Skip to main content

Low Does IV Haldol to Prevent Delirium in Post-Op ICU Patients

The reason that I love preparing talks to give to residents and fellows is that I always find new and interesting articles that I otherwise would have missed if not for my last minute PubMed searches. Yesterday’s talk on delirium was no exception, as I came across this article in Critical Care Medicine - Haloperidol prophylaxis decreases delirium incidence in elderly patients after noncardiac surgery: A randomized controlled trial. This study appears to be the largest trial to date on delirium prevention in the ICU setting, yet I never knew it was published, and I’m still trying to digest the facts. Here is my quick attempt:

What Did the Study Do?

This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled two-center clinical trial done in Beijing, China. The researchers enrolled patients who were admitted to the ICU after noncardiac surgery. They had a good list of exclusions which included a history of schizophrenia, epilepsy, parkinsonism, use of cholinesterase inhibitor, or levodopa treatment; inability to communicate in the preoperative period; use of haloperidol or other neuroleptics during or after anesthesia; neurosurgery; individuals unlikely to survive for 24 hours; and prolonged QTc.

A total of 457 patients were randomly assigned to either haloperidol group or placebo. The haloperidol group got a 0.5 mg bolus intravenously within 1 hour of randomization.  This was followed by continuous infusion of haloperidol at 0.1 mg/hr for 12 hours. That was pretty much it for the intervention, however the authors also enacted multicomponent approaches to reduce risk factors of delirium including nonpharmacologic strategies in both the intervention and control group.

What Did They Find?

The researchers main outcome of interest was whether patients developed delirium during the first 7 days after surgery using the CAM-ICU as the assessment method for delirium. Here is what they found:


  • A significant decrease in the incidence of postoperative delirium in the haloperidol group compared to the placebo group (15.3% vs. 23.2%, p .031).
  • A longer time to onset of delirium and more delirium-free days in the haloperidol group, as well as a shorter length of ICU stay.
  • Similar time to hospital discharge in both the haloperidol and the control group
  • No significant arrhythmias during the administration of haloperidol and no significant changes to the QTc interval, and no reported extrapyramidal symptoms
  • No change in all cause mortality at 28 days


My First Thoughts:

There were some baseline characteristics that differed between the two groups despite randomization. Duration of anesthesia and surgery were significantly longer in the haloperidol group, as well as the volume of total intraoperative infusion. I’m not to concerned about this as my best guess is that this would make the Haldol group look worse, and the authors adjusted for these factors in a separate analysis. This does beg the question of whether there were any differences in other important factors not measured by the authors, such as baseline cognitive function.

The trial also looks like it enrolled a pretty healthy group of individuals for having needed an ICU stay. Most of the patients were admitted to the ICU after undergoing elective surgery, half stayed in the ICU for less than 24 hours, and few actually developed delirium post-op independent of the group assigned (15.3% in the haloperidol group and 23.2% in the pla¬cebo group). This is a remarkably lower incidence in both groups compared to commonly cited incidence rates (70-80%).

Lastly, delirium is associated with lots of badness – including increased morbidity, mortality, and need for institutionalization. Let’s just say we believe that haloperidol actually decreases delirium incidence in post-op ICU patients. This doesn’t necessarily mean that it will decrease rates of all the bad things that accompany delirium.  In truth, we may just be masking the symptom, but not really treating the underlying issue.  It would have been helpful to know what the study participants' functional status was upon discharge and whether or not they needed institutionalization.

Take Home

I really enjoyed reading this article and it gave me a lot to think about, but in the end it failed to convince me that all older adults need a low dose antipsychotic when admitted to the ICU after an operation. What do you think?

by: Eric Widera (@ewidera)

Comments

STD Symptoms said…
Smart post admin but i think you need more explanation and more Pics
and I hope to visit my blog and subscribe to me :)
Scabies and Pelvic Inflammatory Disease
ken covinsky said…
This is quite interesting, and seems to be a well done study. There is a lot of interest lately in the use of haldol for delirium prevention. Maybe time will prove this useful, but for now I am kind of skeptical.

One concern with the use of haldol is the possibility that we are masking agitated delirium, and converting it to hypoactive delirium.

The classic picture of agitated delirium is a patient screaming and hollering and pulling out all of their IV's. This pretty much always gets recognized.

Hypoactive delirium is the patient who lies quietly in bed and doesn't do anything, but is confused and will show tangential thoughts and inattentivess when talked to carefully. This usually goes undiagnosed, but is just as dangerous as agitated delirium.

In theory, the studies like this that use the CAM should pick up both agitated and hypoactive delirium. But, much depends on the skill and training of the examiner, and it seems likely even in well done studies that one is more likely to identify agitated delirium than hypoactive delirium.

For these reasons, I agree with Eric that to make a convincing case that haldol prophylaxis is effective, it will also be necessary to show an impact on the downstream consequences of delirium such as declines in functional status.

Popular posts from this blog

Lost in Translation: Google’s Translation of Palliative Care to ‘Do-Nothing Care’

by: Cynthia X. Pan, MD, FACP, AGSF (@Cxpan5X)

My colleagues often ask me: “Why are Chinese patients so resistant to hospice and palliative care?” “Why are they so unrealistic?” “Don’t they understand that death is part of life?” “Is it true that with Chinese patients you cannot discuss advance directives?”

As a Chinese speaking geriatrician and palliative care physician practicing in Flushing, NY, I have cared for countless Chinese patients with serious illnesses or at end of life.  Invariably, when Chinese patients or families see me, they ask me if I speak Chinese. When I reply “I do” in Mandarin, the relief and instant trust I see on their faces make my day meaningful and worthwhile.

At my hospital, the patient population is about 30% Asian, with the majority of these being Chinese. Most of these patients require language interpretation.  It becomes an interesting challenge and opportunity, as we often need to discuss advance directives, goals of care, and end of life care options…

Delirium: A podcast with Sharon Inouye

In this week's GeriPal podcast we discuss delirium, with a focus on prevention. We are joined by internationally acclaimed delirium researcher Sharon Inouye, MD, MPH. Dr Inouye is Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Director of the Aging Brain Center in the Institute for Aging Research at Hebrew SeniorLife.

Dr. Inouye's research focuses on delirium and functional decline in hospitalized older patients, resulting in more than 200 peer-reviewed original articles to date. She has developed and validated a widely used tool to identify delirium called the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM), and she founded the Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP) to prevent delirium in hospitalized patients.

We are also joined by guest host Lindsey Haddock, MD, a geriatrics fellow at UCSF who asks a great question about how to implement a HELP program, or aspects of the program, in a hospital with limited resources.  


You can also find us on Youtube!


Listen to GeriPal Podcasts on:
iTunes…

Are Palliative Care Providers Better Prognosticators? A Podcast with Bob Gramling

Estimating prognosis is hard and clinicians get very little training on how to do it.  Maybe that is one of the reasons that clinicians are more likely to be optimistic and tend to overestimate patient survival by a factor of between 3 and 5.  The question is, aren't we better as palliative care clinicians than others in estimating prognosis?  This is part of our training and we do it daily.   We got to be better, right? 

Well, on todays podcast we have Bob Gramling from the Holly and Bob Miller Chair of Palliative Medicine at the University of Vermont to talk about his paper in Journal of Pain and Symptom Management (JPSM) titled “Palliative Care Clinician Overestimation of Survival in Advanced Cancer: Disparities and Association with End of Life Care”.

Big findings from this JPSM paper include that we, like all other clinicians, are an optimistic bunch and that it actually does impact outcomes.   In particular, the people whose survival was overestimated by a palliative care c…