γδ T cells protect against LPS-induced lung injury.

γδ T lymphocytes are a unique T cell population with important anti-inflammatory capabilities. Their role in acute lung injury, however, is poorly understood but may provide significant insight into lung-protective mechanisms occurring after injury. In a murine model of lung injury, wild-type C57BL/6 and TCRδ(-/-) mice were exposed to Escherichia coli LPS, followed by analysis of γδ T cell and macrophage subsets. In the absence of γδ T cells, TCRδ(-/-) mice developed increased inflammation and alveolar-capillary leak compared with wild-type C57BL/6 mice after LPS exposure that correlated with expansion of distinct macrophage populations. Classically activated M1 macrophages were increased in the lung of TCRδ(-/-) mice at d 1, 4, and 7 after LPS exposure that peaked at d 4 and persisted at d 7 compared with wild-type animals. In response to LPS, Vγ1 and Vγ7 γδ T cells were expanded in the lung and expressed IL-4. Coculture experiments showed decreased expression of TNF-α by resident alveolar macrophages in the presence of γδ T cells that was reversed in the presence of an anti-IL-4-blocking antibody. Treatment of mice with rIL4 resulted in reduced numbers of M1 macrophages, inflammation, and alveolar-capillary leak. Therefore, one mechanism by which Vγ1 and Vγ7 γδ T cells protect against LPS-induced lung injury is through IL-4 expression, which decreases TNF-α production by resident alveolar macrophages, thus reducing accumulation of M1 macrophages, inflammation, and alveolar-capillary leak.

A randomized, double-blind pilot study of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for intensive care unit sedation: patient recall of their experiences and short-term psychological outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Sedation with dexmedetomidine may facilitate ventilator liberation and limit the occurrence of delirium. No trial has assessed patient recall or the development of psychological outcomes after dexmedetomidine sedation. This pilot study evaluated whether transitioning benzodiazepine sedation to dexmedetomidine alters patient recall and the incidence of anxiety, depression, or acute stress disorder (ASD). METHODS: This investigation was a randomized, double-blind, single-center study. Existing continuous benzodiazepine sedation was converted to dexmedetomidine or midazolam when patients qualified for daily awakenings. Sedation was titrated to achieve Riker sedation agitation scores of 3 to 4. The intensive care unit (ICU) Stressful Experiences Questionnaire, hospital anxiety and depression scale, and the impact of event scale-revised were administered before hospital discharge to assess recall, anxiety, depression, and manifestations of ASD. RESULTS: A total of 11 patients received dexmedetomidine, and 12 patients received midazolam. Median dosing was 0.61 µg/kg/h for 3.5 days for dexmedetomidine and 3.7 mg/h for 3 days for midazolam. Attainment of goal sedation and analgesia was similar; however, more dexmedetomidine patients experienced agitation and pain. The median duration of mechanical ventilation from study drug initiation to extubation was 3.4 days in dexmedetomidine patients and 2.9 days in midazolam patients. Dexmedetomidine patients remembered 18.5 experiences compared with 8.5 in midazolam patients (P = .015). Rates of anxiety and depression were similar. In all, 5 (62.5%) dexmedetomidine patients and 1 (12.5%) midazolam patient manifested ASD (P = .063), and 1 dexmedetomidine patient and 5 midazolam patients developed new-onset delirium (P = .07). Hypotension occurred in 10 (90.9%) dexmedotomidine patients and 6 (50%) midazolam patients (P = .069). CONCLUSIONS: Transitioning benzodiazepine sedation to dexmedetomidine when patients qualify for daily awakenings may reduce the development of delirium and facilitate remembrance of ICU experiences but may lead to manifestations of ASD. Monitoring hypotension is required for both the sedatives. Additional comparative studies focusing on the long-term impact of ICU recall and psychological outcomes are needed.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled dose range study of dexmedetomidine as adjunctive therapy for alcohol withdrawal.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate dexmedetomidine as adjunctive therapy to lorazepam for severe alcohol withdrawal. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Single center; medical ICU. PATIENTS: Twenty-four adult patients with a Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment score greater than or equal to 15 despite greater than or equal to 16 mg of lorazepam over a 4-hour period. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received a symptom-triggered Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment protocol with lorazepam and were randomized to dexmedetomidine 1.2 µg/kg/hr (high dose), 0.4 µg/kg/hr (low dose), or placebo as adjunctive therapy for up to 5 days or resolution of withdrawal symptoms. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: High-dose and low-dose groups were combined as a single dexmedetomidine group for primary analysis with secondary analysis exploring a dose-response relationship. The difference in 24-hour lorazepam requirements after versus before study drug was greater in the dexmedetomidine group compared with the placebo group (-56 mg vs -8 mg, p = 0.037). Median differences were similar for high dose and low dose. The 7-day cumulative lorazepam requirements were not statistically different between dexmedetomidine and placebo (159 mg vs 181 mg). Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment or Riker sedation-agitation scale scores representing severe agitation (13% vs 25%) or moderate agitation (27% vs 22%) within 24 hours of initiating study drug were similar for dexmedetomidine and placebo groups, respectively. Bradycardia occurred more frequently in the dexmedetomidine group versus placebo group (25% vs 0%, p = not significant), with the majority of bradycardia occurring in the high-dose group (37.5%). Study drug rate adjustments occurred more often in the dexmedetomidine group compared with the placebo group (50% vs 0%, p = 0.02). Neither endotracheal intubation nor seizure occurred in any group while on study drug. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive dexmedetomidine for severe alcohol withdrawal maintains symptom control and reduces lorazepam exposure in the short term, but not long term, when using a symptom-triggered protocol. Monitoring for bradycardia is needed with dexmedetomidine but the occurrence may be lessened with low dose. Further study is needed to evaluate the clinical impact of dexmedetomidine.