Adjunctive ketamine for sedation in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients: an active-controlled, pilot, feasibility clinical trial

Ketamine Analgo-sedation for Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Adults: A Rapid Practice Guideline from the Saudi Critical Care Society and the Scandinavian Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine

BACKGROUND

This Rapid Practice Guideline (RPG) aimed to provide evidence‑based recommendations for ketamine analgo-sedation (monotherapy and adjunct) versus non-ketamine sedatives or usual care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients on invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV) and to identify knowledge gaps for future research.

METHODS

The RPG panel comprised 23 multinational multidisciplinary panelists, including a patient representative. An up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis constituted the evidence base. The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, and the evidence-to-decision framework were used to assess the certainty of evidence and to move from evidence to decision/recommendation. The panel provided input on the balance of the desirable and undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs, resources, equity, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities.

RESULTS

Data from 17 randomized clinical trials (n=898) and 9 observational studies (n=1934) were included. There was considerable uncertainty about the desirable and undesirable effects of ketamine monotherapy for analgo-sedation. The evidence was very low certainty and downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency. Uncertainty or variability in values and preferences were identified. Costs, resources, equity, and acceptability were considered varied. Adjunctive ketamine therapy had no effect on mortality (within 28 days) (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.27; low certainty), and may slightly reduce iMV duration (days) (mean difference [MD] -0.05 days; 95% CI -0.07 to -0.03; low certainty), and uncertain effect on the cumulative dose of opioids (mcg/kg/h morphine equivalent) (MD -11.6; 95% CI -20.4 to -2.7; very low certainty). Uncertain desirable effects (cumulative dose of sedatives and vasopressors) and undesirable effects (adverse event rate, delirium, arrhythmia, hepatotoxicity, hypersalivation, use of physical restraints) were also identified. A possibility of important uncertainty or variability in patient-important outcomes led to a balanced effect that favored neither the intervention nor the comparison. Cost, resources, and equity were considered varied.

CONCLUSION

The RPG panel provided two conditional recommendations and suggested (1) against using ketamine as monotherapy analgo-sedation in critically ill adults on iMV when other analgo-sedatives are available; and (2) using ketamine as an adjunct to non-ketamine usual care sedatives (e.g., opioids, propofol, dexmedetomidine) or continuing with non-ketamine usual care sedatives alone. Large-scale trials should provide additional evidence.

Ketamine analgo-sedation for mechanically ventilated critically ill adults: A rapid practice guideline from the Saudi Critical Care Society and the Scandinavian Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine

BACKGROUND

This Rapid Practice Guideline (RPG) aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for ketamine analgo-sedation (monotherapy and adjunct) versus non-ketamine sedatives or usual care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients on invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV) and to identify knowledge gaps for future research.

METHODS

The RPG panel comprised 23 multinational multidisciplinary panelists, including a patient representative. An up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis constituted the evidence base. The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, and the evidence-to-decision framework were used to assess the certainty of evidence and to move from evidence to decision/recommendation. The panel provided input on the balance of the desirable and undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs, resources, equity, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities.

RESULTS

Data from 17 randomized clinical trials (n = 898) and nine observational studies (n = 1934) were included. There was considerable uncertainty about the desirable and undesirable effects of ketamine monotherapy for analgo-sedation. The evidence was very low certainty and downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency. Uncertainty or variability in values and preferences were identified. Costs, resources, equity, and acceptability were considered varied. Adjunctive ketamine therapy had no effect on mortality (within 28 days) (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.27; low certainty), and may slightly reduce iMV duration (days) (mean difference [MD] -0.05 days; 95% CI -0.07 to -0.03; low certainty), and uncertain effect on the cumulative dose of opioids (mcg/kg/h morphine equivalent) (MD -11.6; 95% CI -20.4 to -2.7; very low certainty). Uncertain desirable effects (cumulative dose of sedatives and vasopressors) and undesirable effects (adverse event rate, delirium, arrhythmia, hepatotoxicity, hypersalivation, use of physical restraints) were also identified. A possibility of important uncertainty or variability in patient-important outcomes led to a balanced effect that favored neither the intervention nor the comparison. Cost, resources, and equity were considered varied.

CONCLUSION

The RPG panel provided two conditional recommendations and suggested (1) against using ketamine as monotherapy analgo-sedation in critically ill adults on iMV when other analgo-sedatives are available; and (2) using ketamine as an adjunct to non-ketamine usual care sedatives (e.g., opioids, propofol, dexmedetomidine) or continuing with non-ketamine usual care sedatives alone. Large-scale trials should provide additional evidence.

Perioperative dexmedetomidine-induced delirium in a patient with schizophrenia: a case report

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine is a selective α2 receptor agonist with sedative, analgesic, anxiolytic, and anti-sympathetic effects. Dexmedetomidine is widely used for various surgical procedures performed under general anaesthesia and sedation in the intensive care unit. Dexmedetomidine was known to relieve or improve the symptoms of delirium. Schizophrenia is a common psychiatric disease, and the number of surgical patients with schizophrenia is increasing gradually. Dexmedetomidine-induced delirium in patients with schizophrenia is a particular case.

CASE PRESENTATION

This patient was a 75-year-old woman (height: 156 cm; weight: 60 kg) with a 5-year history of schizophrenia. Her schizophrenia was well controlled with medications. She was scheduled for open reduction and internal fixation for a patellar fracture. Spinal anaesthesia was administered for surgery, and dexmedetomidine was administered intravenously to maintain sedation. The patient became delirious half an hour after the surgery began. The intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine was discontinued immediately, intravenous propofol was subsequently administered, and the patient stopped experiencing dysphoria and fell asleep. After surgery, the patient stopped using propofol and recovered smoothly. She was transferred back to the general ward and was discharged from the hospital without any abnormal conditions on the 9th day after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report of a patient with schizophrenia who developed delirium during the infusion of a normal dose of dexmedetomidine without an intravenous injection of any other sedative. The exact mechanism causing dexmedetomidine-induced delirium remains unclear, and this adverse reaction is rare and easy to ignore. Clinicians and pharmacists should be vigilant in identifying this condition.

Implications of opioid-sparing medications in critically ill patients: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this scoping review was to evaluate literature involving opioid-sparing medications in critically ill patients with a focus on clinically meaningful outcomes.

DESIGN

Scoping review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews.

SETTING

Intensive care unit.

PATIENTS OR PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients in an intensive care unit setting.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MAIN VARIABLES OF INTEREST

PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched from October 1, 2019 to June 1, 2023. Inclusion criteria consisted of randomized controlled trials evaluating adjunctive analgesic use in adult patients in an intensive care unit setting.

RESULTS

There were 343 citations and titles identified in the initial search, with 328 remaining after removal of duplicates, 294 excluded at title and abstract screening, 34 available for full text review, and six included in the scoping review. Most studies reported modest reductions in opioid use as a secondary endpoint. Improvement in clinical outcomes such as reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation or delirium were reported in two trials with dexmedetomidine.

CONCLUSIONS

In recently published trials of adjunctive agents in critically ill patients, opioid-sparing effects were small. Data to support improvements in clinical outcomes remains limited.

Exploring the Role of Ketamine Sedation in Critically Ill Patients: A Comprehensive Review

Sedation management in critically ill patients is a critical component of intensive care, aiming to balance the need for comfort and immobilization with preserving vital physiological functions. Ketamine, known for its dissociative anesthetic properties, has emerged as a promising alternative to traditional sedatives due to its unique pharmacological profile. This review explores the pharmacodynamics, clinical applications, benefits, challenges, and current evidence surrounding ketamine as a sedative agent in intensive care settings. Key advantages of ketamine include its ability to maintain respiratory drive and hemodynamic stability, making it particularly suitable for patients requiring continuous monitoring and intervention. The review discusses its role in sedation protocols, compares its effectiveness with other sedatives, and highlights potential areas for further research and optimization. By elucidating the complexities and advancements in ketamine sedation, this review aims to inform clinical practice and contribute to improved outcomes for critically ill patients.

Experiential Learning with Ketamine: A Mixed-Methods Exploratory Study on Prescription and Perception

Background

Incorporating unfamiliar therapies into practice requires effective longitudinal learning and the optimal way to achieve this is debated. Though not a novel therapy, ketamine in critical care has a paucity of data and variable acceptance, with limited research describing intensivist perceptions and utilization. The Coronavirus-19 pandemic presented a particular crisis where providers rapidly adapted analgosedation strategies to achieve prolonged, deep sedation due to a surge of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Question

How does clinical experience with ketamine impact the perception and attitude of clinicians toward this therapy?

Methods

We conducted a mixed-methods study using quantitative ketamine prescription data and qualitative focus group data. We analyzed prescription patterns of ketamine in a tertiary academic ICU during two different time points: pre-COVID-19 (March 1-June 30, 2019) and during the COVID-19 surge (March 1-June 30, 2020). Two focus groups (FG) of critical care attendings were held, and data were analyzed using the Framework Method for content analysis.

Results

Four-hundred forty-six medical ICU patients were mechanically ventilated (195 pre-COVID-19 and 251 during COVID-19). The COVID-19 population was more likely to receive ketamine (81[32.3%] vs 4 [2.1%], p < 0.001). Thirteen respondents participated across two FG sessions (Pre-COVID = 8, Post-COVID=5). The most prevalent attitude among our respondents was discomfort, with three key themes identified as follows: 1) lack of evidence regarding ketamine, 2) lack of personal experience, and 3) desire for more education and protocols.

Conclusion

Despite a substantial increase in ketamine prescription during COVID-19, intensivists continued to feel discomfort with utilization. Factors contributing to this discomfort include a lack of evidence, a lack of experience, and a desire for more education and protocols. Increase in experience with ketamine alone was not sufficient to minimize provider discomfort. These findings should inform future curricula and call for process improvement to optimize continuing education.

Impact of Continuous Infusion Ketamine Compared to Continuous Infusion Benzodiazepines on Delirium in the Intensive Care Unit

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate rates of delirium or coma-free days between continuous infusion sedative-dose ketamine and continuous infusion benzodiazepines in critically ill patients. Materials and Methods: In this single-center, retrospective cohort adult patients were screened for inclusion if they received continuous infusions of either sedative-dose ketamine or benzodiazepines (lorazepam or midazolam) for at least 24 h, were mechanically ventilated for at least 48 h and admitted to the intensive care unit of a large quaternary academic center between 5/5/2018 and 12/1/2021. Results: A total of 165 patients were included with 64 patients in the ketamine group and 101 patients in the benzodiazepine group (lorazepam n = 35, midazolam n = 78). The primary outcome of median (IQR) delirium or coma-free days within the first 28 days of hospitalization was 1.2 (0.0, 3.7) for ketamine and 1.8 (0.7, 4.6) for benzodiazepines (p = 0.13). Patients in the ketamine arm spent a significantly lower proportion of time with RASS -3 to +4, received significantly higher doses and longer durations of propofol and fentanyl infusions, and had a significantly longer intensive care unit length of stay. Conclusions: The use of sedative-dose ketamine had no difference in delirium or coma-free days compared to benzodiazepines.

Continuous Infusion of Ketamine in Mechanically Ventilated Patients with SARS-CoV-2

Background

Widespread drug shortages led to higher utilization of ketamine in our intensive care unit, especially among patients with SARS-CoV-2.

Objectives

To evaluate the impact of continuous infusion of ketamine on vasopressor requirements in patients with SARS-CoV-2.

Method

This was a single-center, retrospective, cohort study comparing mechanically ventilated (MV), adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 receiving either propofol or ketamine for at least 72 hours.

Results

84 patients (mean age of 61-year-old, 68% male) were analyzed. 31 patients received ketamine, and 53 patients received propofol. Mean vasopressor doses were not significantly different between ketamine and propofol groups at prespecified timepoints. However, mean arterial pressures (MAP) were higher in the ketamine group at 24 h, 48 h, and 96 h postsedative initiation. The median opioid infusion requirements were 3 vs. 12.5 mg/hr (p < 0.0001) for ketamine and propofol groups, respectively. Comparing to propofol, C-reactive protein (CRP) values were significantly lower in the ketamine group at 24 h (7.53 vs. 15.9 mg/dL, p=0.03), 48 h (5.23 vs. 14.1 mg/dL, p=0.0083), and 72 h (6.4 vs. 12.1 mg/dL, p=0.0085).

Conclusion

In patients with SARS-CoV-2 on MV, there was no difference in the vasopressor requirement in patients receiving ketamine compared to propofol. Nevertheless, the use of ketamine was associated with higher MAP, reductions in CRP in select timepoints, and overall lower opioid requirements.

Ketamine-based Sedation Use in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: A Multicenter Cohort Study

Backgrounds

Ketamine possesses analgesia, anti-inflammation, anticonvulsant, and neuroprotection properties. However, the evidence that supports its use in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients with COVID-19 is insufficient. The study's goal was to assess ketamine's effectiveness and safety in critically ill, mechanically ventilated (MV) patients with COVID-19.

Methods

Adult critically ill patients with COVID-19 were included in a multicenter retrospective-prospective cohort study. Patients admitted between March 1, 2020, and July 31, 2021, to five ICUs in Saudi Arabia were included. Eligible patients who required MV within 24 hours of ICU admission were divided into two sub-cohort groups based on their use of ketamine (Control vs. Ketamine). The primary outcome was the length of stay (LOS) in the hospital. P/F ratio differences, lactic acid normalization, MV duration, and mortality were considered secondary outcomes. Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:2 ratio) based on the selected criteria.

Results

In total, 1,130 patients met the eligibility criteria. Among these, 1036 patients (91.7 %) were in the control group, whereas 94 patients (8.3 %) received ketamine. The total number of patients after PS matching, was 264 patients, including 88 patients (33.3 %) who received ketamine. The ketamine group's LOS was significantly lower (beta coefficient (95 % CI): -0.26 (-0.45, -0.07), P = 0.008). Furthermore, the PaO2/FiO2 ratio significantly improved 24 hours after the start of ketamine treatment compared to the pre-treatment period (6 hours) (124.9 (92.1, 184.5) vs. 106 (73.1, 129.3; P = 0.002). Additionally, the ketamine group had a substantially shorter mean time for lactic acid normalization (beta coefficient (95 % CI): -1.55 (-2.42, -0.69), P 0.01). However, there were no significant differences in the duration of MV or mortality.

Conclusions

Ketamine-based sedation was associated with lower hospital LOS and faster lactic acid normalization but no mortality benefits in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Thus, larger prospective studies are recommended to assess the safety and effectiveness of ketamine as a sedative in critically ill adult patients.

The effect of age on clinical dose equivalency of fentanyl and morphine analgosedation in mechanically ventilated patients: Findings from the ANALGESIC trial

BACKGROUND

The dose equivalency of fentanyl vs. morphine is widely considered to be approximately 1:100. However, little is known about the effect of age on this ratio when these agents are used as infusions for analgosedation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the impact of age on the clinical dose equivalency of fentanyl and morphine when used as infusions for analgosedation in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients.

METHODS

We performed a post hoc analysis of the Assessment of Opioid Administration to Lead to Analgesic Effects and Sedation in Intensive Care (ANALGESIC) cluster randomised crossover trial of fentanyl and morphine infusions for analgosedation. Dose and analgosedative clinical equivalency of fentanyl and morphine were assessed by age and by using different body-size descriptors.

RESULTS

We studied 663 patients (338 fentanyl, 325 morphine). Median (interquartile range) hourly dose of fentanyl and morphine were 58.1 (40.0-89.2) mcg and 3400 (2200-5000) mcg, respectively. The ratio of total dose of fentanyl:morphine was 1:93 in the 18- to 29-year-old group and 1:25 in the ≥80-year-old group (p = 0.015), respectively, with fentanyl becoming relatively less clinically effective as age increased. This effect was also seen when comparing dosing by different body-size descriptors with the strongest age-related change when using body surface area as body-size descriptor (p = 0.009).

CONCLUSION

The analgosedative clinical dose equivalency of fentanyl vs. morphine is heterogeneous when used as infusions for analgosedation, with fentanyl becoming relatively less clinically effective as age increases. This information can help guide prescription of these agents during transition from one agent to the other in critically ill patients.

Continuous infusion ketamine for sedation of mechanically ventilated adults in the intensive care unit: A scoping review

Introduction

Mechanical ventilation (MV) is a common and often live-saving intervention on the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The optimisation of sedation to mechanical ventilation is fundamental, and inappropriate sedation has been associated with worse outcomes. This scoping review has been designed to answer the question 'What is known about the use of ketamine as a continuous infusion to provide sedation in mechanically ventilated adults in the intensive care unit, and what are the gaps in the evidence?'

Methods

The protocol was designed using the PRISMA-ScR checklist and the JBI manual for evidence synthesis. Data were extracted and reviewed by a minimum of two reviewers.

Results

Searches of electronic databases (PubMed, OVID, Scopus, Web of Science) produced 726 results; 45 citations were identified for further eligibility assessment, an additional five studies were identified through keyword searches, and 12 through searching reference lists. Of these 62 studies, 27 studies were included in the final review: 6 case reports/case series, 11 retrospective cohort/observational studies, 1 prospective cohort study, 9 prospective randomised studies.

Conclusion

We found a lack of high-quality well-designed studies investigating the use of continuous ketamine sedation on ICU. The available data suggests this intervention is safe and well tolerated, however this is of very low certainty given the poor quality of evidence.

The impact of ketamine on outcomes in critically ill patients: a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effects of ketamine in critically ill intensive care unit (ICU) patients.

METHODS

We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library; the search was performed initially in January but was repeated in December of 2023. We focused on ICU patients of any age. We included studies that compared ketamine with other traditional agents used in the ICU. We synthesized evidence using RevMan v5.4 and presented the results as forest plots. We also used trial sequential analysis (TSA) software v. 0.9.5.10 Beta and presented results as TSA plots. For synthesizing results, we used a random-effects model and reported differences in outcomes of two groups in terms of mean difference (MD), standardized MD, and risk ratio with 95% confidence interval. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane RoB tool for RCTs. Our outcomes were mortality, pain, opioid and midazolam requirements, delirium rates, and ICU length of stay.

RESULTS

Twelve RCTs involving 805 ICU patients (ketamine group, n=398; control group, n=407) were included in the meta-analysis. The ketamine group was not superior to the control group in terms of mortality (in five studies with 318 patients), pain (two studies with 129 patients), mean and cumulative opioid consumption (six studies with 494 patients), midazolam consumption (six studies with 304 patients), and ICU length of stay (three studies with 270 patients). However, the model favored the ketamine group over the control group in delirium rate (four studies with 358 patients). This result is significant in terms of conventional boundaries (alpha=5%) but is not robust in sequential analysis. The applicability of the findings is limited by the small number of patients pooled for each outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Our meta-analysis did not demonstrate differences between ketamine and control groups regarding any outcome except delirium rate, where the model favored the ketamine group over the control group. However, this result is not robust as sensitivity analysis and trial sequential analysis suggest that more RCTs should be conducted in the future.

Prevalence of Delirium After Abdominal Surgery and Association With Ketamine: A Retrospective, Propensity-Matched Cohort Study

IMPORTANCE

Delirium is a common postoperative complication for older patients in the ICU. Ketamine, used primarily as an analgesic, has been thought to prevent delirium.

OBJECTIVE

Determine the prevalence and association of delirium with low-dose ketamine use in ICU patients after abdominal surgery.

DESIGN

Single-center, retrospective, propensity-matched cohort study.

SETTING

Eight hospital academic medical center.

PATIENTS

Cohort comprising 1836 patients admitted to the ICU after abdominal surgery between June 23, 2018 and September 1, 2022.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Propensity score matching (PSM) with a 3:1 ratio between no-ketamine use and ketamine use was performed through a greedy algorithm (caliper of 0.005). Outcomes of interest included: delirium (assessed by Confusion Assessment Method-ICU), mean pain score (Numeric Pain Scale or Critical Care Pain Observation Tool score as available), mean opioid consumption (morphine milligram equivalents), length of stay (d), and mortality.

RESULTS

Prevalence of delirium was 47.71% (95% CI, 45.41-50.03%) in the cohort. Of 1836 patients, 120 (6.54%) used low-dose ketamine infusion. After PSM, the prevalence of delirium was 56.02% (95% CI, 51.05-60.91%) in all abdominal surgery patients. The ketamine group had 41% less odds of delirium (odds ratio [OR] = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.37-0.94; p = 0.026) than patients with no-ketamine use. Patients with ketamine use had higher mean pain scores (3.57 ± 2.86 vs. 2.21 ± 2.09, p < 0.001). In the subgroup analysis, patients in the ketamine-use group 60 years old or younger had 64% less odds of delirium (OR = 0.36; 95% CI, 0.13-0.95; p = 0.039). The mean pain scores were higher in the ketamine group for patients 60 years old or older. There was no significant difference in mortality and opioid consumption.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Low-dose ketamine infusion was associated with lower prevalence of delirium in ICU patients following abdominal surgery. Prospective studies should further evaluate ketamine use and delirium.

Ketamine as adjunctive or monotherapy for post-intubation sedation in patients with trauma on mechanical ventilation: A rapid review

Background

The effectiveness of ketamine as adjunctive or monotherapy for post-intubation sedation in adults with trauma on mechanical ventilation is unclear.

Methods

A rapid review of systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials, then randomized controlled trials or observational studies was conducted searching three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library) and one clinical trial registry on June 1, 2022. We used a prespecified protocol following Cochrane rapid review methods.

Results

We identified eight systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Among the included reviews, only the most relevant, up to date, highest quality-assessed reviews and reviews that reported on critical outcomes were considered. Adjunctive ketamine showed a morphine sparing effect (MD -13.19 µmg kg-1 h-1, 95 % CI -22.10 to -4.28, moderate certainty of evidence, 6 RCTs), but no to little effect on midazolam sparing effect (MD 0.75 µmg kg-1 h-1, 95 % CI -1.11 to 2.61, low certainty of evidence, 6 RCTs) or duration of mechanical ventilation in days (MD -0.17 days, 95 % CI -3.03 to 2.69, moderate certainty of evidence, 3 RCTs).Adjunctive ketamine therapy may reduce mortality (OR 0.88, 95 % CI 0.54 to 1.43, P = 0.60, very low certainty of evidence, 5 RCTs, n = 3076 patients) resulting in 30 fewer deaths per 1000, ranging from 132 fewer to 87 more, but the evidence is very uncertain. Ketamine results in little to no difference in length of ICU stay (MD 0.04 days, 95 % CI -0.12 to 0.20, high certainty of evidence, 5 RCTs n = 390 patients) or length of hospital stay (MD -0.53 days, 95 % CI -1.36 to 0.30, high certainty of evidence, 5 RCTs, n = 277 patients).Monotherapy may have a positive effect on respiratory and haemodynamic outcomes, however the evidence is very uncertain.

Conclusion

Adjunctive ketamine for post-intubation analgosedation results in a moderate meaningful net benefit but there is uncertainty for benefit and harms as monotherapy.

Ketamine Infusion for Sedation and Analgesia during Mechanical Ventilation in the ICU: A Multicenter Evaluation

Methods

We reviewed the electronic medical record of critically ill adults who received a continuous infusion of ketamine for ≥24 hours during invasive mechanical ventilation in three hospitals over a two-year period. We captured data including ketamine indication, dose, unintended effects, and adjustments to coadministered sedatives or opioids. We analyzed these data to determine the incidence of reported unintended effects of ketamine infusion (primary outcome) and changes in exposure to coadministered sedatives or opioids during ketamine use (secondary outcome).

Results

95 mechanically ventilated adults received a ketamine infusion for a median duration of 75 hours (interquartile range [IQR] 44-115) at a mean ± standard deviation (SD) infusion rate of 1.3 ± 0.5 mg/kg/hour for the first 24 hours. At least one unintended effect attributed to ketamine was documented in 24% of cases, most frequently tachycardia (6%) and sialorrhea (6%). Other sedative or opioid infusions were administered with ketamine in 76% and 92% of cases, respectively. Comparing the total amount of sedative or opioid administered in the 24 hours prior to ketamine infusion with the total amount administered during the first 24 hours on ketamine, there were no significant differences in propofol, midazolam, or dexmedetomidine exposure, but the average fentanyl exposure was higher after ketamine (2740 ± 1812 mcg) than before (1975 ± 1860 mcg) (absolute difference 766 mcg, 95% confidence interval [CI] 442 to 1089 mcg).

Conclusions

In this multicenter cohort of critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults, ketamine infusion was primarily used as an adjunct to conventional sedative and opioid infusions, with noticeable but unintended effects potentially related to ketamine in nearly one-quarter of cases.

Temporal Trends and Variability in Ketamine Use for Mechanically Ventilated Adults in the United States

Rationale The epidemiology of continuous ketamine use in the management of critically ill adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) in the U.S. is unknown. Objective To quantify the temporal trends and variation across U.S. hospitals in continuous ketamine use. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of adults (age ≥18) receiving MV who were discharged (alive or dead) from U.S. hospitals contributing data to the Premier Healthcare Database between January 2008 and September 2018. We used mixed effects multivariable logistic regression modeling (fixed effects: patient and hospital characteristics; random effect: discharge hospital) to evaluate the associations of discharge quarter and discharge hospital with continuous ketamine use (defined as a charge for intravenous ketamine on ≥2 consecutive calendar days). Results We identified 2,059,599 MV adults across 842 hospitals; of these, 7,927 (0.4%) received continuous ketamine. Ketamine use increased over time from 0.07% of all patients in quarter 1 2008 to 1.1% of all patients in quarter 3 2018. After adjustment, the odds of receiving continuous ketamine were consistently increased starting in quarter 4 2011 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.83 [1.09-3.06] vs quarter 1 2008, p=0.023) with >10-fold increased odds starting in quarter 2 2017. Out of 842 hospitals, 486 (57.7%) used continuous ketamine on at least one cohort patient during the study period. Across these hospitals ever using ketamine, median use was 0.2% (IQR 0.08%-0.5%) with 5 hospitals using continuous ketamine in >5% of patients. The adjusted median odds ratio for discharge hospital was 3.72 (95% confidence interval: 3.37-4.13) which was higher than the odds ratio for any patient or hospital covariable other than discharge quarter. Conclusions In U.S. hospitals, use of continuous infusion ketamine increased markedly over time in critically ill patients receiving MV, with substantial variability between hospitals. Given the unique properties of ketamine as a sedative, further research is needed to assess its safety and utility in critically ill populations.

Impact of Ketamine on Analgosedative Consumption in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective:

The aim of this study was to synthesize evidence available on continuous infusion ketamine versus nonketamine regimens for analgosedation in critically ill patients.

Data sources

A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CDSR, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed from database establishment to November 2021 using the following search terms: critical care, ICU, ketamine, sedation, and anesthesia. All studies included the primary outcome of interest: daily opioid and/or sedative consumption.

Study selection and data extraction

Relevant human studies were considered. Randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-experimental studies, and observational cohort studies were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data, and appraised studies using the Cochrane RoB and ROBINS-I tools.

Data synthesis

A total of 13 RCTs, 5 retrospective, and 1 prospective cohort study were included (2255 participants). The primary analysis of six RCTs demonstrated reduced opioid consumption with ketamine regimens (n = 494 participants, −13.19 µg kg⁻¹ h⁻¹ morphine equivalents, 95% CI −22.10 to −4.28, P = 0.004). No significant difference was observed in sedative consumption, duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), ICU or hospital length of stay (LOS), intracranial pressure, and mortality. Small sample size of studies may have limited ability to detect true differences between groups.

Relevance to patient care and clinical practice

This meta-analysis examining ketamine use in critically ill patients is the first restricting analysis to RCTs and includes up-to-date publication of trials. Findings may guide clinicians in consideration and dosing of ketamine for multimodal analgosedation.

Conclusion

Results suggest ketamine as an adjunct analgosedative has the potential to reduce opioid exposure in postoperative and MV patients in the ICU. More RCTs are required before recommending routine use of ketamine in select populations.

Nonopioid analgesics for analgesia in critically ill patients: Friends, enemies, or collaborators

Patients in intensive care units (ICUs) experience pain, which they describe as a significant cause of stress during treatment. It can progress to chronic pain and significantly affect the quality of life. Opioids have long been the backbone of ICU pain therapy. The consequences of their long-term use are known today, such as prolonged ICU stay and mechanical ventilation, resulting in increased treatment costs. Additionally, abstinence syndrome is a consequence of abrupt opioid withdrawal. Also, there is a risk of tolerance and hyperalgesia after prolonged opioid use. Globally, opioid dependence after hospital opioid treatment is alarming, although there is still a lack of data on its incidence after ICU. Multimodal analgesia enables comfort to the patient, opioid-sparing, and avoidance of side effects of non-opioid analgesics. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a broad group of drugs recommended with paracetamol to treat mild to moderate acute postoperative pain. Although often prescribed by intensivists, their use in treating painful conditions in ICU is controversial due to the possible consequences on the organs of critically ill patients. Due to the inhibition of cyclooxygenases, NSAIDs indirectly cause vasoconstriction of the renal arteries and arterioles, leading to kidney damage. NSAIDs inhibit platelet aggregation and may predispose to bleeding. Analgesia of a critically ill patient is a important part of their treatment, however it can be challenging in certain patients. Numerous combinations of pharmacological and non-pharmacological approaches can be adapted to the patient's current characteristics.