liu.seSearch for publications in DiVA
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Nonsedation or Light Sedation in Critically Ill, Mechanically Ventilated Patients
Svendborg Hosp, Denmark; Svendborg Hosp, Denmark; Univ Southern Denmark, Denmark.
Univ Southern Denmark, Denmark; Hosp Lillebaelt, Denmark.
Univ Southern Denmark, Denmark; Odense Univ Hosp, Denmark.
Univ Southern Denmark, Denmark; Esbjerg Cent Hosp, Denmark.
Show others and affiliations
2020 (English)In: New England Journal of Medicine, ISSN 0028-4793, E-ISSN 1533-4406, Vol. 382, no 12, p. 1103-1111Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background In critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients, daily interruption of sedation has been shown to reduce the time on ventilation and the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU). Data on whether a plan of no sedation, as compared with a plan of light sedation, has an effect on mortality are lacking. Methods In a multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, mechanically ventilated ICU patients to a plan of no sedation (nonsedation group) or to a plan of light sedation (i.e., to a level at which the patient was arousable, defined as a score of -2 to -3 on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale [RASS], on which scores range from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]) (sedation group) with daily interruption. The primary outcome was mortality at 90 days. Secondary outcomes were the number of major thromboembolic events, the number of days free from coma or delirium, acute kidney injury according to severity, the number of ICU-free days, and the number of ventilator-free days. Between-group differences were calculated as the value in the nonsedation group minus the value in the sedation group. Results A total of 710 patients underwent randomization, and 700 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The characteristics of the patients at baseline were similar in the two trial groups, except for the score on the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, which was 1 point higher in the nonsedation group than in the sedation group, indicating a greater chance of in-hospital death. The mean RASS score in the nonsedation group increased from -1.3 on day 1 to -0.8 on day 7 and, in the sedation group, from -2.3 on day 1 to -1.8 on day 7. Mortality at 90 days was 42.4% in the nonsedation group and 37.0% in the sedated group (difference, 5.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.2 to 12.2; P=0.65). The number of ICU-free days and of ventilator-free days did not differ significantly between the trial groups. The patients in the nonsedation group had a median of 27 days free from coma or delirium, and those in the sedation group had a median of 26 days free from coma or delirium. A major thromboembolic event occurred in 1 patient (0.3%) in the nonsedation group and in 10 patients (2.8%) in the sedation group (difference, -2.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.8 to -0.7 [unadjusted for multiple comparisons]). Conclusions Among mechanically ventilated ICU patients, mortality at 90 days did not differ significantly between those assigned to a plan of no sedation and those assigned to a plan of light sedation with daily interruption. (Funded by the Danish Medical Research Council and others; NONSEDA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01967680.)

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SOC , 2020. Vol. 382, no 12, p. 1103-1111
National Category
Clinical Medicine
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-165058DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1906759ISI: 000521333700010PubMedID: 32068366OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-165058DiVA, id: diva2:1423111
Note

Funding Agencies|Danish Medical Research CouncilDanish Medical Research Council; Danielsens Foundation; Scandinavian Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine

Available from: 2020-04-14 Created: 2020-04-14 Last updated: 2020-05-05

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(590 kB)564 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT01.pdfFile size 590 kBChecksum SHA-512
b24fce067fa092dde84c1039d394374545e987f080fefdcdc56ac587c984d8715c24df99240a95f35cd003e673be2e0011e062421a86b7f08a42b1f1af17a29c
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Chew, Michelle
By organisation
Division of Drug ResearchFaculty of Medicine and Health SciencesDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care in Linköping (ANOPIVA)
In the same journal
New England Journal of Medicine
Clinical Medicine

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 566 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 114 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • oxford
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf