OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety, and cost of dexmedetomidine for the treatment of agitated delirium refractory to haloperidol in nonintubated critically ill patients. DESIGN: Nonrandomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Intensive care department of a tertiary care nonprofit hospital. PATIENTS: All consecutive admissions to a medical-surgical ICU with a diagnosis of agitated delirium. INTERVENTIONS: Initial haloperidol titration: all patients received IV bolus doses of haloperidol until agitation was controlled (Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale scoring range, 0 to -2) or reaching the maximum daily dose. Group comparison: patient responders to haloperidol (control group) were compared with nonresponders (dexmedetomidine group). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 132 nonintubated patients were treated with haloperidol in the initial haloperidol titration phase. Forty-six patients (34.8%; 95% CI, 26.0-43.1%) did not respond to haloperidol, and 86 patients (65.2%; 95% CI, 56.3-73.0%) were responders. During the group comparison phase, dexmedetomidine achieved a higher percentage of time in satisfactory sedation levels than did haloperidol (92.7% [95% CI, 84.5-99.8%] vs 59.3% [95% CI, 48.6-69.3%], respectively; p = 0.0001). Haloperidol was associated with 10 cases (11.6% [95% CI, 6.5-21.2%]) of oversedation and two (2.0% [0.4-8%]) of corrected QT lengthening. Direct cost of dexmedetomidine was 17 times greater than haloperidol, but it achieved a mean savings of $4,370 per patient due to the reduction in length of ICU stay. CONCLUSIONS: In the study conditions, dexmedetomidine shows to be useful as a rescue drug for treating agitation due to delirium in nonintubated patients in whom haloperidol has failed, and it seems to have a better effectiveness, safety, and cost-benefit profile than does haloperidol.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness, safety, and cost of dexmedetomidine for the treatment of agitated delirium refractory to haloperidol in nonintubated critically ill patients. DESIGN: Nonrandomized, controlled trial. SETTING: Intensive care department of a tertiary care nonprofit hospital. PATIENTS: All consecutive admissions to a medical-surgical ICU with a diagnosis of agitated delirium. INTERVENTIONS: Initial haloperidol titration: all patients received IV bolus doses of haloperidol until agitation was controlled (Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale scoring range, 0 to -2) or reaching the maximum daily dose. Group comparison: patient responders to haloperidol (control group) were compared with nonresponders (dexmedetomidine group). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 132 nonintubated patients were treated with haloperidol in the initial haloperidol titration phase. Forty-six patients (34.8%; 95% CI, 26.0-43.1%) did not respond to haloperidol, and 86 patients (65.2%; 95% CI, 56.3-73.0%) were responders. During the group comparison phase, dexmedetomidine achieved a higher percentage of time in satisfactory sedation levels than did haloperidol (92.7% [95% CI, 84.5-99.8%] vs 59.3% [95% CI, 48.6-69.3%], respectively; p = 0.0001). Haloperidol was associated with 10 cases (11.6% [95% CI, 6.5-21.2%]) of oversedation and two (2.0% [0.4-8%]) of corrected QT lengthening. Direct cost of dexmedetomidine was 17 times greater than haloperidol, but it achieved a mean savings of $4,370 per patient due to the reduction in length of ICU stay. CONCLUSIONS: In the study conditions, dexmedetomidine shows to be useful as a rescue drug for treating agitation due to delirium in nonintubated patients in whom haloperidol has failed, and it seems to have a better effectiveness, safety, and cost-benefit profile than does haloperidol.
Authors: Pratik P Pandharipande; E Wesley Ely; Rakesh C Arora; Michele C Balas; Malaz A Boustani; Gabriel Heras La Calle; Colm Cunningham; John W Devlin; Julius Elefante; Jin H Han; Alasdair M MacLullich; José R Maldonado; Alessandro Morandi; Dale M Needham; Valerie J Page; Louise Rose; Jorge I F Salluh; Tarek Sharshar; Yahya Shehabi; Yoanna Skrobik; Arjen J C Slooter; Heidi A B Smith Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2017-06-13 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Jo Ellen Wilson; Matthew F Mart; Colm Cunningham; Yahya Shehabi; Timothy D Girard; Alasdair M J MacLullich; Arjen J C Slooter; E Wesley Ely Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2020-11-12 Impact factor: 65.038