Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol for Patients With Sepsis Requiring Mechanical Ventilation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Huang P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8551708 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceDexmedetomidine provides sedation for patients undergoing ventilation; however, its effects on mortality and ventilator-free days have not been well studied among patients with sepsis.ObjectivesTo examine whether a sedation strategy with dexmedetomidine can improve clinical outcomes in patients with sepsis undergoing ventilation.Design, setting, and participantsOpen-label, multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted at 8 intensive care units in Japan from February 2013 until January 2016 among 201 consecutive adult patients with sepsis requiring mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours.InterventionsPatients were randomized to receive either sedation with dexmedetomidine (n = 100) or sedation without dexmedetomidine (control group; n = 101). Other agents used in both groups were fentanyl, propofol, and midazolam.Main outcomes and measuresThe co-primary outcomes were mortality and ventilator-free days (over a 28-day duration). Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (days 1, 2, 4, 6, 8), sedation control, occurrence of delirium and coma, intensive care unit stay duration, renal function, inflammation, and nutrition state were assessed as secondary outcomes.ResultsOf the 203 screened patients, 201 were randomized. The mean age was 69 years (SD, 14 years); 63% were male. Mortality at 28 days was not significantly different in the dexmedetomidine group vs the control group (19 patients [22.8%] vs 28 patients [30.8%]; hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.38-1.22; P = .20). Ventilator-free days over 28 days were not significantly different between groups (dexmedetomidine group: median, 20 [interquartile range, 5-24] days; control group: median, 18 [interquartile range, 0.5-23] days; P = .20). The dexmedetomidine group had a significantly higher rate of well-controlled sedation during mechanical ventilation (range, 17%-58% vs 20%-39%; P = .01); other outcomes were not significantly different between groups. Adverse events occurred in 8 (8%) and 3 (3%) patients in the dexmedetomidine and control groups, respectively.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients requiring mechanical ventilation, the use of dexmedetomidine compared with no dexmedetomidine did not result in statistically significant improvement in mortality or ventilator-free days. However, the study may have been underpowered for mortality, and additional research may be needed to evaluate this further.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01760967.
| S-EPMC5469298 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Because of its analgesic and light sedative properties, the highly selective alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonist dexmedetomidine (DEX) has been suggested for the treatment of septic patients, but its effect on the duration of mechanical ventilation remains unclear. The present study was conducted to review the extant literature in DEX and determine its influence on ventilation time in adult septic patients. METHODS:Databases of PubMed, Cochrane, and EMBASE were applied till 20th January 2019 without language restriction. The searching strategy as following: sepsis OR septic AND mechanical ventilation AND dexmedetomidine. Two authors screened titles, abstracts, and even articles to meet the including criterion independently. In addition, references of related articles or reviews were also referred. Data was recorded in a table and analyzed using the software of Review Manager 5.0. RESULTS:Four studies with a total of 349 patients were included. Three trials with 267 patients revealed the effect of DEX on duration of mechanical ventilation, two trials with 264 patients on ventilator-free days and four trials with 334 patients on 28-day mortality. The analyzed results indicated that DEX was not associated with significantly different durations of mechanical ventilation (MD 0.65, 95% CI, -?0.13 to 1.42, P?=?0.10). However, there were significant differences in ventilator-free days (MD 3.57, 95% CI, 0.26 to 6.89, P?=?0.03) and 28-day mortality (RR 0.61, 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.94, P?=?0.02) in the septic patients. CONCLUSION:Administration of DEX for sedation in septic patients was not associated with the duration of mechanical ventilation, but it increased the ventilator-free days and reduced 28-day mortality.
| S-EPMC7026965 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Administration of dexmedetomidine has been reported to improve inflammatory response in animals. We explored the effects of administering dexmedetomidine on the levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and procalcitonin, and thus on inflammation, in patients with sepsis enrolled in a randomized clinical trial. METHODS:The DESIRE trial was a multicenter randomized clinical trial in which adult patients with sepsis were sedated with (DEX group) or without (non-DEX group) dexmedetomidine while on mechanical ventilators. As a prespecified sub-analysis, we compared CRP and procalcitonin levels during the first 14 days of treatment between the two groups. The 14-day mortality rate, albumin level, and the number of patients with disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) were also assessed. We used generalized linear models to estimate the differences in these outcomes between groups. We also used the Kaplan-Meier method to estimate the 14-day mortality rate and the log-rank test to assess between-group differences. RESULTS:Our study comprised 201 patients: 100 in the DEX group and 101 in the non-DEX group. CRP and procalcitonin levels were lower in the DEX vs. non-DEX group during the 14-day treatment period [CRP-range, 5.6-20.3 vs. 8.3-21.1 mg/dL (P = 0.03); procalcitonin-range, 1.2-37.4 vs. 1.7-52.9 ng/mL (P = 0.04)]. Albumin levels were higher in the DEX group (range, 2.3-2.6 g/dL) than in the non-DEX group (range, 2.1-2.7 g/dL; P = 0.01). The percentage of patients with DIC did not significantly differ between the groups (range, 21-59% and 17-56% for the DEX and non-DEX groups, respectively; P = 0.49). The 14-day mortality rates in the DEX and non-DEX groups were 13 and 21%, respectively (P = 0.16). CONCLUSION:Sedation using dexmedetomidine reduced inflammation in patients with sepsis requiring mechanical ventilation. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01760967 . Registered on 4 January 2013.
| S-EPMC7416813 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10645332 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam besylate compared with propofol in maintaining mild-to-moderate sedation in patients receiving long-term mechanical ventilation.MethodsIn this single-centered randomized pilot study, adult patients mechanically ventilated longer than 24 h were randomized to receive remimazolam besylate or propofol. The target sedation range was - 3 to 0 on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS). The primary outcome was the percentage of time in the target sedation range without rescue sedation. The secondary outcomes were ventilator-free days at day 7, the length of ICU stay and 28-day mortality.ResultsThirty patients were assigned to each group. No difference was identified between the remimazolam group and propofol group in median age [60.0 (IQR, 51.5-66.3) years vs. 64.0 (IQR, 55.0-69.3) years, respectively, p = 0.437] or the median duration of study drug infusion [55.0 (IQR, 28.3-102.0) hours vs. 41.0 (IQR, 24.8-74.3) hours, respectively, p = 0.255]. The median percentage of time in the target RASS range without rescue sedation was similar in remimazolam and propofol groups [73.2% (IQR, 41.5-97.3%) vs. 82.8% (IQR, 65.6-100%), p = 0.269]. No differences were identified between the two groups in terms of ventilator-free days at day 7, length of ICU stay, 28-day mortality or adverse events.ConclusionsThis pilot study suggested that remimazolam besylate was effective and safe for long-term sedation in mechanically ventilated patients compared with propofol.
| S-EPMC9482181 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGuidelines 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsOf 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.ConclusionsAmong 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.).
| S-EPMC8162695 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Dexmedetomidine, as a sole or combinable sedative, has served in pediatric sedation undergoing MRI. However, clinical effects of dexmedetomidine are still controversial. This meta-analysis was to assess the effects between dexmedetomidine and propofol in children undergoing MRI, especially outcomes and adverse events of patients. Multiple Electronic Database searched including MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane library, and updated to April 2015. All statistical analysis utilized review manager to perform, the Cochrane collaboration's software preparation and maintenance of Cochrane systematic reviews. Five trials with a total of 337 patients were included. Compared with propofol group, dexmedetomidine significantly increased the recovery time (WMD: 10.70 min; 95% CI: 4.26-17.13; P = 0.001). The duration of sedation did not appear to decrease for the patients who received dexmedetomidine than for those who received propofol (WMD: 19.96 min; 95% CI: -4.12-44.04; P = 0.1). There were statistically significant increased in the pediatric anesthesia emergence Delirium scores of 5-min after awakening (WMD: 2.40; 95% CI: 1.00 to 3.81; P = 0.0008) and 10-min after awakening (WMD: 3.06; 95% CI: 1.81 to 4.31; P < 0.00001) in patients who were treated with dexmedetomidine than propofol. Improved the prognosis of patients, nonetheless, dexmedetomidine must have an indispensable role to undergoing pediatric MRI scanning. Compared with propofol, however, dexmedetomidine did not induce the duration of sedation and might lead to a longer recovery time.
| S-EPMC4612785 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to answer the question 'In adults with respiratory failure requiring invasive ventilation for more than 24 h, does a weaning strategy with early extubation to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) compared to invasive ventilation weaning reduce all-cause hospital mortality?' METHODS:We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that evaluated the use of non-invasive ventilation, compared to invasive ventilation, as a weaning strategy in adults mechanically ventilated for at least 24 h. The EMBASE, MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) bibliographic databases were searched from inception to February 2018. Bayesian hierarchical models were used to perform the meta-analysis. The primary outcome was mortality at hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included mortality (30, 60, 90 and 180 days), quality of life, duration of invasive ventilation, weaning failure, length of stay [intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital] and adverse events. RESULTS:Twenty-five relevant studies involving 1609 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Studies had moderate to high risk of bias due to risk of performance and detection bias. Mortality at hospital discharge was lower in the NIV weaning group compared to the invasive weaning group [pooled odds ratio (OR) 0.58, 95% highest density interval (HDI) 0.29-0.89]. Subgroup analyses showed lower pooled mortality at hospital discharge rates in NIV weaning than those in the control group in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients (pooled OR 0.43, 95% HDI 0.13-0.81) and the effect is less certain in the mixed ICU population (pooled OR 0.88, 95% HDI 0.25-1.48). NIV weaning reduced the duration of invasive ventilation in patients [standardised mean difference (SMD) -?1.34, 95% HDI -?1.92 to -?0.77] and ICU length of stay (SMD -?0.70, 95% HDI -?0.94 to -?0.46). Reported rates of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) were lower in the NIV group. NIV weaning did not reduce overall hospital length of stay or long-term mortality. There were insufficient data to compare other adverse events and health-related quality of life. CONCLUSIONS:The use of NIV in weaning from mechanical ventilation decreases hospital mortality, the incidence of VAP and ICU length of stay. NIV as a weaning strategy appears to be most beneficial in patients with COPD.
| S-EPMC6280833 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Proportional modes (proportional assist ventilation, PAV, and neurally adjusted ventilatory assist, NAVA) could improve patient-ventilator interaction and consequently may be efficient as a weaning mode. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine whether proportional modes improved patient-ventilator interaction and whether they had an impact on the weaning success and length of mechanical ventilation, in comparison with PSV. METHODS:We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception through May 13, 2018. We included both parallel-group and crossover randomized studies that examined the efficacy of proportional modes in comparison with PSV in mechanically ventilated adults. The primary outcomes were (1) asynchrony index (AI), (2) weaning failure, and (3) duration of mechanical ventilation. RESULTS:We included 15 studies (four evaluated PAV, ten evaluated NAVA, and one evaluated both modes). Although the use of proportional modes was not associated with a reduction in AI (WMD -?1.43; 95% CI -?3.11 to 0.25; p?=?0.096; PAV-one study, and NAVA-seven studies), the use of proportional modes was associated with a reduction in patients with AI?>?10% (RR 0.15; 95% CI 0.04-0.58; p?=?0.006; PAV-two studies, and NAVA-five studies), compared with PSV. There was a significant heterogeneity among studies for AI, especially with NAVA. Compared with PSV, use of proportional modes was associated with a reduction in weaning failure (RR 0.44; 95% CI 0.26-0.75; p?=?0.003; PAV-three studies) and duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD -?1.78 days; 95% CI -?3.24 to -?0.32; p?=?0.017; PAV-three studies, and NAVA-two studies). Reduced duration of mechanical ventilation was found with PAV but not with NAVA. CONCLUSION:The use of proportional modes was associated with a reduction in the incidence with AI?>?10%, weaning failure and duration of mechanical ventilation, compared with PSV. However, reduced weaning failure and duration of mechanical ventilation were found with only PAV. Due to a significant heterogeneity among studies and an insufficient number of studies, further investigation seems warranted to better understand the impact of proportional modes. Clinical trial registration PROSPERO registration number, CRD42017059791. Registered 20 March 2017.
| S-EPMC6288104 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Rationale: Initial reports of case fatality rates (CFRs) among adults with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are highly variable.Objectives: To examine the CFR of patients with COVID-19 receiving IMV.Methods: Two authors independently searched PubMed, Embase, medRxiv, bioRxiv, the COVID-19 living systematic review, and national registry databases. The primary outcome was the "reported CFR" for patients with confirmed COVID-19 requiring IMV. "Definitive hospital CFR" for patients with outcomes at hospital discharge was also investigated. Finally, CFR was analyzed by patient age, geographic region, and study quality on the basis of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.Measurements and Results: Sixty-nine studies were included, describing 57,420 adult patients with COVID-19 who received IMV. Overall reported CFR was estimated as 45% (95% confidence interval [CI], 39-52%). Fifty-four of 69 studies stated whether hospital outcomes were available but provided a definitive hospital outcome on only 13,120 (22.8%) of the total IMV patient population. Among studies in which age-stratified CFR was available, pooled CFR estimates ranged from 47.9% (95% CI, 46.4-49.4%) in younger patients (age ≤40 yr) to 84.4% (95% CI, 83.3-85.4%) in older patients (age >80 yr). CFR was also higher in early COVID-19 epicenters. Overall heterogeneity is high (I2 >90%), with nonsignificant Egger's regression test suggesting no publication bias.Conclusions: Almost half of patients with COVID-19 receiving IMV died based on the reported CFR, but variable CFR reporting methods resulted in a wide range of CFRs between studies. The reported CFR was higher in older patients and in early pandemic epicenters, which may be influenced by limited ICU resources. Reporting of definitive outcomes on all patients would facilitate comparisons between studies.Systematic review registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020186997).
| S-EPMC7781141 | biostudies-literature