Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21542927›Full record

Trial reportCritical care (London, England)2011

Sedation and renal impairment in critically ill patients: a post hoc analysis of a randomized trial.

Thomas Strøm, Rasmus R Johansen, Jens O Prahl, Palle Toft

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Critical care (London, England), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. "Sedation is tricky": A qualitative content analysis of nurses' perceptions of sedation administration in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients.Australian critical care : official journal of the Confederation of Australian Critical Care Nurses · 2018
    Article
  10. Acute Kidney Injury as a Risk Factor for Delirium and Coma during Critical Illness.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2017
    Article
  11. Are we sedating more than just the brain?Critical care (London, England) · 2011
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Thomas StrømDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Sdr Boulevard 29, Odense C, Denmark. t.s@dadlnet.dk
Rasmus R Johansen
Jens O Prahl
Palle Toft
Odense University Hospital · DKUniversity of Southern Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionNot sedating critically ill patients reduces the time patients receive mechanical ventilation, decreases the time in the intensive care department and reduces the total hospital length of stay. We hypothesized that no sedation improves hemodynamic stability, decreases the need for vasoactive drugs, diminishes the need for extra fluids and lowers the risk of acute kidney injury.

methodsWe performed an evaluation on the database from our previous trial of 140 patients randomized to either no sedation vs. sedation with a daily interruption of sedatives. A total of 113 patients were included in the previous statistical analysis. Ten patients had pre-existing renal impairments and were excluded. Data were collected from observational cards and blood samples.

resultsA total of 103 patients were included in this retrospective review. We registered an increased urine output in the group receiving no sedation compared to the sedated control group (1.15 ml/kg/hour (0.59 to 1.53) vs. 0.88 ml/kg/hour (0.052 to 1.26), P = 0.03). In addition we saw a decrease in the number of patients with renal impairment according to the RIFLE classification (indicating Risk of renal dysfunction; Injury to the kidney; Failure of kidney function, Loss of kidney function and End-stage kidney disease) in the group receiving no sedation compared to the sedated control group (25 (51%) vs. 41 (76%), P = 0.012). The difference in the two groups with respect to mean arterial blood pressure, fluid balance and use of vasoactive drugs was not significant.

conclusionsA no sedation strategy to patients undergoing mechanical ventilation increases the urine output and decreases the number of patients with renal impairments.

Indexed as

Respiration, ArtificialAgedCritical CareCritical IllnessFemaleHumansHypnotics and SedativesMaleMiddle AgedRenal InsufficiencyRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeUrineHypnotics and Sedatives

Identifiers

PMID21542927
PMCPMC3218972
OpenAlexW2114519295

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.