PRODEX: Dexmedetomidine vs. Standard Sedatives in the ICU (2012)

“Among long-term mechanically ventilated ICU patients, sedation with dexmedetomidine was not inferior to standard care in maintaining light to moderate sedation and resulted in a shorter time to extubation and a lower likelihood of delirium.”

  • The PRODEX Study Investigators

1. Publication Details

  • Trial Title: Dexmedetomidine vs Midazolam or Propofol for Sedation During Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation: Two Randomized Controlled Trials
  • Citation: Jakob SM, Ruokonen E, Grounds RM, et al. Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam or propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation: two randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2012;307(11):1151-1160. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2012.304
  • Published: March 21, 2012, in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA)
  • Author: Stephan M. Jakob, M.D., Ph.D.
  • Funding: Orion Pharma.

2. Keywords

  • Sedation, Delirium, Dexmedetomidine, Midazolam, Propofol, Mechanical Ventilation, Randomized Controlled Trial

3. The Clinical Question

  • In critically ill adult patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation (Population), is a strategy of sedation with dexmedetomidine (Intervention) compared to standard sedatives (midazolam or propofol) (Comparison) as effective at maintaining light-to-moderate sedation and does it reduce the time to extubation (Outcome)?

4. Background and Rationale

  • Existing Knowledge: Sedation is essential for many mechanically ventilated patients, but standard sedatives like benzodiazepines (midazolam) and propofol are associated with delirium and prolonged ventilation. The MENDS trial (2007) had shown that dexmedetomidine was superior to lorazepam in reducing delirium in septic patients.
  • Knowledge Gap: It was unknown if dexmedetomidine was a safe and effective alternative to the most commonly used sedatives (midazolam and propofol) for long-term sedation in a general ICU population, and if its unique properties would lead to faster liberation from the ventilator.
  • Proposed Hypothesis: The authors hypothesized that dexmedetomidine would be non-inferior to standard sedatives for maintaining the target sedation level and superior in reducing the time to extubation.

5. Study Design and Methods

  • Design: Two parallel, multicenter, prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled trials (one comparing dexmedetomidine to midazolam, one comparing it to propofol). The results were pooled for the primary analysis.
  • Setting: 74 intensive care units (ICUs) in 8 countries.
  • Trial Period: Enrollment ran from May 2007 to March 2010.
  • Population:
    • Inclusion Criteria: Adult patients (≥18 years) who were mechanically ventilated and expected to require sedation for more than 24 hours.
    • Exclusion Criteria: Included severe neurologic injury, recent cardiac surgery, and severe bradycardia.
  • Intervention: Patients received a continuous intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine.
  • Control: Patients received a continuous intravenous infusion of either midazolam or propofol, at the discretion of the site.
  • Management Common to Both Groups: All patients were managed with a protocol targeting a light-to-moderate level of sedation (RASS 0 to -3). All patients received fentanyl for analgesia.
  • Power and Sample Size: The authors calculated that a sample size of approximately 1000 patients would provide high power to assess both non-inferiority for sedation efficacy and superiority for time to extubation. (Power is a study’s ability to find a real difference between treatments if one truly exists; 80-90% is considered standard).
  • Outcomes:
    • Primary Outcome: The proportion of time that patients spent within the target sedation range (RASS 0 to -3).
    • Secondary Outcomes: Included the duration of mechanical ventilation, the incidence and duration of delirium, and 28-day mortality.

6. Key Results

  • Enrollment and Baseline: 1000 patients were randomized (500 to dexmedetomidine and 500 to standard care [midazolam or propofol]). The groups were well-matched.
  • Trial Status: The trial was completed as planned.
  • Primary Outcome: Dexmedetomidine was non-inferior to standard care for maintaining sedation. The proportion of time in the target sedation range was similar between the groups (median, 79% for dexmedetomidine vs. 75% for standard care).
  • Secondary Outcomes: Patients in the dexmedetomidine group had a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (median, 123 hours vs. 164 hours; p=0.03) and a lower incidence of delirium (54% vs. 77%; p<0.001). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality.
  • Adverse Events: The incidence of hypotension and bradycardia was significantly higher in the dexmedetomidine group.

7. Medical Statistics

  • Analysis Principle: The trial was analyzed using an intention-to-treat principle.
  • Statistical Tests Used: The primary outcome was analyzed using a non-inferiority statistical model.
  • Primary Outcome Analysis: The primary outcome was a comparison of the proportion of time spent within the target sedation range between the two groups.
  • Key Statistic(s) Reported: The key statistics were the median time in the target sedation range and the results of the non-inferiority analysis.
  • Interpretation of Key Statistic(s):
    • Non-inferiority: The analysis confirmed that dexmedetomidine was not worse than standard care at maintaining the desired level of sedation.
    • P-value: The p-values for the key secondary outcomes of ventilation duration (p=0.03) and delirium (p<0.001) were statistically significant, indicating a benefit for dexmedetomidine (a result is conventionally considered statistically significant if the p-value is less than 0.05).
  • Clinical Impact Measures:
    • Difference in Medians: The median duration of mechanical ventilation was 41 hours shorter (almost 2 days) in the dexmedetomidine group.
  • Subgroup Analyses: The benefits of dexmedetomidine were consistent across subgroups.

8. Strengths of the Study

  • Study Design and Conduct: The large, multicenter, randomized, double-blind design is the gold standard for minimizing bias and provided high-quality evidence.
  • Generalizability: The inclusion of 74 diverse ICUs across multiple countries increases the external validity of the findings.
  • Statistical Power: The study was large and adequately powered for its primary and key secondary outcomes.
  • Patient-Centered Outcomes: The study focused on important patient-centered outcomes like duration of ventilation and delirium.

9. Limitations and Weaknesses

  • Internal Validity (Bias): The study was well-conducted with a low risk of bias.
  • External Validity (Generalizability): The findings are highly generalizable to a broad population of critically ill patients requiring prolonged sedation.
  • Other: The trial was funded by the manufacturer of dexmedetomidine, which represents a potential conflict of interest. The higher rate of hemodynamic side effects with dexmedetomidine is an important consideration.

10. Conclusion of the Authors

  • The authors concluded that among critically ill patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation, sedation with dexmedetomidine was as effective as standard care in maintaining light-to-moderate sedation, resulted in a shorter time to extubation, and was associated with a lower incidence of delirium.

11. To Summarize

  • Impact on Current Practice: This was a landmark trial that provided definitive, high-quality evidence to support the use of dexmedetomidine as a primary sedative agent in the ICU. It solidified the paradigm shift away from benzodiazepine-based sedation.
  • Specific Recommendations:
    • Patient Selection: For the broad population of adult ICU patients expected to require mechanical ventilation for more than 24 hours.
    • Actionable Intervention: Dexmedetomidine should be considered as a primary sedative agent, particularly as an alternative to midazolam, to reduce the duration of ventilation and the risk of delirium.
  • What This Trial Does NOT Mean: This trial does NOT mean that dexmedetomidine is the perfect sedative for all patients. It is associated with a higher risk of bradycardia and hypotension.
  • Implementation Caveats: The choice of sedative should be individualized. Dexmedetomidine may be particularly beneficial for patients at high risk for delirium, while propofol may be preferred for patients requiring deep sedation or those with hemodynamic instability.

12. Context and Related Studies

  • Building on Previous Evidence: The PRODEX trial (2012) was a direct successor to the MENDS trial (2007), designed to compare dexmedetomidine not just to lorazepam, but to the most commonly used sedatives, midazolam and propofol, in a larger and more definitive trial.
  • Influence on Subsequent Research: The definitive positive results of this trial, along with the SPICE III trial (2019) which confirmed its safety profile, have been highly influential in shaping international sedation guidelines (e.g., the PADIS guidelines), which now strongly recommend a non-benzodiazepine sedative like dexmedetomidine or propofol as first-line therapy.

13. Unresolved Questions & Future Directions

  • Unresolved Questions: The optimal sedation strategy in patients with specific conditions, such as severe neurologic injury or those requiring very deep sedation, remains an area of investigation.
  • Future Directions: Future research is focused on more personalized sedation strategies guided by objective measures of brain function, such as electroencephalography (EEG).

14. External Links

15. Framework for Critical Appraisal

  • Clinical Question: The research question was highly relevant, providing a head-to-head comparison of a newer sedative against the established standards of care.
  • Methods: The large, multicenter, double-blind RCT design was of high quality. The use of two parallel trials to compare against both midazolam and propofol was a robust approach.
  • Results: The study met its primary endpoint of non-inferiority for sedation efficacy and demonstrated statistically significant and clinically important benefits for key secondary outcomes (duration of ventilation and delirium).
  • Conclusions and Applicability: The authors’ conclusion is strongly supported by the data. The high external validity of this trial means its findings are broadly applicable to the management of sedation in most modern ICUs.

16. Disclaimer and Contact

  • This summary is provided by the Academic Committee of ESBICM (ACE) to facilitate the understanding of this study; readers are advised to refer to the original trial document for a deeper understanding. If you find any information incorrect, or missing, or it needs an update or have a request for a specific critical care trial summary, kindly write to us at academics[at]esbicm.org.
Scroll to Top