Haloperidol for the Treatment of Delirium in ICU Patients.

BACKGROUND: Haloperidol is frequently used to treat delirium in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), but evidence of its effect is limited. METHODS: In this multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned adult patients with delirium who had been admitted to the ICU for an acute condition to receive intravenous haloperidol (2.5 mg 3 times daily plus 2.5 mg as needed up to a total maximum daily dose of 20 mg) or placebo. Haloperidol or placebo was administered in the ICU for as long as delirium continued and as needed for recurrences. The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 1000 patients underwent randomization; 510 were assigned to the haloperidol group and 490 to the placebo group. Among these patients, 987 (98.7%) were included in the final analyses (501 in the haloperidol group and 486 in the placebo group). Primary outcome data were available for 963 patients (97.6%). At 90 days, the mean number of days alive and out of the hospital was 35.8 (95% confidence interval [CI], 32.9 to 38.6) in the haloperidol group and 32.9 (95% CI, 29.9 to 35.8) in the placebo group, with an adjusted mean difference of 2.9 days (95% CI, -1.2 to 7.0) (P = 0.22). Mortality at 90 days was 36.3% in the haloperidol group and 43.3% in the placebo group (adjusted absolute difference, -6.9 percentage points [95% CI, -13.0 to -0.6]). Serious adverse reactions occurred in 11 patients in the haloperidol group and in 9 patients in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients in the ICU with delirium, treatment with haloperidol did not lead to a significantly greater number of days alive and out of the hospital at 90 days than placebo. (Funded by Innovation Fund Denmark and others; AID-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03392376; EudraCT number, 2017-003829-15.).

Combined Dexamethasone and Dexmedetomidine as Adjuncts to Popliteal and Saphenous Nerve Blocks in Patients Undergoing Surgery of the Foot or Ankle: A Randomized, Blinded, Placebo-controlled Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Both dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine increase the duration of analgesia of peripheral nerve blocks. The authors hypothesized that combined intravenous dexamethasone and intravenous dexmedetomidine would result in a greater duration of analgesia when compared with intravenous dexamethasone alone and placebo. METHODS: The authors randomly allocated participants undergoing surgery of the foot or ankle under general anesthesia and with a combined popliteal (sciatic) and saphenous nerve block to a combination of 12 mg dexamethasone and 1 µg/kg dexmedetomidine, 12 mg dexamethasone, or placebo (saline). The primary outcome was the duration of analgesia measured as the time from block performance until the first sensation of pain in the surgical area as reported by the participant. The authors predefined a 33% difference in the duration of analgesia as clinically relevant. RESULTS: A total of 120 participants from two centers were randomized and 119 analyzed for the primary outcome. The median [interquartile range] duration of analgesia was 1,572 min [1,259 to 1,715] with combined dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine, 1,400 min [1,133 to 1,750] with dexamethasone alone, and 870 min [748 to 1,138] with placebo. Compared with placebo, the duration was greater with combined dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine (difference, 564 min; 98.33% CI, 301 to 794; P < 0.001) and with dexamethasone (difference, 489 min; 98.33% CI, 265 to 706; P < 0.001). The prolongations exceeded the authors' predefined clinically relevant difference. The duration was similar when combined dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine was compared with dexamethasone alone (difference, 61 min; 98.33% CI, -222 to 331; P = 0.614). CONCLUSIONS: Dexamethasone with or without dexmedetomidine increased the duration of analgesia in patients undergoing surgery of the foot or ankle with a popliteal (sciatic) and saphenous nerve block. Combined dexamethasone and dexmedetomidine did not increase the duration of analgesia when compared with dexamethasone.

Validation of PRE-DELIRIC and E-PRE-DELIRIC in a Danish population of intensive care unit patients-A prospective observational multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a clinical condition characterized by an acute change in brain function and is frequently observed in critically ill patients. The condition has been associated with negative outcomes, making it crucial to identify patients who are at risk. Two recent prediction models have been developed to estimate the risk of delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients; the prediction model for delirium (PRE-DELIRIC) and the early prediction model for delirium (E-PRE-DELIRIC). We aimed to perform an external validation of these models in a Danish cohort of critically ill patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational multicenter study to validate the PRE-DELIRIC and E-PRE-DELIRIC models in a population of patients admitted to four general ICUs in the Zealand Region of Denmark. From January 2022 to January 2023 all adult patients acutely admitted to the participating ICUs were assessed for eligibility. Patients had to be admitted to the ICU for >24 h to be included in the study. Included patients were screened with E-PRE-DELIRIC upon ICU admission and PRE-DELIRIC after 24 h of admission and followed throughout their ICU stay with CAM-ICU delirium assessments. Our primary outcomes were the prognostic accuracy measured by Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics (AUROC) and the calibration plot for the E-PRE-DELIRIC and PRE-DELIRIC prediction models. RESULTS: We included 660 patients, of whom 660 were assessed with E-PRE-DELIRIC, and 622 were assessed with PRE-DELIRIC. PRE-DELIRIC showed acceptable discrimination with AUROC of 0.70 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.74) and good calibration. E-PRE-DELIRIC had inadequate discrimination AUROC of 0.63 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.67) and poor calibration. CONCLUSION: In a Danish cohort, we found that the PRE-DELIRIC model demonstrated acceptable performance and E-PRE-DELIRIC demonstrated poor performance. In critically ill adult patients PRE-DELIRIC may be useful in identifying patients at high risk of delirium.

Primary outcomes and anticipated effect sizes in randomised clinical trials assessing adjuncts to peripheral nerve blocks: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Prolonging effects of adjuncts to local anaesthetics in peripheral nerve blocks have been demonstrated in randomised clinical trials. The chosen primary outcome and anticipated effect size have major impact on the clinical relevance of results in these trials. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of frequently used outcomes and anticipated effect sizes in randomised trials on peripheral nerve block adjuncts. METHODS: For our scoping review, we searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL for trials assessing effects of adjuncts for peripheral nerve blocks published in 10 major anaesthesia journals. We included randomised clinical trials assessing adjuncts for single-shot ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, regardless of the type of interventional adjunct and control group, local anaesthetic used and anatomical localization. Our primary outcome was the choice of primary outcomes and corresponding anticipated effect size used for sample size estimation. Secondary outcomes were assessor of primary outcomes, the reporting of sample size calculations and statistically significant and non-significant results related to the anticipated effect sizes. RESULTS: Of 11,854 screened trials, we included 59. The most frequent primary outcome was duration of analgesia (35/59 trials, 59%) with absolute and relative median (interquartile range) anticipated effect sizes for adjunct versus placebo/no adjunct: 240 min (180-318) and 30% (25-40) and for adjunct versus active comparator: 210 min (180-308) and 17% (15-28). Adequate sample size calculations were reported in 78% of trials. Statistically significant results were reported for primary outcomes in 45/59 trials (76%), of which 22% did not reach the anticipated effect size. CONCLUSION: The reported outcomes and associated anticipated effect sizes can be used in future trials on adjuncts for peripheral nerve blocks to increase methodological homogeneity.

Patient recall of intensive care delirium: A qualitative investigation.

BACKGROUND: Many patients in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) experience delirium. Understanding the patient perspective of delirium is important to improve care and reduce suffering. The aim of our study was to investigate the subjective patient experience of delirium, delirium-related distress, and delirium management in ICU. METHODS: Our study had a qualitative multicenter design applying individual interviews and thematic analysis. Participants were critically ill adult patients that were determined delirium positive according to validated delirium screening tools during ICU admission. The interviews were conducted after ICU discharge when patients were delirium-free as assessed by the "Rapid clinical test for delirium" (4AT) and able to participate in an interview. RESULTS: We interviewed 30 patients choosing the main themes deductively: Delirium experience; Delirium related distress; and Delirium management. Despite variations in recollection detail, ICU survivors consistently reported delirium-related distress during and after their ICU stay, manifesting as temporal confusion, misinterpretations, and a sense of distrust towards ICU staff. Delusions were characterized by a blend of factual and fictional elements. Impaired short-term memory hindered communication and intensified feelings of isolation, neglect, and loss of control. CONCLUSION: The ICU survivors in our study recalled delirium as an unpleasant and frightening experience, often leading to delirium-related distress during and after their ICU stay, indicating the necessity for enhanced assessment and treatment.

The OPI•AID Zone Tool as a composite outcome for postoperative pain management quality-A protocol for an observational pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Managing postoperative pain while minimizing opioid-related adverse drug events (ORADEs) remains a significant challenge. The OPI•AID Zone Tool is proposed as a novel clinical decision support tool that - both graphically and in a scoring-system - represents the relationship between pain management and the occurrence of ORADEs, aiming to enhance patient outcomes in postoperative care. The OPI•AID Zone Tool places pain score on the x-axis and an ORADE score on the y-axis, and stratifies patients into five zones to reflect the composite impact of pain severity and ORADEs on the quality of postoperative patient care. The study will have two key aims: (1) to explore whether the OPI•AID Zone Tool can function as a composite outcome measure for postoperative pain and ORADEs, and (2) to evaluate the use of the OPI•AID Zone Tool in visual presentations and for evaluation of patients' postoperative pain management quality. METHODS: This prospective observational cohort study will include 200 adults undergoing various surgical procedures in general anesthesia with a subsequent stay in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) at Bispebjerg Hospital, Denmark. Substudy 1 primary outcome: To assess whether a zone score in the OPI•AID Zone Tool is associated with patient-perceived health (EQ VAS), quality of recovery (QoR-PACU), and time to discharge readiness in PACU, and if the zone score has a stronger association than pain and ORADE score in themselves. Substudy 2 primary outcome: To assess how the use of intraoperative non-opioid analgesics impact where patients are placed in the OPI•AID Zone Tool's XY scatterplot right after surgery. To assess if patients who receive more comprehensive non-opioid analgesic basic regimens, generally fall into lower zones. CONCLUSION: The OPI•AID Zone Tool could potentially be a valuable clinical decision-making tool for optimizing postoperative care by simultaneously addressing pain management and the risk of ORADEs. By computing a composite measure of these two critical outcomes, the tool could guide more nuanced and patient-centered analgesic regimens, potentially improving patient satisfaction and operational efficiency in postoperative settings. The tool's applicability will be explored in this observational pilot and followed up in a planned series of studies (opiaid.dk).

Risks of serious adverse events with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in gastrointestinal surgery: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly recommended for perioperative opioid-sparing multimodal analgesic treatments. Concerns regarding the potential for serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with perioperative NSAID treatment are especially relevant following gastrointestinal surgery. We assessed the risks of SAEs with perioperative NSAID treatment in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomised clinical trials assessing the harmful effects of NSAIDs versus placebo, usual care or no intervention in patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery. The primary outcome was an incidence of SAEs. We systematically searched for eligible trials in five major databases up to January 2024. We performed risk of bias assessments to account for systematic errors, trial sequential analysis (TSA) to account for the risks of random errors, performed meta-analyses using R and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to describe the certainty of evidence. RESULTS: We included 22 trials enrolling 1622 patients for our primary analyses. Most trials were at high risk of bias. Meta-analyses (risk ratio 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-1.19; I2 = 4%; p = .24; very low certainty of evidence) and TSA indicated a lack of information on the effects of NSAIDs compared to placebo on the risks of SAEs. Post-hoc beta-binomial regression sensitivity analyses including trials with zero events showed a reduction in SAEs with NSAIDs versus placebo (odds ratio 0.73; CI 0.54-0.99; p = .042). CONCLUSION: In adult patients undergoing gastrointestinal surgery, there was insufficient information to draw firm conclusions on the effects of NSAIDs on SAEs. The certainty of the evidence was very low.

Minimal important difference in postoperative morphine consumption after hip and knee arthroplasty using nausea, vomiting, sedation and dizziness as anchors.

BACKGROUND: Morphine-sparing effects are often used to evaluate non-opioid analgesic interventions. The exact effect that would warrant the implementation of these interventions in clinical practice (a minimally important difference) remains unclear. We aimed to determine this with anchor-based methods. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of three studies investigating pain management after hip or knee arthroplasty (PANSAID [NCT02571361], DEX-2-TKA [NCT03506789] and Pain Map [NCT02340052]). The overall population was median aged 70, median ASA 2, 54% female. We examined the correlation between 0 and 24 h postoperative iv morphine equivalent consumption and the severity of nausea, vomiting, sedation and dizziness. The anchor was different severity degrees of these opioid-related adverse events. The primary outcome was the difference in morphine consumption between patients experiencing no versus only mild events. Secondary outcomes included the difference in morphine consumption between patients with mild versus moderate and moderate versus severe events. We used Hodges-Lehmann median differences, exact Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests and quantile regression. RESULTS: The difference in iv morphine consumption was 6 mg (95% confidence interval: 4-8) between patients with no versus only mild events, 5 mg (2-8) between patients with mild versus moderate events and 0 mg (-4 to 4) between patients with moderate versus severe events. CONCLUSIONS: In populations comparable to this post-hoc analysis (orthopaedic surgery, median age 70 and ASA 2), we suggest a minimally important difference of 5 mg for 0-24 h postoperative iv morphine consumption.

Associations of dexamethasone's effect on morphine consumption after total knee arthroplasty-Subgroup analyses.

The DEXamethasone twice for pain treatment after Total Knee Arthroplasty (DEX-2-TKA) trial showed that adding one and two doses of 24 mg intravenous dexamethasone to paracetamol, ibuprofen and local infiltration analgesia, reduced morphine consumption (primary outcome) within 48 h after TKA. We aimed to explore the differences in the effect of dexamethasone on morphine consumption in different subgroups. Quantile regression adjusted for site was used to test for significant interaction between the predefined dichotomised subgroups and treatment group. The subgroups were defined based on baseline data: sex (male/female), age (≤65 years/>65 years), American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA)-score (ASA I + II/III), visual analogue score of preoperative pain at rest (≤30 mm/>30 mm), pain during mobilisation (≤30 mm/>30 mm), type of anaesthesia (spinal anaesthesia/general anaesthesia and spinal converted to general anaesthesia), and prior daily use of analgesics (either paracetamol and/or NSAID/neither). These analyses were supplemented with post hoc multivariate linear regression analyses. Test of interaction comparing sex in the pairwise comparison between DX2 (dexamethasone [24 mg] + dexamethasone [24 mg]) versus placebo (p = .02), showed a larger effect of dexamethasone on morphine consumption in male patients compared to females. Test of interaction comparing age in the pairwise comparison between DX1 (dexamethasone [24 mg] + placebo) versus placebo (p = .04), showed a larger effect of dexamethasone on morphine consumption in younger patients (≤65 years) compared to older. All remaining subgroup analyses showed no evidence of a difference. The supplemental multivariate analyses did not support any significant interaction for sex (p = .256) or age (p = .730) but supported a significant interaction with the type of anaesthesia (p < .001). Our results from the quantile regression analyses indicate that the male sex and younger age (≤65 years) may be associated with a larger analgesic effect of dexamethasone than the effects in other types of patients. However, this is not supported by post-hoc multivariate linear regression analyses. The two types of analyses both supported a possible interaction with the type of anaesthesia.

Prolonged effects of dexamethasone following total knee arthroplasty: A pre-planned sub-study of the DEX-2-TKA trial.

OBJECTIVES: The DEX-2-TKA trial demonstrated that one and two doses of 24 mg intravenous dexamethasone reduced opioid consumption and pain after total knee arthroplasty (TKA). We aimed to investigate the prolonged effects of dexamethasone after the 48-h intervention period. DESIGN: This was a prospective, pre-planned questionnaire follow-up on postoperative days 3-7 of patients in the DEX-2-TKA trial that randomly received: DX1 (dexamethasone 24 mg + placebo), DX2 (dexamethasone 24 mg + dexamethasone 24 mg), and placebo (placebo + placebo) perioperatively and 24 h later. SETTING: A multicenter trial performed at five Danish hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: We analyzed 434 of 485 adult participants enrolled in the DEX-2-TKA trial. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was difference between groups in average of all numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores reported in the morning, at bedtime, and the daily average pain on postoperative days 3-7. Secondary outcomes were sleep quality and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) pain intensity levels for postoperative days 3-7 were: DX2 3.2 (2.1-4.3); DX1 3.3 (2.3-4.1); and placebo 3.3 (2.5-4.7). Hodges-Lehmann median differences between groups were: 0 (95% confidence interval - 0.54 to 0.2), P = 0.38 between DX1 and placebo; 0.1 (-0.47 to 0.33), p = .87 between DX1 and DX2; and 0.1 (-0.6 to 0.13), p = .20 between DX2 and placebo. We found no relevant differences between groups on sleep quality on postoperative days 3-7 nor for patient satisfaction with the analgesic treatment. CONCLUSIONS: We found that neither one nor two doses of 24 mg intravenous dexamethasone demonstrated prolonged effects on overall pain or sleep quality on postoperative days 3-7 after total knee arthroplasty. We also found that dexamethasone had no effect on patient satisfaction. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03506789 (main result trial).

Lower vs Higher Oxygenation Target and Days Alive Without Life Support in COVID-19: The HOT-COVID Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Supplemental oxygen is ubiquitously used in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, but a lower dose may be beneficial. Objective: To assess the effects of targeting a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg vs 90 mm Hg in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia in the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial including 726 adults with COVID-19 receiving at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation in 11 ICUs in Europe from August 2020 to March 2023. The trial was prematurely stopped prior to outcome assessment due to slow enrollment. End of 90-day follow-up was June 1, 2023. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg (lower oxygenation group; n = 365) or 90 mm Hg (higher oxygenation group; n = 361) for up to 90 days in the ICU. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included mortality, proportion of patients with serious adverse events, and number of days alive and out of hospital, all at 90 days. Results: Of 726 randomized patients, primary outcome data were available for 697 (351 in the lower oxygenation group and 346 in the higher oxygenation group). Median age was 66 years, and 495 patients (68%) were male. At 90 days, the median number of days alive without life support was 80.0 days (IQR, 9.0-89.0 days) in the lower oxygenation group and 72.0 days (IQR, 2.0-88.0 days) in the higher oxygenation group (P = .009 by van Elteren test; supplemental bootstrapped adjusted mean difference, 5.8 days [95% CI, 0.2-11.5 days]; P = .04). Mortality at 90 days was 30.2% in the lower oxygenation group and 34.7% in the higher oxygenation group (risk ratio, 0.86 [98.6% CI, 0.66-1.13]; P = .18). There were no statistically significant differences in proportion of patients with serious adverse events or in number of days alive and out of hospital. Conclusion and Relevance: In adult ICU patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, targeting a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg resulted in more days alive without life support in 90 days than targeting a Pao2 of 90 mm Hg. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04425031.

The efficacy and safety of ankle blocks for foot and ankle surgery: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral nerve blocks may be essential elements in a multimodal pain management regime following foot and ankle surgery. We assessed the effects of ankle blocks compared with no intervention/sham block or a sciatic nerve block in patients undergoing surgery of the foot or ankle. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, Medline, and Embase for randomised clinical trials comparing ankle block with no intervention/sham block or a sciatic nerve block for patients undergoing surgery of the foot or ankle. Our primary outcomes were duration of analgesia and cumulative 24-hour opioid consumption. We followed the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook, and performed meta-analysis, Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA), and assessed the risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: We included five trials (362 participants) comparing ankle block with no intervention/sham block and three trials (247 participants) comparing ankle block with a sciatic nerve block. Ankle block may increase the duration of analgesia when compared with no intervention/sham block (MD 431 min; 96.7% CI 208 to 654), but the evidence was very uncertain. Duration was decreased when compared with a sciatic nerve block (MD -410 min; 96.7% CI -462 to -358). The ankle block duration was probably important in both comparisons. The effects on cumulative 24-hour opioid consumption were very uncertain in both comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Ankle block may increase the duration of analgesia when compared with no intervention/sham block, but the evidence was very uncertain, and decrease the duration of analgesia when compared with a sciatic nerve block. The ankle block duration was probably clinically important in both comparisons. The effects on cumulative 24-hour opioid consumption were very uncertain.

Perineural and Systemic Dexamethasone and Ulnar Nerve Block Duration: A Randomized, Blinded, Placebo-controlled Trial in Healthy Volunteers.

BACKGROUND: The authors hypothesized that both perineural and systemic dexamethasone as adjuncts to bupivacaine increase the duration of an ulnar nerve block compared with bupivacaine alone, and that systemic dexamethasone is noninferior to perineural dexamethasone. METHODS: The authors performed bilateral ulnar nerve blocks with 3 ml bupivacaine 5 mg/ml in 16 healthy volunteers on two trial days. According to randomization, subjects received adjunct treatment with 1 ml dexamethasone 4 mg/ml + 1 ml of saline (perineural condition) in one arm and 2 ml saline in the other arm (systemic condition, through absorption and redistribution of the contralaterally administered perineural dexamethasone) on one trial day; and 2 ml saline in one arm (placebo condition) and 2 ml of lidocaine in the other arm (lidocaine condition) on the other trial day. The primary outcome was the duration of the sensory nerve block assessed by temperature discrimination. RESULTS: Mean sensory block duration was 706 ± 94 min for the perineural condition, 677 ± 112 min for the systemic condition, and 640 ± 121 min for the placebo condition. The duration of the sensory nerve block was greater with perineural dexamethasone versus placebo (mean difference 66 min (95% CI, 23 to 108). Block duration was similar between systemic dexamethasone and placebo (mean difference 36 min; 95% CI, -30 to 103). CONCLUSIONS: Perineural dexamethasone as an adjunct to bupivacaine in healthy volunteers resulted in a greater duration of an ulnar nerve block when compared with placebo. Systemic dexamethasone resulted in a similar duration as placebo.

Haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Haloperidol is frequently used in critically ill patients with delirium, but evidence for its effects has been sparse and inconclusive. By including recent trials, we updated a systematic review assessing effects of haloperidol on mortality and serious adverse events in critically ill patients with delirium. METHODS: This is an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials investigating haloperidol versus placebo or any comparator in critically ill patients with delirium. We adhered to the Cochrane handbook, the PRISMA guidelines and the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation statements. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and proportion of patients with one or more serious adverse events or reactions (SAEs/SARs). Secondary outcomes were days alive without delirium or coma, delirium severity, cognitive function and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs with 15 comparisons (n = 2200); five were placebo-controlled. The relative risk for mortality with haloperidol versus placebo was 0.89; 96.7% CI 0.77 to 1.03; I2 = 0% (moderate-certainty evidence) and for proportion of patients experiencing SAEs/SARs 0.94; 96.7% CI 0.81 to 1.10; I2 = 18% (low-certainty evidence). We found no difference in days alive without delirium or coma (moderate-certainty evidence). We found sparse data for other secondary outcomes and other comparators than placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Haloperidol may reduce mortality and likely result in little to no change in the occurrence of SAEs/SARs compared with placebo in critically ill patients with delirium. However, the results were not statistically significant and more trial data are needed to provide higher certainty for the effects of haloperidol in these patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: CRD42017081133, date of registration 28 November 2017.

Non-opioid analgesics for the prevention of chronic postsurgical pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic postsurgical pain is common after surgery. Identification of non-opioid analgesics with potential for preventing chronic postsurgical pain is important, although trials are often underpowered. Network meta-analysis offers an opportunity to improve power and to identify the most promising therapy for clinical use and future studies. METHODS: We conducted a PRISMA-NMA-compliant systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of non-opioid analgesics for chronic postsurgical pain. Outcomes included incidence and severity of chronic postsurgical pain, serious adverse events, and chronic opioid use. RESULTS: We included 132 randomised controlled trials with 23 902 participants. In order of efficacy, i.v. lidocaine (odds ratio [OR] 0.32; 95% credible interval [CrI] 0.17-0.58), ketamine (OR 0.64; 95% CrI 0.44-0.92), gabapentinoids (OR 0.67; 95% CrI 0.47-0.92), and possibly dexmedetomidine (OR 0.36; 95% CrI 0.12-1.00) reduced the incidence of chronic postsurgical pain at ≤6 months. There was little available evidence for chronic postsurgical pain at >6 months, combinations agents, chronic opioid use, and serious adverse events. Variable baseline risk was identified as a potential violation to the network meta-analysis transitivity assumption, so results are reported from a fixed value of this, with analgesics more effective at higher baseline risk. The confidence in these findings was low because of problems with risk of bias and imprecision. CONCLUSIONS: Lidocaine (most effective), ketamine, and gabapentinoids could be effective in reducing chronic postsurgical pain ≤6 months although confidence is low. Moreover, variable baseline risk might violate transitivity in network meta-analysis of analgesics; this recommends use of our methods in future network meta-analyses. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL: PROSPERO CRD42021269642.

Opioid consumption and non-opioid multimodal analgesic treatment in pain management trials after hip and knee arthroplasties: A meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: The leading principle in peri-operative pain management is multimodal analgesia, which reduces opioid requirements and associated adverse effects. Pragmatic pain trials should optimally test interventions in addition to multimodal non-opioid analgesics and interventions to ensure clinical relevance and baseline levels of opioid consumption that reflect clinical settings. We aimed to investigate opioid consumption and use of non-opioid analgesics administered adjunct to interventions in post-operative pain trials after total hip and knee arthroplasty. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted 7 January 2020 in The Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, PubMed, and EMBASE. Trials investigating analgesic interventions for post-operative pain in adults undergoing total hip or knee arthroplasty were included. The primary outcome was the aggregated median 0-24 h post-operative opioid consumption. Further, we assessed the use of paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, gabapentinoids, high-dose glucocorticoids, local infiltration analgesia and nerve blocks administered as co-interventions equally to all participants. We assessed trends over time for all outcomes. RESULTS: Of 14,200 records, 570 trials were included. Median 0-24 h opioid consumption was 21 and 22 mg iv morphine equivalents in hip and knee arthroplasty trials, respectively. Meta-regression showed no overall linear correlation between opioid consumption and publication year. The use of multimodal non-opioid analgesia increased over time, though only 48% of trials published from 2010 to 2020 administered two or more non-opioid analgesics. Applying more non-opioid analgesics was associated with lower opioid consumption in intervention groups. CONCLUSION: Post-operative 0-24 h morphine consumption was median 21-22 mg. The demonstrated differences in non-opioid multimodal analgesic regimens between research and clinical settings, can potentially diminish the demonstrated opioid-sparing effects of trial interventions when such are implemented in a clinical context.

Ketamine for postoperative pain treatment in spinal surgery: Systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

AIM: We aimed to assess the beneficial and harmful effects of perioperative pain treatment with ketamine in patients undergoing spinal surgery. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL from inception until 15 February 2023 for randomised clinical trials comparing ketamine with placebo or no intervention in patients undergoing spinal surgery. The primary outcomes were cumulative opioid consumption at 24 h postoperatively and serious adverse events. We adhered to recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration and performed meta-analysis, Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) to assess the risks of random errors, risk of bias assessment to evaluate the risks of systematic errors, and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). RESULTS: We included a total of 28 randomised clinical trials enrolling 2110 participants providing data for our pre-defined outcomes. Twenty-three trials enrolled adult participants and 5 trials enrolled paediatric participants. Three trials were at low risk of bias. Meta-analysis and TSA of trials including adults showed that ketamine versus placebo or no intervention seemed to reduce the cumulative 24-h opioid consumption (mean difference -17.57 mg; TSA-adjusted 95% confidence interval, -24.22 to -10.92; p < .01; low certainty of evidence), and there was no evidence of a difference of ketamine versus placebo or no intervention on the risk of serious adverse events (risk ratio 2.16; 96.7% confidence interval, 0.35 to 13.17; p = .36; very low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSION: In adults undergoing spinal surgery, ketamine may reduce cumulative 24-h opioid consumption. Ketamine may increase the occurrence of serious adverse events, but the evidence was very uncertain.

Glucocorticoids added to paracetamol and NSAIDs for post-operative pain: A systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

BACKGROUND: Paracetamol and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are recommended as the basic pain treatment regimen for most surgeries. Glucocorticoids have well-known anti-inflammatory and anti-emetic properties and may also demonstrate analgesic effects. We assessed benefit and harm of adding glucocorticoids to a combination of paracetamol and NSAIDs for post-operative pain management. METHODS: We searched Embase, Medline and CENTRAL for randomised clinical trials investigating the addition of glucocorticoids versus placebo/no intervention to paracetamol and an NSAID in adults undergoing any type of surgery. We assessed three primary outcomes: cumulative opioid consumption at 24 h postoperatively, serious adverse events and pain at rest at 24 h postoperatively. We performed meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA), assessed risk of bias using the Risk of Bias 2 tool and used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: We identified 12 relevant trials of which nine trials randomising 804 participants were included in quantitative analysis. When added to paracetamol and NSAIDs, we found no evidence of a difference of glucocorticoids versus placebo/no intervention in cumulative opioid consumption at 24 h postoperatively (mean difference [MD] -0.28, TSA-adjusted 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.90 to 1.33, p = .68, moderate certainty of evidence), serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, TSA-adjusted 95% CI 0.27-3.63, p = .93, very low certainty of evidence) or pain on the Numeric Rating Scale at 24 h postoperatively (MD -0.39, TSA-adjusted 95% CI -0.84 to 0.17, p = .10, moderate certainty of evidence). All outcomes were assessed to be at high risk of bias and TSA showed that we had insufficient information for most outcomes. CONCLUSION: Glucocorticoids added to a baseline therapy of paracetamol and an NSAID likely result in little to no difference in cumulative opioid consumption and pain at rest at 24 h postoperatively. In addition, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect on serious adverse events. For most outcomes we did not have sufficient information to draw firm conclusions and the certainty of the evidence varied from moderate to very low. EDITORIAL COMMENT: Multimodal approaches for post-operative analgesia are favoured, including paracetamol and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. In this meta-analysis, pooled results from clinical trials are assessed to describe possible benefit of addition of glucocorticoid treatment for analgesia. The findings did not identify additional benefit, though the certainty of the evidence was not high.

Remimazolam for sedation: A protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis, and GRADE approach.

BACKGROUND: Procedural sedation aims to facilitate a successful diagnostic or therapeutic procedure. The pharmacokinetic properties and pharmacodynamic effects need to be taken into consideration when choosing the ideal sedative. Midazolam and propofol are frequently employed. However, they are associated with respiratory depression with increasing dosage. Also, midazolam has a potentially unpredictable pharmacodynamic response and propofol may cause hypotension and injection site pain. Remimazolam may provide a superior alternative due to its rapid pharmacodynamic profile and insignificant circulatory effects. METHODS: This protocol employs the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis guidelines. The review aims to assess the beneficial and harmful clinical effects of remimazolam versus placebo or other sedatives in adult patients requiring sedation in relation to a diagnostic or therapeutic procedure, or due to other circumstances. Three primary outcomes are identified: Sedation success rate, respiratory complications, and hemodynamic complications. Six secondary outcomes are identified: among these are quality of recovery and serious adverse events. All randomized trials are included. The search strategy includes six major biomedical databases. Literature screening and data extraction will be performed independently by two authors. Risk of systemic error will be assessed with Risk of Bias 2 Tool. Risk of random error will be assessed with trial sequential analysis. Heterogeneity will be evaluated by appropriate statistical tests. The certainty of the evidence will be judged using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Meta-analysis will be carried out with Rstudio. A "Summary of Findings" table will be presented with our primary and secondary outcome results. DISCUSSION: The systematic review with up-to-date methodology outlined in this protocol investigates the clinical effects of remimazolam in relation to procedural sedation. The results may guide clinicians in the clinical use of remimazolam.

Minimal important difference in opioid consumption based on adverse event reduction-A study protocol.

BACKGROUND: The patient-relevant minimal important difference for opioid consumption remains undetermined, despite its frequent use as primary outcome in trials on postoperative pain management. A minimal important difference is necessary to evaluate whether significant trial results are clinically relevant. Further, it can be used as effect size to ensure that trials are powered to find clinically relevant effects. By exploring the dose-response relationship between postoperative opioid consumption and opioid-related adverse effects, we aim to approximate the minimal important difference in opioid consumption anchored to opioid-related adverse effects. METHODS: This is a post-hoc analysis of aggregated data from two clinical trials (PANSAID NCT02571361 and DEX2TKA NCT03506789) and one observational cohort study (Pain Map NCT02340052) on pain management after total hip and knee arthroplasty. The primary outcome is the Hodges-Lehmann median difference in opioid consumption between patients with no opioid-related adverse effects and patients experiencing the mildest degree of one or more opioid-related adverse effects (i.e., mild nausea, sedation and/or dizziness or vomiting). Secondary outcomes include the Hodges-Lehmann median difference in opioid consumption that corresponds to one point on a cumulated opioid-related adverse event 0-10 scale. Further, we will explore the proportion of patients that experience opioid-related adverse effects for consecutive opioid dose intervals of 2 mg iv morphine equivalents. Quantile regression will be used to assess any significant interactions with patient baseline characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: This study will hopefully bring us one step closer to determining relevant opioid reductions and thereby improve our understanding of intervention effects and planning of future trials.