The influence of analgesic-based sedation protocols on delirium and outcomes in critically ill patients: A randomized controlled trial

<div><p>Objective</p><p>To investigate the influence of analgesic-based midazolam sedation on delirium and outcomes in critically ill patients and to analyze the risk factors of delirium.</p><p>Design</p><p>Single center, prospective randomized controlled trial.</p><p>Setting</p><p>A surgical intensive care unit (ICU) in a tertiary care hospital in China.</p><p>Patients</p><p>Mechanically ventilated patients requiring sedation.</p><p>Measurements and main results</p><p>Patients admitted to the surgical intensive care unit who required sedation and were undergoing mechanical ventilation for longer than 24 hours were randomly divided into three groups: 1) the remifentanil group received remifentanil and midazolam, 2) the fentanyl group received fentanyl and midazolam, and 3) the control group received only midazolam. The analgesic effect, sedation depth, and presence of delirium were evaluated. To compare the effect of different therapies on the occurrence of delirium, days of mechanical ventilation, length of the ICU stay, and 28-day mortality were measured along with the risk factors for delirium. A total of 105 patients were enrolled, and 35 patients were included in each group. Compared to the control group, patients who received remifentanil and fentanyl required less midazolam each day (P = 0.038 and <0.001, respectively). Remifentanil has a significant effect on reducing the occurrence of delirium (P = 0.007). The logistic regression analysis of delirium demonstrated that remifentanil (OR 0.230, 95%Cl 0.074–0.711, P = 0.011) is independent protective factors for delirium, and high APACHE II score (OR 1.103, 95%Cl 1.007–1.208, P = 0.036) is the independent risk factor for delirium.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>Remifentanil and fentanyl can reduce the amount of midazolam required, and remifentanil could further reduce the occurrence of delirium.</p></div

Child-Pugh score.

<p>Child-Pugh score.</p

Deceased vs. surviving patients.

<p>Deceased vs. surviving patients.</p

Deceased vs. surviving patients.

<p>Deceased vs. surviving patients.</p

Comparison of predicted (red) and native structures (green) of target 1yfjD (DAM).

<p>Native structure and DNA are represented by green and orange, respectively. The predicted structure and DNA are denoted by color red and grey. The predicted binding sites and native binding sites are in cyan and yellow colors, respectively.</p

Performance of various methods for predicting DNA-binding proteins.

a<p>SN, sensitivity; PR, precision; SP, specificity; ACC, accuracy; MCC, Matthews correlation coefficient.^bMethods based on known protein structures. ^cFrom Ref. <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0096694#pone.0096694-Gao2" target="_blank">[47]</a>^dfrom Ref. <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0096694#pone.0096694-Zhao1" target="_blank">[53]</a>. ^efrom Ref. <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0096694#pone.0096694-Gao3" target="_blank">[48]</a>.</p

Performance of various methods for DNA-binding protein prediction (leave-one-out cross validation).

<p>Performance of various methods for DNA-binding protein prediction (leave-one-out cross validation).</p

Detecting DBPs in 18 structural folds shared by DNA-binding and non-binding proteins.

<p>Detecting DBPs in 18 structural folds shared by DNA-binding and non-binding proteins.</p

Consort 2010 flow diagram.

<p>Consort 2010 flow diagram.</p

Risk factors for delirium.

<p>Risk factors for delirium.</p