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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |