Haloperidol versus placebo for delirium prevention in acutely hospitalised older at risk patients: a multi-centre double-blind randomised controlled clinical trial.

Background: because the few randomised placebo-controlled trials investigating the potential role for prophylactic haloperidol in delirium prevention have focused on specific surgical populations, we investigated its efficacy and safety in acutely hospitalised older patients. Methods: this multi-centre, double-blind, stratified, block randomised, placebo-controlled trial was conducted at six Dutch hospitals. Patients age ≥70 years, acutely admitted through the emergency department for general medicine or surgical specialties and at risk for delirium were randomised (n = 245) to haloperidol or placebo 1 mg orally twice-daily (maximum of 14 doses) on top of standard nonpharmacological prevention strategies. The primary outcome was delirium incidence. Other endpoints included delirium severity and duration, drug safety and clinical outcomes. Results: intention-to-treat analysis included 242 participants (calculated sample size n = 390, statistical power of current sample 59%) allocated to haloperidol (n = 118) or placebo (n = 124). In the haloperidol and placebo group, delirium incidence was 19.5 versus 14.5% (OR 1.43, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.78); median (IQR) delirium duration 4 (2, 5) versus 3 (1, 6) days (P = 0.366); maximum DRS-R-98 score 16 (9.8, 19.5) versus 10 (5.5, 22.5) (P = 0.549; 53.7% missing data); hospital LOS 7 (4, 10.3) versus 7 (5, 11.8) days (P = 0.343); 3-month mortality 9.9 versus 12.5% (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.75), respectively. No treatment-limiting side effects were noted. Conclusions: prophylactic low-dose oral haloperidol did not reduce delirium incidence in acutely hospitalised older patients. Therefore, prophylactic use of haloperidol in this population is not recommended.

The effect of the initiation of renal replacement therapy on lipid profile and oxidative stress during the first 6 months of treatment.

BACKGROUND: Disturbed lipoproteins and increased oxidative stress are two of the "non-traditional" cardiovascular risk factors in chronic renal failure. There are very few prospective data of the influence of dialysis on these two factors. In the present study we investigated the effects of the initiation of both hemo- and peritoneal dialysis therapy on lipoproteins and parameters of LDL oxidation. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, we assessed lipoproteins, plasma lipid peroxides and in vitro copper-induced LDL oxidation in 46 patients with end-stage renal disease prior to the start of dialysis and after 6 months of treatment with either hemodialysis (n=33) or peritoneal dialysis (n=13). RESULTS: After 6 months of treatment with hemodialysis there was an increase in total cholesterol (4.6+/-1.1 vs. 5.0+/-1.3 mmol/l; p<0.05) and triglycerides (2.0+/-0.9 vs. 2.8+/-1.6 mmol/l; p<0.03). In the peritoneal dialysis group the lipoproteins did not change. Regarding lipid peroxides and in vitro copper-induced LDL oxidation, also no changes were observed after 6 months of treatment in both groups. CONCLUSION: Dyslipidemia aggravates after 6 months of hemodialysis but not after 6 months of peritoneal dialysis. During this period, no net effects on oxidative stress were demonstrated.

Oxidative stress in patients with end-stage renal disease prior to the start of renal replacement therapy.

BACKGROUND/AIM: In patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), cardiovascular complications are the main cause of death. Increased oxidative stress is one of the risk factors for enhanced atherosclerosis in this population. Literature data vary partially dependent on differences in methodology. The present study compares three different methods: plasma lipid peroxides, the newly developed measurement of circulating oxidized LDL (Ox-LDL) particles and the frequently used copper-induced LDL oxidation lag time. METHODS: We assessed plasma lipid peroxides, circulating Ox-LDL and in vitro copper-induced LDL oxidation lag time in 47 non-diabetic patients with ESRD, at the start of renal replacement therapy, and compared these with 41 age- and sex-matched controls. RESULTS: In ESRD, total cholesterol (4.6 +/- 1.1 vs. 5.6 +/- 0.9 mmol/l; p < 0.001), LDL cholesterol (2.8 +/- 0.8 vs. 3.5 +/- 0.7 mmol/l; p < 0.001) and HDL cholesterol (1.0 +/- 0.3 vs. 1.4 +/- 0.4 mmol/l; p < 0.001) were lower compared to controls. Plasma lipid peroxides were higher (1.1 +/- 0.5 vs. 0.8 +/- 0.5 micromol/l; p = 0.003) in ESRD. No differences were observed in plasma Ox-LDL (63.1 +/- 62.0 vs. 55.3 +/- 48.0 mg/l). However, due to the lower plasma LDL cholesterol in ESRD, LDL oxidation level was increased in ESRD (7.1 +/- 0.1 vs. 4.2 +/- 0.3%; p = 0.03). LDL lag time was slightly longer (89 +/- 11 vs. 84 +/- 11 min; p = 0.04) in ESRD. There were no significant differences regarding the amount and rate of dienes produced. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated levels of lipid peroxides and higher LDL oxidation levels support the theory that ESRD is associated with increased oxidative stress, which may explain the accelerated atherosclerosis. The measured amount of oxidative stress is not reflected by in vitro oxidizability of LDL.