Background: ICU patients must be kept conscious, calm, and cooperative even during the critical phases of illness. Enteral administration of sedative drugs might avoid over sedation, and would be as adequate as intravenous administration in patients who are awake, with fewer side effects and lower costs. This study compares two sedation strategies, for early achievement and maintenance of the target light sedation. Methods: This was a multicenter, single-blind, randomized and controlled trial carried out in 12 Italian ICUs, involving patients with expected mechanical ventilation duration > 72 h at ICU admission and predicted mortality > 12% (Simplified Acute Physiology Score II > 32 points) during the first 24 h on ICU. Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous (midazolam, propofol) or enteral (hydroxyzine, lorazepam, and melatonin) sedation. The primary outcome was percentage of work shifts with the patient having an observed Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) = target RASS ±1. Secondary outcomes were feasibility, delirium-free and coma-free days, costs of drugs, length of ICU and hospital stay, and ICU, hospital, and one-year mortality. Results: There were 348 patients enrolled. There were no differences in the primary outcome: enteral 89.8% (74.1-100), intravenous 94.4% (78-100), p = 0.20. Enteral-treated patients had more protocol violations: n = 81 (46.6%) vs 7 (4.2%), p < 0.01; more self-extubations: n = 14 (8.1%) vs 4 (2.4%), p = 0.03; a lighter sedative target (RASS = 0): 93% (71-100) vs 83% (61-100), p < 0.01; and lower total drug costs: 2.39 (0.75-9.78) vs 4.15 (1.20-20.19) €/day with mechanical ventilation (p = 0.01). Conclusions: Although enteral sedation of critically ill patients is cheaper and permits a lighter sedation target, it is not superior to intravenous sedation for reaching the RASS target. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01360346. Registered on 25 March 2011.

Mistraletti, G., Umbrello, M., Salini, S., Cadringher, P., Formenti, P., Chiumello, D., et al. (2019). Enteral versus intravenous approach for the sedation of critically ill patients: A randomized and controlled trial 11 Medical and Health Sciences 1103 Clinical Sciences. CRITICAL CARE, 23(1) [10.1186/s13054-018-2280-x].

Enteral versus intravenous approach for the sedation of critically ill patients: A randomized and controlled trial 11 Medical and Health Sciences 1103 Clinical Sciences

Salini, S;Villa, C;Bellani, G;Barbiero, A;Ferrari, P;Pesenti, A;La Bruna, A;Rezoagli, E;Lucchini, A;
2019

Abstract

Background: ICU patients must be kept conscious, calm, and cooperative even during the critical phases of illness. Enteral administration of sedative drugs might avoid over sedation, and would be as adequate as intravenous administration in patients who are awake, with fewer side effects and lower costs. This study compares two sedation strategies, for early achievement and maintenance of the target light sedation. Methods: This was a multicenter, single-blind, randomized and controlled trial carried out in 12 Italian ICUs, involving patients with expected mechanical ventilation duration > 72 h at ICU admission and predicted mortality > 12% (Simplified Acute Physiology Score II > 32 points) during the first 24 h on ICU. Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous (midazolam, propofol) or enteral (hydroxyzine, lorazepam, and melatonin) sedation. The primary outcome was percentage of work shifts with the patient having an observed Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) = target RASS ±1. Secondary outcomes were feasibility, delirium-free and coma-free days, costs of drugs, length of ICU and hospital stay, and ICU, hospital, and one-year mortality. Results: There were 348 patients enrolled. There were no differences in the primary outcome: enteral 89.8% (74.1-100), intravenous 94.4% (78-100), p = 0.20. Enteral-treated patients had more protocol violations: n = 81 (46.6%) vs 7 (4.2%), p < 0.01; more self-extubations: n = 14 (8.1%) vs 4 (2.4%), p = 0.03; a lighter sedative target (RASS = 0): 93% (71-100) vs 83% (61-100), p < 0.01; and lower total drug costs: 2.39 (0.75-9.78) vs 4.15 (1.20-20.19) €/day with mechanical ventilation (p = 0.01). Conclusions: Although enteral sedation of critically ill patients is cheaper and permits a lighter sedation target, it is not superior to intravenous sedation for reaching the RASS target. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01360346. Registered on 25 March 2011.
Articolo in rivista - Articolo scientifico
Hydroxyzine; Hypnotics and sedatives; Melatonin; Nursing education research; Patient care planning;
Hydroxyzine; Hypnotics and sedatives; Melatonin; Nursing education research; Patient care planning; Aged; Anesthesia; Antipruritics; Central Nervous System Depressants; Critical Illness; Deep Sedation; Enteral Nutrition; Female; Humans; Hydroxyzine; Hypnotics and Sedatives; Intensive Care Units; Male; Melatonin; Middle Aged; Poisson Distribution; Simplified Acute Physiology Score; Single-Blind Method
English
10
the SedaEN investigators
Mistraletti, G., Umbrello, M., Salini, S., Cadringher, P., Formenti, P., Chiumello, D., et al. (2019). Enteral versus intravenous approach for the sedation of critically ill patients: A randomized and controlled trial 11 Medical and Health Sciences 1103 Clinical Sciences. CRITICAL CARE, 23(1) [10.1186/s13054-018-2280-x].
Mistraletti, G; Umbrello, M; Salini, S; Cadringher, P; Formenti, P; Chiumello, D; Villa, C; Russo, R; Francesconi, S; Valdambrini, F; Bellani, G; Palo, A; Riccardi, F; Ferretti, E; Festa, M; Gado, A; Taverna, M; Pinna, C; Barbiero, A; Ferrari, P; Iapichino, G; Spanu, P; Anania, S; Andrighi, E; Di Carlo, A; Martinetti, F; Barello, S; Noto, A; Capello, G; Sabatelli, B; Brenna, G; Astori, M; Placido, P; Gattinoni, L; Protti, A; Pagan, F; Berto, V; Roselli, P; Ronzoni, G; Beck, E; Gaiotto, M; Radrizzani, D; Ferla, L; Giudici, R; Merlini, L; Pesenti, A; La Bruna, A; Rezoagli, E; Lucchini, A; Braschi, A; Niebel, T; Selvini, M; Cortesi, S; Quaini, A; Iotti, G; Contri, E; Sacchi, A; Livigni, S; Naretto, G; Deprado, A; Venturi degli Espositi, V; Caironi, P; Radeschi, G; Odetto, L; Ferrero, D; Cognolato, S; Penso, R; Vacchelli, R; Cardellino, S; Bosco, E; Bresciani, A; Pozzo, I; Alessio, A; Clarindo Rodrigues, V; Biase, E; Vivaldi, N; Nava, A; Rambaldi, M; Ponzetta, F; Bavutti, L; Palacios, B; Bergonzini, G
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Mistraletti_Crit_Care_2019.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia di allegato: Publisher’s Version (Version of Record, VoR)
Dimensione 1.06 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.06 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri
10281-214553.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia di allegato: Publisher’s Version (Version of Record, VoR)
Dimensione 1.06 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
1.06 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/10281/214553
Citazioni
  • Scopus 9
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 10
Social impact