Remi-fent 1—A pragmatic randomised controlled study to evaluate the feasibility of using remifentanil or fentanyl as sedation adjuncts in mechanically ventilated patients

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Arvind Rajamani FCICM, DDU , Ashwin Subramaniam FCICM, PHD , Brian Lung MBBS , Kristy Masters BN , Rebecca Gresham BN , Christina Whitehead BN, MBioethics , Julie Lowrey BN , Ian Seppelt FCICM , Hemant Kumar BSc, BE, MEngg , Jayashree Kumar BSc,BE, MCompSc , Anwar Hassan MPhty , Sam Orde PhD , Pranav Arun Bharadwaj HSC , Hemamalini Arvind PhD , Stephen Huang MPhtySam Orde PhD , the SPARTAN Collaborative
{"title":"Remi-fent 1—A pragmatic randomised controlled study to evaluate the feasibility of using remifentanil or fentanyl as sedation adjuncts in mechanically ventilated patients","authors":"Arvind Rajamani FCICM, DDU ,&nbsp;Ashwin Subramaniam FCICM, PHD ,&nbsp;Brian Lung MBBS ,&nbsp;Kristy Masters BN ,&nbsp;Rebecca Gresham BN ,&nbsp;Christina Whitehead BN, MBioethics ,&nbsp;Julie Lowrey BN ,&nbsp;Ian Seppelt FCICM ,&nbsp;Hemant Kumar BSc, BE, MEngg ,&nbsp;Jayashree Kumar BSc,BE, MCompSc ,&nbsp;Anwar Hassan MPhty ,&nbsp;Sam Orde PhD ,&nbsp;Pranav Arun Bharadwaj HSC ,&nbsp;Hemamalini Arvind PhD ,&nbsp;Stephen Huang MPhtySam Orde PhD ,&nbsp;the SPARTAN Collaborative","doi":"10.1016/j.ccrj.2023.10.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To evaluate the feasibility of conducting a prospective randomised controlled trial (pRCT) comparing remifentanil and fentanyl as adjuncts to sedate mechanically ventilated patients.</p></div><div><h3>Design</h3><p>Single-center, open-labelled, pRCT with blinded analysis.</p></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><p>Australian tertiary intensive care unit (ICU).</p></div><div><h3>Participants</h3><p>Consecutive adults between June 2020 and August 2021 expected to receive invasive ventilation beyond the next day and requiring opioid infusion were included. Exclusion criteria were pregnant/lactating women, intubation &gt;12 h<strong>,</strong> or study-drug hypersensitivity.</p></div><div><h3>Interventions</h3><p>Open-label fentanyl and remifentanil infusions per existing ICU protocols.</p></div><div><h3>Outcomes</h3><p>Primary outcomes were feasibility of recruiting ≥1 patient/week and &gt;90 % compliance, namely no other opioid infusion used during the study period. Secondary outcomes included complications, ICU-, ventilator- and hospital-free days, and mortality (ICU, hospital). Blinded intention-to-treat analysis was performed concealing the allocation group.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>208 patients were enrolled (mean 3.7 patients/week). Compliance was 80.6 %. More patients developed complications with fentanyl than remifentanil: bradycardia (n = 44 versus n = 21; p &lt; 0.001); hypotension (n = 78 versus n = 53; p &lt; 0.01); delirium (n = 28 versus n = 15; p = 0.001). No differences were seen in ICU (24.3 % versus 27.6 %,p = 0.60) and hospital mortalities (26.2 % versus 30.5 %; p = 0.50). Ventilator-free days were higher with remifentanil (p = 0.01).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>We demonstrated the feasibility of enrolling patients for a pRCT comparing remifentanil and fentanyl as sedation adjuncts in mechanically ventilated patients. We failed to attain the study-opioid compliance target, likely because of patients with complex sedative/analgesic requirements. Secondary outcomes suggest that remifentanil may reduce mechanical ventilation duration and decrease the incidence of complications. An adequately powered multicentric phase 2 study is required to evaluate these results.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":49215,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care and Resuscitation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1441277223022238/pdfft?md5=c554bdeeac8427018f8fb72d8997cb06&pid=1-s2.0-S1441277223022238-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Care and Resuscitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1441277223022238","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the feasibility of conducting a prospective randomised controlled trial (pRCT) comparing remifentanil and fentanyl as adjuncts to sedate mechanically ventilated patients.

Design

Single-center, open-labelled, pRCT with blinded analysis.

Setting

Australian tertiary intensive care unit (ICU).

Participants

Consecutive adults between June 2020 and August 2021 expected to receive invasive ventilation beyond the next day and requiring opioid infusion were included. Exclusion criteria were pregnant/lactating women, intubation >12 h, or study-drug hypersensitivity.

Interventions

Open-label fentanyl and remifentanil infusions per existing ICU protocols.

Outcomes

Primary outcomes were feasibility of recruiting ≥1 patient/week and >90 % compliance, namely no other opioid infusion used during the study period. Secondary outcomes included complications, ICU-, ventilator- and hospital-free days, and mortality (ICU, hospital). Blinded intention-to-treat analysis was performed concealing the allocation group.

Results

208 patients were enrolled (mean 3.7 patients/week). Compliance was 80.6 %. More patients developed complications with fentanyl than remifentanil: bradycardia (n = 44 versus n = 21; p < 0.001); hypotension (n = 78 versus n = 53; p < 0.01); delirium (n = 28 versus n = 15; p = 0.001). No differences were seen in ICU (24.3 % versus 27.6 %,p = 0.60) and hospital mortalities (26.2 % versus 30.5 %; p = 0.50). Ventilator-free days were higher with remifentanil (p = 0.01).

Conclusions

We demonstrated the feasibility of enrolling patients for a pRCT comparing remifentanil and fentanyl as sedation adjuncts in mechanically ventilated patients. We failed to attain the study-opioid compliance target, likely because of patients with complex sedative/analgesic requirements. Secondary outcomes suggest that remifentanil may reduce mechanical ventilation duration and decrease the incidence of complications. An adequately powered multicentric phase 2 study is required to evaluate these results.

Remi-fent 1--评估将瑞芬太尼或芬太尼作为机械通气患者镇静辅助药物的可行性的实用随机对照研究
目的评估开展前瞻性随机对照试验(pRCT)的可行性,比较瑞芬太尼和芬太尼作为机械通气患者镇静剂的效果.设计单中心、开放标签、pRCT,并进行盲法分析.设置澳大利亚三级重症监护病房(ICU).纳入 2020 年 6 月至 2021 年 8 月间连续接受成人患者,预计次日之后将接受有创通气,并需要输注阿片类药物.排除标准为妊娠/哺乳期妇女插管 12 小时或对研究药物过敏.干预根据现有 ICU 协议,开放标签芬太尼和瑞芬太尼输注.纳入 2020 年 6 月至 2021 年 8 月间连续接受成人患者,预计次日之后将接受有创通气,并需要输注阿片类药物.排除标准为孕妇/哺乳期妇女、插管 12 小时或对研究药物过敏者。干预措施根据现有的 ICU 方案进行无标签芬太尼和瑞芬太尼输注。次要结果包括并发症、无重症监护室、无呼吸机和无住院天数以及死亡率(重症监护室、住院)。在隐瞒分配组别的情况下,进行了盲法意向治疗分析。依从性为 80.6%。与瑞芬太尼相比,使用芬太尼出现并发症的患者更多:心动过缓(n = 44 对 n = 21;p <;0.001);低血压(n = 78 对 n = 53;p <;0.01);谵妄(n = 28 对 n = 15;p = 0.001)。ICU 死亡率(24.3% 对 27.6%,p = 0.60)和住院死亡率(26.2% 对 30.5%,p = 0.50)无差异。结论我们证明了将瑞芬太尼和芬太尼作为机械通气患者镇静辅助药物进行对比研究的可行性。我们未能达到研究的阿片类药物依从性目标,可能是因为患者对镇静剂/镇痛剂的需求比较复杂。次要结果表明,瑞芬太尼可缩短机械通气时间并降低并发症的发生率。要对这些结果进行评估,需要进行充分的多中心 2 期研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Critical Care and Resuscitation
Critical Care and Resuscitation CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE-
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
3.40%
发文量
44
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: ritical Care and Resuscitation (CC&R) is the official scientific journal of the College of Intensive Care Medicine (CICM). The Journal is a quarterly publication (ISSN 1441-2772) with original articles of scientific and clinical interest in the specialities of Critical Care, Intensive Care, Anaesthesia, Emergency Medicine and related disciplines. The Journal is received by all Fellows and trainees, along with an increasing number of subscribers from around the world. The CC&R Journal currently has an impact factor of 3.3, placing it in 8th position in world critical care journals and in first position in the world outside the USA and Europe.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信