Kawazoe Yu, Miyamoto Kyohei, Morimoto Takeshi, Yamamoto Tomonori, Fuke Akihiro, Hashimoto Atsunori, Koami Hiroyuki, Beppu Satoru, Katayama Yoichi, Itoh Makoto, Ohta Yoshinori, Yamamura Hitoshi
Division of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Tohoku University Graduate school of Medicine, Sendai, Japan.
Department of Emergency and Critical Care Medicine, Wakayama Medical University, Wakayama, Japan.
JAMA. 2017 Apr 4;317(13):1321-1328. doi: 10.1001/jama.2017.2088.
Dexmedetomidine provides sedation for patients undergoing ventilation; however, its effects on mortality and ventilator-free days have not been well studied among patients with sepsis.
To examine whether a sedation strategy with dexmedetomidine can improve clinical outcomes in patients with sepsis undergoing ventilation.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Open-label, multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted at 8 intensive care units in Japan from February 2013 until January 2016 among 201 consecutive adult patients with sepsis requiring mechanical ventilation for at least 24 hours.
Patients were randomized to receive either sedation with dexmedetomidine (n = 100) or sedation without dexmedetomidine (control group; n = 101). Other agents used in both groups were fentanyl, propofol, and midazolam.
The co-primary outcomes were mortality and ventilator-free days (over a 28-day duration). Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (days 1, 2, 4, 6, 8), sedation control, occurrence of delirium and coma, intensive care unit stay duration, renal function, inflammation, and nutrition state were assessed as secondary outcomes.
Of the 203 screened patients, 201 were randomized. The mean age was 69 years (SD, 14 years); 63% were male. Mortality at 28 days was not significantly different in the dexmedetomidine group vs the control group (19 patients [22.8%] vs 28 patients [30.8%]; hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.38-1.22; P = .20). Ventilator-free days over 28 days were not significantly different between groups (dexmedetomidine group: median, 20 [interquartile range, 5-24] days; control group: median, 18 [interquartile range, 0.5-23] days; P = .20). The dexmedetomidine group had a significantly higher rate of well-controlled sedation during mechanical ventilation (range, 17%-58% vs 20%-39%; P = .01); other outcomes were not significantly different between groups. Adverse events occurred in 8 (8%) and 3 (3%) patients in the dexmedetomidine and control groups, respectively.
Among patients requiring mechanical ventilation, the use of dexmedetomidine compared with no dexmedetomidine did not result in statistically significant improvement in mortality or ventilator-free days. However, the study may have been underpowered for mortality, and additional research may be needed to evaluate this further.
clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01760967.
右美托咪定可为接受通气治疗的患者提供镇静作用;然而,在脓毒症患者中,其对死亡率和无呼吸机天数的影响尚未得到充分研究。
探讨采用右美托咪定的镇静策略是否能改善接受通气治疗的脓毒症患者的临床结局。
设计、设置和参与者:2013年2月至2016年1月在日本8个重症监护病房进行的开放标签、多中心随机临床试验,纳入201例连续的成年脓毒症患者,这些患者需要机械通气至少24小时。
患者被随机分为接受右美托咪定镇静组(n = 100)或不接受右美托咪定镇静组(对照组;n = 101)。两组使用的其他药物为芬太尼、丙泊酚和咪达唑仑。
共同主要结局为死亡率和无呼吸机天数(28天期间)。序贯器官衰竭评估评分(第1、2、4、6、8天)、镇静控制、谵妄和昏迷的发生情况、重症监护病房住院时间、肾功能、炎症和营养状态作为次要结局进行评估。
在203例筛查患者中,201例被随机分组。平均年龄为69岁(标准差,14岁);63%为男性。右美托咪定组与对照组28天死亡率无显著差异(19例患者[22.8%] vs 28例患者[30.8%];风险比,0.69;95%置信区间,0.38 - 1.22;P = 0.20)。两组28天内的无呼吸机天数无显著差异(右美托咪定组:中位数,20[四分位间距,5 - 24]天;对照组:中位数,18[四分位间距,0.5 - 23]天;P = 0.20)。右美托咪定组在机械通气期间镇静控制良好的比例显著更高(范围,17% - 58% vs 20% - 39%;P = 0.01);两组的其他结局无显著差异。右美托咪定组和对照组分别有8例(8%)和3例(3%)患者发生不良事件。
在需要机械通气的患者中,使用右美托咪定与不使用右美托咪定相比,在死亡率或无呼吸机天数方面未产生统计学上的显著改善。然而,该研究可能在死亡率方面效力不足,可能需要进一步的研究来进行评估。
clinicaltrials.gov标识符:NCT01760967。