Dexmedetomidine or Propofol for Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Adults with Sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines currently recommend targeting light sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol for adults receiving mechanical ventilation. Differences exist between these sedatives in arousability, immunity, and inflammation. Whether they affect outcomes differentially in mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis undergoing light sedation is unknown. METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis to receive dexmedetomidine (0.2 to 1.5 µg per kilogram of body weight per hour) or propofol (5 to 50 µg per kilogram per minute), with doses adjusted by bedside nurses to achieve target sedation goals set by clinicians according to the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS, on which scores range from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]). The primary end point was days alive without delirium or coma during the 14-day intervention period. Secondary end points were ventilator-free days at 28 days, death at 90 days, and age-adjusted total score on the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status questionnaire (TICS-T; scores range from 0 to 100, with a mean of 50±10 and lower scores indicating worse cognition) at 6 months. RESULTS: Of 432 patients who underwent randomization, 422 were assigned to receive a trial drug and were included in the analyses - 214 patients received dexmedetomidine at a median dose of 0.27 µg per kilogram per hour, and 208 received propofol at a median dose of 10.21 µg per kilogram per minute. The median duration of receipt of the trial drugs was 3.0 days (interquartile range, 2.0 to 6.0), and the median RASS score was -2.0 (interquartile range, -3.0 to -1.0). We found no difference between dexmedetomidine and propofol in the number of days alive without delirium or coma (adjusted median, 10.7 vs. 10.8 days; odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.26), ventilator-free days (adjusted median, 23.7 vs. 24.0 days; odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.51), death at 90 days (38% vs. 39%; hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.52), or TICS-T score at 6 months (adjusted median score, 40.9 vs. 41.4; odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.33). Safety end points were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis who were being treated with recommended light-sedation approaches, outcomes in patients who received dexmedetomidine did not differ from outcomes in those who received propofol. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01739933.).

Inflammation and Coagulation during Critical Illness and Long-Term Cognitive Impairment and Disability.

Rationale: The biological mechanisms of long-term cognitive impairment and disability after critical illness are unclear.Objectives: To test the hypothesis that markers of acute inflammation and coagulation are associated with subsequent long-term cognitive impairment and disability.Methods: We obtained plasma samples from adults with respiratory failure or shock on Study Days 1, 3, and 5 and measured concentrations of CRP (C-reactive protein), IFN-γ, IL-1ß, IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12, MMP-9 (matrix metalloproteinase-9), TNF-α (tumor necrosis factor-α), soluble TNF receptor 1, and protein C. At 3 and 12 months after discharge, we assessed global cognition, executive function, and activities of daily living. We analyzed associations between markers and outcomes using multivariable regression, adjusting for age, sex, education, comorbidities, baseline cognition, doses of sedatives and opioids, stroke risk (in cognitive models), and baseline disability scores (in disability models).Measurements and Main Results: We included 548 participants who were a median (interquartile range) of 62 (53-72) years old, 88% of whom were mechanically ventilated, and who had an enrollment Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 9 (7-11). After adjusting for covariates, no markers were associated with long-term cognitive function. Two markers, CRP and MMP-9, were associated with greater disability in basic and instrumental activities of daily living at 3 and 12 months. No other markers were consistently associated with disability outcomes.Conclusions: Markers of systemic inflammation and coagulation measured early during critical illness are not associated with long-term cognitive outcomes and demonstrate inconsistent associations with disability outcomes. Future studies that pair longitudinal measurement of inflammation and related pathways throughout the course of critical illness and during recovery with long-term outcomes are needed.

Systemic inflammation and delirium during critical illness.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine associations between markers of inflammation and endogenous anticoagulant activity with delirium and coma during critical illness. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study, we enrolled adults with respiratory failure and/or shock treated in medical or surgical intensive care units (ICUs) at 5 centers. Twice per day in the ICU, and daily thereafter, we assessed mental status using the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) and the Confusion Assessment Method-Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU). We collected blood samples on study days 1, 3, and 5, measuring levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), interferon gamma (IFN-γ), interleukin (IL)-1 beta (IL-1ß), IL-6, IL-8, IL-10, IL-12, matrix metalloproteinase-9 (MMP-9), tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), tumor necrosis factor receptor 1 (TNFR1), and protein C using validated protocols. We used multinomial logistic regression to analyze associations between biomarkers and the odds of delirium or coma versus normal mental status the following day, adjusting for age, sepsis, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA), study day, corticosteroids, and sedatives. RESULTS: Among 991 participants with a median age (interquartile range, IQR) of 62 [53-72] years and enrollment SOFA of 9 [7-11], higher concentrations of IL-6 (odds ratio [OR] [95% CI]: 1.8 [1.4-2.3]), IL-8 (1.3 [1.1-1.5]), IL-10 (1.5 [1.2-1.8]), TNF-α (1.2 [1.0-1.4]), and TNFR1 (1.3 [1.1-1.6]) and lower concentrations of protein C (0.7 [0.6-0.8])) were associated with delirium the following day. Higher concentrations of CRP (1.4 [1.1-1.7]), IFN-γ (1.3 [1.1-1.5]), IL-6 (2.3 [1.8-3.0]), IL-8 (1.8 [1.4-2.3]), and IL-10 (1.5 [1.2-2.0]) and lower concentrations of protein C (0.6 [0.5-0.8]) were associated with coma the following day. IL-1ß, IL-12, and MMP-9 were not associated with mental status. CONCLUSION: Markers of inflammation and possibly endogenous anticoagulant activity are associated with delirium and coma during critical illness.

Long-term outcomes after treatment of delirium during critical illness with antipsychotics (MIND-USA): a randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is common during critical illness and is associated with long-term cognitive impairment and disability. Antipsychotics are frequently used to treat delirium, but their effects on long-term outcomes are unknown. We aimed to investigate the effects of antipsychotic treatment of delirious, critically ill patients on long-term cognitive, functional, psychological, and quality-of-life outcomes. METHODS: This prespecified, long-term follow-up to the randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 MIND-USA Study was conducted in 16 hospitals throughout the USA. Adults (aged ≥18 years) who had been admitted to an intensive care unit with respiratory failure or septic or cardiogenic shock were eligible for inclusion in the study if they had delirium. Participants were randomly assigned-using a computer-generated, permuted-block randomisation scheme with stratification by trial site and age-in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive intravenous placebo, haloperidol, or ziprasidone for up to 14 days. Investigators and participants were masked to treatment group assignment. 3 months and 12 months after randomisation, we assessed survivors' cognitive, functional, psychological, quality-of-life, and employment outcomes using validated telephone-administered tests and questionnaires. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01211522, and is complete. FINDINGS: Between Dec 7, 2011, and Aug 12, 2017, we screened 20 914 individuals, of whom 566 were eligible and consented or had consent provided to participate. Of these 566 patients, 184 were assigned to the placebo group, 192 to the haloperidol group, and 190 to the ziprasidone group. 1-year survival and follow-up rates were similar between groups. Cognitive impairment was common in all three treatment groups, with a third of survivors impaired at both 3-month and 12-month follow-up in all groups. More than half of the surveyed survivors in each group had cognitive or physical limitations (or both) that precluded employment at both 3-month and 12-month follow-up. At both 3 months and 12 months, neither haloperidol (adjusted odds ratio 1·22 [95% CI 0·73-2.04] at 3 months and 1·12 [0·60-2·11] at 12 months) nor ziprasidone (1·07 [0·59-1·96] at 3 months and 0·94 [0·62-1·44] at 12 months) significantly altered cognitive outcomes, as measured by the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status T score, compared with placebo. We also found no evidence that functional, psychological, quality-of-life, or employment outcomes improved with haloperidol or ziprasidone compared with placebo. INTERPRETATION: In delirious, critically ill patients, neither haloperidol nor ziprasidone had a significant effect on cognitive, functional, psychological, or quality-of-life outcomes among survivors. Our findings, along with insufficient evidence of short-term benefit and frequent inappropriate continuation of antipsychotics at hospital discharge, indicate that antipsychotics should not be used routinely to treat delirium in critically ill adults. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health and the US Department of Veterans Affairs.

Effects of Specialist Palliative Care for Patients Undergoing Major Abdominal Surgery for Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Specialist palliative care benefits patients undergoing medical treatment of cancer; however, data are lacking on whether patients undergoing surgery for cancer similarly benefit from specialist palliative care. Objective: To determine the effect of a specialist palliative care intervention on patients undergoing surgery for cure or durable control of cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a single-center randomized clinical trial conducted from March 1, 2018, to October 28, 2021. Patients scheduled for specified intra-abdominal cancer operations were recruited from an academic urban referral center in the Southeastern US. Intervention: Preoperative consultation with palliative care specialists and postoperative inpatient and outpatient palliative care follow-up for 90 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The prespecified primary end point was physical and functional quality of life (QoL) at postoperative day (POD) 90, measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Trial Outcome Index (TOI), which is scored on a range of 0 to 56 with higher scores representing higher physical and functional QoL. Prespecified secondary end points included overall QoL at POD 90 measured by FACT-G, days alive at home until POD 90, and 1-year overall survival. Multivariable proportional odds logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to test the hypothesis that the intervention improved each of these end points relative to usual care in an intention-to-treat analysis. Results: A total of 235 eligible patients (median [IQR] age, 65.0 [56.8-71.1] years; 141 male [60.0%]) were randomly assigned to the intervention or usual care group in a 1:1 ratio. Specialist palliative care was received by 114 patients (97%) in the intervention group and 1 patient (1%) in the usual care group. Adjusted median scores on the FACT-G TOI measure of physical and functional QoL did not differ between groups (intervention score, 46.77; 95% CI, 44.18-49.04; usual care score, 46.23; 95% CI, 43.08-48.14; P = .46). Intervention vs usual care group odds ratio (OR) was 1.17 (95% CI, 0.77-1.80). Palliative care did not improve overall QoL measured by the FACT-G score (intervention vs usual care OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.75-1.58), days alive at home (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.69-1.11), or 1-year overall survival (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.50-1.88). Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial showed no evidence that early specialist palliative care improves the QoL of patients undergoing nonpalliative cancer operations. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03436290.

Modifiable in-hospital factors for 12-month global cognition, post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms, and depression symptoms in adults hospitalized with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: We sought to identify potentially modifiable in-hospital factors associated with global cognition, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, and depression symptoms at 12 months. METHODS: This was a multi-center prospective cohort study in adult hospitalized patients with acute COVID-19. The following in-hospital factors were assessed: delirium; frequency of in-person and virtual visits by friends and family; and hydroxychloroquine, corticosteroid, and remdesivir administration. Twelve-month global cognition was characterized by the MOCA-Blind. Twelve-month PTSD and depression were characterized using the PTSD Checklist for the DSM-V and Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale, respectively. FINDINGS: Two hundred three patients completed the 12-month follow-up assessments. Remdesivir use was associated with significantly higher cognition at 12 months based on the MOCA-Blind (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.98, 95% CI: 1.06, 3.70). Delirium was associated with worsening 12-month PTSD (aOR = 3.44, 95% CI: 1.89, 6.28) and depression (aOR = 2.18, 95% CI: 1.23, 3.84) symptoms. Multiple virtual visits per day during hospitalization was associated with lower 12-month depression symptoms compared to those with less than daily virtual visits (aOR = 0.40, 95% CI: 0.19, 0.85). CONCLUSION: Potentially modifiable factors associated with better long-term outcomes included remdesivir use (associated with better cognitive function), avoidance of delirium (associated with less PTSD and depression symptoms), and increased virtual interactions with friends and family (associated with less depression symptoms).

Statistical analysis plan for the Surgery for Cancer with Option of Palliative Care Expert (SCOPE) trial: a randomized controlled trial of a specialist palliative care intervention for patients undergoing surgery for cancer.

BACKGROUND: The impact of specialist palliative care intervention in patients undergoing surgery for cancer has not been studied extensively. The SCOPE randomized controlled trial will investigate the effect of specialist palliative care intervention in cancer patients undergoing surgery for selected abdominal malignancies. The study protocol of the SCOPE Trial was published in December 2019. METHODS AND DESIGN: The SCOPE Trial is a single-center, single-blind, prospective, randomized controlled trial that will investigate specialist palliative care intervention for cancer patients undergoing surgery for selected abdominal malignancies. The study plans to enroll 236 patients that will be randomized to specialist palliative care (intervention arm) and usual care (control arm) in a 1:1 ratio. RESULTS: The primary outcome of the study is the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Trial Outcome Index (TOI) at 90 days postoperatively. Secondary outcomes of the study include the total FACT-G score at 90 days postoperatively, days alive at home without an emergency room visit within 90 days of operation, and all-cause mortality at 1 year after operation. Time frames for all outcomes will start on the day of surgery. CONCLUSION: This manuscript serves as the formal statistical analysis plan (version 1.0) for the SCOPE randomized controlled trial. The statistical analysis plan was completed on 6 April 2021. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03436290 . Registered on 16 February 2018.

Effect of Early High-Dose Vitamin D3 Repletion on Cognitive Outcomes in Critically Ill Adults.

BACKGROUND: Long-term cognitive impairment frequently occurs after critical illness; no treatments are known to improve long-term cognition. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does a single high-dose (540,000 International Units) enteral treatment of vitamin D3 given shortly after hospital admission in critically ill patients who are vitamin D deficient improve long-term global cognition or executive function? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This study evaluated long-term cognitive outcomes among patients enrolled in a multicenter, blinded, randomized clinical trial comparing vitamin D3 treatment vs placebo in critically ill adults with vitamin D deficiency. Global cognition was measured by the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS). Executive function was measured with a composite score derived from three Delis-Kaplan Executive Function System subscales. Outcomes were assessed at a median of 443 days (interquartile range, 390-482 days) after randomization and were compared using multivariate proportional odds regression. Adjusted ORs of > 1.0 would indicate better outcomes in the vitamin D3 group compared with the placebo group. RESULTS: Ninety-five patients were enrolled, including 47 patients randomized to vitamin D3 treatment and 48 patients randomized to placebo. The adjusted median RBANS score at follow-up was 79.6 (95% CI, 73.0-84.0) in the vitamin D3 group and 82.1 (95% CI, 74.7-84.6) in the placebo group (adjusted OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.50-1.38). The adjusted median executive function composite scores were 8.1 (95% CI, 6.8-9.0) and 8.7 (95% CI, 7.4-9.3), respectively (adjusted OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.36-1.42). INTERPRETATION: In vitamin D-deficient, critically-ill adults, a large dose of enteral vitamin D3 did not improve long-term global cognition or executive function. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03733418; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Prevalence and risk factors for delirium in critically ill patients with COVID-19 (COVID-D): a multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To date, 750 000 patients with COVID-19 worldwide have required mechanical ventilation and thus are at high risk of acute brain dysfunction (coma and delirium). We aimed to investigate the prevalence of delirium and coma, and risk factors for delirium in critically ill patients with COVID-19, to aid the development of strategies to mitigate delirium and associated sequelae. METHODS: This multicentre cohort study included 69 adult intensive care units (ICUs), across 14 countries. We included all patients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to participating ICUs with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection before April 28, 2020. Patients who were moribund or had life-support measures withdrawn within 24 h of ICU admission, prisoners, patients with pre-existing mental illness, neurodegenerative disorders, congenital or acquired brain damage, hepatic coma, drug overdose, suicide attempt, or those who were blind or deaf were excluded. We collected de-identified data from electronic health records on patient demographics, delirium and coma assessments, and management strategies for a 21-day period. Additional data on ventilator support, ICU length of stay, and vital status was collected for a 28-day period. The primary outcome was to determine the prevalence of delirium and coma and to investigate any associated risk factors associated with development of delirium the next day. We also investigated predictors of number of days alive without delirium or coma. These outcomes were investigated using multivariable regression. FINDINGS: Between Jan 20 and April 28, 2020, 4530 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to 69 ICUs, of whom 2088 patients were included in the study cohort. The median age of patients was 64 years (IQR 54 to 71) with a median Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II of 40·0 (30·0 to 53·0). 1397 (66·9%) of 2088 patients were invasively mechanically ventilated on the day of ICU admission and 1827 (87·5%) were invasively mechanical ventilated at some point during hospitalisation. Infusion with sedatives while on mechanical ventilation was common: 1337 (64·0%) of 2088 patients were given benzodiazepines for a median of 7·0 days (4·0 to 12·0) and 1481 (70·9%) were given propofol for a median of 7·0 days (4·0 to 11·0). Median Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score while on invasive mechanical ventilation was -4 (-5 to -3). 1704 (81·6%) of 2088 patients were comatose for a median of 10·0 days (6·0 to 15·0) and 1147 (54·9%) were delirious for a median of 3·0 days (2·0 to 6·0). Mechanical ventilation, use of restraints, and benzodiazepine, opioid, and vasopressor infusions, and antipsychotics were each associated with a higher risk of delirium the next day (all p≤0·04), whereas family visitation (in person or virtual) was associated with a lower risk of delirium (p<0·0001). During the 21-day study period, patients were alive without delirium or coma for a median of 5·0 days (0·0 to 14·0). At baseline, older age, higher SAPS II scores, male sex, smoking or alcohol abuse, use of vasopressors on day 1, and invasive mechanical ventilation on day 1 were independently associated with fewer days alive and free of delirium and coma (all p<0·01). 601 (28·8%) of 2088 patients died within 28 days of admission, with most of those deaths occurring in the ICU. INTERPRETATION: Acute brain dysfunction was highly prevalent and prolonged in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Benzodiazepine use and lack of family visitation were identified as modifiable risk factors for delirium, and thus these data present an opportunity to reduce acute brain dysfunction in patients with COVID-19. FUNDING: None. TRANSLATIONS: For the French and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Statistical analysis plan for the Maximizing the Efficacy of Sedation and Reducing Neurological Dysfunction and Mortality in Septic Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure trial.

BACKGROUND: The best sedative medication to reduce delirium, mortality and long term brain dysfunction in mechanically ventilated septic patients is unclear. This multicentre, double-blind, randomised trial investigates the short term and long term effects of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedation in mechanically ventilated severely septic patients. OBJECTIVES: To describe the statistical analysis plan for this randomised clinical trial comprehensively and place it in the public domain before unblinding. METHODS: To ensure that analyses are not selectively reported, we developed a comprehensive statistical analysis plan before unblinding. This trial has an enrolment target of 420 severely septic and mechanically ventilated adult patients, randomly assigned to dexmedetomidine or propofol in a 1:1 ratio. Enrolment was completed in January 2019, and the study was estimated to be completed in September 2019. The primary endpoint is days alive without delirium or coma during first 14 study days. Secondary outcomes include 28-day ventilator-free days, 90-day all-cause mortality and cognitive function at 180 days. Time frames all begin on the day of randomisation. All analyses will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. CONCLUSION: This study will compare the effects of two sedatives in mechanically ventilated severely septic patients. In keeping with the guidance on statistical principles for clinical trials, we have developed a comprehensive statistical analysis plan by which we will adhere, as this will avoid bias and support transparency and reproducibility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01739933).