Comparison of propofol and dexmedetomidine infused overnight to treat hyperactive and mixed ICU delirium: a protocol for the Basel ProDex clinical trial

Propofol-Related Infusion Syndrome: A Bibliometric Analysis of the 100 Most-Cited Articles

Propofol-related infusion syndrome (PRIS) is a rare, yet life-threatening sequelae to prolonged administration of the anesthetic propofol in mechanically intubated patients. The condition is characterized by progressive multi-system organ failure and eventual mortality; of note, the predominant characteristics of PRIS involve but are not limited to cardiovascular impairment and collapse, metabolic and lactic acidosis, rhabdomyolysis, hyperkalemia, and acute renal failure. While potent or extended doses of propofol have been found to be the primary precipitating factor of this condition, others such as age, critical illness, steroid therapy, and hyperlipidemia have been discovered to play a role as well. This bibliometric analysis was done to reflect the current relevance and understanding of PRIS in recent literature. The SCOPUS database was utilized to conduct a search for articles with keywords "propofol infusion syndrome" and "propofol syndrome" from February 24, 2001, until April 16, 2023, with parameters for article title, citation number, citation per year, author, institution, publishing journal, and country of origin. PRIS was first defined in 1990, just a year after its approval by the Food and Drug Administration for use as a sedative-hypnotic. Since then, interest in PRIS slowly rose up to 13 publications per year in 2013. Seven papers on the topic were published in Critical Care Medicine, six in Neurocritical Care, and four in Anesthesia. The most common institutions were Mayo Clinic, Northeastern University, and Tufts Medical Center. To our knowledge, this is the first bibliometric analysis to evaluate the most influential publications about PRIS. A majority of the research is case-based, possibly owing to the rarity of the condition. Our research suggests that confounding factors outside the precipitating dosage of propofol may be implicated in the onset and progression of PRIS. This study could therefore bring renewed interest to the topic and lead to additional research focused on fully understanding the pathophysiology of PRIS in order to promote the development of novel diagnostics and treatment.

Risk factors for delirium after surgery for craniocerebral injury in the neurosurgical intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Postoperative delirium is common in patients who undergo neurosurgery for craniocerebral injury. However, there is no specific medical test to predict postoperative delirium to date.

AIM

To explore risk factors for postoperative delirium in patients with craniocerebral injury in the neurosurgery intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was performed in 120 patients with craniocerebral injury admitted to Hainan People’s Hospital/Hainan Hospital Affiliated to Hainan Medical University, The First Affiliated Hospital of Hainan Medical University, and The Second Affiliated Hospital of Hainan Medical University between January 2018 and January 2020. The patients were categorized into groups based on whether delirium occurred. Of them, 25 patients with delirium were included in the delirium group, and 95 patients without delirium were included in the observation group. Logistic regression analysis was used to explore the association between sex, age, educational level, Glasgow coma scale (GCS), complications (with or without concussion, cerebral contusion, hypoxemia and ventricular compression) and site of injury and delirium.

RESULTS

The GCS score above 8 and concomitant disease of cerebral concussion, cerebral contusion, hypoxemia and ventricular compression, and damage to the frontal lobe were associated with delirium in patients admitted to neurosurgical intensive care unit (ICU) (all P < 0.05). However, age, sex, administration more than three medicines, and educational level were not significantly associated with the onset of delirium in patients with craniocerebral injury in the neurosurgical ICU (P < 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that GCS score above 8, cerebral concussion, cerebral contusion, hypoxemia, ventricle compression, and frontal lobe disorders were independent risk factors for delirium in patients with craniocerebral injury in the neurosurgical ICU (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

GCS score, concussive concussion, cerebral contusion, hypoxemia, ventricle compression, and damage to frontal lobe are risk factors of postoperative delirium.

Neurologic Manifestations of Systemic Disease: Sleep Disorders

Purpose of review

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

Recent findings

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

Summary

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

Study protocol for a prospective randomised double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial investigating a Better Outcome with Melatonin compared to Placebo Administered to normalize sleep-wake cycle and treat hypoactive ICU Delirium: the Basel BOMP-AID study

INTRODUCTION

Delirium is frequently observed in the intensive care unit (ICU) population, in particular. Until today, there is no evidence for any reliable pharmacological intervention to treat delirium. The Basel BOMP-AID (Better Outcome with Melatonin compared to Placebo Administered to normalize sleep-wake cycle and treat hypoactive ICU Delirium) randomised trial targets improvement of hypoactive delirium therapy in critically ill patients and will be conducted as a counterpart to the Basel ProDex Study (Study Protocol, BMJ Open, July 2017) on hyperactive and mixed delirium. The aim of the BOMP-AID trial is to assess the superiority of melatonin to placebo for the treatment of hypoactive delirium in the ICU. The study hypothesis is based on the assumption that melatonin administered at night restores a normal circadian rhythm, and that restoration of a normal circadian rhythm will cure delirium.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Basel BOMP-AID study is an investigator-initiated, single-centre, randomised controlled clinical trial for the treatment of hypoactive delirium with the once daily oral administration of melatonin 4 mg versus placebo in 190 critically ill patients. The primary outcome measure is delirium duration in 8-hour shifts. Secondary outcome measures include delirium-free days and death at 28 days after study inclusion, number of ventilator days, length of ICU and hospital stay, and sleep quality. Patients will be followed after 3 and 12 months for activities of daily living and mortality assessment. Sample size was calculated to demonstrate superiority of melatonin compared with placebo regarding the duration of delirium. Results will be presented using an intention-to-treat approach.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Northwestern and Central Switzerland and will be conducted in compliance with the protocol, the current version of the Declaration of Helsinki, the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) of technical requirements for registration of pharmaceuticals for human use; Good Clinical Practice (GCP) or ISO EN 14155 (as far as applicable), as well as all national legal and regulatory requirements. Study results will be presented in international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03438526.

PROTOCOL VERSION

Clinical Study Protocol Version 3, 10.03.2019.

Comparison between Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam for Sedation in Patients with Intubation after Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

The aim of the investigation is to clarify the beneficial sedative effects for patients with postoperative intubation in the intensive care unit (ICU) after oral and maxillofacial surgery. Forty patients with postoperative intubation were divided into two groups in method of random number table: midazolam group and dexmedetomidine group. The Ramsay score, the behavioral pain scale (BPS) score, SpO₂, HR, MAP, and RR were recorded before sedation (T0), 30 minutes (T1), 1 hour (T2), 2 hours (T3), 6 hours (T4), and 12 hours (T5) after dexmedetomidine or midazolam initiation in intensive care unit, and 10 minutes after extubation (T6). The rate of incidences of side effects was calculated. Sedation with midazolam was as good as standard sedation with dexmedetomidine in maintaining target sedation level. The BPS score in the midazolam group was higher than that in the dexmedetomidine group. The time of tracheal catheter extraction in the dexmedetomidine group was shorter than that in the midazolam group (p ≤ 0.001). The incidence of bradycardia in the dexmedetomidine group was higher than that in the midazolam group (p = 0.028). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of hypotension between the two groups (p = 0.732). The incidence of respiratory depression of group midazolam was higher than that of group dexmedetomidine (p = 0.018). The incidence of delirium in the dexmedetomidine group was significantly lower than that in the midazolam group, and the difference was statistically significant (p = 0.003). Dexmedetomidine and midazolam can meet the needs for sedation in ICU patients. And dexmedetomidine can improve patients' ability to communicate pain compared with midazolam.

Pharmacological interventions for the treatment of delirium in critically ill adults

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Propofol for the promotion of sleep in adults in the intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

People in the intensive care unit (ICU) experience sleep deprivation caused by environmental disruption, such as high noise levels and 24-hour lighting, as well as increased patient care activities and invasive monitoring as part of their care. Sleep deprivation affects physical and psychological health, and people perceive the quality of their sleep to be poor whilst in the ICU. Propofol is an anaesthetic agent which can be used in the ICU to maintain patient sedation and some studies suggest it may be a suitable agent to replicate normal sleep.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether the quantity and quality of sleep may be improved by administration of propofol to adults in the ICU and to assess whether propofol given for sleep promotion improves both physical and psychological patient outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1946 to October 2017), Embase (1974 to October 2017), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1937 to October 2017) and PsycINFO (1806 to October 2017). We searched clinical trials registers for ongoing studies, and conducted backward and forward citation searching of relevant articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials with adults, over the age of 16 years, admitted to the ICU with any diagnoses, given propofol versus a comparator to promote overnight sleep. We included participants who were and were not mechanically ventilated. We included studies that compared the use of propofol, given at an appropriate clinical dose with the intention of promoting night-time sleep, against: no agent; propofol at a different rate or dose; or another agent, administered specifically to promote sleep. We included only studies in which propofol was given during 'normal' sleeping hours (i.e. between 10 pm and 7 am) to promote a sleep-like state with a diurnal rhythm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and synthesized findings.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies with 149 randomized participants. We identified two studies awaiting classification for which we were unable to assess eligibility and one ongoing study.Participants differed in severity of illness as assessed by APACHE II scores in three studies and further differences existed between comparisons and methods. One study compared propofol versus no agent, one study compared different doses of propofol and two studies compared propofol versus a benzodiazepine (flunitrazepam, one study; midazolam, one study). All studies reported randomization and allocation concealment inadequately. We judged all studies to have high risk of performance bias from personnel who were unblinded. We noted that some study authors had blinded study outcome assessors and participants for relevant outcomes.It was not appropriate to combine data owing to high levels of methodological heterogeneity.One study comparing propofol with no agent (13 participants) measured quantity and quality of sleep using polysomnography; study authors reported no evidence of a difference in duration of sleep or sleep efficiency, and reported disruption to usual REM (rapid eye movement sleep) with propofol.One study comparing different doses of propofol (30 participants) measured quantity and quality of sleep by personnel using the Ramsay Sedation Scale; study authors reported that more participants who were given a higher dose of propofol had a successful diurnal rhythm, and achieved a greater sedation rhythmicity.Two studies comparing propofol with a different agent (106 participants) measured quantity and quality of sleep using the Pittsburgh Sleep Diary and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; one study reported fewer awakenings of reduced duration with propofol, and similar total sleep time between groups, and one study reported no evidence of a difference in sleep quality. One study comparing propofol with another agent (66 participants) measured quantity and quality of sleep with the Bispectral Index and reported longer time in deep sleep, with fewer arousals. One study comparing propofol with another agent (40 participants) reported higher levels of anxiety and depression in both groups, and no evidence of a difference when participants were given propofol.No studies reported adverse events.We used the GRADE approach to downgrade the certainty of the evidence for each outcome to very low. We identified sparse data with few participants, and methodological differences in study designs and comparative agents introduced inconsistency, and we noted that measurement tools were imprecise or not valid for purpose.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found insufficient evidence to determine whether administration of propofol would improve the quality and quantity of sleep in adults in the ICU. We noted differences in study designs, methodology, comparative agents and illness severity amongst study participants. We did not pool data and we used the GRADE approach to downgrade the certainty of our evidence to very low.