BACKGROUND In critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients, daily interruption of sedation has been shown to reduce the time on ventilation and the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU). Data on whether a plan of no sedation, as compared with a plan of light sedation, has an effect on mortality are lacking. METHODS In a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, mechanically ventilated ICU patients to a plan of no sedation (nonsedation group) or to a plan of light sedation (i.e., to a level at which the patient was arousable, defined as a score of −2 to −3 on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale [RASS], on which scores range from −5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]) (sedation group) with daily interruption. The primary outcome was mortality at 90 days. Secondary outcomes were the number of major thromboembolic events, the number of days free from coma or delirium, acute kidney injury according to severity, the number of ICU-free days, and the number of ventilator-free days. Between-group differences were calculated as the value in the nonsedation group minus the value in the sedation group. RESULTS A total of 710 patients underwent randomization, and 700 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The characteristics of the patients at baseline were similar in the two trial groups, except for the score on the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, which was 1 point higher in the nonsedation group than in the sedation group, indicating a greater chance of in-hospital death. The mean RASS score in the nonsedation group increased from −1.3 on day 1 to −0.8 on day 7 and, in the sedation group, from −2.3 on day 1 to −1.8 on day 7. Mortality at 90 days was 42.4% in the nonsedation group and 37.0% in the sedated group (difference, 5.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −2.2 to 12.2; P = 0.65). The number of ICU-free days and of ventilator-free days did not differ significantly between the trial groups. The patients in the nonsedation group had a median of 27 days free from coma or delirium, and those in the sedation group had a median of 26 days free from coma or delirium. A major thromboembolic event occurred in 1 patient (0.3%) in the nonsedation group and in 10 patients (2.8%) in the sedation group (difference, −2.5 percentage points; 95% CI, −4.8 to −0.7 [unadjusted for multiple comparisons]). CONCLUSIONS Among mechanically ventilated ICU patients, mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly between those assigned to a plan of no sedation and those assigned to a plan of light sedation with daily interruption. (Funded by the Danish Medical Research Council and others; NONSEDA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01967680.
Objectives: Critical illness can cause severe cognitive impairments. The objective of this trial was to assess the effect of nonsedation versus sedation with a daily wake-up call during mechanical ventilation on cognitive function in adult survivors of critical illness. Design: Single-center substudy of the multicenter, randomized Non-sedation Versus Sedation With a Daily Wake-up Trial in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation trial. Three months after ICU-discharge participants were tested for cognitive function by a neuropsychologist. Setting: Mixed 14-bed ICU in teaching hospital. Patients: A total of 205 critically ill, orally intubated, and mechanically ventilated adults. Interventions: Patients were randomized within the first 24 hours from intubation to either nonsedation with sufficient analgesia or light sedation with a daily wake-up call during mechanical ventilation. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 118 patients survived to follow-up and 89 participated (75%). The participating survivors in the two groups did not differ regarding baseline data or premorbid cognitive impairments. Sedated patients had received more sedatives, whereas doses of morphine and antipsychotics were equal. The primary outcome was that no significant difference was found in the number of patients with mild/moderate cognitive impairments (six nonsedated patients vs four sedated patients) or severe cognitive impairments (16 nonsedated patients vs 17 sedated patients; p = 0.71). Secondary outcomes were cognitive test scores, and no differences were found between the scores in nonsedated and sedated patients. Hypothetical worst case scenarios where all patients, who had not participated in follow-up assessment, were assumed to have severe cognitive impairments were analyzed, but still no difference between the groups was found. We found more patients with delirium in the sedated group (96% vs 69% of patients; p = 0.002) and increased duration of delirium in sedated patients (median 5 vs 1 d; p < 0.001). Delirium subtypes were equally distributed between the groups, with hypoactive delirium most frequent (61%), followed by mixed delirium (39%). Conclusions: Nonsedation did not affect cognitive function 3 months after ICU-discharge.
Background Critical illness is associated with severely impaired health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) for years following discharge. The NONSEDA trial was a multicenter randomized trial on non‐sedation versus sedation with a daily wake‐up trial in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients in Scandinavia. The aim of this sub‐study was to assess the effect of non‐sedation on HRQoL and degree of independence in activities in daily living (ADL) 3 months post‐ICU. Methods All survivors were asked to complete the Medical Outcomes Study Short‐Form 36 questionnaire (SF‐36) and the Barthel Index 3 months post‐ICU. To limit missing data, reminders were sent. If unsuccessful, telephone interviews could be used. Outcomes were the level of HRQoL and ADL‐function in each group. All outcomes were assessed blinded. Results Of the 700 patients included 412 survived to follow‐up. A total of 344 survivors participated (82%). Baseline data were equal between the two groups. Mean SF‐36 scores for the non‐sedated vs sedated patients were as follows: Physical Function 45 vs 40, P = .69, Bodily Pain: 61 vs 52, P = .81, General Health: 50 vs 50, P = .84, Vitality: 42 vs 44, P = .85, Social Function: 75 vs 63, P = .85, Role Emotional: 58 vs 50, P = .82, Mental Health: 70 vs 70, P = .89, Role Physical: 25 vs 28, P = .32, Physical Component Score: 38 vs 37, P = .81, Mental Component Score: 48 vs 46, P = .94, Barthel Index: 20 vs 20, P = .74. Conclusion Randomization to non‐sedation neither improved nor impaired health‐related quality of life or degree of independence in activities in daily living 3 months post‐ICU discharge.
Background: There is an average 5 day delay between a COVID-19 infection and symptom onset. Evidence suggests between 35% and 50% of all transmissions occur within this time-frame. Presymptomatic COVID-19 detection, therefore, serves a crucial role in containing the spread of COVID-19. An early COVID-19 detection algorithm were developed in the COVID-Red trial, which based on anomalies in biophysical markers, measured via a bracelet, predicts COVID-19 infection. Method: This paper is an economic evaluation of the anomaly detection model developed in the COVID-Red trial with a health sector perspective. The primary outcome is the incremental cost effectiveness ratio (ICER), where the effectiveness is measured as early COVID-19 detection. Data on healthcare utilisation and COVID-19 testing are collected through biweekly surveys, structured phone interviews and a daily symptom diary. All data is self reported. Results: COVID-19 can be detected 3.50 days earlier using an anomaly detection model, as opposed to a deterministic approach. The associated costs are ≈54€ and ≈50€, on average, in the intervention and control group respectively. The ICER is 1.15€, and implies a marginal cost of 1.15€ per days of early detection. Conclusion: The anomaly detection model detects COVID-19 3.5 earlier than otherwise possible, with a marginal cost of 4€. The ICER is 1.15€. Compared to the existing test strategies, the bracelet and algorithm combination is expensive. It can be considered inexpensive amongst, for example, healthcare workers where structured COVID-19 screenings are common. Trial registration: Dutch Trial Register, NL9320. Registered 18/02/2021, https://clinicaltrialregister.nl/en/trial/23180
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.