氯胺酮镇静治疗机械通气的成人重症患者:沙特重症监护学会和斯堪的纳维亚麻醉学和重症监护医学会的快速实践指南。

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Pub Date : 2024-08-28 DOI:10.1111/aas.14470
Marwa Amer, Morten Hylander Møller, Mohammed Alshahrani, Yahya Shehabi, Yaseen M Arabi, Fayez Alshamsi, Martin Ingi Sigurðsson, Marius Rehn, Michelle S Chew, Maija-Liisa Kalliomäki, Kimberley Lewis, Faisal A Al-Suwaidan, Hasan M Al-Dorzi, Abdulrahman Al-Fares, Naif Alsadoon, Carolyn M Bell, Christine M Groth, Rachael Parke, Sangeeta Mehta, Paul E Wischmeyer, Awad Omeri, Klaus T Olkkola, Waleed Alhazzani
{"title":"氯胺酮镇静治疗机械通气的成人重症患者:沙特重症监护学会和斯堪的纳维亚麻醉学和重症监护医学会的快速实践指南。","authors":"Marwa Amer, Morten Hylander Møller, Mohammed Alshahrani, Yahya Shehabi, Yaseen M Arabi, Fayez Alshamsi, Martin Ingi Sigurðsson, Marius Rehn, Michelle S Chew, Maija-Liisa Kalliomäki, Kimberley Lewis, Faisal A Al-Suwaidan, Hasan M Al-Dorzi, Abdulrahman Al-Fares, Naif Alsadoon, Carolyn M Bell, Christine M Groth, Rachael Parke, Sangeeta Mehta, Paul E Wischmeyer, Awad Omeri, Klaus T Olkkola, Waleed Alhazzani","doi":"10.1111/aas.14470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This Rapid Practice Guideline (RPG) aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for ketamine analgo-sedation (monotherapy and adjunct) versus non-ketamine sedatives or usual care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients on invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV) and to identify knowledge gaps for future research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The RPG panel comprised 23 multinational multidisciplinary panelists, including a patient representative. An up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis constituted the evidence base. The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, and the evidence-to-decision framework were used to assess the certainty of evidence and to move from evidence to decision/recommendation. The panel provided input on the balance of the desirable and undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs, resources, equity, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 17 randomized clinical trials (n = 898) and nine observational studies (n = 1934) were included. There was considerable uncertainty about the desirable and undesirable effects of ketamine monotherapy for analgo-sedation. The evidence was very low certainty and downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency. Uncertainty or variability in values and preferences were identified. Costs, resources, equity, and acceptability were considered varied. Adjunctive ketamine therapy had no effect on mortality (within 28 days) (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.27; low certainty), and may slightly reduce iMV duration (days) (mean difference [MD] -0.05 days; 95% CI -0.07 to -0.03; low certainty), and uncertain effect on the cumulative dose of opioids (mcg/kg/h morphine equivalent) (MD -11.6; 95% CI -20.4 to -2.7; very low certainty). Uncertain desirable effects (cumulative dose of sedatives and vasopressors) and undesirable effects (adverse event rate, delirium, arrhythmia, hepatotoxicity, hypersalivation, use of physical restraints) were also identified. A possibility of important uncertainty or variability in patient-important outcomes led to a balanced effect that favored neither the intervention nor the comparison. Cost, resources, and equity were considered varied.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The RPG panel provided two conditional recommendations and suggested (1) against using ketamine as monotherapy analgo-sedation in critically ill adults on iMV when other analgo-sedatives are available; and (2) using ketamine as an adjunct to non-ketamine usual care sedatives (e.g., opioids, propofol, dexmedetomidine) or continuing with non-ketamine usual care sedatives alone. Large-scale trials should provide additional evidence.</p>","PeriodicalId":6909,"journal":{"name":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ketamine analgo-sedation for mechanically ventilated critically ill adults: A rapid practice guideline from the Saudi Critical Care Society and the Scandinavian Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine.\",\"authors\":\"Marwa Amer, Morten Hylander Møller, Mohammed Alshahrani, Yahya Shehabi, Yaseen M Arabi, Fayez Alshamsi, Martin Ingi Sigurðsson, Marius Rehn, Michelle S Chew, Maija-Liisa Kalliomäki, Kimberley Lewis, Faisal A Al-Suwaidan, Hasan M Al-Dorzi, Abdulrahman Al-Fares, Naif Alsadoon, Carolyn M Bell, Christine M Groth, Rachael Parke, Sangeeta Mehta, Paul E Wischmeyer, Awad Omeri, Klaus T Olkkola, Waleed Alhazzani\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/aas.14470\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This Rapid Practice Guideline (RPG) aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for ketamine analgo-sedation (monotherapy and adjunct) versus non-ketamine sedatives or usual care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients on invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV) and to identify knowledge gaps for future research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The RPG panel comprised 23 multinational multidisciplinary panelists, including a patient representative. An up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis constituted the evidence base. The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, and the evidence-to-decision framework were used to assess the certainty of evidence and to move from evidence to decision/recommendation. The panel provided input on the balance of the desirable and undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs, resources, equity, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data from 17 randomized clinical trials (n = 898) and nine observational studies (n = 1934) were included. There was considerable uncertainty about the desirable and undesirable effects of ketamine monotherapy for analgo-sedation. The evidence was very low certainty and downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency. Uncertainty or variability in values and preferences were identified. Costs, resources, equity, and acceptability were considered varied. Adjunctive ketamine therapy had no effect on mortality (within 28 days) (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.27; low certainty), and may slightly reduce iMV duration (days) (mean difference [MD] -0.05 days; 95% CI -0.07 to -0.03; low certainty), and uncertain effect on the cumulative dose of opioids (mcg/kg/h morphine equivalent) (MD -11.6; 95% CI -20.4 to -2.7; very low certainty). Uncertain desirable effects (cumulative dose of sedatives and vasopressors) and undesirable effects (adverse event rate, delirium, arrhythmia, hepatotoxicity, hypersalivation, use of physical restraints) were also identified. A possibility of important uncertainty or variability in patient-important outcomes led to a balanced effect that favored neither the intervention nor the comparison. Cost, resources, and equity were considered varied.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The RPG panel provided two conditional recommendations and suggested (1) against using ketamine as monotherapy analgo-sedation in critically ill adults on iMV when other analgo-sedatives are available; and (2) using ketamine as an adjunct to non-ketamine usual care sedatives (e.g., opioids, propofol, dexmedetomidine) or continuing with non-ketamine usual care sedatives alone. Large-scale trials should provide additional evidence.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":6909,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.14470\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aas.14470","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本快速实践指南(RPG)旨在为接受有创机械通气(iMV)的成人重症监护病房(ICU)患者提供氯胺酮镇静剂(单药和辅助)与非氯胺酮镇静剂或常规护理的循证建议,并确定未来研究的知识缺口:RPG小组由23名多国多学科专家组成,其中包括一名患者代表。最新的系统综述和荟萃分析构成了证据基础。分级建议、评估、发展和评价方法以及证据到决策框架被用于评估证据的确定性以及从证据到决策/建议的转变。专家组就理想与不理想效果的平衡、证据的确定性、患者的价值观和偏好、成本、资源、公平性、可行性、可接受性以及研究重点等方面提出了意见:纳入了 17 项随机临床试验(n = 898)和 9 项观察性研究(n = 1934)的数据。氯胺酮单一疗法用于镇静的理想效果和不良效果存在相当大的不确定性。证据的确定性很低,并因偏倚风险、间接性和不一致性而被降级。在价值观和偏好方面存在不确定性或变异性。成本、资源、公平性和可接受性被认为是多种多样的。辅助氯胺酮疗法对死亡率(28 天内)没有影响(相对风险 [RR] 0.99;95% 置信区间 [CI] 0.76 至 1.27;低确定性),可能会略微缩短 iMV 持续时间(天数)(平均差 [MD] -0.05 天;95% 置信区间 [CI] -0.07 至 -0.03;低确定性),对阿片类药物累积剂量(微克/千克/小时吗啡当量)的影响不确定(MD -11.6;95% 置信区间 [CI] -20.4 至 -2.7;极低确定性)。此外,还发现了不确定的理想效应(镇静剂和血管加压剂的累积剂量)和不良效应(不良事件发生率、谵妄、心律失常、肝中毒、唾液分泌过多、使用物理约束)。患者重要结果中可能存在重要的不确定性或变异性,这就导致了平衡效应,既不倾向于干预,也不倾向于比较。成本、资源和公平性也被考虑在内:RPG小组提出了两项有条件的建议,并建议:(1) 在有其他镇静剂可用的情况下,不要将氯胺酮作为iMV重症成人患者的单药镇静剂;(2) 将氯胺酮作为非氯胺酮常规护理镇静剂(如阿片类药物、异丙酚、右美托咪定)的辅助用药,或继续单独使用非氯胺酮常规护理镇静剂。大规模试验应能提供更多证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Ketamine analgo-sedation for mechanically ventilated critically ill adults: A rapid practice guideline from the Saudi Critical Care Society and the Scandinavian Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine.

Background: This Rapid Practice Guideline (RPG) aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for ketamine analgo-sedation (monotherapy and adjunct) versus non-ketamine sedatives or usual care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients on invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV) and to identify knowledge gaps for future research.

Methods: The RPG panel comprised 23 multinational multidisciplinary panelists, including a patient representative. An up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis constituted the evidence base. The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, and the evidence-to-decision framework were used to assess the certainty of evidence and to move from evidence to decision/recommendation. The panel provided input on the balance of the desirable and undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs, resources, equity, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities.

Results: Data from 17 randomized clinical trials (n = 898) and nine observational studies (n = 1934) were included. There was considerable uncertainty about the desirable and undesirable effects of ketamine monotherapy for analgo-sedation. The evidence was very low certainty and downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency. Uncertainty or variability in values and preferences were identified. Costs, resources, equity, and acceptability were considered varied. Adjunctive ketamine therapy had no effect on mortality (within 28 days) (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.27; low certainty), and may slightly reduce iMV duration (days) (mean difference [MD] -0.05 days; 95% CI -0.07 to -0.03; low certainty), and uncertain effect on the cumulative dose of opioids (mcg/kg/h morphine equivalent) (MD -11.6; 95% CI -20.4 to -2.7; very low certainty). Uncertain desirable effects (cumulative dose of sedatives and vasopressors) and undesirable effects (adverse event rate, delirium, arrhythmia, hepatotoxicity, hypersalivation, use of physical restraints) were also identified. A possibility of important uncertainty or variability in patient-important outcomes led to a balanced effect that favored neither the intervention nor the comparison. Cost, resources, and equity were considered varied.

Conclusion: The RPG panel provided two conditional recommendations and suggested (1) against using ketamine as monotherapy analgo-sedation in critically ill adults on iMV when other analgo-sedatives are available; and (2) using ketamine as an adjunct to non-ketamine usual care sedatives (e.g., opioids, propofol, dexmedetomidine) or continuing with non-ketamine usual care sedatives alone. Large-scale trials should provide additional evidence.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.50%
发文量
157
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica publishes papers on original work in the fields of anaesthesiology, intensive care, pain, emergency medicine, and subjects related to their basic sciences, on condition that they are contributed exclusively to this Journal. Case reports and short communications may be considered for publication if of particular interest; also letters to the Editor, especially if related to already published material. The editorial board is free to discuss the publication of reviews on current topics, the choice of which, however, is the prerogative of the board. Every effort will be made by the Editors and selected experts to expedite a critical review of manuscripts in order to ensure rapid publication of papers of a high scientific standard.
期刊最新文献
Prevalence and etiology of ventilator-associated pneumonia during the COVID-19 pandemic in Denmark: Wave-dependent lessons learned from a mixed-ICU. Lack of correlation between biomarkers and acute kidney injury after pediatric cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass: Should be look for something else? Quantity: More markers, more merit Serious adverse events reporting in recent randomised clinical trials in intensive care medicine – A methodological study protocol In-hospital cardiac arrest registries and aetiology of cardiac arrest.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1