Cargando…

Enteral vs. intravenous ICU sedation management: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: A relevant innovation about sedation of long-term Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients is the ‘conscious target’: patients should be awake even during the critical phases of illness. Enteral sedative administration is nowadays unusual, even though the gastrointestinal tract works soon afte...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mistraletti, Giovanni, Mantovani, Elena S, Cadringher, Paolo, Cerri, Barbara, Corbella, Davide, Umbrello, Michele, Anania, Stefania, Andrighi, Elisa, Barello, Serena, Carlo, Alessandra Di, Martinetti, Federica, Formenti, Paolo, Spanu, Paolo, Iapichino, Gaetano
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3651718/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23551983
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-14-92
_version_ 1782269235730317312
author Mistraletti, Giovanni
Mantovani, Elena S
Cadringher, Paolo
Cerri, Barbara
Corbella, Davide
Umbrello, Michele
Anania, Stefania
Andrighi, Elisa
Barello, Serena
Carlo, Alessandra Di
Martinetti, Federica
Formenti, Paolo
Spanu, Paolo
Iapichino, Gaetano
author_facet Mistraletti, Giovanni
Mantovani, Elena S
Cadringher, Paolo
Cerri, Barbara
Corbella, Davide
Umbrello, Michele
Anania, Stefania
Andrighi, Elisa
Barello, Serena
Carlo, Alessandra Di
Martinetti, Federica
Formenti, Paolo
Spanu, Paolo
Iapichino, Gaetano
author_sort Mistraletti, Giovanni
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A relevant innovation about sedation of long-term Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients is the ‘conscious target’: patients should be awake even during the critical phases of illness. Enteral sedative administration is nowadays unusual, even though the gastrointestinal tract works soon after ICU admission. The enteral approach cannot produce deep sedation; however, it is as adequate as the intravenous one, if the target is to keep patients awake and adapted to the environment, and has fewer side effects and lower costs. METHODS/DESIGN: A randomized, controlled, multicenter, single-blind trial comparing enteral and intravenous sedative treatments has been done in 12 Italian ICUs. The main objective was to achieve and maintain the desired sedation level: observed RASS = target RASS ± 1. Three hundred high-risk patients were planned to be randomly assigned to receive either intravenous propofol/midazolam or enteral melatonin/hydroxyzine/lorazepam. Group assignment occurred through online minimization process, in order to balance variables potentially influencing the outcomes (age, sex, SAPS II, type of admission, kidney failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, sepsis) between groups. Once per shift, the staff recorded neurological monitoring using validated tools. Three flowcharts for pain, sedation, and delirium have been proposed; they have been designed to treat potentially correctable factors first, and, only once excluded, to administer neuroactive drugs. The study lasted from January 24 to December 31, 2012. A total of 348 patients have been randomized, through a centralized website, using a specific software expressly designed for this study. The created network of ICUs included a mix of both university and non-university hospitals, with different experience in managing enteral sedation. A dedicated free-access website was also created, in both Italian and English, for continuous education of ICU staff through CME courses. DISCUSSION: This ‘educational research’ project aims both to compare two sedative strategies and to highlight the need for a profound cultural change, improving outcomes by keeping critically-ill patients awake. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov #NCT01360346
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3651718
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36517182013-05-12 Enteral vs. intravenous ICU sedation management: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial Mistraletti, Giovanni Mantovani, Elena S Cadringher, Paolo Cerri, Barbara Corbella, Davide Umbrello, Michele Anania, Stefania Andrighi, Elisa Barello, Serena Carlo, Alessandra Di Martinetti, Federica Formenti, Paolo Spanu, Paolo Iapichino, Gaetano Trials Study Protocol BACKGROUND: A relevant innovation about sedation of long-term Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients is the ‘conscious target’: patients should be awake even during the critical phases of illness. Enteral sedative administration is nowadays unusual, even though the gastrointestinal tract works soon after ICU admission. The enteral approach cannot produce deep sedation; however, it is as adequate as the intravenous one, if the target is to keep patients awake and adapted to the environment, and has fewer side effects and lower costs. METHODS/DESIGN: A randomized, controlled, multicenter, single-blind trial comparing enteral and intravenous sedative treatments has been done in 12 Italian ICUs. The main objective was to achieve and maintain the desired sedation level: observed RASS = target RASS ± 1. Three hundred high-risk patients were planned to be randomly assigned to receive either intravenous propofol/midazolam or enteral melatonin/hydroxyzine/lorazepam. Group assignment occurred through online minimization process, in order to balance variables potentially influencing the outcomes (age, sex, SAPS II, type of admission, kidney failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, sepsis) between groups. Once per shift, the staff recorded neurological monitoring using validated tools. Three flowcharts for pain, sedation, and delirium have been proposed; they have been designed to treat potentially correctable factors first, and, only once excluded, to administer neuroactive drugs. The study lasted from January 24 to December 31, 2012. A total of 348 patients have been randomized, through a centralized website, using a specific software expressly designed for this study. The created network of ICUs included a mix of both university and non-university hospitals, with different experience in managing enteral sedation. A dedicated free-access website was also created, in both Italian and English, for continuous education of ICU staff through CME courses. DISCUSSION: This ‘educational research’ project aims both to compare two sedative strategies and to highlight the need for a profound cultural change, improving outcomes by keeping critically-ill patients awake. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov #NCT01360346 BioMed Central 2013-04-03 /pmc/articles/PMC3651718/ /pubmed/23551983 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-14-92 Text en Copyright © 2013 Mistraletti et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Study Protocol
Mistraletti, Giovanni
Mantovani, Elena S
Cadringher, Paolo
Cerri, Barbara
Corbella, Davide
Umbrello, Michele
Anania, Stefania
Andrighi, Elisa
Barello, Serena
Carlo, Alessandra Di
Martinetti, Federica
Formenti, Paolo
Spanu, Paolo
Iapichino, Gaetano
Enteral vs. intravenous ICU sedation management: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title Enteral vs. intravenous ICU sedation management: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_full Enteral vs. intravenous ICU sedation management: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_fullStr Enteral vs. intravenous ICU sedation management: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Enteral vs. intravenous ICU sedation management: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_short Enteral vs. intravenous ICU sedation management: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
title_sort enteral vs. intravenous icu sedation management: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial
topic Study Protocol
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3651718/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23551983
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-14-92
work_keys_str_mv AT mistralettigiovanni enteralvsintravenousicusedationmanagementstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT mantovanielenas enteralvsintravenousicusedationmanagementstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT cadringherpaolo enteralvsintravenousicusedationmanagementstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT cerribarbara enteralvsintravenousicusedationmanagementstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT corbelladavide enteralvsintravenousicusedationmanagementstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT umbrellomichele enteralvsintravenousicusedationmanagementstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT ananiastefania enteralvsintravenousicusedationmanagementstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT andrighielisa enteralvsintravenousicusedationmanagementstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT barelloserena enteralvsintravenousicusedationmanagementstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT carloalessandradi enteralvsintravenousicusedationmanagementstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT martinettifederica enteralvsintravenousicusedationmanagementstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT formentipaolo enteralvsintravenousicusedationmanagementstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT spanupaolo enteralvsintravenousicusedationmanagementstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial
AT iapichinogaetano enteralvsintravenousicusedationmanagementstudyprotocolforarandomizedcontrolledtrial