Search

Objectives: To evaluate the effect of procalcitonin-guided management on the duration of antibiotic therapy in critically ill cancer patients with sepsis., Design: Randomized, controlled, single-blinded trial., Setting: A comprehensive multidisciplinary cancer hospital in Jordan., Patients: Adults with cancer treated in the ICU who were started on antibiotics for suspected infection, met the SEPSIS-3 criteria, and were expected to stay in the ICU greater than or equal to 48 hours., Interventions: Patients were randomized to the procalcitonin-guided or standard care (SC) arms. All patients had procalcitonin measured daily, up to 5 days or until ICU discharge or death. For the procalcitonin arm, a procalcitonin-guided algorithm was provided to guide antibiotic management, but clinicians were allowed to override the algorithm, if clinically indicated. In the SC arm, ICU clinicians were blinded to the procalcitonin levels., Measurements and Main Results: Primary outcome was time to antibiotic cessation. We also evaluated the number of antibiotic-free days at 28 days, hospital discharge, or death, whichever came first, and antibiotic defined daily doses (DDDs). We enrolled 77 patients in the procalcitonin arm and 76 in the SC arm. Mean age was 58 ± 14 (sd) years, 67% were males, 74% had solid tumors, and 13% were neutropenic. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were 7 (6-10) and 7 (5-9) and procalcitonin concentrations (ng/mL) at baseline were 3.4 (0.8-16) and 3.4 (0.5-26), in the procalcitonin and SC arms, respectively. There was no difference in the median (IQR) time to antibiotic cessation in the procalcitonin and SC arms, 8 (4-11) and 8 (5-13), respectively (p = 0.463). Median (IQR) number of antibiotic-free days were 20 (17-24) and 20 (16-23), (p = 0.484) and total DDDs were 1541.4 and 2050.4 in the procalcitonin and SC arms, respectively., Conclusions: In critically ill cancer patients with sepsis, procalcitonin-guided management did not reduce the duration of antibiotic treatment., Competing Interests: The authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)

Background: This Rapid Practice Guideline (RPG) aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for ketamine analgo-sedation (monotherapy and adjunct) versus non-ketamine sedatives or usual care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients on invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV) and to identify knowledge gaps for future research., Methods: The RPG panel comprised 23 multinational multidisciplinary panelists, including a patient representative. An up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis constituted the evidence base. The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, and the evidence-to-decision framework were used to assess the certainty of evidence and to move from evidence to decision/recommendation. The panel provided input on the balance of the desirable and undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs, resources, equity, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities., Results: Data from 17 randomized clinical trials (n = 898) and nine observational studies (n = 1934) were included. There was considerable uncertainty about the desirable and undesirable effects of ketamine monotherapy for analgo-sedation. The evidence was very low certainty and downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency. Uncertainty or variability in values and preferences were identified. Costs, resources, equity, and acceptability were considered varied. Adjunctive ketamine therapy had no effect on mortality (within 28 days) (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.27; low certainty), and may slightly reduce iMV duration (days) (mean difference [MD] -0.05 days; 95% CI -0.07 to -0.03; low certainty), and uncertain effect on the cumulative dose of opioids (mcg/kg/h morphine equivalent) (MD -11.6; 95% CI -20.4 to -2.7; very low certainty). Uncertain desirable effects (cumulative dose of sedatives and vasopressors) and undesirable effects (adverse event rate, delirium, arrhythmia, hepatotoxicity, hypersalivation, use of physical restraints) were also identified. A possibility of important uncertainty or variability in patient-important outcomes led to a balanced effect that favored neither the intervention nor the comparison. Cost, resources, and equity were considered varied., Conclusion: The RPG panel provided two conditional recommendations and suggested (1) against using ketamine as monotherapy analgo-sedation in critically ill adults on iMV when other analgo-sedatives are available; and (2) using ketamine as an adjunct to non-ketamine usual care sedatives (e.g., opioids, propofol, dexmedetomidine) or continuing with non-ketamine usual care sedatives alone. Large-scale trials should provide additional evidence., (© 2024 Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Background: Establishing sequela following critical illness is a public health priority; however, recruitment and retention of this cohort make assessing functional outcomes difficult. Completing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) via telephone may improve participant and researcher involvement; however, there is little evidence regarding the correlation of PROMs to performance-based outcome measures in critical care survivors., Objectives: The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between self-reported and performance-based measures of function in survivors of critical illness., Methods: This was a nested cohort study of patients enrolled within a previously published study determining predictors of disability-free survival. Spearman's correlation (r s ) was calculated between four performance-based outcomes (the Functional Independence Measure [FIM], 6-min walk distance [6MWD], Functional Reach Test [FRT], and grip strength) that were collected during a home visit 6 months following their intensive care unit admission, with two commonly used PROMs (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale 2.0 12 Level [WHODAS 2.0] and EuroQol-5 Dimension-5 Level [EQ-5D-5L]) obtained via phone interview (via the PREDICT study) at the same time point., Results: There were 38 PROMs obtained from 40 recruited patients (mean age = 59.8 ± 16 yrs, M:F = 24:16). All 40 completed the FIM and grip strength, 37 the 6MWD, and 39 the FRT. A strong correlation was found between the primary outcome of the WHODAS 2.0 with all performance-based outcomes apart from grip strength where a moderate correlation was identified. Although strong correlations were also established between the EQ-5D-5L utility score and the FIM, 6MWD, and FRT, it only correlated weakly with grip strength. The EQ-5D overall global health rating only had very weak to moderate correlations with the performance-based outcomes., Conclusion: The WHODAS 2.0 correlated stronger across multiple performance-based outcome measures of functional recovery and is recommended for use in survivors of critical illness., (Copyright © 2022 Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: To quantify potential heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE), of early sedation with dexmedetomidine (DEX) compared with usual care, and identify patients who have a high probability of lower or higher 90-day mortality according to age, and other identified clusters., Methods: Bayesian analysis of 3904 critically ill adult patients expected to receive invasive ventilation > 24 h and enrolled in a multinational randomized controlled trial comparing early DEX with usual care sedation., Results: HTE was assessed according to age and clusters (based on 12 baseline characteristics) using a Bayesian hierarchical models. DEX was associated with lower 90-day mortality compared to usual care in patients > 65 years (odds ratio [OR], 0.83 [95% credible interval [CrI] 0.68-1.00], with 97.7% probability of reduced mortality across broad categories of illness severity. Conversely, the probability of increased mortality in patients ≤ 65 years was 98.5% (OR 1.26 [95% CrI 1.02-1.56]. Two clusters were identified: cluster 1 (976 patients) mostly operative, and cluster 2 (2346 patients), predominantly non-operative. There was a greater probability of benefit with DEX in cluster 1 (OR 0.86 [95% CrI 0.65-1.14]) across broad categories of age, with 86.4% probability that DEX is more beneficial in cluster 1 than cluster 2., Conclusion: In critically ill mechanically ventilated patients, early sedation with dexmedetomidine exhibited a high probability of reduced 90-day mortality in older patients regardless of operative or non-operative cluster status. Conversely, a high probability of increased 90-day mortality was observed in younger patients of non-operative status. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Introduction: Critically ill patients often require sedation for comfort and to facilitate therapeutic interventions. Sedation practice guidelines provide an evidence-based framework with recommendations that can help improve key sedation-related outcomes., Materials and Methods: We conducted a narrative review of current guidelines and recent trials on sedation., Results: From a practice perspective, current guidelines share many limitations including lack of consensus on the definition of light sedation, optimal frequency of sedation assessment, optimal timing for light sedation and consideration of combinations of sedatives. We proposed several strategies to address these limitations and improve outcomes: 1) early light sedation within the first 48 hours with time-weighted monitoring (overall time spent in light sedation in the first 48 hours-sedation intensity-has a dose-dependent relationship with mortality risk, delirium and time to extubation); 2) provision of analgesia with minimal or no sedation where possible; 3) a goal-directed and balanced multimodal approach that combines the benefits of different agents and minimise their side effects; 4) use of dexmedetomidine and atypical antipsychotics as a sedative-sparing strategy to reduce weaning-related agitation, shorten ventilation time and accelerate physical and cognitive rehabilitation; and 5) a bundled approach to sedation that provides a framework to improve relevant clinical outcomes., Conclusion: More effort is required to develop a practical, time-weighted sedation scoring system. Emphasis on a balanced, multimodal appraoch that targets light sedation from the early phase of acute critical illness is important to achieve optimal sedation, lower mortality, shorten time on ventilator and reduce delirium.

Background: Dexmedetomidine produces sedation while maintaining a degree of arousability and may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and delirium among patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). The use of dexmedetomidine as the sole or primary sedative agent in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation has not been extensively studied., Methods: In an open-label, randomized trial, we enrolled critically ill adults who had been undergoing ventilation for less than 12 hours in the ICU and were expected to continue to receive ventilatory support for longer than the next calendar day to receive dexmedetomidine as the sole or primary sedative or to receive usual care (propofol, midazolam, or other sedatives). The target range of sedation-scores on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (which is scored from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]) was -2 to +1 (lightly sedated to restless). The primary outcome was the rate of death from any cause at 90 days., Results: We enrolled 4000 patients at a median interval of 4.6 hours between eligibility and randomization. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis involving 3904 patients, the primary outcome event occurred in 566 of 1948 (29.1%) in the dexmedetomidine group and in 569 of 1956 (29.1%) in the usual-care group (adjusted risk difference, 0.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.9 to 2.8). An ancillary finding was that to achieve the prescribed level of sedation, patients in the dexmedetomidine group received supplemental propofol (64% of patients), midazolam (3%), or both (7%) during the first 2 days after randomization; in the usual-care group, these drugs were administered as primary sedatives in 60%, 12%, and 20% of the patients, respectively. Bradycardia and hypotension were more common in the dexmedetomidine group., Conclusions: Among patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in the ICU, those who received early dexmedetomidine for sedation had a rate of death at 90 days similar to that in the usual-care group and required supplemental sedatives to achieve the prescribed level of sedation. More adverse events were reported in the dexmedetomidine group than in the usual-care group. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; SPICE III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01728558.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Objectives: The Society of Critical Care Medicine recommends routine delirium monitoring, based on data in critically ill patients without primary neurologic injury. We sought to answer whether there are valid and reliable tools to monitor delirium in neurocritically ill patients and whether delirium is associated with relevant clinical outcomes (e.g., survival, length of stay, functional independence, cognition) in this population., Data Sources: We systematically reviewed Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, and PubMed., Study Selection and Data Extraction: Inclusion criteria allowed any study design investigating delirium monitoring in neurocritically ill patients (e.g., neurotrauma, ischemic, and/or hemorrhagic stroke) of any age. We extracted data relevant to delirium tool sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, interrater reliability, and associated clinical outcomes., Data Synthesis: Among seven prospective cohort studies and a total of 1,173 patients, delirium was assessed in neurocritically patients using validated delirium tools after considering primary neurologic diagnoses and associated complications, finding a pooled prevalence rate of 12-43%. When able to compare against a common reference standard, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, the test characteristics showed a sensitivity of 62-76%, specificity of 74-98%, positive predictive value of 63-91%, negative predictive value of 70-94%, and reliability kappa of 0.64-0.94. Among four studies reporting multivariable analyses, delirium in neurocritically patients was associated with increased hospital length of stay (n = 3) and ICU length of stay (n = 1), as well as worse functional independence (n = 1) and cognition (n = 2), but not survival., Conclusions: These data from studies of neurocritically ill patients demonstrate that patients with primary neurologic diagnoses can meet diagnostic criteria for delirium and that delirious features may predict relevant untoward clinical outcomes. There is a need for ongoing investigations regarding delirium in these complicated neurocritically ill patients.

Background: Sedation strategy in critically ill patients who are mechanically ventilated is influenced by patient-related factors, choice of sedative agent and the intensity or depth of sedation prescribed. The impact of sedation strategy on outcome, in particular when delivered early after initiation of mechanical ventilation, is uncertain., Objectives: To present the protocol and analysis plan of a large randomised clinical trial investigating the effect of a sedation strategy, in critically ill patients who are mechanically ventilated, based on a protocol targeting light sedation using dexmedetomidine as the primary sedative, termed "early goal-directed sedation", compared with usual practice., Methods: This is a multinational randomised clinical trial in adult intensive care patients expected to require mechanical ventilation for longer than 24 hours. The main exclusion criteria include suspected or proven primary brain pathology or having already been intubated or sedated in an intensive care unit for longer than 12 hours. Randomisation occurs via a secured website with baseline stratification by site and suspected or proven sepsis. The primary outcome is 90-day all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes include death, institutional dependency, cognitive function and health-related quality of life 180 days after randomisation, as well as deliriumfree, coma-free and ventilation-free days at 28 days after randomisation. A predefined subgroup analysis will also be conducted. Analyses will be on an intention-to-treat basis and in accordance with this pre-specified analysis plan., Conclusion: SPICE III is an ongoing large scale clinical trial. Once completed, it will inform sedation practice in critically ill patients who are ventilated.

Objectives: To determine the impact of the intensity of early correction of hyperglycaemia on outcomes in patients with diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) admitted to the intensive care unit., Methods: We studied adult patients with DKA admitted to 171 ICUs in Australia and New Zealand from 2000 to 2013. We used their blood glucose levels (BGLs) in the first 24 hours after ICU admission to determine whether intensive early correction of hyperglycemia to ≤ 180 mg/dL was independently associated with hypoglycaemia, hypokalaemia, hypo-osmolarity or mortality, compared with partial early correction to > 180 mg/dL as recommended by DKA-specific guidelines., Results: Among 8553 patients, intensive early correction of BGL was applied to 605 patients (7.1%). A greater proportion of these patients experienced hypoglycaemia (20.2% v 9.1%; P < 0.001) and/or hypo-osmolarity (29.4% v 22.0%; P < 0.001), but not hypokalaemia (16.7% v 15.6%; P = 0.47). Overall, 11 patients (1.8%) in the intensive correction group and 112 patients (1.4%) in the partial correction group died (P = 0.42). However, after adjustment for illness severity, partial early correction of BGL was independently associated with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia (odds ratio [OR], 0.38; 95% CI, 0.30-0.48; P < 0.001), lower risk of hypo-osmolarity (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.65-0.98; P < 0.03) and lower risk of death (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.22-0.86; P = 0.02)., Conclusions: In a large cohort of patients with DKA, partial early correction of BGL according to DKA-specific guidelines, when compared with intensive early correction of BGL, was independently associated with a lower risk of hypoglycaemia, hypo-osmolarity and death.

Delirium, a prevalent organ dysfunction in critically ill patients, is independently associated with increased morbidity. This last decade has witnessed an exponential growth in delirium research in hospitalized patients, including those critically ill, and this research has highlighted that delirium needs to be better understood mechanistically to help foster research that will ultimately lead to its prevention and treatment. In this invited, evidence-based paper, a multinational and interprofessional group of clinicians and researchers from within the fields of critical care medicine, psychiatry, pediatrics, anesthesiology, geriatrics, surgery, neurology, nursing, pharmacy, and the neurosciences sought to address five questions: (1) What is the current standard of care in managing ICU delirium? (2) What have been the major recent advances in delirium research and care? (3) What are the common delirium beliefs that have been challenged by recent trials? (4) What are the remaining areas of uncertainty in delirium research? (5) What are some of the top study areas/trials to be done in the next 10 years? Herein, we briefly review the epidemiology of delirium, the current best practices for management of critically ill patients at risk for delirium or experiencing delirium, identify recent advances in our understanding of delirium as well as gaps in knowledge, and discuss research opportunities and barriers to implementation, with the goal of promoting an integrated research agenda.

Objective: To assess the feasibility and safety of delivering early goal-directed sedation compared with standard sedation., Design: Pilot prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial., Setting: Six ICUs., Patients: Critically ill adults mechanically ventilated for greater than 24 hours., Interventions: Patients randomized to early goal-directed sedation received a dexmedetomidine-based algorithm targeted to light sedation (Richmond Agitation Sedation Score of -2 to 1). Patients randomized to standard sedation received propofol and/or midazolam-based sedation as clinically appropriate., Measurements and Main Results: The main feasibility outcomes were time to randomization and proportion of Richmond Agitation Sedation Score assessments in the first 48 hours in the light and deep sedation range. Safety outcomes were delirium-free days, vasopressor and physical restraints use, and device removal. Randomization occurred within a median (interquartile range) of 1.1 hours (0.46-1.9) after intubation or ICU admission for out of ICU intubation. Patients in the early goal-directed sedation (n = 21) mean (SD) Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was 20.2 (6.2) versus 18.6 (8.8; p = 0.53) in the standard sedation (n = 16). A significantly higher proportion of patients was lightly sedated on days 1, 2, and 3 (12/19 [63.2%], 19/21 [90.5%], and 18/20 [90%] vs 2/14 [14.3%], 8/15 [53.3%], and 9/15 [60%]; p = 0.005, 0.011, 0.036) and more Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale assessments between (-2 and 1), in the first 48 hours (203/307 [66%] versus (74/197 [38%]; p = 0.01) in the early goal-directed sedation versus standard sedation, respectively. Early goal-directed sedation patients received midazolam on 6 of 173 (3.5%) versus 4 of 114 (3.5%) standard sedation patient-days when dexmedetomidine was given. Propofol was given to 16 of 21 (76%) of early goal-directed sedation versus 16 of 16 (100%) of standard sedation patients (p = 0.04). Early goal-directed sedation patients had 101 of 175 (58%) versus 54 of 114 (47%; p = 0.27) delirium-free days and required significantly less physical restraints 1 (5%) versus 5 (31%; p = 0.03) than standard sedation patients. There were no differences in vasopressor use and self-extubation., Conclusions: Delivery of early goal-directed sedation was feasible, appeared safe, achieved early light sedation, minimized benzodiazepines and propofol, and decreased the need for physical restraints. The findings of this pilot study justify further investigation of early goal-directed sedation.

Purpose: To ascertain the relationship among early (first 48 h) deep sedation, time to extubation, delirium and long-term mortality., Methods: We conducted a multicentre prospective longitudinal cohort study in 11 Malaysian hospitals including medical/surgical patients (n = 259) who were sedated and ventilated ≥24 h. Patients were followed from ICU admission up to 28 days in ICU with 4-hourly sedation and daily delirium assessments and 180-day mortality. Deep sedation was defined as Richmond Agitation Sedation Score (RASS) ≤-3., Results: The cohort had a mean (SD) age of 53.1 (15.9) years and APACHE II score of 21.3 (8.2) with hospital and 180-day mortality of 82 (31.7%) and 110/237 (46.4%). Patients were followed for 2,657 ICU days and underwent 13,836 RASS assessments. Midazolam prescription was predominant compared to propofol, given to 241 (93%) versus 72 (28%) patients (P < 0.0001) for 966 (39.6%) versus 183 (7.5%) study days respectively. Deep sedation occurred in (182/257) 71% patients at first assessment and in 159 (61%) patients and 1,658 (59%) of all RASS assessments at 48 h. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis adjusting for a priori assigned covariates including sedative agents, diagnosis, age, APACHE II score, operative, elective, vasopressors and dialysis showed that early deep sedation was independently associated with longer time to extubation [hazard ratio (HR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89-0.97, P = 0.003], hospital death (HR 1.11, 95% CI 1.05-1.18, P < 0.001) and 180-day mortality (HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.04-1.15, P = 0.002), but not time to delirium (HR 0.98, P = 0.23). Delirium occurred in 114 (44%) of patients., Conclusion: Irrespective of sedative choice, early deep sedation was independently associated with delayed extubation and higher mortality, and thus was a potentially modifiable risk in interventional trials.

Rationale: Choice and intensity of early (first 48 h) sedation may affect short- and long-term outcome., Objectives: To investigate the relationships between early sedation and time to extubation, delirium, and hospital and 180-day mortality among ventilated critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU)., Methods: Multicenter (25 Australia and New Zealand hospitals) prospective longitudinal (ICU admission to 28 d) cohort study of medical/surgical patients ventilated and sedated 24 hours or more. We assessed administration of sedative agents, ventilation time, sedation depth using Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS, four hourly), delirium (daily), and hospital and 180-day mortality. We used multivariable Cox regression to quantify relationships between early deep sedation (RASS, -3 to -5) and patients' outcomes., Measurements and Main Results: We studied 251 patients (mean age, 61.7 ± 15.9 yr; mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE] II score, 20.8 ± 7.8), with 21.1% (53) hospital and 25.8% (64) 180-day mortality. Over 2,678 study days, we completed 14,736 RASS assessments. Deep sedation occurred in 191 (76.1%) patients within 4 hours of commencing ventilation and in 171 (68%) patients at 48 hours. Delirium occurred in 111 (50.7%) patients with median (interquartile range) duration of 2 (1-4) days. After adjusting for diagnosis, age, sex, APACHE II, operative, elective, hospital type, early use of vasopressors, and dialysis, early deep sedation was an independent predictor of time to extubation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-0.94; P < 0.001), hospital death (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.02-1.20; P = 0.01), and 180-day mortality (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.01-1.16; P = 0.026) but not delirium occurring after 48 hours (P = 0.19)., Conclusions: Early sedation depth independently predicts delayed extubation and increased mortality, making it a potential target for interventional studies.

Etomidate is an induction agent known for its smooth intubating conditions and cardiovascular stability. Studies, however, have shown that a single dose of etomidate can result in a prolonged adrenal insufficiency. The impact of this in patients with sepsis has been a matter for debate. This review presents a pro/con case for using etomidate in hemodynamically unstable critically ill patients and provides guidance for alternative induction techniques and when the use of etomidate might be justified despite these concerns.

Context: Gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor agonist medications are the most commonly used sedatives for intensive care unit (ICU) patients, yet preliminary evidence indicates that the alpha(2) agonist dexmedetomidine may have distinct advantages., Objective: To compare the efficacy and safety of prolonged sedation with dexmedetomidine vs midazolam for mechanically ventilated patients., Design, Setting, and Patients: Prospective, double-blind, randomized trial conducted in 68 centers in 5 countries between March 2005 and August 2007 among 375 medical/surgical ICU patients with expected mechanical ventilation for more than 24 hours. Sedation level and delirium were assessed using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) and the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU., Interventions: Dexmedetomidine (0.2-1.4 microg/kg per hour [n = 244]) or midazolam (0.02-0.1 mg/kg per hour [n = 122]) titrated to achieve light sedation (RASS scores between -2 and +1) from enrollment until extubation or 30 days., Main Outcome Measures: Percentage of time within target RASS range. Secondary end points included prevalence and duration of delirium, use of fentanyl and open-label midazolam, and nursing assessments. Additional outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, and adverse events., Results: There was no difference in percentage of time within the target RASS range (77.3% for dexmedetomidine group vs 75.1% for midazolam group; difference, 2.2% [95% confidence interval {CI}, -3.2% to 7.5%]; P = .18). The prevalence of delirium during treatment was 54% (n = 132/244) in dexmedetomidine-treated patients vs 76.6% (n = 93/122) in midazolam-treated patients (difference, 22.6% [95% CI, 14% to 33%]; P < .001). Median time to extubation was 1.9 days shorter in dexmedetomidine-treated patients (3.7 days [95% CI, 3.1 to 4.0] vs 5.6 days [95% CI, 4.6 to 5.9]; P = .01), and ICU length of stay was similar (5.9 days [95% CI, 5.7 to 7.0] vs 7.6 days [95% CI, 6.7 to 8.6]; P = .24). Dexmedetomidine-treated patients were more likely to develop bradycardia (42.2% [103/244] vs 18.9% [23/122]; P < .001), with a nonsignificant increase in the proportion requiring treatment (4.9% [12/244] vs 0.8% [1/122]; P = .07), but had a lower likelihood of tachycardia (25.4% [62/244] vs 44.3% [54/122]; P < .001) or hypertension requiring treatment (18.9% [46/244] vs 29.5% [36/122]; P = .02)., Conclusions: There was no difference between dexmedetomidine and midazolam in time at targeted sedation level in mechanically ventilated ICU patients. At comparable sedation levels, dexmedetomidine-treated patients spent less time on the ventilator, experienced less delirium, and developed less tachycardia and hypertension. The most notable adverse effect of dexmedetomidine was bradycardia., Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00216190 Published online February 2, 2009 (doi:10.1001/jama.2009.56).