Experienced Use of Dexmedetomidine in the Intensive Care Unit: A Report of a Structured Consensus

Postintensive Care Syndrome: Feasibly Bridging Care at a Tertiary Trauma Center

BACKGROUND

Advancements in critical care management have improved mortality rates of trauma patients; however, research has identified physical and psychological impairments that remain with patients for an extended time. Cognitive impairments, anxiety, stress, depression, and weakness in the postintensive care phase are an impetus for trauma centers to examine their ability to improve patient outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

This article describes one center's efforts to intervene to address postintensive care syndrome in trauma patients.

METHODS

This article describes implementing aspects of the Society of Critical Care Medicine's liberation bundle to address postintensive care syndrome in trauma patients.

RESULTS

The implementation of the liberation bundle initiatives was successful and well received by trauma staff, patients, and families. It requires strong multidisciplinary commitment and adequate staffing. Continued focus and retraining are requirements in the face of staff turnover and shortages, which are real-world barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of the liberation bundle was feasible. Although the initiatives were positively received by trauma patients and their families, we identified a gap in the availability of long-term outpatient services for trauma patients after discharge from the hospital.

Comparison of clinical safety and efficacy of dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, and propofol in patients who cannot tolerate non-invasive mechanical ventilation: A prospective, randomized, cohort study

Background and objectives

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) is used in intensive care units (ICUs) to treat of respiratory failure. Sedation and analgesia are effective and safe for improving compliance in patients intolerant to NIV. Our study aimed to evaluate the effects of dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, and propofol on the clinical outcomes in NIV intolerant patients.

Methods

This prospective randomized cohort study was conducted in a tertiary ICU, between December 2018 and December 2019. We divided a total of 120 patients into five groups (DEXL, DEXH, REML, REMH, PRO). IBM SPSS Statistics 20 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, New York, USA) was used to conduct the statistical analyses.

Results

The DEXL, DEXH, REML, and REMH groups consisted of 23 patients each while the PRO group consisted of 28 patients. Seventy-five patients (62.5%) became tolerant of NIV after starting the drugs. The NIV time, IMV time, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, intubation rate, side effects, and mortality were significantly different among the five groups (P = 0.05). In the groups that were given dexmedetomidine (DEXL, and DEXH), NIV failure, mortality, ICU LOS, and hospital LOS were lower than in the other groups.

Conclusion

In this prospective study, we compared the results of three drugs (propofol, dexmedetomidine, and remifentanil) in patients with NIV intolerance. The use of sedation increased NIV success in patients with NIV intolerance. NIV failure, mortality, ICU LOS, IMV time, and hospital LOS were found to be lower with dexmedetomidine.

Dexmedetomidine reversed hypoxia/reoxygenation injury-induced oxidative stress and endoplasmic reticulum stress-dependent apoptosis of cardiomyocytes via SIRT1/CHOP signaling pathway

We aimed to investigate the protective role and mechanism of dexmedetomidine (DEX) on H9c2 cardiomyocytes after hypoxia/reoxygenation (H/R) injury. Six experimental groups were designed as follows: normal control group (group C), H/R group, H/R + DEX group, H/R + gastrodin group, H/R + Ex527 (SIRT1 inhibitor) group, and H/R + DEX + Ex527 group. Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) activity and the levels of oxidative stress-related enzymes such as malondialdehyde (MDA), superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT) and glutathione (GSH) were measured using corresponding commercial kits. Cell counting kit (CCK)-8 assay was used to detect cell survival rate while flow cytometry and caspase 3/7 activity were used to determine cell apoptosis, respectively. Western blot was used to detect the expression of silent information regulator 1 (SIRT1), C/EBP homologous protein (CHOP), cleaved-caspase-12/3 and pro-caspase-12/3 in each group. From our findings, when compared with H/R, H/R + Ex527 and H/R + DEX + Ex527 groups, DEX pretreatment of cells in H/R + DEX group significantly increased cell survival rate, and simultaneously reduced LDH activity, oxidative stress and the apoptosis rate of H9c2 cells with H/R injury. Moreover, DEX up-regulated SIRT1 expression level and down-regulated the levels of endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress-related markers such as CHOP, cleaved-caspase-12 and cleaved-caspase-3, respectively. Ex527 could completely block DEX-induced upregulated expression of SIRT1, and partially blocked the DEX-induced downregulated expression levels of CHOP, cleaved-caspase-12 and cleaved-caspase-3. These results proved that DEX reversed H/R injury-induced oxidative stress and ER stress-dependent apoptosis of cardiomyocytes via SIRT1/CHOP signaling pathway.

Remifentanil versus dexmedetomidine for treatment of cardiac surgery patients with moderate to severe noninvasive ventilation intolerance (REDNIVIN): a prospective, cohort study

BACKGROUND

The use of sedation to noninvasive ventilation (NIV) patients remains controversial, however, for intolerant patients who are uncooperative, administration of analgesics and sedatives may be beneficial before resorting to intubation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of remifentanil (REM) versus dexmedetomidine (DEX) for treatment of cardiac surgery (CS) patients with moderate to severe NIV intolerance.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study of CS patients with moderate to severe NIV intolerance was conducted between January 2018 and March 2019. Patients were treated with either REM or DEX, decided by the bedside intensivist. Depending on the treatment regimen, the patients were allocated to one of two groups: the REM group or DEX group.

RESULTS

A total of 90 patients were enrolled in this study (52 in the REM group and 38 in the DEX group). The mitigation rate, defined as the percentage of patients who were relieved from the initial moderate to severe intolerant status, was greater in the REM group than DEX group at 15 min and 3 h (15 min: 83% vs. 61%, P=0.029; 3 h: 92% vs. 74%, P=0.016), although the mean mitigation rate (81% vs. 85%, P=0.800) was comparable between the two groups. NIV failure, defined as reintubation or death over the course of study, was comparable between the two groups (19.2% vs. 21.1%, respectively, P=0.831). There were no significant differences between the two groups in other clinical outcomes, including tracheostomy (15.4% vs. 15.8%, P=0.958), in-hospital mortality (11.5% vs. 10.5%, P=0.880), ICU length of stay (LOS) (7 vs. 7 days, P=0.802), and in-hospital LOS (17 vs. 19 days, P=0.589).

CONCLUSIONS

REM was as effective as DEX in CS patients with moderate to severe NIV intolerance. Although the effect of REM was better than that of DEX over the first 3 h, the cumulative effect was similar between the two treatments.