Comparison of clinical outcomes in nonintubated patients with severe alcohol withdrawal syndrome treated with continuous-infusion sedatives: dexmedetomidine versus benzodiazepines

Substance-Use Disorders in Critically Ill Patients: A Narrative Review

Substance-use disorders (SUDs) represent a major public health concern. The increased prevalence of SUDs within the general population has led to more patients with SUD being admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) for an SUD-related condition or with SUD as a relevant comorbidity. Multiprofessional providers of critical care should be familiar with these disorders and their impact on critical illness. Management of critically ill patients with SUDs is complicated by both acute exposures leading to intoxication, the associated withdrawal syndrome(s), and the physiologic changes associated with chronic use that can cause, predispose patients to, and worsen the severity of other medical conditions. This article reviews the epidemiology of substance use in critically ill patients, discusses the identification and treatment of common intoxication and withdrawal syndromes, and provides evidence-based recommendations for the management of patients exposed to chronic use.

Management of alcohol withdrawal syndromes in general hospital settings

The covid-19 pandemic was associated with an unprecedented increase in alcohol consumption and associated morbidity, including hospitalizations for alcohol withdrawal. Clinicians based in hospitals must be ready to identify, assess, risk-stratify, and treat alcohol withdrawal with evidence based interventions. In this clinically focused review, we outline the epidemiology, pathophysiology, clinical manifestations, screening, assessment, and treatment of alcohol withdrawal in the general hospital population. We review and summarize studies addressing the drug treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndromes in inpatient populations, with a focus on the use of benzodiazepine drugs, phenobarbital, antiseizure drugs, and α-2 adrenergic drugs. Emerging areas of interest include the use of novel alcohol biomarkers, risk stratification instruments, alternative symptom severity scales, severe withdrawal syndromes resistant to benzodiazepine drugs, and treatment protocol variations-including non-symptom-triggered and benzodiazepine-sparing protocols. We identify key areas for research including identification of populations who will benefit from non-benzodiazepine strategies, more individualized risk stratification approaches to guide treatment, and greater inclusion of gender and racial and ethnic minorities in future studies.

Identification of potentially causative drugs associated with hypotension: A scoping review

Drug-induced hypotension can be harmful and may lead to hospital admissions. The occurrence of hypotension during drug therapy is preventable through increased awareness. This scoping review aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of antihypertensive and nonantihypertensive drugs associated with hypotension in adults. A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Library, focusing on studies from January 2013 to May 2023. Search terms were developed to capture key concepts related to hypotension and adverse drug events in adults while excluding terms related to allergic reactions, phytotherapy and studies involving paediatric, pregnant or animal populations. The eligibility criteria included a wide range of study types evaluating hypotension as an adverse drug event across all healthcare settings. Relevant information was extracted from the included studies, while identified drugs associated with hypotension were categorised into drug classes. The review was reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. In 97 eligible studies, we identified 26 antihypertensive drugs grouped into nine different antihypertensive classes and 158 other drugs grouped into 22 other drug classes. Common antihypertensive classes were angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, beta blockers and diuretics. Frequently reported nonantihypertensive classes were neuroleptics, alpha-1 blockers for benign prostatic hyperplasia, benzodiazepines, opioids and antidepressants. The results highlight the importance of healthcare professionals being aware of nonantihypertensive drugs that can cause hypotension. This review provides a basis for future systematic reviews to explore dose-dependence, drug-drug interactions and confounding factors.

Dexmedetomidine as Adjunctive Therapy for the Treatment of Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is defined as the cessation or reduction in heavy and prolonged alcohol use within several hours to a few days of cessation. The recommended first-line therapy for AWS ranging from mild to severe or complicated remains benzodiazepines; in cases where benzodiazepines are not adequate in controlling persistent autonomic hyperactivity or anxiety, dexmedetomidine could be utilized. The possible advantage of dexmedetomidine compared to benzodiazepines is that it does not cause respiratory depression, thus reducing the risk of intubation and hospitalization in the ICUs, with the potential reduction in healthcare costs. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42018084370) is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine as adjunctive therapy to the standard of care for the treatment of AWS. We retrieved literature from PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL until 10 January 2024. Eligible studies were both randomized trials and nonrandomised studies with a control group, published in the English language and peer-reviewed journals. The primary outcome was tracheal intubation; secondary outcomes were (i) bradycardia and (ii) hypotension. A total of 3585 papers were retrieved: 2635 from EMBASE, 930 from Medline, and 20 from CENTRAL. After eliminating duplicates, 2960 papers were screened by title and abstract; 75 out of the 2960 papers were read in full text. The qualitative synthesis included nine of all manuscripts read in full text. The quantitative synthesis included eight studies for the primary outcome (tracheal intubation), seven for the secondary outcome bradycardia, and six for the secondary outcome hypotension. The meta-analysis showed that Dexmedetomidine, as adjunctive therapy, is not more effective than standard therapy in reducing the risk of tracheal intubation in AWS [RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.25-1.3, p = 0.15]. It also appears to be less safe than sedative therapy as it significantly increases the risk of bradycardia [RR: 2.68, 95% CI: 1.79-4.16, p = 0.0016]. Hypotension was not significantly different in patients who received dexmedetomidine [RR: 1.5, 95% CI: 0.69-3.49, p = 0.21].

Current and emerging therapies for alcohol-associated hepatitis

Alcohol-related liver disease (ALD) encompasses a spectrum of diseases caused by excessive alcohol consumption. ALD includes hepatic steatosis, steatohepatitis, variable degrees of fibrosis, cirrhosis, and alcohol-associated hepatitis (AH), the latter being the most severe acute form of the disease. Severe AH is associated with high mortality (reaching up to 30%-50%) at 90 days. The cornerstone of ALD, and particularly AH, treatment continues to be abstinence, accompanied by support measures such as nutritional supplementation and management of alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS). In severe AH with model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score ≥21, corticosteroids can be used, especially MELD score between 25 and 39, where the highest benefit is achieved. Other key aspects of treatment include the early identification of infections and their associated management and the proper identification of potential candidates for liver transplantation. The development of new therapies based on the pathophysiology and mechanisms of liver injury are underway. This includes the modulation and management of the innate immune response, gut dysbiosis, bacterial translocation, and bacteria-derived products from the intestine. These hold promise for the future of AH treatment.

Evaluation of Dexmedetomidine as an Adjunct to Phenobarbital for Alcohol Withdrawal in Critically Ill Patients

INTRODUCTION

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is commonly used with benzodiazepines for the management of alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS), but limited data exist regarding its use with phenobarbital (PHB). This analysis evaluated the utility of DEX in addition to PHB for AWS in adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective cohort analysis of critically ill adult patients who received PHB plus either DEX or different adjunctive therapies (NO-DEX) for AWS between 2018 and 2021. Patients were excluded if they had underlying altered mental status or seizure disorder unrelated to AWS or received PHB at outside hospitals. Coarsened exact matching (CEM) was performed to match patients on baseline characteristics in a 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was ICU length of stay (LOS). A multivariate linear regression analysis was performed to assess the effects of DEX on ICU LOS when accounting for confounders. Secondary outcomes included days with delirium and incidence of mechanical ventilation after PHB administration.

RESULTS

Of the 606 encounters evaluated, 197 met criteria for inclusion. After CEM, 56 encounters remained in each group for analysis. The median ICU LOS was 97.2 [50.1:139.5] hours for the DEX group and 47.5 [28.8:88.1] hours for the NO-DEX group (P = .002). The multivariate linear regression analysis showed the use of DEX (P = .008) was independently associated with an increased ICU LOS by 49.8 h. The DEX group had higher rates of total delirium days (208 vs 143 days, P < .001) and a higher incidence of mechanical ventilation after PHB administration (32% vs 9%, P < .001).

CONCLUSION

This analysis suggests the use of adjunctive DEX with PHB for AWS was associated with a prolonged ICU LOS. Additional studies are needed to further understand the role of adjunctive DEX in the treatment of AWS in critically ill patients.

Adjunctive Dexmedetomidine in Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Retrospective Cohort Studies and Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether dexmedetomidine (DEX), as adjunctive therapy to benzodiazepine (BZD), is superior to BZD alone in critically ill patients with alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS).

DATA SOURCES

PubMed Central, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar were used as search databases. Specific keywords and MeSH terms were "dexmedetomidine," "benzodiazepine," and "alcohol withdrawal syndrome." The last search was on September 16, 2022.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nonrandomized/cohort studies exploring the use of DEX in the management of AWS were included. A total of 12 studies were included in the systematic review and 7 in the meta-analysis.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The intensive care unit length of stay (ICU LOS) was found to have a mean difference (MD) of 48.06 [37.48, 58.64], P = <0.001 for the cohort subgroup, significantly favoring the DEX arm, but, in contrast, pooled RCT data showed a result of -20.07 [-36.86, -3.28], P = 0.02, a shorter ICU LOS for the DEX arm. Bradycardia and hypotension incidence significantly favored the BZD arm in both subgroups. This study compares the effectiveness of adjunctive DEX in clinical practice and aims to help providers in critical decision-making by compiling and analyzing the best current available evidence of its use in AWS.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on low to very low level of evidence, adjunctive DEX showed no significant difference for ICU LOS when compared with BZD alone. Pooled randomized trials potentially show a benefit but are similarly limited by their low quality of evidence.

Research Needs for Inpatient Management of Severe Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement

Background: Severe alcohol withdrawal syndrome (SAWS) is highly morbid, costly, and common among hospitalized patients, yet minimal evidence exists to guide inpatient management. Research needs in this field are broad, spanning the translational science spectrum. Goals: This research statement aims to describe what is known about SAWS, identify knowledge gaps, and offer recommendations for research in each domain of the Institute of Medicine T0-T4 continuum to advance the care of hospitalized patients who experience SAWS. Methods: Clinicians and researchers with unique and complementary expertise in basic, clinical, and implementation research related to unhealthy alcohol consumption and alcohol withdrawal were invited to participate in a workshop at the American Thoracic Society 2019 International Conference. The committee was subdivided into four groups on the basis of interest and expertise: T0-T1 (basic science research with translation to humans), T2 (research translating to patients), T3 (research translating to clinical practice), and T4 (research translating to communities). A medical librarian conducted a pragmatic literature search to facilitate this work, and committee members reviewed and supplemented the resulting evidence, identifying key knowledge gaps. Results: The committee identified several investigative opportunities to advance the care of patients with SAWS in each domain of the translational science spectrum. Major themes included 1) the need to investigate non-γ-aminobutyric acid pathways for alcohol withdrawal syndrome treatment; 2) harnessing retrospective and electronic health record data to identify risk factors and create objective severity scoring systems, particularly for acutely ill patients with SAWS; 3) the need for more robust comparative-effectiveness data to identify optimal SAWS treatment strategies; and 4) recommendations to accelerate implementation of effective treatments into practice. Conclusions: The dearth of evidence supporting management decisions for hospitalized patients with SAWS, many of whom require critical care, represents both a call to action and an opportunity for the American Thoracic Society and larger scientific communities to improve care for a vulnerable patient population. This report highlights basic, clinical, and implementation research that diverse experts agree will have the greatest impact on improving care for hospitalized patients with SAWS.

Effect of Adjunctive Dexmedetomidine in the Treatment of Alcohol Withdrawal Compared to Benzodiazepine Symptom-Triggered Therapy in Critically Ill Patients: The EvADE Study

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluated the safety and efficacy of adjunctive dexmedetomidine for alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) treatment compared to symptom-triggered benzodiazepine therapy.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective, cohort study evaluated patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with AWS. Patients were divided into 2 groups: adjunctive dexmedetomidine or symptom-triggered therapy (control). Primary outcome was change in Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol (CIWA-Ar) score. Secondary outcomes assessed cumulative ICU benzodiazepine requirement and ICU/hospital length of stay (LOS). Safety outcomes evaluated incidence of adverse events, new onset seizures, and intubation. Propensity matching was performed to minimize differences between study groups.

RESULTS

Overall, 147 patients were included, 56 in the dexmedetomidine group and 91 in the control group. Patient demographics were similar, however baseline CIWA-Ar score was statistically higher in the dexmedetomidine group. Following propensity matching, 55 patients were included in each group. No significant difference was noted for change in CIWA-Ar score (median, IQR) [3.8 (-0.4-12.3) dexmedetomidine vs. 5.4 (1.4-12.9) control, p = 0.223]. Secondary endpoints revealed increased benzodiazepine requirements (p = 0.001), prolonged ICU LOS (p = 0.050), and more frequent use of physical restraints (p = 0.001) in the dexmedetomidine group. While not statistically significant, the development of new onset seizures (p = 0.775) and intubation (p = 0.294) occurred more frequently in the dexmedetomidine group.

CONCLUSION

The addition of dexmedetomidine to symptom-triggered benzodiazepines for AWS did not produce a significant change in CIWA-Ar scores from baseline compared to symptom-triggered therapy alone. The increased rate of new onset seizures and intubation warrant further investigation into the safety of dexmedetomidine in AWS.

Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome in Neurocritical Care Unit: Assessment and Treatment Challenges

Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) can range from mild jittery movements, nausea, sweating to more severe symptoms such as seizure and death. Severe AWS can worsen cognitive function, increase hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality and morbidity. Due to a lack of reliable history of present illness in many patients with neurological injury as well as similarities in clinical presentation of AWS and some commonly encountered neurological syndromes, the true incidence of AWS in neurocritical care patients remains unknown. This review discusses challenges in the assessment and treatment of AWS in patients with neurological injury, including the utility of different scoring systems such as the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment and the Minnesota Detoxification Scale as well as the reliability of admission alcohol levels in predicting AWS. Treatment strategies such as symptom-based versus fixed dose benzodiazepine therapy and alternative agents such as baclofen, carbamazepine, dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, phenobarbital, ketamine, propofol, and valproic acid are also discussed. Finally, a treatment algorithm considering the neurocritical care patient is proposed to help guide therapy in this setting.

Front-loaded diazepam versus lorazepam for treatment of alcohol withdrawal agitated delirium

BACKGROUND

Front-loaded diazepam is used to rapidly control agitation in patients with severe alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS). Our institution began using front-loaded lorazepam in August 2017 secondary to a nation-wide shortage of intravenous (IV) diazepam. Currently, there are no studies comparing lorazepam to diazepam for frontloading in severe AWS.

METHOD

Retrospective cohort study of all adults presenting to the emergency department with a diagnosis of AWS and prescribed the institution's alcohol withdrawal agitated delirium protocol 8 months pre and post shortage of IV diazepam were eligible inclusion for the study. Of these, 106 patients were front-loaded with diazepam and 70 patients were front-loaded with lorazepam.

RESULTS

There was no difference in the mean change in Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment of Alcohol Scale, Revised scores 24 h pre and post front-loading in the two groups (-13.9 ± -8.08 vs. -13.1 ± -8.91, p = 0.534). Patients who received front-loaded lorazepam had an increased incidence of ICU-delirium (positive for the Confusion Assessment Method in the ICU: 75% with lorazepam vs. 52.6% with diazepam, p = 0.009) and a higher risk of over-sedation, but this did not reach statistical significance (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score < -1: 32.1% with lorazepam vs. 18.2% with diazepam, p = 0.063).

CONCLUSION

Front-loaded lorazepam was similar to front-loaded diazepam in controlling AWS symptoms. Lorazepam's delayed onset of action should be considered when determining how quickly repeat doses are administered to avoid the potential for adverse drug events.

Association between dexmedetomidine use for the treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome and intensive care unit length of stay

Purpose

Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is commonly treated in medical ICUs and typically requires high resource utilization. Dexmedetomidine for AWS has not been extensively investigated, and guidelines regarding its use are lacking. We evaluated the association between dexmedetomidine use in AWS and ICU length of stay (LOS).

Methods

We performed a multi-institutional retrospective cohort study of patients in the ICU with the primary diagnosis of AWS. ICU LOS of those treated with benzodiazepines alone vs. benzodiazepines plus dexmedetomidine was compared. Negative binomial regression was performed to test whether dexmedetomidine use was associated with increased ICU LOS after adjustment for age, gender, body mass index, and the time between hospital and ICU admission.

Results

Four hundred thirty-eight patients from eight institutions were included. Patients treated with benzodiazepines plus dexmedetomidine had higher Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol scores at ICU admission, spent longer on the medical wards prior to ICU admission, and had longer unadjusted ICU LOS (p < 0.0001). After covariate adjustment, dexmedetomidine remained associated with longer ICU LOS (relative mean to non-dexmedetomidine group 2.14, 95% CI 1.78–2.57, p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Compared to benzodiazepines alone, dexmedetomidine for the treatment of AWS was associated with increased ICU LOS. These results provide evidence that dexmedetomidine may increase resource utilization.

Use of Propofol Plus Dexmedetomidine in Patients Experiencing Severe Alcohol Withdrawal in the Intensive Care Unit

Alcohol abuse and alcohol withdrawal syndrome are major problems in the United States. This retrospective chart review assessed efficacy and safety of propofol plus dexmedetomidine used in combination as adjunctive therapy to benzodiazepines compared with either agent used alone in the treatment of severe alcohol withdrawal. Patients admitted to the intensive care unit and experiencing severe alcohol withdrawal between September 1, 2015 and September 30, 2018 were assessed for eligibility. Primary end points were change in the revised Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol scale (CIWA-Ar) score and incidence of bradycardia and hypotension. The combination of propofol and dexmedetomidine was associated with a change in CIWA-Ar score of -10.4 (95%CI -13.5 to -7.3) points compared with -4.7 (95%CI -6.6 to -2.8) points with propofol and -4.4 (95%CI -7.4 to -1.4) with dexmedetomidine (P = .21). Bradycardia was experienced by 11.1% of patients receiving the combination, 15.4% of patients receiving propofol, and 28.6% of patients receiving dexmedetomidine (P = .40). Patients receiving dexmedetomidine experienced hypotension at a rate of 21.4% compared with 22.2% of patients receiving the combination and 38.5% of patients receiving propofol (P = .08). Patients in the combination group also had a shorter length of hospital and intensive care unit stay and shorter time to extubation when compared with the propofol and dexmedetomidine groups. Although no statistical significance was found, the combination was associated with better efficacy and safety outcomes than produced by either agent used alone.

High-Dose Gabapentin for the Treatment of Severe Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Gabapentin has been proved to be beneficial in promoting abstinence, decreasing alcohol cravings, and improving mood and sleep quality when given at higher doses; however, data are limited regarding the efficacy and safety of using high-dose gabapentin as part of the treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS). The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of high-dose gabapentin on benzodiazepine requirements, alcohol withdrawal symptoms, and hospital length of stay in patients hospitalized with AWS.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Large academic medical center.

PATIENTS

All adults presenting to the emergency department between January 2015 and April 2018 with a diagnosis of severe AWS (Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol Scale, Revised [CIWA-Ar] score ≥ 15) and prescribed the institution's alcohol withdrawal agitated delirium protocol were eligible for inclusion in the study. Of these, 50 patients who received high-dose gabapentin (≥ 1800 mg/day) in the first 48 hours of hospital admission (treatment group) were propensity score-matched to 50 patients who did not receive gabapentin (control group).

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Patients who received high-dose gabapentin required a significantly lower overall amount of benzodiazepines (mean ± SD 109.5 ± 53.4 mg vs 88.5 ± 35.6 mg [lorazepam equivalents], p=0.023) and had a significantly lower mean CIWA-Ar score (10.1 ± 4.7 vs 7.7 ± 3.9, p=0.010) and maximum CIWA-Ar score (16.0 ± 7.0 vs 12.6 ± 6.1, p=0.016) on day 3 of hospitalization. The high-dose gabapentin regimen was well tolerated, without an increased risk of oversedation, compared with the control group (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score < -1: 34% in the treatment group vs 20% in the control group, p=0.115). Patients receiving high-dose gabapentin had a shorter length of hospital stay (7.4 ± 4.0 days vs 6.0 ± 2.6 days, p=0.034) and increased likelihood of being discharged home (66% vs 88%, p=0.009) compared with the control group.

CONCLUSION

Early initiation of high-dose gabapentin was associated with a significant reduction in benzodiazepine exposure, faster stabilization of alcohol withdrawal-related symptoms, and shorter hospital length of stay. Future studies evaluating gabapentin's effect on long-term safety and hospital readmission are warranted.

Patient Outcomes Associated With Phenobarbital Use With or Without Benzodiazepines for Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome: A Systematic Review

Purpose: Benzodiazepines are the drug of choice for alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS); however, phenobarbital is an alternative agent used with or without concomitant benzodiazepine therapy. In this systematic review, we evaluate patient outcomes with phenobarbital for AWS. Methods: Medline, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched from 1950 through February 2017 for controlled trials and observational studies using ["phenobarbital" or "barbiturate"] and ["alcohol withdrawal" or "delirium tremens."] Risk of bias was assessed using tools recommended by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Results: From 294 nonduplicative articles, 4 controlled trials and 5 observational studies (n = 720) for AWS of any severity were included. Studies were of good quality (n = 2), fair (n = 4), and poor (n = 3). In 6 studies describing phenobarbital without concomitant benzodiazepine therapy, phenobarbital decreased AWS symptoms (P < .00001) and displayed similar rates of treatment failure versus comparator therapies (38% vs 29%). A study with 2 cohorts showed similar rates of intensive care unit (ICU) admission (phenobarbital: 16% and 9% vs benzodiazepine: 14%) and hospital length of stay (phenobarbital: 5.85 and 5.30 days vs benzodiazepine: 6.64 days). In 4 studies describing phenobarbital with concomitant benzodiazepine therapy, phenobarbital groups had similar ICU admission rates (8% vs 25%), decreased mechanical ventilation (21.9% vs 47.3%), decreased benzodiazepine requirements by 50% to 90%, and similar ICU and hospital lengths of stay and AWS symptom resolution versus comparator groups. Adverse effects with phenobarbital, including dizziness and drowsiness, rarely occurred. Conclusion: Phenobarbital, with or without concomitant benzodiazepines, may provide similar or improved outcomes when compared with alternative therapies, including benzodiazepines alone.

[Dexmedetomidine in the treatment of acute alcohol withdrawal delirium]

Alcohol withdrawal syndrome has a high clinical prevalence. Severe cases must be treated in an intensive care unit and are associated with a high mortality rate, depending on patient comorbidities. Clinical requirements include sedation, control of vegetative symptoms, treatment of hallucinations and, when necessary, anticonvulsive therapy. Currently, there is no single substance that fulfills these requirements. National and international guidelines recommend a combination of various substances. The central α2-adrenergic receptor agonist clonidine is used as a therapeutic adjuvant. In consideration of its pharmacological characteristics, dexmedetomidine is assumed to be more advantageous compared to clondine. Case studies with dexmedetomidine in alcohol withdrawal syndrome show the safety of its application and a benzodiazepine-sparing effect. Its incorporation in escalating intensive care therapy of severe cases could be appropriate.

The emergency medicine management of severe alcohol withdrawal

INTRODUCTION

Alcohol use is widespread, and withdrawal symptoms are common after decreased alcohol intake. Severe alcohol withdrawal may manifest with delirium tremens, and new therapies may assist in management of this life-threatening condition.

OBJECTIVE

To provide an evidence-based review of the emergency medicine management of alcohol withdrawal and delirium tremens.

DISCUSSION

The underlying pathophysiology of alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is central nervous system hyperexcitation. Stages of withdrawal include initial withdrawal symptoms, hallucinations, seizures, and delirium tremens. Management focuses on early diagnosis, resuscitation, and providing medications with gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor activity. Benzodiazepines with symptom-triggered therapy have been the predominant medication class utilized and should remain the first treatment option with rapid escalation of dosing. Treatment resistant withdrawal warrants the use of phenobarbital or propofol, both demonstrating efficacy in management. Propofol can be used as an induction agent to decrease the effects of withdrawal. Dexmedetomidine does not address the underlying pathophysiology but may reduce the need for intubation. Ketamine requires further study. Overall, benzodiazepines remain the cornerstone of treatment. Outpatient management of patients with minimal symptoms is possible.

CONCLUSIONS

Alcohol withdrawal syndrome can result in significant morbidity and mortality. Physicians must rapidly diagnose these conditions while evaluating for other diseases. Benzodiazepines are the predominant medication class utilized, with adjunctive treatments including propofol or phenobarbital in patients with withdrawal resistant to benzodiazepines. Dexmedetomidine and ketamine require further study.

Alcohol withdrawal syndrome: mechanisms, manifestations, and management

The alcohol withdrawal syndrome is a well‐known condition occurring after intentional or unintentional abrupt cessation of heavy/constant drinking in patients suffering from alcohol use disorders (AUDs). AUDs are common in neurological departments with patients admitted for coma, epileptic seizures, dementia, polyneuropathy, and gait disturbances. Nonetheless, diagnosis and treatment are often delayed until dramatic symptoms occur. The purpose of this review is to increase the awareness of the early clinical manifestations of AWS and the appropriate identification and management of this important condition in a neurological setting.

A Symptom-Triggered Benzodiazepine Protocol Utilizing SAS and CIWA-Ar Scoring for the Treatment of Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome in the Critically Ill

BACKGROUND

There are limited data on the efficacy of symptom-triggered therapy for alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) in the intensive care unit (ICU).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a symptom-triggered benzodiazepine protocol utilizing Riker Sedation Agitation Scale (SAS) scoring for the treatment of AWS in the ICU.

METHODS

We performed a before-and-after study in a medical ICU. A protocol incorporating SAS scoring and symptom-triggered benzodiazepine dosing was implemented in place of a protocol that utilized the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol (CIWA-Ar) scale and fixed benzodiazepine dosing.

RESULTS

We enrolled 167 patients (135 in the preintervention and 32 in the postintervention group). The median duration of AWS was shorter in the postintervention (5, interquartile range [IQR] = 4-8 days) than in the preintervention group (8, IQR = 5-12 days; P < 0.01). Need for mechanical ventilation (31% vs 57%, P = 0.01), median ICU length of stay (LOS; 4, IQR = 2-7, vs 7, IQR = 4-11 days, P = 0.02), and hospital LOS (9, IQR = 6-13, vs 13, IQR = 9-18 days; P = 0.01) were less in the postintervention group. There was a reduction in mean total benzodiazepine exposure (74 ± 159 vs 450 ± 701 mg lorazepam; P < 0.01) in the postintervention group.

CONCLUSION

A symptom-triggered benzodiazepine protocol utilizing SAS in critically ill patients is associated with a reduction in the duration of AWS treatment, benzodiazepine exposure, need for mechanical ventilation, and ICU and hospital LOS compared with a CIWA-Ar-based protocol using fixed benzodiazepine dosing.

Treatment of Severe Alcohol Withdrawal

OBJECTIVE

Approximately 50% of patients with alcohol dependence experience alcohol withdrawal. Severe alcohol withdrawal is characterized by seizures and/or delirium tremens, often refractory to standard doses of benzodiazepines, and requires aggressive treatment. This review aims to summarize the literature pertaining to the pharmacotherapy of severe alcohol withdrawal.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed (January 1960 to October 2015) was searched using the search termsalcohol withdrawal, delirium tremens, intensive care, andrefractory Supplemental references were generated through review of identified literature citations.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Available English language articles assessing pharmacotherapy options for adult patients with severe alcohol withdrawal were included.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A PubMed search yielded 739 articles for evaluation, of which 27 were included. The number of randomized controlled trials was limited, so many of these are retrospective analyses and case reports. Benzodiazepines remain the treatment of choice, with diazepam having the most favorable pharmacokinetic profile. Protocolized escalation of benzodiazepines as an alternative to a symptom-triggered approach may decrease the need for mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay. Propofol is appropriate for patients refractory to benzodiazepines; however, the roles of phenobarbital, dexmedetomidine, and ketamine remain unclear.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe alcohol withdrawal is not clearly defined, and limited data regarding management are available. Protocolized administration of benzodiazepines, in combination with phenobarbital, may reduce the need for mechanical ventilation and lead to shorter ICU stays. Propofol is a viable alternative for patients refractory to benzodiazepines; however, the role of other agents remains unclear. Randomized, prospective studies are needed to clearly define effective treatment strategies.

Approach to the Complicated Alcohol Withdrawal Patient

Alcohol withdrawal syndromes are common causes for admission to the intensive care unit. As many as one-fifth of the admitted patients have an alcohol-associated disorder. Identifying the benefit of the γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) agonists has shifted toward methods to improve benzodiazepine (BZD) utilization. Literature validating this treatment approach in severe withdrawal, especially in the critical care setting, is limited, and extrapolation to this population may be dangerous. Multiple therapies have been suggested or utilized in the literature including continuous infusion of GABA agonists, ethanol, dexmedetomidine, antiepileptics, and antipsychotics, introducing a significant amount of variability into clinical practice. This variability in treatment approaches highlights the lack of uniformity and recommendations available for the treatment of severe refractory patients. In patients progressing to severe withdrawal, it may be warranted to escalate care with adjunctive or more aggressive therapies. Although multiple practices are commonly used, the evidence supporting their use after failing symptom-triggered or aggressive therapy with BZDs is virtually nonexistent. These patients commonly receive a multimodal approach, which varies substantially between providers and institutions. Further literature should be directed at the approach most likely to provide benefit when standard of care has failed.

Dexmedetomidine for Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome

OBJECTIVE

To review available evidence evaluating dexmedetomidine in alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) while identifying gaps in evidence for its use in this setting.

DATA SOURCES

A MEDLINE search (1966-August 2015) to identify English-language articles evaluating the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in alcohol withdrawal. Key words included alcohol, withdrawal, delirium tremens, and dexmedetomidine. Additional references were identified from a review of literature citations.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

All English-language observational studies, retrospective reviews, and clinical trials were included. Case reports and case series describing the use of dexmedetomidine in 10 or fewer patients were excluded.

DATA SYNTHESIS

One randomized, controlled trial, 1 prospective observational study, and 6 retrospective reviews were identified. The only randomized, controlled trial identified showed that the addition of dexmedetomidine decreases benzodiazepine requirements more than placebo in the first 24 hours after initiation compared with the 24 hours prior to initiation (-56.8 mg vs -8 mg; P = 0.037). Overall, dexmedetomidine appears to lower benzodiazepine requirements in patients with AWS and decreases the sympathomimetic response seen in these patients. There was no convincing evidence that dexmedetomidine improves clinical endpoints in patients with AWS, such as need for mechanical ventilation or intensive care unit or hospital length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine reduces hypertension and tachycardia in AWS and also reduces benzodiazepine requirements; however, the impact of these findings on important clinical endpoints is yet to be determined. Dexmedetomidine may be useful as adjunctive therapy; however, it cannot be recommended as a single agent in the management of AWS.

Evaluating the effects of dexmedetomidine compared to propofol as adjunctive therapy in patients with alcohol withdrawal

BACKGROUND

In severe alcohol withdrawal (AW), benzodiazepines may be inadequate to control symptoms. In many situations, benzodiazepine dosing escalates despite no additional efficacy and introduces potential toxicities. Severe cases of AW may require additional agents to control symptoms. Case reports and studies have shown benefits with dexmedetomidine and propofol in severe AW, but these agents have not been compared with one another. This study compares the effects of dexmedetomidine and propofol on benzodiazepine and haloperidol utilization in patients with AW.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was completed on 41 patients with AW who received adjunctive dexmedetomidine or propofol. The primary objective was to compare benzodiazepine and haloperidol utilization before and after initiation of dexmedetomidine or propofol. Secondary measures included AW and sedation scoring, analgesic use, intensive care unit length of stay, rates of intubation, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Among the dexmedetomidine and propofol groups, significant reductions in benzodiazepine (P≤0.0001 and P=0.043, respectively) and haloperidol (P≤0.0001 and P=0.026, respectively) requirements were observed. These reductions were comparable between groups (P=0.933 and P=0.465, respectively). A trend toward decreased intensive care unit length of stay in the dexmedetomidine group (123.6 hours vs 156.5 hours; P=0.125) was seen. Rates of intubation (14.7% vs 100%) and time of intubation (19.9 hours vs 97.6 hours; P=0.002) were less in the dexmedetomidine group. Incidence of hypotension was 17.6% in the dexmedetomidine group vs 28.5% in the propofol group. Incidence of bradycardia was 17.6% in the dexmedetomidine group vs 0% in the propofol group. No differences were observed in other secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In patients with severe AW who require sedation, both dexmedetomidine and propofol have unique and advantageous properties. Both agents appear to have equivalent efficacy in reducing AW-related symptoms and benzodiazepine and haloperidol requirements. These results should be validated in a larger, prospective trial.