Daily sedation interruption versus no daily sedation interruption for adults requiring mechanical ventilation: uncertain effects
Citation: Burry L, Rose L, McCullagh IJ, et al. Daily sedation interruption versus no daily sedation interruption for critically ill adult patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014; (7): CD009176
What is this? Some patients with COVID-19 will develop respiratory failure and need help with their breathing. This might be provided by mechanical ventilation (MV) in an intensive care unit (ICU). This requires the patient to be sedated, which can cause complications. Daily sedation interruption might be used to try to reduce these.
In this Cochrane systematic review, the authors searched for randomized trials comparing DSI with other sedation strategies for critically ill adults receiving MV. They did not restrict by language of publication and did their searches in February 2014. They identified 9 randomized trials (1282 participants). They also identified one study awaiting classification and one ongoing trial.
What works: Nothing noted.
What doesn’t work: Nothing noted.
What’s uncertain: Although the review found no strong evidence that daily sedation interruption alters clinical outcomes for critically ill adults receiving mechanical ventilation compared to sedation strategies that do not include DSI, the effects are uncertain because of the variability in the included studies.
Disclaimer: This summary has been written by staff and volunteers of Evidence Aid in order to make the content of the original document accessible to decision makers who are searching for the available evidence on the coronavirus (COVID-19) but may not have the time, initially, to read the original report in full. This summary is not intended as a substitute for the medical advice of physicians, other health workers, professional associations, guideline developers, or national governments and international agencies. If readers of this summary think that the evidence that is presented within it is relevant to their decision-making they should refer to the content and details of the original article, and the advice and guidelines offered by other sources of expertise, before making decisions. Evidence Aid cannot be held responsible for any decisions made about the coronavirus (COVID-19) on the basis of this summary alone.
If you have found this summary helpful, please consider making a donation. If everyone who looked at our COVID-19 resources gave us just £2 per month, it would fund Evidence Aid’s life-saving work.