Use of dexmedetomidine for the treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome in critically ill patients: a retrospective case series

[Antipsychotic Treatment of Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome with Focus on Delirium Tremens: a Systematic Review]

BACKGROUND

Delirium tremens (DT) is a common complication of alcohol withdrawal. Pharmacological treatment of hospitalized patients with DT is important in addiction medicine but also in other medical disciplines where DT can occur as a complication of hospitalization. Patients suffering from DT require treatment with benzodiazepines (short-acting benzodiazepines for elderly patients to reduce accumulation), and in cases of psychotic symptoms, treatment with antipsychotics. Benzodiazepines are a first-line treatment for DT. A specific guideline for the use of antipsychotics has yet to be developed. This review discusses the current guidelines and literature on the antipsychotic treatment options in DT.

AIM

Systematic presentation of relevant antipsychotics for the treatment of DT.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using Scopus and PubMed. The last search was conducted on May 22nd 2022. Original articles and reviews on antipsychotic treatment in alcohol withdrawal and DT were included in this review. Further, international guidelines were also considered. The review was registered using the PROSPERO database (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/); CRD42021264611.

RESULTS

Haloperidol is mainly recommended for use in the intensive care unit. There is little literature on the use of atypical antipsychotics to treat DT. Treatment with antipsychotics always should be combined with benzodiazepines, and physicians should watch out for complications like neuroleptic malignant syndrome, QTc interval prolongation, extrapyramidal symptoms and withdrawal seizures resulting from lowering the threshold for seizures.

CONCLUSION

Antipsychotic treatment should depend on the experience of the physician. Beside haloperidol, no other clear recommendations are available.

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].

Differences in efficacy and safety of midazolam vs. dexmedetomidine in critically ill patients: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial

The present study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and midazolam in patients that are critically ill. Full text articles reporting the clinical effects and complications of dexmedetomidine and midazolam were retrieved from multiple databases. Review Manager 5.0 was adopted for meta-analysis, sensitivity and bias analysis. Finally, a total of 1,379 patients from 8 studies, which met the eligibility criteria, were included. The meta-analysis suggested that the length of stay at the intensive care unit [mean absolute difference (MD)=-1.80; 95% confidence interval (CI), -2.13, -1.48; P<0.00001; P-value for heterogeneity=0.41; I²=3%], time to extubation (MD=-2.18; 95% CI, -2.66, -1.69; P<0.00001; P-value for heterogeneity=0.84; I²=0%) and delirium (MD=0.46; 95% CI, 0.37, 0.57; P<0.00001; P-value for heterogeneity=0.65; I²=0%) was higher following midazolam treatment compared with dexmedetomidine, while bradycardia [odds ratio (OR)=5.03; 95% CI, 3.86, 6.57; P<0.00001; P-value for heterogeneity=0.13; I²=38%] was higher in dexmedetomidine treated patients compared with midazolam. However, no difference was observed in the incidence of hypotension (OR=0.88; 95% CI, 0.70, 1.10; P=0.26; P-value for heterogeneity=0.99; I²=0%) and mortality (OR=0.96; 95% CI, 0.74, 1.25; P=0.77; P-value for heterogeneity=0.99; I²=0%). Taking clinical effects and safety into account, the present study suggested dexmedetomidine to be the preferred option of anesthesia for patients that are critically ill.

Treatment of Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome with and without Dexmedetomidine

CONTEXT

Studies suggest that dexmedetomidine-an intravenous central-acting α2-adrenergic agonist that effectively reduces anxiety among critically ill patients-is being used in patients with severe alcohol withdrawal. However, evidence supporting its use is limited, and it is not approved for this indication.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of dexmedetomidine on severe alcohol withdrawal symptoms and to compare its use with benzodiazepines alone.

DESIGN

A retrospective, cohort study of 77 patients admitted to the adult medical intensive care unit with severe alcohol withdrawal between January 1, 2009, and October 31, 2013.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The difference in lorazepam equivalents and Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol scores in the 24 hours before and after initiation of dexmedetomidine therapy.

RESULTS

The frequency of dexmedetomidine use increased dramatically between 2009 and 2013 (16.7% vs 82.4%; p = 0.01). Initiation of dexmedetomidine therapy was associated with significant improvements in Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol scores over corresponding 24-hour intervals (14.5 vs 8.5; p < 0.01). Benzodiazepine use also decreased, but the difference was not statistically significant at 24 hours (p = 0.10). Dexmedetomidine was well tolerated, requiring discontinuation of therapy in only 4 patients (10.5%). Dexmedetomidine use was also associated with significantly longer hospitalizations (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine initiation was associated with a reduction in short-term alcohol withdrawal symptoms in patients in the intensive care unit, with only a few patients experiencing adverse events. However, its use was also associated with longer hospitalizations. Further research is necessary to evaluate whether dexmedetomidine is efficacious or cost-effective in severe alcohol withdrawal.

Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome in Critically Ill Patients: Identification, Assessment, and Management

Management of alcohol withdrawal in critically ill patients is a challenge. The alcohol consumption histories of intensive care patients are often incomplete, limiting identification of patients with alcohol use disorders. Abrupt cessation of alcohol places these patients at risk for alcohol withdrawal syndrome. Typically benzodiazepines are used as first-line therapy to manage alcohol withdrawal. However, if patients progress to more severe withdrawal or delirium tremens, extra adjunctive medications in addition to benzodiazepines may be required. Sedation and mechanical ventilation may also be necessary. Withdrawal assessment scales such as the Clinical Institute of Withdrawal Assessment are of limited use in these patients. Instead, general sedation-agitation scales and delirium detection tools have been used. The important facets of care are the rapid identification of at-risk patients through histories of alcohol consumption, management with combination therapies, and ongoing diligent assessment and evaluation. (Critical Care Nurse. 2016;36[1]:28-39).

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.

Dexmedetomidine for acute baclofen withdrawal

BACKGROUND

Intrathecal baclofen is widely accepted as a treatment option for severe spasticity through its γ-Aminobutyric acid-B (GABAB ) agonist properties. Abrupt cessation can lead to severe and life-threatening withdrawal characterized by altered mental status, autonomic dysreflexia, rigidity, and seizures. This symptomatic presentation is similar to alcohol withdrawal, which is mediated by modification of GABAA expression. Use of the α2-adrenergic agonist dexmedetomidine for the treatment of ethanol withdrawal has been widely reported, raising the question of its potential role in baclofen withdrawal. We present a case of the successful treatment of acute severe baclofen withdrawal with a dexmedetomidine infusion.

METHODS

A 15-year-old patient with spastic quadriparesis and cerebral palsy underwent unexpected removal of his baclofen pump due to an infection that was encountered during a planned pump revision. Following removal, he was placed on high dose enteral baclofen every 6 h. Despite further benzodiazepine supplementation, he had progressive hemodynamic instability, severe rebound spasticity, and intermittent spontaneous clonus consistent with baclofen withdrawal. A dexmedetomidine infusion was titrated to a peak dose of 16 mcg per hour with successful treatment of withdrawal symptoms.

RESULTS

The patient became normotensive without tachycardia. Tone and agitation improved.

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine is to our knowledge a previously unreported option for treatment of acute severe baclofen withdrawal. We report a case of safe and efficacious use in a patient with spastic quadriparesis on chronic intrathecal baclofen. Scientifically rigorous comparison with other options remains to be performed.

Barbiturates for the treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome: A systematic review of clinical trials

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review of the clinical trials concerning the use of barbiturates for the treatment of acute alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, together with a manual citation review was conducted. We selected English-language clinical trials (controlled and observational studies) evaluating the efficacy and safety of barbiturates compared with benzodiazepine (BZD) therapy for the treatment of AWS in the acute care setting. Data extracted from the included trials were duration of delirium, number of seizures, length of intensive care unit and hospital stay, cumulated doses of barbiturates and BZDs, and respiratory or cardiac complications.

RESULTS

Seven studies consisting of 4 prospective controlled and 3 retrospective trials were identified. Results from all the included studies suggest that barbiturates alone or in combination with BZDs are at least as effective as BZDs in the treatment of AWS. Furthermore, barbiturates appear to have acceptable tolerability and safety profiles, which were similar to those of BZDs in patients with AWS.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the evidence is limited, based on our findings, adding phenobarbital to a BZD-based regimen is a reasonable option, particularly in patients with BZD-refractory AWS.

Addition of dexmedetomidine to benzodiazepines for patients with alcohol withdrawal syndrome in the intensive care unit: a randomized controlled study

Background

Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a centrally acting alpha-2-adrenoceptor agonist that has potential in the management of alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) owing to its ability to produce arousable sedation and to inhibit the adrenergic system without respiratory depression. The objective of this randomized controlled study was to evaluate whether addition of DEX to benzodiazepine (BZD) therapy is effective and safe for AWS patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).

Methods

Eligible participants were randomly assigned to intervention (Group D; n = 36) or control (Group C; n = 36). In Group D, DEX infusion was started at a dose of 0.2–1.4 μg/kg/h and titrated to achieve the target sedation level (–2 to 0 on the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS)) with symptom-triggered BZD (10 mg diazepam bolus) was used as needed. Patients in Group C received only symptom-triggered 10 mg boluses of diazepam. The primary efficacy outcomes were 24-h diazepam consumption and cumulative diazepam dose required over the course of the ICU stay; secondary outcomes included length of ICU stay, sedation and communication quality and haloperidol requirements.

Results

Median 24-h diazepam consumption during the study was significantly lower in Group D (20 vs. 40 mg, p < 0.001), as well as median cumulative diazepam dose during the ICU stay (60 vs. 90 mg, p < 0.001). The median percentage of time in the target sedation range was higher in Group D (median 90 % (90–95) vs. 64.5 % (60–72.5; p < 0.001). DEX infusion was also associated with better nurse-assessed patient communication (<0.001) and fewer patients requiring haloperidol treatment (2 vs. 10 p = 0.02). One patient in Group D and four in Group C were excluded owing to insufficient control of AWS symptoms and use of additional sedatives (p = 0.36). There were no severe adverse events in either group. Spontaneous breathing remained normal in all patients. Bradycardia was a common adverse event in Group D (10 vs. 2; p = 0.03).

Conclusions

DEX significantly reduced diazepam requirements in ICU patients with AWS and decreased the number of patients who required haloperidol for severe agitation and hallucinations. DEX use was also associated with improvement in diverse aspects of sedation quality and the quality of patient communication.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02496650

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.

Retrospective Review of Critically Ill Patients Experiencing Alcohol Withdrawal: Dexmedetomidine Versus Propofol and/or Lorazepam Continuous Infusions

BACKGROUND

Alcohol withdrawal symptoms can be difficult to manage and may lead to an intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Patients experiencing severe alcohol withdrawal often require high doses of sedatives, which can lead to respiratory depression and the need for endotracheal intubation. Dexmedetomidine, an alpha-2 adrenoreceptor agonist, provides adequate sedation with little effect on respiratory function when compared to other sedatives.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate sedation with a continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine versus propofol and/or lorazepam in critically ill patients experiencing alcohol withdrawal.

METHODS

A retrospective chart review was conducted on ICU admissions between March 2002 and April 2009 for alcohol withdrawal patients who necessitated treatment with a continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine, propofol, and/or lorazepam. Primary outcomes included the incidence of mechanical ventilation, length of mechanical ventilation (if applicable), and ICU and hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients were treated with a continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine, and 17 were treated with an infusion of propofol and/or lorazepam. Two patients (13.3%) required intubation and mechanical ventilation in the dexmedetomidine group versus 10 (58.8%) in the propofol and/or lorazepam group (P = .006). Length of stay in the ICU was 53 hours for patients treated with dexmedetomidine versus 114.9 hours in the propofol and/or lorazepam group (P = .016). Hospital length of stay was less for the dexmedetomidine group, 135.8 hours versus 241.1 hours in the propofol and/or lorazepam group (P = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine use was associated with a decrease in the incidence of endotracheal intubation when used to sedate patients experiencing alcohol withdrawal. Patients transferred to a lower level of care faster and were discharged from the hospital sooner when treated with dexmedetomidine.

Is it prime time for alpha2-adrenocepter agonists in the treatment of withdrawal syndromes?

The need to treat withdrawal syndromes is a common occurrence in outpatient, inpatient ward, and intensive care unit (ICU) settings. A PubMed and Google Scholar search using alpha2-adrenoreceptor agonist (A2AA), specific A2AA agents, withdrawal syndrome and nicotine, and alcohol and opioid withdrawal terms was performed. A2AA agents appear to be able to modulate many of the signs and symptoms of significant withdrawal syndromes but are also capable of significant side effects, which can limit clinical use. Non-opioid oral A2AA agent use for opioid withdrawal has been well established. Pharmacologic combination therapy that utilizes A2AA agents for withdrawal syndromes appears promising but requires further formal testing to better define which other agents, under what condition(s), and at what A2AA doses are needed. The A2AA dexmedetomidine may be useful as an adjunctive agent in treating severe alcohol withdrawal syndromes in the ICU. In general, the current data does not support the routine use of A2AA as the primary or sole agent to treat ethanol/alcohol or nicotine withdrawal syndromes. Specific A2AA agents such as lofexidine has been shown to have a primary role in non-opioid-based treatment of opioid withdrawal syndrome and dexmedetomidine in combination with benzodiazepines has been shown to have potential in the treatment of severe ICU-based alcohol withdrawal syndrome.

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.

Evaluation of Early Dexmedetomidine Addition to the Standard of Care for Severe Alcohol Withdrawal in the ICU: A Retrospective Controlled Cohort Study

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the impact of dexmedetomidine (DEX) administration on benzodiazepine (BZD) requirements in intensive care unit (ICU) patients experiencing alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS).

METHODS

This trial included adults admitted to the ICU for >24 hours for AWS. Early DEX was defined as receiving DEX within 60 hours of hospital admission. The primary outcome was 12-hour BZD requirement from the inflection point or DEX initiation. Secondary outcomes included 24-hour BZD requirements, symptom control, ICU and hospital length of stay, and incidence and duration of mechanical ventilation. Safety outcomes included incidence of bradycardia and hypotension.

RESULTS

Twenty patients receiving DEX were matched to 22 control patients. The mean 12-hour change in BZD requirement was significantly different for DEX versus control (-20 vs -8.3 mg, P = .0455) with a trend toward significance at 24 hours (-29.6 vs -11 mg, P = .06). No significant differences were noted in other secondary outcomes. Patients receiving DEX experienced significantly more bradycardia than controls (35% vs 0%, P < .01) but not hypotension.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests DEX is associated with a reduction in BZD requirement when utilized as adjunctive therapy for AWS. A larger prospective trial is needed to evaluate the clinical impact of DEX for AWS.

Multicenter evaluation of pharmacologic management and outcomes associated with severe resistant alcohol withdrawal

INTRODUCTION

A subset of patients with alcohol withdrawal syndrome does not respond to benzodiazepine treatment despite escalating doses. Resistant alcohol withdrawal (RAW) is associated with higher incidences of mechanical ventilation and nosocomial pneumonia and longer intensive care unit (ICU) stay. The objective of this study is to characterize pharmacologic management of RAW and outcomes.

METHODS

Adult patients were identified retrospectively via International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision codes for severe alcohol withdrawal from 2009 to 2012 at 3 hospitals. Data collected included pharmacologic management and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 184 patients met inclusion criteria. Sixteen medications and 74 combinations of medications were used for management. Propofol was the most common adjunct agent, with dexmedetomidine and antipsychotics also used. One hundred seventy-five patients (96.2%) were admitted to the ICU, with 149 patients (81.9%) requiring ventilator support. Median time to resolution of alcohol withdrawal syndrome from RAW designation was 6.0 days. Median ICU and hospital length of stay were 9.0 and 12.7 days, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Diverse patterns exist in the management of patients meeting RAW criteria, indicating lack of refined approach to treatment. High doses of sedatives used for these patients may result in a high level of care, illustrating a need for evidence-based clinical guidelines to optimize outcomes.

Evaluation of adjunctive ketamine to benzodiazepines for management of alcohol withdrawal syndrome

BACKGROUND

Adjunctive medications to manage alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) in patients not adequately responding to escalating doses of benzodiazepines (BZDs) are limited. The use of the N-methyl-d-aspartate antagonist ketamine, may serve as an effective adjunct agent; however, no published data currently exist for this practice.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the safety and efficacy of adjunct ketamine for management of AWS.

METHODS

The study was a retrospective review of adult patients from April 2011 to March 2014 who were administered ketamine specifically for management of AWS. Outcomes included changes in BZD requirements and ketamine-related adverse reactions.

RESULTS

Of 235 patients screened, 23 patients met study eligibility. Ketamine was initiated primarily with toxicology consultation for significant BZD requirements or delirium tremens. The mean time to initiation of ketamine from first treatment of AWS, and total duration of therapy were 33.6 and 55.8 hours, respectively. Mean initial infusion dose and median total infusion rate during therapy were 0.21 and 0.20 mg/kg/h, respectively. There was no change in sedation or alcohol withdrawal scores in patients within 6 hours of ketamine initiation. The median change in BZD requirements at 12 and 24 hours post-ketamine initiation were -40.0 and -13.3 mg, respectively. The mean time to AWS resolution was 5.6 days. There was one documented adverse reaction of oversedation, requiring dose reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

Ketamine appears to reduce BZD requirements and is well tolerated at low doses. Prospective dose range evaluations in the management of AWS would be helpful in determining its place as an adjunctive agent.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose range study of dexmedetomidine as adjunctive therapy for alcohol withdrawal

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate dexmedetomidine as adjunctive therapy to lorazepam for severe alcohol withdrawal.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

SETTING

Single center; medical ICU.

PATIENTS

Twenty-four adult patients with a Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment score greater than or equal to 15 despite greater than or equal to 16 mg of lorazepam over a 4-hour period.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients received a symptom-triggered Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment protocol with lorazepam and were randomized to dexmedetomidine 1.2 μg/kg/hr (high dose), 0.4 μg/kg/hr (low dose), or placebo as adjunctive therapy for up to 5 days or resolution of withdrawal symptoms.

MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS

High-dose and low-dose groups were combined as a single dexmedetomidine group for primary analysis with secondary analysis exploring a dose-response relationship. The difference in 24-hour lorazepam requirements after versus before study drug was greater in the dexmedetomidine group compared with the placebo group (-56 mg vs -8 mg, p = 0.037). Median differences were similar for high dose and low dose. The 7-day cumulative lorazepam requirements were not statistically different between dexmedetomidine and placebo (159 mg vs 181 mg). Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment or Riker sedation-agitation scale scores representing severe agitation (13% vs 25%) or moderate agitation (27% vs 22%) within 24 hours of initiating study drug were similar for dexmedetomidine and placebo groups, respectively. Bradycardia occurred more frequently in the dexmedetomidine group versus placebo group (25% vs 0%, p = not significant), with the majority of bradycardia occurring in the high-dose group (37.5%). Study drug rate adjustments occurred more often in the dexmedetomidine group compared with the placebo group (50% vs 0%, p = 0.02). Neither endotracheal intubation nor seizure occurred in any group while on study drug.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive dexmedetomidine for severe alcohol withdrawal maintains symptom control and reduces lorazepam exposure in the short term, but not long term, when using a symptom-triggered protocol. Monitoring for bradycardia is needed with dexmedetomidine but the occurrence may be lessened with low dose. Further study is needed to evaluate the clinical impact of dexmedetomidine.

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

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare efficacy and safety outcomes in nonintubated patients with severe alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) who required a continuous infusion of a benzodiazepine or dexmedetomidine in addition to standard medical therapy for AWS.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Two hospitals within the same network that used different treatment strategies for AWS.

PATIENTS

A total of 61 nonintubated adults who received a continuous infusion of either a benzodiazepine (BZD) (lorazepam or midazolam; 33 patients) or dexmedetomidine (DEX) (28 patients) for severe AWS between April 1, 2011, and October 31, 2012, as well as standard medical therapy for AWS.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome was a composite end point including rates of respiratory distress requiring endotracheal intubation or occurrence of alcohol withdrawal seizures. No significant differences in the composite end point were noted between the BZD and DEX groups (9.1% and 7.1%, respectively, p>0.99) or its individual components of respiratory distress (9.1% and 7.1%, respectively, p>0.99) or alcohol withdrawal seizures (0% and 3.6%, respectively, p=0.46). The DEX group received a lower median total dose of lorazepam equivalents after initiation of the study drug (median [interquartile range] 105 [60-199.5] mg in the BZD group vs 3.5 [0-12] mg in the DEX group), but this did not translate into a reduced requirement for endotracheal intubation or decreased length of stay. DEX was associated with more adverse drug events including hypotension and bradycardia. Of concern, DEX may impair the ability to assess symptoms appropriately and administer BZDs in a symptom-triggered fashion. Although the total cost of hospitalization was similar between groups, DEX was associated with a higher study drug cost per patient.

CONCLUSION

DEX demonstrated a BZD-sparing effect in the treatment of AWS; however, this surrogate end point should be interpreted with caution. Although this study cannot disprove the possibility of a protective effect of DEX in preventing the requirement for endotracheal intubation in patients with AWS, an increased rate of adverse drug events and increased study drug costs were observed. If DEX is used in clinical practice, it should only be used as adjunctive therapy with BZDs that have a proven benefit in AWS.

Influence of dexmedetomidine therapy on the management of severe alcohol withdrawal syndrome in critically ill patients

PURPOSE

Although benzodiazepines are first-line drugs for alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS), rapidly escalating doses may offer little additional benefit and increase complications. The purpose of this study was to evaluate dexmedetomidine's impact on benzodiazepine requirements and hemodynamics in AWS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective case series evaluated 33 critically ill adults with a primary diagnosis of AWS from 2006 to 2012 at an academic medical center.

RESULTS

Dexmedetomidine began a median (interquartile range) of 11 (2, 32) hours into intensive care unit admission and was titrated to an infusion rate of 0.7 (0.4, 0.7) μg kg(-1) h(-1) to achieve the desired depth of sedation. In the 12 hours after dexmedetomidine began, patients experienced a 20-mg reduction in median cumulative benzodiazepine dose used (P < .001), a 14-mm Hg lower mean arterial pressure (P = .03), and a 17-beats/min reduction in median heart rate (P < .001). Four (12%) patients experienced hypotension (systolic blood pressure <80 mm Hg) during therapy, and there were no cases of bradycardia (heart rate <40 beats/min).

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine decreased benzodiazepine requirements and improved the overall hemodynamic profile of patients with severe AWS. These results provide promising evidence about the potential benefit of dexmedetomidine for AWS.

Alcohol, nicotine, and iatrogenic withdrawals in the ICU

OBJECTIVES

The neurophysiology, risk factors, and screening tools associated with alcohol withdrawal syndrome in the ICU are reviewed. Alcohol withdrawal syndrome assessment and its treatment options are discussed. Description of nicotine withdrawal and related publications specific to the critically ill are also reviewed. A brief comment as to sedative and opiate withdrawal follows.

DATA AND SUMMARY

The role of currently published alcohol withdrawal syndrome pharmacologic strategies (benzodiazepines, ethanol, clomethiazole, antipsychotics, barbiturates, propofol, and dexmedetomidine) is detailed. Studies on nicotine withdrawal management in the ICU focus mainly on the safety (mortality) of nicotine replacement therapy. Study characteristics and methodological limitations are presented.

CONCLUSION

We recommend a pharmacologic regimen titrated to withdrawal symptoms in ICU patients with alcohol withdrawal syndrome. Benzodiazepines are a reasonable option; phenobarbital appears to confer some advantages in combination with benzodiazepines. Propofol and dexmedetomidine have not been rigorously tested in comparative studies of drug withdrawal treatment; their use as additional or alternative strategies for managing withdrawal syndromes in ICU patients should therefore be individualized to each patient. Insufficient data preclude recommendations as to nicotine replacement therapy and management of iatrogenic drug withdrawal in ICU patients.

Dexmedetomidine for the treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome: rationale and current status of research

Dexmedetomidine is currently used in the US in the treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting, although data to support this practice are limited. Dexmedetomidine targets the noradrenergic system, an important but frequently overlooked secondary mechanism in the development of AWS, and, in doing so, may reduce the need for excessive benzodiazepine use which can increase the risk of γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA)-mediated deliriogenesis and respiratory depression. The purpose of this narrative review is to evaluate available literature reporting on the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine for AWS in the ICU setting. An English-language MEDLINE search (1966 to July 2013) was performed to identify articles evaluating the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine for AWS. Case series, case reports and controlled trials were evaluated for topic relevance and clinical applicability. Reference lists of articles retrieved through this search were reviewed to identify any relevant publications. Studies focusing on the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine for AWS in humans were selected. Studies were included if they were published as full articles; abstracts alone were not included in this review. Eight published case studies and case series were identified. Based on a limited body of evidence, dexmedetomidine shows promise as a potentially safe and possibly effective adjuvant treatment for AWS in the ICU. Prospective, well-controlled studies are needed to confirm the safety and efficacy of the use of dexmedetomidine in AWS.

A case-based approach to the practical application of dexmedetomidine in critically ill adults

Dexmedetomidine is a selective α(2) -adrenoceptor agonist that offers unique sedation because patients are readily awakened while administration continues and the drug does not suppress the respiratory center. Limitations of use include higher acquisition cost, inability to produce deep sedation, and bradycardia and hypotension. Using a case-based approach, the purpose of this review was to qualitatively assess the role of dexmedetomidine in the care of the critically ill and in the management of alcohol withdrawal, and to formulate recommendations regarding its clinical application. Sixty-six studies were identified that investigated dexmedetomidine for the provision of sedation. These studies were heterogeneous in design and patient populations; most investigated patients did not require heavy sedation, and few used propofol as the comparator. In general, though, the aggregate results of all studies demonstrate that dexmedetomidine provides comfort, possibly shortens the duration of mechanical ventilation to facilitate extubation, reduces the occurrence of acute brain dysfunction, and facilitates communication, but the drug is associated with hemodynamic instability and requires the supplemental use of traditional sedative and analgesic agents. These outcomes need to be substantiated in additional studies that include assessments of cost-effectiveness. Dexmedetomidine should be considered when patients require mild to moderate levels of sedation of short to intermediate time frames, and they qualify for daily awakenings with traditional sedative therapies. The data for dexmedetomidine in relation to alcohol withdrawal are limited to 12 retrospective reports representing a total of 127 patients. Its role for this indication requires further study, but it may be considered as adjunctive therapy when clinicians are concerned about respiratory suppression associated with escalating doses of γ-aminobutyric acid agonists. Regardless of the indication for dexmedetomidine, the practitioner must closely monitor patient comfort and the occurrence of hemodynamic deviations with the realization that as-needed administration of traditional sedatives and analgesics will be required and some degree of bradycardia and hypotension expected but intervention rarely required.