Sleep quality of mechanically ventilated patients sedated with dexmedetomidine

Pharmacological interventions to improve sleep in hospitalised adults: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Patients often suffer from disturbed sleep in hospital. Poor-quality sleep in hospitalised patients has been associated with significant morbidity and pharmacological sleep aids are often prescribed. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the comparative efficacy and safety of pharmacological interventions used for sleep in hospitalised patients.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane database and grey literature for prospective studies that evaluated sleep in hospitalised adults after a pharmacological intervention.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Two reviewers assessed studies for inclusion and extracted data for efficacy outcomes, including sleep efficiency, sleep latency, sleep fragmentation and objectively measured sleep stage distribution. Risk of bias was assessed and meta-analyses were planned contingent upon homogeneity of the included studies.

RESULTS

After screening 1920 citations, 15 studies involving 861 patients were included. Medications studied included benzodiazepines, nonbenzodiazepine sedatives, melatonin, propofol and dexmedetomidine. Five studies were deemed to be of high quality. Heterogeneity and variable outcome reporting precluded meta-analysis in most cases. No consistent trends with respect to sleep efficiency, quality or interruptions were observed identifying a drug or drug class as superior to another or no treatment. Benzodiazepines appeared to be better than no treatment with respect to sleep latency, but this was not consistently demonstrated across all studies. Sleep stage distribution shows that sleep in hospital is dominated by stages N1 and N2.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to suggest that pharmacotherapy improves the quality or quantity of sleep in hospitalised patients suffering from poor sleep. No drug class or specific drug was identified as superior even when compared to placebo or no treatment. Although 15 studies were included, the quality of evidence was limited by their quality and size. Larger, better-designed trials in hospitalised adults are needed.

Comfort and patient-centred care without excessive sedation: the eCASH concept

We propose an integrated and adaptable approach to improve patient care and clinical outcomes through analgesia and light sedation, initiated early during an episode of critical illness and as a priority of care. This strategy, which may be regarded as an evolution of the Pain, Agitation and Delirium guidelines, is conveyed in the mnemonic eCASH—early Comfort using Analgesia, minimal Sedatives and maximal Humane care. eCASH aims to establish optimal patient comfort with minimal sedation as the default presumption for intensive care unit (ICU) patients in the absence of recognised medical requirements for deeper sedation. Effective pain relief is the first priority for implementation of eCASH: we advocate flexible multimodal analgesia designed to minimise use of opioids. Sedation is secondary to pain relief and where possible should be based on agents that can be titrated to a prespecified target level that is subject to regular review and adjustment; routine use of benzodiazepines should be minimised. From the outset, the objective of sedation strategy is to eliminate the use of sedatives at the earliest medically justifiable opportunity. Effective analgesia and minimal sedation contribute to the larger aims of eCASH by facilitating promotion of sleep, early mobilization strategies and improved communication of patients with staff and relatives, all of which may be expected to assist rehabilitation and avoid isolation, confusion and possible long-term psychological complications of an ICU stay. eCASH represents a new paradigm for patient-centred care in the ICU. Some organizational challenges to the implementation of eCASH are identified.

Sleep and Mechanical Ventilation in Critical Care

Sleep disturbances in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients are common. Although many factors may potentially contribute to sleep loss in critical care, issues around mechanical ventilation are among the more complex. Sleep deprivation has systemic effects that may prolong the need for mechanical ventilation and length of stay in critical care and result in worse outcomes. This article provides a brief review of the physiology of sleep, physiologic changes in breathing associated with sleep, and the impact of mechanical ventilation on sleep. A summary of the issues regarding research studies to date is also included. Recommendations for the critical care nurse are provided.

Positive and negative effects of mechanical ventilation on sleep in the ICU: a review with clinical recommendations

PURPOSE

Sleep is an essential physiologic process that helps to restore normal body homeostasis. Sleep disturbances have been shown to be associated with poor clinical outcomes, such as a greater risk of cardiovascular disease and increasing mortality. Critically ill patients, particularly those receiving mechanical ventilation, may be more susceptible to sleep disruption.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Mechanical ventilation is an important factor influencing sleep in critically ill patients as it may have positive or negative effects, depending on patient population, mode, and specific settings. Other causes of sleep disruption include the acute illness itself, the daily routine care, and the effects of medications. Improving sleep in patients admitted to an intensive care unit has the potential to improve both short- and long-term clinical outcomes. In this article we review the specific aspects of sleep in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients, including abnormal sleep patterns and loss of circadian rhythm, as well as the effects of mechanical ventilation and intravenous sedatives on sleep quality and quantity.

CONCLUSIONS

We provide recommendations for clinicians regarding optimal ventilatory settings and discuss fields for future research.

Major publications in the critical care pharmacotherapy literature: January-December 2013

PURPOSE

Ten recently published articles with important implications for critical care pharmacotherapy are summarized.

SUMMARY

The Critical Care Pharmacotherapy Literature Update (CCPLU) group is a national assembly of experienced intensive care unit (ICU) pharmacists across the United States. Group members monitor 25 peer-reviewed journals on an ongoing basis to identify literature relevant to pharmacy practice in the critical care setting. After evaluation by CCPLU group members, selected articles are chosen for summarization and distribution to group members nationwide based on (1) applicability to critical care practice, (2) relevance to pharmacy practitioners, and (3) quality of evidence or research methodology. Hundreds of relevant articles were evaluated by the group during the period January-December 2013, of which 98 were summarized and disseminated nationally to CCPLU group members. Among those 98 publications, 10 deemed to be of particularly high utility to critical care practitioners were included in this review. The 10 articles address topics such as rapid lowering of blood pressure in patients with intracranial hemorrhage, adjunctive therapy to prevent renal injury due to acute heart failure, triple-drug therapy to improve neurologic outcomes after cardiac arrest, and continuous versus intermittent infusion of β-lactam antibiotics in severe sepsis.

CONCLUSION

There were many important additions to the critical care pharmacotherapy literature in 2013, including an updated guideline on the management of myocardial infarction and reports on advances in research focused on improving outcomes in patients with stroke or cardiac arrest and preventing the spread of drug-resistant pathogens in the ICU.

Delirium and sleep disturbances in the intensive care unit: can we do better?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Delirium in the ICU affects as many as 60-80% of mechanically ventilated patients and a smaller but substantial percentage of other critically ill patients. Poor sleep quality has been consistently observed in critically ill patients. These problems are associated with worse ICU outcomes and, in many cases, delirium and poor sleep quality may be related. This review will summarize the recent literature relevant to both the problems and provide a potential pathway toward improvement.

RECENT FINDINGS

Many cases of delirium and the poor sleep experienced by ICU patients may be iatrogenic. How critical care practitioners prescribe sedatives and analgesics and, perhaps more broadly, how all medications are administered to critically ill patients, may be at the root of some of these problems. Reducing the administration of some commonly used ICU medications, especially some sedatives and anticholinergic medications, and keeping patients more awake and actively engaged in their care during the day may lead to better outcomes.

SUMMARY

It is our responsibility to apply the best available, evidence-based medicine to our practice. Adherence to new guidelines for the treatment of pain, agitation, and delirium may be the best pathway toward reducing delirium, improving sleep quality, and improving related outcomes.

Alpha-2 agonists for long-term sedation during mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients

BACKGROUND

Sedation reduces patient levels of anxiety and stress, facilitates the delivery of care and ensures safety. Alpha-2 agonists have a range of effects including sedation, analgesia and antianxiety. They sedate, but allow staff to interact with patients and do not suppress respiration. They are attractive alternatives for long-term sedation during mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and efficacy of alpha-2 agonists for sedation of more than 24 hours, compared with traditional sedatives, in mechanically-ventilated critically ill patients.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 10, 2014), MEDLINE (1946 to 9 October 2014), EMBASE (1980 to 9 October 2014), CINAHL (1982 to 9 October 2014), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (1982 to 9 October 2014), ISI Web of Science (1987 to 9 October 2014), Chinese Biological Medical Database (1978 to 9 October 2014) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (1979 to 9 October 2014), the World Health Organization international clinical trials registry platform (to 9 October 2014), Current Controlled Trials metaRegister of controlled trials active registers (to 9 October 2014), the ClinicalTrials.gov database (to 9 October 2014), the conference proceedings citation index (to 9 October 2014) and the reference lists of included studies and previously published meta-analyses and systematic reviews for relevant studies. We imposed no language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing alpha-2 agonists (clonidine or dexmedetomidine) versus alternative sedatives for long-term sedation (more than 24 hours) during mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We performed meta-analyses when more than three studies were included, and selected a random-effects model due to expected clinical heterogeneity. We calculated the geometric mean difference for continuous outcomes and the risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes. We described the effects by values and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We considered two-sided P < 0.05 to be statistically significant.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven studies, covering 1624 participants, met the inclusion criteria. All included studies investigated adults and compared dexmedetomidine with traditional sedatives, including propofol, midazolam and lorazepam. Compared with traditional sedatives, dexmedetomidine reduced the geometric mean duration of mechanical ventilation by 22% (95% CI 10% to 33%; four studies, 1120 participants, low quality evidence), and consequently the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) by 14% (95% CI 1% to 24%; five studies, 1223 participants, very low quality evidence). There was no evidence that dexmedetomidine decreased the risk of delirium (RR 0.85; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.14; seven studies, 1624 participants, very low quality evidence) as results were consistent with both no effect and appreciable benefit. Only one study assessed the risk of coma, but lacked methodological reliability (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.86, very low quality evidence). Of all the adverse events included, the most commonly reported one was bradycardia, and we observed a doubled (111%) increase in the incidence of bradycardia (RR 2.11; 95% CI 1.39 to 3.20; six studies, 1587 participants, very low quality evidence). Our meta-analysis provided no evidence that dexmedetomidine had any impact on mortality (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.79 to 1.24; six studies, 1584 participants, very low quality evidence). We observed high levels of heterogeneity in risk of delirium (I² = 70%), but due to the limited number of studies we were unable to determine the source of heterogeneity through subgroup analyses or meta-regression. We judged six of the seven studies to be at high risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review, we found no eligible studies for children or for clonidine. Compared with traditional sedatives, long-term sedation using dexmedetomidine in critically ill adults reduced the duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay. There was no evidence for a beneficial effect on risk of delirium and the heterogeneity was high. The evidence for risk of coma was inadequate. The most common adverse event was bradycardia. No evidence indicated that dexmedetomidine changed mortality. The general quality of evidence ranged from very low to low, due to high risks of bias, serious inconsistency and imprecision, and strongly suspected publication bias. Future studies could pay more attention to children and to using clonidine

Effects of Dexmedetomidine on Sleep Quality in Critically Ill Patients

Background:

Dexmedetomidine, a potent α-2-adrenergic agonist, is widely used as sedative in critically ill patients. This pilot study was designed to assess the effect of dexmedetomidine administration on sleep quality in critically ill patients.

Methods:

Polysomnography was performed on hemodynamically stable critically ill patients for 57 consecutive hours, divided into three night-time (9:00 pm to 6:00 am) and two daytime (6:00 am to 9:00 pm) periods. On the second night, dexmedetomidine was given by a continuous infusion targeting a sedation level −1 to −2 on the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale. Other sedatives were not permitted.

Results:

Thirteen patients were studied. Dexmedetomidine was given in a dose of 0.6 μg kg−1 h−1 (0.4 to 0.7) (median [interquartile range]). Compared to first and third nights (without dexmedetomidine), sleep efficiency was significantly higher during the second night (first: 9.7% [1.6 to 45.1], second: 64.8% [51.4 to 79.9], third: 6.9% [0.0 to 17.1], P &lt; 0.002). Without dexmedetomidine, night-time sleep fragmentation index (7.6 events per hour [4.8 to 14.2]) and stage 1 of sleep (48.0% [30.1 to 66.4]) were significantly higher (P = 0.023 and P = 0.006, respectively), and stage 2 (47.0% [27.5 to 61.2]) showed values lower (P = 0.006) than the corresponding values (2.7 events per hour [1.6 to 4.9], 13.1% [6.2 to 23.6], 80.2% [68.9 to 92.8]) observed with dexmedetomidine. Without sedation, sleep was equally distributed between day and night, a pattern that was modified significantly (P = 0.032) by night-time dexmedetomidine infusion, with more than three quarters of sleep occurring during the night (79% [66 to 87]).

Conclusion:

In highly selected critically ill patients, dexmedetomidine infusion during the night to achieve light sedation improves sleep by increasing sleep efficiency and stage 2 and modifies the 24-h sleep pattern by shifting sleep mainly to the night.