Adjunctive Ketamine for Sedation in Critically Ill Mechanically Ventilated Patients: An Active-Controlled, Pilot, Feasibility Clinical Trial
============================================================================================================================================

* Marwa Amer
* Khalid Maghrabi
* Mohammed Bawazeer
* Kamel Alshaikh
* Mohammad Shaban
* Muhammad Rizwan
* Rashid Amin
* Edward De Vol
* Mawadah Baali
* Malak Altewerki
* Mehreen Bano
* Fawziah Alkhaldi
* Sanaa Alenazi
* Mohammed Hijazi

## Abstract

**Objective** Ketamine has been shown to decrease sedative requirements in intensive care unit (ICU). Randomized trials are limited on patient-centered outcomes. We designed this pilot clinical trial to evaluate the feasibility of using ketamine as an adjunct analgosedative compared with standard of care (SOC) alone and determine preliminary effect size on 28-day mechanical ventilation (MV) duration and ventilator-free days (VFDs).

**Design** Pilot, single-center, active-controlled, open-label, randomized clinical trial.

**Setting** Medical, surgical, and transplant ICUs at King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Saudi Arabia.

**Patients and Methods** Adult patients who were intubated within 24 hours, expected to require MV for the next calendar day, and had institutional pain and sedation protocol initiated.

**Intervention** Adjunct ketamine infusion 1-2 μg/kg/min for 48 hours versus SOC.

**Measurements and Main Results** Total of 83 patients (43 in SOC and 40 in ketamine) were included. Demographics were balanced between groups. Median MV duration was 7 (interquartile range [IQR] 3-9.25 days) in ketamine and 5 (IQR 2-8 days) in SOC, p= 0.15. Median VFDs was 19 (IQR 0-24.75 days) in ketamine and 19 (IQR 0-24 days) in the SOC (p=0.70). More patients attained goal RASS score at 24 and 48 hours in ketamine (67.5% and 73.5%, respectively) compared with SOC (52.4% and 66.7%, respectively). Sedatives and vasopressors cumulative doses, and hemodynamic changes were similar. ICU length-of-stay was 12.5 (IQR 6-21.2 days) in ketamine, compared with 12 (IQR 5.5-23 days) in SOC, p=0.89. Consent and protocol adherence rate were adequate. No serious adverse events were observed in either group.

**Conclusions** Use of ketamine as an adjunct analgosedative agent appeared to be feasible and safe with no negative impact on outcomes, including hemodynamics. The protocol of this pilot trial could be improved by modifying ketamine dosing regimen. These findings provide a basis for future, adequately powered, multicenter trial to investigate its association with patient-centered outcomes further.

Keywords
*   ketamine
*   critical care
*   sedation
*   mechanical ventilation
*   standard of care
*   ATTAINMENT

## Background

Analgo-sedation or analgesia-first-sedation has gained popularity in recent years (1). This approach has been developed to decrease sedative use, and facilitate mechanical ventilation (MV) weaning (2). Data on ideal sedative in intensive care unit (ICU) for mechanically ventilated, and hemodynamically unstable patients are limited. Ketamine has a favorable hemodynamic, analgesic, and adverse effect profile, making it attractive as an analgosedative agent (3,4). It inhibits N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors and activates opioid μ- and κ-receptors (5). When compared with other sedatives, ketamine has fastest onset (within 30-40 sec) and 15 min duration of action. Anesthetists have long used ketamine for acute and chronic pain, procedural sedation, and rapid sequence intubation. It has also been used in postoperative pain control in surgical and trauma patients [as part of multimodal opioid-sparing analgesia in enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)], status asthmatics, status epilepticus, alcohol withdrawal, and agitation (6,7).

Ketamine does not appear to have potential side effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or opioids negative effects on μ receptors of gastrointestinal tract associated with ileus (8-10). Studies to control acute pain in traumatic rib fractures of severely injured individuals at sub-anesthetic doses resulted in reduction of pain scale score and morphine-equivalent dose (11,12). Its use has been extended during coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic due to a shortage of other sedatives to keep patients on MV comfortable and synchronous (13,14). Ketamine has not been associated with chest wall rigidity precipitating insufficient ventilation, which has occasionally been described with fentanyl [15]. Additionally, propofol and dexmedetomidine associated-hypotension may necessitate vasopressor support which may exclude patients from qualifying for COVID-19 antiviral medication (remdesivir), making ketamine an attractive alternative [16].

There is an increasing body of literature on use of ketamine infusion as an analgosedative agent at ICU to reduce sedative requirement and maintain patients within target sedation agitation scale goal (17-20). However, evidence provided in Pain, Agitation-Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption (PADIS) guideline supporting its use in mechanically ventilated patients was insufficient due to limited number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (1,21). Data on whether ketamine affects patient-centered outcomes and its safety in RCTs, as compared with standard of care (SOC), are unclear. We evaluated the feasibility of an Analgo-sedative adjuncT keTAmine Infusion iN Mechanically vENTilated ICU patients (ATTAINMENT trial) compared to SOC alone, using a randomized trial design to determine preliminary estimates and effect size on patient-centered outcomes for future adequately powered clinical trial.

## Patients and Methods

This was an investigator-initiated, pilot, single-center, parallel-group, open-label RCT. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov: [NCT04075006](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?link\_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT04075006&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F06%2F05%2F2021.04.26.21256072.atom), current controlled trials: [ISRCTN14730035](http://medrxiv.org/external-ref?link_type=ISRCTN&access_num=ISRCTN14730035), and Saudi Food and Drug Authority: SCTR #19063002. Our institution’s research ethics committee approved the trial (number 2191 187). Full study protocol has been published previously (22). The trial was conducted according to CONSORT guidelines extension to randomized pilot and feasibility trials. Participants were recruited from King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center (KFSH&RC), Riyadh. It is a major referral center that provides tertiary and quaternary care. The ICU department is composed of several ICUs (medical, surgical, and transplant). During COVID-19 pandemic, new units were opened to accommodate patients surge.

### Study Population

Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were admitted to any of our three adult ICUs, intubated within previous 24-hours and expected to continue on MV the next calendar day, initiated on institutional pain and sedation protocol, and no objection from ICU attending or primary treating team. Recruitment began in September 2019 and was completed in November 2020. Patients were excluded if they had history of dementia or psychiatric disorders, or were comatose on admission due to hepatic encephalopathy. Other exclusion criteria were: severe pulmonary hypertension, tracheostomy at baseline, intellectual disability that precluded delirium assessment, transfer from an external facility, history of substance abuse, and situations where high blood pressure could trigger dangerous complications, such as aortic dissection. We also excluded those with repeated ICU admissions within same hospital visit and those who participated in another interventional trial. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria are detailed in **Supplementary Table 1**. Our research coordinators, along with local principal investigators screened patients for eligibility by using an electronic screening form in Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). Once eligibility criteria were met, informed consent was obtained. Given the need to enroll patients in expedited manner within 24-hours window, verbal consent from surrogate decision-maker (SDM) was allowed and documented in electronic medical records (EMR). Written consent was obtained as soon as SDM became available.

Patients were randomized in a 1:1 allocation using a computer-generated, pre-determined randomization list created by an independent biostatistician; no stratification was performed. Group allocation was concealed until after randomization. The investigators were masked to outcome data during the trial. Since this was an open-label study and because of lack of funding, blinding of investigators and treating team was not possible at this phase. However, patients and families were unaware of group assignment. **Supplementary Figure 1A, 1B** summarized treatment algorithm. After randomization, control group (SOC) was started on KFSH&RC ICU analgesia and sedation protocol. Since it was a nurse-driven protocol, treating team placed an order regarding target Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), and sedatives infusions were adjusted according to RASS target by bedside ICU nurse. For those randomized to intervention group (ketamine), continuous infusion ketamine 1-2 μg/kg/min was added as an adjunct for 48-hours. The infusion could be weaned off earlier in preparation for extubation. Since this was only a feasibility trial, there was no further intervention after 48-hours; however, clinical outcomes and adverse events (AEs) were monitored up to day 28. Ketamine dose was reported in μg per kilogram of actual body weight per min as per institutional practice. Other aspects of care, including fluid management, vasopressors use, blood products, enteral nutrition, renal replacement therapy, and early mobilization at discretion of treating team, were similar in both groups. ICU supportive measures were applied as appropriate, including venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, and prone positioning of patients who met the criteria based on established guidelines for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Septic patients were managed according to latest survival sepsis campaign guidelines. Patient-ventilator asynchrony was systematically assessed and managed through inter-professional collaboration by prioritizing analgesia, and management of MV to avoid unnecessary use of neuromuscular blocking blockers [NMB]. Spontaneous awakening trial (SAT) was assessed every morning with SAT safety screen unless patients were receiving sedative infusion for status epilepticus or started on NMB post-randomization. Patients who passed SAT were immediately managed using spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) protocol. Both groups received basic analgesic regimen that included paracetamol and epidural analgesia for hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) patients. If delirium treatment was needed, non-pharmacological measures (reassurance or mobilization, and family support) were applied first. If this was insufficient, the protocol allowed the use of antipsychotics and decision was left to ICU physician.

### Outcome Variables

Primary outcome was median duration of MV, with ventilator-free days (VFDs) up to day 28 as co-primary outcome. This outcome was chosen as patient-centered and highly influenced by mortality (23). Secondary outcomes included the following up to 28 days: ICU and hospital length-of-stay (LOS), mortality rate, and percentage of participants with AEs. We collected proportion and daily cumulative dose of vasopressors, sedatives and analgesics [fentanyl, propofol, midazolam, and dexmedetomidine], and antipsychotics over 48-hours post-randomization. Data on sedatives administered outside ICU settings during anesthesia or intraoperative management were not collected. Presence of delirium was assessed using confusion assessment method for ICU (CAM-ICU), which was measured at baseline and 48-hours post-randomization. If CAM-ICU scores were not available, an electronic progress note was reviewed to detect any evidence of delirium. Hemodynamic parameters [heart rate and mean arterial pressure (MAP)] were collected 48-hours post-randomization. Hemodynamic changes were defined as presence of tachycardia, hypertension, and hypotension. Details about variables collected and their definitions are available in **Supplementary File 1, and Supplementary Table 2**. Data were stored online in REDCap web application and data quality assessments were executed routinely to ensure completion and accuracy. Feasibility was assessed by evaluating consent rate, recruitment success, and protocol adherence. Consent rate was deemed to be adequate if > 70% of SDMs or patients chose to participate upon being approached. Successful recruitment was defined as > 3 patients enrolled per month. Protocol adherence was defined as >75% of patients receiving ketamine according to prescribed protocol. These thresholds were chosen after examining other pilot studies on complex interventions (22). We conducted educational sessions for clinicians, nurses, and hospital pharmacies to facilitate implementation of protocol. Protocol deviation was defined as not starting ketamine immediately after randomization (ideally within 4-hours) due to pharmacy delay or non-placement of ketamine order.

### Statistical analysis

Overall study population included all patients who were enrolled, randomly assigned, and received at least one dose of study medication, constituting modified intention-to-treat (mITT) population. Statistician was blinded to study group allocation and performed statistical analyses using R statistical software Version 3.5.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria) and SAS/JMP version 15.0 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Counts and percentages were used to summarize distribution of categorical variables. Continuous variables were summarized using either mean ± standard deviation or median and interquartile range (IQR), based on results of normality testing (using Shapiro-Wilk test and Histograms). Chi-square test of independence was used to assess whether distribution of categorical variables was different between groups. Unpaired t-test or Mann-Whitney test was used to compare distribution of normal and non-normal continuous variables. Variables with more than one possible response were dummy coded, and percentage of each response was calculated from total sample size. VFDs were calculated by subtracting number of ventilation days from 28 after assigning VFD=0 for patients who died during 28 days. Sensitivity analysis for sedative and vasopressor requirements, excluding patients started on NBM post-randomization, was conducted. We ensured immediate data entry and identified missing data quickly, and issues were resolved promptly. Thus, no imputation for missing variables was done. Since this is a pilot and feasibility trial, there was no formal sample size calculation. A convenient sample of about 40 patients per group was thought to be roughly sufficient for this pilot trial (24).

## Results

From September 2019 through November 2020, a total of 437 MV patients were screened; 83 patients met inclusion criteria and 354 were excluded. Among screened patients, 88 did not meet eligibility criteria, mainly because they were expected to require MV for < 24-hours. Among included patients, 43 were in SOC group and 40 were included in ketamine group in mITT analysis. Participants’ flow through the trial is shown in **Figure 1**. Other exclusion criteria assessed were pulmonary hypertension (3 patients), tracheostomy at baseline post-face flab or due to subglottic stenosis (11 patients), intellectual disability that precluded delirium assessment (2 patients), transferred from outside facility (2 patients), and history of substance abuse (3 patients).

![Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/06/05/2021.04.26.21256072/F1.medium.gif)

[Figure 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/05/2021.04.26.21256072/F1)

Figure 1: Study Flow Chart
¶ deemed to be extubatable post-randomization

Abbreviations: ESLD, end-stage liver diseases; HR, heart rate; SBP, systolic blood pressure; ECMO, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; DNR, do-not-resuscitate

Baseline demographics are described in **Table 1 and Supplementary Table 3**. Median age was 60 years, with a higher proportion of males. About half of the patients were from medical ICU, 26.5% from surgical ICU, and 25.3% from transplant ICU; median SOFA 8, and APACHE II 20. Overall, demographic characteristics were balanced between groups in terms of sex, race, and comorbidities, except for prevalence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which was higher in SOC group. We included a wide variety of ICU admission diagnoses and among those randomized to ketamine, 60% had ARDS and about 34% were recipients of solid organ transplants or had solid malignancy. Other primary reasons for ICU admission included HIPEC (3 patients: 2 in ketamine and 1 in SOC), COVID-19 pneumonia (2 patients: one in each group), and sickle cell disease (1 patient in ketamine). Ketamine-treated patients were noted to have higher median lactate level (2.2 [IQR 1.58-3.4 mmol/L] p= 0.004). Median number of hours of ICU admission before study enrollment was 13 (IQR 6-21.15) in SOC and 15 (IQR 12-21) in ketamine (p=0.17). Post randomization, NMB was initiated in 12.5% of ketamine-treated patients compared to 4.65% in SOC.

View this table:
[Table 1.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/05/2021.04.26.21256072/T1)

Table 1. Demographic and baseline characteristics

Patients outcomes are summarized in **Table 2**. Median duration of MV on day 28 was 7 days in ketamine group (IQR 3-9.25) compared to 5 days in SOC group (IQR 2-8). Among the 83 patients assessed, a similar proportion of patients had been weaned off MV at 28 days: 25 of 40 (62.5%) in ketamine group and 27 of 43 (62.8%) in SOC. Median distribution of VFDs at day 28 was 19 days in both groups (P = 0.70). Median duration of ICU LOS was comparable between groups. More patients in ketamine achieved goal RASS at 24 and 48 hours (67.5% and 73.5%, respectively) compared to SOC (52.4% and 66.7%, respectively). Additional details on outcomes are available in **Supplementary Table 4, Supplementary Figure 2**.

View this table:
[Table 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/05/2021.04.26.21256072/T2)

Table 2. Outcomes

Safety outcomes are described in **Table 3**. Proportion of patients who did not complete 48-hours of the trial was higher in ketamine (37.5%) than in SOC (11.63%) and the main reason was weaning off sedation in preparation for extubation. Antipsychotics were started in 3 ketamine-treated patients compared to 4 patients in SOC (p=1). Dexmedetomidine initiation within 48-hours post-randomization was similar between groups. Higher frequency of hypersalivation and frequent suctioning was observed in SOC arm. Regarding hemodynamic changes in HR and MAP at 24 and 48-hours, we found no difference between groups (**Figure 2**). The 28-day mortality rate was 11 (27.5%) in ketamine compared with 14 (32.6%) in SOC, p= 0.79. Data Safety Monitoring Committee reviewed all deaths, and all were determined to have been due to underlying disease, with participation in trial not being a contributing factor. More details of safety outcomes are available in **Supplementary Table 5**.

View this table:
[Table 4.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/05/2021.04.26.21256072/T3)

Table 4. Safety outcomes

![Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/06/05/2021.04.26.21256072/F2.medium.gif)

[Figure 2.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/05/2021.04.26.21256072/F2)

Figure 2. HR and MAP at baseline, 24 hours, and 48 hours
Abbreviation: SOC, standard of care; HR, heart rate; MAP, mean arterial pressure

**Supplementary Tables 6-7, Supplementary Figures 3-4** described sedative and vasopressor requirements. Median RASS was -2 at baseline, which gradually increased to -1 during 48-hours post-randomization, indicating light sedation and ability of patients to make eye contact with verbal stimulation. Thirty-six patients underwent CAM-ICU assessment within 48-hours post-randomization (43.37 %), of which 2 were positive in ketamine group (5%). There was no difference in baseline values of vasopressor and sedative requirements pre-randomization, except for amount of vasopressin which was higher in ketamine-treated patients (median 39.6, IQR 30.5-64.2 units, P = 0.053). Cumulative doses of fentanyl and other sedatives were similar between two groups at 48-hours post-randomization. Similar trends were observed for cumulative vasopressors dose in mg at 48-hours post-randomization. Sensitivity analysis was conducted on sedative requirements, excluding those started on NMB post-randomization, and findings were consistent with primary analysis.

Regarding feasibility outcomes, average patients enrollment was 3-4 patients/month. Consent rate was adequate; > 70% of SDMs or patients choosing to participate when approached for consent. Recruitment rate decreased significantly during COVID-19 pandemic and was halted for 1 month. We resumed recruitment at a slower rate in March 2020, with an average of 1-2 patients/month. In total, 12% of patients were enrolled outside traditional working hours (on weekends or night shifts). This process was facilitated through close collaboration with on-call ICU physician. Protocol adherence was 97.5% and median hours from consent or enrollment until ketamine started was 4.25 [IQR 2.08-5.88]. Adherence rate was lower than expected (90%) during COVID-19 pandemic. We were able to improve compliance using strategies such as education sessions for research and clinical staff and routine clinical reminders, including documentation in EMR.

## Discussion

This pilot proved the feasibility of a clinical trial to evaluate the use of ketamine as an analgosedative in ICU patients with MV. Achieving our threshold of recruitment and consent rate demonstrated that the trial is acceptable to clinicians, patients, and families. Major barriers faced were difficulties in continuing under lockdown conditions, infected research staff, shifting staff to cover COVID-19 ICU, and reorientation in clinical trial research towards COVID-19. We demonstrated that ketamine appeared to be safe, and majority of the patients achieved target RASS and pain scores. There was no increase in antipsychotics or dexmedetomidine use post-randomization and no notable hemodynamics changes. As this was a pilot study, it was not powered to detect statistically significant differences in patient-centered outcomes between the two groups.

Most previous studies had a limited focus on patient-centered outcomes as primary outcome favoring surrogate outcomes, such as sedation scores and changes in analgesics and sedatives, leaving a significant knowledge gap about the use of ketamine as a sedative agent in ICU. To the best of our knowledge, this pilot trial was the first that reported a patient-centered outcome as primary outcome and included diverse ICU population. We chose duration of MV as a primary outcome, because ketamine lowers airway resistance, preserves pharyngeal and laryngeal protective reflexes, increases lung compliance, and is less likely to cause respiratory depression in low and slow infusions (4). Median duration of MV and VFDs in our cohort was consistent with that reported in MENDS2 sedation trial; adjusted median, 23.7 days in dexmedetomidine vs. 24 days in propofol; OR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.74-1.26) (25). It is noteworthy that majority of our population were from medical ICU (48.2% of entire cohort) and had moderate ARDS, with a median baseline PaO2/FiO2 ratio of 152. Patients with ARDS may be under-represented in analgesia/sedation studies and currently recommended ketamine dosing strategy in this pilot may not be feasible and could be improved by modifying the regimen in upcoming adequately powered, multicenter trial.

In this pilot trial, cumulative doses of fentanyl and other sedatives were similar between the two arms. This could be explained by the fact that proportion of patients who did not complete 48-hours of the trials was significantly different between groups and was higher in ketamine group (37.5%). This could also be due to starting NMB in five patients randomized to ketamine compared to two patients in SOC after randomization. In addition, protocol adherence rate and sedatives titration were lower than expected (90%) during COVID-19 pandemic, possibly due to re-assignment of ICU nurses to COVID-19 ICUs. Subsequently, newly hired non-ICU nurses were assigned to cover manpower shortages in non-COVID-19 ICUs and could be unaware of study protocol. Hence, efforts to reduce concomitant sedatives with ketamine may be conservative. A trial by Guillou *et al* which showed a reduction in opioid consumption with low-dose ketamine infusion for 48-hours (26). However, patients in this trial underwent postoperative abdominal surgery and were able to use patient-controlled analgesia. It is difficult to extrapolate these findings to mechanically ventilated patients who are unable to self-report pain and have a higher severity of illness as in our cohort.

Another question to address pertains to ketamine dosing for analgosedation. It is well known that severity of critical illness influences drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics (27). Hemodynamic instability, sympathetic overstimulation, and acute septic brain dysfunction negatively affect organ function and thus distribution, absorption, metabolism, and drug dose-response relationships. Severely ill patients need much lower doses of sedatives to maintain adequate sedation. Ketamine is highly lipophilic and is metabolized in liver, generating active compounds (norketamine and hydroxynorketamine), and is eliminated in urine with an elimination half-life of 1.5-3 hours (28,29). Published data for ketamine doses showed that it can be safely titrated up to 10-20 µg/kg/min, as needed, to achieve desired level of analgosedation. We chose ketamine dosing at 1-2 µg/kg/min, because majority of ICU population included in our pilot were older (median age 61 years), with renal and hepatic dysfunction, which potentially alters metabolism and excretion of ketamine and its active metabolite, resulting in increased sensitivity to ketamine, prolonged duration, drug accumulation, and possible longer recovery. Moreover, the dose described in this pilot was in agreement with existing literature describing light sedation strategy and 2018 PADIS guideline recommendations (1,13). This regimen is more conservative, to minimize dose-related reactions, such as psychotomimetic side effects, which could lead to complex differential diagnoses in ICU patients who are prone to delirium and other CNS disturbances. We also did not observe notable severe confusion, nightmares, emergence phenomena, or serious AEs associated with ketamine use, which is consistent with the findings reported by Perbert *et al* (30).

Ketamine has a sympathomimetic effect and can cause hypertension and tachycardia by acting as a catecholamine re-uptake inhibitor. However, in a subgroup of patients, particularly those with a catecholamine-depleted state, it can sometimes cause hemodynamic compromise and hypotension (31). It is recommended to be avoided in patients with a history of cardiac disease or hypertensive crisis, due to its myocardial depressant effect (32). In our pilot trial, we excluded patients with cardiogenic shock due to potential harm. Moreover, ketamine was not associated with clinically significant hemodynamic changes and appeared to be safe. There was no increase in vasopressor requirements post-randomization despite the fact that ketamine-treated patients were sicker at baseline, as evident by higher lactate level and higher vasopressin dose at baseline.

We noticed that 28-day mortality rate in our cohort was 30.1% (32.6% in SOC and 27.5% in ketamine), which was slightly higher than mortality rate reported in older sedation trials (MIDEX and PRODEX trial) (33). This was expected because we are a tertiary care hospital. APACHE II and SOFA scores also suggest that these data were derived from a cohort of critically ill patients. This is comparable to mortality rate in patients admitted to ICU with severe sepsis and shock and to all-cause mortality rate reported in more recent sedation trials, such as SPICE III trial (29.1% in both dexmedetomidine and usual-care groups) and MENDS2 trial (38% in dexmedetomidine group vs. 39% in propofol, HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.74 -1.52) (25,34,35).

This pilot trial had several strengths. Firstly, it included patient-centered outcomes, high rates of completed follow-up, and comprehensive assessments of AEs associated with ketamine use and its impact on hemodynamic response. We believe that our results provide incremental value in understanding the effects of ketamine. Adherence to mITT principle, randomization, and blinded outcome assessors limited potential sources of bias. Moreover, our trial included diverse ICU populations from medical, surgical, and transplant ICUs. We also made every effort to include eligible patients within a narrow randomization window (within 24-hours of intubation) to eliminate potential confounders with other co-interventions. Lastly, study protocol (design, study enrollment, and outcomes) aligns with the design of clinical trials evaluating sedation in critically ill adult MV patients (36).

We acknowledge limitations of our pilot trial. It was a single-center and did not include neurocritical care ICU patients, such as those with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and hydrocephalus. More recent systematic reviews of mixed acute brain populations (subarachnoid hemorrhage, tumors, and TBI) concluded that ketamine had no detrimental effect on intracranial pressure, ICU LOS, or mortality (37). Furthermore, we did not collect data on frequency and duration of prone positioning for ARDS patients who were made prone, or median change in PaO2/FiO2 ratio post-randomization, limiting the ability to determine the real benefit of ketamine in oxygenation post-randomization. Although we made efforts to validate the diagnosis of delirium and delirium assessment with CAM-ICU, we had a large proportion of patients (56.6 %) with un-assessed CAM-ICU, leaving a knowledge gap to be addressed in future trial. Finally, ketamine duration was limited to 48-hours due to the nature of this pilot trial and longer duration needs to be investigated in future. We believe that the trial protocol could be improved by modifying the current ketamine dosing regimen, capturing MV settings after randomization, and collecting data on other co-interventions (e.g. corticosteroids, prone positioning, and diuretics). Future trial may also consider looking at ketamine analgo-sedative effect in COVID-19 and neurocritical care ICUs. Finally, ketamine is not an expensive drug. Currently, no studies have evaluated cost-effectiveness of ketamine in management of sedation and analgesia and this should be considered in future.

## Conclusions

Ketamine is potentially attractive option for analgosedation. In our pilot trial, ketamine appeared to be safe, and feasible with no negative impact on outcomes, including hemodynamics. However, this pilot trial is not sufficiently powered to show a difference in clinical outcomes. While these data are encouraging, results generated from this pilot lay the foundation for a future adequately powered, multicenter trial to shed light on remaining questions and investigate the association with patient-centered outcomes further.

## Availability of data and material

The datasets used and analyzed during the current report are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

## Data Availability

The datasets used and analyzed during the current report are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

## Supplementary Data

View this table:
[Supplementary Table 1:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/05/2021.04.26.21256072/T4)

Supplementary Table 1: Full inclusion and exclusion criteria

![Supplementary Figure 1A:](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/06/05/2021.04.26.21256072/F3.medium.gif)

[Supplementary Figure 1A:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/05/2021.04.26.21256072/F3)

Supplementary Figure 1A: Treatment algorithm for Patient Randomized to Standard of care

![Supplementary Figure 1B:](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/06/05/2021.04.26.21256072/F4.medium.gif)

[Supplementary Figure 1B:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/05/2021.04.26.21256072/F4)

Supplementary Figure 1B: Treatment algorithm for Patient Randomized to Ketamine

View this table:
[Supplementary Table 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/05/2021.04.26.21256072/T5)

Supplementary Table 2: Details of outcome variables definition

View this table:
[Supplementary Table 3.](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/05/2021.04.26.21256072/T6)

Supplementary Table 3. Other demographic and baseline characteristics

![Supplementary Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/06/05/2021.04.26.21256072/F5.medium.gif)

[Supplementary Figure 2:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/05/2021.04.26.21256072/F5)

Supplementary Figure 2: Time-to-event and Kaplan-Maier Curves
Kaplan-Meier curve with a corresponding log-rank test was used to estimate the probability of weaning-off MV. Patients who were not weaned-off MV during their ICU stay were censored at the last follow-up date. Kaplan-Maier estimates with a corresponding log-rank test were also used to compare the survival probability, hospital and ICU LOS between patients who received ketamine and patients who did not. Patients who alive or stayed in the ICU were censored at the last follow-up date.

Panel A for duration of mechanical ventilation; Panel B represents the overall ICU length of stay (days); Panel C represents the overall hospital length of stay (days); Panel D represents 28-day mortality. Red line represents the standard of care group and blue line represents the ketamine group. Confidence interval was illustrated as a band around the time-to-event curves. SOC donates to standard of care

View this table:
[Supplementary Table 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/05/2021.04.26.21256072/T7)

Supplementary Table 4: Cox-proportional regression analysis for weaning off mechanical ventilation

View this table:
[Supplementary Table 5:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/05/2021.04.26.21256072/T8)

Supplementary Table 5: Other safety outcomes

View this table:
[Supplementary Table 6:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/05/2021.04.26.21256072/T9)

Supplementary Table 6: Sedatives and vasopressors requirements

![Supplementary Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/06/05/2021.04.26.21256072/F6.medium.gif)

[Supplementary Figure 3:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/05/2021.04.26.21256072/F6)

Supplementary Figure 3: Box plots for cumulative doses of sedatives at 48 hours’ post-randomization

![Supplementary Figure 4:](http://medrxiv.org/http://medrxiv.stage.highwire.org/content/medrxiv/early/2021/06/05/2021.04.26.21256072/F7.medium.gif)

[Supplementary Figure 4:](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/05/2021.04.26.21256072/F7)

Supplementary Figure 4: Box plots for cumulative doses of vasopressors at 48 hours’ post-randomization
SOC donates to standard of care

View this table:
[Supplementary Table 7](http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/05/2021.04.26.21256072/T10)

Supplementary Table 7 Sensitivity analysis for sedatives and vasopressors requirements excluding patients started on atracurium post-randomization

## Acknowledgments

We thank the ICU physicians, ICU nurses, ICU respiratory therapists, ICU physiotherapists, ICU satellite pharmacists, and ICU clinical pharmacists of KFSH&RC for their efforts to save the lives of ICU patients and their bravery in fighting against the COVID-19 pandemic. We also thank the Saudi Critical Care Trials Group for providing feedback on the study proposal, as well as participants and their families. Without their collective generosity, this trial would not have been possible.

## Footnotes

*   **Conflicts of Interest and Source of Funding:** None declared

*   we made some revision to clarify that it is pilot feasibility trial

*   Received April 26, 2021.
*   Revision received June 5, 2021.
*   Accepted June 5, 2021.


*   © 2021, Posted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This pre-print is available under a Creative Commons License (Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International), CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, as described at [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

## References

1.  1.Devlin JW, Skrobik Y, Gélinas C, Needham DM, Slooter AJC, Pandharipande PP, et al: Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of pain, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adult patients in the ICU. Crit Care Med 2018; 46:e825–e873.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1097/CCM.0000000000003299&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F06%2F05%2F2021.04.26.21256072.atom) 

2.  2.Shah FA, Girard TD, Yende S: Limiting sedation for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome— Time to wake up. Curr Opin Crit Care 2017; 23:45–51.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F06%2F05%2F2021.04.26.21256072.atom) 

3.  3.Whitman CB, Rhodes H, Tellor BR, Hampton NB: Continuous infusion of ketamine for adjunctive sedation in medical intensive care unit: A case series. J Anesthesiol Crit Care Medi 2015; 2:1–5.
    
    

4.  4.Wieruszewski PM, Leung JG, Nelson S: Ketamine Use in the Intensive Care Unit. AACN Adv Crit Care 2018; 29: 101–106.
    
    [FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiRlVMTCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6MzoiYWNjIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjg6IjI5LzIvMTAxIjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6NTA6Ii9tZWRyeGl2L2Vhcmx5LzIwMjEvMDYvMDUvMjAyMS4wNC4yNi4yMTI1NjA3Mi5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30=) 

5.  5.Hanidziar D, Bittner EA: Sedation of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients: Challenges and special considerations. Anesth Analg 2020; 13:e40–e41.
    
    

6.  6.Hurth KP, Jaworski A, Thomas KB, Kirsch WB, Rudoni MA, Wohlfarth KM: The reemergence of ketamine for treatment in critically ill adults. Crit Care Med 2020; 48:899–911.
    
    

7.  7.Radvansky BM, Shah K, Parikh A, Sifonios AN, L. V, Eloy JD: Role of ketamine in acute postoperative pain management: a narrative review. Biomed Res Int 2015; 2015:749837.
    
    

8.  8.Joachimsson PO, Hedstrand U, Eklund A: Low-dose ketamine infusion for analgesia during postoperative ventilator treatment. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 1986; 30:697–702.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=3811814&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F06%2F05%2F2021.04.26.21256072.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1986F192800021&link_type=ISI) 

9.  9.Takieddine SC, Droege CA, Ernst N, Droege ME, Webb M, Branson RD, et al: Ketamine versus hydromorphone patient-controlled analgesia for acute pain in trauma patients. J Surg Res 2018; 225:6–14.
    
    

10. 10.Zhao H, Yang S, Wang H, Zhang H, An Y: Non-opioid analgesics as adjuvants to opioid for pain management in adult patients in the ICU: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Crit Care 2019;54:136–144.
    
    

11. 11.Kugler NW, Carver TW, Juul J, Peppard WJ, Boyle K, Drescher KM, et al: Ketamine infusion for pain control in elderly patients with multiple rib fractures: Results of a randomized controlled trial. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2019;87(5):1181–8.
    
    

12. 12.Carver TW, Kugler NW, Juul J, Peppard WJ, Drescher KM, Somberg LB, et al. Ketamine infusion for pain control in adult patients with multiple rib fractures: Results of a randomized control trial. J Trauma Acute Care Surg 2019; 86:181–188.
    
    

13. 13.Chanques G, Constantin JM, Devlin JW, Ely EW, Fraser GL, Gélinas C, et al: Analgesia and sedation in patients with ARDS. Intensive Care Med 2020; 46:2342–2356.
    
    

14. 14.Adams CD, Altshuler J, Barlow BL, Dixit D, Droege CA, Effendi MK, et al: Analgesia and sedation strategies in mechanically ventilated adults with COVID-19. Pharmacotherapy 2020; 40:1180–1191.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F06%2F05%2F2021.04.26.21256072.atom) 

15. 15.Phua CK, Wee A, Lim A, Abisheganaden J, Verma A: Fentanyl-induced chest wall rigidity syndrome in a routine bronchoscopy. Respir Med Case Rep 2017; 20:205–207
    
    

16. 16.Ammar MA, Sacha GL, Welch SC, Bass SN, Kane-Gill SL, Duggal A, et al: Sedation, analgesia, and paralysis in COVID-19 patients in the setting of drug shortages. J Intensive Care Med 2021; 36:157–174.
    
    

17. 17.Erstad BL, Patanwala AE. Ketamine for analgosedation in critically ill patients. J Crit Care 2016; 35:145–149
    
    

18. 18.Groetzinger LM, Rivosecchi RM, Bain W, Bahr M, Chin K, McVerry BJ, et al: Ketamine infusion for adjunct sedation in mechanically ventilated patients. Pharmacotherapy 2018; 38:181–188.
    
    

19. 19.Garber PM, Droege CA, Carter KE, Harger NJ, Mueller EW: Continuous infusion ketamine for adjunctive analgosedation in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients. Pharmacotherapy 2019; 39:288–296.
    
    

20. 20.Pruskowski KA, Harbourt K, Pajoumand M, Chui SJ, Reynnolds HN: Impact of ketamine use on adjunctive analgesic and sedative medications in critically ill trauma patients. Pharmacotherapy 2017; 37:1537–1544.
    
    

21. 21.Bawazeer M, Amer M, Maghrabi K, Al-Sheikh K, Amin R, Rizwan M, et al: Adjunctive continuous ketamine infusion to conventional sedation in mechanically ventilated patients: It is time for a randomized trial. Saudi Crit Care J 2020; 4:5–8.
    
    

22. 22.Bawazeer M, Amer M, Maghrabi K, Alshaikh K, Amin R, Rizwan M, et al: Adjunct low-dose ketamine infusion vs standard of care in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients at a Tertiary Saudi Hospital (ATTAINMENT Trial): Study protocol for a randomized, prospective, pilot, feasibility trial. Trials 2020; 21:288.
    
    

23. 23.Yehya N, Harhay MO, Curley MAQ, Schoenfeld DA, Reeder RW: Reappraisal of ventilator-free days in critical care research. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2019; 200:828–836
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1164/rccm.201810-2050CP&link_type=DOI) 

24. 24.Lancaster GA, Dodd S, Williamson PR. Design and analysis of pilot studies: recommendations for good practice. J Eval Clin Pract. 2004 May;10(2):307–12.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1111/j..2002.384.doc.x&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=15189396&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F06%2F05%2F2021.04.26.21256072.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000221867100019&link_type=ISI) 

25. 25.Hughes CG, Mailloux PT, Devlin JW, Swan JT, Sanders RD, Anzueto A, et al: Dexmedetomidine or propofol for sedation in mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis. N Engl J Med 2021.
    
    

26. 26.Guillou N, Tanguy M, Seguin P, Branger B, Campion J, Mallédant Y: The effects of small-dose ketamine on morphine consumption in surgical intensive care unit patients after major abdominal surgery. Anesth Analg 2003; 97:843–847.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=12933413&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F06%2F05%2F2021.04.26.21256072.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000184890300045&link_type=ISI) 

27. 27.Power BM, Forbes AM, van Heerden PV, Ilett KF: Pharmacokinetics of drugs used in critically ill adults. Clin Pharmacokinet 1998; 34:25–56.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.2165/00003088-199834010-00002&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9474472&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F06%2F05%2F2021.04.26.21256072.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000071645300002&link_type=ISI) 

28. 28.Opdenakker O, Vanstraelen A, De Sloovere V, Meyfroidt G: Sedatives in neurocritical care: an update on pharmacological agents and modes of sedation. Curr Opin Crit Care 2019; 25:97–104.
    
    

29. 29.Zanos P, Moaddel R, Morris PJ, Riggs LM, Highland JN, Georgiou P, et al: Ketamine and ketamine metabolite pharmacology: insights into therapeutic mechanisms. Pharmacol Rev 2018; 70:621–660.
    
    [Abstract/FREE Full Text](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6ODoicGhhcm1yZXYiO3M6NToicmVzaWQiO3M6ODoiNzAvMy82MjEiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czo1MDoiL21lZHJ4aXYvZWFybHkvMjAyMS8wNi8wNS8yMDIxLjA0LjI2LjIxMjU2MDcyLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ==) 

30. 30.Perbet S, Verdonk F, Godet T, Jabaudon M, Chartier C, Cayot S, et al: Low doses of ketamine reduce delirium but not opiate consumption in mechanically ventilated and sedated ICU patients: A randomised double-blind control trial. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med 2018; 37:589–595.
    
    

31. 31.Miller M, Kruit N, Heldreich C, Ware S, Habig K, Reid C, et al: Hemodynamic response after rapid sequence induction with ketamine in out-of-hospital patients at risk of shock as defined by the shock index. Ann Emerg Med 2016; 68:181-188.e2.
    
    

32. 32.Christ G, Mundigler G, Merhaut C, Zehetgruber M, Kratochwill C, Heinz G, et al: Adverse cardiovascular effects of ketamine infusion in patients with catecholamine-dependent heart failure. Anaesth Intensive Care 1997; 25:255–259.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=9209606&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F06%2F05%2F2021.04.26.21256072.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=A1997XF47300008&link_type=ISI) 

33. 33.Jakob SM, Ruokonen E, Grounds RM, Sarapohja T, Garratt C, Pocock SJ, et al: Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam or propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation: Two randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2012; 307:1151–1160.
    
    [CrossRef](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.2012.304&link_type=DOI) 
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=22436955&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F06%2F05%2F2021.04.26.21256072.atom) 
    
    [Web of Science](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=000301708000023&link_type=ISI) 

34. 34.Vallet H, Schwarz GL, Flaatten H, de Lange DW, Guidet B, Dechartres A: Mortality of older patients admitted to an ICU: A systematic review. Crit Care Med 2021; 49:324–334.
    
    

35. 35.Shehabi Y, Howe BD, Bellomo R, Arabi YM, Bailey M, Bass FE, et al. Early sedation with dexmedetomidine in critically ill patients (SPICE III). N Engl J Med 2019; 380:2506–2517.
    
    [PubMed](http://medrxiv.org/lookup/external-ref?access_num=http://www.n&link_type=MED&atom=%2Fmedrxiv%2Fearly%2F2021%2F06%2F05%2F2021.04.26.21256072.atom) 

36. 36.Ward, Denham S; Absalom,  Anthony R; Aitken, Leanne M. et al: Design of clinical trials evaluating sedation in critically ill adults undergoing mechanical ventilation. Critical Care Med 2021.
    
    

37. 37.Gregers MCT, Mikkelsen S, Lindvig KP, Brøchner AC: Ketamine as an anesthetic for patients with acute brain injury: a systematic review. Neurocrit Care 2020; 33:273–282.