Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, ventilation management, and outcomes in invasively ventilated intensive care unit patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a pooled analysis of four observational studies

Background: Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, the practice of ventilation, and outcome in invasively ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain unexplored. In this analysis we aim to address these gaps using individual patient data of four large observational studies. Methods: In this pooled analysis we harmonised individual patient data from the ERICC, LUNG SAFE, PRoVENT, and PRoVENT-iMiC prospective observational studies, which were conducted from June, 2011, to December, 2018, in 534 ICUs in 54 countries. We used the 2016 World Bank classification to define two geoeconomic regions: middle-income countries (MICs) and high-income countries (HICs). ARDS was defined according to the Berlin criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patients in MICs versus HICs. The primary outcome was the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) for the first 3 days of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were key ventilation parameters (tidal volume size, positive end-expiratory pressure, fraction of inspired oxygen, peak pressure, plateau pressure, driving pressure, and respiratory rate), patient characteristics, the risk for and actual development of acute respiratory distress syndrome after the first day of ventilation, duration of ventilation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality. Findings: Of the 7608 patients included in the original studies, this analysis included 3852 patients without ARDS, of whom 2345 were from MICs and 1507 were from HICs. Patients in MICs were younger, shorter and with a slightly lower body-mass index, more often had diabetes and active cancer, but less often chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure than patients from HICs. Sequential organ failure assessment scores were similar in MICs and HICs. Use of LTVV in MICs and HICs was comparable (42\ub74% vs 44\ub72%; absolute difference \u20131\ub769 [\u20139\ub758 to 6\ub711] p=0\ub767; data available in 3174 [82%] of 3852 patients). The median applied positive end expiratory pressure was lower in MICs than in HICs (5 [IQR 5\u20138] vs 6 [5\u20138] cm H2O; p=0\ub70011). ICU mortality was higher in MICs than in HICs (30\ub75% vs 19\ub79%; p=0\ub70004; adjusted effect 16\ub741% [95% CI 9\ub752\u201323\ub752]; p<0\ub70001) and was inversely associated with gross domestic product (adjusted odds ratio for a US$10 000 increase per capita 0\ub780 [95% CI 0\ub775\u20130\ub786]; p<0\ub70001). Interpretation: Despite similar disease severity and ventilation management, ICU mortality in patients without ARDS is higher in MICs than in HICs, with a strong association with country-level economic status. Funding: No funding

Quetiapine versus haloperidol in the treatment of delirium: a double-blind, randomized, controlled trial

Benchalak Maneeton,1 Narong Maneeton,1 Manit Srisurapanont,1 Kaweesak Chittawatanarat2 1Department of Psychiatry, 2Department of Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand Background: Atypical antipsychotic drugs may have low propensity to induce extrapyramidal side effects in delirious patients. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and tolerability between quetiapine and haloperidol in controlling delirious behavior. Methods: A 7-day prospective, double-blind, randomized controlled trial was conducted from June 2009 to April 2011 in medically ill patients with delirium. Measures used for daily assessment included the Delirium Rating Scale-revised-98 (DRS-R-98) and total sleep time. The Clinical Global Impression, Improvement (CGI–I) and the Modified (nine-item) Simpson–Angus Scale were applied daily. The primary outcome was the DRS-R-98 severity scores. The data were analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Results: Fifty-two subjects (35 males and 17 females) were randomized to receive 25–100 mg/day of quetiapine (n = 24) or 0.5–2.0 mg/day of haloperidol (n = 28). Mean (standard deviation) doses of quetiapine and haloperidol were 67.6 (9.7) and 0.8 (0.3) mg/day, respectively. Over the trial period, means (standard deviation) of the DRS-R-98 severity scores were not significantly different between the quetiapine and haloperidol groups (-22.9 [6.9] versus -21.7 [6.7]; P = 0.59). The DRS-R-98 noncognitive and cognitive subscale scores were not significantly different. At end point, the response and remission rates, the total sleep time, and the Modified (nine-item) Simpson–Angus scores were also not significantly different between groups. Hypersomnia was common in the quetiapine-treated patients (33.3%), but not significantly higher than that in the haloperidol-treated group (21.4%). Limitations: Patients were excluded if they were not able to take oral medications, and the sample size was small. Conclusion: Low-dose quetiapine and haloperidol may be equally effective and safe for controlling delirium symptoms. Clinical trials registration number: clinicaltrials.gov NCT00954603. Keywords: delirium, quetiapine, haloperidol, extrapyramidal symptom