ICU sedation with haloperidol-propofol infusion versus midazolam-propofol infusion after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a prospective, double-blind randomized study

The efficacy and safety of haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Purpose

Delirium is common during critical illness and is associated with poor outcomes. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to investigate the efficacy and safety of haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in critically ill patients.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials enrolling critically ill adult patients to compare haloperidol with placebo were searched from inception through to February 20th, 2023. The primary outcome were delirium-free days and overall mortality, secondary outcomes were length of intensive care unit stay, length of hospital stay, and adverse events.

Results

Nine trials were included in our meta-analysis, with a total of 3,916 critically ill patients. Overall, the pooled analyses showed no significant difference between critically ill patients treated with haloperidol and placebo for the delirium-free days (MD -0.01, 95%CI -0.36 to 0.34, p = 0.95, I2 = 30%), overall mortality (OR 0.89, 95%CI 0.76 to 1.04, p = 0.14, I2 = 0%), length of intensive care unit stay (MD -0.06, 95%CI -0.16 to 0.03, p = 0.19, I2 = 0%), length of hospital stay (MD -0.06, 95%CI -0.61 to 0.49, p = 0.83, I2 = 0%), and adverse events (OR 0.90, 95%CI 0.60 to 1.37, p = 0.63, I2 = 0%).

Conclusion

Among critically ill patients, the use of haloperidol as compared to placebo has no significant effect on delirium-free days, overall mortality, length of intensive care unit and/or hospital stay. Moreover, the use of haloperidol did not increase the risk of adverse events.

Preventive strategies and potential therapeutic interventions for delirium in sepsis

Delirium is the most frequent and severe clinical presentation of brain dysfunction in critically ill septic patients with an incidence ranging from 9% to 71%. Delirium represents a significant burden for patients and relatives, as well as to the health care system, resulting in higher costs, long-term cognitive impairment and significant risk of death after 6 months. Current interventions for the prevention of delirium typically involve early recognition and amelioration of modifiable risk factors and treatment of underlying conditions that predisposes the individual to delirium. Several pharmacological interventions to prevent and treat delirium have been tested, although their effectiveness remains uncertain, especially in larger and more homogeneous subgroups of ICU patients, like in patients with sepsis. To date, there is inconsistent and conflicting data regarding the efficacy of any particular pharmacological agent, thus substantial attention has been paid to non-pharmacological interventions and preventive strategies should be applied to every patient admitted in the ICU. Future trials should be designed to evaluate the impact of these pharmacologic interventions on the prevention and treatment of delirium on clinically relevant outcomes such as length of stay, hospital mortality and long-term cognitive function. The role of specific medications like statins in delirium prevention is also yet to be evaluated.

Intraoperative haloperidol does not improve quality of recovery and postoperative analgesia

Introduction:

Haloperidol has an established role in nausea and vomiting prophylaxis and possible effects on multiple aspects of postoperative recovery including pain and sedation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of low-dose intraoperative intravenous haloperidol on quality of recovery (QoR) and pain control after general anesthesia and surgery.

Methods:

Ninety eight American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-II patients undergoing elective general, gynecologic or orthopedic surgery under general anesthesia were enrolled. Participants were randomly allocated to receive either haloperidol 2 mg or sterile water intravenously after induction of anesthesia. All patients were given elastometric morphine patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pump for pain control after the surgery. Post-operative QoR was evaluated within 20 min in the recovery room and 6 h post-operatively. Pain intensity and demand for additional analgesic was measured in the 6^th post-operative hour.

Results:

The QoR score in two measurements was not statistically different between the two groups. Haloperidol significantly reduced the nausea in the recovery. The visual analog scale pain score showed that the severity of pain in the haloperidol group was more than the placebo group (4.7 ± 2.4 vs. 3.8 ± 2.5, P = 0.05).

Conclusion:

Intraoperative small-dose IV haloperidol is effective against post-operative nausea and vomiting with no significant effect on overall QoR. It may also attenuate the analgesic effects of morphine PCA.

Effect of intravenous haloperidol on the duration of delirium and coma in critically ill patients (Hope-ICU): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2013;1:515-523. [PMID: 24461612 DOI: 10.1016/s2213-2600(13)70166-8]

BACKGROUND

Delirium is frequently diagnosed in critically ill patients and is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Haloperidol is the most commonly used drug for delirium despite little evidence of its effectiveness. The aim of this study was to establish whether early treatment with haloperidol would decrease the time that survivors of critical illness spent in delirium or coma.

METHODS

We did this double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in a general adult intensive care unit (ICU). Critically ill patients (≥18 years) needing mechanical ventilation within 72 h of admission were enrolled. Patients were randomised (by an independent nurse, in 1:1 ratio, with permuted block size of four and six, using a centralised, secure web-based randomisation service) to receive haloperidol 2.5 mg or 0.9% saline placebo intravenously every 8 h, irrespective of coma or delirium status. Study drug was discontinued on ICU discharge, once delirium-free and coma-free for 2 consecutive days, or after a maximum of 14 days of treatment, whichever came first. Delirium was assessed using the confusion assessment method for the ICU (CAM-ICU). The primary outcome was delirium-free and coma-free days, defined as the number of days in the first 14 days after randomisation during which the patient was alive without delirium and not in coma from any cause. Patients who died within the 14 day study period were recorded as having 0 days free of delirium and coma. ICU clinical and research staff and patients were masked to treatment throughout the study. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Registry, number ISRCTN83567338.

FINDINGS

142 patients were randomised, 141 were included in the final analysis (71 haloperidol, 70 placebo). Patients in the haloperidol group spent about the same number of days alive, without delirium, and without coma as did patients in the placebo group (median 5 days [IQR 0-10] vs 6 days [0-11] days; p=0.53). The most common adverse events were oversedation (11 patients in the haloperidol group vs six in the placebo group) and QTc prolongation (seven patients in the haloperidol group vs six in the placebo group). No patient had a serious adverse event related to the study drug.

INTERPRETATION

These results do not support the hypothesis that haloperidol modifies duration of delirium in critically ill patients. Although haloperidol can be used safely in this population of patients, pending the results of trials in progress, the use of intravenous haloperidol should be reserved for short-term management of acute agitation.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research.

Get to the point in intensive care medicine--the sooner the better?

Timing of therapy plays a pivotal role in intensive care patients. Although being evident and self-explanatory, it has to be considered that the appropriateness of a specific therapeutic intervention is likewise important. In view of antibiotic therapy of critically ill patients, the available evidence supports the concept of hitting hard, early (as soon as possible and at least before the onset of shock) and appropriately. There is increasing evidence that a positive fluid balance is not only a cosmetic problem but is associated with increased morbidity. However, prospective studies are needed to elucidate whether a positive net fluid balance represents the cause or the effect of a specific disease. Since central venous pressure (CVP) is an unreliable marker of fluid responsiveness, its clinical use to guide fluid therapy is questionable. Dynamic hemodynamic parameters seem to be superior to CVP in predicting fluid responsiveness in hemodynamically unstable patients. Sedation is often used to facilitate mechanical ventilation. Since there is no best evidence-based sedation protocol, weaning strategies should take the risk of iatrogenic arterial hypotension secondary to high doses of vasodilatory sedative agents into account. In this regard, the concept of daily wake-up calls should be challenged, because higher cumulative doses of sedatives may be required. The right dose and timing for renal replacement therapy is still discussed controversially and remains a subjective decision of the attending physician. New renal biomarkers may perhaps be helpful to validate when (and how) renal replacement therapy should be performed best. Last but not least, all therapeutic interventions should take the individual co-morbidities and underlying pathophysiological conditions into account.