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

Management of alcohol withdrawal syndromes in general hospital settings

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

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

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

Niche Roles for Dexmedetomidine in the Intensive Care Unit

OBJECTIVE

Review dexmedetomidine use in critically ill patients for niche indications including sleep, delirium, alcohol withdrawal, sepsis, and immunomodulation.

DATA SOURCES

Literature was sought using PubMed (February 2012-November 2022). Search terms included dexmedetomidine AND (hypnotics OR sedatives OR sleep OR delirium OR immunomodulation OR sepsis OR alcohol withdrawal).

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant studies conducted in humans ≥18 years published in English were included. Exclusion criteria included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and studies evaluating oral dexmedetomidine or other alpha-2 agonists.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A total of 231 articles were retrieved. After removal of duplicates, title and abstract screening, and application of inclusion criteria, 35 articles were included. Across the clinical conditions included in this review, varying clinical outcomes were seen. Dexmedetomidine may improve morbidity outcomes in delirium, sleep, and alcohol withdrawal syndrome. Due to limited human studies and poor quality of evidence, no conclusions can be drawn regarding the role of dexmedetomidine in immunomodulation or sepsis.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

This review presents data for potential niche roles of dexmedetomidine aside from sedation in critically ill patients. This may serve as a guide for sedation selection in critically ill patients who may also benefit from the pleiotropic effects of dexmedetomidine due to a clinical condition discussed in this review.

CONCLUSION

While further studies are needed, dexmedetomidine may provide benefit in other indications in critically ill patients including delirium, sleep, and alcohol withdrawal. Given the poor quality of evidence of dexmedetomidine use in immunomodulation and sepsis, no conclusions can be drawn.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

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

DATA SYNTHESIS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A Novel Method to Improve the Identification of Time of Intubation for Retrospective EHR Data Analysis During a Time of Resource Strain, the COVID-19 Pandemic

Accurate determinations of the time of intubation (TOI) are critical for retrospective electronic health record (EHR) data analyses. In a retrospective study, the authors developed and validated an improved query (Ti) to identify TOI across numerous settings in a large health system, using EHR data, during the COVID-19 pandemic. Further, they evaluated the affect of Ti on peri-intubation patient parameters compared to a previous method-ventilator parameters (Tv). Ti identified an earlier TOI for 84.8% (n = 1666) of cases with a mean (SD) of 3.5 hours (15.5), resulting in alternate values for: partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO 2 ) in 18.4% of patients (mean 43.95 mmHg [54.24]); PaO 2 /fractional inspired oxygen (FiO 2 ) in 17.8% of patients (mean 48.29 [69.81]), and oxygen saturation/FiO 2 in 62.7% (mean 16.75 [34.14]), using the absolute difference in mean values within the first 4 hours of intubation. Differences in PaO 2 /FiO 2 using Ti versus Tv resulted in the reclassification of 7.3% of patients into different acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) severity categories.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Treatment of Severe Alcohol Withdrawal: A Focus on Adjunctive Agents

Objective:To review adjunctive treatment options for severe alcohol withdrawal. Data Sources: The search strategy included a search of Ovid MEDLINE using keywords alcohol withdrawal, severe alcohol withdrawal, AWS, delirium tremens, delirium, dexmedetomidine, propofol, anticonvulsants, clonidine, and phenobarbital and included articles dated from January 1990 to March 2017. Study Selection and Data Extraction: All English-language clinical trials and case reports assessing the efficacy of adjunctive agents in severe alcohol withdrawal were evaluated. Data Synthesis: Although first-line pharmacotherapy for alcohol withdrawal continues to be benzodiazepines, literature does not clearly define adjunctive treatment options for severe alcohol withdrawal. During severe alcohol withdrawal patients may become unable to tolerate or may become unresponsive to high-dose benzodiazepines. Large doses of benzodiazepines may also result in oversedation, respiratory insufficiency, and worsening delirium. Conclusions: Phenobarbital and dexmedetomidine are both viable adjunctive treatment options for severe alcohol withdrawal. Current evidence has shown these agents decrease the dose requirements of benzodiazepines with limited incidence of adverse reactions. Propofol may also be a viable option in mechanically ventilated patients, but its lack of clear safety and efficacy advantages over current treatment options may limit its use in practice. Clonidine, oral anticonvulsants, and ketamine require further controlled clinical trials to clearly define their role in the treatment of severe alcohol withdrawal.

[Dexmedetomidine in the treatment of acute alcohol withdrawal delirium]

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

The emergency medicine management of severe alcohol withdrawal

INTRODUCTION

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DISCUSSION

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Treatment of Severe Alcohol Withdrawal

OBJECTIVE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

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

DATA SYNTHESIS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Effects of different doses of dexmedetomidine on heart rate and blood pressure in intensive care unit patients

The aim of the present study was to observe and compare the sedative effect of different doses of DEX on heart rate (HR) and blood pressure (BP) in critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). The study included patients that were retained in ICUs and required sedation between January and March 2014. Patients were excluded if they had a BP of >200 mmHg, a HR of <60 bpm or were in a state of shock. The included patients were randomized into three groups: Group A, 1.0 µg/kg/10 min DEX; group B, 0.5 µg/kg/10 min DEX; and group C, 0.4 µg/kg/h DEX. After receiving these initial designated doses of DEX via an intravenous (IV) infusion pump for 10 min, the patients were maintained continuously at an identical dose of 0.4 µg/kg/h DEX. Ramsay score, HR, systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), breathing rate (BR) and peripheral capillary oxygen saturation (SpO₂) were recorded prior to the IV pump infusion and at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 60, 120, 180 and 240 min following infusion. Patients in groups A and B achieved sedation more rapidly compared with those in group C (P<0.05). HR decreased more significantly at 8 and 60 min after the initial IV pump infusion with DEX in groups A and B compared with group C (P<0.05). SBP decreased significantly at 10 min after IV pump infusion in group A compared with groups B and C (P<0.05). No significant difference existed in the SBP reduction trend between the three groups during the maintenance period. Therefore, the routine dose of DEX (0.4 µg/kg/h) provides an ideal sedative effect in ICU patients. The recommended loading dose for a more rapid sedation is 0.5 µg/kg/h. High loading doses of DEX via IV pump infusion should be avoided in elderly individuals, patients with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and anemic patients, in whom combination medication, such as midazolam or propofol, may be considered when necessary.

Dexmedetomidine for Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome

OBJECTIVE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

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

DATA SYNTHESIS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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