Purpose To determine the effect of depth of sedation on intensive care mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, and other clinically important outcomes.
Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO from 2000 to 2020. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies that examined the effect of sedation depth were included. Two reviewers independently screened, selected articles, extracted data and appraised quality. Data on study design, population, setting, patient characteristics, study interventions, depth of sedation and relevant outcomes were extracted. Quality was assessed using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tools.
Results We included data from 26 studies (n=7865 patients): 8 RCTs and 18 cohort studies. Heterogeneity of studies was substantial. There was no significant effect of lighter sedation on intensive care mortality. Lighter sedation did not affect duration of mechanical ventilation in RCTs (mean difference (MD): −1.44 days (95% CI −3.79 to 0.91)) but did in cohort studies (MD: −1.52 days (95% CI −2.71 to −0.34)). No statistically significant benefit of lighter sedation was identified in RCTs. In cohort studies, lighter sedation improved time to extubation, intensive care and hospital length of stay and ventilator-associated pneumonia. We found no significant effects for hospital mortality, delirium or adverse events.
Conclusion Evidence of benefit from lighter sedation is limited, with inconsistency between observational and randomised studies. Positive effects were mainly limited to low quality evidence from observational studies, which could be attributable to bias and confounding factors.
- critical care
Data availability statement
No data are available.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Twitter @Leanne_Aitken, @Claire Kydonaki@CKydonaki, @Mandy_sekhon
Contributors Review concept and design: LMA, KK, BB and TSW. Study identification, critical appraisal and data extraction: LMA, KK, BB, LGT and MS. Statistical analysis: EP. Interpretation of analysis: all authors. Drafting of manuscript: LMA. Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: all authors.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.