Daniel L. Herr

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the Intensive Care Unit

Objective:To revise the “Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Sustained Use of Sedatives and Analgesics in the Critically Ill Adult” published in Critical Care Medicine in 2002. Methods:The American College of Critical Care Medicine assembled a 20-person, multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task force with expertise in guideline development, pain, agitation and sedation, delirium management, and associated outcomes in adult critically ill patients. The task force, divided into four subcommittees, collaborated over 6 yr in person, via teleconferences, and via electronic communication. Subcommittees were responsible for developing relevant clinical questions, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org) to review, evaluate, and summarize the literature, and to develop clinical statements (descriptive) and recommendations (actionable). With the help of a professional librarian and Refworks® database software, they developed a Web-based electronic database of over 19,000 references extracted from eight clinical search engines, related to pain and analgesia, agitation and sedation, delirium, and related clinical outcomes in adult ICU patients. The group also used psychometric analyses to evaluate and compare pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium assessment tools. All task force members were allowed to review the literature supporting each statement and recommendation and provided feedback to the subcommittees. Group consensus was achieved for all statements and recommendations using the nominal group technique and the modified Delphi method, with anonymous voting by all task force members using E-Survey (http://www.esurvey.com). All voting was completed in December 2010. Relevant studies published after this date and prior to publication of these guidelines were referenced in the text. The quality of evidence for each statement and recommendation was ranked as high (A), moderate (B), or low/very low (C). The strength of recommendations was ranked as strong (1) or weak (2), and either in favor of (+) or against (–) an intervention. A strong recommendation (either for or against) indicated that the intervention’s desirable effects either clearly outweighed its undesirable effects (risks, burdens, and costs) or it did not. For all strong recommendations, the phrase “We recommend …” is used throughout. A weak recommendation, either for or against an intervention, indicated that the trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects was less clear. For all weak recommendations, the phrase “We suggest …” is used throughout. In the absence of sufficient evidence, or when group consensus could not be achieved, no recommendation (0) was made. Consensus based on expert opinion was not used as a substitute for a lack of evidence. A consistent method for addressing potential conflict of interest was followed if task force members were coauthors of related research. The development of this guideline was independent of any industry funding. Conclusion:These guidelines provide a roadmap for developing integrated, evidence-based, and patient-centered protocols for preventing and treating pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients.

Linezolid versus Vancomycin for the Treatment of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Infections

Linezolid, the first available member of a new antibiotic class, the oxazolidinones, is broadly active against gram-positive bacteria, including drug-resistant strains. In this randomized, open-label trial, hospitalized adults with known or suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections were treated with linezolid (600 mg twice daily; n=240) or vancomycin (1 g twice daily; n=220) for 7-28 days. S. aureus was isolated from 53% of patients; 93% of these isolates were MRSA. Skin and soft-tissue infection was the most common diagnosis, followed by pneumonia and urinary tract infection. At the test-of-cure visit (15-21 days after the end of therapy), among evaluable patients with MRSA, there was no statistical difference between the 2 treatment groups with respect to clinical cure rates (73.2% of patients in the linezolid group and 73.1% in the vancomycin group) or microbiological success rates (58.9% in the linezolid group and 63.2% in the vancomycin group). Both regimens were well tolerated, with similar rates of adverse events.Linezolid, the first available member of a new antibiotic class, the oxazolidinones, is broadly active against gram-positive bacteria, including drug-resistant strains. In this randomized, open-label trial, hospitalized adults with known or suspected methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) infections were treated with linezolid (600 mg twice daily; n = 240) or vancomycin (1 g twice daily; n = 220) for 7-28 days. S. aureus was isolated from 53% of patients; 93% of these isolates were MRSA. Skin and soft-tissue infection was the most common diagnosis, followed by pneumonia and urinary tract infection. At the test-of-cure visit (15-21 days after the end of therapy), among evaluable patients with MRSA, there was no statistical difference between the 2 treatment groups with respect to clinical cure rates (73.2% of patients in the linezolid group and 73.1% in the vancomycin group) or microbiological success rates (58.9% in the linezolid group and 63.2% in the vancomycin group). Both regimens were well tolerated, with similar rates of adverse events.

ICU sedation after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: dexmedetomidine-based versus propofol-based sedation regimens.

OBJECTIVE To compare dexmedetomidine-based to propofol-based sedation after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in the intensive care unit (ICU). DESIGN Randomized, open label. SETTING Twenty-five centers in the United States and Canada. PARTICIPANTS Two hundred ninety-five adults undergoing CABG surgery. INTERVENTIONS At sternal closure, patients in group A received 1.0 microg/kg of dexmedetomidine over 20 minutes and then 0.2 to 0.7 microg/kg/h to maintain a Ramsay sedation score > or =3 during assisted ventilation and > or =2 after extubation. Patients could be given propofol for additional sedation if necessary; group B patients received propofol-based care according to each investigators standard practice. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Mean sedation levels were within target ranges in both groups. Mean times to weaning and extubation were similar, although fewer dexmedetomidine patients remained on the ventilator beyond 8 hours. Morphine use was significantly reduced in the dexmedetomidine group. Only 28% of the dexmedetomidine patients required morphine for pain relief while ventilated versus 69% of propofol-based patients (p < 0.001). Propofol patients required 4 times the mean dose of morphine while in the ICU. Mean blood pressure increased initially in both groups, then decreased to 3 mmHg below baseline in dexmedetomidine patients; mean arterial pressure remained at 9 mmHg above baseline in propofol patients. No ventricular tachycardia occurred in the dexmedetomidine-sedated patients compared with 5% of the propofol patients (p = 0.007). Respiratory rates and blood gases were similar. Fewer dexmedetomidine patients received beta-blockers (p = 0.014), antiemetics (p = 0.015), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (p < 0.001), epinephrine (p = 0.030), or high-dose diuretics (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION Dexmedetomidine provided safe and effective sedation for post-CABG surgical patients and significantly reduced the use of analgesics, beta-blockers, antiemetics, epinephrine, and diuretics.

Effect of dexmedetomidine versus lorazepam on outcome in patients with sepsis: an a priori-designed analysis of the MENDS randomized controlled trial

IntroductionBenzodiazepines and α2 adrenoceptor agonists exert opposing effects on innate immunity and mortality in animal models of infection. We hypothesized that sedation with dexmedetomidine (an α2 adrenoceptor agonist), as compared with lorazepam (a benzodiazepine), would provide greater improvements in clinical outcomes among septic patients than among non-septic patients.MethodsIn this a priori-determined subgroup analysis of septic vs non-septic patients from the MENDS double-blind randomized controlled trial, adult medical/surgical mechanically ventilated patients were randomized to receive dexmedetomidine-based or lorazepam-based sedation for up to 5 days. Delirium and other clinical outcomes were analyzed comparing sedation groups, adjusting for clinically relevant covariates as well as assessing interactions between sedation group and sepsis.ResultsOf the 103 patients randomized, 63 (31 dexmedetomidine; 32 lorazepam) were admitted with sepsis and 40 (21 dexmedetomidine; 19 lorazepam) without sepsis. Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups for both septic and non-septic patients. Compared with septic patients who received lorazepam, the dexmedetomidine septic patients had 3.2 more delirium/coma-free days (DCFD) on average (95% CI for difference, 1.1 to 4.9), 1.5 (-0.1, 2.8) more delirium-free days (DFD) and 6 (0.3, 11.1) more ventilator-free days (VFD). The beneficial effects of dexmedetomidine were more pronounced in septic patients than in non-septic patients for both DCFDs and VFDs (P-value for interaction = 0.09 and 0.02 respectively). Additionally, sedation with dexmedetomidine, compared with lorazepam, reduced the daily risk of delirium [OR, CI 0.3 (0.1, 0.7)] in both septic and non-septic patients (P-value for interaction = 0.94). Risk of dying at 28 days was reduced by 70% [hazard ratio 0.3 (0.1, 0.9)] in dexmedetomidine patients with sepsis as compared to the lorazepam patients; this reduction in death was not seen in non-septic patients (P-value for interaction = 0.11).ConclusionsIn this subgroup analysis, septic patients receiving dexmedetomidine had more days free of brain dysfunction and mechanical ventilation and were less likely to die than those that received a lorazepam-based sedation regimen. These results were more pronounced in septic patients than in non-septic patients. Prospective clinical studies and further preclinical mechanistic studies are needed to confirm these results.Trial RegistrationNCT00095251.

Complicated skin and skin-structure infections and catheter-related bloodstream infections: noninferiority of linezolid in a phase 3 study.

BACKGROUND Catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) causes substantial morbidity and mortality, but few randomized, controlled studies have been conducted to guide therapeutic interventions. METHODS To determine whether linezolid would be noninferior to vancomycin in patients with CRBSI, we conducted an open-label, multicenter, comparative study. Patients with suspected CRBSI were randomized to receive linezolid or vancomycin (control group). The primary end point was microbiologic outcome at test of cure 1-2 weeks after treatment, as assessed by step-down procedure. The first analysis population was complicated skin and skin structure infection (cSSSI) in patients with suspected CRBSI; patients with CRBSI were analyzed if noninferiority criteria (lower bound of the 95% confidence interval [CI] not outside -15%) were met. RESULTS Noninferiority criteria were met for cSSSI (microbiologic success rate for linezolid recipients, 89.6% [146 for 163 patients]; for the control group, 89.9% [134 of 149]; 95% CI, -7.1 to 6.4) and CRBSI (for linezolid recipients, 86.3% [82 of 95]; for the control group, 90.5% [67 of 74]; 95% CI, -13.8 to 5.4). The frequency and severity of adverse events were similar between groups. Mortality rates were 10.4% for linezolid recipients (28 of 269 patients) and 10.1% for control subjects (26 of 257) in the modified intent-to-treat population (i.e., all patients with gram-positive baseline culture) through test of cure, and they were 21.5% for linezolid recipients (78 of 363) and 16.0% for the control group (58 of 363; 95% CI, -0.2 to 11.2) for all treated patients through poststudy treatment day 84. CONCLUSIONS Linezolid demonstrated microbiologic success rates noninferior to those for vancomycin in patients with cSSSIs and CRBSIs caused by gram-positive organisms. Patients with catheter-related infections must be carefully investigated for the heterogeneous underlying causes of high morbidity and mortality, particularly for infections with gram-negative organisms.

Management of the Potential Organ Donor in the ICU: Society of Critical Care Medicine/American College of Chest Physicians/Association of Organ Procurement Organizations Consensus Statement

This document was developed through the collaborative efforts of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the American College of Chest Physicians, and the Association of Organ Procurement Organizations. Under the auspices of these societies, a multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task force was convened, incorporating expertise in critical care medicine, organ donor management, and transplantation. Members of the task force were divided into 13 subcommittees, each focused on one of the following general or organ-specific areas: death determination using neurologic criteria, donation after circulatory death determination, authorization process, general contraindications to donation, hemodynamic management, endocrine dysfunction and hormone replacement therapy, pediatric donor management, cardiac donation, lung donation, liver donation, kidney donation, small bowel donation, and pancreas donation. Subcommittees were charged with generating a series of management-related questions related to their topic. For each question, subcommittees provided a summary of relevant literature and specific recommendations. The specific recommendations were approved by all members of the task force and then assembled into a complete document. Because the available literature was overwhelmingly comprised of observational studies and case series, representing low-quality evidence, a decision was made that the document would assume the form of a consensus statement rather than a formally graded guideline. The goal of this document is to provide critical care practitioners with essential information and practical recommendations related to management of the potential organ donor, based on the available literature and expert consensus.

Safety and efficacy of propofol with EDTA when used for sedation of surgical intensive care unit patients.

Objective: To compare propofol with disodium edetate (EDTA) and propofol without EDTA when used for the sedation of critically ill surgical intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Design: Prospective, randomised, multicentre trial. Patients: A total of 122 surgical ICU patients who required intubation and mechanical ventilation. Interventions: Patients were randomised to receive either propofol or propofol plus EDTA (propofol EDTA) by continuous infusion for sedation. Measurements and Results: The addition of EDTA to propofol had no effect on calcium or magnesium homeostasis, renal function, haemodynamic function, or efficacy when used for the sedation of surgical patients in the ICU. The most common adverse events were hypotension, atrial fibrillation, and hypocalcaemia. In this trial, a greater number of serious adverse events and adverse events leading to withdrawal occurred in the propofol group relative to the propofol EDTA group. There was a significantly lower crude mortality rate at 7 and 28 days for the propofol EDTA group compared with the propofol group. There were no statistically significant differences between groups with respect to depth of sedation. Conclusion: The propofol EDTA formulation had no effect on calcium or magnesium homeostasis, renal function, or sedation efficacy compared with propofol alone when used for sedation in critically ill surgical ICU patients. There was a significant decrease in mortality in the propofol EDTA group compared with the propofol group. Further investigations are needed to validate this survival benefit and elucidate a possible mechanism.

Best clinical practice with ziprasidone IM: update after 2 years of experience.

Acute agitation is a common psychiatric emergency often treated with intramuscular (i.m.) medication when rapid control is necessary or the patient refuses to take an oral agent. Conventional i.m. antipsychotics are associated with side effects, particularly movement disorders, that may alarm patients and render them unreceptive to taking these medications again. Ziprasidone (Geodon) is the first second-generation, or atypical, antipsychotic to become available in an i.m. formulation. Ziprasidone IM was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2002 for the treatment of agitation in patients with schizophrenia. In October 2004, a roundtable panel of physicians with extensive experience in the management of acutely agitated patients met to review the first 2 years of experience with this agent. This monograph, a product of that meeting, discusses clinical experience to date with ziprasidone IM and offers recommendations on its use in various settings. In clinical trials, patients treated with ziprasidone IM demonstrated significant and rapid (within 15-30 minutes) reduction in agitation and improvement in psychotic symptoms, agitation, and hostility to an extent greater than or equal to that attained with haloperidol i.m. Tolerability of ziprasidone IM was superior to that of haloperidol IM, with a lower burden of movement disorders. Clinical trials have also shown that ziprasidone IM can be administered with benzodiazepines without adverse consequences. Transition from i.m. to oral ziprasidone has been well tolerated, with maintenance of symptom control. The most common adverse events associated with ziprasidone IM were insomnia, headache, and dizziness in fixed-dose trials and insomnia and hypertension in flexible-dose trials. No consistent pattern of escalating incidence of adverse events with escalating ziprasidone doses has been observed. Changes in QTc interval associated with ziprasidone at peak serum concentrations are modest and comparable to those seen with haloperidol IM. Results of randomized clinical trials of ziprasidone IM have been corroborated in studies in real-world treatment settings involving patients with extreme agitation or a recent history of alcohol or substance abuse. In these circumstances, clinically significant improvement was seen within 30 minutes of ziprasidone IM administration, without regard to the suspected underlying etiology of agitation. Agents with a good safety/tolerability profile, such as ziprasidone IM, may be more cost effective long term than older agents, due to reduced incidence of acute adverse effects (eg, acute dystonia) that often require extended periods of observation. Additional trials of ziprasidone IM in agitated patients in a variety of clinical setting are warranted to generate comparative risk/benefit data with conventional agents and other second-generation antipsychotics.

Clinical measurement, statistical analysis, and risk-benefit: controversies from trials of spinal injury.

BACKGROUND The National Acute Spinal Cord Injury Studies have been a series of trials assessing the role of pharmacologic agents in the prevention of secondary neuronal damage after acute spinal cord injury. METHODS The trials were multicenter randomized, controlled studies. RESULTS Two trials have demonstrated the efficacy of high-dose methylprednisolone in improving neurologic and functional recovery and have shown a reassuring safety profile. CONCLUSION This study responds to a recent commentary on these trials and examines in particular the roles of clinical measurement, statistical analysis, and risk benefit in assembling evidence for or against innovative therapies.

Results of phase II pharmacokinetic study of levetiracetam for prevention of post‐traumatic epilepsy

Levetiracetam (LEV) has antiepileptogenic effects in animals and is a candidate for prevention of epilepsy after traumatic brain injury. Pharmacokinetics of LEV in TBI patients was unknown. We report pharmacokinetics of TBI subjects≥6years with high PTE risk treated with LEV 55mg/kg/day orally, nasogastrically or intravenously for 30days starting ≤8h after injury in a phase II safety and pharmacokinetic study. Forty-one subjects (26 adults and 15 children) were randomized to PK studies on treatment days 3 and 30. Thirty-six out of forty-one randomized subjects underwent PK study on treatment day 3, and 24/41 subjects underwent PK study on day 30. On day 3, mean T(max) was 2.2h, C(max) was 60.2μg/ml and AUC was 403.7μg/h/ml. T(max) was longer in the elderly than in children and non-elderly adults (5.96h vs. 1.5h and 1.8h; p=0.0001). AUC was non-significantly lower in children compared with adults and the elderly (317.4μg/h/ml vs. 461.4μg/h/ml and 450.2μg/h/ml; p=0.08). C(max) trended higher in i.v.- versus tablet- or n.g.-treated subjects (78.4μg/ml vs. 59μg/ml and 48.2μg/ml; p=0.07). AUC of n.g. and i.v. administrations was 79% and 88% of AUC of oral administration. There were no significant PK differences between days 3 and 30. Treatment of TBI patients with high PTE risk with 55mg/kg/day LEV, a dose with antiepileptogenic effect in animals, results in plasma LEV levels comparable to those in animal studies.