28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Haloperidol and Ziprasidone for Treatment of Delirium in Critical Illness

      1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1 , 1
      New England Journal of Medicine
      New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM/MMS)

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Efficacy and safety of a paired sedation and ventilator weaning protocol for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care (Awakening and Breathing Controlled trial): a randomised controlled trial.

          Approaches to removal of sedation and mechanical ventilation for critically ill patients vary widely. Our aim was to assess a protocol that paired spontaneous awakening trials (SATs)-ie, daily interruption of sedatives-with spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs). In four tertiary-care hospitals, we randomly assigned 336 mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care to management with a daily SAT followed by an SBT (intervention group; n=168) or with sedation per usual care plus a daily SBT (control group; n=168). The primary endpoint was time breathing without assistance. Data were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00097630. One patient in the intervention group did not begin their assigned treatment protocol because of withdrawal of consent and thus was excluded from analyses and lost to follow-up. Seven patients in the control group discontinued their assigned protocol, and two of these patients were lost to follow-up. Patients in the intervention group spent more days breathing without assistance during the 28-day study period than did those in the control group (14.7 days vs 11.6 days; mean difference 3.1 days, 95% CI 0.7 to 5.6; p=0.02) and were discharged from intensive care (median time in intensive care 9.1 days vs 12.9 days; p=0.01) and the hospital earlier (median time in the hospital 14.9 days vs 19.2 days; p=0.04). More patients in the intervention group self-extubated than in the control group (16 patients vs six patients; 6.0% difference, 95% CI 0.6% to 11.8%; p=0.03), but the number of patients who required reintubation after self-extubation was similar (five patients vs three patients; 1.2% difference, 95% CI -5.2% to 2.5%; p=0.47), as were total reintubation rates (13.8%vs 12.5%; 1.3% difference, 95% CI -8.6% to 6.1%; p=0.73). At any instant during the year after enrolment, patients in the intervention group were less likely to die than were patients in the control group (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92; p=0.01). For every seven patients treated with the intervention, one life was saved (number needed to treat was 7.4, 95% CI 4.2 to 35.5). Our results suggest that a wake up and breathe protocol that pairs daily spontaneous awakening trials (ie, interruption of sedatives) with daily spontaneous breathing trials results in better outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care than current standard approaches and should become routine practice.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Atypical antipsychotic drugs and the risk of sudden cardiac death.

            Users of typical antipsychotic drugs have an increased risk of serious ventricular arrhythmias and sudden cardiac death. However, less is known regarding the cardiac safety of the atypical antipsychotic drugs, which have largely replaced the older agents in clinical practice. We calculated the adjusted incidence of sudden cardiac death among current users of antipsychotic drugs in a retrospective cohort study of Medicaid enrollees in Tennessee. The primary analysis included 44,218 and 46,089 baseline users of single typical and atypical drugs, respectively, and 186,600 matched nonusers of antipsychotic drugs. To assess residual confounding related to factors associated with the use of antipsychotic drugs, we performed a secondary analysis of users of antipsychotic drugs who had no baseline diagnosis of schizophrenia or related psychoses and with whom nonusers were matched according to propensity score (i.e., the predicted probability that they would be users of antipsychotic drugs). Current users of typical and of atypical antipsychotic drugs had higher rates of sudden cardiac death than did nonusers of antipsychotic drugs, with adjusted incidence-rate ratios of 1.99 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.68 to 2.34) and 2.26 (95% CI, 1.88 to 2.72), respectively. The incidence-rate ratio for users of atypical antipsychotic drugs as compared with users of typical antipsychotic drugs was 1.14 (95% CI, 0.93 to 1.39). Former users of antipsychotic drugs had no significantly increased risk (incidence-rate ratio, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.98 to 1.30). For both classes of drugs, the risk for current users increased significantly with an increasing dose. Among users of typical antipsychotic drugs, the incidence-rate ratios increased from 1.31 (95% CI, 0.97 to 1.77) for those taking low doses to 2.42 (95% CI, 1.91 to 3.06) for those taking high doses (P<0.001). Among users of atypical agents, the incidence-rate ratios increased from 1.59 (95% CI, 1 .03 to 2.46) for those taking low doses to 2.86 (95% CI, 2.25 to 3.65) for those taking high doses (P=0.01). The findings were similar in the cohort that was matched for propensity score. Current users of typical and of atypical antipsychotic drugs had a similar, dose-related increased risk of sudden cardiac death. 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Caring for Critically Ill Patients with the ABCDEF Bundle

              Decades-old, common ICU practices including deep sedation, immobilization, and limited family access are being challenged. We endeavoured to evaluate the relationship between ABCDEF bundle performance and patient-centered outcomes in critical care.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                New England Journal of Medicine
                N Engl J Med
                New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM/MMS)
                0028-4793
                1533-4406
                October 22 2018
                October 22 2018
                Affiliations
                [1 ]From the Clinical Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness Center, Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh (T.D.G.); the Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine Division, Department of Medicine, Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, Columbus (M.C.E.), and the Department of Critical Care Medicine, Respiratory Institute, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland (R.D.H.) — both in Ohio; the Division of Pulmonary and...
                Article
                10.1056/NEJMoa1808217
                30346242
                b774762f-9c52-440d-85bd-0ce1a5675f41
                © 2018

                http://www.nejmgroup.org/legal/terms-of-use.htm

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article