Addition of dexmedetomidine to standard sedation regimens after cardiac surgery: an outcomes analysis

Analgesic Effect and Sleep Quality of Low-Dose Dexmedetomidine in Cardiac Surgical Patients After Ultrafast-Track Extubation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare the analgesic and sleep quality effects of dexmedetomidine infusion versus placebo in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with ultra-fast track extubation.

DESIGN

The randomized, double-blind clinical trial study.

SETTING

At a single academic center hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

We included patients aged 25 to 65 scheduled for elective cardiac surgery under general anesthesia with cardiopulmonary bypass from October 2021 to December 2022.

INTERVENTION

After immediate extubation in the operating room, the patients who were allocated at first after providing their consent to either the dexmedetomidine group (Dex) or the placebo group (Placebo) received continuous infusion of dexmedetomidine (0.2 μg/kg/h) or saline for 12 hours postoperatively.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The groups' demographic and perioperative variables were not statistically significant. Total morphine consumption in milligrams at 12 and 24 hours after administered study drug, total sleep time in hours by BIS value ≤85, and sleep quality with the Richard-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire were compared. The analysis included 22 Dex and 23 Placebo patients. The consumption of morphine was not statistically different between the Dex and Placebo groups at 12 and 24 hours (p = 0.707 and p = 0.502, respectively). The Dex group had significantly longer sleep time (8.7 h [7.8, 9.5]) than the Placebo group (5.8 h [2.9, 8.5]; p = 0.007). The Dex group also exhibited better sleep quality (7.9 [6.7, 8.7] vs 6.6 [5.2, 8.0]; p = 0.038).

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation with low-dose dexmedetomidine infusion for ultra-fast track extubation following cardiac surgery enhances sleep duration and quality.

Comparing different postoperative sedation strategies for patients in the intensive care unit after cardiac surgery: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Various postoperative sedation protocols with different anaesthetics lead to profound effects on the outcomes for post-cardiac surgery patients. However, a comprehensive analysis of optimal postoperative sedation strategies for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) after cardiac surgery is lacking.

METHODS

We systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in databases including PubMed and Embase. The primary outcome measured the duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) in the ICU, and the secondary outcome encompassed the length of stay (LOS) in the ICU and hospital and the monitoring adverse events.

RESULTS

The literature included 18 RCTs (1652 patients) with 13 sedation regimens. Dexmedetomidine plus ketamine and sevoflurane were associated with a significantly reduced duration of MV when compared with propofol. Our results also suggested that dexmedetomidine plus ketamine may associated with a shorter LOS in ICU, and sevoflurane associated with a shorter LOS in the hospital, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of dexmedetomidine and ketamine seems to be a better option for adult patients needing sedation after cardiac surgery, and the incidence of side effects is lower with dexmedetomidine. These findings have potential implications for medication management in the perioperative pharmacotherapy of cardiac surgery patients.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of pharmacological interventions for the treatment and prevention of delirium: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

We performed a network meta-analysis to build clear hierarchies of efficacy and tolerability of pharmacological interventions for the treatment and prevention of delirium. Electronic databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and MEDLINE were searched published up to February 22, 2019. A total of 108 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating pharmacotherapy on delirium were included for analysis, and the strength of evidence (SoE) was evaluated for critical outcomes. In terms of treatment, quetiapine (low SoE), morphine (low SoE), and dexmedetomidine (moderate SoE) were effective in the intensive care unit (ICU) patients. In terms of prevention, dexmedetomidine (high SoE) and risperidone (high SoE) significantly reduced the incidence of delirium in ICU surgical patients, while ramelteon (high SoE) reduced the incidence of delirium in ICU medical patients. Despite the efficacy, dexmedetomidine and risperidone demonstrated higher drop-out rate (moderate to high SoE). Haloperidol and other antipsychotics, except for quetiapine and risperidone, showed no benefit. None of the agents showed benefit in non-ICU patients. In conclusion, dexmedetomidine may be a drug of choice for both treating and preventing delirium of the ICU and postsurgical patients. However, it may be less tolerable, and side-effects should be adequately managed. Current evidence does not support the routine use of antipsychotics. For medical patients, oral ramelteon might be useful for prevention.

Effect of Intravenous Acetaminophen vs Placebo Combined With Propofol or Dexmedetomidine on Postoperative Delirium Among Older Patients Following Cardiac Surgery: The DEXACET Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Postoperative delirium is common following cardiac surgery and may be affected by choice of analgesic and sedative.

Objective

To evaluate the effect of postoperative intravenous (IV) acetaminophen (paracetamol) vs placebo combined with IV propofol vs dexmedetomidine on postoperative delirium among older patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Randomized, placebo-controlled, factorial clinical trial among 120 patients aged 60 years or older undergoing on-pump coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery or combined CABG/valve surgeries at a US center. Enrollment was September 2015 to April 2018, with follow-up ending in April 2019.

Interventions

Patients were randomized to 1 of 4 groups receiving postoperative analgesia with IV acetaminophen or placebo every 6 hours for 48 hours and postoperative sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol starting at chest closure and continued for up to 6 hours (acetaminophen and dexmedetomidine: n = 29; placebo and dexmedetomidine: n = 30; acetaminophen and propofol: n = 31; placebo and propofol: n = 30).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was incidence of postoperative in-hospital delirium by the Confusion Assessment Method. Secondary outcomes included delirium duration, cognitive decline, breakthrough analgesia within the first 48 hours, and ICU and hospital length of stay.

Results

Among 121 patients randomized (median age, 69 years; 19 women [15.8%]), 120 completed the trial. Patients treated with IV acetaminophen had a significant reduction in delirium (10% vs 28% placebo; difference, -18% [95% CI, -32% to -5%]; P = .01; HR, 2.8 [95% CI, 1.1-7.8]). Patients receiving dexmedetomidine vs propofol had no significant difference in delirium (17% vs 21%; difference, -4% [95% CI, -18% to 10%]; P = .54; HR, 0.8 [95% CI, 0.4-1.9]). There were significant differences favoring acetaminophen vs placebo for 3 prespecified secondary outcomes: delirium duration (median, 1 vs 2 days; difference, -1 [95% CI, -2 to 0]), ICU length of stay (median, 29.5 vs 46.7 hours; difference, -16.7 [95% CI, -20.3 to -0.8]), and breakthrough analgesia (median, 322.5 vs 405.3 µg morphine equivalents; difference, -83 [95% CI, -154 to -14]). For dexmedetomidine vs propofol, only breakthrough analgesia was significantly different (median, 328.8 vs 397.5 µg; difference, -69 [95% CI, -155 to -4]; P = .04). Fourteen patients in both the placebo-dexmedetomidine and acetaminophen-propofol groups (46% and 45%) and 7 in the acetaminophen-dexmedetomidine and placebo-propofol groups (24% and 23%) had hypotension.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among older patients undergoing cardiac surgery, postoperative scheduled IV acetaminophen, combined with IV propofol or dexmedetomidine, reduced in-hospital delirium vs placebo. Additional research, including comparison of IV vs oral acetaminophen and other potentially opioid-sparing analgesics, on the incidence of postoperative delirium is warranted.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02546765.

The effect of dexmedetomidine on the perioperative hemodynamics and postoperative cognitive function of elderly patients with hypertension: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Cognitive dysfunction after surgery, a common clinical manifestation of postoperative psychonosema. It usually occurs after heart surgery, hip replacement, mandibular fractures, and other major operations. Dexmedetomidine can exert sedative, analgesic, anxiolytic effect, inhibits the sympathetic activity, maintains hemodynamic balance, helps reduce the amount of anesthetic agents, and relatively slightly depresses respiration. Preoperative administration of dexmedetomidine for sedation has been reported to reduce the incidence of acute postoperative delirium. But currently there is no study on the effect of dexmedetomidine on the postoperative cognitive function of elderly patients with essential hypertension.

METHODS/DESIGN

This study is a prospective, single-center, double-blind controlled clinical trial. Elderly patients aged between 60 and 80 years old, diagnosed with primary hypertension for 1 year or longer will be included, and randomized into 2 groups. Patients in observational group will be given a loading dose of dexmedetomidine at 0.8 μg/kg, pumped for over 10 minutes. Although patients in control group will be pumped of the same volume of normal saline within 10 minutes, before the induction of anesthesia. Minimental state examination and levels of interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor alpha, and C-reactive protein will be set as primary endpoints. Baseline characteristics of patients will be summarized by groups and compared using Chi-square or Fisher exact tests for categorical variables and 2-sample t tests or Wilcoxon rank sum test for the continuous variables. Repeated measurement analysis of covariance model will also be used for the comparison of endpoints between 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

The present study is designed to investigate the effect of the application of dexmedetomidine on postoperative myocardial injury and postoperative cognitive dysfunction, also to explore the association between inflammatory factors and postoperative cognitive function. With this study, we are expecting to find out an appropriate anesthesia method for elderly people with hypertension to alleviate the postoperative adverse effects caused by medical treatments.

TRIALS REGISTRATION

This study was registered on Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (http://www.chictr.org.cn/) with the ID ChiCTR-IPR-16009156.

Outcomes When Using Adjunct Dexmedetomidine with Propofol Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Surgical Intensive Care Patients

Objective: Compare the duration of mechanical ventilation between patients receiving sedation with continuous infusions of propofol alone or combination with the use of dexmedetomidine and propofol. Design: Retrospective, propensity matched (1:1) cohort study, employing eight variables chosen a priori for matching. Timing of exposure to dexmedetomidine initiation was incorporated into a matching algorithm. Setting: Level 1, university-based, 32-bed, adult, mixed trauma and surgical intensive care unit (SICU). Continuous sedation was delivered according to a protocol methodology with daily sedation vacation and spontaneous breathing trials. Choice of sedation agent was physician directed. Patients: Between 2010 and 2014, 149 SICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation for >24 h received dexmedetomidine with propofol. Propensity matching resulted in 143 pair cohorts. Interventions: Dexmedetomidine with propofol or propofol alone. Measurements and Main Results: There was no statistical difference in SICU length of stay (LOS), with a median absolute difference of 5.3 h for propofol alone group (p = 0.43). The SICU mortality was not statistically different (RR = 1.002, p = 0.88). Examining a 14-day period post-treatment with dexmedetomidine, on any given day (excluding days 1 and 14), dexmedetomidine with propofol-treated patients had a 0.5% to 22.5% greater likelihood of being delirious (CAM-ICU positive). In addition, dexmedetomidine with propofol-treated patients had a 4.5% to 18.8% higher likelihood of being above the target sedation score (more agitated) compared to propofol-alone patients. Conclusions: In this propensity matched cohort study, adjunct use of dexmedetomidine to propofol did not show a statistically significant reduction with respect to mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, SICU LOS, or SICU mortality, despite a trend toward receiving fewer hours of propofol. There was no evidence that dexmedetomidine with propofol improved sedation scores or reduced delirium.

Outcomes When Using Adjunct Dexmedetomidine with Propofol Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Surgical Intensive Care Patients

Objective: Compare the duration of mechanical ventilation between patients receiving sedation with continuous infusions of propofol alone or combination with the use of dexmedetomidine and propofol. Design: Retrospective, propensity matched (1:1) cohort study, employing eight variables chosen a priori for matching. Timing of exposure to dexmedetomidine initiation was incorporated into a matching algorithm. Setting: Level 1, university-based, 32-bed, adult, mixed trauma and surgical intensive care unit (SICU). Continuous sedation was delivered according to a protocol methodology with daily sedation vacation and spontaneous breathing trials. Choice of sedation agent was physician directed. Patients: Between 2010 and 2014, 149 SICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation for >24 h received dexmedetomidine with propofol. Propensity matching resulted in 143 pair cohorts. Interventions: Dexmedetomidine with propofol or propofol alone. Measurements and Main Results: There was no statistical difference in SICU length of stay (LOS), with a median absolute difference of 5.3 h for propofol alone group (p = 0.43). The SICU mortality was not statistically different (RR = 1.002, p = 0.88). Examining a 14-day period post-treatment with dexmedetomidine, on any given day (excluding days 1 and 14), dexmedetomidine with propofol-treated patients had a 0.5% to 22.5% greater likelihood of being delirious (CAM-ICU positive). In addition, dexmedetomidine with propofol-treated patients had a 4.5% to 18.8% higher likelihood of being above the target sedation score (more agitated) compared to propofol-alone patients. Conclusions: In this propensity matched cohort study, adjunct use of dexmedetomidine to propofol did not show a statistically significant reduction with respect to mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, SICU LOS, or SICU mortality, despite a trend toward receiving fewer hours of propofol. There was no evidence that dexmedetomidine with propofol improved sedation scores or reduced delirium.

Dexmedetomidine and intravenous acetaminophen for the prevention of postoperative delirium following cardiac surgery (DEXACET trial): protocol for a prospective randomized controlled trial

Background

Postoperative delirium is common in elderly cardiac surgery patients. It is multifactorial and is influenced by the patient’s baseline status and the nature of the medical and surgical interventions that the patient receives. Some of these factors are potentially modifiable, including postoperative sedation and analgesia protocols. This study has been designed to evaluate the effectiveness of postoperative intravenous acetaminophen in conjunction with either dexmedetomidine or propofol in decreasing the incidence of delirium.

Methods

This is a prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded, factorial trial that includes patients who are at least 60 years old and who are undergoing cardiac surgeries involving cardiopulmonary bypass, including coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and combined CABG/valve surgeries. Patients are randomly assigned to receive one of four postoperative analgesic-sedation regimens: (1) acetaminophen and dexmedetomidine, (2) acetaminophen and propofol, (3) dexmedetomidine and placebo, or (4) propofol and placebo. The primary outcome, incidence of delirium, will be assessed with the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM or CAM-ICU). The secondary outcome, postoperative cognitive decline, will be assessed with the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Additional secondary outcomes, including duration of delirium, postoperative analgesic requirement, length of stay, and incidence of adverse events, will also be reported. Data will be analyzed in 120 randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of the study medication(s) on a modified intention-to-treat basis.

Discussion

This study has been approved by the institutional review board at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and the trial is currently recruiting. This study will systematically examine the implications of modification in postoperative sedative/analgesic protocols after cardiac surgery, specifically for short- and long-term cognitive outcomes. Any positive outcomes from this study could direct simple yet effective practice changes aimed to reduce morbidity.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02546765, registered January 13, 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2718-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The use of dexmedetomidine and intravenous acetaminophen for the prevention of postoperative delirium in cardiac surgery patients over 60 years of age: a pilot study

Background: Delirium is associated with many negative health outcomes. Postoperative sedation and opioid administration may contribute to delirium. We hypothesize that the use of dexmedetomidine and Intravenous acetaminophen (IVA) may lead to reduced opioid consumption and decreased incidence of postoperative delirium. This pilot study aims to assess feasibility of using dexmedetomidine and IVA in cardiac surgical patients, and estimate the effect size for incidence and duration of delirium.

Methods: A total of 12 adult patients >60 years of age undergoing cardiac surgery were recruited and randomized into 4 groups: Propofol only (P), Propofol with IVA (P+A), Dexmedetomidine only (D), Dexmedetomidine with IVA (D+A). Preoperative baseline cognition and postoperative delirium was assessed daily until discharge. The feasibility was assessed by the number of patients who completed the study.

Results: All patients completed the study successfully. The total incidence of delirium in the study population was 42% (5/12):  67% (2/3) in the group P, and 67% (2/3) in the group D, 33% (1/3) in  D+A group and 0%(0/3)  P+A group. The incidence of delirium was 17% (1/6) in the group receiving IVA compared to 67% (4/6) that did not receive IVA. The mean range of duration of delirium was 0-1 days. One patient expired after surgery, unrelated to the study protocol. One patient in the D group experienced hypotension (systolic blood pressure <90 mm of Hg.)

Conclusions: The feasibility of performing a  project is ascertained by the study. Patients receiving IVA had lower incidence of delirium compared to patients not receiving IVA which suggests that IVA may have a role in reducing the incidence of delirium. A prospective randomized, placebo-controlled trial will be the next step in investigating the role of dexmedetomidine and IVA in reducing the incidence of delirium.

Sedation After Cardiac Surgery: Is One Drug Better Than Another?

The classic high-dose narcotic-based cardiac anesthetic has been modified to facilitate a fast-track, rapid recovery in the intensive care unit (ICU). Postoperative sedation is consequently now an essential component in recovery of the patient undergoing cardiac surgery. It must facilitate the patient's unawareness of the environment as well as reduce the discomfort and anxiety caused by surgery, intubation, mechanical ventilation, suction, and physiotherapy. Benzodiazepines seem well suited for this role, but propofol, opioids, and dexmedetomidine are among other agents commonly used for sedation in the ICU. However, what is an ideal sedative for this application? When compared with benzodiazepine-based sedation regimens, nonbenzodiazepines have been associated with shorter duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay. Current sedation guidelines recommend avoiding benzodiazepine use in the ICU. However, there are no recommendations on which alternatives should be used. In postcardiac surgery patients, inotropes and vasoactive medications are often required because of the poor cardiac function. This makes sedation after cardiac surgery unique in comparison with the requirements for most other ICU patient populations. We reviewed the current literature to try to determine if 1 sedative regimen might be better than others; in particular, we compare outcomes of propofol and dexmedetomidine in postoperative sedation in the cardiac surgical ICU.

Effect of dexmedetomidine on diseased coronary vessel diameter and myocardial protection in percutaneous coronary interventional patients

Introduction:

Dexmedetomidine is an alpha-2 agonist used for conscious sedation. It has also been shown to have a myocardial protective effect in off-pump coronary artery bypass patients. The aim of the study was to assess the effect of dexmedetomidine for myocardial protection in percutaneous coronary interventional patients.

Methodology:

A total of 60 patients (group dexmedetomidine, n = 30 and group normal saline, n = 30) were enrolled in the study. Dexmedetomidine infusion (1 mcg/kg) over 15 min was given as a loading dose after coronary angiography in group dexmedetomidine (D) while normal saline was given in the control group (C) and later maintenance infusion was started at 0.5 mcg/kg/h in both the groups. Coronary vessel diameter was noted before (T0) and after (T1) loading dose of dexmedetomidine/saline in each group. Troponin T (Trop T) values were noted at baseline (T0), 6 h (T2), 12 h (T3) and 24 h (T4) after starting the loading dose. Hemodynamic variables (heart rate [HR] and blood pressure) were monitored at T0, T1, and at regular intervals till 2 h postprocedure.

Results:

Coronary vessel diameter and HR significantly decreased in group D as compared to control group (P < 0.05) whereas the decrease in Trop T at 6 h, 12 h, and 24 h were not statistically significant between the two groups.

Conclusion:

Dexmedetomidine decreases the coronary vessel diameter, but maintains the myocardial oxygen demand-supply ratio by decreasing the HR. The decrease in Trop T is statistically insignificant at the doses used.

Predicting, preventing, and identifying delirium after cardiac surgery

Delirium after cardiac surgery is a major problem. The exact mechanisms behind delirium are not understood. Potential pathways of delirium include neurotransmitter interference, global cognitive disorder, and neuroinflammation. Several predisposing and precipitating risk factors have been identified for postoperative delirium. The development of delirium following cardiac surgery is associated with worse outcomes in the perioperative period. Multiple interventions are being explored for the prevention and treatment of delirium. Studies investigating the potential roles of biomarkers in delirium as well as pharmacological interventions to reduce the incidence and duration of delirium are necessary to mitigate this negative outcome.

Transition from dexmedetomidine to enteral clonidine for ICU sedation: an observational pilot study

INTRODUCTION

Enteral clonidine represents a potentially less costly alternative to dexmedetomidine for sedation in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. This study describes our practice of transitioning selected adult ICU patients from dexmedetomidine to clonidine with a focus on efficacy, safety, and drug acquisition costs.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center prospective observational pilot study from January through March 2014. Consecutive patients 18 years and older treated with dexmedetomidine and transitioned to clonidine were followed. The transition was assessed in five phases: dexmedetomidine maintenance, transition, clonidine maintenance, clonidine taper, and post clonidine. Efficacy data included any occurrence of significant pain, excessive agitation or oversedation, delirium, and need for ancillary psychoactive medications. Safety data included any occurrence of bradycardia, hypotension, new second- or third-degree atrioventricular node blockade, and clonidine withdrawal syndrome. Drug acquisition cost avoidances were estimated using average wholesale price.

RESULTS

Twenty patients were evaluated. Fifteen (75%) were successfully transitioned from dexmedetomidine within 48 hours of starting clonidine. The initial and maintenance clonidine regimens were 0.3 mg every 6 hours. Clonidine was the sole α2A -receptor agonist administered for 45 hours while in the ICU and for 54 hours outside the ICU. Fentanyl requirements were lower when clonidine was administered as the sole α2A -receptor agonist as compared to dexmedetomidine alone (387 vs. 891 μg/day, p = 0.03). Otherwise, there were no statistically significant differences in efficacy data during the dexmedetomidine and clonidine maintenance phases. No statistically significant differences in safety data were observed. Clonidine withdrawal syndrome criteria were met in one patient. The potential drug acquisition cost avoidance was $819-$2338 per patient during the 3-month study.

CONCLUSIONS

Transitioning from dexmedetomidine to clonidine may be an efficacious, safe, and less costly method of maintaining α2A -receptor agonist therapy in critically ill adults; these results warrant confirmation in expanded studies.

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

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

Efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine for postoperative delirium in adult cardiac surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass

Background

Delirium after cardiac surgery is associated with serious long-term negative outcomes and high costs. The aim of this study is to evaluate neurobehavioral, hemodynamic, and sedative characteristics of dexmedetomidine, compared with the current postoperative sedative protocol (remifentanil) in patients undergoing open heart surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB).

Methods

One hundred and forty two eligible patients who underwent cardiac surgery on CPB between April 2012 and March 2013 were randomly divided into two groups. Patients received either dexmedetomidine (range, 0.2 to 0.8 μg/kg/hr; n=67) or remifentanil (range, 1,000 to 2,500 μg/hr, n=75). The primary end point was the prevalence of delirium estimated daily via the confusion assessment method for intensive care.

Results

When the delirium incidence was compared with the dexmedetomidine group (6 of 67 patients, 8.96%) and the remifentanil group (17 of 75 patients, 22.67%) it was found to be significantly less in the dexmedetomidine group (p<0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between two groups in the extubation time, ICU stay, total hospital stay, and other postoperative complications including hemodynamic side effects.

Conclusion

This preliminary study suggests that dexmedetomidine as a postoperative sedative agent is as sociated with significantly lower rates of delirium after cardiac surgery.

Clinical and economic impact of substituting dexmedetomidine for propofol due to a US drug shortage: examination of coronary artery bypass graft patients at an urban medical centre

BACKGROUND

Propofol has reduced healthcare costs in coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery patients by decreasing post-operative duration of mechanical ventilation. However, the US shortage of propofol necessitated the use of alternative agents.

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to evaluate clinical and economic implications of substituting dexmedetomidine for propofol in patients undergoing CABG surgery.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study. Patients undergoing isolated, elective CABG surgery and sedated with either propofol or dexmedetomidine during the study period were included. The cohorts were matched 1:1 based on important characteristics. The primary outcome was the number of patients achieving a post-operative duration of mechanical ventilation ≤6 h. Secondary outcomes were post-operative intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) ≤48 h, total post-operative LOS ≤5 days, the need for adjunctive opioid therapy and associated cost savings. Variables recorded included patient demographics, co-morbid medical conditions, health risks, sedation drug doses, post-operative medical complications and sedation-related adverse events. Univariate and multivariate analyses were completed to examine the relationship between these covariates and post-operative LOS. The cost analysis consisted of examination of the net financial benefit (or cost) of choosing dexmedetomidine versus propofol in the study population, with utilisation observed in the study converted to costs using institutional data from the Premier database.

RESULTS

Eighty-four patients were included, with 42 patients per cohort. Mechanical ventilation duration ≤6 h was achieved in 24 (57.1 %) versus 7 (16.7 %) in the dexmedetomidine and propofol cohorts, respectively (p < 0.001). More patients treated with dexmedetomidine achieved ICU LOS ≤48 h (p < 0.05) and total hospital LOS ≤5 days (p < 0.05), as compared with the propofol group. Multivariate analysis revealed that having one or more post-operative medical complication was the most significant predictor of increased post-operative LOS, whereas choosing dexmedetomidine was also significant in terms of reduced post-operative LOS. The estimated net financial benefit of choosing dexmedetomidine versus propofol was US$2,613 per patient (year 2012 value).

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that use of dexmedetomidine as an alternative to propofol for sedation of CABG patients post-operatively contributes to reduced mechanical ventilation time, ICU LOS and post-operative LOS. Higher drug costs resulting from the propofol shortage were offset by savings in post-operative room and board costs. Additional savings may be possible by preventing medical complications to the extent possible.

Role of dexmedetomidine in adults in the intensive care unit: an update

PURPOSE

The role of dexmedetomidine for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is reviewed and updated.

SUMMARY

Searches of MEDLINE (July 2006-March 2012) and an extensive manual review of journals were performed. Relevant literature with a focus on data published since our last review in 2007 was evaluated for topic relevance and clinical applicability. Optimal management of pain, agitation, and delirium in ICUs requires a systematic and multimodal approach aimed at providing comfort while maximizing outcomes. Dexmedetomidine is among multiple agents, including opioids, propofol, benzodiazepines, and antipsychotics, used to facilitate and increase patients' tolerability of mechanical ventilation. This article reviews the newest evidence available for dexmedetomidine use for sedation and analgesia in medical-surgical ICUs. Adverse effects associated with dexmedetomidine were similar among the studies examined herein. The most common adverse effects with dexmedetomidine were bradycardia and hypotension, in some cases severe enough to warrant the use of vasoactive support. Due to the adverse events associated with rapid dosage adjustment and bolus therapy, dexmedetomidine may not be the best agent for treating acute agitation.

CONCLUSION

In medical-surgical ICUs, dexmedetomidine may be a viable non-benzodiazepine option for patients with a need for light sedation. In cardiac surgery patients, dexmedetomidine appears to offer no advantage over propofol as the initial sedative. The role of dexmedetomidine in unique patient populations such as neurosurgical, trauma, and obstetrics is yet to be established.

Dexmedetomidine infusion for analgesia up to 48 hours after lung surgery performed by lateral thoracotomy

Patients undergoing a lateral thoracotomy for pulmonary resection have moderate to severe pain postoperatively that is often treated with opioids. Opioid side effects such as respiratory depression can be devastating in patients with already compromised respiratory function. This prospective double-blinded clinical trial examined the analgesic effects and safety of a dexmedetomidine infusion for postthoracotomy patients when administered on a telemetry nursing floor, 24 to 48 hours after surgery, to determine if the drug's known early opioid-sparing properties were maintained. Thirty-eight thoracotomy patients were administered dexmedetomidine intraoperatively and overnight postoperatively and then randomized to receive placebo or dexmedetomidine titrated from 0.1 to 0.5 μg·kg·h(-1) the day following surgery for up to 24 hours on a telemetry floor. Opioids via a patient-controlled analgesia pump were available for both groups, and vital signs including transcutaneous carbon dioxide, pulse oximetry, respiratory rate, and pain and sedation scores were monitored. The dexmedetomidine group used 41% less opioids but achieved pain scores equal to those of the placebo group. The mean heart rate and systolic blood pressure were lower in the dexmedetomidine group but sedation scores were better. The mean respiratory rate and oxygen saturation were similar in the two groups. Mild hypercarbia occurred in both groups, but periods of significant respiratory depression were noted only in the placebo group. Significant hypotension was noted in one patient in the dexmedetomidine group in conjunction with concomitant administration of a beta-blocker agent. The placebo group reported a higher number of opioid-related adverse events. In conclusion, the known opioid-sparing properties of dexmedetomidine in the immediate postoperative period are maintained over 48 hours.

A case-based approach to the practical application of dexmedetomidine in critically ill adults

Dexmedetomidine is a selective α(2) -adrenoceptor agonist that offers unique sedation because patients are readily awakened while administration continues and the drug does not suppress the respiratory center. Limitations of use include higher acquisition cost, inability to produce deep sedation, and bradycardia and hypotension. Using a case-based approach, the purpose of this review was to qualitatively assess the role of dexmedetomidine in the care of the critically ill and in the management of alcohol withdrawal, and to formulate recommendations regarding its clinical application. Sixty-six studies were identified that investigated dexmedetomidine for the provision of sedation. These studies were heterogeneous in design and patient populations; most investigated patients did not require heavy sedation, and few used propofol as the comparator. In general, though, the aggregate results of all studies demonstrate that dexmedetomidine provides comfort, possibly shortens the duration of mechanical ventilation to facilitate extubation, reduces the occurrence of acute brain dysfunction, and facilitates communication, but the drug is associated with hemodynamic instability and requires the supplemental use of traditional sedative and analgesic agents. These outcomes need to be substantiated in additional studies that include assessments of cost-effectiveness. Dexmedetomidine should be considered when patients require mild to moderate levels of sedation of short to intermediate time frames, and they qualify for daily awakenings with traditional sedative therapies. The data for dexmedetomidine in relation to alcohol withdrawal are limited to 12 retrospective reports representing a total of 127 patients. Its role for this indication requires further study, but it may be considered as adjunctive therapy when clinicians are concerned about respiratory suppression associated with escalating doses of γ-aminobutyric acid agonists. Regardless of the indication for dexmedetomidine, the practitioner must closely monitor patient comfort and the occurrence of hemodynamic deviations with the realization that as-needed administration of traditional sedatives and analgesics will be required and some degree of bradycardia and hypotension expected but intervention rarely required.

Protective effect of dexmedetomidine in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery

The aim of this study was to observe the impact of dexmedetomidine on postoperative myocardial injury in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) grafting. One hundred and sixty-two patients who were undergoing OPCAB surgery were randomly divided into control and dexmedetomidine groups (groups C and Dex, respectively). Following the first vascular anastomosis grafting, the patients in group Dex received a continuous intravenous infusion of 0.2–0.5 μg/kg/h dexmedetomidine, until they were transferred to the Cardiac Surgery intensive care unit (ICU) for 12 h. Patients in group C received physiological saline intraoperatively and an intravenous infusion of 2–4 mg/kg/h isopropylphenol for postoperative sedation. Invasive arterial pressure and heart rate were continuously monitored for 5 min subsequent to entry into the operating theatre (T0), immediately following surgery (T1), 12 h post-surgery (T2), 24 h post-surgery(T3), 48 h post-surgery(T4) and 72 h post-surgery (T5). Blood samples were taken to determine the plasma levels of cardiac troponin I (cTnI) and creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB) at each time point. At 72 h post-surgery, a dynamic electrocardiogram was monitored. The blood pressure, heart rate, levels of cTnI, CK-MB, norepinephrine and cortisol, and postoperative arrhythmic events in the patients in group Dex all decreased compared with those in group C. The duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU residence time were also shorter than those in the control group (P<0.05). Dexmedetomidine reduced post-surgical myocardial injury in patients who had undergone OPCAB surgery.

Impact of a Protocol Advocating Dexmedetomidine Over Propofol Sedation After Robotic-Assisted Direct Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery on Duration of Mechanical Ventilation and Patient Safety

BACKGROUND

Controversy remains whether propofol or dexmedetomidine is the preferred sedative following cardiac surgery. Dexmedetomidine may offer advantages over propofol among patients undergoing robotic-assisted, minimally invasive, direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) surgery given the rapidity with which this population is usually extubated after surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To measure the impact of a surgery protocol advocating use of dexmedetomidine rather than propofol after MIDCAB surgery on discontinuation of mechanical ventilation and patient safety.

METHODS

The records on consecutive adults undergoing MIDCAB surgery who received postoperative sedation with propofol or dexmedetomidine at a 508-bed academic medical center were analyzed before and after implementation of a post-MIDCAB surgery protocol advocating dexmedetomidine use.

RESULTS

Seventy-three propofol patients were compared with 53 dexmedetomidine patients. The groups were similar, except propofol patients were older (p = 0.002) and more likely to have underlying heart failure that was either moderate or severe (New York Heart Association class III or IV) (p = 0.0001). Time (median [interquartile range]) to extubation (hours) was shorter in the dexmedetomidine group (5.0 [3.6–7.0] vs 9.8 [5.0–16.3]; p = 0.0001). A Cox proportional hazards model revealed that patient age (p = 0.001) and duration of surgery (p = 0.003) influenced time to extubation between the dexmedetomidine and propofol groups but the presence of moderate or severe heart failure (p = 0.438), the number of coronary vessels operated on (p = 0.130), use of an opioid (p = 0.791), or the total dose of morphine administered (p = 0.215) did not. During sedation administration, more propofol-treated patients experienced 1 or more episodes of hypotension (systolic blood pressure ≤80 mm Hg, 11.6% vs 0%; p = 0.02), tachycardia (heart rate ≥120 beats/min, 8.6% vs 0%; p = 0.04), and unarousability (Sedation Agitation Scale score ≤2, 30.0% vs 9.4%; p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of a protocol promoting dexmedetomidine, rather than propofol sedation, after MIDCAB surgery facilitates faster discontinuation of mechanical ventilation and is associated with greater hemodynamic stability and arousability.

Sedation for critically ill or injured adults in the intensive care unit: a shifting paradigm

As most critically ill or injured patients will require some degree of sedation, the goal of this paper was to comprehensively review the literature associated with use of sedative agents in the intensive care unit (ICU). The first and selected latter portions of this article present a narrative overview of the shifting paradigm in ICU sedation practices, indications for uninterrupted or prolonged ICU sedation, and the pharmacology of sedative agents. In the second portion, we conducted a structured, although not entirely systematic, review of the available evidence associated with use of alternative sedative agents in critically ill or injured adults. Data sources for this review were derived by searching OVID MEDLINE and PubMed from their first available date until May 2012 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses and economic evaluations. Advances in the technology of mechanical ventilation have permitted clinicians to limit the use of sedation among the critically ill through daily sedative interruptions or other means. These practices have been reported to result in improved mortality, a decreased length of ICU and hospital stay and a lower risk of drug-associated delirium. However, in some cases, prolonged or uninterrupted sedation may still be indicated, such as when patients develop intracranial hypertension following traumatic brain injury. The pharmacokinetics of sedative agents have clinical importance and may be altered by critical illness or injury, co-morbid conditions and/or drug-drug interactions. Although use of validated sedation scales to monitor depth of sedation is likely to reduce adverse events, they have no utility for patients receiving neuromuscular receptor blocking agents. Depth of sedation monitoring devices such as the Bispectral Index (BIS©) also have limitations. Among existing RCTs, no sedative agent has been reported to improve the risk of mortality among the critically ill or injured. Moreover, although propofol may be associated with a shorter time to tracheal extubation and recovery from sedation than midazolam, the risk of hypertriglyceridaemia and hypotension is higher with propofol. Despite dexmedetomidine being linked with a lower risk of drug-associated delirium than alternative sedative agents, this drug increases risk of bradycardia and hypotension. Among adults with severe traumatic brain injury, there are insufficient data to suggest that any single sedative agent decreases the risk of subsequent poor neurological outcomes or mortality. The lack of examination of confounders, including the type of healthcare system in which the investigation was conducted, is a major limitation of existing pharmacoeconomic analyses, which likely limits generalizability of their results.

Can dexmedetomidine be a safe and efficacious sedative agent in post-cardiac surgery patients? a meta-analysis

Introduction

The aim of this study was to explore the use of dexmedetomidine as a safe and efficacious sedative agent in post-cardiac surgery patients.

Methods

A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library and Science Citation Index until January 2012 and review of studies was conducted. Eligible studies were of randomized controlled trials or cohort studies, comparing dexmedetomidine with a placebo or an alternative sedative agent in elective cardiac surgery, using dexmedetomidine for postoperative sedation and available in full text. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction.

Results

The search identified 530 potentially relevant publications; 11 met selection criteria in this meta-analysis. Our results revealed that dexmedetomidine was associated with a shorter length of mechanical ventilation (mean difference -2.70 [-5.05, -0.35]), a lower risk of delirium (risk ratio 0.36 [0.21, 0.64]), ventricular tachycardia (risk ratio 0.27 [0.08, 0.97]) and hyperglycemia (risk ratio 0.78 [0.61, 0.99]), but may increase the risk of bradycardia (risk ratio 2.08 [1.16, 3.74]). But there was no significant difference in ICU stay, hospital stay, and morphine equivalents between the included studies. Dexmedetomidine may not increase the risk of hypotension, atrial fibrillation, postoperative nausea and vomiting, reintubation within 5 days, cardiovascular complications, postoperative infection or hospital mortality.

Conclusions

Dexmedetomidine was associated with shorter length of mechanical ventilation and lower risk of delirium following cardiac surgery. Although the risk of bradycardia was significantly higher compared with traditional sedatives, it may not increase length of hospital stay and hospital mortality. Moreover, dexmedetomidine may decrease the risk of ventricular tachycardia and hyperglycemia. Thus, dexmedetomidine could be a safe and efficacious sedative agent in cardiac surgical patients.

Altering intensive care sedation paradigms to improve patient outcomes

Providing sedation and comfort for intensive care patients has evolved in the last 30 years but remains difficult for clinicians. As research has focused on this challenging area, the authors have identified ways to improve practice, including providing analgesia before sedation, strategies to help recognize dangerous adverse effects associated with the medications that are used, and better ways to monitor pain and delirium in patients. Dexmedetomidine and propofol have become the preferred sedatives for many ICU situations, and creative ways to administer them, such as linking awakening and breathing trials, are emerging. Finally, screening survivors for cognitive impairments may allow clinicians to refer them for the focused rehabilitation they require.

Pharmacoeconomics of sedation in the ICU

Despite considerable information on the pharmacotherapy of sedation in the ICU, there is little published on the pharmacoeconomics of sedation in patients who are critically ill. The purpose of this article is to discuss the various components that contribute to the cost of treating the agitated ICU patient and to critically review the articles published since 2000 that evaluated costs and cost-effectiveness in ICU patients receiving drugs for agitation and/or pain. Clinicians should look beyond the acquisition cost of a sedative and include the effect of sedatives on the cost of care when selecting the most appropriate sedative.

Dexmedetomidine in cardiac surgery patients who fail extubation and present with a delirium state

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the use of dexmedetomidine to facilitate the weaning of delirious postoperative patients from mechanical ventilation.

METHODS

We included 72 consecutive patients who underwent elective cardiac surgery in this prospective observational study. Each patient had failed at least 1 trial of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and had agitation. Patients were assessed with the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAMICU) 12 to 18 hours after their admission to the ICU. Midazolam and fentanyl were then given to all patients according to the sedation protocol. At 36 hours in the ICU, patients who had agitation and an inability to wean were randomly divided into 2 groups: group M, 34 patients who continued to follow the routine sedative protocol; and group D, 38 patients who were given dexmedetomidine. Arterial blood gas measurements, hemodynamic parameters, and time to extubation were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed with GraphPad InStat (version 2.02 for DOS).

RESULTS

All patients tested positive in the CAM-ICU assessment, and all had a delirium diagnosis. The 38 patients in group D tolerated a spontaneous breathing trial with CPAP and were extubated after a mean (±SD) of 49.619 ± 6.96 hours. The 2 groups had significantly different extubation times (58.389 ± 3.958 hours versus 49.619 ± 6.96 hours). The 2 groups had significantly different RASS scores at 48 and 60 hours and significantly different heart rates and PO2 values at 12 and 24 hours. The 2 groups showed no significant differences with regard to hemodynamic parameters.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine may help to eliminate the emergence of agitation and can be a good treatment choice for the delirium state after cardiac surgery.

Evaluation of dexmedetomidine versus propofol-based sedation therapy in mechanically ventilated cardiac surgery patients at a tertiary academic medical center

Management of pain and sedation therapy is a vital component of optimizing patient outcomes; however, the ideal pharmacotherapy regimen has not been identified in the postoperative cardiac surgery population. We sought to evaluate efficacy and safety outcomes between postoperative mechanically ventilated cardiac surgery patients receiving dexmedetomidine versus propofol therapy upon arrival to the intensive care unit (ICU). We conducted a single center, descriptive study of clinical practice at a 20-bed cardiac surgery ICU in a tertiary academic medical center. Adult mechanically ventilated postcardiac surgery patients who received either dexmedetomidine or propofol for sedation therapy upon admission to the ICU between October 20, 2006 and December 15, 2006 were evaluated. A pharmacy database was used to identify patients receiving dexmedetomidine or propofol therapy for perioperative sedation during cardiac surgery. Patients were matched according to surgical procedure type. Fifty-six patients who received either dexmedetomidine (n = 28) or propofol (n = 28) were included in the analysis. No differences in the ICU length of stay (58.67 ± 32.61 vs. 61 ± 33.1 hours; P = 0.79) and duration of mechanical ventilation (16.21 ± 6.05 vs. 13.97 ± 4.62 hours; P = 0.13) were seen between the propofol and dexmedetomidine groups, respectively. Hypotension (17 [61%] vs. 9 [32%]; P = 0.04), morphine use (11 [39.3%] vs. 1 [3.6%]; P = 0.002), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory use (7 [25%] vs. 1 [3.6%]; P = 0.05) occurred more during dexmedetomidine therapy versus propofol. Dexmedetomidine therapy resulted in a higher incidence of hypotension and analgesic consumption compared with propofol-based sedation therapy. Further evaluation is needed to assess differences in clinical outcomes of propofol and dexmedetomidine-based therapy in mechanically ventilated cardiac surgery patients.

Impact of dexmedetomidine on analgesic requirements in patients after cardiac surgery in a fast-track recovery room setting

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To compare postoperative opioid requirements in patients who received dexmedetomidine versus propofol after cardiac surgery.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Large, community teaching hospital that uses a fast-track cardiovascular recovery unit (CVRU) model.

PATIENTS

One hundred adults who underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery and/or valvular surgery, and who received either dexmedetomidine (50 patients) or propofol (50 patients) for perioperative sedation.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Patients were matched according to surgery type and left ventricular ejection fraction. Opioid requirements were assessed over two time intervals: from arrival in the CVRU to discontinuation of the sedative infusion, and from CVRU arrival to CVRU discharge, up to a maximum of 72 hours if admission to the intensive care unit was necessary. All postoperative opioid doses were converted to morphine equivalents. Length of mechanical ventilation, quality of sedation, adverse drug events, and sedation-related costs were determined. Opioid requirements were significantly lower during the sedative infusion period for dexmedetomidine-treated patients than for propofol-treated patients (median [range] 0 [0-10 mg] vs 4 mg [0-33 mg], p<0.001), but not through the entire CVRU admission (median [range] 26 mg [0-119 mg] vs 30 mg (0-100 mg], p=0.284). The proportion of patients who did not require opioids during the infusion was significantly higher in the dexmedetomidine group compared with the propofol group (32 [64%] vs 13 [26%], p<0.001). No significant differences were noted between the groups for length of mechanical ventilation, quality of sedation, or adverse events. Sedation-related costs were significantly higher (approximately $50/patient higher) with dexmedetomidine (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Dexmedetomidine resulted in lower opioid requirements in patients after cardiac surgery versus those receiving propofol, but this did not result in shorter durations of mechanical ventilation, using a fast-track CVRU model.

The Effect of Dexmedetomidine on Agitation during Weaning of Mechanical Ventilation in Critically ill Patients

Ventilated patients receiving opioids and/or benzodiazepines are at high risk of developing agitation, particularly upon weaning towards extubation. This is often associated with an increased intubation time and length of stay in the intensive care unit and may cause long-term morbidity. Anxiety, fear and agitation are amongst the most common non-pulmonary causes of failure to liberate from mechanical ventilation. This prospective, open-label observational study examined 28 ventilated adult patients in the intensive care unit (30 episodes) requiring opioids and/or sedatives for >24 hours, who developed agitation and/or delirium upon weaning from sedation and failed to achieve successful extubation with conventional management. Patients were ventilated for a median (interquartile range) of 115 [87 to 263] hours prior to enrolment, Dexmedetomidine infusion was commenced at 0.4 μg/kg/hour for two hours, after which concurrent sedative therapy was preferentially weaned and titrated to obtain target Motor Activity Assessment Score score of 2 to 4. The median (range) maximum dose and infusion time of dexmedetomidine was 0.7 μg/kg/hour (0.4 to 1.0) and 62 hours (24 to 252) respectively. The number of episodes at target Motor Activity Assessment Score score at zero, six and 12 hours after commencement of dexmedetomidine were 7/30 (23.3%), 28/30 (93.3%) and 26/30 (86.7%), respectively (P <0.001 for 6 and 12 vs 0 hours). Excluding unrelated clinical deterioration, 22 episodes (73.3%) achieved successful weaning from ventilation with a median (interquartile range) ventilation time of 70 (28 to 96) hours after dexmedetomidine infusion. Dexmedetomidine achieved rapid resolution of agitation and facilitated ventilatory weaning after failure of conventional therapy. Its role as first-line therapy in ventilated, agitated patients warrants further investigation.

Altering intensive care sedation paradigms to improve patient outcomes

Providing sedation and comfort for intensive care patients has evolved in the last few years. New approaches to improving outcomes for intensive care unit (ICU) patients include providing analgesia before adding sedation and recognizing dangerous adverse effects associated with sedative medications, such as prolonged effects of midazolam, propylene glycol toxicity with lorazepam, propofol infusion syndrome, the deliriogenic effects of benzodiazepines and propofol, and bradycardia with dexmedetomidine. There are now reliable and valid ways to monitor pain and delirium in ICU patients. Dexmedetomidine reduces the incidence of delirium, reduces the duration of mechanical ventilation, and appears to be cost effective.

Pharmacoeconomics of sedation in the ICU

Despite considerable information on the pharmacotherapy of sedation in the ICU, there is little published on the pharmacoeconomics of sedation in patients who are critically ill. The purpose of this article is to discuss the various components that contribute to the cost of treating the agitated ICU patient and to critically review the articles published since 2000 that evaluated costs and cost-effectiveness in ICU patients receiving drugs for agitation and/or pain. Clinicians should look beyond the acquisition cost of a sedative and include the effect of sedatives on the cost of care when selecting the most appropriate sedative.

Sedation management in the mechanically ventilated critically ill patient

Sedation management in the mechanically ventilated critically ill patient is a topic of continuing interest in the critical care literature. The wide variety of clinical practices described in the literature with regard to sedation management has limited the implementation of evidence-based practice guidelines. Common themes for a coherent sedation management strategy include articulation of indications for sedation, initial and daily evaluation of sedation goals, sedation-level assessment, appropriate sedative selection, effective sedation management strategy, and efficient sedation weaning strategy. We provide a summary of the literature on key aspects of sedation in clinical practice. Evidence-based recommendations are provided for clinicians involved in the management of sedation in mechanically ventilated patients.

Characteristics, drug therapy, and outcomes from a database of 500,000 hospitalized patients with a discharge diagnosis of heart failure

Knowledge related to acute heart failure (HF) and its management in "real-world" clinical practice is limited. The authors delineated characteristics and drug therapy for hospitalized HF patients and their association with clinical and economic outcomes. The NDCHealth (National Data Corporation, Atlanta, GA) database, containing billing data from a geographically diverse sample of approximately 300 hospitals, was screened for admissions in 2003 of either a primary or secondary discharge diagnosis of HF. Of 2.5 million admissions screened, 496,534 patients (19.7%) had a primary (131,057) or secondary (365,477) discharge diagnosis of HF. Mean age was 73.1+/-13.9 years, and 55.4% were women. Mean length of hospital stay was 8.7+/-28.6 days, and in-hospital mortality was 7.1%. Mean hospital cost per admission was dollars 18,667. Admissions with HF as a secondary diagnosis were associated with a worse prognosis. HF commonly exists in hospitalized patients and is associated with significant morbidity, mortality, and economic burden, irrespective of whether it is the primary diagnosis or a secondary comorbidity.

Current management of anemia in critically ill patients: analysis of a database of 139 hospitals

PURPOSE

This analysis focused on three objectives: 1) to measure packed red blood cell (pRBC) use across different critical care settings; 2) to characterize transfused and nontransfused critically ill patients; and (3) to identify potential predictors of transfusion use.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of critically ill patients from 139 hospitals across the United States was conducted. Hospital administrative and laboratory data were collected for patients 18 years of age and older admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) (including coronary care unit and intermediate care units) from January 1, 2004, to May 31, 2005. Multivariate analyses controlling for patient and hospital heterogeneity evaluated the association between pRBC transfusions and patients' ICU or hospital length of stay.

RESULTS

A total of 180,221 patients met all inclusion criteria, with 29,331 (16.3%) receiving pRBCs during their ICU stay. There was differential use of pRBCs by ICU/coronary care unit setting (ie, 23% of general ICU patients versus 7% of intermediate coronary care unit patients). Increasing age [odds ratio (OR), 1.007; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.006-1.008], declining hemoglobin concentrations (OR, 2.315; 95% CI, 2.288-2.342), mechanical ventilation (OR, 1.338; 95% CI, 1.287-1.392), dialysis (OR, 2.071; 95% CI, 1.913-2.242), and presence of acute renal failure (OR, 1.259; 95% CI, 1.193-1.329), congestive heart failure (OR, 1.156; 95% CI, 1.106-1.208), or septicemia (OR, 1.143; 95% CI, 1.071-1.221) were associated with a higher likelihood of pRBC use. Each pRBC transfusion significantly increased hospital length of stay (1.6, 0.5, and 2.7 additional days for patients with 1, 2, and 3 or more transfusions, respectively, P < 0.0001) as compared with nontransfused patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Multiple factors increased the likelihood of pRBC use in ICU patients. In addition, pRBC transfusion was associated with increased length of stay. Clinicians should evaluate the risk-benefit ratio and consider interventions to limit any unnecessary pRBC use in the critically ill.

Dexmedetomidine: sedation, analgesia and beyond

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine is an alpha-2 adrenoreceptor agonist with sedative, analgesic and anxiolytic properties. Since its release in the US market in late 1999, it has gained remarkable attention in the adult, pediatric and geriatric populations, predominantly because of its minimal respiratory depression. However, beyond its well-known properties, dexmedetomidine has recently been investigated for its potential in many other clinical scenarios, including neuroprotection, cardioprotection and renoprotection, with promising results.

OBJECTIVE

This review provides an outline of the current use of dexmedetomidine in adult and pediatric populations in several clinical settings, including operating room, intensive care unit, postsurgical patients and patients who need sedation and/or analgesia for invasive and noninvasive procedures. Our objectives were to examine the most up-to-date clinical evidence, describe the magnitude of effects, and shed some light on potential future applications.

METHODS

Published, peer-reviewed studies, including preclinical data, were included in this review article.

RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine is a novel agent with a wide safety margin and excellent sedative and moderate analgesic properties. Though its broadest use is currently in surgical and nonsurgical intensive care unit patients, dexmedetomidine appears to have promising future applications in the areas of neuroprotection, cardioprotection and renoprotection.

The pharmacology of oversedation in mechanically ventilated adults

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review pharmacological-related factors that affect the incidence of oversedation in mechanically ventilated adults.

RECENT FINDINGS

Recent epidemiologic studies have identified a high frequency of oversedation in the ICU that is attributable, in part, to a number of pharmacokinetic, pharmacogenetic, and pharmacodynamic factors. New evidence suggests that the administration of benzodiazepines, even when dosed intermittently, will lead to more oversedation than either propofol or dexmedetomidine and is associated with greater healthcare costs. Based on this data, clinicians should limit the use of benzodiazepines to those patients with anxiety, seizures, alcohol withdrawal, or in whom a deeper level of sedation or therapeutic paralysis is required.

SUMMARY

Recognition of these new advances will help liberate patients from mechanical ventilation sooner, without compromising patient comfort.

The Safety and Effectiveness of Dexmedetomidine When Used for More Than 24 Hours in an Adult Intensive Care Setting

Dexmedetomidine is a new analgesic and anxiolytic used in the intensive care setting. It has been indicated for use for less than 24 hours to aid in intubation or extubation of a patient. The advantages for dexmedetomidine compared with propofol or benzodiazepines are that it has fewer sedating effects and a short half-life. Several retrospective studies and case reports have reported its use longer than the indicated 24 hours. They reported that dexmedetomidine is safe to use past the 24-hour indicated time of use, with the same or fewer adverse side effects reported.

Sedation and analgesia in the critically ill adult

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the recent advances in providing analgesia and sedation to intensive care unit patients that can improve outcomes, and reduce resource utilization and adverse events.

RECENT FINDINGS

Validated tools to assess patient sedation and analgesia are available, and have been shown to improve outcomes when used. A strategy providing analgesia-first and supplemented by sedation-as-needed appears to improve patient outcomes. The negative impact of deep sedation to the point of coma, even for brief periods, is again recognized. Additional data defining adverse events associated with propofol and lorazepam can help us develop strategies to avoid them.

SUMMARY

Utilizing and incorporating these new advances can improve outcomes and result in a more comfortable patient.

Adjunctive Dexmedetomidine Therapy in the Intensive Care Unit: A Retrospective Assessment of Impact on Sedative and Analgesic Requirements, Levels of Sedation and Analgesia, and Ventilatory and Hemodynamic Parameters

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine if adjunctive dexmedetomidine therapy in intensive care patients alters requirements for and levels of sedation and analgesia, and to describe hemodynamic and ventilatory parameters.

DESIGN

Retrospective, noncontrolled, descriptive study of clinical practice.

SETTING

Four intensive care units (ICUs; medical, surgical, neurosurgical, or burn) in a university-affiliated medical center.

PATIENTS

Forty patients who were already receiving sustained use of propofol, lorazepam, or fentanyl when dexmedetomidine was started.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Medical records were identified by searching the pharmacy database for patients who had received continuous-infusion dexmedetomidine from January 2000-January 2003 while in one of the four ICUs. Primary end points were discontinuation or dosage reduction of other sedatives or fentanyl from the hour before to 6 hours after starting dexmedetomidine. Other outcomes included levels of sedation and analgesia before and after dexmedetomidine and description of ventilatory and hemodynamic parameters. The initial dexmedetomidine rate of 0.4 +/- 0.25 microg/kg/hour changed minimally through 47.4 +/- 61.1 infusion hours. At 6 hours, 11 of 13 patients receiving propofol, 14 of 23 receiving lorazepam, and 4 of 30 receiving fentanyl had the respective agent discontinued. With dexmedetomidine, the hourly rates and cumulative daily doses were reduced only for propofol. Adequate sedation occurred at rates of 64.6% and 47.9% during the 24-hour periods before and after dexmedetomidine was started, respectively (p=0.001). Four and 12 patients had severe agitation before and after, respectively (p=0.05). One and 12 patients had severe pain before and after, respectively (p=0.02). Nine patients experienced hypotension or bradycardia. Twenty-two patients were successfully extubated within 24 hours of starting dexmedetomidine.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive dexmedetomidine reduces sedative requirements but does not alter analgesic requirements. However, dexmedetomidine was associated with enhanced agitation, severe pain, and hemodynamic compromise. Transitioning to dexmedetomidine from other sedatives and analgesics may not provide optimal sedation and analgesia. Future studies are needed to evaluate dexmedetomidine as a bridge to extubation.

Dexmedetomidine: an updated review

OBJECTIVE

To review recent literature on the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine.

DATA SOURCES

Articles were identified through searches of MEDLINE (1966-January 2007). Key words included dexmedetomidine, medetomidine, alpha(2)-agonist, and sedation. References from selected articles were reviewed for additional references.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Experimental and observational studies that focused on the safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine in humans were selected.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Dexmedetomidine is an alpha(2)-agonist for short-term sedation in critically ill patients. In postoperative patients, dexmedetomidine produced similar levels of sedation and times to extubation, with less opioid requirements compared with propofol. Dexmedetomidine has also been studied for sedation in critically ill medical and pediatric patients, as adjunct to anesthesia, and for procedural sedation. Hypotension, hypertension, and bradycardia are common adverse effects. Although dexmedetomidine is labeled only for sedation less than 24 hours, it has been administered for longer than 24 hours without apparent development of rebound hypertension and tachycardia.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexmedetomidine is a safe and effective agent for sedation in critically ill patients. Further, well designed studies are needed to define its role as a sedative for critically ill medical, neurosurgical, and pediatric patients, as an adjunct to anesthesia, and as a sedative during procedures.