Dexmedetomidine infusion as adjunctive therapy to benzodiazepines for acute alcohol withdrawal

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.

Linking Ethanol-Addictive Behaviors With Brain Catecholamines: Release Pattern Matters

Using a variety of animal models that simulate key features of the alcohol use disorder (AUD), remarkable progress has been made in identifying neurochemical targets that may contribute to the development of alcohol addiction. In this search, the dopamine (DA) and norepinephrine (NE) systems have been long thought to play a leading role in comparison with other brain systems. However, just recent development and application of optogenetic approaches into the alcohol research field provided opportunity to identify neuronal circuits and specific patterns of neurotransmission that govern the key components of ethanol-addictive behaviors. This critical review summarizes earlier findings, which initially disclosed catecholamine substrates of ethanol actions in the brain and shows how the latest methodologies help us to reveal the significance of DA and NE release changes. Specifically, we focused on recent optogenetic investigations aimed to reveal cause-effect relationships between ethanol-drinking (seeking and taking) behaviors and catecholamine dynamics in distinct brain pathways. These studies gain the knowledge that is needed for the better understanding addiction mechanisms and, therefore, for development of more effective AUD treatments. Based on the reviewed findings, new messages for researches were indicated, which may have broad applications beyond the field of alcohol addiction.

Predictors of resistant alcohol withdrawal (RAW): A retrospective case-control study

BACKGROUND

Benzodiazepine-resistant alcohol withdrawal (RAW), defined by a requirement of ≥ 40 mg of diazepam in 1 h, represents a severe form of withdrawal without predictive parameters. This study was designed to identify risk factors associated with RAW versus withdrawal without benzodiazepine resistance (nRAW).

METHODS

A retrospective cohort of adults with severe alcohol withdrawal were screened. Demographic and clinical variables, collected through chart review, underwent logistic regression to select the subset that predicst RAW.

RESULTS

736 patients (515 nRAW, 221 RAW) were analyzed. RAW patients were younger (P < 0.001), male (P = 0.008) Caucasians (P = 0.037) with histories of psychiatric illness (P < 0.001), higher serum ethanol concentrations (P < 0.007), and abnormal liver enzymes (P = 0.01). RAW patients had significantly lower platelets (P < 0.001), chloride (P = 0.02), and potassium (P = 0.01) levels; severity of illness (SAPSII) (P < 0.001) and comorbidity scores (P < 0.001). Caucasian race and male gender were found to be 3.6 and 2.6 times more likely to be RAW. For every 1-unit increase in comorbidity and severity of illness scores, patients were 22% [OR(95% CI) 0.78 (0.66-0.90)] and 4% [0.96 (0.93-0.98)] less likely to be RAW. Patients with a psychiatric history or thrombocytopenia were 2 times more likely [2.02 (1.24-3.30); 2.13 (1.31-3.50), respectively] to be RAW.

CONCLUSION

These data demonstrate the predictive ability of a history of psychiatric illness, thrombocytopenia, gender, race, baseline severity of illness and comorbidity scores for developing RAW. Considering these characteristics in early withdrawal management may prevent progression to RAW outcomes.

Treatment of Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome with and without Dexmedetomidine

CONTEXT

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Treatment of Severe Alcohol Withdrawal

OBJECTIVE

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

DATA SOURCES

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

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

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

DATA SYNTHESIS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Dexmedetomidine for acute baclofen withdrawal

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Approach to the Complicated Alcohol Withdrawal Patient

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Novel use of dexmedetomidine for the treatment of anticholinergic toxidrome

INTRODUCTION

We report the case of an adolescent with anticholinergic toxidrome from diphenhydramine overdose, whose symptoms were treated with a novel application of dexmedetomidine.

CASE REPORT

A 13-year-old female developed an anticholinergic toxidrome after intentionally ingesting 9.5 mg/kg of diphenhydramine. Despite routine supportive therapies, to include appropriate doses of lorazepam, she continued to have significant agitation, psychosis, and hallucinations. A dexmedetomidine infusion was started to aid in the treatment of her agitation and psychosis with marked improvement of her symptoms.

DISCUSSION

Using dexmedetomidine for the treatment of anticholinergic toxidrome has not been previously described in the literature, but there are multiple reports of its use in alcohol withdrawal syndrome. We suggest that adding dexmedetomidine as an adjunctive agent in the therapy of anticholinergic toxidrome may relieve the symptoms of agitation, psychosis, tachycardia, and hypertension, without the attendant risk of respiratory depression associated with high doses of benzodiazepines.

Alcohol withdrawal syndrome in critically ill patients: protocolized versus nonprotocolized management

BACKGROUND

Approximately 18% to 25% of patients with alcohol use disorders admitted to the hospital develop alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS). Symptom-triggered dosing of benzodiazepines (BZDs) seems to lead to shorter courses of treatment, lower cumulative BZD dose, and more rapid control of symptoms in non-critically ill patients. This study compares the outcomes of critically ill patients with AWS when treated using a protocolized, symptom-triggered, dose escalation approach versus a nonprotocolized approach.

METHODS

This is a retrospective pre-post study of patients 18 years or older with AWS admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU). The preintervention cohort (PRE) was admitted between February 2008 and February 2010. The postintervention cohort (POST) was admitted between February 2012 and January 2013. The PRE patients were treated by physician preference and compared with POST patients who were given escalating doses of BZDs and/or phenobarbital according to an AWS protocol, titrating to light sedations (Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale score of 0 to -2).

RESULTS

There were 135 episodes of AWS in 132 critically ill patients. POST patients (n = 75) were younger (50.7 [13.8] years vs. 55.7 [8.7] years, p = 0.03) than PRE patients (n = 60). Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores were higher in the PRE group (6.1 [3.7] vs. 3.9 [2.9], p = 0.0004). There was a significant decrease in mean ICU length of stay from 9.6 (10.5) days to 5.2 (6.4) days (p = 0.0004) in the POST group. The POST group also had significantly fewer ventilator days (5.6 [13.9] days vs. 1.31 [5.6] days, p < 0.0001) as well as a significant decrease in BZD use (319 [1,084] mg vs. 93 [171] mg, p = 0.002). There were significant differences between the two cohorts with respect to the need for continuous sedation (p < 0.001), duration of sedation (p < 0.001), and intubation secondary to AWS (p < 0.001). In all of these outcomes, the POST cohort had a notably lower frequency of occurrence.

CONCLUSION

A protocolized treatment approach of AWS in critically ill patients involving symptom-triggered, dose escalations of diazepam and phenobarbital may lead to a decreased ICU length of stay, decreased time spent on mechanical ventilation, and decreased BZD requirements.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Epidemiologic study, level III; therapeutic study, level IV.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVES

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

DESIGN

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

SETTING

Single center; medical ICU.

PATIENTS

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

INTERVENTIONS

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

MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Inflammatory Response in Patients under Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery and Clinical Implications: A Review of the Relevance of Dexmedetomidine Use

Despite the fact that coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG) with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) prolongs life and reduces symptoms in patients with severe coronary artery diseases, these benefits are accompanied by increased risks. Morbidity associated with cardiopulmonary bypass can be attributed to the generalized inflammatory response induced by blood-xenosurfaces interactions during extracorporeal circulation and the ischemia/reperfusion implications, including exacerbated inflammatory response resembling the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS). The use of specific anesthetic agents with anti-inflammatory activity can modulate the deleterious inflammatory response. Consequently, anti-inflammatory anesthetics may accelerate postoperative recovery and better outcomes than classical anesthetics. It is known that the stress response to surgery can be attenuated by sympatholytic effects caused by activation of central (α-)2-adrenergic receptor, leading to reductions in blood pressure and heart rate, and more recently, that they can have anti-inflammatory properties. This paper discusses the clinical significance of the dexmedetomidine use, a selective (α-)2-adrenergic agonist, as a coadjuvant in general anesthesia. Actually, dexmedetomidine use is not in anesthetic routine, but this drug can be considered a particularly promising agent in perioperative multiple organ protection.

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

PURPOSE

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

MATERIALS AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Alcohol, nicotine, and iatrogenic withdrawals in the ICU

OBJECTIVES

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

DATA AND SUMMARY

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

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

[Indications of dexmedetomidine in the current sedoanalgesia tendencies in critical patients]

Recently, dexmedetomidine has been marketed in Spain and other European countries. The published experience regarding its use has placed dexmedetomidine on current trends in sedo-analgesic strategies in the adult critically ill patient. Dexmedetomidine has sedative and analgesic properties, without respiratory depressant effects, inducing a degree of depth of sedation in which the patient can open its eyes to verbal stimulation, obey simple commands and cooperate in nursing care. It is therefore a very useful drug in patients who can be maintained on mechanical ventilation with these levels of sedation avoiding the deleterious effects of over or infrasedation. Because of its effects on α2-receptors, it's very useful for the control and prevention of tolerance and withdrawal to other sedatives and psychotropic drugs. The use of dexmedetomidine has been associated with lower incidence of delirium when compared with other sedatives. Moreover, it's a potentially useful drug for sedation of patients in non-invasive ventilation.

Prevention and therapy of alcohol withdrawal on intensive care units: systematic review of controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) occurs in 16 to 31% of intensive care unit (ICU) patients after cessation of sedation. There exist many preventive and therapeutic strategies, but no systematic review (SR) has been published on this topic so far. We aimed to perform a synopsis of all controlled trials of AWS prevention and therapy in ICU published between 1971 and 30 March 2011 following the "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) statement.

METHODS

We performed a MEDLINE search with the terms "alcohol" AND "ICU" as well as "alcohol withdrawal" AND "intensive care." All publications that matched our eligibility criteria were analyzed according to our predefined criteria.

RESULTS

We identified 6 controlled trials about AWS prevention and 8 about AWS therapy in ICUs. For AWS prevention, benzodiazepines (BZO), ethanol (EtOH), and clonidine were evaluated as single agents, and BZO, clonidine, clomethiazol and haloperidol were studied in drug combinations. All evaluated single agents and combinations were found to be effective for AWS prevention. Clomethiazol was found to be associated with a higher tracheobronchitis rate and thus disadvised for critically ill patients. For AWS therapy, BZO, gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB), and clomethiazol were evaluated in randomized controlled trials as single agents and phenobarbital, clonidine, and haloperidol as adjuncts. All evaluated regimens were found to be effective for AWS therapy. Overall, in the ICU, BZO were found to be superior to GHB and clomethiazol regarding safety and efficacy. Furthermore, 4 cohort trials with historical control groups evaluated the effect of the implementation of a standardized protocol of BZO therapy for AWS in ICUs. All of these 4 studies found better outcome for the intervention groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the evidence of this SR, EtOH or BZO can be advised for AWS prevention on ICU patients with alcohol dependence, but EtOH is not allowed for therapy of AWS. AWS therapy should be standardized and based on symptom-triggered BZO administration. Alpha2-agonists and haloperidol should be added for autonomic and productive psychotic symptoms.

Dexmedetomidine infusion to facilitate opioid detoxification and withdrawal in a patient with chronic opioid abuse

Many patients are admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for acute intoxication, serious complication of overdose, or withdrawal symptoms of illicit drugs. An acute withdrawal of drugs with addiction potential is associated with a sympathetic overactivity leading to marked psychomimetic disturbances. Acute intoxication or withdrawal of such drugs is often associated with life-threatening complications which require ICU admission and necessitate prolonged sedative analgesic medications, weaning from which is often complicated by withdrawal and other psychomimetic symptoms. Dexmedetomidine, an alpha-2 (α(2)) agonist, has been used successfully to facilitate withdrawal and detoxification of various drugs and also to control delirium in ICU patients. Herein, we report a case of a chronic opioid abuse (heroin) patient admitted with acute overdose complications leading to a prolonged ICU course requiring sedative-analgesic medication; the drug withdrawal-related symptoms further complicated the weaning process. Dexmedetomidine infusion was successfully used as a sedative-analgesic to control the withdrawal-related psychomimetic symptoms and to facilitate smooth detoxification and weaning from opioid and other sedatives.

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

Alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) continues to be a challenge to manage in the ICU setting, and the ideal pharmacological treatment continues to evolve. Dexmedetomidine is a newer agent approved for short-term sedation in the ICU, but its use in the treatment of AWS has been limited. We report a retrospective case series of ten patients who were identified as receiving dexmedetomidine for AWS as designated by electronic pharmacy records. All subjects were male, with a mean age of 53.6 years, and a mean ICU length of stay of 9.3 days. They were all diagnosed with AWS by DSM-IV criteria. All the study patients received dexmedetomidine during their hospital course as a treatment for AWS. Studied variables included demographic data, dose and duration of dexmedetomidine, other pharmaceutical agents, and hemodynamics. Dexmedetomidine was safe to use in all patients, although mechanical ventilation was still required in three patients. With dexmedetomidine, the autonomic hyperactivity was blunted, with a mean 12.8% reduction in rate pressure product observed. Consideration should be given to the combined use of dexmedetomidine with benzodiazepines in the treatment of AWS.

Dexmedetomidine as adjunct treatment for severe alcohol withdrawal in the ICU

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing alcohol withdrawal in the intensive care unit (ICU) often require escalating doses of benzodiazepines and not uncommonly require intubation and mechanical ventilation for airway protection. This may lead to complications and prolonged ICU stays. Experimental studies and single case reports suggest the α2-agonist dexmedetomidine is effective in managing the autonomic symptoms seen with alcohol withdrawal. We report a retrospective analysis of 20 ICU patients treated with dexmedetomidine for benzodiazepine-refractory alcohol withdrawal.

METHODS

Records from a 23-bed mixed medical-surgical ICU were abstracted from November 2008 to November 2010 for patients who received dexmedetomidine for alcohol withdrawal. The main analysis compared alcohol withdrawal severity scores and medication doses for 24 h before dexmedetomidine therapy with values during the first 24 h of dexmedetomidine therapy.

RESULTS

There was a 61.5% reduction in benzodiazepine dosing after initiation of dexmedetomidine (n = 17; p < 0.001) and a 21.1% reduction in alcohol withdrawal severity score (n = 11; p = .015). Patients experienced less tachycardia and systolic hypertension following dexmedetomidine initiation. One patient out of 20 required intubation. A serious adverse effect occurred in one patient, in whom dexmedetomidine was discontinued for two 9-second asystolic pauses noted on telemetry.

CONCLUSIONS

This observational study suggests that dexmedetomidine therapy for severe alcohol withdrawal is associated with substantially reduced benzodiazepine dosing, a decrease in alcohol withdrawal scoring and blunted hyperadrenergic cardiovascular response to ethanol abstinence. In this series, there was a low rate of mechanical ventilation associated with the above strategy. One of 20 patients suffered two 9-second asystolic pauses, which did not recur after dexmedetomidine discontinuation. Prospective trials are warranted to compare adjunct treatment with dexmedetomidine versus standard benzodiazepine therapy.

Pharmacology of sedative-analgesic agents: dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, ketamine, volatile anesthetics, and the role of peripheral Mu antagonists

In this article, the authors discuss the pharmacology of sedative-analgesic agents like dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, ketamine, and volatile anesthetics. Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective alpha-2 agonist that provides anxiolysis and cooperative sedation without respiratory depression. It has organ protective effects against ischemic and hypoxic injury, including cardioprotection, neuroprotection, and renoprotection. Remifentanil is an ultra-short-acting opioid that acts as a mu-receptor agonist. Ketamine is a nonbarbiturate phencyclidine derivative and provides analgesia and apparent anesthesia with relative hemodynamic stability. Volatile anesthetics such as isoflurane, sevoflurane, and desflurane are in daily use in the operating room in the delivery of general anesthesia. A major advantage of these halogenated ethers is their quick onset, quick offset, and ease of titration in rendering the patient unconscious, immobile, and amnestic.

Dexmedetomidine controls agitation and facilitates reliable, serial neurological examinations in a non-intubated patient with traumatic brain injury

INTRODUCTION

We report the effective use of dexmedetomidine in the treatment of a patient with a history of chronic alcohol abuse and an acute traumatic brain injury who developed agitation that was unresolved if from traumatic brain injury, or alcohol withdrawal or the combination of both. Treatment with benzodiazepines failed; lorazepam therapy obscured our ability to do reliable neurological testing to follow his brain injury and nearly resulted in intubation of the patient secondary to respiratory suppression. Upon admission to hospital, the patient was first treated with intermittent, prophylactic doses of lorazepam for potential alcohol withdrawal based upon our institution's standard of care. His neurological examinations including a motor score of 6 (obeying commands) on his Glasgow Coma Scale testing, laboratory studies, and repeat CT head imaging remained stable. For lack of published literature in diagnosing symptoms of patients with a history of both alcohol withdrawal and traumatic brain injury, a diagnosis of agitation secondary to presumed alcohol withdrawal was made when the patient developed acute onset of tachycardia, confusion, and extreme anxiety with tremor and attempts to climb out of bed requiring him to be restrained. Additional lorazepam doses were administered following a hospital-approved protocol for titration of benzodiazepine therapy for alcohol withdrawal. The patient's mental status and respiratory function deteriorated with the frequent lorazepam dosing needed to control his agitation. Dexmedetomidine IV infusion at a rate of 0.5 mcg/kg/h was then administered and was titrated ultimately to 1.5 mcg/kg/h. After 8 days of therapy with dexmedetomidine, the patient was transferred from the ICU to a step-down unit with an intact neurological examination and no evidence of alcohol withdrawal. Airway intubation was avoided during the patient's entire hospitalization. This case report highlights the intricate balance between the side effects of benzodiazepine sedation for treatment of agitation and the difficulties of monitoring the neurological status of non-intubated patients with traumatic brain injury.

CONCLUSION

Given the large numbers of alcohol-dependent patients who suffer a traumatic brain injury and subsequently develop agitation and alcohol withdrawal in hospital, dexmedetomidine offers a novel strategy to facilitate sedation without neurological or respiratory depression. As this case report demonstrates, dexmedetomidine is an emerging treatment option for agitation in patients who require reliable, serial neurological testing to monitor the course of their traumatic brain injury.

Role of α2-agonists in the treatment of acute alcohol withdrawal

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate literature reporting on the role of norepinephrine in alcohol withdrawal and to determine the safety and efficacy of α(2)-agonists in reducing symptoms of this severe condition.

DATA SOURCES

Articles evaluating the efficacy and safety of the α(2)-agonists clonidine and dexmedetomidine were identified from an English-language MEDLINE search (1966-December 2010). Key words included alcohol withdrawal, delirium tremens, clonidine, dexmedetomidine, α(2)-agonist, norepinephrine, and sympathetic overdrive.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Studies that focused on the safety and efficacy of clonidine and dexmedetomidine in both animals and humans were selected.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The noradrenergic system, specifically sympathetic overdrive during alcohol withdrawal, may play an important role in withdrawal symptom development. Symptoms of sympathetic overdrive include anxiety, agitation, elevated blood pressure, tachycardia, and tremor. Therefore, α(2)-agonists, which decrease norepinephine release, may have a role in reducing alcohol withdrawal symptoms. The majority of controlled animal and human studies evaluated clonidine, but the most recent literature is from case reports on dexmedetomidine. The literature reviewed here demonstrate that these 2 α(2)-agonists safely and effectively reduce symptoms of sympathetic overdrive and concomitant medication use. Dexmedetomidine may offer an advantage over current sedative medications used in the intensive care unit, such as not requiring intubation with its use, and therefore further study is needed to fully elicit its benefit in alcohol withdrawal.

CONCLUSION

Clonidine and dexmedetomidine may provide additional benefit in managing alcohol withdrawal by offering a different mechanism of action for targeting withdrawal symptoms. Based on literature reviewed here, the primary role for clonidine and dexmedetomidine is as adjunctive treatment to benzodiazepines, the standard of care in alcohol withdrawal.

Intensive care unit delirium

Once considered a benign iatrogenic consequence of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, ICU delirium is now recognized as a prominent disorder that negatively affects patient morbidity and mortality. The primary goal in the detection and treatment of ICU delirium is to ensure the safety of the patient and caregiver(s). Most critically ill patients possess 1 or more risk factors for the development of delirium; therefore, interventions that target delirium assessment and prevention are essential. This article highlights some of the recent data that have emerged regarding ICU delirium, including its definition, incidence, risk factors, diagnostic tools, and treatment.

Alcohol withdrawal syndromes in the intensive care unit

This article reviews the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndromes in the intensive care unit as well as the literature on the optimal pharmacologic strategies for treatment of alcohol withdrawal syndromes in the critically ill. Treatment of alcohol withdrawal in the intensive care unit mirrors that of the general acute care wards and detoxification centers. In addition to adequate supportive care, benzodiazepines administered in a symptom-triggered fashion, guided by the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment of Alcohol scale, revised (CIWA-Ar), still seem to be the optimal strategy in the intensive care unit. In cases of benzodiazepine resistance, numerous options are available, including high individual doses of benzodiazepines, barbiturates, and propofol. Intensivists should be familiar with the diagnosis and treatment strategies for alcohol withdrawal syndromes in the intensive care unit.

Adverse drug events associated with the use of analgesics, sedatives, and antipsychotics in the intensive care unit

As critically ill patients frequently receive analgesics, sedatives, and antipsychotics to optimize patient comfort and facilitate mechanical ventilation, adverse events associated with the use of these agents can affect all organ systems and result in substantial morbidity and mortality. Although many of these adverse effects are common pharmacologic manifestations of the agent, and therefore frequently reversible, others are idiosyncratic and thus unexpected. The critically ill are more susceptible to adverse drug events than nonintensive care unit patients due to the high doses and long periods for which each of these agents are often administered, the frequent use of intravenous formulations that contain adjuvants that may lead to toxicity in some instances, and the high prevalence of end-organ dysfunction that affects the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic response to therapy. This paper will review the most common and serious adverse drug events reported to occur with the use of sedatives, analgesics, and antipsychotics in the intensive care unit; highlight the pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and pharmacogenetic factors that can influence analgesic, sedative, and antipsychotic response and safety in the critically ill; and identify strategies that can be used to minimize toxicity with these agents.

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

Introduction

Agitated delirium is common in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation, and is often treated with haloperidol despite concerns about safety and efficacy. Use of conventional sedatives to control agitation can preclude extubation. Dexmedetomidine, a novel sedative and anxiolytic agent, may have particular utility in these patients. We sought to compare the efficacy of haloperidol and dexmedetomidine in facilitating extubation.

Methods

We conducted a randomised, open-label, parallel-groups pilot trial in the medical and surgical intensive care unit of a university hospital. Twenty patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in whom extubation was not possible solely because of agitated delirium were randomised to receive an infusion of either haloperidol 0.5 to 2 mg/hour or dexmedetomidine 0.2 to 0.7 μg/kg/hr, with or without loading doses of 2.5 mg haloperidol or 1 μg/kg dexmedetomidine, according to clinician preference.

Results

Dexmedetomidine significantly shortened median time to extubation from 42.5 (IQR 23.2 to 117.8) to 19.9 (IQR 7.3 to 24) hours (P = 0.016). Dexmedetomidine significantly decreased ICU length of stay, from 6.5 (IQR 4 to 9) to 1.5 (IQR 1 to 3) days (P = 0.004) after study drug commencement. Of patients who required ongoing propofol sedation, the proportion of time propofol was required was halved in those who received dexmedetomidine (79.5% (95% CI 61.8 to 97.2%) vs. 41.2% (95% CI 0 to 88.1%) of the time intubated; P = 0.05). No patients were reintubated; three receiving haloperidol could not be successfully extubated and underwent tracheostomy. One patient prematurely discontinued haloperidol due to QTc interval prolongation.

Conclusions

In this preliminary pilot study, we found dexmedetomidine a promising agent for the treatment of ICU-associated delirious agitation, and we suggest this warrants further testing in a definitive double-blind multi-centre trial.

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00505804