.The use of non-pharmacologic interventions has been recommended by sedation guidelines. However, non-pharmacological measures in PICU, including music and noise reduction, have been inadequately studied. Methods:The Music Use for Sedation in Critically ill Children (MUSiCC trial) pilot study is an investigator-initiated, three-arm, randomized controlled trial (RCT) on the use of music for sedation in PICU. The main goal of the study is to demonstrate feasibility of a music trial in PICU and to obtain the necessary information to plan a larger trial. The study compares music versus noise cancelation versus control in sedated and mechanically ventilated children admitted to PICU. In the music group, children receive the music (modified classical music) three times a day for 30?min at a time. Music is delivered with noise cancelation headphones. The noise cancelation group receives the same intervention but with a no music (sham playlist). The control group receives usual care with no specific intervention. Children remain in the study until extubation or a maximum of 7?days. The primary outcomes of the study are feasibility and sedation/analgesia requirements. Secondary outcomes include change in vital signs before and during the intervention, ICU delirium, and adverse effects related to the intervention. The estimated sample size is 20 subjects per group for a total of 60 children. Discussion:Despite being recommended by current guidelines, evidence to support the use of music in PICU is lacking. Music has the potential to reduce sedation requirements and their negative side effects. This pilot RCT will demonstrate feasibility and provide the necessary information to plan a larger trial focusing on the effectiveness of the intervention. Trial registration:The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03497559) on April 13, 2018.

Project description:BackgroundThrough 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/designThe 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?<?9 where sedation might be necessary to ensure sufficient oxygenation or place the patient in prone position.Experimental intervention is non-sedation supplemented with pain management during mechanical ventilation.Control intervention is sedation with a daily wake-up trial.The primary outcome will be all cause mortality at 90 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes will be: days until death throughout the total observation period; coma- and delirium-free days; highest RIFLE score; days until discharge from the intensive care unit (within 28 days); days until the participant is without mechanical ventilation (within 28 days); and proportion of patients with a major cardiovascular outcome. Explorative outcomes will be: all cause mortality at 28 days after randomisation; days until discharge from the intensive care unit; days until the participant is without mechanical ventilation; days until discharge from the hospital; organ failure.Trial size: we will include 700 participants (2?×?350) in order to detect or reject 25% relative risk reduction in mortality with a type I error risk of 5% and a type II error risk of 20% (power at 80%).DiscussionThe trial investigates potential benefits of non-sedation. This might have large impact on the future treatment of mechanically ventilated critically ill patients.Trial registerClinicalTrials.gov NCT0196768, 09.01.2014.

Dataset Information

Enteral versus intravenous approach for the sedation of critically ill patients: a randomized and controlled trial.

Publications

Enteral versus intravenous approach for the sedation of critically ill patients: a randomized and controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets