To compare dexmedetomidine (DEX) with standard care (SC, either propofol or midazolam) for long-term sedation in terms of maintaining target sedation and length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay.
A pilot, phase III, double-blind multicenter study in randomized medical and surgical patients (n = 85) within the first 72 h of ICU stay with an expected ICU stay of >or=48 h and sedation need for >or=24 h after randomization. Patients were assigned to either DEX (<or=1.4 microg kg(-1) h(-1); n = 41) or SC (n = 44), with daily sedation stops.
Non-inferiority of DEX versus SC was not confirmed. Target Richmond agitation-sedation score (RASS) was reached a median of 64% (DEX) and 63% (SC) of the sedation time (ns). The length of ICU stay was similar in DEX and SC. Patients with RASS target 0-3 (DEX 78%, SC 80%) were at target sedation 74% (DEX) and 64% (SC) of the time (ns), whereas those with RASS target -4 or less reached the target 42% (DEX) and 62% (SC) of the time (P = .006). Post hoc analyses suggested shorter duration of mechanical ventilation for DEX (P = 0.025).
This pilot study suggests that in long-term sedation, DEX is comparable to SC in maintaining sedation targets of RASS 0 to -3 but not suitable for deep sedation (RASS -4 or less). DEX had no effect on length of ICU stay. Its effects on other relevant clinical outcomes, such as duration of mechanical ventilation, should be tested further.
"Ventilation : l'absence de dépression respiratoire   a des conséquences positives. Sous dexmédétomidine, la durée de ventilation est plus courte . Circulation : une amélioration de la fonction ventriculaire droite et gauche    a été observée mais l'incidence d'hypotensions et de bradycardies est plus élevée comme mentionné précédemment. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: La dexmédétomidine a une autorisation de mise sur le marché pour la sédation en réanimation en France depuis 2013. Par rapport à la clonidine, les avantages de la dexmédétomidine sont les suivants : délai d’action plus court même en cas d’administration sans dose de charge, délai d’élimination plus court par voie hépatique. L’intérêt de la dexmédétomidine par rapport aux protocoles de sédations conventionnels appliqués en réanimation est lié à l’atténuation de certains effets délétères (facilitation de l’émergence de la sédation, moindre incidence de délirium), à l’absence d’effets dépresseurs respiratoires, à l’amélioration des conditions de pré-charge et post-charge des ventricules. Les médicaments coadministrés avec la dexmédétomidine en vue d’une sédation plus profonde sont les neuroleptiques et les analgésiques non-morphiniques. Le développement clinique de la dexmédétomidine doit être poursuivi pour utiliser pleinement ses propriétés pharmacodynamiques, afin d’amener la sédation au niveau des progrès réalisés en réanimation aux plans ventilatoire, circulatoire et rénal.
Le Praticien en Anesthésie Réanimation 06/2015; 19(3). DOI:10.1016/j.pratan.2015.04.005
"Other studies support the finding that dexmedetomidine should be used in patients requiring lighter sedation [3, 6]. Less information, however, is available about the interaction between home antidepressant use and alpha-2 agonists. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Fifty-five thousand patients are cared for in the intensive care unit (ICU) daily with sedation utilized to reduce anxiety and agitation while optimizing comfort. The Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) released updated guidelines for management of pain, agitation, and delirium in the ICU and recommended nonbenzodiazepines, such as dexmedetomidine and propofol, as first line sedation agents. Dexmedetomidine, an alpha-2 agonist, offers many benefits yet its use is mired by the inability to consistently achieve sedation goals. Three hypotheses including patient traits/characteristics, pharmacokinetics in critically ill patients, and clinically relevant genetic polymorphisms that could affect dexmedetomidine response are presented. Studies in patient traits have yielded conflicting results regarding the role of race yet suggest that dexmedetomidine may produce more consistent results in less critically ill patients and with home antidepressant use. Pharmacokinetics of critically ill patients are reported as similar to healthy individuals yet wide, unexplained interpatient variability in dexmedetomidine serum levels exist. Genetic polymorphisms in both metabolism and receptor response have been evaluated in few studies, and the results remain inconclusive. To fully understand the role of dexmedetomidine, it is vital to further evaluate what prompts such marked interpatient variability in critically ill patients.
The Scientific World Journal 01/2014; 2014(1):805013. DOI:10.1155/2014/805013 · 1.73 Impact Factor
"Dexmedetomidine is a potent alpha-2 adrenoceptor agonist with an affinity for the alpha-2 adrenoceptor that is eight times higher than that of clonidine . Prior data suggest that dexmedetomidine reduced duration of mechanical ventilation and resulted in earlier extubation [14,15]. In critically ill patients, use of dexmedetomidine has been associated with lower risk of delirium and coma compared with propofol, lorazepam, and midzolam [15,16]. "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: EXPANDED ABSTRACT: CITATION: Jakob SM, Ruokonen E, Grounds RM, Sarapohja T, Garratt C, Pocock SJ, Bratty JR, Takala J; Dexmedeto midine for Long-Term Sedation Investigators: Dexmedetomidine vesus midazolam or propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation: two randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2012, 307:1151-1160. BACKGROUND: Long-term sedation with midazolam or propofol in intensive care units (ICUs) has serious adverse effects. Dexmedetomidine, an alpha-2 agonist available for ICU sedation, may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and enhance patient comfort. METHODS: OBJECTIVE: The objective was to determine the efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam or propofol (preferred usual care) in maintaining sedation, reducing duration of mechanical ventilation, and improving patients' interaction with nursing care. DESIGN: Two phase 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind trials were conducted. SETTING: The MIDEX (Midazolam vs. Dexmedetomidine) trial compared midazolam with dexmedetomidine in ICUs of 44 centers in nine European countries. The PRODEX (Propofol vs. Dexmedetomidine) trial compared propofol with dexmedetomidine in 31 centers in six European countries and two centers in Russia. SUBJECTS: The subjects were adult ICU patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation and who needed light to moderate sedation for more than 24 hours. INTERVENTION: After enrollment, 251 and 249 subjects were randomly assigned midazolam and dexmedetomidine, respectively, in the MIDEX trial, and 247 and 251 subjects were randomly assigned propofol and dexmedetomidine, respectively, in the PRODEX trial. Sedation with dexmedetomidine, midazolam, or propofol; daily sedation stops; and spontaneous breathing trials were employed. OUTCOMES: For each trial, investigators tested whether dexmedetomidine was noninferior to control with respect to proportion of time at target sedation level (measured by Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale) and superior to control with respect to duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary end points were the ability of the patient to communicate pain (measured by using a visual analogue scale [VAS]) and length of ICU stay. Time at target sedation was analyzed in per-protocol (midazolam, n = 233, versus dexmedetomidine, n = 227; propofol, n = 214, versus dexmedetomidine, n = 223) population. RESULTS: Dexmedetomidine/midazolam ratio in time at target sedation was 1.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.18), and dexmedetomidine/propofol ratio in time at target sedation was 1.00 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.08). Median duration of mechanical ventilation appeared shorter with dexmedetomidine (123 hours, interquartile range (IQR) 67 to 337) versus midazolam (164 hours, IQR 92 to 380; P = 0.03) but not with dexmedetomidine (97 hours, IQR 45 to 257) versus propofol (118 hours, IQR 48 to 327; P = 0.24). Patient interaction (measured by using VAS) was improved with dexmedetomidine (estimated score difference versus midazolam 19.7, 95% CI 15.2 to 24.2; P <0.001; and versus propofol 11.2, 95% CI 6.4 to 15.9; P <0.001). Lengths of ICU and hospital stays and mortality rates were similar. Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam patients had more hypotension (51/247 [20.6%] versus 29/250 [11.6%]; P = 0.007) and bradycardia (35/247 [14.2%] versus 13/250 [5.2%]; P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among ICU patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation, dexmedetomidine was not inferior to midazolam and propofol in maintaining light to moderate sedation. Dexmedetomidine reduced duration of mechanical ventilation compared with midazolam and improved the ability of patients to communicate pain compared with midazolam and propofol. Greater numbers of adverse effects were associated with dexmedetomidine.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.