Search

Importance Supplemental oxygen is ubiquitously used in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, but a lower dose may be beneficial. Objective To assess the effects of targeting a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg vs 90 mm Hg in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia in the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants Multicenter randomized clinical trial including 726 adults with COVID-19 receiving at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation in 11 ICUs in Europe from August 2020 to March 2023. The trial was prematurely stopped prior to outcome assessment due to slow enrollment. End of 90-day follow-up was June 1, 2023. Interventions Patients were randomized 1:1 to a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg (lower oxygenation group; n = 365) or 90 mm Hg (higher oxygenation group; n = 361) for up to 90 days in the ICU. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included mortality, proportion of patients with serious adverse events, and number of days alive and out of hospital, all at 90 days. Results Of 726 randomized patients, primary outcome data were available for 697 (351 in the lower oxygenation group and 346 in the higher oxygenation group). Median age was 66 years, and 495 patients (68%) were male. At 90 days, the median number of days alive without life support was 80.0 days (IQR, 9.0-89.0 days) in the lower oxygenation group and 72.0 days (IQR, 2.0-88.0 days) in the higher oxygenation group (P = .009 by van Elteren test; supplemental bootstrapped adjusted mean difference, 5.8 days [95% CI, 0.2-11.5 days]; P = .04). Mortality at 90 days was 30.2% in the lower oxygenation group and 34.7% in the higher oxygenation group (risk ratio, 0.86 [98.6% CI, 0.66-1.13]; P = .18). There were no statistically significant differences in proportion of patients with serious adver, IMPORTANCE: Supplemental oxygen is ubiquitously used in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, but a lower dose may be beneficial.OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of targeting a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg vs 90 mm Hg in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia in the intensive care unit (ICU).DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter randomized clinical trial including 726 adults with COVID-19 receiving at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation in 11 ICUs in Europe from August 2020 to March 2023. The trial was prematurely stopped prior to outcome assessment due to slow enrollment. End of 90-day follow-up was June 1, 2023.INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to a Pao2 of 60 mm Hg (lower oxygenation group; n = 365) or 90 mm Hg (higher oxygenation group; n = 361) for up to 90 days in the ICU.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 90 days. Secondary outcomes included mortality, proportion of patients with serious adverse events, and number of days alive and out of hospital, all at 90 days.RESULTS: Of 726 randomized patients, primary outcome data were available for 697 (351 in the lower oxygenation group and 346 in the higher oxygenation group). Median age was 66 years, and 495 patients (68%) were male. At 90 days, the median number of days alive without life support was 80.0 days (IQR, 9.0-89.0 days) in the lower oxygenation group and 72.0 days (IQR, 2.0-88.0 days) in the higher oxygenation group (P = .009 by van Elteren test; supplemental bootstrapped adjusted mean difference, 5.8 days [95% CI, 0.2-11.5 days]; P = .04). Mortality at 90 days was 30.2% in the lower oxygenation group and 34.7% in the higher oxygenation group (risk ratio, 0.86 [98.6% CI, 0.66-1.13]; P = .18). There were no statistically significant differences in proportion of patients with serious adverse eve

Background Delirium is a clinical condition characterized by an acute change in brain function and is frequently observed in critically ill patients. The condition has been associated with negative outcomes, making it crucial to identify patients who are at risk. Two recent prediction models have been developed to estimate the risk of delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients; the prediction model for delirium (PRE-DELIRIC) and the early prediction model for delirium (E-PRE-DELIRIC). We aimed to perform an external validation of these models in a Danish cohort of critically ill patients. Methods We conducted a prospective, observational multicenter study to validate the PRE-DELIRIC and E-PRE-DELIRIC models in a population of patients admitted to four general ICUs in the Zealand Region of Denmark. From January 2022 to January 2023 all adult patients acutely admitted to the participating ICUs were assessed for eligibility. Patients had to be admitted to the ICU for >24 h to be included in the study. Included patients were screened with E-PRE-DELIRIC upon ICU admission and PRE-DELIRIC after 24 h of admission and followed throughout their ICU stay with CAM-ICU delirium assessments. Our primary outcomes were the prognostic accuracy measured by Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics (AUROC) and the calibration plot for the E-PRE-DELIRIC and PRE-DELIRIC prediction models. Results We included 660 patients, of whom 660 were assessed with E-PRE-DELIRIC, and 622 were assessed with PRE-DELIRIC. PRE-DELIRIC showed acceptable discrimination with AUROC of 0.70 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.74) and good calibration. E-PRE-DELIRIC had inadequate discrimination AUROC of 0.63 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.67) and poor calibration. Conclusion In a Danish cohort, we found that the PRE-DELIRIC model demonstrated acceptable performance and E-PRE-DELIRIC demonstrated poor performance. In critically ill adult patients PRE-DELIRIC may be useful in identi, Background: Delirium is a clinical condition characterized by an acute change in brain function and is frequently observed in critically ill patients. The condition has been associated with negative outcomes, making it crucial to identify patients who are at risk. Two recent prediction models have been developed to estimate the risk of delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients; the prediction model for delirium (PRE-DELIRIC) and the early prediction model for delirium (E-PRE-DELIRIC). We aimed to perform an external validation of these models in a Danish cohort of critically ill patients. Methods: We conducted a prospective, observational multicenter study to validate the PRE-DELIRIC and E-PRE-DELIRIC models in a population of patients admitted to four general ICUs in the Zealand Region of Denmark. From January 2022 to January 2023 all adult patients acutely admitted to the participating ICUs were assessed for eligibility. Patients had to be admitted to the ICU for >24 h to be included in the study. Included patients were screened with E-PRE-DELIRIC upon ICU admission and PRE-DELIRIC after 24 h of admission and followed throughout their ICU stay with CAM-ICU delirium assessments. Our primary outcomes were the prognostic accuracy measured by Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristics (AUROC) and the calibration plot for the E-PRE-DELIRIC and PRE-DELIRIC prediction models. Results: We included 660 patients, of whom 660 were assessed with E-PRE-DELIRIC, and 622 were assessed with PRE-DELIRIC. PRE-DELIRIC showed acceptable discrimination with AUROC of 0.70 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.74) and good calibration. E-PRE-DELIRIC had inadequate discrimination AUROC of 0.63 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.67) and poor calibration. Conclusion: In a Danish cohort, we found that the PRE-DELIRIC model demonstrated acceptable performance and E-PRE-DELIRIC demonstrated poor performance. In critically ill adult patients PRE-DELIRIC may be useful in identifying patients at high risk of delir

Objectives To assess any benefit or harm, we conducted a systematic review of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) allocating adults to dexmedetomidine versus placebo/no intervention for the prevention of delirium in intensive care or post-operative care units. Data Sources We searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL and other databases. The last search was 9 April 2022. Data Extraction Literature screening, data extraction and risk of bias volume 2 assessments were performed independently and in duplicate. Primary outcomes were occurrences of serious adverse events (SAEs), delirium and all-cause mortality. We used meta-analysis, Trial Sequential Analysis, and GRADE (Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Data Synthesis Eighty-one RCTs (15,745 patients) provided data for our primary outcomes. Results from trials at low risk of bias showed that dexmedetomidine may reduce the occurrence of the most frequently reported SAEs (relative risk [RR] 0.69; 95% CI 0.43–1.09), cumulated SAEs (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.52–0.95) and the occurrence of delirium (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.43–0.89). The certainty of evidence was very low for delirium. Mortality was very low in trials at low risk of bias (0.4% in the dexmedetomidine groups and 1.0% in the control groups) and meta-analysis did not provide conclusive evidence that dexmedetomidine may result in lower or higher all-cause mortality (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.18–1.21). There was a lack of information from trial results at low risk of bias for all primary outcomes. Conclusions Trial results at low risk of bias showed that dexmedetomidine might reduce occurrences of SAEs and delirium, while no conclusive evidence was found for effects on all-cause mortality. The certainty of evidence ranged from very low for occurrence of delirium to low for the remaining outcomes., Objectives: To assess any benefit or harm, we conducted a systematic review of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) allocating adults to dexmedetomidine versus placebo/no intervention for the prevention of delirium in intensive care or post-operative care units. Data Sources: We searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL and other databases. The last search was 9 April 2022. Data Extraction: Literature screening, data extraction and risk of bias volume 2 assessments were performed independently and in duplicate. Primary outcomes were occurrences of serious adverse events (SAEs), delirium and all-cause mortality. We used meta-analysis, Trial Sequential Analysis, and GRADE (Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). Data Synthesis: Eighty-one RCTs (15,745 patients) provided data for our primary outcomes. Results from trials at low risk of bias showed that dexmedetomidine may reduce the occurrence of the most frequently reported SAEs (relative risk [RR] 0.69; 95% CI 0.43–1.09), cumulated SAEs (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.52–0.95) and the occurrence of delirium (RR 0.62; 95% CI 0.43–0.89). The certainty of evidence was very low for delirium. Mortality was very low in trials at low risk of bias (0.4% in the dexmedetomidine groups and 1.0% in the control groups) and meta-analysis did not provide conclusive evidence that dexmedetomidine may result in lower or higher all-cause mortality (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.18–1.21). There was a lack of information from trial results at low risk of bias for all primary outcomes. Conclusions: Trial results at low risk of bias showed that dexmedetomidine might reduce occurrences of SAEs and delirium, while no conclusive evidence was found for effects on all-cause mortality. The certainty of evidence ranged from very low for occurrence of delirium to low for the remaining outcomes.

Purpose: The AID–ICU trial was a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial investigating effects of haloperidol versus placebo in acutely admitted, adult patients admitted in intensive care unit (ICU) with delirium. This pre-planned Bayesian analysis facilitates probabilistic interpretation of the AID–ICU trial results. Methods: We used adjusted Bayesian linear and logistic regression models with weakly informative priors to analyse all primary and secondary outcomes reported up to day 90, and with sensitivity analyses using other priors. The probabilities for any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm, and no clinically important differences with haloperidol treatment according to pre-defined thresholds are presented for all outcomes. Results: The mean difference for days alive and out of hospital to day 90 (primary outcome) was 2.9 days (95% credible interval (CrI) − 1.1 to 6.9) with probabilities of 92% for any benefit and 82% for clinically important benefit. The risk difference for mortality was − 6.8 percentage points (95% CrI − 12.8 to − 0.8) with probabilities of 99% for any benefit and 94% for clinically important benefit. The adjusted risk difference for serious adverse reactions was 0.3 percentage points (95% CrI − 1.3 to 1.9) with 98% probability of no clinically important difference. Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses using different priors, with more than 83% probability of benefit and less than 17% probability of harm with haloperidol treatment. Conclusions: We found high probabilities of benefits and low probabilities of harm with haloperidol treatment compared with placebo in acutely admitted, adult ICU patients with delirium for the primary and most secondary outcomes.

Purpose The AID–ICU trial was a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial investigating effects of haloperidol versus placebo in acutely admitted, adult patients admitted in intensive care unit (ICU) with delirium. This pre-planned Bayesian analysis facilitates probabilistic interpretation of the AID–ICU trial results. Methods We used adjusted Bayesian linear and logistic regression models with weakly informative priors to analyse all primary and secondary outcomes reported up to day 90, and with sensitivity analyses using other priors. The probabilities for any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm, and no clinically important differences with haloperidol treatment according to pre-defined thresholds are presented for all outcomes. Results The mean difference for days alive and out of hospital to day 90 (primary outcome) was 2.9 days (95% credible interval (CrI) − 1.1 to 6.9) with probabilities of 92% for any benefit and 82% for clinically important benefit. The risk difference for mortality was − 6.8 percentage points (95% CrI − 12.8 to − 0.8) with probabilities of 99% for any benefit and 94% for clinically important benefit. The adjusted risk difference for serious adverse reactions was 0.3 percentage points (95% CrI − 1.3 to 1.9) with 98% probability of no clinically important difference. Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses using different priors, with more than 83% probability of benefit and less than 17% probability of harm with haloperidol treatment. Conclusions We found high probabilities of benefits and low probabilities of harm with haloperidol treatment compared with placebo in acutely admitted, adult ICU patients with delirium for the primary and most secondary outcomes., Purpose: The AID–ICU trial was a randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial investigating effects of haloperidol versus placebo in acutely admitted, adult patients admitted in intensive care unit (ICU) with delirium. This pre-planned Bayesian analysis facilitates probabilistic interpretation of the AID–ICU trial results. Methods: We used adjusted Bayesian linear and logistic regression models with weakly informative priors to analyse all primary and secondary outcomes reported up to day 90, and with sensitivity analyses using other priors. The probabilities for any benefit/harm, clinically important benefit/harm, and no clinically important differences with haloperidol treatment according to pre-defined thresholds are presented for all outcomes. Results: The mean difference for days alive and out of hospital to day 90 (primary outcome) was 2.9 days (95% credible interval (CrI) − 1.1 to 6.9) with probabilities of 92% for any benefit and 82% for clinically important benefit. The risk difference for mortality was − 6.8 percentage points (95% CrI − 12.8 to − 0.8) with probabilities of 99% for any benefit and 94% for clinically important benefit. The adjusted risk difference for serious adverse reactions was 0.3 percentage points (95% CrI − 1.3 to 1.9) with 98% probability of no clinically important difference. Results were consistent across sensitivity analyses using different priors, with more than 83% probability of benefit and less than 17% probability of harm with haloperidol treatment. Conclusions: We found high probabilities of benefits and low probabilities of harm with haloperidol treatment compared with placebo in acutely admitted, adult ICU patients with delirium for the primary and most secondary outcomes.

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.

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.

Background Intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired delirium is frequent and associated with poor short- and long-term outcomes for patients in ICUs. It therefore constitutes a major healthcare problem. Despite limited evidence, haloperidol is the most frequently used pharmacological intervention against ICU-acquired delirium. Agents intervening against Delirium in the ICU (AID-ICU) is an international, multicentre, randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial investigates benefits and harms of treatment with haloperidol in patients with ICU-acquired delirium. The current pre-planned one-year follow-up study of the AID-ICU trial population aims to explore the effects of haloperidol on one-year mortality and health related quality of life (HRQoL). Methods The AID-ICU trial will include 1000 participants. One-year mortality will be obtained from the trial sites; we will validate the vital status of Danish participants using the Danish National Health Data Registers. Mortality will be analysed by Cox-regression and visualized by Kaplan-Meier curves tested for significance using the log-rank test. We will obtain HRQoL data using the EQ-5D instrument. HRQoL analysis will be performed using a general linear model adjusted for stratification variables. Deceased participants will be designated the worst possible value. Results We expect to publish results of this study in 2022. Conclusion We expect that this one-year follow-up study of participants with ICU-acquired delirium allocated to haloperidol vs. placebo will provide important information on the long-term consequences of delirium including the effects of haloperidol. We expect that our results will improve the care of this vulnerable patient group.

Background: Haloperidol is the most frequently used drug to treat delirium in the critically ill patients. Yet, no systematic review has focussed on the effects of haloperidol in critically ill patients with delirium. Methods: We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of haloperidol vs any intervention on all-cause mortality, serious adverse reactions/events, days alive without delirium, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), cognitive function and delirium severity in critically ill patients with delirium. We also report on QTc prolongation, delirium resolution and extrapyramidal symptoms. Results: We included 8 RCTs with 11 comparisons (n = 951). We adjudicated one trial as having overall low risk of bias. Three trials used rescue haloperidol; excluding these, we did not find an effect of haloperidol vs control on all-cause mortality (RR 1.01; 95% CI 0.33-3.06; I2 = 0%; 112 participants; 3 trials; 4 comparisons; very low certainty) or delirium severity (SMD −0.15; 95% CI −0.61-0.30; I2 = 27%; 134 participants; 3 trials; 4 comparisons; very low certainty). No trials reported adequately on serious adverse reactions/events. Only one trial reported on days alive without delirium, cognitive function and QTc prolongation, and no trials reported on HRQoL. Sensitivity analyses, including trials using rescue haloperidol, did not change the results. Conclusions: The evidence for the use of haloperidol to treat critically ill patients with delirium is sparse, of low quality and inconclusive. We therefore have no certainty regarding any beneficial, harmful or neutral effects of haloperidol in these patients.