van den Boogaard Mark, Schoonhoven Lisette, van Achterberg Theo, van der Hoeven Johannes G, Pickkers Peter
Crit Care. 2013 Jan 17;17(1):R9. doi: 10.1186/cc11933.
Delirium is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. We implemented a delirium prevention policy in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with a high risk of developing delirium, and evaluated if our policy resulted in quality improvement of relevant delirium outcome measures.
This study was a before/after evaluation of a delirium prevention project using prophylactic treatment with haloperidol. Patients with a predicted risk for delirium of ≥ 50%, or with a history of alcohol abuse or dementia, were identified. According to the prevention protocol these patients received haloperidol 1 mg/8 h. Evaluation was primarily focused on delirium incidence, delirium free days without coma and 28-day mortality. Results of prophylactic treatment were compared with a historical control group and a contemporary group that did not receive haloperidol prophylaxis mainly due to non-compliance to the protocol mostly during the implementation phase.
In 12 months, 177 patients received haloperidol prophylaxis. Except for sepsis, patient characteristics were comparable between the prevention and the historical (n = 299) groups. Predicted chance to develop delirium was 75 ± 19% and 73 ± 22%, respectively. Haloperidol prophylaxis resulted in a lower delirium incidence (65% vs. 75%, P = 0.01), and more delirium-free-days (median 20 days (IQR 8 to 27) vs. median 13 days (3 to 27), P = 0.003) in the intervention group compared to the control group. Cox-regression analysis adjusted for sepsis showed a hazard rate of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.98) for 28-day mortality. Beneficial effects of haloperidol appeared most pronounced in the patients with the highest risk for delirium. Furthermore, haloperidol prophylaxis resulted in less ICU re-admissions (11% vs. 18%, P = 0.03) and unplanned removal of tubes/lines (12% vs. 19%, P = 0.02). Haloperidol was stopped in 12 patients because of QTc-time prolongation (n = 9), renal failure (n = 1) or suspected neurological side-effects (n = 2). No other side-effects were reported. Patients who were not treated during the intervention period (n = 59) showed similar results compared to the untreated historical control group.
Our evaluation study suggests that prophylactic treatment with low dose haloperidol in critically ill patients with a high risk for delirium probably has beneficial effects. These results warrant confirmation in a randomized controlled trial.
clinicaltrial.gov Identifier: NCT01187667.
谵妄与发病率和死亡率的增加相关。我们对有发生谵妄高风险的重症监护病房(ICU)患者实施了一项谵妄预防政策,并评估我们的政策是否能改善相关谵妄结局指标的质量。
本研究是一项对使用氟哌啶醇进行预防性治疗的谵妄预防项目的前后评估。确定谵妄预测风险≥50%,或有酒精滥用或痴呆病史的患者。根据预防方案,这些患者接受1mg/8小时的氟哌啶醇治疗。评估主要集中在谵妄发生率、无昏迷的无谵妄天数和28天死亡率。将预防性治疗的结果与历史对照组和当代组进行比较,当代组主要由于在实施阶段大多未遵守方案而未接受氟哌啶醇预防。
在12个月内,177例患者接受了氟哌啶醇预防。除脓毒症外,预防组和历史组(n = 299)的患者特征具有可比性。发生谵妄的预测概率分别为75±19%和73±22%。与对照组相比,氟哌啶醇预防使干预组的谵妄发生率更低(65%对75%,P = 0.01),且无谵妄天数更多(中位数20天(IQR 8至27)对中位数13天(3至27),P = 0.003)。对脓毒症进行校正的Cox回归分析显示,28天死亡率的风险比为0.80(95%置信区间0.66至0.98)。氟哌啶醇的有益效果在谵妄风险最高的患者中最为明显。此外,氟哌啶醇预防导致ICU再入院率降低(11%对18%,P = 0.03),以及计划外拔除导管/管路率降低(12%对19%,P = 0.02)。12例患者因QTc时间延长(n = 9)、肾衰竭(n = 1)或疑似神经系统副作用(n = 2)而停用氟哌啶醇。未报告其他副作用。干预期间未接受治疗的患者(n = 59)与未治疗的历史对照组结果相似。
我们的评估研究表明,对有谵妄高风险的危重症患者进行低剂量氟哌啶醇预防性治疗可能具有有益效果。这些结果有待在随机对照试验中得到证实。
clinicaltrial.gov标识符:NCT01187667。