Efficacy and safety of early dexmedetomidine during noninvasive ventilation for patients with acute respiratory failure: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study

Evaluation of Effectiveness and Safety of Dexmedetomidine in non-Mechanically Ventilated COVID-19 Critically ill Patients: A Multicentre Cohort Study

Background: Dexmedetomidine (DEX) is a highly favored sedative agent in critically ill patients owing to its anxiolytic and analgesic properties, lower risk of delirium, and minimal respiratory depression. Additionally, DEX exhibits anti-inflammatory properties, which have prompted its use in managing COVID-19 patients to mitigate cytokine storm and multi-organ dysfunction. Thus, this study aims to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of DEX use in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Method: This multicenter, retrospective cohort study included adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 who were admitted to the ICUs and did not require invasive mechanical ventilation (MV). Patients were categorized into two groups based on receiving DEX use within 72 h of ICU admission. The primary outcome was respiratory failure requiring invasive MV; other outcomes were considered secondary. Results: A total of 155 patients were included in the study after propensity matching. DEX did not reduce respiratory failure requiring invasive MV (HR 0.66; 95% CI (0.28, 1.53), P = .33). However, the time for invasive MV was statistically significantly shorter in the DEX group compared with the control group (beta coefficient (95%CI): - 1.05 (-2.03, -0.07), P = .03). In contrast, ICU and hospital Length of stay (LOS) were not statistically significant compared to the control group (beta coefficient 0.04 (95% CI -0.29, 0.38), P = .80, and beta coefficient - 0.03 (95% CI -0.33, 0.26), P = .81, respectively). In addition, the 30-day and in-hospital mortality rates were similar between the two groups (HR 1.1; 95% CI 0.97, 1.20, P = .14, and HR 1.01; 95% CI 0.95, 1.06, P = .90, respectively). Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine did not appear to lower the risk of respiratory failure necessitating invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients. However, the mean time for invasive mechanical ventilation was shorter in the DEX group. Future interventional studies are required to confirm our findings.

Noninvasive Respiratory Support in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Noninvasive respiratory supports have been successfully used as an alternative to endotracheal intubation especially in patients with a milder degree of hypoxemia. In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the main goals of noninvasive oxygenation strategies are to improve oxygenation, unload the respiratory muscles, and relieve dyspnea. On the other hand, recent studies have suggested that spontaneous breathing could represent an additional mechanism of lung injury, especially in the more severe forms. The aim of this review is to describe the role of different noninvasive respiratory supports in ARDS, to optimize its use in clinical practice.

A comparison of two weaning strategies for non-invasive ventilation in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients with acute respiratory failure

INTRODUCTION

Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV) is a crucial therapy for managing acute exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) with hypercapnic respiratory failure. Research has shown that NIV can decrease the rate of endotracheal intubation, length of hospital and Intensive Care Unit stays, and mortality. There are three main strategies for weaning patients off NIV: gradual reduction of NIV duration, gradual reduction of NIV pressure support, and immediate cessation of NIV.

AIM

To compare the rate of successful withdrawal of COPD patients with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure, one group will use a stepwise reduction of duration of NIV, while the other group will use a stepwise reduction of pressure support.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was a prospective observational study conducted at the Department of Pulmonary Medicine, Institute of Chest Diseases, Government Medical College, Kozhikode, over a period of 15 months. The study population consisted of all COPD patients admitted to the Pulmonary Medicine ward or ICU with acute hypercapnic respiratory failure who were managed with non-invasive ventilation (NIV) without the need for invasive mechanical ventilation. Exclusions included patients requiring NIV for respiratory diseases other than COPD, those with significant comorbidities like acute left ventricular failure or fluid overload states as in chronic kidney disease, COVID-19 positive patients, patients on home NIV, patients who needed intubation early in treatment, and patients unwilling to participate in the study. The sample size was 140. Initial NIV settings and other management decisions prior to enrolment in the study were made by the treating physician according to standard protocols. Once weaning criteria were met (i.e., arterial pH > 7.35, SpO2 ≥ 90% at an FiO2 ≤ 50%, respiratory rate ≤ 25 breaths per minute, heart rate ≤ 120 beats per minute, systolic BP > 90 mm Hg, and no signs of respiratory distress), patients were assigned to either group 1 or group 2 by purposive sampling. Group 1: stepwise reduction of duration of NIV use, with a reduction to 16 h per day on day 1 of enrolment, 12 h on day 2 (including 6-8 h of nocturnal NIV), 6-8 h on day 3, and NIV withdrawal on day 4. Group 2: stepwise reduction of pressure support, with pressure support reduced by 2-4 cm every 4-6 h until Inspiratory Positive Airway Pressure is < 8 cm H2O and Expiratory Positive Airway Pressure is < 4 cm H2O, followed by NIV withdrawal. The clinical outcome was classified as either improved or weaning failure. Improved was defined as an objective or subjective sense of improvement. Weaning failure was defined as the presence of any of the following: respiratory rate ≥ 25/minute or increase of ≥ 50% from baseline, heart rate ≥ 140/minute or increase of ≥ 20% from baseline, SpO2 ≤ 90% on FiO2 ≥ 50%, arterial pH ≤ 7.35, or respiratory distress. Data was collected using a pro forma that included demographic details, smoking status, GOLD COPD category, comorbidities, and vital signs. ABG parameters, NIV settings at the time of hospital admission, at the time of study enrolment, and 48 h after weaning were also recorded. Independent sample t-test was used to test the statistical significance of the difference between means of variables between the two groups. Pearson Chi square test and Fisher's exact test were used to compare categorical variables between the groups. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

NIV was successfully withdrawn in 56/70 (80%) and 50/70 (71.4%) patients in Groups 1 and 2, respectively. This difference was not statistically significant. The length of hospital stay was longer in the stepwise reduction of duration group (Group 1), but this was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

On comparison of two methods of NIV withdrawal, it was found that neither method is superior to the other in terms of weaning failure, intubation rates, and average length of hospital stay.

Remifentanil vs. dexmedetomidine for cardiac surgery patients with noninvasive ventilation intolerance: a multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The optimal sedative regime for noninvasive ventilation (NIV) intolerance remains uncertain. The present study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of remifentanil (REM) compared to dexmedetomidine (DEX) in cardiac surgery patients with moderate-to-severe intolerance to NIV.

METHODS

In this multicenter, prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled study, adult cardiac surgery patients with moderate-to-severe intolerance to NIV were enrolled and randomly assigned to be treated with either REM or DEX for sedation. The status of NIV intolerance was evaluated using a four-point NIV intolerance score at different timepoints within a 72-h period. The primary outcome was the mitigation rate of NIV intolerance following sedation.

RESULTS

A total of 179 patients were enrolled, with 89 assigned to the REM group and 90 to the DEX group. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups, including NIV intolerance score [3, interquartile range (IQR) 3-3 vs. 3, IQR 3-4, p = 0.180]. The chi-squared test showed that mitigation rate, defined as the proportion of patients who were relieved from their initial intolerance status, was not significant at most timepoints, except for the 15-min timepoint (42% vs. 20%, p = 0.002). However, after considering the time factor, generalized estimating equations showed that the difference was statistically significant, and REM outperformed DEX (odds ratio = 3.31, 95% confidence interval: 1.35-8.12, p = 0.009). Adverse effects, which were not reported in the REM group, were encountered by nine patients in the DEX group, with three instances of bradycardia and six cases of severe hypotension. Secondary outcomes, including NIV failure (5.6% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.564), tracheostomy (1.12% vs. 0%, p = 0.313), ICU LOS (7.7 days, IQR 5.8-12 days vs. 7.0 days, IQR 5-10.6 days, p = 0.219), and in-hospital mortality (1.12% vs. 2.22%, p = 0.567), demonstrated comparability between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In summary, our study demonstrated no significant difference between REM and DEX in the percentage of patients who achieved mitigation among cardiac surgery patients with moderate-to-severe NIV intolerance. However, after considering the time factor, REM was significantly superior to DEX. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04734418), registered on January 22, 2021. URL of the trial registry record: https://register.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S000AM4S&selectaction=Edit&uid=U00038YX&ts=3&cx=eqn1z0 .

Analgesia and Sedation Use During Noninvasive Ventilation for Acute Respiratory Failure

OBJECTIVES

To describe U.S. practice regarding administration of sedation and analgesia to patients on noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for acute respiratory failure (ARF) and to determine the association of this practice with odds of intubation or death.

DESIGN

A retrospective multicenter cohort study.

SETTING

A total of 1017 hospitals contributed data between January 2010 and September 2020 to the Premier Healthcare Database, a nationally representative healthcare database in the United States.

PATIENTS

Adult (≥ 18 yr) patients admitted to U.S. hospitals requiring NIV for ARF.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We identified 433,357 patients on NIV of whom (26.7% [95% CI] 26.3%-27.0%) received sedation or analgesia. A total of 50,589 patients (11.7%) received opioids only, 40,646 (9.4%) received benzodiazepines only, 20,146 (4.6%) received opioids and benzodiazepines, 1.573 (0.4%) received dexmedetomidine only, and 2,639 (0.6%) received dexmedetomidine in addition to opioid and/or benzodiazepine. Of 433,357 patients receiving NIV, 50,413 (11.6%; 95% CI, 11.5-11.7%) patients underwent invasive mechanical ventilation on hospital days 2-5 or died on hospital days 2-30. Intubation was used in 32,301 patients (7.4%; 95% CI, 7.3-7.6%). Further, death occurred in 24,140 (5.6%; 95% CI, 5.5-5.7%). In multivariable analysis adjusting for relevant covariates, receipt of any medication studied was associated with increased odds of intubation or death. In inverse probability weighting, receipt of any study medication was also associated with increased odds of intubation or death (average treatment effect odds ratio 1.38; 95% CI, 1.35-1.40).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of sedation and analgesia during NIV is common. Medication exposure was associated with increased odds of intubation or death. Further investigation is needed to confirm this finding and determine whether any subpopulations are especially harmed by this practice.

Benefits of dexmedetomidine during noninvasive mechanical ventilation in major abdominal surgery patients with postoperative respiratory failure

Objective

The efficacy of non-invasive mechanical ventilation (NIMV) on the postoperative ARF is conflicting and the failure rate of NIMV in this patient population is high. In our study, we hypothesized that the use of dexmedetomidine during NIMV in major abdominal surgical patients can reduce NIMV failure without significant side affect.

Methods

Medical records of patients who underwent major abdominal surgery, admitted to our general surgery intensive care unit (ICU), developed postoperative ARF, received NIMV (with oro-nasal mask) and dexmedetomidine infusion were enrolled in this study. The infusion rate was adjusted to maintain a target sedation level of a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) (-2)-(-3). The sedation was stopped when NIMV was discontinued.

Results

A total of 60 patients, 42 (70.0%) male, and 18 (30.0%) female, with a mean age of 68 ± 11 years were included in the study. The mean APACHE II score was 20 ± 6. Dexmedetomidine was infused for a median of 25 h (loading dose of 0.2 mcg/kg for 10 min, maintained at 0.2-0.7 mcg/kg/h, titrated every 30 min). RASS score of all study group significantly improved at the 2 h of dexmedetomidine initiation (+3 vs. -2, p = 0.01). A targeted sedation level was achieved in 92.5% of patients. Six (10.0%) patients developed bradycardia and 5 (8.3%) patients had hypotension. The mean NIMV application time was 23.4 ± 6.1 h. Seven (11.6%) patients experienced NIMV failure, all due to worsening pulmonary conditions, and required intubation and invasive ventilation. Fifty-three (88.3%) patients were successfully weaned from NIMV with dexmedetomidine sedation and discharged from ICU. The duration of NIMV application and ICU stay was shorter in NIMV succeded group (21.4 ± 3.2 vs. 29.9 ± 6.4; p = 0.012).

Conclusion

Our study suggests that dexmedetomidine demonstrates effective sedation in patients with postoperative ARF during NIMV application after abdominal surgery. Dexmedetomidine can be considered safe and capable of improving NIMV success.

Sedation and analgesia strategies for non-invasive mechanical ventilation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of sedative and analgesic drugs during non-invasive ventilation (NIV) in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) is controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical effectiveness of sedative and analgesic medications used during NIV for patients with ARF to no sedation or analgesia. In addition, to investigate the characteristics of dexmedetomidine in comparison to other medications.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) were searched. Mean differences (MDs) or pooled risk ratios (RRs) were computed using random-effects models. We applied the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool 2.0 to assess the methodological quality of eligible studies and the GRADE approach to evaluate the evidence certainty.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were selected. Whether in Group A (using sedative and analgesic drugs vs. nonuse) or Group B (using dexmedetomidine vs. other drugs), the rates of tracheal intubation and delirium, the length of NIV, and the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU LOS) all decreased in both experimental groups (P < 0.05). And there were no significant differences in all-cause mortality and the incidence of hypotension between the two groups (P > 0.05), while both Group A and Group B's experimental groups had greater incidences of bradycardia.

CONCLUSIONS

Administering sedative and analgesic medications during NIV can reduce the risk of tracheal intubation and delirium. Additionally, dexmedetomidine outperformed other sedative medications in terms of these clinical outcomes, making it the better option when closely monitoring patients' vital signs.

Role of Sedation and Analgesia during Noninvasive Ventilation: Systematic Review of Recent Evidence and Recommendations

AIM

This systematic review aimed to investigate the drugs used and their potential effect on noninvasive ventilation (NIV).

BACKGROUND

NIV is used increasingly in acute respiratory failure (ARF). Sedation and analgesia are potentially beneficial in NIV, but they can have a deleterious impact. Proper guidelines to specifically address this issue and the recommendations for or against it are scarce in the literature. In the most recent guidelines published in 2017 by the European Respiratory Society/American Thoracic Society (ERS/ATS) relating to NIV use in patients having ARF, the well-defined recommendation on the selective use of sedation and analgesia is missing. Nevertheless, some national guidelines suggested using sedation for agitation.

METHODS

Electronic databases (PubMed/Medline, Google Scholar, and Cochrane library) from January 1999 to December 2019 were searched systematically for research articles related to sedation and analgosedation in NIV. A brief review of the existing literature related to sedation and analgesia was also done.

REVIEW RESULTS

Sixteen articles (five randomized trials) were analyzed. Other trials, guidelines, and reviews published over the last two decades were also discussed. The present review analysis suggests dexmedetomidine as the emerging sedative agent of choice based on the most recent trials because of better efficacy with an improved and predictable cardiorespiratory profile.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence suggests that sedation has a potentially beneficial role in patients at risk of NIV failure due to interface intolerance, anxiety, and pain. However, more randomized controlled trials are needed to comment on this issue and formulate strong evidence-based recommendations.

HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE

Karim HMR, Šarc I, Calandra C, Spadaro S, Mina B, Ciobanu LD, et al. Role of Sedation and Analgesia during Noninvasive Ventilation: Systematic Review of Recent Evidence and Recommendations. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(8):938-948.

Dexmedetomidine promotes apoptosis and suppresses proliferation of hepatocellular carcinoma cells via microRNA-130a/EGR1 axis

Accumulating evidence has revealed the role of microRNAs (miRs) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Dexmedetomidine, a highly selective α₂-adrenergic agonist, is widely used in perioperative settings for analgesia and sedation. Herein, we aimed to determine whether dexmedetomidine might directly regulate miR-130a/early growth response 1 (EGR1) axis in HCC and explore the related mechanisms. miR-130a and EGR1 expression were determined in HCC tissues and their correlation was evaluated. Human HCC cell line HCCLM3 was selected. Upon the determination of the optimal concentration of dexmedetomidine, HCCLM3 cells were treated with dexmedetomidine, miR-130a- or EGR1-related oligonucleotides or plasmids were transfected into cells to explore their functions in cell biological behaviors. miR-130a and EGR1 levels in cells were tested. The targeting relationship between miR-130a and EGR1 was verified. miR-130a was inhibited while EGR1 was elevated in HCC tissues and they were negatively correlated. EGR1 was targeted by miR-130a. With the increase of dexmedetomidine concentration, HCCLM3 cell viability was correspondingly inhibited, miR-130a expression was elevated and EGR1 expression was decreased. Dexmedetomidine, upregulating miR-130a or downregulating EGR1 inhibited proliferation, invasion and migration, and promoted apoptosis of HCCLM3 cells. MiR-130a upregulation/downregulation enhanced/impaired the effect of dexmedetomidine on cell biological behaviors. Our study provides evidence that raising miR-130a enhances the inhibitory effects of dexmedetomidine on HCC cellular growth via inhibiting EGR1. Thus, miR-130a may be a potential candidate for the treatment of HCC.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to prevent delirium in critically ill patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the effects of prevention interventions on delirium occurrence in critically ill adults.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Prospero, and WHO international clinical trial registry were searched from inception to April 8, 2021. Randomized controlled trials of pharmacological, sedation, non-pharmacological, and multi-component interventions enrolling adult critically ill patients were included. We performed conventional pairwise meta-analyses, NMA within Bayesian random effects modeling, and determined surface under the cumulative ranking curve values and mean rank. Reviewer pairs independently extracted data, assessed bias using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and evidence certainty with GRADE. The primary outcome was delirium occurrence; secondary outcomes were durations of delirium and mechanical ventilation, length of stay, mortality, and adverse effects.

RESULTS

Eighty trials met eligibility criteria: 67.5% pharmacological, 31.3% non-pharmacological and 1.2% mixed pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. For delirium occurrence, 11 pharmacological interventions (38 trials, N = 11,993) connected to the evidence network. Compared to placebo, only dexmedetomidine (21/22 alpha2 agonist trials were dexmedetomidine) probably reduces delirium occurrence (odds ratio (OR) 0.43, 95% Credible Interval (CrI) 0.21-0.85; moderate certainty). Compared to benzodiazepines, dexmedetomidine (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.08-0.51; low certainty), sedation interruption (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.06-0.69; very low certainty), opioid plus benzodiazepine (OR 0.27, 95% CrI 0.10-0.76; very low certainty), and protocolized sedation (OR 0.27, 95% CrI 0.09-0.80; very low certainty) may reduce delirium occurrence but the evidence is very uncertain. Dexmedetomidine probably reduces ICU length of stay compared to placebo (Ratio of Means (RoM) 0.78, CrI 0.64-0.95; moderate certainty) and compared to antipsychotics (RoM 0.76, CrI 0.61-0.98; low certainty). Sedative interruption, protocolized sedation and opioids may reduce hospital length of stay compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain. No intervention influenced mechanical ventilation duration, mortality, or arrhythmia. Single and multi-component non-pharmacological interventions did not connect to any evidence networks to allow for ranking and comparisons as planned; pairwise comparisons did not detect differences compared to standard care.

CONCLUSION

Compared to placebo and benzodiazepines, we found dexmedetomidine likely reduced the occurrence of delirium in critically ill adults. Compared to benzodiazepines, sedation-minimization strategies may also reduce delirium occurrence, but the evidence is uncertain.

Butorphanol versus Propofol in Patients Undergoing Noninvasive Ventilation: A Prospective Observational Study

Background

The present study aimed to explore sedation management in agitated patients who suffered from acute respiratory failure (ARF) and were treated with noninvasive ventilation (NIV).

Patients and Methods

We divided 118 patients undergoing NIV treatment with butorphanol or propofol into two groups: group B (n = 57, butorphanol was initiated at the rate of 0.12 µg/kg/min as a continuous intravenous infusion and then titrated by 0.06 µg/kg/min every half an hour, group P (n = 61, propofol was initiated at the rate of 5 µg/kg/min as a continuous intravenous infusion and then titrated by 1.5 µg/kg/min every half an hour). Score of Sedation Agitation Scale (SAS) in the two groups was maintained between 3 and 4. Medications including sedative, analgesic, and antipsychotic, NIV intolerance score, SAS score, visual analog scale (VAS), medication use and adverse events were recorded repeatedly.

Results

Patients receiving butorphanol required significantly less total amount of fentanyl than patients receiving propofol during NIV to maintain the target VAS [0 (0–0) µg vs 150 (50–200) µg, P< 0.005]. Hemodynamic stability during NIV showed it was better kept in patients treated with butorphanol.

Conclusion

Butorphanol not only decreased the requirements of fentanyl but also enhanced hemodynamic stability in agitated patients suffering from ARF receiving NIV.

Trial Registration

Registered at http://www.chictr.org.cn/ (ChiCTR1800015534).

Safety and Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine in Acutely Ill Adults Requiring Noninvasive Ventilation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Although clinical studies have evaluated dexmedetomidine as a strategy to improve noninvasive ventilation (NIV) comfort and tolerance in patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF), their results have not been summarized.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does dexmedetomidine, when compared with another sedative or placebo, reduce the risk of delirium, mortality, need for intubation and mechanical ventilation, or ICU length of stay (LOS) in adults with ARF initiated on NIV in the ICU?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We electronically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception through July 31, 2020, for randomized clinical trials (RCTs). We calculated pooled relative risks (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes with the corresponding 95% CIs using a random-effect model.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs were included in our final analysis (n = 738 patients). The use of dexmedetomidine, compared with other sedation strategies or placebo, reduced the risk of intubation (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.41-0.71; moderate certainty), delirium (RR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.22-0.54; moderate certainty), and ICU LOS (MD, -2.40 days; 95% CI, -3.51 to -1.29 days; low certainty). Use of dexmedetomidine was associated with an increased risk of bradycardia (RR, 2.80; 95% CI, 1.92-4.07; moderate certainty) and hypotension (RR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.32-2.98; moderate certainty).

INTERPRETATION

Compared with any sedation strategy or placebo, dexmedetomidine reduced the risk of delirium and the need for mechanical ventilation while increasing the risk of bradycardia and hypotension. The results are limited by imprecision, and further large RCTs are needed.

TRIAL REGISTRY

PROSPERO; No.: 175086; URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/.

Efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in patients receiving mechanical ventilation: Evidence from randomized controlled trials

At present, the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) is still controversial. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine in MV patients by reviewing the results of randomized controlled trials (RCT). RCTs evaluating the efficacy of dexmedetomidine in the treatment of MV patients were obtained by searching relevant online databases, including PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Medline, OVID, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Literature meeting the inclusion criteria were selected and evaluated by two researchers independently. Risk ratio (RR)/standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to express the differences between groups. Seven RCTs were included in our study, with 986 participants in the dexmedetomidine group and 862 participants in the control group. Summary analysis results displayed no reduction in 30-day mortality (RR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.59 to 1.02), delirium (RR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.57 to 1.03), and adverse events (RR = 1.06, 95% CI: 0.22 to 5.08) in the dexmedetomidine group compared with the control group. As the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) were presented as median and interquartile range (IQR)/standard deviation (SD), descriptive analysis of the results were performed. Generally, for 99.65% (953/986) of patients, dexmedetomidine was not better than the control group in reducing ICU length of stay. Our results demonstrate that for patients requiring MV, dexmedetomidine was not superior to the control group. However, analysis of more RCTs is required to confirm this conclusion.

Remifentanil versus dexmedetomidine for treatment of cardiac surgery patients with moderate to severe noninvasive ventilation intolerance (REDNIVIN): a prospective, cohort study

BACKGROUND

The use of sedation to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) patients remains controversial, however, for intolerant patients who are uncooperative, administration of analgesics and sedatives may be beneficial before resorting to intubation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of remifentanil (REM) versus dexmedetomidine (DEX) for treatment of cardiac surgery (CS) patients with moderate to severe NIV intolerance.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study of CS patients with moderate to severe NIV intolerance was conducted between January 2018 and March 2019. Patients were treated with either REM or DEX, decided by the bedside intensivist. Depending on the treatment regimen, the patients were allocated to one of two groups: the REM group or DEX group.

RESULTS

A total of 90 patients were enrolled in this study (52 in the REM group and 38 in the DEX group). The mitigation rate, defined as the percentage of patients who were relieved from the initial moderate to severe intolerant status, was greater in the REM group than DEX group at 15 min and 3 h (15 min: 83% vs. 61%, P=0.029; 3 h: 92% vs. 74%, P=0.016), although the mean mitigation rate (81% vs. 85%, P=0.800) was comparable between the two groups. NIV failure, defined as reintubation or death over the course of study, was comparable between the two groups (19.2% vs. 21.1%, respectively, P=0.831). There were no significant differences between the two groups in other clinical outcomes, including tracheostomy (15.4% vs. 15.8%, P=0.958), in-hospital mortality (11.5% vs. 10.5%, P=0.880), ICU length of stay (LOS) (7 vs. 7 days, P=0.802), and in-hospital LOS (17 vs. 19 days, P=0.589).

CONCLUSIONS

REM was as effective as DEX in CS patients with moderate to severe NIV intolerance. Although the effect of REM was better than that of DEX over the first 3 h, the cumulative effect was similar between the two treatments.

Effects of dexmedetomidine vs sufentanil during percutaneous tracheostomy for traumatic brain injury patients: A prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Percutaneous tracheostomy, almost associated with cough reflex and hemodynamic fluctuations, is a common procedure for traumatic brain injury (TBI) patients, especially those in neurosurgery intensive care units (NICUs). However, there are currently a lack of effective preventive measures to reduce the risk of secondary brain injury. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of dexmedetomidine (DEX) vs sufentanil during percutaneous tracheostomy in TBI patients.

METHODS

The 196 TBI patients who underwent percutaneous tracheostomy were randomized divided into 3 groups: group D1 (n = 62, DEX infusion at 0.5 μg·kg for 10 minutes, then adjusted to 0.2-0.7 μg·kg·hour), group D2 (n = 68, DEX infusion at 1 μg·kg for 10 minutes, then adjusted to 0.2-0.7 μg·kg·hour), and group S (n = 66, sufentanil infusion 0.3 μg·kg for 10 minutes, then adjusted to 0.2-0.4 μg·kg·hour). The bispectral index (BIS) of all patients was maintained at 50 to 70 during surgery. Anesthesia onset time, hemodynamic variables, total cumulative dose of DEX/sufentanil, total doses of rescue propofol and fentanyl, time to first dose of rescue propofol and fentanyl, number of intraoperative patient movements and cough reflexes, adverse events, and surgeon satisfaction score were recorded.

RESULTS

Anesthesia onset time was significantly lower in group D2 than in both other groups (14.35 ± 3.23 vs 12.42 ± 2.12 vs 13.88 ± 3.51 minutes in groups D1, D2, and S, respectively; P < .001). Both heart rate and mean arterial pressure during percutaneous tracheostomy were more stable in group D2. Total doses of rescue propofol and fentanyl were significantly lower in group D2 than in group D1 (P < .001). The time to first dose of rescue propofol and fentanyl were significantly longer in group D2 than in both other groups (P < .001). The number of patient movements and cough reflexes during percutaneous tracheostomy were lower in group D2 than in both other groups (P < .001). The overall incidences of tachycardia and hypertension (which required higher doses of esmolol and urapidil, respectively) were also lower in group D2 than in both other groups (P < .05). Three patients in group S had respiratory depression compared to X in the D1 group and X in the D2 group. The surgeon satisfaction score was significantly higher in group D2 than in both other groups (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

During percutaneous tracheostomy, compared with sufentanil, DEX (1 μg·kg for 10 minutes, then adjusted to 0.2-0.7 μg·kg·hour) can provide the desired attenuation of the hemodynamic response without increased adverse events. Consequently, DEX could be used safely and effectively during percutaneous tracheostomy in TBI patients.

Dexmedetomidine to facilitate non-invasive ventilation after blunt chest trauma: A randomised, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled pilot study

BACKGROUND

Although non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is recommended in patients with chest trauma, this procedure may expose to discomfort and even failure due to agitation or excessive pain. We tested the impact of dexmedetomidine on the duration of the first session of NIV.

METHODS

This randomised, crossover study enrolled 19 patients with blunt chest trauma who needed NIV. During one cycle comprising two NIV sessions, patients received in a random order an intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine (0.7mcg/kg/h) and placebo (saline solution) that was initiated 60min prior to NIV. Dexmedetomidine (or placebo) was titrated to maintain a Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) score between 0 and -3. A 6-h washout period was observed between NIV sessions. The reproducibility of the drug-related effects was tested during a second cycle of two NIV sessions.

RESULTS

During the first cycle, dexmedetomidine prolonged the duration of NIV compared to placebo: 280min (118-450) (median, 25-75th quartiles) versus 120min (68-287) respectively, corresponding to a median increased duration of 96min (12-180) (P=0.03). Dexmedetomidine was associated with a lower score for RASS: -0.8 (-1.0;0.0) versus 0.0 (-0.5;0.0) (P<0.01), and reduced respiratory discomfort according to the 10cm visual similar scale: 0.6cm (0.0-3.0) versus 2.2cm (0.0-5.3) (P=0.05). Pain scores, morphine consumption, and blood gas measurements were comparable between groups. No difference in the duration of non-invasive ventilation was found during the second cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

In this pilot trial, dexmedetomidine could facilitate the acceptance of the first session of non-invasive ventilation for patients with chest trauma.

Sedative drugs used for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effects of different sedative drugs on all-cause mortality rate, duration of ICU stay, and risk of delirium in mechanically ventilated ICU patients are unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of individual sedative drugs and drug combinations in mechanically ventilated ICU patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medline, Embase, Cochrane, EBSCOhost, and ISI Web of Science databases were searched for studies that assessed sedation in ICU mechanically ventilated patients. A Bayesian random-effects model was used to combine the direct comparisons and indirect evidence.

RESULTS

Thirty-one randomized, controlled trials were included, which consisted of 4491 patients who received one of seven sedative drugs or a combination of drugs. There were no significant differences regarding the all-cause mortality rate. Compared to propofol, inhalation anesthetics (hazard ratio [HR] 0.121; 95% credible interval [CrI] -7.58 to 7.62), alpha agonists (HR 2.2; 95% CrI 0.776 to 5.22), propofol with benzodiazepines (HR 0.306; 95% CrI -6.97 to 7.65), ketamine with benzodiazepines (HR 6.57; 95% CrI -6.05 to 19.1) and placebo (HR 2.4; 95% CrI -5.37 to 10.3), benzodiazepines (HR 3.62; 95% CrI 0.834 to 6.2) may increase the duration of ICU stay. Compared to alpha agonists, propofol (HR 2.4; 95% CrI 0.304 to 21.1) and placebo (HR 6.12; 95% CrI 0.745 to 54.6), benzodiazepines (HR 2.59; 95% CrI 1.08 to 7.4) were associated with incremental risks of delirium.

CONCLUSION

Compared to propofol, benzodiazepines may increase the duration of ICU stay. Compared to alpha agonists, benzodiazepines were associated with an increased risk of delirium.

Benefits of non-invasive ventilation in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) with bilevel positive airway pressure is a non-invasive technique, which refers to the provision of ventilatory support through the patient's upper airway using a mask or similar device. This technique is successful in correcting hypoventilation. It has become widely accepted as the standard treatment for patients with hypercapnic respiratory failure (HRF). Since the 1980s, NIV has been used in intensive care units and, after initial anecdotal reports and larger series, a number of randomized trials have been conducted. Data from these trials have shown that NIV is a valuable treatment for HRF. This review aims to explore the principal areas in which NIV can be useful, focusing particularly on patients with acute HRF (AHRF). We will update the evidence base with the goal of supporting clinical practice. We provide a practical description of the main indications for NIV in AHRF and identify the group of patients with hypercapnic failure who will benefit most from the application of NIV.

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.

Differential role of intravenous anesthetics in colorectal cancer progression: implications for clinical application

Anesthetics are unavoidable to colorectal cancer (CRC) patients who underwent surgical treatment. Thus, the molecular mechanisms underlying the role of the intravenous anesthetics in CRC metastasis are still unclear. In this study, the effects of intravenous anesthetics, such as propofol, etomidate and dexmedetomidine, on cell migration were determined. The migration of CRC cells was inhibited by propofol in vitro, but not in vivo. Etomidate, however, promoted the migration of CRC cells both in vitro and in vivo. Epithelial-mesenchymal transition (EMT) mediated the promotive effect of propofol and etomidate on the migration of CRC cells through PI3K/AKT signaling pathway. Dexmedetomidine alone or in combination with propofol or etomidate had minor effect on the migration of CRC cells. These findings indicate that propofol inhibites CRC cell migration in vitro. Etomidate playes a role for prompting CRC metastasis progression by activating (PI3K)/AKT signaling and inducing EMT. It provides an important hint for the clinical application of these anesthetics.

Use of Dexmedetomidine in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia

Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective α₂-adrenergic agonist with analgesic and sedative properties. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration approved the use of the drug for short-lasting sedation (24 h) in intensive care units (ICUs) in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation and endotracheal intubation. In October 2008, the Food and Drug Administration extended use of the drug for the sedation of nonintubated patients before and during surgical and nonsurgical procedures. In the European Union, the European Medicine Agency approved the use of dexmedetomidine in September 2011 with a single recognized indication: ICU adult patients requiring mild sedation and awakening in response to verbal stimulus. At present, the use of dexmedetomidine for sedation outside the ICU remains an off-label indication. The benefits of dexmedetomidine in critically ill patients and in cardiac, electrophysiology-related, vascular, and thoracic procedures are discussed.

Ten important articles on noninvasive ventilation in critically ill patients and insights for the future: A report of expert opinions

BACKGROUND

Noninvasive ventilation is used worldwide in many settings. Its effectiveness has been proven for common clinical conditions in critical care such as cardiogenic pulmonary edema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbations. Since the first pioneering studies of noninvasive ventilation in critical care in the late 1980s, thousands of studies and articles have been published on this topic. Interestingly, some aspects remain controversial (e.g. its use in de-novo hypoxemic respiratory failure, role of sedation, self-induced lung injury). Moreover, the role of NIV has recently been questioned and reconsidered in light of the recent reports of new techniques such as high-flow oxygen nasal therapy.

METHODS

We conducted a survey among leading experts on NIV aiming to 1) identify a selection of 10 important articles on NIV in the critical care setting 2) summarize the reasons for the selection of each study 3) offer insights on the future for both clinical application and research on NIV.

RESULTS

The experts selected articles over a span of 26 years, more clustered in the last 15 years. The most voted article studied the role of NIV in acute exacerbation chronic pulmonary disease. Concerning the future of clinical applications for and research on NIV, most of the experts forecast the development of innovative new interfaces more adaptable to patients characteristics, the need for good well-designed large randomized controlled trials of NIV in acute "de novo" hypoxemic respiratory failure (including its comparison with high-flow oxygen nasal therapy) and the development of software-based NIV settings to enhance patient-ventilator synchrony.

CONCLUSIONS

The selection made by the experts suggests that some applications of NIV in critical care are supported by solid data (e.g. COPD exacerbation) while others are still waiting for confirmation. Moreover, the identified insights for the future would lead to improved clinical effectiveness, new comparisons and evaluation of its role in still "lack of full evidence" clinical settings.

Non invasive ventilation in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a hospital and at home

Last two decades, active use of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) has provided a significant improvement in the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), both in patients with acute exacerbation and in stable patients. Currently, NIV is the first-line treatment for patients with acute exacerbation of COPD and acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. This method of respiratory support is also effective after extubation, as it could facilitate weaning from the ventilator and affects positively prevention and treatment of postextubation respiratory failure. Also, NIV has been successfully used in co-morbidity of COPD and sleep apnea syndrome, COPD and pneumonia, and in early postoperative period after thoracic surgery. NIV can be used in COPD patients with chronic respiratory failure. Long-term NIV at home is more reasonable in patients with daytime hypercapnia. The most effective strategy of respiratory support in COPD is thought to be decrease in the partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the arterial blood, i.e. high-intensity NIV. Currently available portable non-invasive ventilators could improve significantly physical activity of patients with severe COPD.

Experienced Use of Dexmedetomidine in the Intensive Care Unit: A Report of a Structured Consensus

Objective

Management of pain, agitation and delirium (PAD) remains to be a true challenge in critically ill patients. The pharmacological proprieties of dexmedetomidine (DEX) make it an ideal candidate drug for light and cooperative sedation, but many practical questions remain unanswered. This structured consensus from 17 intensivists well experienced on PAD management and DEX use provides indications for the appropriate use of DEX in clinical practice.

Methods

A modified RAND/UCLA appropriateness method was used. In four predefined patient populations, the clinical scenarios do not properly cope by the current recommended pharmacological strategies (except DEX), and the possible advantages of DEX use were identified and voted for agreement, after reviewing literature data.

Results

Three scenarios in medical patients, five scenarios in patients with acute respiratory failure undergoing non-invasive ventilation, three scenarios in patients with cardiac surgery in the early postoperative period and three scenarios in patients with overt delirium were identified as challenging with the current PAD strategies. In these scenarios, the use of DEX was voted as potentially useful by most of the panellists owing to its specific pharmacological characteristics, such as conservation of cognitive function, lack of effects on the respiratory drive, low induction of delirium and analgesia effects.

Conclusion

DEX might be considered as a first-line sedative in different scenarios even though conclusive data on its benefits are still lacking.

Effect of a musical intervention on tolerance and efficacy of non-invasive ventilation in the ICU: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial (MUSique pour l'Insuffisance Respiratoire Aigue - Mus-IRA)

Background

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) tolerance is a key factor of NIV success. Hence, numerous sedative pharmacological or non-pharmacological strategies have been assessed to improve NIV tolerance. Music therapy in various health care settings has shown beneficial effects. In invasively ventilated critical care patients, encouraging results of music therapy on physiological parameters, anxiety, and agitation have been reported. We hypothesize that a musical intervention improves NIV tolerance in comparison to conventional care. We therefore question the potential benefit of a receptive music session administered to patients by trained caregivers (“musical intervention”) to enhance acceptance and tolerance of NIV.

Methods/design

We conduct a prospective, three-center, open-label, three-arm randomized trial involving patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) who require NIV, as assessed by the treating physician. Participants are allocated to a “musical intervention” arm (“musical intervention” applied during all NIV sessions), to a “sensory deprivation” arm (sight and hearing isolation during all NIV sessions), or to the control group. The primary endpoint is the change in respiratory comfort (measured with a digital visual scale) before the initiation and after 30 minutes of the first NIV session. The evaluation of the primary endpoint is performed blindly from the treatment group. Secondary endpoints include changes in respiratory and cardiovascular parameters during NIV sessions, the percentage of patients requiring endotracheal intubation, day-90 anxiety/depression and health-related quality of life, post-trauma stress induced by NIV, and the overall assessment of NIV.

The follow-up for each participant is 90 days. We expect to randomize a total of 99 participants.

Discussion

As music intervention is a simple and easy-to-implement non-pharmacological technique, efficacious in reducing anxiety in critically ill patients, it appeared logical to assess its efficacy in NIV, one of the most stressful techniques used in the ICU. Patient centeredness was crucial in choosing the outcomes assessed.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02265458. Registered on 25 August 2014.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1574-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Noninvasive Ventilation

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has assumed a prominent role in the treatment of patients with both hypoxemic and hypercapnic acute respiratory failure (ARF). The main theoretic advantages of NIV include avoiding side effects and complications associated with endotracheal intubation, improving patient comfort, and preserving airway defense mechanisms. Factors that affect the success of NIV in patients with ARF are clinicians' expertise, selection of patient, choice of interface, selection of ventilator setting, proper monitoring, and patient motivation. Advances in the understanding of the physiologic aspects of using NIV through different interfaces and ventilator modalities have improved patient-machine interaction, thus enhancing favorable NIV outcome.

[Pain, agitation and delirium in acute respiratory failure]

Avoiding pain, agitation and delirium as well as avoiding unnecessary deep sedation is a powerful yet challenging strategy in critical care medicine. A number of interactions between cerebral function and respiratory function should be regarded in patients with respiratory failure and mechanical ventilation. A cooperative sedation strategy (i.e. patient is awake and free of pain and delirium) is feasible in many patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. Especially patients with mild acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) seem to benefit from preserved spontaneous breathing. While completely disabling spontaneous ventilation with or without neuromuscular blockade is not a standard strategy in ARDS, it might be temporarily required in patients with severe ARDS, who have substantial dyssynchrony or persistent hypoxaemia. Since pain, agitation and delirium compromise respiratory function they should also be regarded during noninvasive ventilation and during ventilator weaning. Pharmacological sedation can have favourable effects in these situations, but should not be given routinely or uncritically.

Sedation/drugs used in intensive care sedation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

There is recognition that the use of sedative drugs in critically ill patients is potentially harmful, particularly in relation to ICU delirium and clinical outcomes. In that context, there is an increasing interest in maintaining light sedation, the use of non-gamma-aminobutyric acid agonist agents and antipsychotics.

RECENT FINDINGS

The sedative drugs currently available have limitations relating to duration of action, cost or variability in response. Recent reviews and meta-analyses comparing sedatives in ICU patients differ in their findings depending on whether trials in elective cardiac surgical patients are included. Dexmedetomidine does appear to reduce the number of ventilator days in the less sick critically ill patient. There is currently no evidence to support the routine use of antipsychotics in ICU patients to prevent or treat delirium, although they will reduce agitation and they appear to be well tolerated when used in the critically ill patient. Sedation protocols and early mobilization reduce the use of sedative drugs and improve some outcomes but are challenging to implement in practice.

SUMMARY

The bedside clinician needs to balance the need to sedate the patient and maintain life-saving support, while keeping their patient responsive, cooperative and pain free.

Impact of sedation and analgesia during noninvasive positive pressure ventilation on outcome: a marginal structural model causal analysis

PURPOSE

There are limited data available about the role of sedation and analgesia during noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NPPV). The objective of study was to estimate the effect of analgesic or sedative drugs on the failure of NPPV.

METHODS

We studied patients who received at least 2 h of NPPV as first-line therapy in a prospective observational study carried out in 322 intensive care units from 30 countries. A marginal structural model (MSM) was used to analyze the association between the use of analgesic or sedative drugs and NPPV failure (defined as need for invasive mechanical ventilation).

RESULTS

842 patients were included in the analysis. Of these, 165 patients (19.6%) received analgesic or sedative drugs at some time during NPPV; 33 of them received both. In the adjusted analysis, the use of analgesics (odds ratio 1.8, 95% confidence interval 0.6-5.4) or sedatives (odds ratio 2.8, 95% CI 0.85-9.4) alone was not associated with NPPV failure, but their combined use was associated with failure (odds ratio 5.7, 95% CI 1.8-18.4).

CONCLUSIONS

Slightly less than 20% of patients received analgesic or sedative drugs during NPPV, with no apparent effect on outcome when used alone. However, the simultaneous use of analgesics and sedatives may be associated with failure of NPPV.

Neurocognitive dysfunction risk alleviation with the use of dexmedetomidine in perioperative conditions or as ICU sedation: a meta-analysis

Many studies have reported the beneficial effects of dexmedetomidine on postoperative neurocognitive function but overall evidence is not as clear. We examined this conundrum by meta-analyzing studies that used dexmedetomidine in perioperative conditions or as intensive care unit (ICU) sedation and utilized reliable neurocognitive assessment tests. The literature search was undertaken across several electronic databases including EBSCO, Embase, Google Scholar, Ovid SP, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Literature search was carried out across several electronic databases and relevant studies were selected after following précised inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of risk differences (RDs) was carried out and subgroup analyses were performed. Twenty studies were selected from which data of 2612 individuals were used. Initial dexmedetomidine dose was 0.68 ± 0.27 and maintenance dose was 0.54 ± 0.32 in the trials. Dexmedetomidine treatment was associated with significantly lower risk of postoperative/postanesthesia neurocognitive dysfunction both in comparison with saline-treated controls (RD [95% confidence interval, CI]: -0.17 (-0.30, -0.04); P = 0.008) and comparators (-0.16 [-0.28, -0.04]; P = 0.009). In the subgroups analyses, however, there was no significant differences between dexmedetomidine and controls/comparators when studies with confusion assessment method for ICU only (RD: -0.10 (-0.22, 0.02); P = 0.1) or midazolam as comparator only (RD: -0.26 (-0.60, 0.07); P = 0.12) were meta-analyzed. Dexmedetomidine use in the perioperative conditions or as ICU sedation is associated with lower risk of neurocognitive dysfunction. There can be some impact of neurocognitive assessment method, drug interactions, and clinical heterogeneity on the overall outcomes of this meta-analysis.

Sedation in non-invasive ventilation: do we know what to do (and why)?

This review examines some of the issues encountered in the use of sedation in patients receiving respiratory support from non-invasive ventilation (NIV). This is an area of critical and intensive care medicine where there are limited (if any) robust data to guide the development of best practice and where local custom appears to exert a strong influence on patterns of care.

We examine aspects of sedation for NIV where the current lack of structure may be contributing to missed opportunities to improve standards of care and examine the existing sedative armamentarium. No single sedative agent is currently available that fulfils the criteria for an ideal agent but we offer some observations on the relative merits of different agents as they relate to considerations such as effects on respiratory drive and timing, and airways patency. The significance of agitation and delirium and the affective aspect(s) of dyspnoea are also considered.

We outline an agenda for placing the use of sedation in NIV on a more systematic footing, including clearly expressed criteria and conditions for terminating NIV and structural and organizational conditions for prospective multicentre trials.