The relationship between dexmedetomidine administration and prognosis in patients with sepsis-induced coagulopathy: a retrospective cohort study

• Main Authors: Hongyu Huang (Author), Qifei Li (Author), Qingming Lin (Author), Zheng Gong (Author), Lujia Chen (Author), Feng Chen (Author), Xing Liao (Author), Shirong Lin (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: Frontiers Media S.A., 2024-07-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 1663-9812; 10.3389/fphar.2024.1414809
• Keywords: dexmedetomidine; sepsis-induced coagulopathy; propensity score matching; (MIMIC)-IV database; 28-day hospital mortality; Therapeutics. Pharmacology; RM1-950
• Source: Frontiers in Pharmacology, Vol 15 (2024)

Background: This study aimed to investigate whether dexmedetomidine provides survival benefit in critically ill patients with sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC).Methods: Patients with sepsis-induced coagulopathy admitted to the ICU were identified from the Medical Information Marketplace for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-IV database. They were divided into two groups: patients who started dexmedetomidine within 48 h of ICU admission and lasted for more than 4 h and patients who did not receive dexmedetomidine as a control group. The primary outcome was 28-day hospital mortality, the secondary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and the extended outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation and vasopressor use, ICU stay, and hospital stay. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was used to match patients who received dexmedetomidine with those who did not, and multivariable Cox models and logistics models were used to account for baseline differences and unmeasured confounders. An external validation was performed with the Critical care database comprising patients with infection at Zigong Fourth People's Hospital.Results: After PSM, 592 patients who received dexmedetomidine were matched with 592 patients who did not receive dexmedetomidine. In the primary and secondary endpoints, dexmedetomidine was associated with a lower risk of 28-day hospital mortality (19.3% vs. 14.2%, hazard ratio (HR) 0.71; P = 0.020) and in-hospital mortality (22.3% vs. 16.4%, odds ratio (OR) 0.68; P = 0.017) in patients with SIC. Regarding the extended outcome, dexmedetomidine was also associated with a longer length of hospital stay (median 12.54 days vs. 14.87 days, P = 0.002) and longer ICU stay (median 5.10 days vs. 6.22 days, P = 0.009). In addition, the duration of mechanical ventilation was significantly increased in the dexmedetomidine group (median 41.62 h vs. 48.00 h, p = 0.022), while the duration of vasopressor use was not significantly different (median 36.67 h vs. 39.25 h, p = 0.194). Within 48 h of ICU stay, receiving a dose of dexmedetomidine greater than 0.474 μg/kg/h and continuous dexmedetomidine administration for 24-48 h may be associated with 28-day hospitalization outcomes in patients with SIC. External cohort validation also found that the use of dexmedetomidine after admission to the ICU can reduce 28-day mortality in patients with SIC.Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine administration is associated with reduced 28-day hospital mortality and in-hospital mortality in critically ill patients with SIC, and these findings deserve further verification in randomized controlled trials.