Dexmedetomidine vs. haloperidol in delirious, agitated, intubated patients: a randomised open-label trial

A target trial emulation of dexmedetomidine to treat agitation in the intensive care unit

OBJECTIVE

Agitation is a major problem in the intensive care unit. However, no treatment has clearly emerged as effective and safe. Using target trial emulation, we aimed to test the hypothesis that early intervention with dexmedetomidine would accelerate agitation resolution.

METHODS

We read clinical notes in an electronic medical records system with natural language processing to identify patients with agitation. We obtained their demographics, trajectories, associations, and outcomes. We used g-formulas to study the possible effects of dexmedetomidine on agitation resolution and key outcomes.

RESULTS

We screened 7525 patients. Overall, 2242 patients (29.8%) developed within-intensive care unit agitation, and 2052 (27.3%) were eligible for inclusion in the target trial emulation, with 314 treated with dexmedetomidine. Dexmedetomidine-treated patients had more severe illness and were more likely to have unplanned emergency admissions with medical diagnoses. However, they achieved higher rates of resolution of within-intensive care unit agitation (94% versus 72%; p < 0.001) and lower 30-day mortality (5% versus 9%; p = 0.033). Early initiation of dexmedetomidine accelerated the resolution of agitation (risk ratio [RR] 1.13 [95%CI 1.03 - 1.21]; risk difference [RD] 9.8% [95%CI 2.6% - 15.4%]); extubation by Day 30 (RR 1.03 [95%CI 1.02 - 1.04]; RD 3.1% [95%CI 2.2% - 4.2%]); and reduced the chance of having a tracheostomy by Day 30 (RR 0.67 [95%CI 0.34 - 0.99]; RD -3.5% [95%CI -7.0% - -0.0%]).

CONCLUSION

Through target trial emulation analysis, early dexmedetomidine was associated with an increased rate of resolution of agitation and extubation and decreased tracheostomy risk.

A Focused Update to the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Anxiety, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU

RATIONALE

Critically ill adults are at risk for a variety of distressing and consequential symptoms both during and after an ICU stay. Management of these symptoms can directly influence outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to update and expand the Society of Critical Care Medicine's 2018 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU.

PANEL DESIGN

The interprofessional inclusive guidelines task force was composed of 24 individuals including nurses, physicians, pharmacists, physiotherapists, psychologists, and ICU survivors. The task force developed evidence-based recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Conflict-of-interest policies were strictly followed in all phases of the guidelines, including task force selection and voting.

METHODS

The task force focused on five main content areas as they pertain to adult ICU patients: anxiety (new topic), agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption. Using the GRADE approach, we conducted a rigorous systematic review for each population, intervention, control, and outcome question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, assessed the quality of evidence, and then performed the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations.

RESULTS

The task force issued five statements related to the management of anxiety, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adults admitted to the ICU. In adult patients admitted to the ICU, the task force issued conditional recommendations to use dexmedetomidine over propofol for sedation, provide enhanced mobilization/rehabilitation over usual mobilization/rehabilitation, and administer melatonin. The task force was unable to issue recommendations on the administration of benzodiazepines to treat anxiety, and the use of antipsychotics to treat delirium.

CONCLUSIONS

The guidelines task force provided recommendations for pharmacologic management of agitation/sedation and sleep, and nonpharmacologic management of immobility in critically ill adults. These recommendations are intended for consideration along with the patient's clinical status.

Advancing Delirium Treatment Trials in Older Adults: Recommendations for Future Trials From the Network for Investigation of Delirium: Unifying Scientists (NIDUS)

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the delirium treatment trial literature, identify the unique challenges in delirium treatment trials, and formulate recommendations to address each in older adults.

DESIGN

A 39-member interprofessional and international expert working group of clinicians (physicians, nurses, and pharmacists) and nonclinicians (biostatisticians, epidemiologists, and trial methodologists) was convened. Four expert panels were assembled to explore key subtopics (pharmacological/nonpharmacologic treatment, methodological challenges, and novel research designs).

METHODS

To provide background and context, a review of delirium treatment randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2003 and 2023 was conducted and evidence gaps were identified. The four panels addressed the identified subtopics. For each subtopic, research challenges were identified and recommendations to address each were proposed through virtual discussion before a live, full-day, and in-person conference. General agreement was reached for each proposed recommendation across the entire working group via moderated conference discussion. Recommendations were synthesized across panels and iteratively discussed through rounds of virtual meetings and draft reviews.

RESULTS

We identified key evidence gaps through a systematic literature review, yielding 43 RCTs of delirium treatments. From this review, eight unique challenges for delirium treatment trials were identified, and recommendations to address each were made based on panel input. The recommendations start with design of interventions that consider the multifactorial nature of delirium, include both pharmacological and nonpharmacologic approaches, and target pathophysiologic pathways where possible. Selecting appropriate at-risk patients with moderate vulnerability to delirium may maximize effectiveness. Targeting patients with at least moderate delirium severity and duration will include those most likely to experience adverse outcomes. Delirium severity should be the primary outcome of choice; measurement of short- and long-term clinical outcomes will maximize clinical relevance. Finally, plans for handling informative censoring and missing data are key.

CONCLUSIONS

By addressing key delirium treatment challenges and research gaps, our recommendations may serve as a roadmap for advancing delirium treatment research in older adults.

Dexmedetomidine in Palliative Care: A Versatile New Weapon Against Delirium and Pain-Systematic Review

Introduction: At the end of life, the prevalence of delirium and pain is high. Current therapy is not satisfactory. Dexmedetomidine could be useful in the control of delirium and pain but is not approved outside of intensive care setting. Our objectives are to evaluate existing evidence in the literature that assessed the efficacy of dexmedetomidine in pain and delirium control and its safety in palliative care patients outside intensive care units. This systematic review was prospectively registered with PROSPERO and included a risk of bias assessment. Methods: PubMed and SCOPUS were examined for literature published until 2023. Experimental, cohort, cross-sectional, case-control studies, and case series/reports were included if they evaluate the use of dexmedetomidine in delirium and/or pain management in hospitalized palliative care adult patients. Studies were excluded if they were carried out in intensive care units. Results: Of the initial 529 records, 14 were included. Although only two studies were randomized trials, most were small and only one had low risk of bias. In most case reports and in the two retrospective cohort studies, dexmedetomidine appears to be a better option for these symptoms, although differences were not significant in the randomized trials. Discussion: Dexmedetomidine seems to be a promising option for refractory pain and delirium and may contribute to a reduction in opioid administration to control pain. This is the first systematic review of dexmedetomidine in palliative care. Quality evidence is limited, but clinical properties of dexmedetomidine justify the conduction of controlled trials in palliative care.

"The Psychiatric Domain of Post-Intensive Care Syndrome: A Review for the Intensivist"

Post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) is a clinical syndrome characterized by new or worsening changes in mental health, cognition, or physical function that persist following critical illness. The psychiatric domain of PICS encompasses new or worsened psychiatric burdens following critical illness, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and anxiety. Many of the established predisposing and precipitating factors for the psychiatric domain of PICS are commonly found in the setting of critical illness, including mechanical ventilation (MV), exposure to sedating medications, and physical restraint. Importantly, previous psychiatric history is a strong risk factor for the development of the psychiatric domain of PICS and should be considered when screening patients to diagnose psychiatric impairment and interventions. Delirium has been associated with psychiatric symptoms following ICU admission, therefore prevention warrants careful consideration. Dexmedetomidine has been shown to have the lowest risk for development of delirium when compared to other sedatives and has been the only sedative studied in relation to the psychiatric domain of PICS. Nocturnal dexmedetomidine and intensive care unit (ICU) diaries have been associated with decreased psychiatric burden after ICU discharge. Studies evaluating the impact of other intra-ICU practices on the development of the psychiatric domain of PICS, including the ABCDEF bundle, depth of sedation, and daily spontaneous awakening trials, have been limited and inconclusive. The psychiatric domain of PICS is difficult to treat and may be less responsive to multidisciplinary post-discharge programs and targeted interventions than the cognitive and physical domains of PICS. Given the high morbidity associated with the psychiatric domain of PICS, intensivists should familiarize themselves with the risk factors and intra-ICU interventions that can mitigate this important and under-recognized condition.

Dexmedetomidine versus haloperidol for sedation of non-intubated patients with hyperactive delirium during the night in a high dependency unit: study protocol for an open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial (DEX-HD trial)

BACKGROUND

Delirium is common in critically ill patients. Haloperidol has long been used for the treatment of delirium. Dexmedetomidine has recently been used to treat delirium among intubated critically ill patients. However, the efficacy of dexmedetomidine for delirium in non-intubated critically ill patients remains unknown. We hypothesize that dexmedetomidine is superior to haloperidol for sedation of patients with hyperactive delirium, and would reduce the prevalence of delirium among non-intubated patients after administration. We will conduct a randomized controlled trial to compare dexmedetomidine and haloperidol for the treatment of nocturnal hyperactive delirium in non-intubated patients in high dependency units (HDUs).

METHODS

This is an open-label, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and haloperidol for nocturnal hyperactive delirium in non-intubated patients at two HDUs of a tertiary hospital. We will recruit consecutive non-intubated patients who are admitted to the HDU from the emergency room, and allocate them in a 1:1 ratio to the dexmedetomidine or haloperidol group in advance. The allocated investigational drug will be administered only when participants develop hyperactive delirium (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale [RASS] score ≥1 and a positive score on the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU between 19:00 and 6:00 the next day) during the night at an HDU. Dexmedetomidine is administered continuously, while haloperidol is administered intermittently. The primary outcome is the proportion of participants who achieve the targeted sedation level (RASS score of between -3 and 0) 2h after the administration of the investigational drug. Secondary outcomes include the sedation level and prevalence of delirium on the day following the administration of the investigational drugs, and safety. We plan to enroll 100 participants who develop nocturnal hyperactive delirium and receive one of the two investigational drugs.

DISCUSSION

This is the first randomized controlled trial to compare the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine and haloperidol for sedation of non-intubated critically ill patients with hyperactive delirium in HDUs. The results of this study may confirm whether dexmedetomidine could be another option to sedate patients with hyperactive delirium.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Japan Registry of Clinical Trials, jRCT1051220015, registered on 21 April 2022.

Global trends in research related to emergence delirium, 2012–2021: A bibliometric analysis

Introduction

Emergence delirium is a kind of mental disorder during the early awakening period after general anesthesia, which is manifested as the combination of perceptual disturbance and psychomotor agitation. It is an independent risk factor for postoperative delirium and even long-term postoperative cognitive decline, which often affects the postoperative outcome and deserves the attention of clinical anesthesiologists. There are many studies on emergence delirium, but the quantity and quality of these studies are unclear. Therefore, we conducted a bibliometric analysis of studies on emergence delirium between January 2012 and December 2021. Through the analysis of relevant literature, the research hotspots and trends of emergence delirium are understood, which can provide a reference for future research.

Methods

We searched the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) for original articles and reviews related to emergence delirium published between 2012 and 2021, and collected a variety of bibliographic elements, including annual publications, authors, countries/regions, institutions, journals, and keywords. Three different science-based tools (CiteSpace, VOSviewer and Bibliometrix) were used for this comprehensive analysis.

Results

From January 2012 to December 2021, a total of 912 emergence delirium (ED) related literature were published, including 766 original research articles and 146 review articles. The number of publications has increased every year except 2016. The United States published 203 articles, ranking first with China, followed by South Korea (95 articles). The United States is also the country with the most citations (4,508), and Yonsei Univ is the most productive institution. The most published journal was PEDIATRIC ANESTHESIA, with the highest h and g index. LEE JH is the most influential author in this field.

Discussion

“Children, emergence agitation, delirium, dexmedetomidine” are the hot topics in this field in recent years. The bibliometric analysis in this field will provide the future direction for the study of emergence delirium for clinicians.

Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Cardiac Surgery Patients

ABSTRACT

Dexmedetomidine, an alpha-2 adrenoreceptor agonist that is widely used as a sedative medication, is becoming more and more attractive in clinical application on cardiac surgery patients. In this review, we aim to summarize and discuss both retrospective studies and clinical trials regarding the effect of dexmedetomidine on patients who underwent cardiac surgery (including coronary artery bypass grafting, valve surgery, aortic surgery, percutaneous coronary intervention, and so on), which illustrates that the clinical effects of dexmedetomidine could effectively reduce mortality, major complications, and the intensive care unit and hospital length of stay without comprising safety. In addition, inconsistent results from both retrospective studies and clinical trials have also been demonstrated. Although the effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine on cardiac surgery patients is suggested, high-quality clinical trials are needed for further verification.

Comparison of Standard-Dose Versus High-Dose Dexmedetomidine in Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine is commonly used to achieve light sedation in patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) despite minimal evidence. In vivo studies have shown dexmedetomidine sequestration in ECMO circuits, and higher doses may be used to overcome sequestration.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine at standard versus high doses in ECMO.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of adult ECMO patients was performed. Patients were compared as receiving either standard-dose (≤1.5 µg/kg/h) or high-dose (>1.5 µg/kg/h) dexmedetomidine. Safety outcomes included new onset bradycardia or hypotension. Efficacy was compared by the addition of concomitant sedative and analgesic agents.

RESULTS

One hundred five patients were evaluated, with 20% of patients in the high-dose group. Comparing standard and high dosing, no significant differences were seen in primary safety outcomes including bradycardia (49% vs 38%, P = 0.46), hypotension (79% vs 71%, P = 0.56), or addition of vasopressors (75% vs 71%, P = 0.78). Need for concomitant analgesic agents and propofol was similar between groups.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

This represents the first evaluation of use of high-dose dexmedetomidine in ECMO. Rates of dexmedetomidine higher than 1.5 µg/kg/h were commonly used in patients on ECMO, with similar rates of adverse effects and need for concomitant propofol and analgesic agents. While high-dose dexmedetomidine may be as safe as standard dose, no additional efficacy was found.

Mechanical Ventilation in Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury: Is it so Different?

Patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI) frequently require invasive mechanical ventilation and admission to an intensive care unit. Ventilation of patients with TBI poses unique clinical challenges, and careful attention is required to ensure that the ventilatory strategy (including selection of appropriate tidal volume, plateau pressure, and positive end-expiratory pressure) does not cause significant additional injury to the brain and lungs. Selection of ventilatory targets may be guided by principles of lung protection but with careful attention to relevant intracranial effects. In patients with TBI and concomitant acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), adjunctive strategies include sedation optimization, neuromuscular blockade, recruitment maneuvers, prone positioning, and extracorporeal life support. However, these approaches have been largely extrapolated from studies in patients with ARDS and without brain injury, with limited data in patients with TBI. This narrative review will summarize the existing evidence for mechanical ventilation in patients with TBI. Relevant literature in patients with ARDS will be summarized, and where available, direct data in the TBI population will be reviewed. Next, practical strategies to optimize the delivery of mechanical ventilation and determine readiness for extubation will be reviewed. Finally, future directions for research in this evolving clinical domain will be presented, with considerations for the design of studies to address relevant knowledge gaps.

Pharmacologic treatment of delirium symptoms: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

We conducted an updated, comprehensive, and contemporary systematic review to examine the efficacy of existing pharmacologic agents employed for management of delirium symptoms among hospitalized adults.

METHODS

Searches of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception to May 2021 were performed to identify studies investigating efficacy of pharmacologic agents for management of delirium.

RESULTS

Of 11,424 articles obtained from searches, a total of 33 articles (N = 3030 participants) of randomized or non-randomized trials, in which pharmacologic treatment was compared to active comparator, placebo, or no treatment, met all criteria and were included in this review. Medications used for management of delirium symptoms included antipsychotic medications (N = 27), alpha-2 agonists (N = 5), benzodiazepines (N = 2), antidepressants (n = 1), acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (N = 2), melatonin (N = 2), opioids (N = 1), and antiemetics (N = 2). Despite somewhat mixed findings and a relative lack of high-quality trials, it appears that antipsychotic medications (e.g., haloperidol, olanzapine, risperidone, or quetiapine) and dexmedetomidine have the potential to improve delirium outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacologic agents can reduce delirium symptoms (e.g., agitation) in some hospitalized patients. Additional double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials are critically needed to investigate the efficacy of pharmacologic agents for diverse hospitalized populations (e.g., post-surgical patients, patients at the end-of-life, or in intensive care units).

Is there evidence for using anticonvulsants in the prevention and/or treatment of delirium among older adults?

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aims to identify published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the use of anticonvulsants for the prevention and/or treatment of delirium among older adults.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of databases: MEDLINE ALL (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled was conducted.

RESULTS

The search identified four RCTs that evaluated the use of anticonvulsants among older adults with delirium. One RCT evaluated the perioperative use of gabapentin among individuals undergoing spinal surgery and the development of postoperative delirium. One RCT evaluated the relationship between the use of perioperative gabapentin and the development of postoperative delirium among individuals undergoing spinal surgery and hip and knee arthroplasty. Two post-hoc analyses of RCTs evaluated the use of gabapentin and pregabalin among individuals undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA). The perioperative use of gabapentin reduced the incidence of postoperative delirium among older adults undergoing spinal surgery. The perioperative use of gabapentin did not reduce the rates, severity or duration of postoperative delirium among older adults who were undergoing spine and hip and knee arthroplasty. The perioperative use of gabapentin did not reduce the incidence or duration of postoperative delirium among older adults undergoing elective TKA. The perioperative use of pregabalin did not reduce the incidence of postoperative delirium among older adults undergoing elective THA. Gabapentin and pregabalin were well tolerated among the individuals enrolled in these trials. There were no RCTs identified that evaluated the use of other anticonvulsants for the prevention and/or treatment of delirium among older adults.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on current evidence, the routine use of anticonvulsants for the prevention and/or treatment of delirium among older adults cannot be recommended.

Efficacy and Safety of Remimazolam Besylate versus Dexmedetomidine for Sedation in Non-Intubated Older Patients with Agitated Delirium After Orthopedic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of remimazolam besylate compared with dexmedetomidine for the relief of agitated delirium in non-intubated older patients after orthopedic surgery.

Patients and methods

Seventy-five patients were randomly divided into two groups. Patients assigned to the remimazolam group received a loading dose of 0.075 mg/kg remimazolam besylate over 1 minute, followed by a continuous infusion of 0.1 to 0.3 mg/kg/h. Subjects randomized to the dexmedetomidine group received a loading infusion of 0.5 μg/kg dexmedetomidine over 10 minutes, followed by a maintenance dose of 0.2 to 0.7 μg/kg/h. Meanwhile, RASS score-guided dose titration was followed. To assess the efficacy of the study drugs in terms of time to resolution of agitation, time to first achievement of target sedation, percentage of time within the target sedation range, and time to delirium resolution. Safety of the sedatives was evaluated by adverse events during hospitalization.

Results

Time to resolution of agitation did not differ between the two groups. The time to first achievement of target sedation was 19.0 (9.5 to 31.0) minutes for remimazolam besylate vs 43.5 (15.0 to 142.5) minutes for dexmedetomidine (P < 0.001). Percentage of time within the target sedation range was 77.8% for remimazolam besylate-treated patients and 67.4% for dexmedetomidine-treated patients (P = 0.001). Patients in the remimazolam group had longer time to delirium resolution (29.5 [21.3 to 32.5] hours) than those in the dexmedetomidine group (22.8 [18.9 to 28.5] hours) (P = 0.042). Patients sedated with remimazolam besylate had more oversedation (P = 0.036) but less hypotension (P = 0.007).

Conclusion

Compared with dexmedetomidine, remimazolam besylate was equally effective in relieving agitation, and resulted in earlier achievement of sedation goal and more controllable sedation. Remimazolam may be an ideal agent for obtaining rapid tranquillisation.

Dexmedetomidine vs other sedatives in critically ill mechanically ventilated adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Conventional gabaminergic sedatives such as benzodiazepines and propofol are commonly used in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Dexmedetomidine is an alternative sedative that may achieve lighter sedation, reduce delirium, and provide analgesia. Our objective was to perform a comprehensive systematic review summarizing the large body of evidence, determining if dexmedetomidine reduces delirium compared to conventional sedatives. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP from inception to October 2021. Independent pairs of reviewers identified randomized clinical trials comparing dexmedetomidine to other sedatives for mechanically ventilated adults in the ICU. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models. The results were reported as relative risks (RRs) for binary outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). In total, 77 randomized trials (n = 11,997) were included. Compared to other sedatives, dexmedetomidine reduced the risk of delirium (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.81; moderate certainty), the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD - 1.8 h, 95% CI  - 2.89 to  - 0.71; low certainty), and ICU length of stay (MD  - 0.32 days, 95% CI  - 0.42 to  - 0.22; low certainty). Dexmedetomidine use increased the risk of bradycardia (RR 2.39, 95% CI 1.82 to 3.13; moderate certainty) and hypotension (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.63; low certainty). In mechanically ventilated adults, the use of dexmedetomidine compared to other sedatives, resulted in a lower risk of delirium, and a modest reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay, but increased the risks of bradycardia and hypotension.

Delirium in the Neonate

Delirium is likely present in the neonatal intensive care unit and has been largely unrecognized. There are several risk factors for delirium including illness severity, neurosedative exposure, and environmental disruptions that put infants at risk for delirium. Regular use of scoring systems should be considered to improve delirium detection. When identified, initial steps in management should include resolving underlying causes and implementation of standard nonpharmacologic measures. Mounting pediatric evidence suggests that the atypical antipsychotics, as well as the α-2 agonists, may be additionally beneficial in treating delirium as well as improving the ability to wean off other neurosedative medications.

Construction and Application of a Model for Predicting the Risk of Delirium in Postoperative Patients With Type a Aortic Dissection

Background: Postoperative delirium (POD), an alteration in a patient's consciousness pattern, can affect the treatment and prognosis of a disease.

Objective: To construct a prediction model for delirium in patients with type A aortic dissection after surgery and to validate its effectiveness.

Methods: A retrospective cohort design was used to study 438 patients undergoing surgical treatment for type A aortic dissection from April 2019 to June 2020 in tertiary care hospitals. POD (n = 78) and non-delirium groups (n = 360) were compared and analyzed for each index in the perioperative period. A prediction model was established using multifactorial logistic regression, and 30 patients' perioperative data were collected for model validation.

Results: Eight predictors were included in this study: smoking, diabetes, previous cardiovascular surgery, ejection fraction (EF), time to aortic block, acute kidney injury, low cardiac output syndrome, and pulmonary complications. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the constructed prediction model was 0.98 ± 0.005, and the Youden index was 0.91. The validation results showed 97% sensitivity, 100% specificity, and 93% accuracy. The expression of the model was Z = Smoking assignment^* – 2.807 – 6.009^*Diabetes assignment – 2.994^*Previous cardiovascular surgery assignment – 0.129^*Ejection fraction assignment + 0.071^*Brain perfusion time assignment – 2.583^*Acute kidney injury assignment – 2.916^*Low cardiac output syndrome assignment – 3.461^*Pulmonary related complications assignment + 20.576.

Conclusion: The construction of an effective prediction model for the risk of delirium in patients after type A aortic stratification can help identify patients at high risk of POD early. It also provides a reference for healthcare professionals in the prevention and care of these patients.

Acquired Brain Injury in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit: Special Considerations for Delirium Protocols

The goal of this article was to highlight the overlapping nature of symptoms of delirium and acquired brain injury (ABI) in children and similarities and differences in treatment, with a focus on literature supporting an adverse effect of antipsychotic medications on recovery from brain injury. An interdisciplinary approach to education regarding overlap between symptoms of delirium and ABI is important for pediatric intensive care settings, particularly at this time when standardized procedures for delirium screening and management are being increasingly employed. Development of treatment protocols specific to children with ABI that combine both nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic strategies will reduce the risk of reliance on treatment strategies that are less preferred and optimize care for this population.

Comparison of the Effects of Haloperidol and Dexmedetomidine on Delirium and Agitation in Patients with a Traumatic Brain Injury Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit

Background

Patients under mechanical ventilation in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) have a higher risk of delirium. To date, the ideal sedative combination for delirium treatment in terms of cost and side effects has not been determined.

Objectives

This study was designed to compare the effects of haloperidol and dexmedetomidine on delirium in trauma patients under mechanical ventilation in the ICU.

Methods

Sixty patients with a moderate traumatic brain injury were randomly divided into two groups. Patients in the haloperidol group received 2.5 mg of haloperidol intravenously every eight hours for ten minutes daily, and the dexmedetomidine group received 0.5 µg/kg of dexmedetomidine via intravenous infusion every other day. Delirium, agitation, length of hospitalization, duration of mechanical ventilation, and need for sedation up to seven days were measured and recorded in both groups. The Richmond Agitation-Sedation scale (RASS) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health evaluation (APACHE II) scales were used to determine the level of agitation in patients. The Confusion Assessment method (CAM)-ICU criteria were used to determine the incidence of delirium.

Results

Based on the results of this study, age and sex of the two groups were not significantly different. The mean age of the patients was 36.83 years in the haloperidol group and 40.1 years in the dexmedetomidine group. After the intervention, there was no significant difference in terms of the level of consciousness, number of days required for ventilation (P = 0.17), and number of days in the ICU (P = 0.49); however, there was a significant difference between the two groups three to seven days after the intervention. Besides, there was a significant difference between the two groups regarding the incidence of delirium five to seven days after the intervention (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

There was a significant difference between the two groups in terms of the incidence of delirium and the level of agitation; the patients in the dexmedetomidine group were calmer and experienced less delirium.

Delirium and depression in cardiac surgery: A comprehensive review of risk factors, pathophysiology, and management

BACKGROUND

Mental health and wellbeing continue to gain more attention as they are inextricably associated with clinical outcomes, particularly quality of life. Many medical ailments and major surgeries affect patients' mental health, including depression and delirium.

AIMS

The objective of this manuscript was to comprehensively review and critically examine the literature pertaining to cardiac surgery, depression, and delirium.

METHODS

This is a narrative review article. We performed our search analysis by using the following key words: "Cardiac Surgery", "Depression", "Delirium", "Clinical outcomes", and "Mental Health". Search analysis was done on MedLine PubMed, accessing indexed peer-reviewed publications.

RESULTS

Cardiac Surgery is a life-altering intervention indicated to improve morbidity and mortality in patients with cardiovascular diseases. Psychiatric conditions before and after cardiac surgery worsen patient prognosis and increase mortality rate. Specifically, preoperative depression increases postoperative depression and is associated with impaired functional status, slow physical recovery, and an increased readmission rate.

DISCUSSION

Although the exact pathophysiology between depression and cardiovascular disease (CVD) is unknown, several pathways have been implicated. Unmanaged depression can also lead to other psychological conditions such as delirium. Like depression, the exact association between delirium and CVD is not well understood, but believed to be multifactorial.

CONCLUSION

Herein, we provide a comprehensive review of the links between depression, delirium, and cardiovascular surgery. We critically examine the current data that pertains to the pathophysiology of these debilitating mental health issues in the context of cardiac surgery. Finally, we summarize the various treatment options available for managing depression and delirium in the cardiac surgery patient population.

Delirium in the NICU: Risk or Reality?

Delirium is a frequent complication of critical illness in adult and pediatric populations and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Little is known about the incidence, risk, symptoms, or treatment of delirium in the NICU. Only 4 cases of NICU delirium have been reported, but many pediatric studies include infants. The Cornell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium tool has been validated in neonatal and infant populations for identification of delirium. Initial treatment should focus on identification and reversal of the cause, with pharmacologic management reserved for patients with symptoms that do not resolve or that significantly impact medical care. Routine use of intravenous haloperidol should be avoided because of the high incidence of serious adverse effects, but it may be considered in patients with significant symptoms who are unable to take oral medications. Atypical antipsychotics (olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone) appear to be efficacious with a low incidence of adverse effects. Risperidone has weight-based dosing and a liquid dosage form available, making it a good option for use in the NICU. Additional data from large cohorts of NICU patients routinely screened for delirium, and treated as indicated, are needed.

Association Between Dexamethasone and Delirium in Critically Ill Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study of a Large Clinical Database

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a common complication in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, and it can significantly increase the length of hospital stay and cost. Dexamethasone is widely used in various inflammatory diseases and must be used with caution in critically ill patients. Previous studies have shown that the effect of corticosteroid use on the development of delirium in critically ill patients is still controversial, and there is inconclusive conclusion about the effect of dexamethasone on delirium in such patients. Therefore, this study aimed to confirm the effect of dexamethasone use and the dose on the incidence of delirium and patient prognosis in critically ill patients through a large cohort study.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data extracted from the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care III database, which is a large and freely available database of all 46,476 patients who visited Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts, USA and were admitted to the ICU between 2001 and 2012. The primary outcome was the development of delirium, using multivariate logistic regression analysis to reveal the relationship between dexamethasone and delirium. Secondary endpoints were in-hospital mortality, ICU mortality, total length of stay, and length of ICU stay, and the relationship between dexamethasone and prognosis was assessed with Cox proportional hazards models. Propensity score matching with 1:1 grouping was used to eliminate the effect of confounders on both cohorts. The locally weighted scatter plot smoothing technique was used to investigate the dose correlation between dexamethasone and outcomes, subgroup analysis was used to account for heterogeneity, and different correction models and propensity matching analysis were used to eliminate potential confounders.

RESULTS

Finally, 38,509 patients were included, and 2204 (5.7%) used dexamethasone. No significant statistical difference was observed in basic demographic information after propensity score matching between the two study groups. A significantly higher incidence of delirium (5.0% versus 3.4%, P < 0.001), increased in-hospital mortality (14.9% versus 10.3%, P < 0.001), ICU mortality (9.0% versus 7.5%, P = 0.008), and longer length of stay and ICU stay were observed in patients taking dexamethasone compared with those not taking dexamethasone. Multivariate logistic and Cox regression analyses confirmed that dexamethasone was significantly associated with delirium (adjusted odds ratio = 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.09-2.00, P = 0.012), in-hospital mortality (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.19, 95% CI = 1.02-1.40, P = 0.032), and ICU mortality (adjusted hazard ratio = 1.62, 95% CI = 1.22-2.15, P = 0.001). Compared with critically ill patients using high-dose dexamethasone, the risk of delirium was lower in the dose less than the 10 mg group, and patients using 10-14 mg may be associated with a lower risk of in-hospital death and the least ICU mortality, length of hospital stay, and ICU stay.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrated that the use of dexamethasone in critically ill patients exacerbated the occurrence of delirium while increasing the risk of in-hospital death, ICU death, and length of hospital stay, with a lower risk of delirium and a shorter total length of hospital stay with low-dose dexamethasone than with larger doses.

Haloperidol, clonidine and resolution of delirium in critically ill patients: a prospective cohort study

Purpose

Haloperidol and clonidine are commonly used to treat agitation in delirious intensive care unit (ICU) patients, but it is unclear whether these agents may shorten the duration of delirium. The objective of this study was to determine whether haloperidol, clonidine, or their combined administration to delirious ICU patients results in delirium resolution.

Methods

This was a cohort study on a mixed ICU, excluding patients with a primary neurological disorder. The main outcome was the probability of delirium resolution, using propensity score matching and Markov multinomial logistic regression models for daily transitions. Secondary outcomes were delirium duration, number of delirium days, ventilation days, length of stay in the ICU and hospital, and ICU mortality.

Results

A total of 3614 patients were included (1165 delirious [32%]; 2449 non-delirious [68%]). Delirium occurred on 4708 (18.9%) of 24,906 days. The probability of delirium resolution was lower in delirious patients who received haloperidol (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.39–0.57), clonidine (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.63–0.97), or both (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.36–0.56) compared to untreated delirious patients. Delirious patients who received haloperidol, clonidine, or both had generally longer delirium duration, more delirium and ventilation days, and spent more time in the ICU and in hospital than untreated delirious patients. These agents had no effect on ICU mortality.

Conclusion

Haloperidol and clonidine use in delirious ICU patients may be associated with reduced probability of delirium resolution. This finding, however, merits further investigation given inherent limitations of this observational analysis.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-021-06355-9.

Pragmatic Recommendations for the Management of Acute Respiratory Failure and Mechanical Ventilation in Patients with COVID-19 in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Management of patients with severe or critical COVID-19 is mainly modeled after care for patients with severe pneumonia or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from other causes, and these recommendations are based on evidence that often originates from investigations in resource-rich intensive care units located in high-income countries. Often, it is impractical to apply these recommendations to resource-restricted settings, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We report on a set of pragmatic recommendations for acute respiratory failure and mechanical ventilation management in patients with severe/critical COVID-19 in LMICs. We suggest starting supplementary oxygen when SpO2 is persistently lower than 94%. We recommend supplemental oxygen to keep SpO2 at 88-95% and suggest higher targets in settings where continuous pulse oximetry is not available but intermittent pulse oximetry is. We suggest a trial of awake prone positioning in patients who remain hypoxemic; however, this requires close monitoring, and clear failure and escalation criteria. In places with an adequate number and trained staff, the strategy seems safe. We recommend to intubate based on signs of respiratory distress more than on refractory hypoxemia alone, and we recommend close monitoring for respiratory worsening and early intubation if worsening occurs. We recommend low-tidal volume ventilation combined with FiO2 and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) management based on a high FiO2/low PEEP table. We recommend against using routine recruitment maneuvers, unless as a rescue therapy in refractory hypoxemia, and we recommend using prone positioning for 12-16 hours in case of refractory hypoxemia (PaO2/FiO2 < 150 mmHg, FiO2 ≥ 0.6 and PEEP ≥ 10 cmH2O) in intubated patients as standard in ARDS patients. We also recommend against sharing one ventilator for multiple patients. We recommend daily assessments for readiness for weaning by a low-level pressure support and recommend against using a T-piece trial because of aerosolization risk.

Consensus for the management of analgesia, sedation and delirium in adults with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome

OBJECTIVE

To propose agile strategies for a comprehensive approach to analgesia, sedation, delirium, early mobility and family engagement for patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome, considering the high risk of infection among health workers, the humanitarian treatment that we must provide to patients and the inclusion of patients' families, in a context lacking specific therapeutic strategies against the virus globally available to date and a potential lack of health resources.

METHODS

A nonsystematic review of the scientific evidence in the main bibliographic databases was carried out, together with national and international clinical experience and judgment. Finally, a consensus of recommendations was made among the members of the Committee for Analgesia, Sedation and Delirium of the Sociedad Argentina de Terapia Intensiva.

RESULTS

Recommendations were agreed upon, and tools were developed to ensure a comprehensive approach to analgesia, sedation, delirium, early mobility and family engagement for adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19.

DISCUSSION

Given the new order generated in intensive therapies due to the advancing COVID-19 pandemic, we propose to not leave aside the usual good practices but to adapt them to the particular context generated. Our consensus is supported by scientific evidence and national and international experience and will be an attractive consultation tool in intensive therapies.

Role of dexmedetomidine in the treatment of delirium in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Although dexmedetomidine has been found to prevent delirium in critically ill patients, it is uncertain whether it can treat acute delirium. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in treating delirium, by analyzing and reviewing data from previous studies.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Clinical trial data on the use of dexmedetomidine in adult critically ill patients with delirium were retrieved from four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library) and clinicaltrials.gov, from inception to May, 2020.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Ten randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and five non-RCTs met the selection criteria and data were obtained from 1017 patients. In one study, dexmedetomidine reduced the duration of delirium to a greater extent than did the placebo. In six studies, it was associated with a lower point-prevalence of delirium after treatment (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.20, 0.76; P=0.006) and a shorter time to resolution of delirium (hours; MD, -23.25; 95% CI, -45.28, -1.21; P=0.04) compared with those of other drugs. In four RCTs, it was superior to haloperidol in reducing the time to resolution of delirium (hours; MD, -30.17; P=0.01). However, in seven studies, it showed a higher risk of bradycardia (OR, 3.48; 95% CI, 1.47, 8.23; P=0.004) than that of comparators.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine promotes the resolution of delirium but also increases the incidence of bradycardia during treatment. Furthermore, it may be superior to haloperidol in treating delirium, although more studies are needed to confirm this.

Evaluating Pain, Opioids, and Delirium in Critically Ill Older Adults

Untreated pain and pain management with opioids are independent precipitating factors for delirium. This retrospective study evaluated the relationships among pain severity, its management with opioids, and the onset of delirium in older adult patients admitted to the surgical intensive care unit (SICU). Consecutive patients aged 65 or greater admitted to the SICU over a 5-month period were examined (n = 172). When assessed using a multivariable general estimating equation model, opioids (chi-square [χ²], 12.34, p = .0004), but not pain (χ², 3.31, p = .0688) were significant in predicting next-day delirium status. Controlling for pain, patients exposed to opioids were 2.5 times more likely to develop delirium than patients not exposed (95% Confidence Interval: 1.44-4.36). Our data shows that opioid administration predicted the onset of next-day delirium. In an effort to prevent delirium, future research should focus on opioid-sparing pain management approaches to mitigate pain and delirium.

Intravenous haloperidol: A systematic review of side effects and recommendations for clinical use

INTRODUCTION

Though not approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration, intravenous haloperidol (IVH) is widely used off-label to manage agitation and psychosis in patients with delirium in the hospital setting. Over the years, concerns have emerged regarding side effects of IVH, particularly its potential to cause QT prolongation, torsades de pointes (TdP), extrapyramidal symptoms and catatonia.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of literature of published literature related to side effects of IVH in PubMed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

77 of 196 identified manuscripts met inclusion criteria, including 34 clinical trials and 34 case reports or series.

DISCUSSION

Extrapyramidal symptoms, catatonia and neuroleptic malignant syndrome appears to be relatively rare with IVH. In most prospective studies, IVH did not cause greater QT prolongation than placebo, and rates of TdP with IVH appear to be low. There is not clear evidence to suggest that IVH carries greater risk for QT prolongation or TdP than other antipsychotics.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available literature, we provide modified evidence-based monitoring recommendations for clinicians prescribing IVH in hospital settings. Specifically, we recommend electrocardiogram monitoring only when using doses >5 mg of IVH and telemetry only for high-risk patients receiving cumulative doses of at least 100 mg or with accurately corrected QTc >500 ms.

Abnormal Sleep, Circadian Rhythm Disruption, and Delirium in the ICU: Are They Related?

Delirium is a syndrome characterized by acute brain failure resulting in neurocognitive disturbances affecting attention, awareness, and cognition. It is highly prevalent among critically ill patients and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. A core domain of delirium is represented by behavioral disturbances in sleep-wake cycle probably related to circadian rhythm disruption. The relationship between sleep, circadian rhythm and intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired delirium is complex and likely bidirectional. In this review, we explore the proposed pathophysiological mechanisms of sleep disruption and circadian dysrhythmia as possible contributing factors in transitioning to delirium in the ICU and highlight some of the most relevant caveats for understanding the relationship between these complex phenomena. Specifically, we will (1) review the physiological consequences of poor sleep quality and efficiency; (2) explore how the neural substrate underlying the circadian clock functions may be disrupted in delirium; (3) discuss the role of sedative drugs as contributors to delirium and chrono-disruption; and, (4) describe the association between abnormal sleep-pathological wakefulness, circadian dysrhythmia, delirium and critical illness. Opportunities to improve sleep and readjust circadian rhythmicity to realign the circadian clock may exist as therapeutic targets in both the prevention and treatment of delirium in the ICU. Further research is required to better define these conditions and understand the underlying physiologic relationship to develop effective prevention and therapeutic strategies.

The potential anti-depressant properties of dexmedetomidine infusion: a review of mechanistic, preclinical, and clinical evidence

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a highly prevalent and disabling condition for which the currently available treatments are not fully effective. Existing unmet needs include rapid onset of action and optimal management of concurrent agitation. Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a selective and potent α2-adrenergic receptor (α2-AR) agonist, with unique pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties. In this review, we discuss pre-clinical and clinical studies which focused on DEX in the context of its putative antidepressant effects for the management of MDD. Preliminary data support DEX as an antidepressant with fast onset of action, which would be especially helpful for patients experiencing treatment resistant depression, and agitation. We further explore the mechanistic and clinical implications of considering DEX as a putative antidepressant agent, and the next steps to explore the efficacy of low dose DEX infusion among patients with treatment resistant depression.

Neurologic Manifestations of Systemic Disease: Sleep Disorders

Purpose of review

Sleep is intimately involved in overall health and wellbeing. We provide a comprehensive report on the interplay between systemic diseases and sleep to optimize the outcomes of systemic disorders.

Recent findings

Spanning the categories of endocrinologic disorders, metabolic/toxic disturbances, renal, cardiovascular, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, infectious diseases, autoimmune disorders, malignancy, and critical illness, the review highlights the prevalent coexisting pathology of sleep across the spectrum of systemic disorders. Although it is rare that treating a sleep symptom can cure disease, attention to sleep may improve quality of life and may mitigate or improve the underlying disorder. Recent controversies in assessing the cardiovascular relationship with sleep have called into question some of the benefits of treating comorbid sleep disorders, thereby highlighting the need for an ongoing rigorous investigation into how sleep interplays with systemic diseases.

Summary

Systemic diseases often have sleep manifestations and this report will help the clinician identify key risk factors linking sleep disorders to systemic diseases so as to optimize the overall care of the patient.

Dexmedetomidine for Facilitating Mechanical Ventilation Extubation in Difficult-to-Wean ICU Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Agitation and delirium are common in mechanically ventilated adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients and may contribute to delayed extubation times. Difficult-to-wean ICU patients have been associated with an increased risk of longer ICU length of stays and mortality. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the evidence of dexmedetomidine facilitating successful mechanical ventilation extubation in difficult-to-wean ICU patients and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Clinical Trial Registries, and the Health Technology Assessment Database from inception to December 5, 2019. Randomized controlled trials evaluating dexmedetomidine with the intended purpose to facilitate mechanical ventilation liberation in adult ICU patients (≥18 years) experiencing extubation failure were included. The primary outcome of time to extubation was evaluated using the weighted mean difference (WMD), with a random effects model. Secondary analyses included hospital and ICU length of stay, in-hospital mortality, hypotension, and bradycardia.

RESULTS

A total of 6 trials (n = 306 patients) were included. Dexmedetomidine significantly reduced the time to extubation (WMD: -11.61 hours, 95% CI: -16.5 to -6.7, P = .005) and ICU length of stay (WMD: -3.04 days; 95% CI: -4.66 to -1.43). Hypotension risk was increased with dexmedetomidine (risk ratio [RR]: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.05-2.51), but there was no difference in bradycardia risk (RR: 3.98, 95% CI: 0.70-22.78). No differences were observed in mortality rates (RR: 1.30, 95% CI: 0.45-3.75) or hospital length of stay (WMD: -2.67 days; 95% CI: -7.73 to 2.39).

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine was associated with a significant reduction in the time to extubation and shorter ICU stay in difficult-to-wean ICU patients. Although hypotension risk was increased with dexmedetomidine, no differences in other clinical outcomes were observed.

Sepsis Associated Delirium

Sepsis is a potentially life-threatening condition caused by a systemic dysregulated host response to infection. The brain is particularly susceptible to the effects of sepsis with clinical manifestations ranging from mild confusion to a deep comatose state. Sepsis-associated delirium (SAD) is a cerebral manifestation commonly occurring in patients with sepsis and is thought to occur due to a combination of neuroinflammation and disturbances in cerebral perfusion, the blood brain barrier (BBB) and neurotransmission. The neurological impairment associated with SAD can persist for months or even longer, after the initial septic episode has subsided which may impair the rehabilitation potential of sepsis survivors. Early identification and treatment of the underlying sepsis is key in the management of SAD as once present it can be difficult to control. Through the regular use of validated screening tools for delirium, cases of SAD can be identified early; this allows potentially aggravating factors to be addressed promptly. The usefulness of biomarkers, neuroimaging and electroencephalopathy (EEG) in the diagnosis of SAD remains controversial. The Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) guidelines advise against the use of medications to treat delirium unless distressing symptoms are present or it is hindering the patient’s ability to wean from organ support.

QTc prolongation after haloperidol administration in critically ill patients post cardiovascular surgery: A cohort study and review of the literature

Objective

From case reports, haloperidol administration has been associated with QTc prolongation, torsades de pointes, and sudden cardiac death. In a vulnerable population of critically ill patients after cardiac surgery, however, it is unclear whether haloperidol administration affects the QTc interval. Thus, the aim of this study is to explore the effect of haloperidol in low doses on this interval.

Method

This retrospective cohort study was performed on a cardio-surgical intensive care unit (ICU), screened 2,216 patients and eventually included 68 patients with delirium managed with oral and intravenous haloperidol. In this retrospective analysis, electrocardiograms were taken prior and within 24 h after haloperidol administration. The effect of haloperidol on QTc was determined with a Person correlation, and inter-group differences were measured with new long QT comparisons.

Results

In total, 68 patients were included, the median age was 71 (64–79) years and predominantly male (77%). Haloperidol administration followed ICU admission by three days and the cumulative dose was 4 (2–9) mg. As a result, haloperidol administration did not affect the QTc (r = 0.144, p = 0.23). In total, 31% (21/68 patients) had a long QT before and 27.9% (19/68 patients) after haloperidol administration. Only 12% (8/68 patients) developed a newly onset long QT. These patients were not different in the route of administration, cumulative haloperidol doses, comorbidities, laboratory findings, or medications.

Significance of results

These results indicated that low-dose intravenous haloperidol was safe and not clinically relevant for the development of a newly onset long QT syndrome or adverse outcomes and support recent findings inside and outside the ICU setting.

Can haloperidol prophylaxis reduce the incidence of delirium in critically ill patients in intensive care units? A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of haloperidol in the prevention of delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for eligible randomized controlled trials up to July 2019. No publication type or language restrictions were applied.

RESULTS

Compared to the placebo, haloperidol did not significantly reduce the incidence of delirium in all ICU patients (relative risk (RR), 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.62-1.10, p = 0.20). However, haloperidol prophylaxis could reduce the incidence of delirium exclusively in postoperative patients admitted to an ICU (RR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.47-0.86, p = 0.004). We observed no significant differences between the haloperidol and placebo groups in terms of length of ICU stay, all-cause mortality, and adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of prophylactic haloperidol might reduce the incidence of delirium in postoperative patients admitted to an ICU, but not in all ICU patients.

Haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in critically ill patients: A systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

BACKGROUND

Haloperidol is the most frequently used drug to treat delirium in the critically ill patients. Yet, no systematic review has focussed on the effects of haloperidol in critically ill patients with delirium.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of haloperidol vs any intervention on all-cause mortality, serious adverse reactions/events, days alive without delirium, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cognitive function and delirium severity in critically ill patients with delirium. We also report on QTc prolongation, delirium resolution and extrapyramidal symptoms.

RESULTS

We included 8 RCTs with 11 comparisons (n = 951). We adjudicated one trial as having overall low risk of bias. Three trials used rescue haloperidol; excluding these, we did not find an effect of haloperidol vs control on all-cause mortality (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.33-3.06; I2  = 0%; 112 participants; 3 trials; 4 comparisons; very low certainty) or delirium severity (SMD -0.15; 95% CI -0.61-0.30; I2  = 27%; 134 participants; 3 trials; 4 comparisons; very low certainty). No trials reported adequately on serious adverse reactions/events. Only one trial reported on days alive without delirium, cognitive function and QTc prolongation, and no trials reported on HRQoL. Sensitivity analyses, including trials using rescue haloperidol, did not change the results.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence for the use of haloperidol to treat critically ill patients with delirium is sparse, of low quality and inconclusive. We therefore have no certainty regarding any beneficial, harmful or neutral effects of haloperidol in these patients.

Implementing the ABCDEF Bundle: Top 8 Questions Asked During the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative

The ABCDEF bundle (A, assess, prevent, and manage pain; B, both spontaneous awakening and spontaneous breathing trials; C, choice of analgesic and sedation; D, delirium: assess, prevent, and manage; E, early mobility and exercise; and F, family engagement and empowerment) improves intensive care unit patient-centered outcomes and promotes interprofessional teamwork and collaboration. The Society of Critical Care Medicine recently completed the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative, a 20-month, multicenter, national quality improvement initiative that formalized dissemination and implementation strategies to promote effective adoption of the ABCDEF bundle. The purpose of this article is to describe 8 of the most frequently asked questions during the Collaborative and to provide practical advice from leading experts to other institutions implementing the ABCDEF bundle.

Pharmacological interventions for the treatment of delirium in critically ill adults

BACKGROUND

Although delirium is typically an acute reversible cognitive impairment, its presence is associated with devastating impact on both short-term and long-term outcomes for critically ill patients. Advances in our understanding of the negative impact of delirium on patient outcomes have prompted trials evaluating multiple pharmacological interventions. However, considerable uncertainty surrounds the relative benefits and safety of available pharmacological interventions for this population.

OBJECTIVES

Primary objective1. To assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for treatment of delirium on duration of delirium in critically ill adults with confirmed or documented high risk of deliriumSecondary objectivesTo assess the following:1. effects of pharmacological interventions on delirium-free and coma-free days; days with coma; delirium relapse; duration of mechanical ventilation; intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay; mortality; and long-term outcomes (e.g. cognitive; discharge disposition; health-related quality of life); and2. the safety of such treatments for critically ill adult patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from their inception date to 21 March 2019: Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid MEDLINE® In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase Classic+Embase, and PsycINFO using the Ovid platform. We also searched the Cochrane Library on Wiley, the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Web of Science. We performed a grey literature search of relevant databases and websites using the resources listed in Grey Matters developed by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). We also searched trial registries and abstracts from annual scientific critical care and delirium society meetings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We sought randomized controlled trials (RCTs), including quasi-RCTs, of any pharmacological (drug) for treatment of delirium in critically ill adults. The drug intervention was to be compared to another active drug treatment, placebo, or a non-pharmacological intervention (e.g. mobilization). We did not apply any restrictions in terms of drug class, dose, route of administration, or duration of delirium or drug exposure. We defined critically ill patients as those treated in an ICU of any specialty (e.g. burn, cardiac, medical, surgical, trauma) or high-dependency unit.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently identified studies from the search results; four review authors (in pairs) performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias independently. We performed data synthesis through pairwise meta-analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA). Our hypothetical network structure was designed to be analysed at the drug class level and illustrated a network diagram of 'nodes' (i.e. drug classes) and 'edges' (i.e. comparisons between different drug classes from existing trials), thus describing a treatment network of all possible comparisons between drug classes. We assessed the quality of the body of evidence according to GRADE, as very low, low, moderate, or high.

MAIN RESULTS

We screened 7674 citations, from which 14 trials with 1844 participants met our inclusion criteria. Ten RCTs were placebo-controlled, and four reported comparisons of different drugs. Drugs examined in these trials were the following: antipsychotics (n = 10), alpha2 agonists (n = 3; all dexmedetomidine), statins (n = 2), opioids (n = 1; morphine), serotonin antagonists (n = 1; ondansetron), and cholinesterase (CHE) inhibitors (n = 1; rivastigmine). Only one of these trials consistently used non-pharmacological interventions that are known to improve patient outcomes in both intervention and control groups.Eleven studies (n = 1153 participants) contributed to analysis of the primary outcome. Results of the NMA showed that the intervention with the smallest ratio of means (RoM) (i.e. most preferred) compared with placebo was the alpha2 agonist dexmedetomidine (0.58; 95% credible interval (CrI) 0.26 to 1.27; surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) 0.895; moderate-quality evidence). In order of descending SUCRA values (best to worst), the next best interventions were atypical antipsychotics (RoM 0.80, 95% CrI 0.50 to 1.11; SUCRA 0.738; moderate-quality evidence), opioids (RoM 0.88, 95% CrI 0.37 to 2.01; SUCRA 0.578; very-low quality evidence), and typical antipsychotics (RoM 0.96, 95% CrI 0.64 to1.36; SUCRA 0.468; high-quality evidence).The NMAs of multiple secondary outcomes revealed that only the alpha2 agonist dexmedetomidine was associated with a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (RoM 0.55, 95% CrI 0.34 to 0.89; moderate-quality evidence), and the CHE inhibitor rivastigmine was associated with a longer ICU stay (RoM 2.19, 95% CrI 1.47 to 3.27; moderate-quality evidence). Adverse events often were not reported in these trials or, when reported, were rare; pair-wise analysis of QTc prolongation in seven studies did not show significant differences between antipsychotics, ondansetron, dexmedetomidine, and placebo.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We identified trials of varying quality that examined six different drug classes for treatment of delirium in critically ill adults. We found evidence that the alpha2 agonist dexmedetomidine may shorten delirium duration, although this small effect (compared with placebo) was seen in pairwise analyses based on a single study and was not seen in the NMA results. Alpha2 agonists also ranked best for duration of mechanical ventilation and length of ICU stay, whereas the CHE inhibitor rivastigmine was associated with longer ICU stay. We found no evidence of a difference between placebo and any drug in terms of delirium-free and coma-free days, days with coma, physical restraint use, length of stay, long-term cognitive outcomes, or mortality. No studies reported delirium relapse, resolution of symptoms, or quality of life. The ten ongoing studies and the six studies awaiting classification that we identified, once published and assessed, may alter the conclusions of the review.

Delirium in the Intensive Care Unit: Is Dexmedetomidine Effective?

Delirium in the intensive care unit affects approximately 30% of patients despite vigorous efforts to encourage the use of effective screening tools and preventive strategies. The success of pharmacological treatment of delirium remains equivocal; moreover, a paucity of research supports the use of atypical antipsychotic medications. However, dexmedetomidine appears to have a promising role in delirium management. This review includes an overview of the pathophysiology and types of delirium and describes 2 established tools used to screen for delirium. Published research related to the use of dexmedetomidine in the management of delirium is also discussed. The authors make recommendations for critical care nurses on dexmedetomidine use in the context of providing evidence-based nursing care to intensive care unit patients with delirium.

Pharmacological interventions for prevention and management of delirium in intensive care patients: a systematic overview of reviews and meta-analyses

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the evidence from reviews and meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials on the effects of pharmacological prevention and management of delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.

METHODS

We searched for reviews in July 2017 in: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS Previews, CINAHL and LILACS. We assessed whether reviews were systematic according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and assessed the methodological quality using ROBIS.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes: all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, prevention of delirium and management of delirium.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

quality of life; non-serious adverse events and cognitive function.

RESULTS

We included 378 reviews: 369 narrative reviews, eight semisystematic reviews which failed on a maximum of two arbitrary PRISMA criteria and one systematic review fulfilling all 27 PRISMA criteria. For the prevention of delirium, we identified the one systematic review and eight semisystematic reviews all assessing the effects of alpha-2-agonists. None found evidence of a reduction of mortality (systematic review RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.24). The systematic review and three semisystematic reviews found no evidence of an effect for the prevention of delirium (systematic review RR 0.85, 0.63 to 1.14). Conversely, four semisystematic reviews found a beneficial effect. Serious adverse events, quality of life, non-serious adverse events and cognitive function were not assessed. We did not identify any systematic or semisystematic reviews addressing other pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium. For the management of manifest delirium, we did not identify any systematic or semisystematic review assessing any pharmacological agents.

CONCLUSION

Based on systematic reviews, the evidence for the use of pharmacological interventions for prevention or management of delirium is poor or sparse. A systematic review with low risk of bias assessing the effects of pharmacological prevention of delirium and management of manifest delirium in ICU patients is urgently needed.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016046628.

A systematic review of interventions to facilitate extubation in patients difficult-to-wean due to delirium, agitation, or anxiety and a meta-analysis of the effect of dexmedetomidine

BACKGROUND

Delirium, agitation, and anxiety may hinder weaning from mechanical ventilation and lead to increased morbidity and healthcare costs. The most appropriate clinical approach to weaning in these contexts remains unclear and challenging to clinicians. The objective of this systematic review was to identify effective and safe interventions to wean patients that are difficult-to-wean from mechanical ventilation due to delirium, agitation, or anxiety.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed. Studies evaluating mechanically ventilated patients deemed difficult-to-wean due to delirium, agitation, or anxiety, and comparing the effects of an intervention with a comparator arm were sought. Time-to-extubation was the primary outcome while the secondary outcome was intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay.

RESULTS

From 10,860 studies identified, eight met the inclusion criteria: six studies assessed dexmedetomidine while the remaining two assessed loxapine and biofeedback. Pooled analysis of studies assessing dexmedetomidine showed reduced time-to-extubation (six studies, n = 303) by 10.9 hr compared with controls (95% confidence interval [CI], -15.7 to -6.1; I² = 68%) and ICU length of stay (four studies, n = 191) by 2.6 days (95% CI, 1.9 to 3.3; I² = 0%). Nevertheless, the evidence was deemed to be of low quality given the small sample sizes and high heterogeneity. Studies assessing other interventions did not identify improvements compared with controls. Safety assessment was globally poorly reported.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review and meta-analysis provides low quality evidence to suggest the use of dexmedetomidine in patients deemed difficult-to-wean due to agitation, delirium, or anxiety. Insufficient evidence was found regarding other interventions to provide any recommendation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42016042528); registered 15 July, 2016.

Evaluating the use of dexmedetomidine for the reduction of delirium: An integrative review

Delirium, an acute change in cognition and attention not secondary to a pre-existing condition or dementia, affects nearly 40,000 hospitalized older adults in the United States every day. Delirium is associated with increased healthcare costs of $16,303 to $64,421 per patient. To date, no single pharmacological intervention is effective in preventing or treating delirium in critically ill patients. Evidence suggests the alpha-2 agonist, dexmedetomidine, may reduce or prevent delirium. An integrative review examined whether dexmedetomidine was associated with a lower incidence of delirium compared to other analgesic and sedation strategies. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guided this review and 16 publications met quality criteria for inclusion. These studies support that postoperative administration of dexmedetomidine may reduce delirium in patients, particularly following cardiac surgery. Further research is needed to determine the benefits of dexmedetomidine in patients on mechanical ventilation and optimal timing and duration of administration.

Dexmedetomidine in prevention and treatment of postoperative and intensive care unit delirium: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To determine the preventive and therapeutic effect of dexmedetomidine on intensive care unit (ICU) delirium.

METHODS

The literature search using PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed (August 1, 2018) to detect all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adult ICU patients receiving dexmedetomidine. Articles were included if they assessed the influence of dexmedetomidine compared to a sedative agent on incidence of ICU delirium or treatment of this syndrome. Accordingly, relevant articles were allocated to the following two groups: (1) articles that assessed the delirium incidence (incidence comparison) or articles that assessed the treatment of delirium (treatment comparison). Incidence of delirium and delirium resolution were the primary outcomes. We combined treatment effects comparing dexmedetomidine versus (1) placebo, (2) standard sedatives, and (3) opioids in random-effects meta-analyses. Risk of bias for each included RCT was assessed following Cochrane standards.

RESULTS

The literature search resulted in 28 articles (25 articles/4975 patients for the incidence comparison and three articles/166 patients for the treatment comparison). In the incidence comparison, heterogeneity was present in different subgroups. Administration of dexmedetomidine was associated with significantly lower overall incidence of delirium when compared to placebo (RR 0.52; 95% CI 0.39-0.70; I² = 37%), standard sedatives (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.46-0.86; I² = 69%), as well as to opioids (RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.44-0.83; I² = 0%). Use of dexmedetomidine significantly increased the risks of bradycardia and hypotension. Limited data were available on circulatory insufficiency and mortality. In the treatment comparison, the comparison drugs in the three RCTs were placebo, midazolam, and haloperidol. The resolution of delirium was measured differently in each study. Two out of the three studies indicated clear favorable effects for dexmedetomidine (i.e., compared to placebo and midazolam). The study comparing dexmedetomidine with haloperidol was a pilot study (n = 20) with high variability in the results.

CONCLUSION

Findings suggest that dexmedetomidine reduces incidence and duration of ICU delirium. Furthermore, our systematic searches show that there is limited evidence if a delirium shall be treated with dexmedetomidine.

Impact of Dexmedetomidine on Intraoperative Wake-Up Tests in Patients Undergoing Spinal Surgery

PURPOSE

To evaluate the impact of dexmedetomidine (DEX) on intraoperative wake-up tests.

DESIGN

American Society of Anesthesiologists category I or II patients were divided into two groups: a propofol-remifentanil group (group R, n = 20) and a DEX-propofol-remifentanil group (group D, n = 20).

METHODS

The patients in group D received DEX, whereas the patients in group R received the same volume of saline. The other anesthetic methods and drugs (propofol and remifentanil) were the same in both groups. During the wake-up test, patients were repeatedly asked to move their fingers.

FINDINGS

All the wake-up tests were successfully performed. There was no significant difference in the mean wake-up time between the two groups. Eighteen patients exhibited better wake-up quality in group D as did eight patients in group R. The patients in group D had a significantly better overall wake-up quality than those in group R (P <.05).

CONCLUSIONS

DEX did not affect the wake-up time and increased the wake-up quality.