Benjamin Thomas MMed, FRACP, FAChPM , Gregory Barclay MBBS, FRACGP, FAChPM , Kylie Mansfield PhD , Judy Mullan PhD , Wing-Shan Angela Lo MMed, FRACP, FAChPM
{"title":"Dexmedetomidine Versus Midazolam for End-of-Life Sedation: The DREAMS Non-Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial","authors":"Benjamin Thomas MMed, FRACP, FAChPM , Gregory Barclay MBBS, FRACGP, FAChPM , Kylie Mansfield PhD , Judy Mullan PhD , Wing-Shan Angela Lo MMed, FRACP, FAChPM","doi":"10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2025.07.027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Context</h3><div>End-of-life distress and delirium are common in palliative care inpatients, often requiring sedatives that diminish interaction. Current practices rely on clinical experience rather than evidence.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>To compare the sedative efficacy of subcutaneous dexmedetomidine versus midazolam in managing end-of-life distress while maintaining responsiveness, and to evaluate comparative effect on delirium in the terminal phase.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Single center randomized non-blinded clinical trial (ACTRN12621000052831) of palliative care inpatients in an Australian Local Health District admitted for end-of-life care. Patients received dexmedetomidine (0.5 µg/kg/h) or midazolam (0.25 mg/kg/day) via subcutaneous infusion for symptom management during the terminal phase. The primary outcome was responsiveness measured by mean Richmond Agitation Sedation Score-Palliative version (RASS-PAL) compared between treatment arms over the first 72 hours. Secondary outcomes included delirium severity (memorial delirium assessment score [MDAS]) and patient comfort (Patient Comfort Assessment [PCA]).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Fifty two patients were randomized (median age 80 years [IQR 72–88]; 63% male) and included in the primary analysis. Mean RASS-PAL scores showed no significant difference between arms (dexmedetomidine vs. midazolam: day 1: −2.33 vs. −1.90; day 2: −2.44 vs. −2.86; day 3: −2.95 vs. −2.53; all <em>P</em> > 0.05). Dexmedetomidine showed superior early delirium severity scores (day 1 MDAS: 6.5 vs. 8.8, <em>P</em> = 0.05) which did not persist. Protocol withdrawal occurred earlier in the midazolam arm (5 vs. 0 patients on day 1, <em>P</em> = 0.025). Patient comfort scores remained mild (PCA < 3) in both arms.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Dexmedetomidine and midazolam can achieve sedative equivalence with similar RASS-PAL scores. Dexmedetomidine patients experienced lower initial delirium severity scores and fewer early withdrawals in secondary analysis. Current dosing guideline for midazolam may need revising.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16634,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pain and symptom management","volume":"70 5","pages":"Pages 459-469"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of pain and symptom management","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885392425007511","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Context
End-of-life distress and delirium are common in palliative care inpatients, often requiring sedatives that diminish interaction. Current practices rely on clinical experience rather than evidence.
Objectives
To compare the sedative efficacy of subcutaneous dexmedetomidine versus midazolam in managing end-of-life distress while maintaining responsiveness, and to evaluate comparative effect on delirium in the terminal phase.
Methods
Single center randomized non-blinded clinical trial (ACTRN12621000052831) of palliative care inpatients in an Australian Local Health District admitted for end-of-life care. Patients received dexmedetomidine (0.5 µg/kg/h) or midazolam (0.25 mg/kg/day) via subcutaneous infusion for symptom management during the terminal phase. The primary outcome was responsiveness measured by mean Richmond Agitation Sedation Score-Palliative version (RASS-PAL) compared between treatment arms over the first 72 hours. Secondary outcomes included delirium severity (memorial delirium assessment score [MDAS]) and patient comfort (Patient Comfort Assessment [PCA]).
Results
Fifty two patients were randomized (median age 80 years [IQR 72–88]; 63% male) and included in the primary analysis. Mean RASS-PAL scores showed no significant difference between arms (dexmedetomidine vs. midazolam: day 1: −2.33 vs. −1.90; day 2: −2.44 vs. −2.86; day 3: −2.95 vs. −2.53; all P > 0.05). Dexmedetomidine showed superior early delirium severity scores (day 1 MDAS: 6.5 vs. 8.8, P = 0.05) which did not persist. Protocol withdrawal occurred earlier in the midazolam arm (5 vs. 0 patients on day 1, P = 0.025). Patient comfort scores remained mild (PCA < 3) in both arms.
Conclusion
Dexmedetomidine and midazolam can achieve sedative equivalence with similar RASS-PAL scores. Dexmedetomidine patients experienced lower initial delirium severity scores and fewer early withdrawals in secondary analysis. Current dosing guideline for midazolam may need revising.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Pain and Symptom Management is an internationally respected, peer-reviewed journal and serves an interdisciplinary audience of professionals by providing a forum for the publication of the latest clinical research and best practices related to the relief of illness burden among patients afflicted with serious or life-threatening illness.