Dataset Information

Haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Haloperidol is frequently used in critically ill patients with delirium, but evidence for its effects has been sparse and inconclusive. By including recent trials, we updated a systematic review assessing effects of haloperidol on mortality and serious adverse events in critically ill patients with delirium.

Methods

This is an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials investigating haloperidol versus placebo or any comparator in critically ill patients with delirium. We adhered to the Cochrane handbook, the PRISMA guidelines and the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation statements. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and proportion of patients with one or more serious adverse events or reactions (SAEs/SARs). Secondary outcomes were days alive without delirium or coma, delirium severity, cognitive function and health-related quality of life.

Results

We included 11 RCTs with 15 comparisons (n = 2200); five were placebo-controlled. The relative risk for mortality with haloperidol versus placebo was 0.89; 96.7% CI 0.77 to 1.03; I² = 0% (moderate-certainty evidence) and for proportion of patients experiencing SAEs/SARs 0.94; 96.7% CI 0.81 to 1.10; I² = 18% (low-certainty evidence). We found no difference in days alive without delirium or coma (moderate-certainty evidence). We found sparse data for other secondary outcomes and other comparators than placebo.

Conclusions

Haloperidol may reduce mortality and likely result in little to no change in the occurrence of SAEs/SARs compared with placebo in critically ill patients with delirium. However, the results were not statistically significant and more trial data are needed to provide higher certainty for the effects of haloperidol in these patients.

Trial registration

CRD42017081133, date of registration 28 November 2017.

SUBMITTER: Andersen-Ranberg NC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10463604 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Andersen-Ranberg Nina Christine NC Barbateskovic Marija M Perner Anders A Oxenbøll Collet Marie M Musaeus Poulsen Lone L van der Jagt Mathieu M Smit Lisa L Wetterslev Jørn J Mathiesen Ole O Maagaard Mathias M

Critical care (London, England) 20230826 1

<h4>Background</h4>Haloperidol is frequently used in critically ill patients with delirium, but evidence for its effects has been sparse and inconclusive. By including recent trials, we updated a systematic review assessing effects of haloperidol on mortality and serious adverse events in critically ill patients with delirium.<h4>Methods</h4>This is an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials investigating haloperidol versus placebo ...[more]

PMID: 37633991

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundUp to 80% of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) suffer from delirium. Studies on the preventative use of melatonin in the ICU have produced mixed results. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate whether early administration of melatonin reduces the prevalence of delirium in critically ill patients.MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials comparing melatonin or melatonin agonists to placebo in ICU setting. The population included adult patients in the ICU. The primary outcome was the prevalence of delirium. Secondary outcomes included duration of delirium, delirium-free day, serum melatonin concentration, need for sedation, duration of mechanical ventilation, hospital and ICU length of stay (LOS), all-cause mortality, sleep quality, and adverse events. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was performed on the primary outcome to prevent the risk of random error and multiplicity phenomenon as a result of repeated significance testing across all the included trials.ResultsTwelve trials with a total of 2538 patients were analyzed. When all trials were pooled, the incidence of delirium in ICU patients who received melatonin was significantly lower than in those who received placebo (risk ratio, 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.61-0.96; I2 = 56%). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes including duration of delirium, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU LOS, hospital LOS, and mortality. TSA indicated that Z-curve crossed the traditional boundary, but did not cross the monitoring boundary for benefit, which indicated that it is still inconclusive that melatonin affects the incidence of delirium.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis found that early administration of melatonin may result in a decreased delirium prevalence in critically ill patients. However, the sensitivity analysis of high-quality studies did not support this finding. In addition, TSA demonstrated that the result may have false-positive error. Therefore, this finding should be interpreted with caution. Further studies are needed to examine the effectiveness of prophylactic melatonin on the prevalence and duration of ICU delirium in the future.

Project description:BackgroundOur previous study in 2011 concluded that permissive underfeeding may improve outcomes in patients receiving parenteral nutrition therapy. This conclusion was tentative, given the small sample size. We conducted the present systematic review and trial sequential meta-analysis to update the status of permissive underfeeding in patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsSeven databases were searched: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and Cochrane Library. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (ROB 2) was used to assess the risk of bias in the enrolled trials. RevMan software was used for data synthesis. Trial sequential analyses (TSA) of overall and ICU mortalities were performed.ResultsTwenty-three RCTs involving 11,444 critically ill patients were included. There were no significant differences in overall mortality, hospital mortality, length of hospital stays, and incidence of overall infection. Compared with the control group, permissive underfeeding significantly reduced ICU mortality (risk ratio [RR] = 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], [0.81, 0.99]; P = 0.02; I2 = 0%), and the incidence of gastrointestinal adverse events decreased (RR = 0.79; 95% CI, [0.69, 0.90]; P = 0.0003; I2 = 56%). Furthermore, mechanical ventilation duration was reduced (mean difference (MD) = - 1.85 days; 95% CI, [- 3.44, - 0.27]; P = 0.02; I2 = 0%).ConclusionsPermissive underfeeding may reduce ICU mortality in critically ill patients and help to shorten mechanical ventilation duration, but the overall mortality is not improved. Owing to the sample size and patient heterogeneity, the conclusions still need to be verified by well-designed, large-scale RCTs. Trial Registration The protocol for our meta-analysis and systematic review was registered and recorded in PROSPERO (registration no. CRD42023451308). Registered 14 August 2023.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the benefits and harms of antithrombin III in critically ill patients.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.Data sourcesCENTRAL, Medline, Embase, International Web of Science, LILACS, the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and CINHAL (to November 2006); hand search of reference lists, contact with authors and experts, and search of registers of ongoing trials.Review methodsTwo reviewers independently selected parallel group randomised clinical trials comparing antithrombin with placebo or no intervention and extracted data related to study methods, interventions, outcomes, bias risk, and adverse events. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Trials in any type of critically ill patients in intensive care were eligible. All trials, irrespective of blinding or language status, that compared any antithrombin III regimen with no intervention or placebo were included. Trials were considered to be at low risk of bias if they had adequate randomisation procedure, blinding, and used intention to treat analysis. Risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals were estimated with fixed and random effects models according to heterogeneity.Main outcome measuresMortality, length of stay in intensive care or hospital, quality of life, severity of sepsis, respiratory failure, duration of mechanical ventilation, incidence of surgical intervention, intervention effect among various populations, and adverse events (such as bleeding).Results20 trials randomly assigning 3458 patients met inclusion criteria. Eight trials had low risk of bias. Compared with placebo or no intervention, antithrombin III did not reduce overall mortality (relative risk 0.96, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.03). No subgroup analyses on risk of bias, populations of patients, or with and without adjuvant heparin yielded significant results. Antithrombin III increased the risk of bleeding events (1.52, 1.30 to 1.78). Heterogeneity was observed in only a few analyses.ConclusionAntithrombin III cannot be recommended for critically ill patients based on the available evidence.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the relation between delirium in critically ill patients and their outcomes in the short term (in the intensive care unit and in hospital) and after discharge from hospital.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of published studies.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PsychINFO, with no language restrictions, up to 1 January 2015.Eligibility criteria for selection studiesReports were eligible for inclusion if they were prospective observational cohorts or clinical trials of adults in intensive care units who were assessed with a validated delirium screening or rating system, and if the association was measured between delirium and at least one of four clinical endpoints (death during admission, length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and any outcome after hospital discharge). Studies were excluded if they primarily enrolled patients with a neurological disorder or patients admitted to intensive care after cardiac surgery or organ/tissue transplantation, or centered on sedation management or alcohol or substance withdrawal. Data were extracted on characteristics of studies, populations sampled, identification of delirium, and outcomes. Random effects models and meta-regression analyses were used to pool data from individual studies.ResultsDelirium was identified in 5280 of 16,595 (31.8%) critically ill patients reported in 42 studies. When compared with control patients without delirium, patients with delirium had significantly higher mortality during admission (risk ratio 2.19, 94% confidence interval 1.78 to 2.70; P<0.001) as well as longer durations of mechanical ventilation and lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and in hospital (standard mean differences 1.79 (95% confidence interval 0.31 to 3.27; P<0.001), 1.38 (0.99 to 1.77; P<0.001), and 0.97 (0.61 to 1.33; P<0.001), respectively). Available studies indicated an association between delirium and cognitive impairment after discharge.ConclusionsNearly a third of patients admitted to an intensive care unit develop delirium, and these patients are at increased risk of dying during admission, longer stays in hospital, and cognitive impairment after discharge.

Project description:Delirium is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. We implemented a delirium prevention policy in intensive care unit (ICU) patients with a high risk of developing delirium, and evaluated if our policy resulted in quality improvement of relevant delirium outcome measures.This study was a before/after evaluation of a delirium prevention project using prophylactic treatment with haloperidol. Patients with a predicted risk for delirium of ? 50%, or with a history of alcohol abuse or dementia, were identified. According to the prevention protocol these patients received haloperidol 1 mg/8 h. Evaluation was primarily focused on delirium incidence, delirium free days without coma and 28-day mortality. Results of prophylactic treatment were compared with a historical control group and a contemporary group that did not receive haloperidol prophylaxis mainly due to non-compliance to the protocol mostly during the implementation phase.In 12 months, 177 patients received haloperidol prophylaxis. Except for sepsis, patient characteristics were comparable between the prevention and the historical (n = 299) groups. Predicted chance to develop delirium was 75 ± 19% and 73 ± 22%, respectively. Haloperidol prophylaxis resulted in a lower delirium incidence (65% vs. 75%, P = 0.01), and more delirium-free-days (median 20 days (IQR 8 to 27) vs. median 13 days (3 to 27), P = 0.003) in the intervention group compared to the control group. Cox-regression analysis adjusted for sepsis showed a hazard rate of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.98) for 28-day mortality. Beneficial effects of haloperidol appeared most pronounced in the patients with the highest risk for delirium. Furthermore, haloperidol prophylaxis resulted in less ICU re-admissions (11% vs. 18%, P = 0.03) and unplanned removal of tubes/lines (12% vs. 19%, P = 0.02). Haloperidol was stopped in 12 patients because of QTc-time prolongation (n = 9), renal failure (n = 1) or suspected neurological side-effects (n = 2). No other side-effects were reported. Patients who were not treated during the intervention period (n = 59) showed similar results compared to the untreated historical control group.Our evaluation study suggests that prophylactic treatment with low dose haloperidol in critically ill patients with a high risk for delirium probably has beneficial effects. These results warrant confirmation in a randomized controlled trial.clinicaltrial.gov Identifier: NCT01187667.

Project description:ObjectivesHaloperidol is commonly administered in the ICU to reduce the burden of delirium and its related symptoms despite no clear evidence showing haloperidol helps to resolve delirium or improve survival. We evaluated the association between haloperidol, when used to treat incident ICU delirium and its symptoms, and mortality.DesignPost hoc cohort analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, delirium prevention trial.SettingFourteen Dutch ICUs between July 2013 and December 2016.PatientsOne-thousand four-hundred ninety-five critically ill adults free from delirium at ICU admission having an expected ICU stay greater than or equal to 2 days.InterventionsPatients received preventive haloperidol or placebo for up to 28 days until delirium occurrence, death, or ICU discharge. If delirium occurred, treatment with open-label IV haloperidol 2 mg tid (up to 5 mg tid per delirium symptoms) was administered at clinician discretion.Measurements and main resultsPatients were evaluated tid for delirium and coma for 28 days. Time-varying Cox hazards models were constructed for 28-day and 90-day mortality, controlling for study-arm, delirium and coma days, age, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-II score, sepsis, mechanical ventilation, and ICU length of stay. Among the 1,495 patients, 542 (36%) developed delirium within 28 days (median [interquartile range] with delirium 4 d [2-7 d]). A total of 477 of 542 (88%) received treatment haloperidol (2.1 mg [1.0-3.8 mg] daily) for 6 days (3-11 d). Each milligram of treatment haloperidol administered daily was associated with decreased mortality at 28 days (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.91-0.95) and 90 days (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96-0.98). Treatment haloperidol administered later in the ICU course was less protective of death. Results were stable by prevention study-arm, predelirium haloperidol exposure, and haloperidol treatment protocol adherence.ConclusionsTreatment of incident delirium and its symptoms with haloperidol may be associated with a dose-dependent improvement in survival. Future randomized trials need to confirm these results.

Project description:Vitamin C is a water-soluble antioxidant vitamin. Oxidative stress and its markers, along with inflammatory markers, are high during critical illness. Due to conflicting results of the published literature regarding the efficacy of vitamin C in critically ill patients, and especially the concerns for nephrotoxicity raised by some case reports, this meta-analysis was carried out to appraise the evidence and affirmation regarding the role of vitamin C in critically ill patients. We searched the database thoroughly to collect relevant studies that assessed intravenous vitamin C use in critically ill patients published until 25 February 2021. We included randomized controlled trials and observational studies with 20 or more critically ill patients who have received intravenous ascorbic acid (vitamin C). After screening 18,312 studies from different databases, 53 were included in our narrative synthesis, and 48 were included in the meta-analysis. We used the Covidence software for screening of the retrieved literature. Review Manager (RevMan) 5.4 was used for the pooling of data and Odds Ratios (OR) and Mean difference (MD) as measures of effects with a 95% confidence interval to assess for explanatory variables. Pooling data from 33 studies for overall hospital mortality outcomes using a random-effect model showed a 19% reduction in odds of mortality among the vitamin C group (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66-0.98). Length of hospital stay (LOS), mortality at 28/30 days, ICU mortality, new-onset AKI and Renal Replacement Therapy (RRT) for AKI did not differ significantly across the two groups. Analysis of data from 30 studies reporting ICU stay disclosed 0.76 fewer ICU days in the vitamin C group than the placebo/standard of care (SOC) group (95% CI, -1.34 to -0.19). This significance for shortening ICU stay persisted even when considering RCTs only in the analysis (MD, -0.70; 95% CI, -1.39 to -0.02). Treatment of critically ill patients with intravenous vitamin C was relatively safe with no significant difference in adverse renal events and decreased in-hospital mortality. The use of vitamin C showed a significant reduction in the length of ICU stays in critically ill patients.

Dataset Information

Haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Publications

Haloperidol for the treatment of delirium in critically ill patients: an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets