Dexmedetomidine and Mortality From Sepsis Requiring Mechanical Ventilation: A Japanese Nationwide Retrospective Cohort Study. (September 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Aso, Shotaro; Matsui, Hiroki; Fushimi, Kiyohide; Yasunaga, Hideo
• Is Part Of: Journal of intensive care medicine. Volume 36:Number 9(2021)
• Page Start: 1036
• Page End: 1043
• Publication Date: 2021-09
• Subjects: dexmedetomidine -- sedation -- sepsis -- mechanical ventilation -- mortality; Critical care medicine -- Periodicals; Critical Care -- Periodicals; Soins intensifs -- Périodiques; Soins intensifs; Périodique électronique (Descripteur de forme); Ressource Internet (Descripteur de forme); 616.02805
• DOI: 10.1177/0885066620942154
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0885-0666

Abstract

Background: Dexmedetomidine has a mild sedative effect and may reduce mortality in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. However, few studies have examined the effects of dexmedetomidine in patients with sepsis who require mechanical ventilation. The aim of this study was to investigate the association between dexmedetomidine and mortality in patients with sepsis requiring mechanical ventilation, using a nationwide inpatient database in Japan. Methods: Using the Diagnosis Procedure Combination database from July 1, 2010, to March 31, 2016, we identified adult patients with sepsis who required mechanical ventilation for more than 2 days. Patients were divided into those who received dexmedetomidine and those who received midazolam or propofol within 1 day after admission. Logistic regression analysis, propensity score-matched analysis, and instrumental variable analysis were performed to compare all-cause 28-day mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation between the groups. Results: In total, 50 671 were eligible patients, including dexmedetomidine group (n = 13 759) and propofol or midazolam group (n = 36 912). The dexmedetomidine group had significantly lower all-cause 28-day mortality compared with the group receiving midazolam or propofol, as shown by the logistic regression analysis (odds ratio [OR]: 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.73-0.84), the propensity score–matched analysis (OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.80-0.91), and the instrumental variable analysis (OR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.57-0.73). The duration of mechanical ventilation in the dexmedetomidine group was significantly shorter than that in the midazolam or propofol group. Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine was associated with a reduction in all-cause 28-day mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation.