Mortality and HRQoL in ICU patients with delirium : Protocol for 1-year follow-up of AID-ICU trial

Background Intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired delirium is frequent and associated with poor short- and long-term outcomes for patients in ICUs. It therefore constitutes a major healthcare problem. Despite limited evidence, haloperidol is the most frequently used pharmacological intervention against ICU-acquired delirium. Agents intervening against Delirium in the ICU (AID-ICU) is an international, multicentre, randomised, blinded, placebo-controlled trial investigates benefits and harms of treatment with haloperidol in patients with ICU-acquired delirium. The current pre-planned one-year follow-up study of the AID-ICU trial population aims to explore the effects of haloperidol on one-year mortality and health related quality of life (HRQoL). Methods The AID-ICU trial will include 1000 participants. One-year mortality will be obtained from the trial sites; we will validate the vital status of Danish participants using the Danish National Health Data Registers. Mortality will be analysed by Cox-regression and visualized by Kaplan-Meier curves tested for significance using the log-rank test. We will obtain HRQoL data using the EQ-5D instrument. HRQoL analysis will be performed using a general linear model adjusted for stratification variables. Deceased participants will be designated the worst possible value. Results We expect to publish results of this study in 2022. Conclusion We expect that this one-year follow-up study of participants with ICU-acquired delirium allocated to haloperidol vs. placebo will provide important information on the long-term consequences of delirium including the effects of haloperidol. We expect that our results will improve the care of this vulnerable patient group.Peer reviewe

Agents intervening against delirium in the intensive care unit (AID-ICU) - Protocol for a randomised placebo-controlled trial of haloperidol in patients with delirium in the ICU

Background Delirium among patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is a common condition associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Haloperidol is the most frequently used pharmacologic intervention, but its use is not supported by firm evidence. Therefore, we are conducting Agents Intervening against Delirium in the Intensive Care Unit (AID‐ICU) trial to assess the benefits and harms of haloperidol for the treatment of ICU‐acquired delirium. Methods AID‐ICU is an investigator‐initiated, pragmatic, international, randomised, blinded, parallel‐group, trial allocating adult ICU patients with manifest delirium 1:1 to haloperidol or placebo. Trial participants will receive intravenous 2.5 mg haloperidol three times daily or matching placebo (isotonic saline 0.9%) if they are delirious. If needed, a maximum of 20 mg/daily haloperidol/placebo is given. An escape protocol, not including haloperidol, is part of the trial protocol. The primary outcome is days alive out of the hospital within 90 days post‐randomisation. Secondary outcomes are number of days without delirium or coma, serious adverse reactions to haloperidol, usage of escape medication, number of days alive without mechanical ventilation; mortality, health‐related quality‐of‐life and cognitive function at 1‐year follow‐up. A sample size of 1000 patients is required to detect a 7‐day improvement or worsening of the mean days alive out of the hospital, type 1 error risk of 5% and power 90%. Perspective The AID‐ICU trial is based on gold standard methodology applied to a large sample of clinically representative patients and will provide pivotal high‐quality data on the benefits and harms of haloperidol for the treatment ICU‐acquired delirium

Distribution of delirium motor subtypes in the intensive care unit:a systematic scoping review

BACKGROUND: Delirium is the most common cerebral dysfunction in the intensive care unit (ICU) and can be subdivided into a hypoactive, hyperactive, or mixed motor subtype based on the clinical manifestation. The aim of this review was to describe the distribution, pharmacological interventions, and outcomes of delirium motor subtypes in ICU patients. METHODS: This systematic scoping review was performed according to the PRISMA-ScR and Cochrane guidelines. We performed a systematic search in six major databases to identify relevant studies. A meta-regression analysis was performed where pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals were computed by a random effect model. RESULTS: We included 131 studies comprising 13,902 delirious patients. There was a large between-study heterogeneity among studies, including differences in study design, setting, population, and outcome reporting. Hypoactive delirium was the most prevalent delirium motor subtype (50.3% [95% CI 46.0–54.7]), followed by mixed delirium (27.7% [95% CI 24.1–31.3]) and hyperactive delirium (22.7% [95% CI 19.0–26.5]). When comparing the delirium motor subtypes, patients with mixed delirium experienced the longest delirium duration, ICU and hospital length of stay, the highest ICU and hospital mortality, and more frequently received administration of specific agents (antipsychotics, α2-agonists, benzodiazepines, and propofol) during ICU stay. In studies with high average age for delirious patients (> 65 years), patients were more likely to experience hypoactive delirium. CONCLUSIONS: Hypoactive delirium was the most prevalent motor subtype in critically ill patients. Mixed delirium had the worst outcomes in terms of delirium duration, length of stay, and mortality, and received more pharmacological interventions compared to other delirium motor subtypes. Few studies contributed to secondary outcomes; hence, these results should be interpreted with care. The large between-study heterogeneity suggests that a more standardized methodology in delirium research is warranted. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-03931-3

Restriction of Intravenous Fluid in ICU Patients with Septic Shock.

BACKGROUND Intravenous fluids are recommended for the treatment of patients who are in septic shock, but higher fluid volumes have been associated with harm in patients who are in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS In this international, randomized trial, we assigned patients with septic shock in the ICU who had received at least 1 liter of intravenous fluid to receive restricted intravenous fluid or standard intravenous fluid therapy; patients were included if the onset of shock had been within 12 hours before screening. The primary outcome was death from any cause within 90 days after randomization. RESULTS We enrolled 1554 patients; 770 were assigned to the restrictive-fluid group and 784 to the standard-fluid group. Primary outcome data were available for 1545 patients (99.4%). In the ICU, the restrictive-fluid group received a median of 1798 ml of intravenous fluid (interquartile range, 500 to 4366); the standard-fluid group received a median of 3811 ml (interquartile range, 1861 to 6762). At 90 days, death had occurred in 323 of 764 patients (42.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group, as compared with 329 of 781 patients (42.1%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.7 to 4.9; P = 0.96). In the ICU, serious adverse events occurred at least once in 221 of 751 patients (29.4%) in the restrictive-fluid group and in 238 of 772 patients (30.8%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, -1.7 percentage points; 99% CI, -7.7 to 4.3). At 90 days after randomization, the numbers of days alive without life support and days alive and out of the hospital were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS Among adult patients with septic shock in the ICU, intravenous fluid restriction did not result in fewer deaths at 90 days than standard intravenous fluid therapy. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and others; CLASSIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03668236.)