Clonidine for reduction of hemodynamic and psychological effects of S+ ketamine anesthesia for dressing changes in patients with major burns: An RCT

The risks of sedation and pain control during burn resuscitation: Increased opioids lead to over-resuscitation and hypotension

INTRODUCTION

Pain management and sedation are necessary in severely burned persons. Balancing pain control, obtundation, and hemodynamic suppression can be challenging. We hypothesized that increased sedation during burn resuscitation is associated with increased intravenous fluid administration and hemodynamic instability.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a single burn center was performed from 2014 to 2019 for all admissions to the burn unit with > 20% total body surface area (TBSA) burns. Within 48 h of admission, we compared total amounts of sedation/pain medications (morphine milligram equivalents (MME), propofol, dexmedetomidine, benzodiazepines) with total resuscitation volumes and frequency of hypotensive episodes. Resuscitation volumes and frequency of hypotension were modeled with multivariable linear regression adjusting for burn severity and weight.

RESULTS

208 patients were included with median age of 43 years (IQR 29-55) and median %TBSA of 31 (IQR 25-44). Median 48-hour resuscitation milliliters per weight per %TBSA were 3.3 (IQR 2.28-4.92). Pain/sedative medications included a combination of opioids in 99%, benzodiazepines in 73%, propofol in 31%, and dexmedetomidine in 11% of patients. MMEs were associated with greater resuscitation volumes (95% CI: 0.15-0.54, p = 0.01) as well as number of hypotensive events (95% CI: 1.57-2.7, p < 0.001). No associations were noted with other sedative medications when comparing the number of hypotensive events and resuscitation volumes.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased opioid administration has physiological consequences and should be carefully monitored during resuscitation as higher volume administrations lead to worse outcomes. Opioids and sedating medications should be titrated to the least amount needed to achieve reasonable comfort and sedation.

Esketamine: a glimmer of hope in treatment-resistant depression

The motive of this article is to review the pharmacological and clinical aspects of esketamine (ESK), an NMDA-receptor antagonist approved recently by the FDA for treatment-resistant depression (TRD). PubMed/Medline database was searched using keywords 'esketamine' and 'depression', 'S-ketamine' and 'depression', and 'NMDA antagonist' and 'depression'. Individual trials were searched from ClinicalTrials.gov. We included English-language articles evaluating pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of intranasal (IN) esketamine, along with clinical trial data related to its efficacy and safety in patients diagnosed with TRD. Compared to placebo, IN esketamine causes significant and rapid improvement in depression. Dizziness, vertigo, headache, increase in blood pressure are some of its common adverse effects. With the growing number of patients of TRD, additional effective and safe treatment is the need of the hour. Esketamine appears to be an effective therapy when combined with oral antidepressants in patients with TRD. It is of special value due to the rapid onset of its action. Long-term clinical studies are, however, needed to ascertain its safety profile.

Could ketamine be the answer to treating treatment-resistant major depressive disorder?

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a common, serious, debilitating condition affecting 350 million people worldwide, which remains to be unsatisfactorily treated with 53% of patients still complaining of symptoms after completing their courses with the correct dosage. Ketamine, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2019, is a potential treatment option for those recalcitrant cases. The mechanism of ketamine is not fully understood, but as type it is classified as an N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) glutamate receptor antagonist, and can be given intravenously, intranasally and orally. It is used to treat treatment-resistant depression, depression associated with suicidal ideation, mood and anxiety disorders and depressions associated with either type of bipolar disorder. Although ketamine is considered relatively safe, several side effects have been reported with the major ones being psychiatric in the form of worsening mood, anxiety and agitation; psychotomimetic in the form of dissociation, perceptual disturbance and abnormal sensations; cardiovascular in the form of increased blood pressure and increased heart rate; and neurological in the form of headache and dizziness. Ketamine is still not approved worldwide for usage in patients with treatment-resistant MDD, but if it is approved sometime in the future with relatively fewer side effects, it is expected to significantly save millions of dollars spent yearly on patients with treatment-resistant depression and that will lift this major burden off the shoulders of healthcare professionals. This study was designed to measure the effects of ketamine, an NMDA receptor antagonist, on patients with treatment-resistant MDD and to analyse the concept that makes it different and relatively safer than other major antidepressants like selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, monoamine oxidase inhibitors and TCAs (tricyclic antidepressants).

Intraoperative ketamine administration to prevent delirium or postoperative cognitive dysfunction: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Postoperative cognitive complications are associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Ketamine has been suggested to have neuroprotective effects in various settings. This systematic review evaluates the effects of intraoperative ketamine administration on postoperative delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD).

METHODS

Medline, Embase and Central were searched to 4 March 2018 without date or language restrictions. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intraoperative ketamine administration versus no intervention in adults undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia. Primary outcomes were postoperative delirium and POCD. Non-cognitive adverse events, mortality and length of stay were considered as secondary outcomes. Data were independently extracted. The quality of the evidence (GRADE approach) was assessed following recommendations from the Cochrane collaboration. Risk ratios were calculated for binary outcomes, mean differences for continuous outcomes. We planned to explore the effects of age, specific anaesthesia regimen, depth of anaesthesia and intraoperative haemodynamic events through subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were included. The incidence of postoperative delirium did not differ between groups (4 trials, 557 patients, RR 0.83, 95% CI [0.25, 2.80]), but patients receiving ketamine seemed at lower risk of POCD (3 trials, 163 patients, RR 0.34, 95% CI [0.15, 0.73]). However, both analyses presented limitations. Therefore, the quality of the evidence (GRADE) was deemed low (postoperative delirium) and very low (POCD).

CONCLUSION

The effect of ketamine on postoperative delirium remains unclear but its administration may offer some protection towards POCD. Large, well-designed randomised trials are urgently needed to further clarify the efficacy of ketamine on neurocognitive outcomes.

Burn injury: Challenges and advances in burn wound healing, infection, pain and scarring

Severe burn injuries are the most traumatic and physically debilitating injuries affecting nearly every organ system and leading to significant morbidity and mortality. Early burn wound excision and skin grafting are common clinical practices that have significantly improved the outcomes for severe burn injured patients by reducing mortality rate and days of hospital stay. However, slow wound healing, infection, pain, and hypertrophic scarring continue to remain a major challenge in burn research and management. In the present article, we review and discuss issues in the current treatment of burn injuries; the advances and novel strategies developed in the past decade that have improved burn management; and also, pioneer ideas and studies in burn research which aims to enhance burn wound care with a focus on burn wound infection, pain management, treatments for scarring and skin tissue engineering.

Interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a common mental disorder, which is distressing and has serious adverse outcomes in hospitalised patients. Prevention of delirium is desirable from the perspective of patients and carers, and healthcare providers. It is currently unclear, however, whether interventions for preventing delirium are effective.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched ALOIS - the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group's Specialized Register on 4 December 2015 for all randomised studies on preventing delirium. We also searched MEDLINE (Ovid SP), EMBASE (Ovid SP), PsycINFO (Ovid SP), Central (The Cochrane Library), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), LILACS (BIREME), Web of Science core collection (ISI Web of Science), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO meta register of trials, ICTRP.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single and multi- component non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors examined titles and abstracts of citations identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data independently, with any disagreements settled by consensus. The primary outcome was incidence of delirium; secondary outcomes included duration and severity of delirium, institutional care at discharge, quality of life and healthcare costs. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes; and between group mean differences and standard deviations for continuous outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 39 trials that recruited 16,082 participants, assessing 22 different interventions or comparisons. Fourteen trials were placebo-controlled, 15 evaluated a delirium prevention intervention against usual care, and 10 compared two different interventions. Thirty-two studies were conducted in patients undergoing surgery, the majority in orthopaedic settings. Seven studies were conducted in general medical or geriatric medicine settings.We found multi-component interventions reduced the incidence of delirium compared to usual care (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.81; seven studies; 1950 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Effect sizes were similar in medical (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.92; four studies; 1365 participants) and surgical settings (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.85; three studies; 585 participants). In the subgroup of patients with pre-existing dementia, the effect of multi-component interventions remains uncertain (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.36; one study, 50 participants; low-quality evidence).There is no clear evidence that cholinesterase inhibitors are effective in preventing delirium compared to placebo (RR 0.68, 95% CI, 0.17 to 2.62; two studies, 113 participants; very low-quality evidence).Three trials provide no clear evidence of an effect of antipsychotic medications as a group on the incidence of delirium (RR 0.73, 95% CI, 0.33 to 1.59; 916 participants; very low-quality evidence). In a pre-planned subgroup analysis there was no evidence for effectiveness of a typical antipsychotic (haloperidol) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.60; two studies; 516 participants, low-quality evidence). However, delirium incidence was lower (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.52; one study; 400 participants, moderate-quality evidence) for patients treated with an atypical antipsychotic (olanzapine) compared to placebo (moderate-quality evidence).There is no clear evidence that melatonin or melatonin agonists reduce delirium incidence compared to placebo (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.89; three studies, 529 participants; low-quality evidence).There is moderate-quality evidence that Bispectral Index (BIS)-guided anaesthesia reduces the incidence of delirium compared to BIS-blinded anaesthesia or clinical judgement (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.85; two studies; 2057 participants).It is not possible to generate robust evidence statements for a range of additional pharmacological and anaesthetic interventions due to small numbers of trials, of variable methodological quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is strong evidence supporting multi-component interventions to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients. There is no clear evidence that cholinesterase inhibitors, antipsychotic medication or melatonin reduce the incidence of delirium. Using the Bispectral Index to monitor and control depth of anaesthesia reduces the incidence of postoperative delirium. The role of drugs and other anaesthetic techniques to prevent delirium remains uncertain.