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