Title |
Loxapine to control agitation during weaning from mechanical ventilation
|
---|---|
Published in |
Critical Care, September 2017
|
DOI | 10.1186/s13054-017-1822-y |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Stéphane Gaudry, Benjamin Sztrymf, Romain Sonneville, Bruno Megarbane, Guillaume Van Der Meersch, Dominique Vodovar, Yves Cohen, Jean-Damien Ricard, David Hajage, Laurence Salomon, Didier Dreyfuss |
Abstract |
Weaning from mechanical ventilation (MV) may be impeded by the occurrence of agitation. Loxapine has the ability to control agitation without affecting spontaneous ventilation. The aim of this study was to establish whether loxapine would reduce MV weaning duration in agitated patients. We performed a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group, randomised trial. Patients who were potential candidates for weaning but exhibited agitation (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score ≥ 2) after sedation withdrawal were randomly assigned to receive either loxapine or placebo. In case of severe agitation, conventional sedation was immediately resumed. The primary endpoint was the time between first administration of loxapine or placebo and successful extubation. The trial was discontinued after 102 patients were enrolled because of an insufficient inclusion rate. Median times to successful extubation were 3.2 days in the loxapine group and 5 days in the placebo group (relative risk 1.2, 95% CI 0.75-1.88, p = 0.45). During the first 24 h, sedation was more frequently resumed in the placebo group (44% vs 17%, p = 0.01). In this prematurely stopped trial, loxapine did not significantly shorten weaning from MV. However, loxapine reduced the need for resuming sedation. Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01193816 . Registered on 26 August 2010. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 3 | 10% |
United States | 3 | 10% |
Mexico | 2 | 7% |
Vietnam | 1 | 3% |
Spain | 1 | 3% |
Brazil | 1 | 3% |
Greece | 1 | 3% |
Argentina | 1 | 3% |
Chile | 1 | 3% |
Other | 6 | 20% |
Unknown | 10 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 20 | 67% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 5 | 17% |
Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 3 | 10% |
Scientists | 2 | 7% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 51 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Researcher | 8 | 16% |
Student > Ph. D. Student | 5 | 10% |
Other | 5 | 10% |
Student > Bachelor | 4 | 8% |
Professor | 3 | 6% |
Other | 7 | 14% |
Unknown | 19 | 37% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 15 | 29% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 14% |
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 4% |
Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
Social Sciences | 1 | 2% |
Other | 3 | 6% |
Unknown | 22 | 43% |