Alcohol withdrawal and delirium tremens in the critically ill: a systematic review and commentary

Pharmacy Department, Hôpital Maisonneuve-Rosemont, 5415 Boulevard de l'Assomption, Montreal, PQ, H1T 2M4, Canada.
European Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (Impact Factor: 5.54). 11/2012; 39(1). DOI: 10.1007/s00134-012-2758-y
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION: Alcohol withdrawal is common among intensive care unit (ICU) patients, but no current practice guidelines exist. We reviewed published manuscripts for prevalence, risk factors, screening tools, prophylactic and treatment strategies, and outcomes for alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) and delirium tremens (DT) in the critically ill. METHODS: The following databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Knowledge, pain, anxiety and delirium (PAD) Guidelines REFWORKS, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts and references for published papers were searched. Publications with high or moderate Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and Oxford levels of evidence were included. RESULTS: Reported AWS rates range from <1 % in 'all ICU comers' to 60 % in highly selected alcohol-dependent ICU patients. Alcohol dependence and a history of withdrawal are significant risk factors for AWS occurrence. No screening tools for withdrawal have been validated in the ICU. The benefit of alcohol withdrawal prophylaxis is unproven, and proposed regimens appear equivalent. Early and aggressive titration of medication guided by symptoms is the only feature associated with improved treatment outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of AWS is associated with higher ICU complication rates and resource utilization. The optimal means of identification, prevention and treatment of AWS in order to establish evidence-based guidelines remain to be determined.


Available from: Yoanna Skrobik, May 10, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The management of pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients can be complicated by multiple factors. Decisions to administer opioids, sedatives, and antipsychotic medications are frequently driven by a desire to facilitate patients’ comfort and their tolerance of invasive procedures or other interventions within the ICU. Despite accumulating evidence supporting new strategies to optimize pain, sedation, and delirium practices in the ICU, many critical care practitioners continue to embrace false perceptions regarding appropriate management in these critically ill patients. This article explores these perceptions in more detail and offers new evidence-based strategies to help critical care practitioners better manage sedation and delirium, particularly in ICU patients.
    Critical Care Medicine 09/2013; 41(9):S46-S56. DOI:10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182a168f5 · 6.15 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: In 2013, the American College of Critical Care Medicine published a revised version of the pain, agitation, and delirium guidelines. The guidelines included an ICU pain, agitation, and delirium care bundle designed to facilitate implementation of the pain, agitation, and delirium guidelines. Design: Review article. Setting: Multispecialty critical care units. Patients: Adult ICU patients. Interventions: This article describes: 1) the ICU pain, agitation, and delirium care bundle in more detail, linking pain, sedation/agitation, and delirium management in an integrated and interdisciplinary fashion; 2) pain, agitation, and delirium implementation strategies; and 3) the potential synergistic benefits of linking pain, agitation, and delirium management strategies to other evidence-based ICU practices, including spontaneous breathing trials, ICU early mobility programs, and ICU sleep hygiene programs, in order to improve ICU patient outcomes and to reduce costs of care. Results: Linking the ICU pain, agitation, and delirium management strategies with spontaneous awakening trials, spontaneous breathing trials, and early mobility and sleep hygiene programs is associated with significant improvements in ICU patient outcomes and reductions in their costs of care. Conclusions: The 2013 ICU pain, agitation, and delirium guidelines provide critical care providers with an evidence-based, integrated, and interdisciplinary approach to managing pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium. The ICU pain, agitation, and delirium care bundle provides a framework for facilitating implementation of the pain, agitation, and delirium guidelines. Widespread implementation of the ICU pain, agitation, and delirium care bundle is likely to result in large-scale improvements in ICU patient outcomes and significant reductions in costs.
    Critical Care Medicine 01/2013; 41:S99-S115. DOI:10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182a16ff0 · 6.15 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Although not often recommended, ethanol replacement is still used in hospitals, including ours. Since intravenous ethanol for alcohol withdrawal is mainly used in the intensive care units of our clinic, we reviewed literature to enable better liaison psychiatric consult for patients in this particular setting. Materials and methods We performed a MEDLINE search for pharmacological trials with alcohol dependent patients in intensive care units who were treated with, or who received intravenous ethanol as prophylaxis for alcohol withdrawal syndrome. Efficacy, eventual referral to addiction aid and post-interventional abstinence were chosen as outcome measures. If a withheld review article mentioned the search strategy, the search was carried forward from their end-date till ours in order to detect more recently published papers. In parallel, we initiated a small retrospective evaluation of our hospital’s electronic patient-records mentioning 96% ethanol 10ML ampoules. Results Retrospective analysis: Preliminary results indicate a rather anecdotic use of intravenous ethanol in our university hospital to prevent or treat alcohol withdrawal syndrome. Literature search: After our initial search, reference tracking and reproducing searches of relevant systematic reviews we identified 8 interventional trials. Those indicate, in accordance with recent systematic reviews, that intravenous ethanol is not more efficient than active control to prevent alcohol withdrawal syndrome. Numbers of referral to addiction aid and abstinence after discharge of patients was either unknown or low. Discussion Intravenous ethanol is not more efficient than active control to prevent alcohol withdrawal syndrome. Several reservations concerning methodology of trials on IVetOH use have been addressed. Consideration of a more unified study population (elective surgery vs. medical and trauma ICU patients) could be necessary. Ethical reflections and possible harm are also discussed. Conclusion In the selected interventional trials, intravenous ethanol was not superior to active control in preventing alcohol withdrawal syndrome. Furthermore, intravenous alcohol replacement is not advised due to its potential harm.