Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Critical Care 1/2019

Open Access 01.12.2019 | Letter

The place of dexmedetomidine light sedation in patients with acute brain injury

verfasst von: Simone Carelli, Gennaro De Pascale, Nicoletta Filetici, Maria Grazia Bocci, Gian Marco Maresca, Salvatore Lucio Cutuli, Cecilia Maria Pizzo, Giuseppe Bello, Luca Montini, Anselmo Caricato, Giorgio Conti, Massimo Antonelli

Erschienen in: Critical Care | Ausgabe 1/2019

Hinweise

Supplementary information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s13054-019-2637-9.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
To the Editor,
An individualized titration of sedative and analgesic drugs is pivotal in the late phase management of acute brain injury (ABI) patients, when weaning from mechanical ventilation (MV) needs to be implemented [1]. Due to its pharmacologic profile, dexmedetomidine (Dex) represents a drug of choice in such setting. Nevertheless, its use in ABI patients has been recently debated mainly as a consequence of its hemodynamic effects [2, 3]. The present study aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes and safety profile of Dex administration in this patients’ category.
We retrospectively analysed prospectively collected data on the main clinical features and adverse events observed during light sedation with dexmedetomidine (Dex-LS) in ICU patients with ABI. Light sedation was defined by the maintenance of a Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) score between 1 and − 2. The rate of potential side effects during Dex-LS was compared with the 6-h period before Dex initiation (see Additional file 1 for further details).
The main clinical and analgosedation characteristics of the 101 included patients are listed in Table 1. Traumatic ABI (77.2%) was the main admission diagnosis, and haemorrhage (59.4% of the cohort) was the most common admission feature (see Additional file 1: Table S1). Out of 101 patients, 80 were mechanically ventilated during Dex-LS. In most cases, dexmedetomidine was administered in association with other sedatives, opioids or antipsycotic drugs, for a median duration and dosage of 64 h and 0.6 μg/kg/h, respectively.
Table 1
Features of 101 patients undergoing Dex-LS
Clinical characteristics
 Age, years
53 [35–68]
 Male
84 (83.2)
 Neuro-psychiatric comorbidities
24 (23.8)
- Preesistent psychosis
12 (11.9)
- Preesistent dementia
5 (5)
- Preesistent epilepsy
7 (6.9)
 Traumatic brain injury (TBI)
78 (77.2)
- Isolated traumatic brain injury
14 (13.8)
- Polytrauma with traumatic brain injury
64 (63.4)
 Non-traumatic brain injury
23 (22.8)
 ISS at admission (TBI only)
23 [17–29]
 Head-AIS at admission (TBI only)
3 [2–4]
 GCS at admission*
10 [7–14]
 SAPS II at Dex-LS start
34 [26–44]
 SOFA at Dex-LS start
4 [3–7]
 MV at admission
91 (90.1)
 MV at Dex-LS start
80 (79.2)
 ICU LOS pre-Dex-LS, days
4 [2–8]
 ICU LOS post-Dex-LS, days
8 [3–15]
 ICU mortality
4 (4)
 Hospital mortality
8 (7.9)
 Hours of MV#
39 [12–72]
 MV in assisted mode#
71 (88.8)
 MV in assisted mode, hours#
24 [6–48]
 Successful weaning#
56 (70)
 Successful weaning in pts with previous weaning failure##
16 (57.1)
 Spontaneous breathing, hours#
25 [0–72]
Analgosedation details
 RASS
0 [− 1/0]
 Propofol co-infusion
35 (34.7)
 Midazolam co-infusion
0
 Remifentanil co-infusion
59 (58.4)
 Other opioids co-infusion**
15 (14.9)
 Antipsychotic drugs co-administration***
40 (39.6)
 Dex length of infusion, hours
64 [33–120]
 Dex start dosage, μg/kg/h
0.7 [0.5–0.9]
 Dex median dosage, μg/kg/h
0.6 [0.5–0.9]
 Dex maximum dosage, μg/kg/h
0.9 [0.6–1.2]
 Dex dosage at suspension, μg/kg/h
0.5 [0.3–0.8]
Hemodynamic parameters and adverse events (n = 101)
 
Pre-Dex infusion###
Dex-LS
P value
 RASS
− 2 [− 3/0]
0 [− 1/0]
< 0.001
 HR, bpm
78 [70–89]
80 [66–91]
0.165
 SAP, mmHg
133 [124–146]
139 [126–150]
0.136
 DAP, mmHg
65 [56–72]
69 [62–78]
< 0.001
 MAP, mmHg
85 [78–98]
90 [84–99]
0.039
 Bradycardia
2 (2)
23 (22.8)
< 0.001
- Bradycardia in pts receiving remifentanil co-infusion^
12 (20.3)
- Dex median dosage in pts with bradycardia, μg/kg/h^^
0.6 [0.4–0.9]
 Arterial hypotension requiring vasopressors
42 (41.6)
27 (26.7)
0.037
 Seizures
3 (3)
3 (3)
1
 ICP, mmHg*
9 [8–14]
8 [7–10]
0.164
Dex dexmedetomidine, LS light sedation, ISS Injury Severity Score, AIS Abbreviated Injury Scale, GCS Glasgow Coma Scale, SAPS II Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, SOFA Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, MV mechanical ventilation, LOS length of stay, RASS Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, HR heart rate, SAP systolic arterial pressure, DAP diastolic arterial pressure, MAP mean arterial pressure, ICP intracranial pressure, pts patients
Data are shown as median [IQR] or N (%)
*GCS at admission was available in 96 patients. ICP was monitored in 10 patients
**Sufentanil, morphine
***Haloperidol, quetiapine, chlorpromazine
#Eighty out of 101 patients were mechanically ventilated during Dex-LS
##Twenty-eight patients failed at least a weaning attempt before Dex-LS
###Data of 6-h pre-Dex infusion period were analysed
^Fifty-nine patients received remifentanil co-infusion
^^Twenty-three patients had bradycardia event(s)
Dexmedetomidine has been administered safely in our population of ABI patients. Dex infusion rate and duration were comparable with those previously described [2, 3]. The rate of systemic arterial hypotension was consistent with available findings [2, 3] and lower compared with the pre-infusion period. The 23% rate of bradycardia takes place in the wide range of occurrence reported in ABI patients [2]. Nevertheless, bradycardia never imposed dexmedetomidine interruption. These findings should be interpreted in the light of the relatively young age and low severity scores of our population, where Dex was frequently co-infused with other sedatives or opioids. Neither seizure rate nor intracranial pressure increased during Dex-LS, supporting the clinical absence of Dex impact on cerebral physiology [4].
During Dex-LS, the majority of patients were weaned from MV, including more than half who previously failed a weaning attempt. These observations are in line with the available evidence comparing Dex sedation with midazolam and propofol use, even though in ICU patients without ABI [5].
In conclusion, despite the intrinsic limitations of our retrospective design lacking a control group, this study suggests that when used to target light sedation in our cohort of ABI patients, dexmedetomidine was safe and enabled the weaning from MV and the maintenance of spontaneous breathing.

Supplementary information

Supplementary information accompanies this paper at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s13054-019-2637-9.

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.
The study was approved by the ethics committee of the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart (Prot. UCSC34998/18). Due to its observational, non-interventional design, informed consent was waived.
Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://​creativecommons.​org/​licenses/​by/​4.​0/​), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://​creativecommons.​org/​publicdomain/​zero/​1.​0/​) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Oddo M, Crippa IA, Mehta S, Menon D, Payen JF, Taccone FS, et al. Optimizing sedation in patients with acute brain injury. Crit Care. 2016;20:128.CrossRef Oddo M, Crippa IA, Mehta S, Menon D, Payen JF, Taccone FS, et al. Optimizing sedation in patients with acute brain injury. Crit Care. 2016;20:128.CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Tsaousi GG, Lamperti M, Bilotta F. Role of dexmedetomidine for sedation in neurocritical care patients: a qualitative systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidence. Clin Neuropharmacol. 2016;39:144–51.CrossRef Tsaousi GG, Lamperti M, Bilotta F. Role of dexmedetomidine for sedation in neurocritical care patients: a qualitative systematic review and meta-analysis of current evidence. Clin Neuropharmacol. 2016;39:144–51.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Humble SS, Wilson LD, Leath TC, Marshall MD, Sun DZ, Pandharipande PP, et al. ICU sedation with dexmedetomidine after severe traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2016;30:1266–70.CrossRef Humble SS, Wilson LD, Leath TC, Marshall MD, Sun DZ, Pandharipande PP, et al. ICU sedation with dexmedetomidine after severe traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj. 2016;30:1266–70.CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat James ML, Olson DM, Graffagnino C. A pilot study of cerebral and haemodynamic physiological changes during sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol in patients with acute brain injury. Anaesth Intensive Care 2012;40:949–957. James ML, Olson DM, Graffagnino C. A pilot study of cerebral and haemodynamic physiological changes during sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol in patients with acute brain injury. Anaesth Intensive Care 2012;40:949–957.
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Jakob SM, Ruokonen E, Grounds RM, Sarapohja T, Garratt C, Pocock SJ, et al. Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam or propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation: two randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2012;307:1151–60.CrossRef Jakob SM, Ruokonen E, Grounds RM, Sarapohja T, Garratt C, Pocock SJ, et al. Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam or propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation: two randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2012;307:1151–60.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
The place of dexmedetomidine light sedation in patients with acute brain injury
verfasst von
Simone Carelli
Gennaro De Pascale
Nicoletta Filetici
Maria Grazia Bocci
Gian Marco Maresca
Salvatore Lucio Cutuli
Cecilia Maria Pizzo
Giuseppe Bello
Luca Montini
Anselmo Caricato
Giorgio Conti
Massimo Antonelli
Publikationsdatum
01.12.2019
Verlag
BioMed Central
Erschienen in
Critical Care / Ausgabe 1/2019
Elektronische ISSN: 1364-8535
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-019-2637-9

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 1/2019

Critical Care 1/2019 Zur Ausgabe

Update AINS

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.