Dataset Information

Exploring Ketamine Analgosedation Use and Its Effect on Incident Delirium in Critically Ill Adults.

ABSTRACT: Ketamine is increasingly being used for analgosedation, but its effect on delirium remains unclear. We compared delirium risk variables and ketamine analgosedation use between adults who developed incident delirium and those who did not, evaluated whether ketamine analgosedation increases delirium risk, and compared ICU delirium characteristics, treatments, and outcomes between ketamine and nonketamine patients with delirium.

Design

Secondary, subgroup analysis of a cohort study.

Setting

Single, 36-bed mixed medical-surgical ICU in the Netherlands from July 2016 to February 2020.

Patients

Consecutive adults were included. Patients admitted after elective surgery, not expected to survive greater than or equal to 48 hours, admitted with delirium, or where delirium occurred prior to ketamine use were excluded.

Intervention

None.

Measurements and main results

Trained ICU nurses evaluated patients without coma (Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale. -4/-5) every 8 hours with the Confusion Assessment Method ICU; a delirium day was defined by greater than or equal to1 + Confusion Assessment Method ICU and/or scheduled antipsychotic use. Among 11 variables compared between the delirium and nondelirium groups (Baseline: age, Charlson Comorbidity score, cognitive impairment, admission type, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-IV score, daily ICU [until delirium occurrence or discharge]: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, coma, benzodiazepine, opioid, and ketamine use) and total ICU days, 7 (age, Charlson score, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, coma, benzodiazepine, opioid, and ketamine use) were significantly different and were entered, along with delirium occurrence, in a logistic regression model. A total of 332 of 925 of patients (36%) developed delirium. Ketamine use was greater in patients with delirium (54 [16%] vs 4 [0.7%]; p < 0.01). Ketamine use (adjusted odds ratio, 5.60; 95% CI, 1.09-29.15), age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06), coma (adjusted odds ratio, 2.10; 95% CI, 1.15-3.78), opioid use (adjusted odds ratio, 171.17; 95% CI, 66.45-553.68), and benzodiazepine use (adjusted odds ratio, 34.07; 95% CI, 8.12-235.34) were each independently and significantly associated with increased delirium. Delirium duration, motoric subtype, delirium treatments, and outcomes were not different between the ketamine and nonketamine groups.

Conclusions

Ketamine analgosedation may contribute to increased ICU delirium. The characteristics of ketamine and nonketamine delirium are similar. Further prospective research is required to evaluate the magnitude of risk for delirium with ketamine use.

SUBMITTER: Wu TT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8480939 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:While delirium prevalence and duration are each associated with increased 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year mortality, the association between incident ICU delirium and mortality remains unclear. We evaluated the association between both incident ICU delirium and days spent with delirium in the 28?days after ICU admission and mortality within 28 and 90?days. METHODS:Secondary cohort analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted among 1495 delirium-free, critically ill adults in 14 Dutch ICUs with an expected ICU stay ?2?days where all delirium assessments were completed. In the 28?days after ICU admission, patients were evaluated for delirium and coma 3x daily; each day was coded as a delirium day [?1 positive Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU)], a coma day [no delirium and???1 Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) score???-?4], or neither. Four Cox-regression models were constructed for 28-day mortality and 90-day mortality; each accounted for potential confounders (i.e., age, APACHE-II score, sepsis, use of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, and haloperidol dose) and: 1) delirium occurrence, 2) days spent with delirium, 3) days spent in coma, and 4) days spent with delirium and/or coma. RESULTS:Among the 1495 patients, 28?day mortality was 17% and 90?day mortality was 21%. Neither incident delirium (28?day mortality hazard ratio [HR]?=?1.02, 95%CI?=?0.75-1.39; 90?day mortality HR?=?1.05, 95%CI?=?0.79-1.38) nor days spent with delirium (28?day mortality HR?=?1.00, 95%CI?=?0.95-1.05; 90?day mortality HR?=?1.02, 95%CI?=?0.98-1.07) were significantly associated with mortality. However, both days spent with coma (28?day mortality HR?=?1.05, 95%CI?=?1.02-1.08; 90?day mortality HR?=?1.05, 95%CI?=?1.02-1.08) and days spent with delirium or coma (28?day mortality HR?=?1.03, 95%CI?=?1.00-1.05; 90?day mortality HR?=?1.03, 95%CI?=?1.01-1.06) were significantly associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS:This analysis suggests neither incident delirium nor days spent with delirium are associated with short-term mortality after ICU admission. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier NCT01785290 Registered 7 February 2013.

Project description:Background: Systemic inflammation is a whole body reaction that can have an infection-positive (i.e. sepsis) or infection-negative origin. It is important to distinguish between septic and non-septic presentations early and reliably, because this has significant therapeutic implications for critically ill patients. We hypothesized that a molecular classifier based on a small number of RNAs expressed in peripheral blood could be discovered that would: 1) determine which patients with systemic inflammation had sepsis; 2) be robust across independent patient cohorts; 3) be insensitive to disease severity; and 4) provide diagnostic utility. The overall goal of this study was to identify and validate such a molecular classifier. Methods and Findings: We conducted an observational, non-interventional study of adult patients recruited from tertiary intensive care units (ICU). Biomarker discovery was conducted with an Australian cohort (n = 105) consisting of sepsis patients and post -surgical patients with infection-negative systemic inflammation. Using this cohort, a four-gene classifier consisting of a combination of CEACAM4, LAMP1, PLA2G7 and PLAC8 RNA biomarkers was identified. This classifier, designated SeptiCyteÂ® Lab, was externally validated using RT-qPCR and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis in five cohorts (n = 345) from the Netherlands. Cohort 1 (n=59) consisted of unambiguous septic cases and infection-negative systemic inflammation controls; SeptiCyteÂ® Lab gave an area under curve (AUC) of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-1.00). ROC analysis of a more heterogeneous group of patients (Cohorts 2-5; 249 patients after excluding 37 patients with infection likelihood possible) gave an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93). Disease severity, as measured by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score or the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score, was not a significant confounding variable. The diagnostic utility o f SeptiCyteÂ® Lab was evaluated by comparison to various clinical and laboratory parameters that would be available to a clinician within 24 hours of ICU admission. SeptiCyteÂ® Lab was significantly better at differentiating sepsis from infection-negative systemic inflammation than all tested parameters, both singly and in various logistic combinations. SeptiCyteÂ® Lab more than halved the diagnostic error rate compared to PCT in all tested cohorts or cohort combinations. Conclusions: SeptiCyteÂ® Lab is a rapid molecular assay that may be clinically useful in the management of ICU patients with systemic inflammation. SIRS and Sepsis ICU patients, admission samples Retrospective, mutli-site sutdy using retrospective physician adjudication as a comparator

Project description:Background: Systemic inflammation is a whole body reaction that can have an infection-positive (i.e. sepsis) or infection-negative origin. It is important to distinguish between septic and non-septic presentations early and reliably, because this has significant therapeutic implications for critically ill patients. We hypothesized that a molecular classifier based on a small number of RNAs expressed in peripheral blood could be discovered that would: 1) determine which patients with systemic inflammation had sepsis; 2) be robust across independent patient cohorts; 3) be insensitive to disease severity; and 4) provide diagnostic utility. The overall goal of this study was to identify and validate such a molecular classifier. Methods and Findings: We conducted an observational, non-interventional study of adult patients recruited from tertiary intensive care units (ICU). Biomarker discovery was conducted with an Australian cohort (n = 105) consisting of sepsis patients and post -surgical patients with infection-negative systemic inflammation. Using this cohort, a four-gene classifier consisting of a combination of CEACAM4, LAMP1, PLA2G7 and PLAC8 RNA biomarkers was identified. This classifier, designated SeptiCyte® Lab, was externally validated using RT-qPCR and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis in five cohorts (n = 345) from the Netherlands. Cohort 1 (n=59) consisted of unambiguous septic cases and infection-negative systemic inflammation controls; SeptiCyte® Lab gave an area under curve (AUC) of 0.96 (95% CI: 0.91-1.00). ROC analysis of a more heterogeneous group of patients (Cohorts 2-5; 249 patients after excluding 37 patients with infection likelihood possible) gave an AUC of 0.89 (95% CI: 0.85-0.93). Disease severity, as measured by Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score or the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV score, was not a significant confounding variable. The diagnostic utility o f SeptiCyte® Lab was evaluated by comparison to various clinical and laboratory parameters that would be available to a clinician within 24 hours of ICU admission. SeptiCyte® Lab was significantly better at differentiating sepsis from infection-negative systemic inflammation than all tested parameters, both singly and in various logistic combinations. SeptiCyte® Lab more than halved the diagnostic error rate compared to PCT in all tested cohorts or cohort combinations. Conclusions: SeptiCyte® Lab is a rapid molecular assay that may be clinically useful in the management of ICU patients with systemic inflammation. SIRS and Sepsis ICU patients, admission samples

Project description:Social determinants of health may affect ICU outcome, but the association between social determinants of health and delirium remains unclear. We evaluated the association between three social determinants of health and delirium occurrence and duration in critically ill adults.DesignSecondary, subgroup analysis of a cohort study.SettingSingle, 36-bed mixed medical-surgical ICU in the Netherlands.PatientsNine hundred fifty-six adults consecutively admitted from July 2016 to February 2020. Patients admitted after elective surgery, residing in a nursing home, or not expected to survive greater than or equal to 48 hours were excluded.InterventionNone.Measurements and main resultsFour factors related to three Center for Disease Control social determinants of health domains (social/community context [ethnicity], education access/quality [educational level], and economic stability [employment status and monthly income]) were collected at ICU admission from patients (or families). Well-trained ICU nurses evaluated patients without coma (Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, -4, -5) and with the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU and/or a delirium day was defined by greater than or equal to 1 + Confusion Assessment Method-ICU and/or scheduled antipsychotic use. Multivariable logistic regression models controlling for ICU days and 10 delirium risk variables (before-ICU: age, Charlson, cognitive impairment, any antidepressant, antipsychotic, or benzodiazepine use; ICU baseline: Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV and admission type; daily ICU: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, restraint use, coma, benzodiazepine, or opioid use) evaluated associations between each social determinant of health factor and both ICU delirium occurrence and duration. Delirium occurred in 393/956 patients (45.4%) for 2 days (1-5 d). Patients with low (vs high) income had more ICU delirium (p = 0.05). Multivariate analyses revealed no social determinants of health to be significantly associated with increased delirium occurrence or duration. Low (vs high) income was weakly associated with increased delirium occurrence (adjusted odds ratio, 1.83; 95% CI, 0.91-3.89). Low (vs high) education (adjusted relative risk, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.97-1.53) was weakly associated with a longer delirium duration.ConclusionsSocial determinants of health did not affect ICU delirium in one Dutch region. Additional research across different countries/regions and where additional social determinants of health are considered is needed to define the association between social determinants of health and ICU 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.