Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23551983›Full record

Trial reportTrials2013

Enteral vs. intravenous ICU sedation management: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Giovanni Mistraletti, Elena S Mantovani, Paolo Cadringher, Barbara Cerri, Davide Corbella, Michele Umbrello, Stefania Anania, Elisa Andrighi, Serena Barello, Alessandra Di Carlo and 5 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readComparative StudyMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01360346 (Multicentric, Single Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial on Enteral Sedation Versus Intravenous Sedation in Critically Ill High-risk ICU Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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.

NCT01360346 phase3unknown statusnot on this map

Multicentric, Single Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial on Enteral Sedation Versus Intravenous Sedation in Critically Ill High-risk ICU Patients

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of MilanRan2012 to 2012Enrolled300ConditionsCritical Illness, Mechanical Ventilation ComplicationArmsEnteral Sedation (EN), Control group: Intravenous Sedation (IV)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Melatonin in Critically Ill Children.Journal of pediatric intensive care · 2016
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Giovanni MistralettiDipartimento di Fisiopatologia medico-chirurgica e dei trapianti, Università degli Studi di Milano, A.O. San Paolo - Polo Universitario, Via A. Di Rudinì, 8-20142, Milan, Italy. giovanni.mistraletti@unimi.it
Elena S Mantovani
Paolo Cadringher
Barbara Cerri
Davide Corbella
Michele Umbrello
Stefania Anania
Elisa Andrighi
Serena Barello
Alessandra Di Carlo
Federica Martinetti
Paolo Formenti
Paolo Spanu
Gaetano Iapichino
SedaEN investigators
Ospedale San Paolo · ITUniversity of Milan · ITOspedale Maggiore · ITUniversity of Bergamo · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA relevant innovation about sedation of long-term Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients is the 'conscious target': patients should be awake even during the critical phases of illness. Enteral sedative administration is nowadays unusual, even though the gastrointestinal tract works soon after ICU admission. The enteral approach cannot produce deep sedation; however, it is as adequate as the intravenous one, if the target is to keep patients awake and adapted to the environment, and has fewer side effects and lower costs. METHODS/

designA randomized, controlled, multicenter, single-blind trial comparing enteral and intravenous sedative treatments has been done in 12 Italian ICUs. The main objective was to achieve and maintain the desired sedation level: observed RASS = target RASS ± 1. Three hundred high-risk patients were planned to be randomly assigned to receive either intravenous propofol/midazolam or enteral melatonin/hydroxyzine/lorazepam. Group assignment occurred through online minimization process, in order to balance variables potentially influencing the outcomes (age, sex, SAPS II, type of admission, kidney failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, sepsis) between groups. Once per shift, the staff recorded neurological monitoring using validated tools. Three flowcharts for pain, sedation, and delirium have been proposed; they have been designed to treat potentially correctable factors first, and, only once excluded, to administer neuroactive drugs. The study lasted from January 24 to December 31, 2012. A total of 348 patients have been randomized, through a centralized website, using a specific software expressly designed for this study. The created network of ICUs included a mix of both university and non-university hospitals, with different experience in managing enteral sedation. A dedicated free-access website was also created, in both Italian and English, for continuous education of ICU staff through CME courses. DISCUSSION: This 'educational research' project aims both to compare two sedative strategies and to highlight the need for a profound cultural change, improving outcomes by keeping critically-ill patients awake. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov #NCT01360346.

Indexed as

Research DesignAdministration, OralAnesthetics, IntravenousClinical ProtocolsComputer-Assisted InstructionConsciousnessCritical IllnessDrug Therapy, CombinationEducation, Medical, ContinuingHumansHydroxyzineHypnotics and SedativesInfusions, IntravenousInservice TrainingIntensive Care UnitsInternetAnesthetics, IntravenousHydroxyzineHypnotics and SedativesLorazepamMelatoninMidazolamPropofol

Identifiers

PMID23551983
PMCPMC3651718
OpenAlexW2102059667

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.