Robert D. Sanders
Current Organizations / Institutes
The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article
Research Subjects
Research Interests
Robert D. Sanders has a total of 19 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:
- Daniel L. Herr
Shock Trauma Critical Care, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md
2 shared publications E Wesley Ely
Department of Medicine, Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine; T-1218 MCN, Nashville, TN 37232-2650, USA
2 shared publications- Pratik P. Pandharipande
Division of Anesthesiology Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN 37232, USA
2 shared publications - Timothy D. Girard
Center for Research, Investigation, and Systems Modeling of Acute Illness (CRISMA) in the Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA
2 shared publications the MENDS investigators
2 shared publicationsAyumi K Shintani
Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine; S-2323 MCN, Nashville, TN 37232-2158, USA
1 shared publication
Latest Publications
- Open Access
- 14 January 2011
- Published by Springer Nature in Critical Care
- Vol. 15 (1) , 402
Correction: Effect of dexmedetomidine versus lorazepam on outcome in patients with sepsis: an a priori-designed analysis of the MENDS randomized controlled trial
- 14 January 2011
- Published by Springer Nature in Critical Care
- Vol. 15 (1) , 402
Open AccessCorrection: Effect of dexmedetomidine versus lorazepam on outcome in patients with sepsis: an a priori-designed analysis of the MENDS randomized controlled trial
- Top Cited PapersOpen Access
- 16 March 2010
- Published by Springer Nature in Critical Care
- Vol. 14 (2) , R38
Effect of dexmedetomidine versus lorazepam on outcome in patients with sepsis: an a priori-designed analysis of the MENDS randomized controlled trial
Introduction: Benzodiazepines and α2 adrenoceptor agonists exert opposing effects on innate immunity and mortality in animal models of infection. We hypothesized that sedation with dexmedetomidine (an α2 adrenoceptor agonist), as compared with lorazepam (a benzodiazepine), would provide greater improvements in clinical outcomes among septic patients than among non-septic patients. Methods: In this a priori-determined subgroup analysis of septic vs non-septic patients from the MENDS double-blind randomized controlled trial, adult medical/surgical mechanically ventilated patients were randomized to receive dexmedetomidine-based or lorazepam-based sedation for up to 5 days. Delirium and other clinical outcomes were analyzed comparing sedation groups, adjusting for clinically relevant covariates as well as assessing interactions between sedation group and sepsis. Results: Of the 103 patients randomized, 63 (31 dexmedetomidine; 32 lorazepam) were admitted with sepsis and 40 (21 dexmedetomidine; 19 lorazepam) without sepsis. Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups for both septic and non-septic patients. Compared with septic patients who received lorazepam, the dexmedetomidine septic patients had 3.2 more delirium/coma-free days (DCFD) on average (95% CI for difference, 1.1 to 4.9), 1.5 (-0.1, 2.8) more delirium-free days (DFD) and 6 (0.3, 11.1) more ventilator-free days (VFD). The beneficial effects of dexmedetomidine were more pronounced in septic patients than in non-septic patients for both DCFDs and VFDs (P-value for interaction = 0.09 and 0.02 respectively). Additionally, sedation with dexmedetomidine, compared with lorazepam, reduced the daily risk of delirium [OR, CI 0.3 (0.1, 0.7)] in both septic and non-septic patients (P-value for interaction = 0.94). Risk of dying at 28 days was reduced by 70% [hazard ratio 0.3 (0.1, 0.9)] in dexmedetomidine patients with sepsis as compared to the lorazepam patients; this reduction in death was not seen in non-septic patients (P-value for interaction = 0.11). Conclusions: In this subgroup analysis, septic patients receiving dexmedetomidine had more days free of brain dysfunction and mechanical ventilation and were less likely to die than those that received a lorazepam-based sedation regimen. These results were more pronounced in septic patients than in non-septic patients. Prospective clinical studies and further preclinical mechanistic studies are needed to confirm these results. Trial Registration: NCT00095251.
- 16 March 2010
- Published by Springer Nature in Critical Care
- Vol. 14 (2) , R38
Top Cited PapersOpen AccessEffect of dexmedetomidine versus lorazepam on outcome in patients with sepsis: an a priori-designed analysis of the MENDS randomized controlled trial
Introduction: Benzodiazepines and α2 adrenoceptor agonists exert opposing effects on innate immunity and mortality in animal models of infection. We hypothesized that sedation with dexmedetomidine (an α2 adrenoceptor agonist), as compared with lorazepam (a benzodiazepine), would provide greater improvements in clinical outcomes among septic patients than among non-septic patients. Methods: In this a priori-determined subgroup analysis of septic vs non-septic patients from the MENDS double-blind randomized controlled trial, adult medical/surgical mechanically ventilated patients were randomized to receive dexmedetomidine-based or lorazepam-based sedation for up to 5 days. Delirium and other clinical outcomes were analyzed comparing sedation groups, adjusting for clinically relevant covariates as well as assessing interactions between sedation group and sepsis. Results: Of the 103 patients randomized, 63 (31 dexmedetomidine; 32 lorazepam) were admitted with sepsis and 40 (21 dexmedetomidine; 19 lorazepam) without sepsis. Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups for both septic and non-septic patients. Compared with septic patients who received lorazepam, the dexmedetomidine septic patients had 3.2 more delirium/coma-free days (DCFD) on average (95% CI for difference, 1.1 to 4.9), 1.5 (-0.1, 2.8) more delirium-free days (DFD) and 6 (0.3, 11.1) more ventilator-free days (VFD). The beneficial effects of dexmedetomidine were more pronounced in septic patients than in non-septic patients for both DCFDs and VFDs (P-value for interaction = 0.09 and 0.02 respectively). Additionally, sedation with dexmedetomidine, compared with lorazepam, reduced the daily risk of delirium [OR, CI 0.3 (0.1, 0.7)] in both septic and non-septic patients (P-value for interaction = 0.94). Risk of dying at 28 days was reduced by 70% [hazard ratio 0.3 (0.1, 0.9)] in dexmedetomidine patients with sepsis as compared to the lorazepam patients; this reduction in death was not seen in non-septic patients (P-value for interaction = 0.11). Conclusions: In this subgroup analysis, septic patients receiving dexmedetomidine had more days free of brain dysfunction and mechanical ventilation and were less likely to die than those that received a lorazepam-based sedation regimen. These results were more pronounced in septic patients than in non-septic patients. Prospective clinical studies and further preclinical mechanistic studies are needed to confirm these results. Trial Registration: NCT00095251.
- 1 March 2010
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Anesthesia & Analgesia
- Vol. 110 (3) , 972-973
Evidence Is Lacking for Interventions Proposed to Prevent Unintended Awareness During General Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery
- 1 March 2010
- Published by Wolters Kluwer Health in Anesthesia & Analgesia
- Vol. 110 (3) , 972-973
Evidence Is Lacking for Interventions Proposed to Prevent Unintended Awareness During General Anesthesia for Cesarean Delivery
- Open Access
- 16 September 2008
- Published by Elsevier in British Journal of Anaesthesia
- Vol. 101 (5) , 597-609
Balancing paediatric anaesthesia: preclinical insights into analgesia, hypnosis, neuroprotection, and neurotoxicity
Logistical and ethical reasons make conducting clinical research in paediatric practice difficult, and therefore safe and efficacious advances are dependent on good preclinical research. For example, notable advances have been made in preclinical studies of pain processing that correlate well with patient data. Other areas of paediatric anaesthetic research remain in their infancy including mechanisms of anaesthesia and anaesthetic neuroprotection and neurotoxicity. Animal data have identified the potential ‘double-edged’ sword of administering anaesthetic agents in the young; although these agents can be neuroprotective in certain circumstances, they can be neurotoxic in others. The potential for this toxicity must be balanced against the importance of providing adequate anaesthesia for which there can be no compromise. We review the current state of preclinical research in paediatric anaesthesia and identify areas which require further exploration in order to provide the foundations for well-conducted clinical trials.
- 16 September 2008
- Published by Elsevier in British Journal of Anaesthesia
- Vol. 101 (5) , 597-609
Open AccessBalancing paediatric anaesthesia: preclinical insights into analgesia, hypnosis, neuroprotection, and neurotoxicity
Logistical and ethical reasons make conducting clinical research in paediatric practice difficult, and therefore safe and efficacious advances are dependent on good preclinical research. For example, notable advances have been made in preclinical studies of pain processing that correlate well with patient data. Other areas of paediatric anaesthetic research remain in their infancy including mechanisms of anaesthesia and anaesthetic neuroprotection and neurotoxicity. Animal data have identified the potential ‘double-edged’ sword of administering anaesthetic agents in the young; although these agents can be neuroprotective in certain circumstances, they can be neurotoxic in others. The potential for this toxicity must be balanced against the importance of providing adequate anaesthesia for which there can be no compromise. We review the current state of preclinical research in paediatric anaesthesia and identify areas which require further exploration in order to provide the foundations for well-conducted clinical trials.
- 1 September 2005
- Published by Elsevier in Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology
- Vol. 19 (3) , 461-474
Anaesthesia induced neuroprotection
- 1 September 2005
- Published by Elsevier in Best Practice & Research Clinical Anaesthesiology
- Vol. 19 (3) , 461-474
Anaesthesia induced neuroprotection