Cited by 890Respiratory Support and MechanismsAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsIntensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders

Early Neuromuscular Blockade in the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Open access
The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute PETAL Clinical Trials Network·2019·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The benefits of early continuous neuromuscular blockade in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) who are receiving mechanical ventilation remain unclear. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS (defined by a ratio of the partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen of <150 mm Hg with a positive end-expiratory pressure [PEEP] of ≥8 cm of water) to a 48-hour continuous infusion of cisatracurium with concomitant deep sedation (intervention group) or to a usual-care approach without routine neuromuscular blockade and with lighter sedation targets (control group). The same mechanical-ventilation strategies were used in both groups, including a strategy involving a high PEEP. The primary end point was in-hospital death from any cause at 90 days. RESULTS: The trial was stopped at the second interim analysis for futility. We enrolled 1006 patients early after the onset of moderate-to-severe ARDS (median, 7.6 hours after onset). During the first 48 hours after randomization, 488 of the 501 patients (97.4%) in the intervention group started a continuous infusion of cisatracurium (median duration of infusion, 47.8 hours; median dose, 1807 mg), and 86 of the 505 patients (17.0%) in the control group received a neuromuscular blocking agent (median dose, 38 mg). At 90 days, 213 patients (42.5%) in the intervention group and 216 (42.8%) in the control group had died before hospital discharge (between-group difference, -0.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -6.4 to 5.9; P = 0.93). While in the hospital, patients in the intervention group were less physically active and had more adverse cardiovascular events than patients in the control group. There were no consistent between-group differences in end points assessed at 3, 6, and 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS who were treated with a strategy involving a high PEEP, there was no significant difference in mortality at 90 days between patients who received an early and continuous cisatracurium infusion and those who were treated with a usual-care approach with lighter sedation targets. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; ROSE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02509078.).

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmoa1901686

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
The National Heart, L.
Corresponding author
The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute PETAL Clinical Trials Network
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2019-05-23
Volume
380
Issue
21
Pages
1997-2008
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2944755457
Cited by
886
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 63 · 2025: 99 · 2024: 90 · 2023: 128 · 2022: 141 · 2021: 146 · 2020: 175 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 1
FWCI
92.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (U01HL122989, U01HL122998, U01HL123004, U01HL123008, U01HL123009, U01HL123010, U01HL123018, U01HL123020, U01HL123022, U01HL123023, U01HL123027, U01HL123031, U01HL123033)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Anesthesia and Sedative Agents
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine › Intensive Care Unit Cognitive Disorders
Keywords
acute respiratory distress syndrome, neuromuscular blockade, cisatracurium, mechanical ventilation, positive end-expiratory pressure, sedation, mortality, futility
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Atracurium, Combined Modality Therapy, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neuromuscular Blocking Agents, Positive-Pressure Respiration, Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Conscious Sedation, Procedural Sedation, Hospital Mortality, Treatment Failure, Neuromuscular Blockade

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review