Dexmedetomidine Archives - Critical Care Science (CCS)
, , , , , Abstract
Critical Care Science. 2025;37:e20250010
03-14-2025
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20250010
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , Agitation is a major problem in the intensive care unit. However, no treatment has clearly emerged as effective and safe. Using target trial emulation, we aimed to test the hypothesis that early intervention with dexmedetomidine would accelerate agitation resolution.
We read clinical notes in an electronic medical records system with natural language processing to identify patients with agitation. We obtained their demographics, trajectories, associations, and outcomes. We used g-formulas to study the possible effects of dexmedetomidine on agitation resolution and key outcomes.
We screened 7525 patients. Overall, 2242 patients (29.8%) developed within-intensive care unit agitation, and 2052 (27.3%) were eligible for inclusion in the target trial emulation, with 314 treated with dexmedetomidine. Dexmedetomidine-treated patients had more severe illness and were more likely to have unplanned emergency admissions with medical diagnoses. However, they achieved higher rates of resolution of within-intensive care unit agitation (94% versus 72%; p < 0.001) and lower 30-day mortality (5% versus 9%; p = 0.033). Early initiation of dexmedetomidine accelerated the resolution of agitation (risk ratio [RR] 1.13 [95%CI 1.03 - 1.21]; risk difference [RD] 9.8% [95%CI 2.6% - 15.4%]); extubation by Day 30 (RR 1.03 [95%CI 1.02 - 1.04]; RD 3.1% [95%CI 2.2% - 4.2%]); and reduced the chance of having a tracheostomy by Day 30 (RR 0.67 [95%CI 0.34 - 0.99]; RD -3.5% [95%CI -7.0% - -0.0%])
Through target trial emulation analysis, early dexmedetomidine was associated with an increased rate of resolution of agitation and extubation and decreased tracheostomy risk.
Abstract
Critical Care Science. 2025;37:e20250010
03-14-2025
DOI 10.62675/2965-2774.20250010
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , Agitation is a major problem in the intensive care unit. However, no treatment has clearly emerged as effective and safe. Using target trial emulation, we aimed to test the hypothesis that early intervention with dexmedetomidine would accelerate agitation resolution.
We read clinical notes in an electronic medical records system with natural language processing to identify patients with agitation. We obtained their demographics, trajectories, associations, and outcomes. We used g-formulas to study the possible effects of dexmedetomidine on agitation resolution and key outcomes.
We screened 7525 patients. Overall, 2242 patients (29.8%) developed within-intensive care unit agitation, and 2052 (27.3%) were eligible for inclusion in the target trial emulation, with 314 treated with dexmedetomidine. Dexmedetomidine-treated patients had more severe illness and were more likely to have unplanned emergency admissions with medical diagnoses. However, they achieved higher rates of resolution of within-intensive care unit agitation (94% versus 72%; p < 0.001) and lower 30-day mortality (5% versus 9%; p = 0.033). Early initiation of dexmedetomidine accelerated the resolution of agitation (risk ratio [RR] 1.13 [95%CI 1.03 - 1.21]; risk difference [RD] 9.8% [95%CI 2.6% - 15.4%]); extubation by Day 30 (RR 1.03 [95%CI 1.02 - 1.04]; RD 3.1% [95%CI 2.2% - 4.2%]); and reduced the chance of having a tracheostomy by Day 30 (RR 0.67 [95%CI 0.34 - 0.99]; RD -3.5% [95%CI -7.0% - -0.0%])
Through target trial emulation analysis, early dexmedetomidine was associated with an increased rate of resolution of agitation and extubation and decreased tracheostomy risk.
Abstract
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva. 2021;33(4):600-615
01-24-2021
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20210087
Cardiac, ventilatory and kidney management in the critical care setting has been optimized over the past decades. Cognition and sedation represent one of the last remaning challenges. As conventional sedation is suboptimal and as the sedation evoked by alpha-2 adrenergic agonists (“cooperative” sedation with dexmedetomidine, clonidine or guanfacine) represents a valuable alternative, this manuscript covers three practical topics for which evidence-based medicine is lacking: a) Switching from conventional to cooperative sedation (“switching”): the short answer is the abrupt withdrawal of conventional sedation, immediate implementation of alpha-2 agonist infusion and the use of “rescue sedation” (midazolam bolus[es]) or “breakthrough sedation” (haloperidol bolus[es]) to stabilize cooperative sedation. b) Switching from conventional to cooperative sedation in unstable patients (e.g., refractory delirium tremens, septic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome, etc.): to avoid hypotension and bradycardia evoked by sympathetic deactivation, the short answer is to maintain the stroke volume through volume loading, vasopressors and inotropes. c) To avoid these switches and associated difficulties, alpha-2 agonists may be considered first-line sedatives. The short answer is to administer alpha-2 agonists slowly from admission or endotracheal intubation up to stabilized cooperative sedation. The “take home” message is as follows: a) alpha-2 agonists are jointly sympathetic deactivators and sedative agents; b) sympathetic deactivation implies maintaining the stroke volume and iterative assessment of volemia. Evidence-based medicine should document our propositions.
Abstract
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva. 2021;33(4):600-615
01-24-2021
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20210087
Cardiac, ventilatory and kidney management in the critical care setting has been optimized over the past decades. Cognition and sedation represent one of the last remaning challenges. As conventional sedation is suboptimal and as the sedation evoked by alpha-2 adrenergic agonists (“cooperative” sedation with dexmedetomidine, clonidine or guanfacine) represents a valuable alternative, this manuscript covers three practical topics for which evidence-based medicine is lacking: a) Switching from conventional to cooperative sedation (“switching”): the short answer is the abrupt withdrawal of conventional sedation, immediate implementation of alpha-2 agonist infusion and the use of “rescue sedation” (midazolam bolus[es]) or “breakthrough sedation” (haloperidol bolus[es]) to stabilize cooperative sedation. b) Switching from conventional to cooperative sedation in unstable patients (e.g., refractory delirium tremens, septic shock, acute respiratory distress syndrome, etc.): to avoid hypotension and bradycardia evoked by sympathetic deactivation, the short answer is to maintain the stroke volume through volume loading, vasopressors and inotropes. c) To avoid these switches and associated difficulties, alpha-2 agonists may be considered first-line sedatives. The short answer is to administer alpha-2 agonists slowly from admission or endotracheal intubation up to stabilized cooperative sedation. The “take home” message is as follows: a) alpha-2 agonists are jointly sympathetic deactivators and sedative agents; b) sympathetic deactivation implies maintaining the stroke volume and iterative assessment of volemia. Evidence-based medicine should document our propositions.
Abstract
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva. 2013;25(2):155-161
08-01-2013
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20130027
A significant number of landmark studies have been published in the last decade that increase the current knowledge on sedation for critically ill patients. Therefore, many practices that were considered standard of care are now outdated. Oversedation has been shown to be hazardous, and light sedation and no-sedation protocols are associated with better patient outcomes. Delirium is increasingly recognized as a major form of acute brain dysfunction that is associated with higher mortality, longer duration of mechanical ventilation and longer lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital. Despite all the available evidence, translating research into bedside care is a daunting task. International surveys have shown that practices such as sedation interruption and titration are performed only in the minority of cases. Implementing best practices is a major challenge that must also be addressed in the new guidelines. In this review, we summarize the findings of sedation and delirium research over the last years. We also discuss the gap between evidence and clinical practice and highlight ways to implement best practices at the bedside.
Abstract
Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva. 2013;25(2):155-161
08-01-2013
DOI 10.5935/0103-507X.20130027
A significant number of landmark studies have been published in the last decade that increase the current knowledge on sedation for critically ill patients. Therefore, many practices that were considered standard of care are now outdated. Oversedation has been shown to be hazardous, and light sedation and no-sedation protocols are associated with better patient outcomes. Delirium is increasingly recognized as a major form of acute brain dysfunction that is associated with higher mortality, longer duration of mechanical ventilation and longer lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital. Despite all the available evidence, translating research into bedside care is a daunting task. International surveys have shown that practices such as sedation interruption and titration are performed only in the minority of cases. Implementing best practices is a major challenge that must also be addressed in the new guidelines. In this review, we summarize the findings of sedation and delirium research over the last years. We also discuss the gap between evidence and clinical practice and highlight ways to implement best practices at the bedside.
