Cargando…

Sedation strategy and ICU delirium: a multicentre, population-based propensity score-matched cohort study

OBJECTIVES: We examined the relationship between dominant sedation strategy, risk of delirium and patient-centred outcomes in adults admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). DESIGN: Retrospective propensity-matched cohort study. SETTING: Mechanically ventilated adults (≥ 18 years) admitted to four C...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Casault, Colin, Soo, Andrea, Lee, Chel Hee, Couillard, Philippe, Niven, Daniel, Stelfox, Tom, Fiest, Kirsten
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8292822/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34285003
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045087
_version_ 1783724900602609664
author Casault, Colin
Soo, Andrea
Lee, Chel Hee
Couillard, Philippe
Niven, Daniel
Stelfox, Tom
Fiest, Kirsten
author_facet Casault, Colin
Soo, Andrea
Lee, Chel Hee
Couillard, Philippe
Niven, Daniel
Stelfox, Tom
Fiest, Kirsten
author_sort Casault, Colin
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: We examined the relationship between dominant sedation strategy, risk of delirium and patient-centred outcomes in adults admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). DESIGN: Retrospective propensity-matched cohort study. SETTING: Mechanically ventilated adults (≥ 18 years) admitted to four Canadian hospital medical/surgical ICUs from 2014 to 2016 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 2837 mechanically ventilated adults (≥ 18 years) requiring admission to a medical/surgical ICU were evaluated for the relationship between sedation strategy and delirium. INTERVENTIONS: None. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary exposure was dominant sedation strategy, defined as the sedative infusion, including midazolam, propofol or fentanyl, with the longest duration before the first delirium assessment. The primary outcome was ‘ever delirium’ identified using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. Secondary outcomes included mortality, length of stay (LOS), ventilation duration and days with delirium. The cohort was analysed in two propensity score (patient characteristics and therapies received) matched cohorts (propofol vs fentanyl and propofol vs midazolam). RESULTS: 2837 patients (60.7% male; median age 57 years (IQR 43–68)) were considered for propensity matching. In propensity score-matched cohorts(propofol vs midazolam, n=712; propofol vs fentanyl, n=1732), the odds of delirium were significantly higher with midazolam (OR 1.46 (95% CI 1.06 to 2.00)) and fentanyl (OR 1.22 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.48)) compared with propofol dominant sedation strategies. Dominant sedation strategy with midazolam and fentanyl were associated with a longer duration of ventilation compared with propofol. Fentanyl was also associated with increased ICU mortality (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.12)) ICU and hospital LOS compared with a propofol dominant sedation strategy. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a novel association between fentanyl dominant sedation strategies and an increased risk of delirium, a composite outcome of delirium or death, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU LOS and hospital LOS. Midazolam dominant sedation strategies were associated with increased delirium risk and mechanical ventilation duration.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8292822
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82928222021-08-05 Sedation strategy and ICU delirium: a multicentre, population-based propensity score-matched cohort study Casault, Colin Soo, Andrea Lee, Chel Hee Couillard, Philippe Niven, Daniel Stelfox, Tom Fiest, Kirsten BMJ Open Intensive Care OBJECTIVES: We examined the relationship between dominant sedation strategy, risk of delirium and patient-centred outcomes in adults admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). DESIGN: Retrospective propensity-matched cohort study. SETTING: Mechanically ventilated adults (≥ 18 years) admitted to four Canadian hospital medical/surgical ICUs from 2014 to 2016 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 2837 mechanically ventilated adults (≥ 18 years) requiring admission to a medical/surgical ICU were evaluated for the relationship between sedation strategy and delirium. INTERVENTIONS: None. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary exposure was dominant sedation strategy, defined as the sedative infusion, including midazolam, propofol or fentanyl, with the longest duration before the first delirium assessment. The primary outcome was ‘ever delirium’ identified using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. Secondary outcomes included mortality, length of stay (LOS), ventilation duration and days with delirium. The cohort was analysed in two propensity score (patient characteristics and therapies received) matched cohorts (propofol vs fentanyl and propofol vs midazolam). RESULTS: 2837 patients (60.7% male; median age 57 years (IQR 43–68)) were considered for propensity matching. In propensity score-matched cohorts(propofol vs midazolam, n=712; propofol vs fentanyl, n=1732), the odds of delirium were significantly higher with midazolam (OR 1.46 (95% CI 1.06 to 2.00)) and fentanyl (OR 1.22 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.48)) compared with propofol dominant sedation strategies. Dominant sedation strategy with midazolam and fentanyl were associated with a longer duration of ventilation compared with propofol. Fentanyl was also associated with increased ICU mortality (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.12)) ICU and hospital LOS compared with a propofol dominant sedation strategy. CONCLUSIONS: We identified a novel association between fentanyl dominant sedation strategies and an increased risk of delirium, a composite outcome of delirium or death, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU LOS and hospital LOS. Midazolam dominant sedation strategies were associated with increased delirium risk and mechanical ventilation duration. BMJ Publishing Group 2021-07-20 /pmc/articles/PMC8292822/ /pubmed/34285003 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045087 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Intensive Care
Casault, Colin
Soo, Andrea
Lee, Chel Hee
Couillard, Philippe
Niven, Daniel
Stelfox, Tom
Fiest, Kirsten
Sedation strategy and ICU delirium: a multicentre, population-based propensity score-matched cohort study
title Sedation strategy and ICU delirium: a multicentre, population-based propensity score-matched cohort study
title_full Sedation strategy and ICU delirium: a multicentre, population-based propensity score-matched cohort study
title_fullStr Sedation strategy and ICU delirium: a multicentre, population-based propensity score-matched cohort study
title_full_unstemmed Sedation strategy and ICU delirium: a multicentre, population-based propensity score-matched cohort study
title_short Sedation strategy and ICU delirium: a multicentre, population-based propensity score-matched cohort study
title_sort sedation strategy and icu delirium: a multicentre, population-based propensity score-matched cohort study
topic Intensive Care
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8292822/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34285003
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045087
work_keys_str_mv AT casaultcolin sedationstrategyandicudeliriumamulticentrepopulationbasedpropensityscorematchedcohortstudy
AT sooandrea sedationstrategyandicudeliriumamulticentrepopulationbasedpropensityscorematchedcohortstudy
AT leechelhee sedationstrategyandicudeliriumamulticentrepopulationbasedpropensityscorematchedcohortstudy
AT couillardphilippe sedationstrategyandicudeliriumamulticentrepopulationbasedpropensityscorematchedcohortstudy
AT nivendaniel sedationstrategyandicudeliriumamulticentrepopulationbasedpropensityscorematchedcohortstudy
AT stelfoxtom sedationstrategyandicudeliriumamulticentrepopulationbasedpropensityscorematchedcohortstudy
AT fiestkirsten sedationstrategyandicudeliriumamulticentrepopulationbasedpropensityscorematchedcohortstudy