Dataset Information

Dexmedetomidine or Propofol for Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Adults with Sepsis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Guidelines currently recommend targeting light sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol for adults receiving mechanical ventilation. Differences exist between these sedatives in arousability, immunity, and inflammation. Whether they affect outcomes differentially in mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis undergoing light sedation is unknown.

Methods

In a multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis to receive dexmedetomidine (0.2 to 1.5 μg per kilogram of body weight per hour) or propofol (5 to 50 μg per kilogram per minute), with doses adjusted by bedside nurses to achieve target sedation goals set by clinicians according to the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS, on which scores range from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]). The primary end point was days alive without delirium or coma during the 14-day intervention period. Secondary end points were ventilator-free days at 28 days, death at 90 days, and age-adjusted total score on the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status questionnaire (TICS-T; scores range from 0 to 100, with a mean of 50±10 and lower scores indicating worse cognition) at 6 months.

Results

Of 432 patients who underwent randomization, 422 were assigned to receive a trial drug and were included in the analyses - 214 patients received dexmedetomidine at a median dose of 0.27 μg per kilogram per hour, and 208 received propofol at a median dose of 10.21 μg per kilogram per minute. The median duration of receipt of the trial drugs was 3.0 days (interquartile range, 2.0 to 6.0), and the median RASS score was -2.0 (interquartile range, -3.0 to -1.0). We found no difference between dexmedetomidine and propofol in the number of days alive without delirium or coma (adjusted median, 10.7 vs. 10.8 days; odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.26), ventilator-free days (adjusted median, 23.7 vs. 24.0 days; odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.51), death at 90 days (38% vs. 39%; hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.52), or TICS-T score at 6 months (adjusted median score, 40.9 vs. 41.4; odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.33). Safety end points were similar in the two groups.

Conclusions

Among mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis who were being treated with recommended light-sedation approaches, outcomes in patients who received dexmedetomidine did not differ from outcomes in those who received propofol. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01739933.).

SUBMITTER: Hughes CG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8162695 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: Compare the duration of mechanical ventilation between patients receiving sedation with continuous infusions of propofol alone or combination with the use of dexmedetomidine and propofol. Design: Retrospective, propensity matched (1:1) cohort study, employing eight variables chosen a priori for matching. Timing of exposure to dexmedetomidine initiation was incorporated into a matching algorithm. Setting: Level 1, university-based, 32-bed, adult, mixed trauma and surgical intensive care unit (SICU). Continuous sedation was delivered according to a protocol methodology with daily sedation vacation and spontaneous breathing trials. Choice of sedation agent was physician directed. Patients: Between 2010 and 2014, 149 SICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation for >24 h received dexmedetomidine with propofol. Propensity matching resulted in 143 pair cohorts. Interventions: Dexmedetomidine with propofol or propofol alone. Measurements and Main Results: There was no statistical difference in SICU length of stay (LOS), with a median absolute difference of 5.3 h for propofol alone group (p = 0.43). The SICU mortality was not statistically different (RR = 1.002, p = 0.88). Examining a 14-day period post-treatment with dexmedetomidine, on any given day (excluding days 1 and 14), dexmedetomidine with propofol-treated patients had a 0.5% to 22.5% greater likelihood of being delirious (CAM-ICU positive). In addition, dexmedetomidine with propofol-treated patients had a 4.5% to 18.8% higher likelihood of being above the target sedation score (more agitated) compared to propofol-alone patients. Conclusions: In this propensity matched cohort study, adjunct use of dexmedetomidine to propofol did not show a statistically significant reduction with respect to mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, SICU LOS, or SICU mortality, despite a trend toward receiving fewer hours of propofol. There was no evidence that dexmedetomidine with propofol improved sedation scores or reduced delirium.

Project description:ObjectivesFirst, to implement successfully a light-sedation protocol, favoring initial as-needed (prioritizing as-needed) boluses over continuous infusion sedation, and second, to evaluate if this protocol was associated with differences in patient-level sedative requirements, clinical outcomes, and unit-level longitudinal changes in pharmacy charges for sedative medications.DesignRetrospective review comparing patients who received the prioritizing as-needed sedation protocol to similar patients eligible for the prioritizing as-needed protocol but treated initially with continuous infusion sedation.SettingThirty-two bed medical ICUs in a large academic medical center.PatientsA total of 254 mechanical ventilated patients with a target Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale goal of 3 or 4 were evaluated over a 2-year period. Of the evaluable patients, 114 received the prioritizing as-needed sedation protocol and 140 received a primary continuous infusion approach.InterventionsA multidisciplinary leadership team created and implemented a light-sedation protocol, focusing on avoiding initiation of continuous sedative infusions and prioritizing prioritizing as-needed sedation.Measurements and main resultsOverall, 42% of patients in the prioritizing as-needed group never received continuous infusion sedation. Compared with the continuous infusion sedation group, patients treated with the prioritizing as-needed protocol received significantly less opioid, propofol, and benzodiazepine. Patients in the prioritizing as-needed group experienced less delirium, shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, and shorter ICU length of stay. Adverse events were similar between the two groups. At the unit level, protocol implementation was associated with reductions in the use of continuous infusion sedative medications.ConclusionsImplementation and use of a prioritizing as-needed protocol targeting light sedation appear to be safe and effective. These single-ICU retrospective findings require wider, prospective validation.

Project description:Purpose: To investigate physicians' perception of patients' tolerance levels regarding sedation, which could affect sedation practice for mechanically ventilated (MV) patients. Methods: This is a questionnaire survey combined with a 24 h cross-sectional study. The physician's propensity score for light sedation (PS-LS) was estimated by his/her response to the given answers for each item of the questionnaire, which tested the levels of interviewee's desire to manage MV patient with light sedation. Thereby, the mean physicians' PS-LS of each participating ICU (ICU-meanPS-LS) was calculated. The practical measurements of all variables listed on the questionnaire were used to semi-quantitatively assess stimulus intensity of what the recruited patients suffered (i.e., semi-quantitative stimulus intensity, SSI). Sedation depth was assessed by Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS). Results: 555 of 558 (99.5%) physicians from 102 ICUs were concerned with patients' tolerance levels regarding sedation while titrating sedation depth. The physician's PS-LS was non-normally distributed with median (IQR) of 3 (0-5). ICU-meanPS-LS was calculated in 92 out of 102 ICUs participating in the cross-sectional study, which was ranged from -5 to 7 with a median (IQR) of 2.37 (0.16-4.33). A significant increasing trend in prevalence of light sedation was observed over increasing ICU-meanPS-LS quartiles (from Q1 to Q4, ?2-test for trend, p = 0.002). Moreover, odds ratio for probability of light sedation remained significant in MV patients from Q4 ICUs vs. Q1 ICUs, adjusted by APACHE II score (OR, 2.332; 95% CI: 1.463-3.717; p < 0.001) or SSI score (OR, 2.445; 95% CI: 1.468-4.074; p = 0.001). Notably, adjusted OR for mortality was significant in deeply sedated MV patients (OR, 2.034; 95% CI: 1.435-2.884; p < 0.001). Conclusions: ICU physician's individualized perception for patients' tolerance levels regarding sedation, in light sedation affected sedation practice for MV patients.

Project description:Dexmedetomidine is a selective alpha-2 adrenergic agonist with concurrent sedative and analgesic effects, and it is being increasingly used in pediatric anesthesia and intensive care. This study aimed to investigate the pharmacokinetics of intravenous dexmedetomidine in mechanically ventilated children in the intensive care unit (ICU) after neurosurgery. Pediatric patients aged 2-12 years, who were mechanically ventilated in ICU after neurosurgery, were allocated into a low-dose (n = 15) or high-dose (n = 14) group. The low-dose group received dexmedetomidine at a loading dose of 0.25 µg/kg for 10 min, followed by a maintenance dose of 0.25 µg/kg/h for 50 min, whereas the high-dose group received dexmedetomidine at a loading dose of 0.5 µg/kg for 10 min, followed by a maintenance dose of 0.5 µg/kg/h for 50 min. Serial blood samples were collected for a pharmacokinetic analysis up to 480 min after the end of the infusion. The sedative effect of dexmedetomidine was assessed using the Bispectral Index and University of Michigan Sedation Scale. Adverse reactions, electrocardiography findings, and vital signs were monitored for a safety assessment. A population pharmacokinetic analysis was performed using non-linear mixed effects modeling. Dexmedetomidine induced a moderate-to-deep degree of sedation during infusion in both groups. The pharmacokinetics of dexmedetomidine were best described by a two-compartment disposition model with first-order elimination kinetics. The parameters were standardized for a body weight of 70 kg using an allometric power model. The population estimates (95% confidence interval) per 70 kg body weight were as follows: clearance of 81.0 (72.9-90.9) L/h, central volume of distribution of 64.2 (50.6-81.0) L, intercompartment clearance of 116.4 (90.6-156.0) L/h, and peripheral volume of distribution of 167 (132-217) L. No serious adverse reactions or hemodynamic changes requiring the discontinuation of dexmedetomidine were observed. Dexmedetomidine had increased clearance and volume of distribution in mechanically ventilated children in ICU after neurosurgery, thereby indicating the need to adjust the dosage to obtain a target plasma concentration.

Project description:BackgroundUse of sedatives and analgesics is associated with the occurrence of delirium in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Dexmedetomidine reduces the occurrence of delirium but may cause hypotension, bradycardia, and insufficient sedation. This substudy aims to determine whether the combination of esketamine with dexmedetomidine can reduce the side effects and risk of delirium than dexmedetomidine alone in mechanically ventilated patients.MethodsThis single-center, randomized, active-controlled, superiority trial will be conducted at The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University. A total of 134 mechanically ventilated patients will be recruited and randomized to receive either dexmedetomidine alone or esketamine combined with dexmedetomidine, until extubation or for a maximum of 14 days. The primary outcome is the occurrence of delirium, while the second outcomes include the number of delirium-free days; subtype, severity, and duration of delirium; time to first onset of delirium; total dose of vasopressors and antipsychotics; duration of mechanical ventilation; ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS); accidental extubation, re-intubation, re-admission; and mortality in the ICU at 14 and 28 days.DiscussionThere is an urgent need for a new combination regimen of dexmedetomidine due to its evident side effects. The combination of esketamine and dexmedetomidine has been applied throughout the perioperative period. However, there is still a lack of evidence on the effects of this regimen on delirium in mechanically ventilated ICU patients. This substudy will evaluate the effects of the combination of esketamine and dexmedetomidine in reducing the risk of delirium for mechanically ventilated patients in ICU, thus providing evidence of this combination to improve the short-term prognosis. The study protocol has obtained approval from the Medical Ethics Committee (ID: 2022-SR-450).Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05466708, registered on 20 July 2022.