4.7 Review

Melatonin or Ramelteon for Delirium Prevention in the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm12020435

关键词

critical care; agonist; length of stay; mechanical ventilation; mortality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that melatonin and ramelteon do not seem to reduce delirium incidence in ICU patients, although there was a potential trend towards reducing the duration of mechanical ventilation. More studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Melatonin modulates the circadian rhythm and has been studied as a preventive measure against the development of delirium in hospitalized patients. Such an effect may be more evident in patients admitted to the ICU, but findings from the literature are conflicting. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We assessed whether melatonin or ramelteon (melatonin agonist) reduce delirium incidence as compared to a placebo in ICU patients. Secondary outcomes were ICU length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) and mortality. Estimates are presented as risk ratio (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Nine RCTs were included, six of them reporting delirium incidence. Neither melatonin nor ramelteon reduced delirium incidence (RR 0.76 (0.54, 1.07), p = 0.12; I-2 = 64%), although a sensitivity analysis conducted adding other four studies showed a reduction in the risk of delirium (RR = 0.67 (95%CI 0.48, 0.92), p = 0.01; I-2 = 67). Among the secondary outcomes, we found a trend towards a reduction in the duration of MV (MD -2.80 (-6.06, 0.47), p = 0.09; I-2 = 94%) but no differences in ICU-LOS (MD -0.26 (95%CI -0.89, 0.37), p = 0.42; I-2 = 75%) and mortality (RR = 0.85 (95%CI 0.63, 1.15), p = 0.30; I-2 = 0%). Melatonin and ramelteon do not seem to reduce delirium incidence in ICU patients but evidence is weak. More studies are needed to confirm this finding.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据