Dataset Information

Efficacy of halopeRIdol to decrease the burden of Delirium In adult Critically ill patiEnts (EuRIDICE): study protocol for a prospective randomised multi-centre double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial in the Netherlands.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Delirium in critically ill adults is associated with prolonged hospital stay, increased mortality and greater cognitive and functional decline. Current practice guideline recommendations advocate the use of non-pharmacological strategies to reduce delirium. The routine use of scheduled haloperidol to treat delirium is not recommended given a lack of evidence regarding its ability to resolve delirium nor improve relevant short-term and longer-term outcomes. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in adult critically ill patients to reduce days spent with coma or delirium. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:EuRIDICE is a prospective, multi-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Study population consists of adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute neurological injury who have delirium based on a positive Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) or Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) assessment. Intervention is intravenous haloperidol 2.5?mg (or matching placebo) every 8?hours, titrated daily based on ICDSC or CAM-ICU positivity to a maximum of 5?mg every 8?hours, until delirium resolution or ICU discharge. Main study endpoint is delirium and coma-free days (DCFD) up to 14 days after randomisation. Secondary endpoints include (1) 28-day and 1-year mortality, (2) cognitive and functional performance at 3 and 12 months, (3) patient and family delirium and ICU experience, (4) psychological sequelae during and after ICU stay, (4) safety concerns associated with haloperidol use and (5) cost-effectiveness. Differences in DCFDs between haloperidol and placebo group will be analysed using Poisson regression analysis. Study recruitment started in February 2018 and continues. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study has been approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Erasmus University Medical Centre Rotterdam (MEC2017-511) and by the Institutional Review Boards of the participating sites. Its results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT03628391.

SUBMITTER: Smit L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7513600 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Efficacy of halopeRIdol to decrease the burden of Delirium In adult Critically ill patiEnts (EuRIDICE): study protocol for a prospective randomised multi-centre double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial in the Netherlands.

Smit Lisa L Trogrlić Zoran Z Devlin John W JW Osse Robert-Jan RJ Ponssen Huibert H HH Slooter Arjen J C AJC Hunfeld Nicole G M NGM Rietdijk Wim J R WJR Gommers Diederik D van der Jagt Mathieu M

BMJ open 20200923 9

<h4>Introduction</h4>Delirium in critically ill adults is associated with prolonged hospital stay, increased mortality and greater cognitive and functional decline. Current practice guideline recommendations advocate the use of non-pharmacological strategies to reduce delirium. The routine use of scheduled haloperidol to treat delirium is not recommended given a lack of evidence regarding its ability to resolve delirium nor improve relevant short-term and longer-term outcomes. This study aims to ...[more]

PMID: 32967873

Similar Datasets

Project description:Delirium is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. We implemented a delirium prevention policy in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with a high risk of developing delirium, and evaluated if our policy resulted in quality improvement of relevant delirium outcome measures.This study was a before/after evaluation of a delirium prevention project using prophylactic treatment with haloperidol. Patients with a predicted risk for delirium of ? 50%, or with a history of alcohol abuse or dementia, were identified. According to the prevention protocol these patients received haloperidol 1 mg/8 h. Evaluation was primarily focused on delirium incidence, delirium free days without coma and 28-day mortality. Results of prophylactic treatment were compared with a historical control group and a contemporary group that did not receive haloperidol prophylaxis mainly due to non-compliance to the protocol mostly during the implementation phase.In 12 months, 177 patients received haloperidol prophylaxis. Except for sepsis, patient characteristics were comparable between the prevention and the historical (n = 299) groups. Predicted chance to develop delirium was 75 ± 19% and 73 ± 22%, respectively. Haloperidol prophylaxis resulted in a lower delirium incidence (65% vs. 75%, P = 0.01), and more delirium-free-days (median 20 days (IQR 8 to 27) vs. median 13 days (3 to 27), P = 0.003) in the intervention group compared to the control group. Cox-regression analysis adjusted for sepsis showed a hazard rate of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.98) for 28-day mortality. Beneficial effects of haloperidol appeared most pronounced in the patients with the highest risk for delirium. Furthermore, haloperidol prophylaxis resulted in less ICU re-admissions (11% vs. 18%, P = 0.03) and unplanned removal of tubes/lines (12% vs. 19%, P = 0.02). Haloperidol was stopped in 12 patients because of QTc-time prolongation (n = 9), renal failure (n = 1) or suspected neurological side-effects (n = 2). No other side-effects were reported. Patients who were not treated during the intervention period (n = 59) showed similar results compared to the untreated historical control group.Our evaluation study suggests that prophylactic treatment with low dose haloperidol in critically ill patients with a high risk for delirium probably has beneficial effects. These results warrant confirmation in a randomized controlled trial.clinicaltrial.gov Identifier: NCT01187667.

Project description:To compare the efficacy and safety of scheduled low-dose haloperidol versus placebo for the prevention of delirium (Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist ? 4) administered to critically ill adults with subsyndromal delirium (Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist = 1-3).Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.Three 10-bed ICUs (two medical and one surgical) at an academic medical center in the United States.Sixty-eight mechanically ventilated patients with subsyndromal delirium without complicating neurologic conditions, cardiac surgery, or requiring deep sedation.Patients were randomly assigned to receive IV haloperidol 1 mg or placebo every 6 hours until delirium occurred (Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist ? 4 with psychiatric confirmation), 10 days of therapy had elapsed, or ICU discharge.Baseline characteristics were similar between the haloperidol (n = 34) and placebo (n = 34) groups. A similar number of patients given haloperidol (12/34 [35%]) and placebo (8/34 [23%]) developed delirium (p = 0.29). Haloperidol use reduced the hours per study day spent agitated (Sedation Agitation Scale ? 5) (p = 0.008), but it did not influence the proportion of 12-hour ICU shifts patients spent alive without coma (Sedation Agitation Scale ? 2) or delirium (p = 0.36), the time to first delirium occurrence (p = 0.22), nor delirium duration (p = 0.26). Days of mechanical ventilation (p = 0.80), ICU mortality (p = 0.55), and ICU patient disposition (p = 0.22) were similar in the two groups. The proportion of patients who developed corrected QT-interval prolongation (p = 0.16), extrapyramidal symptoms (p = 0.31), excessive sedation (p = 0.31), or new-onset hypotension (p = 1.0) that resulted in study drug discontinuation was comparable between the two groups.Low-dose scheduled haloperidol, initiated early in the ICU stay, does not prevent delirium and has little therapeutic advantage in mechanically ventilated, critically ill adults with subsyndromal delirium.

Project description:Importance:Results of studies on use of prophylactic haloperidol in critically ill adults are inconclusive, especially in patients at high risk of delirium. Objective:To determine whether prophylactic use of haloperidol improves survival among critically ill adults at high risk of delirium, which was defined as an anticipated intensive care unit (ICU) stay of at least 2 days. Design, Setting, and Participants:Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled investigator-driven study involving 1789 critically ill adults treated at 21 ICUs, at which nonpharmacological interventions for delirium prevention are routinely used in the Netherlands. Patients without delirium whose expected ICU stay was at least a day were included. Recruitment was from July 2013 to December 2016 and follow-up was conducted at 90 days with the final follow-up on March 1, 2017. Interventions:Patients received prophylactic treatment 3 times daily intravenously either 1 mg (n = 350) or 2 mg (n = 732) of haloperidol or placebo (n = 707), consisting of 0.9% sodium chloride. Main Outcome and Measures:The primary outcome was the number of days that patients survived in 28 days. There were 15 secondary outcomes, including delirium incidence, 28-day delirium-free and coma-free days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU and hospital length of stay. Results:All 1789 randomized patients (mean, age 66.6 years [SD, 12.6]; 1099 men [61.4%]) completed the study. The 1-mg haloperidol group was prematurely stopped because of futility. There was no difference in the median days patients survived in 28 days, 28 days in the 2-mg haloperidol group vs 28 days in the placebo group, for a difference of 0 days (95% CI, 0-0; P = .93) and a hazard ratio of 1.003 (95% CI, 0.78-1.30, P=.82). All of the 15 secondary outcomes were not statistically different. These included delirium incidence (mean difference, 1.5%, 95% CI, -3.6% to 6.7%), delirium-free and coma-free days (mean difference, 0 days, 95% CI, 0-0 days), and duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU, and hospital length of stay (mean difference, 0 days, 95% CI, 0-0 days for all 3 measures). The number of reported adverse effects did not differ between groups (2 [0.3%] for the 2-mg haloperidol group vs 1 [0.1%] for the placebo group). Conclusions and Relevance:Among critically ill adults at high risk of delirium, the use of prophylactic haloperidol compared with placebo did not improve survival at 28 days. These findings do not support the use of prophylactic haloperidol for reducing mortality in critically ill adults. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01785290.

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 has been a devastating pandemic with little known of its neuropsychiatric complications. Delirium is one of the most common neuropsychiatric syndromes among hospitalized cancer patients with incidence ranging from 25% to 40% and rates of up to 85% in the terminally ill. Data on the incidence, risk factors, duration, and outcomes of delirium in critically ill cancer patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo report the incidence, risks and outcomes of critically ill cancer patients who developed COVID-19.MethodsThis is a retrospective single-center study evaluating delirium frequency and outcomes in all critically ill cancer patients with COVID-19 admitted between March 1 and July 10, 2020. Delirium was assessed by Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit, performed twice daily by trained intensive care unit (ICU) nursing staff. Patients were considered to have a delirium-positive day if Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit was positive at least once per day.ResultsA total of 70 patients were evaluated. Of those 70, 53 (75.7%) were found to be positive for delirium. Patients with delirium were significantly older than patients without delirium (median age 67.5 vs 60.3 y, P = 0.013). There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics, chronic medical conditions, neuropsychiatric history, cancer type, or application of prone positioning between the 2 groups. Delirium patients were less likely to receive cancer-directed therapies (58.5% vs 88.2%, P = 0.038) but more likely to receive antipsychotics (81.1% vs 41.2%, P = 0.004), dexmedetomidine (79.3% vs 11.8%, P < 0.001), steroids (84.9% vs 58.8%, P = 0.039), and vasopressors (90.6% vs 58.8%, P = 0.006). Delirium patients were more likely to be intubated (86.8% vs 41.2%, P < 0.001), and all tracheostomies (35.9%) occurred in patients with delirium. ICU length of stay (19 vs 8 d, P < 0.001) and hospital length of stay (37 vs 12 d, P < 0.001) were significantly longer in delirium patients, but there was no statistically significant difference in hospital mortality (43.4% vs 58.8%, P = 0.403) or ICU mortality (34.0% vs 58.8%, P = 0.090).ConclusionsDelirium in critically ill cancer patients with COVID-19 was associated with less cancer-directed therapies and increased hospital and ICU length of stay. However, the presence of delirium was not associated with an increase in hospital or ICU mortality.

Project description:Delirium is a neurobehavioural syndrome that frequently develops in the postoperative setting. The incidence of elderly patients who develop delirium during hospital stay ranges from 10 to 80% (Schonauer et al., J Pept Sci. 2017). Delirium was first described more than half a century ago in the cardiac surgery population (Blachy and Starr, Am J Psychiatry 121:371-5, 1964), where it was already discovered as a state that might be accompanied by serious complications such as prolonged ICU and hospital stay, reduced quality of life and increased mortality. Furthermore, the duration of delirium is associated with worse long-term cognitive function in the general ICU population (Sessler et al., Am J Respir Crit Care Med 166:1338-44, 2002). This long-term experience with delirium suggests a high socioeconomic burden and has been a focus of many studies (Nishio et al., Crit Care Med 5:953-7, 1997; Ehlenbach et al., JAMA 303:763-70, 2010; Jahangir et al., World J Cardiol 3:383-7, 2011; Abegunde et al., Lancet 370:1929-1938, 2007; Darmon et al., Intensive Care Med 43:829-840, 2017; Marino et al., J Nephrol 28:717-24, 2015; Ng LL et al., J Am Coll Cardiol 69:56-69, 2017; Sezen et al., J Pharmacol Exp Ther 287:238-45, 1998; Kim et al., Ann Lab Med 37:388-97, 2017). Due to the multifactorial origin of delirium, we have several but no incontestable options for prevention and symptomatic treatment. Overall, delirium represents a high burden not only for patient and family members, but also for the medical care team that aims to prevent postoperative delirium to avoid serious consequences associated with it. The purpose of this study is to determine whether postoperative delirium can be prevented by the combination of established preventive agents. In addition, measured levels of pre- and postoperative cortisol, neuron specific enolase (NSE) and S-100? will be used to investigate dynamics of these parameters in delirious and non-delirious patients after surgery.The Baden PRIDe Trial is an investigator-initiated, phase IV, two-centre, randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial for the prevention of delirium with haloperidol, ketamine, and the combination of both vs. placebo in 200 patients scheduled for surgery. We would like to investigate superiority of one of the three treatment arms (i.e., haloperidol, ketamine, combined treatment) to placebo.There is limited but promising evidence that haloperidol and ketamine can be used to prevent delirium. Clinical care for patients might improve as the results of this study may lead to better algorithms for the prevention of delirium.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02433041 . Registered on 7 April 2015. Swiss National Clinical Trial Portal, SNCTP000001628. Registered on 9 December 2015.

Dataset Information

Efficacy of halopeRIdol to decrease the burden of Delirium In adult Critically ill patiEnts (EuRIDICE): study protocol for a prospective randomised multi-centre double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial in the Netherlands.

Publications

Efficacy of halopeRIdol to decrease the burden of Delirium In adult Critically ill patiEnts (EuRIDICE): study protocol for a prospective randomised multi-centre double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial in the Netherlands.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets