Effects of dexmedetomidine on delirium duration of non-intubated ICU patients (4D trial): study protocol for a randomized trial

Delirium and Its Associations with Critical Care Utilizations and Outcomes at the Time of Hospital Discharge in Patients with Acute Brain Injury

Background and Objectives: We analyzed delirium testing, delirium prevalence, critical care associations outcomes at the time of hospital discharge in patients with acute brain injury (ABI) due to acute ischemic stroke (AIS), non-traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), non-traumatic intraparenchymal hemorrhage (IPH), and traumatic brain injury (TBI) admitted to an intensive care unit. Materials and Methods: We examined the frequency of assessment for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method for the intensive care unit. We assessed delirium testing frequency, associated factors, positive test outcomes, and their correlations with clinical care, including nonpharmacological interventions and pain, agitation, and distress management. Results: Amongst 11,322 patients with ABI, delirium was tested in 8220 (726%). Compared to patients 18-44 years of age, patients 65-79 years (aOR 0.79 [0.69, 0.90]), and those 80 years and older (aOR 0.58 [0.50, 0.68]) were less likely to undergo delirium testing. Compared to English-speaking patients, non-English-speaking patients (aOR 0.73 [0.64, 0.84]) were less likely to undergo delirium testing. Amongst 8220, 2217 (27.2%) tested positive for delirium. For every day in the ICU, the odds of testing positive for delirium increased by 1.11 [0.10, 0.12]. Delirium was highest in those 80 years and older (aOR 3.18 [2.59, 3.90]). Delirium was associated with critical care resource utilization and with significant odds of mortality (aOR 7.26 [6.07, 8.70] at the time of hospital discharge. Conclusions: In conclusion, we find that seven out of ten patients in the neurocritical care unit are tested for delirium, and approximately two out of every five patients test positive for delirium. We demonstrate disparities in delirium testing by age and preferred language, identified high-risk subgroups, and the association between delirium, critical care resource use, complications, discharge GCS, and disposition. Prioritizing equitable testing and diagnosis, especially for elderly and non-English-speaking patients, is crucial for delivering quality care to this vulnerable group.

Dexmedetomidine Utilization During Air Medical Transport for Agitated Patients

Fixed Wing Air Ambulance providers routinely transport patients agitated from traumatic brain injury sequelae across long distances in a unique environment. The current paradigm limits options available to air medical clinicians to those routinely found on ground based, short distance vehicles, plus whatever a sending facility might be willing to provide. We postulate that dexmedetomidine offers a safe, effective alternative to improve patient care and enhance the safe operation of aircraft.

Analysis of anesthetic effect of dexmedetomidine in femoral shaft fracture surgery

To investigate the effect of dexmedetomidine (DEX) on hemodynamics and recovery period after femoral shaft fracture surgery. Fifty-two patients, aged 3 to 7 years, who underwent femoral shaft fracture reduction surgery in our hospital in 2019 were randomly divided into the experimental group (n = 26) and the control group (n = 26). Both groups were given routine propofol combined with remifentanil by intravenous anesthesia. The experimental group was continuously pumped with DEX after induction of anesthesia, while the control group was continuously pumped with the same volume of normal saline. The mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) were recorded before anesthesia induction (T0), when laryngeal mask was inserted (T1), when skin was cut (T2), when intramedullary needle was inserted (T3), and when laryngeal mask was removed (T4). Extubation time after anesthesia withdrawal was recorded in the 2 groups. According to the Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium score, the agitation and the incidence of agitation were recorded immediately after extubation (T5), 10 minutes after entering the recovery room (T6) and 30 minutes after entering the recovery room (T7). There was no significant difference in MAP and HR between the 2 groups at T0 and T1 time points (P > .05). The MAP and HR of the experimental group at T2 to T4 were significantly lower than those of the control group (P < .05). The extubation time of the experimental group was longer than that of the control group (P < .05), but the Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium score and the incidence of agitation in the recovery period of the experimental group were lower than those of the control group (P < .05). In femoral shaft fracture surgery, intravenous anesthesia combined with continuous pumping DEX can effectively stabilize the hemodynamics of patients, and the incidence of postoperative agitation during anesthesia recovery is low.

Delirium in the Neonate

Delirium is likely present in the neonatal intensive care unit and has been largely unrecognized. There are several risk factors for delirium including illness severity, neurosedative exposure, and environmental disruptions that put infants at risk for delirium. Regular use of scoring systems should be considered to improve delirium detection. When identified, initial steps in management should include resolving underlying causes and implementation of standard nonpharmacologic measures. Mounting pediatric evidence suggests that the atypical antipsychotics, as well as the α-2 agonists, may be additionally beneficial in treating delirium as well as improving the ability to wean off other neurosedative medications.

Does the Midline Peripheral Intravenous Catheter Have a Place in Critical Care?

BACKGROUND

The goals of infusion therapy are to preserve vascular health and safely deliver needed treatment. Achieving these goals is challenging in critical care because of the complexity of the treatment required. Daily justification of retaining an existing central venous catheter also creates urgency to change to a peripheral vascular access device. The midline catheter has had a resurgence in use because of the need for a long-term peripheral vascular access device not linked to central catheter-associated bloodstream infection risk.

OBJECTIVE

To review the characteristics of midline catheters, the benefits and risks of midline catheters, and current evidence regarding midline catheter use in critical care.

RESULTS

Research related to midline catheters has greatly expanded the body of knowledge regarding vascular access device selection and midline catheter use.

DISCUSSION

Although the quality and results of research on vascular access devices vary widely, a more accurate safety profile is emerging to illustrate how midline catheter use can support the goals of infusion therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimizing vascular access device selection requires recognition that every vascular access device can cause patient harm. Although the midline catheter appears to fill an important niche in infusion therapy, use of the midline catheter should be carefully evaluated. Midline catheters should not be used as a catheter-associated bloodstream infection prevention strategy, should be inserted to administer peripherally compatible solutions, and should be considered for short-term continuous vesicant therapy only in emergent situations until more definitive vascular access can be achieved.

Management of Delirium in the Intensive Care Unit

In the intensive care unit, delirium is a major contributor to morbidity and mortality in adult patients. Patients with delirium have been shown to have increased length of stay, decreased functional outcomes, and increased risk for requiring placement at the time of discharge. In addition, decreased cognitive function and dementia have been shown to be long-term complications from delirium. The mainstay of treatment and prevention include therapy- and behavioral-based interventions, including frequent orientation, cognitive stimulation, mobilization, sleep restoration, and providing hearing and visual aids. Refractory delirium may require pharmacologic intervention with antipsychotics or alpha-2 agonists.

Comparison of the Effects of Haloperidol and Dexmedetomidine on Delirium and Agitation in Patients with a Traumatic Brain Injury Admitted to the Intensive Care Unit

Background

Patients under mechanical ventilation in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) have a higher risk of delirium. To date, the ideal sedative combination for delirium treatment in terms of cost and side effects has not been determined.

Objectives

This study was designed to compare the effects of haloperidol and dexmedetomidine on delirium in trauma patients under mechanical ventilation in the ICU.

Methods

Sixty patients with a moderate traumatic brain injury were randomly divided into two groups. Patients in the haloperidol group received 2.5 mg of haloperidol intravenously every eight hours for ten minutes daily, and the dexmedetomidine group received 0.5 µg/kg of dexmedetomidine via intravenous infusion every other day. Delirium, agitation, length of hospitalization, duration of mechanical ventilation, and need for sedation up to seven days were measured and recorded in both groups. The Richmond Agitation-Sedation scale (RASS) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health evaluation (APACHE II) scales were used to determine the level of agitation in patients. The Confusion Assessment method (CAM)-ICU criteria were used to determine the incidence of delirium.

Results

Based on the results of this study, age and sex of the two groups were not significantly different. The mean age of the patients was 36.83 years in the haloperidol group and 40.1 years in the dexmedetomidine group. After the intervention, there was no significant difference in terms of the level of consciousness, number of days required for ventilation (P = 0.17), and number of days in the ICU (P = 0.49); however, there was a significant difference between the two groups three to seven days after the intervention. Besides, there was a significant difference between the two groups regarding the incidence of delirium five to seven days after the intervention (P < 0.05).

Conclusions

There was a significant difference between the two groups in terms of the incidence of delirium and the level of agitation; the patients in the dexmedetomidine group were calmer and experienced less delirium.

Delirium in critical illness: clinical manifestations, outcomes, and management

Delirium is the most common manifestation of brain dysfunction in critically ill patients. In the intensive care unit (ICU), duration of delirium is independently predictive of excess death, length of stay, cost of care, and acquired dementia. There are numerous neurotransmitter/functional and/or injury-causing hypotheses rather than a unifying mechanism for delirium. Without using a validated delirium instrument, delirium can be misdiagnosed (under, but also overdiagnosed and trivialized), supporting the recommendation to use a monitoring instrument routinely. The best-validated ICU bedside instruments are CAM-ICU and ICDSC, both of which also detect subsyndromal delirium. Both tools have some inherent limitations in the neurologically injured patients, yet still provide valuable information about delirium once the sequelae of the primary injury settle into a new post-injury baseline. Now it is known that antipsychotics and other psychoactive medications do not reliably improve brain function in critically ill delirious patients. ICU teams should systematically screen for predisposing and precipitating factors. These include exacerbations of cardiac/respiratory failure or sepsis, metabolic disturbances (hypoglycemia, dysnatremia, uremia and ammonemia) receipt of psychoactive medications, and sensory deprivation through prolonged immobilization, uncorrected vision and hearing deficits, poor sleep hygiene, and isolation from loved ones so common during COVID-19 pandemic. The ABCDEF (A2F) bundle is a means to facilitate implementation of the 2018 Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU (PADIS) Guidelines. In over 25,000 patients across nearly 100 institutions, the A2F bundle has been shown in a dose-response fashion (i.e., greater bundle compliance) to yield improved survival, length of stay, coma and delirium duration, cost, and less ICU bounce-backs and discharge to nursing homes.

Assessment and Management of Delirium in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit: A Review

Many critically ill patients suffer from delirium which is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. There is a paucity of data about the incidence, symptoms, or treatment of delirium in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Risk factors for delirium are common in the PICU including central nervous system immaturity, developmental delay, mechanical ventilation, and use of anticholinergic agents, corticosteroids, vasopressors, opioids, or benzodiazepines. Hypoactive delirium is the most common subtype in pediatric patients; however, hyperactive delirium has also been reported. Various screening tools are validated in the pediatric population, with the Cornell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium (CAPD) applicable to the largest age range and able to detect signs and symptoms consistent with both hypo- and hyperactive delirium. Treatment of delirium should always include identification and reversal of the underlying etiology, reserving pharmacologic management for those patients without symptom resolution, or with significant impact to medical care. Atypical antipsychotics (olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone) should be used first-line in patients requiring pharmacologic treatment owing to their apparent efficacy and low incidence of reported adverse effects. The choice of atypical antipsychotic should be based on adverse effect profile, available dosage forms, and consideration of medication interactions. Intravenous haloperidol may be a potential treatment option in patients unable to tolerate oral medications and with significant symptoms. However, given the high incidence of serious adverse effects with intravenous haloperidol, routine use should be avoided. Dexmedetomidine should be used when sedation is needed and when clinically appropriate, given the positive impact on delirium. Additional well-designed trials assessing screening and treatment of PICU delirium are needed.

Delirium in the NICU: Risk or Reality?

Delirium is a frequent complication of critical illness in adult and pediatric populations and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Little is known about the incidence, risk, symptoms, or treatment of delirium in the NICU. Only 4 cases of NICU delirium have been reported, but many pediatric studies include infants. The Cornell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium tool has been validated in neonatal and infant populations for identification of delirium. Initial treatment should focus on identification and reversal of the cause, with pharmacologic management reserved for patients with symptoms that do not resolve or that significantly impact medical care. Routine use of intravenous haloperidol should be avoided because of the high incidence of serious adverse effects, but it may be considered in patients with significant symptoms who are unable to take oral medications. Atypical antipsychotics (olanzapine, quetiapine, and risperidone) appear to be efficacious with a low incidence of adverse effects. Risperidone has weight-based dosing and a liquid dosage form available, making it a good option for use in the NICU. Additional data from large cohorts of NICU patients routinely screened for delirium, and treated as indicated, are needed.

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.