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.

Patient and family engagement in Danish intensive care units: A national survey.

BACKGROUND: Patient and family engagement in the intensive care unit increases the quality of care and patient safety. AIM: The aim of our study was to describe current practice and experiences of contemporary patient and family engagement in the intensive care unit at the individual level, the organizational level, and in the research process according to critical care nurses. DESIGN/METHOD: We conducted a national qualitative survey of intensive care units in Denmark from 5th May-5th June 2021. Questionnaires were piloted and sent to intensive care nurse specialists and research nurses at 41 intensive care units, allowing one respondent per unit. All respondents were provided with written information about the study by email, and by activating the survey link, they accepted participation. RESULTS: Thirty-two nurses responded to the invitation, 24 completed and 8 partially completed the survey, yielding a response rate of 78%. At the individual level, 27 respondents stated that they involved patients and 25 said they involved family in daily treatment and care. At the organizational level, 28 intensive care units had an overall strategy or guideline for patient and family engagement, and 4 units had established a PFE panel. And, finally, 11 units engaged patients and families in the research process. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey suggested that patient and family engagement was implemented to some degree at the individual level, organizational level, and in the research process, but only 4 units had established a PFE panel at the organizational level, which is key to engagement. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Patient engagement increases when patients are more awake, and family engagement increases when patients are unable to participate. Engagement increases when patient and family engagement panels are implemented.

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.).

Agents intervening against delirium in the intensive care unit trial-Protocol for a secondary Bayesian analysis.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is highly prevalent in the intensive care unit (ICU) and is associated with high morbidity and mortality. The antipsychotic haloperidol is the most frequently used agent to treat delirium although this is not supported by solid evidence. The agents intervening against delirium in the intensive care unit (AID-ICU) trial investigates the effects of haloperidol versus placebo for the treatment of delirium in adult ICU patients. METHODS: This protocol describes the secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analyses of the primary and secondary outcomes up to day 90 of the AID-ICU trial. We will use Bayesian linear regression models for all count outcomes and Bayesian logistic regression models for all dichotomous outcomes. We will adjust for stratification variables (site and delirium subtype) and use weakly informative priors supplemented with sensitivity analyses using sceptical priors. We will present results as absolute differences (mean differences and risk differences) and relative differences (ratios of means and relative risks). Posteriors will be summarised using median values as point estimates and percentile-based 95% credibility intervals. Probabilities of any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm and clinically unimportant differences will be presented for all outcomes. DISCUSSION: The results of this secondary, pre-planned Bayesian analysis will complement the primary frequentist analysis of the AID-ICU trial and facilitate a nuanced and probabilistic interpretation of the trial results.

The Agents Intervening against Delirium in the Intensive Care Unit Trial (AID-ICU trial): A detailed statistical analysis plan.

BACKGROUND: The AID-ICU trial aims to assess the benefits and harms of haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in acutely admitted, adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients. This paper describes the detailed statistical analysis plan for the primary publication of results from the AID-ICU trial. METHODS: The AID-ICU trial is an investigator-initiated, pragmatic, international, multicentre, randomized, blinded, parallel-group trial allocating 1000 adult ICU patients with manifest delirium 1:1 to haloperidol or placebo. The primary outcome measure is days alive and out of hospital within 90 days post-randomization. Secondary outcome measures are days alive without delirium or coma, serious adverse reactions (SARs) to haloperidol, use of escape medicine, days alive without mechanical ventilation, and mortality, health-related quality-of-life measures and cognitive function 1-year post-randomization. Statistical analysis will be conducted in accordance with the current pre-specified statistical analysis plan. One formal interim analysis will be performed. The primary outcome will be adjusted for stratification variables (site and delirium motor subtype) and compared between treatment groups using a likelihood ratio test described by Jensen et al A secondary analysis will be conducted with additional adjustment of the primary outcome for prognostic variables at baseline. The primary conclusion of the trial will be based on the intention-to-treat analysis of the primary outcome adjusted for stratification variables. CONCLUSION: The AID-ICU trial will provide important, high-quality data on the benefits and harms of treatment with haloperidol in acutely admitted, adult patients with manifest delirium in the ICU.

Agents intervening against delirium in the intensive care unit (AID-ICU) - Protocol for a randomised placebo-controlled trial of haloperidol in patients with delirium in the ICU.

BACKGROUND: Delirium among patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is a common condition associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Haloperidol is the most frequently used pharmacologic intervention, but its use is not supported by firm evidence. Therefore, we are conducting Agents Intervening against Delirium in the Intensive Care Unit (AID-ICU) trial to assess the benefits and harms of haloperidol for the treatment of ICU-acquired delirium. METHODS: AID-ICU is an investigator-initiated, pragmatic, international, randomised, blinded, parallel-group, trial allocating adult ICU patients with manifest delirium 1:1 to haloperidol or placebo. Trial participants will receive intravenous 2.5 mg haloperidol three times daily or matching placebo (isotonic saline 0.9%) if they are delirious. If needed, a maximum of 20 mg/daily haloperidol/placebo is given. An escape protocol, not including haloperidol, is part of the trial protocol. The primary outcome is days alive out of the hospital within 90 days post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes are number of days without delirium or coma, serious adverse reactions to haloperidol, usage of escape medication, number of days alive without mechanical ventilation; mortality, health-related quality-of-life and cognitive function at 1-year follow-up. A sample size of 1000 patients is required to detect a 7-day improvement or worsening of the mean days alive out of the hospital, type 1 error risk of 5% and power 90%. PERSPECTIVE: The AID-ICU trial is based on gold standard methodology applied to a large sample of clinically representative patients and will provide pivotal high-quality data on the benefits and harms of haloperidol for the treatment ICU-acquired delirium.

Nurses' and physicians' perceptions of Confusion Assessment Method for the intensive care unit for delirium detection: focus group study.

BACKGROUND: Delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU) has received more attention in the past decade. Early detection, prevention and treatment of delirium are important, and the most commonly used tool for delirium assessment is the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU). AIM: The aim of this study was to identify nurses' and physicians' perceived professional barriers to using the CAM-ICU in Danish ICUs. METHODS: This study uses a qualitative explorative multicentre design using focus groups and a semi-structured interview guide. Five focus groups with nurses (n = 20) and four with physicians (n = 14) were conducted. Strategic sampling was used to include participants with varying CAM-ICU experience at units, with variable implementation of the tool. RESULTS: Using a hermeneutical approach, three main themes and nine sub-themes emerged. The main themes were (1) Professional role issues: CAM-ICU screening affected nursing care, clinical judgment and professional integrity; (2) Instrument reliability: nurses and physicians expressed concerns about CAM-ICU assessment in non-sedated patients, patients with multi-organ failure or patients influenced by residual sedatives/opioids; and (3) Clinical consequence: after CAM-ICU assessment, physicians lacked evidence-based treatment options, and nurses lacked physician acknowledgment and guidelines for disclosing CAM-ICU results to patients. CONCLUSION: In this study, ICU nurses and physicians raised a number of concerns regarding the use of the CAM-ICU for delirium detection. It might be necessary to revalidate the instrument as ICU care has changed in recent years, with lighter sedation and early mobilization of patients. We recommend that nurses and physicians receive more training in the use of the CAM-ICU to address some of the issues identified in our study. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: There is a need for ongoing training and clearer guidelines on how to proceed with the delirium screening of non-sedated patients.

Pharmacological interventions for delirium in intensive care patients: a protocol for an overview of reviews.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients is high. Delirium has been associated with morbidity and mortality including more ventilator days, longer ICU stay, increased long-term mortality and cognitive impairment. Thus, the burden of delirium for patients, relatives and societies is considerable. Today, reviews of randomised clinical trials are produced in large scales sometimes making it difficult to get an overview of the available evidence. A preliminary search identified several reviews investigating the effects of pharmacological interventions for the management and prevention of delirium in ICU patients. The conclusions of the reviews showed conflicting results. Despite this unclear evidence, antipsychotics, in particular, haloperidol is often the recommended pharmacological intervention for delirium in ICU patients. The objective of this overview of reviews is to critically assess the evidence of reviews of randomised clinical trials on the effect of pharmacological management and prevention of delirium in ICU patients. METHODS/DESIGN: We will search for reviews in the following databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and Allied and Complementary Medicine Database. Two authors will independently select references for inclusion using Covidence, extract data and assess the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews using the ROBIS tool. Any disagreement will be resolved by consensus. We will present the data as a narrative synthesis and summarise the main results of the included reviews. In addition, we will present an overview of the bias risk assessment of the systematic reviews. DISCUSSION: Results of this overview may establish a way forward to find and update or to design a high quality systematic review assessing the effects of the most promising pharmacological intervention for delirium in ICU patients. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO - CRD42016046628 .