2 research outputs found

    Efficacy of haloperidol to decrease the burden of delirium in adult critically ill patients:the EuRIDICE randomized clinical trial

    Get PDF
    Background:The role of haloperidol as treatment for ICU delirium and related symptoms remains controversial despite two recent large controlled trials evaluating its efficacy and safety. We sought to determine whether haloperidol when compared to placebo in critically ill adults with delirium reduces days with delirium and coma and improves delirium-related sequelae.Methods:This multi-center double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial at eight mixed medical-surgical Dutch ICUs included critically ill adults with delirium (Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist ≥ 4 or a positive Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU) admitted between February 2018 and January 2020. Patients were randomized to intravenous haloperidol 2.5 mg or placebo every 8 h, titrated up to 5 mg every 8 h if delirium persisted until ICU discharge or up to 14 days. The primary outcome was ICU delirium- and coma-free days (DCFDs) within 14 days after randomization. Predefined secondary outcomes included the protocolized use of sedatives for agitation and related behaviors, patient-initiated extubation and invasive device removal, adverse drug associated events, mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, 28-day mortality, and long-term outcomes up to 1-year after randomization.Results:The trial was terminated prematurely for primary endpoint futility on DSMB advice after enrolment of 132 (65 haloperidol; 67 placebo) patients [mean age 64 (15) years, APACHE IV score 73.1 (33.9), male 68%]. Haloperidol did not increase DCFDs (adjusted RR 0.98 [95% CI 0.73–1.31], p = 0.87). Patients treated with haloperidol (vs. placebo) were less likely to receive benzodiazepines (adjusted OR 0.41 [95% CI 0.18–0.89], p = 0.02). Effect measures of other secondary outcomes related to agitation (use of open label haloperidol [OR 0.43 (95% CI 0.12–1.56)] and other antipsychotics [OR 0.63 (95% CI 0.29–1.32)], self-extubation or invasive device removal [OR 0.70 (95% CI 0.22–2.18)]) appeared consistently more favorable with haloperidol, but the confidence interval also included harm. Adverse drug events were not different. Long-term secondary outcomes (e.g., ICU recall and quality of life) warrant further study.Conclusions:Haloperidol does not reduce delirium in critically ill delirious adults. However, it may reduce rescue medication requirements and agitation-related events in delirious ICU patients warranting further evaluation.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (#NCT03628391), October 9, 2017

    A study protocol to develop and test an e‐health intervention in follow‐up service for intensive care survivors' relatives

    Get PDF
    Background: The negative impact on long-term health-related outcomes among relatives of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) has been well described. High-quality ICU specialized follow-up care, which is easily accessible with digital innovation and which is designed by and with relevant stakeholders (i.e., ICU patients' relatives and nurses), should be considered to reduce these impairments in the psychological and social domains. Aim: The programme's aim is to develop and test an e-health intervention in a follow-up service to support ICU patients' relatives. Here, the protocol for the overall study programme will be described. Study Design: The overall study comprises a mixed-methods, multicentre research design with qualitative and quantitative study parts. The study population is ICU patients' adult relatives and ICU nurses. The main outcomes are the experiences of these stakeholders with the newly developed e-health intervention. There will be no predefined selection based on age, gender, and level of education to maximize diversity throughout the study programme. After the participants provide informed consent, data will be gathered through focus groups (n = 5) among relatives and individual interviews (n = 20) among nurses exploring the needs and priorities of a digital follow-up service. The findings will be explored further for priority considerations among members of the patient/relative organization (aiming n = 150), which will serve as a basis for digital prototypes of the e-health intervention. Assessment of the intervention will be followed during an iterative process with investigator-developed questionnaires. Finally, symptoms of anxiety and depression will be measured with the 14-item Dutch version of the ‘Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale’, and symptoms of posttraumatic stress will be measured with the 21-item Dutch version of the ‘Impact of Events Scale-Revised’ to indicate the effectiveness of digital support among ICU patients' relatives. Relevance to Clinical Practice: The e-health intervention to be developed during this research programme can possibly bridge the gap in integrated ICU follow-up care by providing relevant information, self-monitoring and stimulating self-care among ICU patients' relatives
    corecore