Comparison of the Effects of Intravenous Sedatives on Outcome in Adult Critically ill Patients: a Bayesian Network Analysis

Abstract

Abstract Background This Bayesian network analysis was performed to assess the effects of different intravenous sedatives on outcomes in adult critically ill patients. Methods We searched for and gathered data from MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Elsevier and Web of Science databases. Bayesian network analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of different intravenous sedatives on outcome in adult critically ill patients. Random errors were evaluated by trial sequential analysis (TSA). Results Twenty-seven studies including 8,599 critically ill adult patients were enrolled in the analysis. Comparisons among lorazepam, midazolam, propofol, dexmedetomidine, haloperidol and placebo or usual care were presented in a network plot. No significant differences were found for longest mortality in critically ill patients. However, when compared with midazolam, dexmedetomidine had a shorter ICU length of stay and a lower incidence of delirium. Meanwhile, midazolam had a longer ICU length of stay when compared with placebo, propofol and usual care. Subgroup analyses were performed respectively in sepsis, invasive ventilated patients and postoperative patients, as well as patients with higher severity of disease. Lower mortality was found in dexmedetomidine group when compared with placebo in postoperative patients. No differences were found for mortality, ICU length of stay and incidence of delirium in other subgroups. When compared with other sedatives, dexmedetomidine shortened ICU length of stay significantly in ventilated patients. TSA indicated lack of firm evidence for a beneficial effect. Conclusions No differences were found for longest mortality of different sedatives in adult critically ill patients. However, when compared with midazolam, dexmedetomidine had a shorter ICU length of stay and a lower incidence of delirium. TSA indicated lack of firm evidence for the results. More powered, randomized, controlled trials are needed to determine the effects.