Cargando…

Enteral versus intravenous approach for the sedation of critically ill patients: a randomized and controlled trial

BACKGROUND: ICU patients must be kept conscious, calm, and cooperative even during the critical phases of illness. Enteral administration of sedative drugs might avoid over sedation, and would be as adequate as intravenous administration in patients who are awake, with fewer side effects and lower c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mistraletti, Giovanni, Umbrello, Michele, Salini, Silvia, Cadringher, Paolo, Formenti, Paolo, Chiumello, Davide, Villa, Cristina, Russo, Riccarda, Francesconi, Silvia, Valdambrini, Federico, Bellani, Giacomo, Palo, Alessandra, Riccardi, Francesca, Ferretti, Enrica, Festa, Maurilio, Gado, Anna Maria, Taverna, Martina, Pinna, Cristina, Barbiero, Alessandro, Ferrari, Pier Alda, Iapichino, Gaetano
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6323792/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30616675
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-2280-x
_version_ 1783385838720122880
author Mistraletti, Giovanni
Umbrello, Michele
Salini, Silvia
Cadringher, Paolo
Formenti, Paolo
Chiumello, Davide
Villa, Cristina
Russo, Riccarda
Francesconi, Silvia
Valdambrini, Federico
Bellani, Giacomo
Palo, Alessandra
Riccardi, Francesca
Ferretti, Enrica
Festa, Maurilio
Gado, Anna Maria
Taverna, Martina
Pinna, Cristina
Barbiero, Alessandro
Ferrari, Pier Alda
Iapichino, Gaetano
author_facet Mistraletti, Giovanni
Umbrello, Michele
Salini, Silvia
Cadringher, Paolo
Formenti, Paolo
Chiumello, Davide
Villa, Cristina
Russo, Riccarda
Francesconi, Silvia
Valdambrini, Federico
Bellani, Giacomo
Palo, Alessandra
Riccardi, Francesca
Ferretti, Enrica
Festa, Maurilio
Gado, Anna Maria
Taverna, Martina
Pinna, Cristina
Barbiero, Alessandro
Ferrari, Pier Alda
Iapichino, Gaetano
author_sort Mistraletti, Giovanni
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: ICU patients must be kept conscious, calm, and cooperative even during the critical phases of illness. Enteral administration of sedative drugs might avoid over sedation, and would be as adequate as intravenous administration in patients who are awake, with fewer side effects and lower costs. This study compares two sedation strategies, for early achievement and maintenance of the target light sedation. METHODS: This was a multicenter, single-blind, randomized and controlled trial carried out in 12 Italian ICUs, involving patients with expected mechanical ventilation duration > 72 h at ICU admission and predicted mortality > 12% (Simplified Acute Physiology Score II > 32 points) during the first 24 h on ICU. Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous (midazolam, propofol) or enteral (hydroxyzine, lorazepam, and melatonin) sedation. The primary outcome was percentage of work shifts with the patient having an observed Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) = target RASS ±1. Secondary outcomes were feasibility, delirium-free and coma-free days, costs of drugs, length of ICU and hospital stay, and ICU, hospital, and one-year mortality. RESULTS: There were 348 patients enrolled. There were no differences in the primary outcome: enteral 89.8% (74.1–100), intravenous 94.4% (78–100), p = 0.20. Enteral-treated patients had more protocol violations: n = 81 (46.6%) vs 7 (4.2%), p < 0.01; more self-extubations: n = 14 (8.1%) vs 4 (2.4%), p = 0.03; a lighter sedative target (RASS = 0): 93% (71–100) vs 83% (61–100), p < 0.01; and lower total drug costs: 2.39 (0.75–9.78) vs 4.15 (1.20–20.19) €/day with mechanical ventilation (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Although enteral sedation of critically ill patients is cheaper and permits a lighter sedation target, it is not superior to intravenous sedation for reaching the RASS target. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01360346. Registered on 25 March 2011. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-018-2280-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6323792
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63237922019-01-11 Enteral versus intravenous approach for the sedation of critically ill patients: a randomized and controlled trial Mistraletti, Giovanni Umbrello, Michele Salini, Silvia Cadringher, Paolo Formenti, Paolo Chiumello, Davide Villa, Cristina Russo, Riccarda Francesconi, Silvia Valdambrini, Federico Bellani, Giacomo Palo, Alessandra Riccardi, Francesca Ferretti, Enrica Festa, Maurilio Gado, Anna Maria Taverna, Martina Pinna, Cristina Barbiero, Alessandro Ferrari, Pier Alda Iapichino, Gaetano Crit Care Research BACKGROUND: ICU patients must be kept conscious, calm, and cooperative even during the critical phases of illness. Enteral administration of sedative drugs might avoid over sedation, and would be as adequate as intravenous administration in patients who are awake, with fewer side effects and lower costs. This study compares two sedation strategies, for early achievement and maintenance of the target light sedation. METHODS: This was a multicenter, single-blind, randomized and controlled trial carried out in 12 Italian ICUs, involving patients with expected mechanical ventilation duration > 72 h at ICU admission and predicted mortality > 12% (Simplified Acute Physiology Score II > 32 points) during the first 24 h on ICU. Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous (midazolam, propofol) or enteral (hydroxyzine, lorazepam, and melatonin) sedation. The primary outcome was percentage of work shifts with the patient having an observed Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) = target RASS ±1. Secondary outcomes were feasibility, delirium-free and coma-free days, costs of drugs, length of ICU and hospital stay, and ICU, hospital, and one-year mortality. RESULTS: There were 348 patients enrolled. There were no differences in the primary outcome: enteral 89.8% (74.1–100), intravenous 94.4% (78–100), p = 0.20. Enteral-treated patients had more protocol violations: n = 81 (46.6%) vs 7 (4.2%), p < 0.01; more self-extubations: n = 14 (8.1%) vs 4 (2.4%), p = 0.03; a lighter sedative target (RASS = 0): 93% (71–100) vs 83% (61–100), p < 0.01; and lower total drug costs: 2.39 (0.75–9.78) vs 4.15 (1.20–20.19) €/day with mechanical ventilation (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Although enteral sedation of critically ill patients is cheaper and permits a lighter sedation target, it is not superior to intravenous sedation for reaching the RASS target. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01360346. Registered on 25 March 2011. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-018-2280-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-01-07 /pmc/articles/PMC6323792/ /pubmed/30616675 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-2280-x Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Mistraletti, Giovanni
Umbrello, Michele
Salini, Silvia
Cadringher, Paolo
Formenti, Paolo
Chiumello, Davide
Villa, Cristina
Russo, Riccarda
Francesconi, Silvia
Valdambrini, Federico
Bellani, Giacomo
Palo, Alessandra
Riccardi, Francesca
Ferretti, Enrica
Festa, Maurilio
Gado, Anna Maria
Taverna, Martina
Pinna, Cristina
Barbiero, Alessandro
Ferrari, Pier Alda
Iapichino, Gaetano
Enteral versus intravenous approach for the sedation of critically ill patients: a randomized and controlled trial
title Enteral versus intravenous approach for the sedation of critically ill patients: a randomized and controlled trial
title_full Enteral versus intravenous approach for the sedation of critically ill patients: a randomized and controlled trial
title_fullStr Enteral versus intravenous approach for the sedation of critically ill patients: a randomized and controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Enteral versus intravenous approach for the sedation of critically ill patients: a randomized and controlled trial
title_short Enteral versus intravenous approach for the sedation of critically ill patients: a randomized and controlled trial
title_sort enteral versus intravenous approach for the sedation of critically ill patients: a randomized and controlled trial
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6323792/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30616675
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13054-018-2280-x
work_keys_str_mv AT mistralettigiovanni enteralversusintravenousapproachforthesedationofcriticallyillpatientsarandomizedandcontrolledtrial
AT umbrellomichele enteralversusintravenousapproachforthesedationofcriticallyillpatientsarandomizedandcontrolledtrial
AT salinisilvia enteralversusintravenousapproachforthesedationofcriticallyillpatientsarandomizedandcontrolledtrial
AT cadringherpaolo enteralversusintravenousapproachforthesedationofcriticallyillpatientsarandomizedandcontrolledtrial
AT formentipaolo enteralversusintravenousapproachforthesedationofcriticallyillpatientsarandomizedandcontrolledtrial
AT chiumellodavide enteralversusintravenousapproachforthesedationofcriticallyillpatientsarandomizedandcontrolledtrial
AT villacristina enteralversusintravenousapproachforthesedationofcriticallyillpatientsarandomizedandcontrolledtrial
AT russoriccarda enteralversusintravenousapproachforthesedationofcriticallyillpatientsarandomizedandcontrolledtrial
AT francesconisilvia enteralversusintravenousapproachforthesedationofcriticallyillpatientsarandomizedandcontrolledtrial
AT valdambrinifederico enteralversusintravenousapproachforthesedationofcriticallyillpatientsarandomizedandcontrolledtrial
AT bellanigiacomo enteralversusintravenousapproachforthesedationofcriticallyillpatientsarandomizedandcontrolledtrial
AT paloalessandra enteralversusintravenousapproachforthesedationofcriticallyillpatientsarandomizedandcontrolledtrial
AT riccardifrancesca enteralversusintravenousapproachforthesedationofcriticallyillpatientsarandomizedandcontrolledtrial
AT ferrettienrica enteralversusintravenousapproachforthesedationofcriticallyillpatientsarandomizedandcontrolledtrial
AT festamaurilio enteralversusintravenousapproachforthesedationofcriticallyillpatientsarandomizedandcontrolledtrial
AT gadoannamaria enteralversusintravenousapproachforthesedationofcriticallyillpatientsarandomizedandcontrolledtrial
AT tavernamartina enteralversusintravenousapproachforthesedationofcriticallyillpatientsarandomizedandcontrolledtrial
AT pinnacristina enteralversusintravenousapproachforthesedationofcriticallyillpatientsarandomizedandcontrolledtrial
AT barbieroalessandro enteralversusintravenousapproachforthesedationofcriticallyillpatientsarandomizedandcontrolledtrial
AT ferraripieralda enteralversusintravenousapproachforthesedationofcriticallyillpatientsarandomizedandcontrolledtrial
AT iapichinogaetano enteralversusintravenousapproachforthesedationofcriticallyillpatientsarandomizedandcontrolledtrial
AT enteralversusintravenousapproachforthesedationofcriticallyillpatientsarandomizedandcontrolledtrial