MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114678500 · doi:10.1186/cc9200

Clearing up the confusion: The results of two pilot studies of antipsychotics for ICU delirium

2010· letter· en· W2114678500 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zaher Qassem, Eric B Milbrandt

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Care · 2010
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeliriumMedicinePlaceboSedationIntensive care unitHaloperidolIntensive careComa (optics)Organic mental disordersAdverse effectAnesthesiaRandomized controlled trialMechanical ventilationEmergency medicineIntensive care medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Expanded AbstractCitation #1Girard TD, Pandharipande PP, Carson SS, Schmidt GA, Wright PE, Canonico AE, Pun BT, Thompson JL, ShintaniAK, Meltzer HY, Bernard GR, Ditt us RS, Ely EW: Feasibility, efficacy, and safety of antipsychotics for intensive care unit delirium: the MIND randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Crit Care Med 2010, 38:428-437 [1].BackgroundGiven the lack of compelling evidence supporting the use of antipsychotics for delirium in critically ill patients and the potential adverse effects associated with these medications, placebo-controlled clinical trials are greatly needed.MethodsObjectiveTo demonstrate the feasibility of a placebo-controlled trial of antipsychotics for delirium in the intensive care unit and to test the hypothesis that antipsychotics would improve days alive without delirium or coma.DesignRandomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.SettingSix tertiary care medical centers in the US.SubjectsOne hundred one mechanically ventilated medical and surgical intensive care unit patients.InterventionPatients were randomly assigned to receive haloperidol or ziprasidone or placebo every 6 hrs for up to 14 days. Twice each day, frequency of study drug administration was adjusted according to delirium status, level of sedation, and side effects.OutcomesThe primary end point was the number of days patients were alive without delirium or coma. Secondary efficacy end points included daily delirium risk, duration of delirium, duration of coma, the number of days patients were alive and breathing without assistance during the 21-day study period (ventilator-free days), time to ICU and hospital discharge, and all-cause 21-day survival.ResultsDuring the 21-day study period, patients in the haloperidol group spent a similar number days alive without delirium or coma (median [inter quartile range], 14.0 [6.0-18.0] days) as did patients in the ziprasidone (15.0 [9.1-18.0] days) and placebo groups (12.5 [1.2-17.2] days; p = 0.66). No differences were found in secondary clinical outcomes, including ventilator-free days (p = .25), hospital length of stay (p = .68), and mortality (p = .81). Ten (29%) patients in the haloperidol group reported symptoms consistent with akathisia, compared with six (20%) patients in the ziprasidone group and seven (19%) patients in the placebo group (p = .60), and a global measure of extra pyramidal symptoms was similar between treatment groups (p = .46).ConclusionsA randomized, placebo-controlled trial of antipsychotics for delirium in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients is feasible. Treatment with antipsychotics in this limited pilot trial did not improve the number of days alive without delirium or coma, nor did it increase adverse outcomes. Thus, a large trial is needed to determine whether use of antipsychotics for intensive care unit delirium is appropriate.Citation #2Devlin JW, Roberts RJ, Fong JJ, Skrobik Y, Riker RR, Hill NS, Robbins T, Garpestad E: Efficacy and safety of quetiapine in critically ill patients with delirium: a prospective, multi center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study. Crit Care Med 2010, 38:419-427 [2].BackgroundTo date, there are no published double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials to establish the efficacy or safety of any antipsychotic medication in the management of delirium in the ICU.MethodsObjectiveTo compare the efficacy and safety of scheduled quetiapine to placebo for the treatment of delirium in critically ill patients requiring as-needed haloperidol.DesignProspective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.SettingThree academic medical centers in the US and Canada.SubjectsThirty-six adult intensive care unit patients with delirium (Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist score > = 4), tolerating enteral nutrition, and without a complicating neurologic condition.InterventionPatients were randomized to receive quetiapine 50 mg every 12 hrs or placebo. Quetiapine was increased every 24 hrs (50 to 100 to 150 to 200 m gevery 12 hrs) if more than one dose of haloperidol was given in the previous 24 hrs. Study drug was continued until the intensive care unit team discontinued it because of delirium resolution, therapy > = 10 days, or intensive care unit discharge.OutcomesThe primary end point was time to first resolution of delirium. Secondary outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU and hospital length of stay, hospital mortality, and discharge disposition. Measures of safety included total number of adverse and serious adverse events related to study drug, incidence of extra pyramidal symptoms, and episodes of QTc interval prolongation.ResultsBaseline characteristics were similar between the quetiapine (n = 18) and placebo (n = 18) groups. Quetiapine was associated with a shorter time to first resolution of delirium [1.0 (inter quartile range [IQR], 0.5-3.0) vs. 4.5 days (IQR, 2.0-7.0; p = .001)], a reduced duration of delirium [36 (IQR, 12-87) vs. 120 hrs (IQR, 60-195; p = .006)], and less agitation (Sedation-Agitation Scale score > = 5) [6 (IQR, 0-38) vs. 36 hrs (IQR, 11-66; p = .02)]. Whereas mortality (11% quetiapine vs. 17%) and intensive care unit length of stay (16 quetiapine vs. 16 days) were similar, subjects treated with quetiapine were more likely to be discharged home or to rehabilitation (89% quetiapine vs. 56%; p = .06). Subjects treated with quetiapine required fewer days of as-needed haloperidol [3 [(IQR, 2-4)] vs. 4 days (IQR, 3-8; p = .05)]. Whereas the incidence of QTc prolongation and extrapyramidal symptoms was similar between groups, more somnolence was observed with quetiapine (22% vs. 11%; p = .66).ConclusionsQuetiapine added to as-needed haloperidol results in faster delirium resolution, less agitation, and a greater rate of transfer to home or rehabilitation. Future studies should evaluate the effect of quetiapine on mortality, resource utilization, post-intensive care unit cognition, and dependency after discharge in a broader group of patients.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.115
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical CareSame topicIntensive Care Unit Cognitive DisordersFrench-language works237,207