Comparison of sedation strategies for critically ill patients : a protocol for a systematic review incorporating network meta-analyses
BACKGROUND: Sedatives and analgesics are administered to provide sedation and manage agitation and pain in most critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. Various sedation administration strategies including protocolized sedation and daily sedation interruption are used to mitigate drug pharmacokinetic limitations and minimize oversedation, thereby shortening the duration of mechanical ventilation. At present, it is unclear which strategy is most effective, as few have been directly compared. Our review will use network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare and rank sedation strategies to determine their efficacy and safety for mechanically ventilated patients.
METHODS: We will search the following from 1980 to March 2016: Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. We will also search the Cochrane Library, gray literature, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We will use a validated randomized control trial search filter to identify studies evaluating any strategy to optimize sedation in mechanically ventilated adult patients. Authors will independently extract data from eligible studies in duplicate and complete the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Our outcomes of interest include duration of mechanical ventilation, time to first extubation, ICU and hospital length of stay, re-intubation, tracheostomy, mortality, total sedative and opioid exposure, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. To inform our NMA, we will first conduct conventional pair-wise meta-analyses using random-effects models. Where appropriate, we will perform Bayesian NMA using WinBUGS software.
DISCUSSION: There are multiple strategies to optimize sedation for mechanically ventilated patients. Current ICU guidelines recommend protocolized sedation or daily sedation interruption. Our systematic review incorporating NMA will provide a unified analysis of all sedation strategies to determine the relative efficacy and safety of interventions that may not have been compared directly. We will provide knowledge users, decision makers, and professional societies with ranking of multiple sedation strategies to inform future sedation guidelines.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016037480.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2016 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2016 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:5 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Systematic reviews - 5(2016), 1 vom: 20. Sept., Seite 157 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Hutton, Brian [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Daily sedation interruption |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 30.01.2018 Date Revised 02.12.2018 published: Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1186/s13643-016-0338-x |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM264489756 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000naa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM264489756 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20231224210214.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231224s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s13643-016-0338-x |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n0881.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM264489756 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)27646881 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Hutton, Brian |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Comparison of sedation strategies for critically ill patients |b a protocol for a systematic review incorporating network meta-analyses |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2016 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 30.01.2018 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 02.12.2018 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a BACKGROUND: Sedatives and analgesics are administered to provide sedation and manage agitation and pain in most critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. Various sedation administration strategies including protocolized sedation and daily sedation interruption are used to mitigate drug pharmacokinetic limitations and minimize oversedation, thereby shortening the duration of mechanical ventilation. At present, it is unclear which strategy is most effective, as few have been directly compared. Our review will use network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare and rank sedation strategies to determine their efficacy and safety for mechanically ventilated patients | ||
| 520 | |a METHODS: We will search the following from 1980 to March 2016: Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. We will also search the Cochrane Library, gray literature, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We will use a validated randomized control trial search filter to identify studies evaluating any strategy to optimize sedation in mechanically ventilated adult patients. Authors will independently extract data from eligible studies in duplicate and complete the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Our outcomes of interest include duration of mechanical ventilation, time to first extubation, ICU and hospital length of stay, re-intubation, tracheostomy, mortality, total sedative and opioid exposure, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. To inform our NMA, we will first conduct conventional pair-wise meta-analyses using random-effects models. Where appropriate, we will perform Bayesian NMA using WinBUGS software | ||
| 520 | |a DISCUSSION: There are multiple strategies to optimize sedation for mechanically ventilated patients. Current ICU guidelines recommend protocolized sedation or daily sedation interruption. Our systematic review incorporating NMA will provide a unified analysis of all sedation strategies to determine the relative efficacy and safety of interventions that may not have been compared directly. We will provide knowledge users, decision makers, and professional societies with ranking of multiple sedation strategies to inform future sedation guidelines | ||
| 520 | |a SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42016037480 | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Meta-Analysis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Daily sedation interruption | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Intensive care | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Mechanical ventilation | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Network meta-analysis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Sedation protocol | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Systematic review | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Burry, Lisa D |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kanji, Salmaan |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Mehta, Sangeeta |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Guenette, Melanie |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Martin, Claudio M |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Fergusson, Dean A |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Adhikari, Neill K |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Egerod, Ingrid |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Williamson, David |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Straus, Sharon |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Moher, David |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ely, E Wesley |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Rose, Louise |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Systematic reviews |d 2012 |g 5(2016), 1 vom: 20. Sept., Seite 157 |w (DE-627)NLM217806902 |x 2046-4053 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:5 |g year:2016 |g number:1 |g day:20 |g month:09 |g pages:157 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0338-x |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 5 |j 2016 |e 1 |b 20 |c 09 |h 157 | ||