1 / 24

Dexmedetomidine vs Midazolam for Sedation of Critically Ill Patients

Dexmedetomidine vs Midazolam for Sedation of Critically Ill Patients. A Randomized Trial Journal Club 09/01/11. JAMA, February 4, 2009—Vol 301, No. 5 489. Introduction. GABA Rc agonists (including propofol and benzodiazepines) have been the most common sedative for ICU patients

charis
Download Presentation

Dexmedetomidine vs Midazolam for Sedation of Critically Ill Patients

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Dexmedetomidine vs Midazolam for Sedation of Critically Ill Patients A Randomized Trial Journal Club 09/01/11 JAMA, February 4, 2009—Vol 301, No. 5 489

  2. Introduction • GABA Rc agonists (including propofol and benzodiazepines) have been the most common sedative for ICU patients • Well-known hazards associated with prolonged use of GABA agonists • Few investigations of ICU sedation have compared these agents to other drug classes

  3. Dexmedetomidine • Sedation and anxiolysis via receptors within the locus ceruleus, analgesia via receptors in the spinal cord • Specific and selective activation of postsynaptic alpha2-adrenoreceptors • No significant respiratory depression

  4. Methods

  5. Hypothesis A sedation strategy using dexmedetomidine would result in im- proved outcomes in mechanically ventilated, critically ill medical and surgical ICU patients compared with the standard GABA agonist midazolam

  6. Study Design • This prospective • Double-blind • Except the investigative pharmacist at each site • Randomized trial • 2:1 to receive vs Midazolam • ICUs at 68 centers • 5 countries • Between March 2005 and August 2007

  7. Patients • 18 years or older • Intubated and MV • < than 96 hours prior to start of study drug • An anticipated ventilation and sedation duration of at least 3 more days • Exclusion criteria

  8. Study Drug Administration • Sedatives used before Stopped • RASS target range of −2 to +1 • Optional blinded loading doses • Up to 1 μg/kg dexmedetomidine or 0.05 mg/kg midazolam • Maintenance infusion • 0.8 μg/kg per hour for dexmedetomidine • 0.06 mg/kg per hour for midazolam • Study drug was stopped

  9. Other Drugs • Open-label midazolam bolus • 0.01 to 0.05 mg/kg at 10- to 15-minute • Fentanyl bolus doses (0.5-1.0 μg/kg) • PRN every 15 minutes • IV haloperidol for treatment of agitation or delirium • 1 to 5 mg/10-20 min PRN

  10. The Primary End Point • The primary end point was the per- centage of time within the target seda- tion range (RASS score −2 to +1) during the double-blind treatment period. Total time within the target RASS range X 100 Time remained in the treatment period A correlation between the assessments, a multivariate analysis was performed using a generalized estimating equation

  11. Secondary End Points • Prevalence and duration of delirium • Use of fentanyl and open-label midazolam • Delirium free days were calculated as days alive and free of delirium during study drug exposure • During the arousal assessment Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) • Duration of mechanical ventilation • Length of stay in the ICU

  12. Safety End Points • Laboratory test results • Vital signs • Electrocardiogram findings • Physical examination findings • Withdrawal related events • Adverse events

  13. Statistical Analysis • Sample Size Determination • 250 patients randomized to dexmedetomidine and 125 to midazolam would have 96% power at an alpha of 05 to detect a 7.4% difference in efficacy for the primary outcome • Delirium and use of rescue medications were performed using the Fisher exact test • Delirium free days, duration of study drug, and doses of rescue medications were performed using the Mann-Whitney test • Time to extubation and length of ICU stay were calculated using Kaplan- Meier

  14. A secondary analysis was conducted on the entire intent-to-treat population • Long-term use” subgroup • Sites enrolling 5 patients or more

  15. Results

  16. Baseline Demographics

  17. Study Drug Administration The mean (SD) maintenance infusion dose • 0.83(0.37)μg/kg/h for dexmedetomidine • 0.056 (0.028)mg/kg/hour for midazolam Optional loading doses • 20/244 dexmedetomidine (8.2%) • 9/122 midazolam (7.4%) Open-label midazolam • 153/244[63%] vs 60/122 [49%]; P=.02

  18. Efficacy Analyses

  19. Extubation and Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Length of Stay

  20. Effect of dexmedetomidine delirium as measured by GEE 24.9% reduction (95% CI, 16% to 34% P.001) CAM-ICU–negative: 15.4% decrease (95% CI, 2% to 29%; P=.02), with a delirium prevalence of 32.9% (25/76) dexmedetomidine patients vs 55.0% (22/40) in midazolam patients (P=.03) The composite nursing assessment score for patient communication, cooperation, and tolerance of the ventilator was higher for dexmedetomidine patients (21.2 [SD, 7.4] vs 19.0 [SD, 6.9]; P=.001) Delirium and Nursing Assessments

  21. Long-term Use and Subpopulations • Intent-to-treat population • Time in target (75.4% vs 73.3%) • 24.9% Delirium reduction • Time to extubation , ICU length of stay • “long-term use” population • Time inthe target (80.8% vs 81% ) • 24% Delirium reduction

  22. Stopped study drug because of adverse events 16.4%vs 13.1% P=.44 Adverse events related to treatment 40.6% vs 28.7% P=.03 12/244) required an intervention for bradycardia Safety

  23. Conclusions • The primary outcome for this investigation, time in the target sedation range, was not different between groups • Patients treated with dexmedetomidine developed delirium more than 20% less often than patients treated with midazolam • Incorporated new standard elements for ICU sedation • Light-to moderate sedation target (RASS score−2 to 1) • delirium assessment • Study drug titration or interruption every 4 hours • Daily arousal assessment • Reductions in ventilator time

  24. Limitations • The primary analysis targeted patients treated with study drug, rather than the usual intent-to treat • Midazolam was selected as the comparator medication • Many centers in this study enrolled few patients, raising concern for potential bias • Exclusion patients requiring renal replacement therapy

More Related