Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39294818›Full record

ArticleJournal of intensive care2024

Remifentanil vs. dexmedetomidine for cardiac surgery patients with noninvasive ventilation intolerance: a multicenter randomized controlled trial.

Guang-Wei Hao, Jia-Qing Wu, Shen-Ji Yu, Kai Liu, Yan Xue, Qian Gong, Rong-Cheng Xie, Guo-Guang Ma, Ying Su, Jun-Yi Hou and 5 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of intensive care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04734418 (Evaluation of Remifentanil and Dexmedetomidine in Patients With Noninvasive Mechanical Ventilation Intolerance After Cardiac Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT04734418 naunknown statusnot on this map

Evaluation of Remifentanil and Dexmedetomidine in Patients With Noninvasive Mechanical Ventilation Intolerance After Cardiac Surgery: a Multicenter, Prospective, Single-blind, Randomized Controlled Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorShanghai Zhongshan HospitalRan2021 to 2023Enrolled178ConditionsNIV IntoleranceArmsRemifentanil, Dexmedetomidine
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. 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.

Guang-Wei Hao *Department of Cardiac Intensive Care Center, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Jia-Qing Wu *Department of Nursing, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Shen-Ji Yu *Department of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Kai LiuDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Yan XueDepartment of Nursing, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Qian GongDepartment of Cardiovascular Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, 230032, Anhui, China.
Rong-Cheng XieDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Xiamen Branch, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Xiamen, 361015, Fujian, China.
Guo-Guang MaDepartment of Cardiac Intensive Care Center, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Ying SuDepartment of Cardiac Intensive Care Center, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Jun-Yi HouDepartment of Cardiac Intensive Care Center, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Yi-Jie ZhangDepartment of Cardiac Intensive Care Center, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Wen-Jun LiuDepartment of Cardiac Intensive Care Center, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China.
Wei LiDepartment of Intensive Care Unit, The People's Hospital of Fujian Traditional Medical University, Fuzhou, 350004, Fujian, China. sicu.lw@163.com.
Guo-Wei TuDepartment of Cardiac Intensive Care Center, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China. tu.guowei@zs-hospital.sh.cn.
Zhe LuoDepartment of Cardiac Intensive Care Center, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, 200032, China. luo.zhe@zs-hospital.sh.cn.

Funding

Research Funds of Zhongshan Hospital 2020ZSLC27Science and Technology of Shanghai Committee 20DZ2261200Science and Technology of Shanghai Committee 21MC1930400
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe optimal sedative regime for noninvasive ventilation (NIV) intolerance remains uncertain. The present study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of remifentanil (REM) compared to dexmedetomidine (DEX) in cardiac surgery patients with moderate-to-severe intolerance to NIV.

methodsIn this multicenter, prospective, single-blind, randomized controlled study, adult cardiac surgery patients with moderate-to-severe intolerance to NIV were enrolled and randomly assigned to be treated with either REM or DEX for sedation. The status of NIV intolerance was evaluated using a four-point NIV intolerance score at different timepoints within a 72-h period. The primary outcome was the mitigation rate of NIV intolerance following sedation.

resultsA total of 179 patients were enrolled, with 89 assigned to the REM group and 90 to the DEX group. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups, including NIV intolerance score [3, interquartile range (IQR) 3-3 vs. 3, IQR 3-4, p = 0.180]. The chi-squared test showed that mitigation rate, defined as the proportion of patients who were relieved from their initial intolerance status, was not significant at most timepoints, except for the 15-min timepoint (42% vs. 20%, p = 0.002). However, after considering the time factor, generalized estimating equations showed that the difference was statistically significant, and REM outperformed DEX (odds ratio = 3.31, 95% confidence interval: 1.35-8.12, p = 0.009). Adverse effects, which were not reported in the REM group, were encountered by nine patients in the DEX group, with three instances of bradycardia and six cases of severe hypotension. Secondary outcomes, including NIV failure (5.6% vs. 7.8%, p = 0.564), tracheostomy (1.12% vs. 0%, p = 0.313), ICU LOS (7.7 days, IQR 5.8-12 days vs. 7.0 days, IQR 5-10.6 days, p = 0.219), and in-hospital mortality (1.12% vs. 2.22%, p = 0.567), demonstrated comparability between the two groups.

conclusionsIn summary, our study demonstrated no significant difference between REM and DEX in the percentage of patients who achieved mitigation among cardiac surgery patients with moderate-to-severe NIV intolerance. However, after considering the time factor, REM was significantly superior to DEX. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04734418), registered on January 22, 2021. URL of the trial registry record: https://register. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/prs/app/action/SelectProtocol?sid=S000AM4S&selectaction=Edit&uid=U00038YX&ts=3&cx=eqn1z0 .

Indexed as

Cardiac surgeryDexmedetomidineNon-invasive ventilation intoleranceRemifentanil

Identifiers

PMID39294818
PMCPMC11409483

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.