Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34285003›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Sedation strategy and ICU delirium: a multicentre, population-based propensity score-matched cohort study.

Colin Casault, Andrea Soo, Chel Hee Lee, Philippe Couillard, Daniel Niven, Tom Stelfox, Kirsten Fiest

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Observational
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Colin CasaultDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada casaultc@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0002-3032-1206
Andrea SooDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Chel Hee LeeDepartment of Critical Care, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Philippe CouillardDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Daniel NivenDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Tom StelfoxDepartment of Critical Care, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Kirsten FiestDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Calgary Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-7299-6594
University of Calgary · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe examined the relationship between dominant sedation strategy, risk of delirium and patient-centred outcomes in adults admitted to intensive care units (ICUs).

designRetrospective propensity-matched cohort study.

settingMechanically ventilated adults (≥ 18 years) admitted to four Canadian hospital medical/surgical ICUs from 2014 to 2016 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

participants2837 mechanically ventilated adults (≥ 18 years) requiring admission to a medical/surgical ICU were evaluated for the relationship between sedation strategy and delirium.

interventionsNone. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary exposure was dominant sedation strategy, defined as the sedative infusion, including midazolam, propofol or fentanyl, with the longest duration before the first delirium assessment. The primary outcome was 'ever delirium' identified using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. Secondary outcomes included mortality, length of stay (LOS), ventilation duration and days with delirium. The cohort was analysed in two propensity score (patient characteristics and therapies received) matched cohorts (propofol vs fentanyl and propofol vs midazolam).

results2837 patients (60.7% male; median age 57 years (IQR 43-68)) were considered for propensity matching. In propensity score-matched cohorts(propofol vs midazolam, n=712; propofol vs fentanyl, n=1732), the odds of delirium were significantly higher with midazolam (OR 1.46 (95% CI 1.06 to 2.00)) and fentanyl (OR 1.22 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.48)) compared with propofol dominant sedation strategies. Dominant sedation strategy with midazolam and fentanyl were associated with a longer duration of ventilation compared with propofol. Fentanyl was also associated with increased ICU mortality (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.12)) ICU and hospital LOS compared with a propofol dominant sedation strategy.

conclusionsWe identified a novel association between fentanyl dominant sedation strategies and an increased risk of delirium, a composite outcome of delirium or death, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU LOS and hospital LOS. Midazolam dominant sedation strategies were associated with increased delirium risk and mechanical ventilation duration.

Indexed as

DeliriumIntensive Care UnitsAdultAlbertaCohort StudiesFemaleHumansHypnotics and SedativesLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPropensity ScoreRespiration, ArtificialRetrospective StudiesHypnotics and Sedativesadult intensive & critical caredelirium & cognitive disordershealth & safetyquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID34285003
PMCPMC8292822
OpenAlexW3184750466

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.