Randomized trial comparing daily interruption of sedation and nursing-implemented sedation algorithm in medical intensive care unit patients

Treatment algorithms in critical care: do they improve outcomes?

Patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) often have significant underlying morbidities that require complex treatment plans. Because of these complexities, numerous guidelines have been developed to facilitate the management of the critically ill patient. Some of these guidelines include sepsis, community-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia, sedation, and glycemic control. Once guidelines are written, a treatment protocol must be developed and implemented within the critical care unit. Our medical center has implemented multiple treatment protocols, often with preprinted order sets with various degrees of success. In 2003, we implemented and later evaluated a sedation order form and protocol. Patients whose sedation was initiated with a standardized order form had more frequent sedation score assessment, less time between sedation vacations, reduced ICU length of ICU stay, and a trend in reduction of ventilator days. However, only 37% of eligible patients were treated using the order form and the protocol, despite the potentially beneficial effects. Some recommendations within guidelines are based on sound clinical evidence supported by randomized controlled trials, although others are based on expert opinion only. The most often-cited reason for protocol noncompliance is disagreement with the published clinical trial data. This paper examines both infectious and noninfectious treatment guidelines and the supportive evidence that they improved patient outcomes. In addition, strategies for successful implementation of a treatment guideline are discussed for clinicians to follow in order to maximize clinical outcomes.

[Daily interruption of sedation: always a quality indicator?]

The Spanish Society of Critical Care Medicine (SEMICYUC) has recently published an updated version of Quality Indicators in Critical Care. Daily sedative interruption is included among them. As this practice is controversial, research studies are revised and guidelines for its implementation are proposed.

Protocolized and target-based sedation and analgesia in the ICU

Protocolized target-based sedation and analgesia is central to effective management of sedation. Important components include identifying goals and specific targets,using valid and reliable tools to measure pain, agitation, and sedation, and titrating a logically selected combination of sedatives and analgesics to defined end-points.A variety of approaches to structured management have been tested in controlled trials with major categories of (1) sedation algorithms and protocols and (2) daily interruption of sedation. Although not all studies that compare new interventions to “usual care” document dramatic improvements, many studies show that by reducing oversedation, using a structured approach, faster recovery from respiratory failure may ensue. The somewhat discrepant results illustrate, however, that various approaches,such as DIS, may not be optimal for all patients. Further research will be necessary to define these patients and examine alternative strategies. Finally, implementation of structured approaches to sedation management is a challenging, time-consuming process for clinicians that must be supported with sufficient resources to be successful.

Current sedation practices: lessons learned from international surveys

Limitations are inherent to surveys. Most surveys have low response rates, which raises the issue of responder bias. Another limitation of self-report surveys stems from the possible differences between stated and actual practice. That is, what physicians report that they do in surveys often contrasts significantly with what they do in observational studies, as highlighted by the Canadian surveys conducted in 2002 and 2008. Some surveys report estimates provided by ICU nurse managers or physician directors, potentially resulting in inaccurate estimates or data reflecting the individuals practice rather than the entire ICU. Surveys may not reflect how different specialists practice; for example, the German surveys collected data only in ICUs run by anesthesiologists.Notwithstanding these limitations, surveys provide a wealth of information on current practice and determinants of practice, and serve as a useful tool to guide future research and educational interventions. The authors identified substantial international variation in the use of sedative and analgesic drugs, and marked changes over the last 10 years. Overall, there is a trend toward lighter sedation, along with a shift from benzodiazepines toward propofol, and from morphine toward fentanyl and remifentanil. Despite the publication of numerous studies and guidelines for sedation and analgesia, actual practice differs from recommended practice, suggesting that the impact of clinical trials and guidelines on physician practice is quite low. It is clear that there remain substantial barriers to the incorporation of sedation scales, protocols,and daily interruption into routine ICU care.

Sedation and analgesia in the mechanically ventilated patient

Sedation and analgesia are important components of care for the mechanically ventilated patient in the intensive care unit (ICU). An understanding of commonly used medications is essential to formulate a sedation plan for individual patients. The specific physiological changes that a critically ill patient undergoes can have direct effects on the pharmacology of drugs, potentially leading to interpatient differences in response. Objective assessments of pain, sedation, and agitation have been validated for use in the ICU for assessment and titration of medications. An evidence-based strategy for administering these drugs can lead to improvements in short- and long-term outcomes for patients. In this article, we review advances in the field of ICU sedation to provide an up-to-date perspective on management of the mechanically ventilated ICU patient.

Analytic reviews: managing the agitated patient in the ICU: sedation, analgesia, and neuromuscular blockade

Physical and psychological distress is exceedingly common among critically ill patients and manifests generically as agitation. The dangers of over- and undertreatment of agitation have been well described, and the intensive care unit (ICU) physician must strike a balance in the fast-paced, dynamic ICU environment. Identification of common reversible etiologies for distress may obviate the need for pharmacologic therapy, but most patients receive some combination of sedative, analgesic, and neuroleptic medications during the course of their critical illness. As such, understanding key pharmacologic features of commonly used agents is critical. Structured protocols and objective assessment tools can optimize drug delivery and may ultimately improve patient outcomes by reducing ventilator days, ICU length of stay, and by reducing cognitive dysfunction.

Meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials on daily sedation interruption for critically ill adult patients

Sedation is often used to improve comfort, reduce anxiety and stress and to facilitate nursing care of critically ill patients in the intensive care unit. This meta-analysis examined the benefits and risks of daily sedation interruption in critically ill adult patients. A total of five randomised controlled trials, comparing daily sedation interruption with no interruption in 699 critically ill patients, from the Cochrane controlled trials register, Embase and MEDLINE databases (1966 to April 2010) were identified and subject to meta-analysis. With the limited data available, daily sedation interruption was not associated with a significant reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation, length of intensive care unit and hospital stay, or mortality. Daily sedation interruption was associated with a reduced risk of requiring tracheostomy (odds ratio 0.57, 95% confidence interval 0.35 to 0.92, P = 0.02; F = 3%) but not an increased risk of removal of the endotracheal tube by the patients (odds ratio 1.3, 95% confidence interval 0.41 to 4.10, P = 0.65; F = 49%). The current evidence suggests that daily sedation interruption appears to be safe, but the significant heterogeneity and small sample sizes of the existing studies suggest that large randomised controlled studies with long-term survival follow-up are needed before daily sedation interruption can be recommended as a standard sedation practice for critically ill adult patients.

Toward less sedation in the intensive care unit: a prospective observational study

PURPOSE

Excessive sedation is associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation and longer intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays. We evaluated the feasibility of using minimal sedation in the ICU.

METHODS

Prospective observational study in a university hospital 34-bed medico-surgical department of intensive care. All adult patients who stayed in the ICU for more than 12 hours over a 2-month period were included. Intensive care unit admission diagnoses, severity scores, use of sedatives and/or opiates, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU stay, and 28-day mortality were recorded for each patient.

RESULTS

Of the 335 patients (median age, 61 years) admitted during the study period, 142 (42%) received some sedation, most commonly with midazolam and propofol. Sedative agents were administered predominantly for short periods of time (only 10% of patients received sedation for >24 hours). One hundred fifty-five patients (46%) received mechanical ventilation, generating 15,240 hours of mechanical ventilation, of these, only 2993 (20%) hours were accompanied by a continuous sedative infusion. Self-extubation occurred in 6 patients, but only 1 needed reintubation.

CONCLUSIONS

In a mixed medical-surgical ICU, minimal use of continuous sedation seems feasible without apparent adverse effects.

Reducing iatrogenic risks: ICU-acquired delirium and weakness--crossing the quality chasm

ICUs are experiencing an epidemic of patients with acute brain dysfunction (delirium) and weakness, both associated with increased mortality and long-term disability. These conditions are commonly acquired in the ICU and are often initiated or exacerbated by sedation and ventilation decisions and management. Despite > 10 years of evidence revealing the hazards of delirium, the quality chasm between current and ideal processes of care continues to exist. Monitoring of delirium and sedation levels remains inconsistent. In addition, sedation, ventilation, and physical therapy practices proven successful at reducing the frequency and severity of adverse outcomes are not routinely practiced. In this article, we advocate for the adoption and implementation of a standard bundle of ICU measures with great potential to reduce the burden of ICU-acquired delirium and weakness. Individual components of this bundle are evidence based and can help standardize communication, improve interdisciplinary care, reduce mortality, and improve cognitive and functional outcomes. We refer to this as the "ABCDE bundle," for awakening and breathing coordination, delirium monitoring, and exercise/early mobility. This evidence-based bundle of practices will build a bridge across the current quality chasm from the "front end" to the "back end" of critical care and toward improved cognitive and functional outcomes for ICU survivors.

Alcohol-use disorders in the critically ill patient

Alcohol abuse and dependence, referred to as alcohol-use disorders (AUDs), affect 76.3 million people worldwide and account for 1.8 million deaths per year. AUDs affect 18.3 million Americans (7.3% of the population), and up to 40% of hospitalized patients have AUDs. This review discusses the development and progression of critical illness in patients with AUDs. In contrast to acute intoxication, AUDs have been linked to increased severity of illness in a number of studies. In particular, surgical patients with AUDs experience higher rates of postoperative hemorrhage, cardiac complications, sepsis, and need for repeat surgery. Outcomes from trauma are worse for patients with chronic alcohol abuse, whereas burn patients who are acutely intoxicated may not have worse outcomes. AUDs are linked to not only a higher likelihood of community-acquired pneumonia and sepsis but also a higher severity of illness and higher rates of nosocomial pneumonia and sepsis. The management of sedation in patients with AUDs may be particularly challenging because of the increased need for sedatives and opioids and the difficulty in diagnosing withdrawal syndrome. The health-care provider also must be watchful for the development of dangerous agitation and violence, as these problems are not uncommonly seen in hospital ICUs. Despite studies showing that up to 40% of hospitalized patients have AUDs, relatively few guidelines exist on the specific management of the critically ill patient with AUDs. AUDs are underdiagnosed, and a first step to improving patient outcomes may lie in systematically and accurately identifying AUDs.

International variations in outcomes from sedation protocol research: where are we at and where do we go from here?

In this article, sedation protocol research in the intensive care environment is critically examined, focusing upon the differences in outcomes from research conducted on mechanically ventilated patients in various countries. Limitations of the current research are discussed, with suggestions of how sedation protocol research may be conducted in future. Also, the monitoring of important clinical factors is discussed so that clinicians can assess the impact upon patients of changes to sedation management practices within their own ICU.

Predictors for daily interruption of sedation therapy by nurses: a prospective, multicenter study

PURPOSE

The aim of the study was to identify the nurse and patient-related factors predicting daily interruption of sedation (DIS) performance by nurses in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

Nurses, caring for a mechanically ventilated patient receiving 24 hours or more of a continuously infused sedative, were interviewed at the bedside to determine their willingness to perform DIS on this patient and to determine the influence of 20 nurse- and 47 patient-related factors on DIS completion.

RESULTS

The 57 (44%) of 130 of nurses willing to perform DIS had performed DIS at least once in the past (P < .0001) and were not targeting deep sedation (ie, Sedation Agitation Scale [SAS] ≤ 2 [P = .03]). The DIS performance was less likely with use of higher-dose continuous midazolam (P = .006), a fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio(2)) greater than 50% (P = .03), or positive end-expiratory pressure greater than 5 mm Hg (P = .006) and in patients either deeply sedated (SAS ≤ 2) (P = .05) or agitated (SAS ≥ 5) in the past 24 hours (P = .003). Prior DIS experience (odds ratio [OR], 2.54; P = .004), hours of sedation-related continuing education (OR, 1.13; P = .02), and a target of deep sedation (OR, 0.49; P = .02) were independent nurse-related factors for DIS performance. Nurse's willingness to conduct DIS ranged from 45% to 80% based on the interaction between patient sex, current Fio(2), and agitation in past 24 hours.

CONCLUSIONS

Educational strategies and institutional protocols focused on improving use of DIS need to consider the various nurse- and patient-related factors that affect DIS performance by nurses in the ICU.

Intensive Care Unit-acquired infection as a side effect of sedation

Introduction

Sedative and analgesic medications are routinely used in mechanically ventilated patients. The aim of this review is to discus epidemiologic data that suggest a relationship between infection and sedation, to review available data for the potential causes and pathophysiology of this relationship, and to identify potential preventive measures.

Methods

Data for this review were identified through searches of PubMed, and from bibliographies of relevant articles.

Results

Several epidemiologic studies suggested a link between sedation and ICU-acquired infection. Prolongation of exposure to risk factors for infection, microaspiration, gastrointestinal motility disturbances, microcirculatory effects are main mechanisms by which sedation may favour infection in critically ill patients. Furthermore, experimental evidence coming from studies both in humans and animals suggest that sedatives and analgesics present immunomodulatory properties that might alter the immunologic response to exogenous stimuli. Clinical studies comparing different sedative agents do not provide evidence to recommend the use of a particular agent to reduce ICU-acquired infection rate. However, sedation strategies aiming to reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation, such as daily interruption of sedatives or nursing-implementing sedation protocol, should be promoted. In addition, the use of short acting opioids, propofol, and dexmedetomidine is associated with shorter duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay, and might be helpful in reducing ICU-acquired infection rates.

Conclusions

Prolongation of exposure to risk factors for infection, microaspiration, gastrointestinal motility disturbances, microcirculatory effects, and immunomodulatory effects are main mechanisms by which sedation may favour infection in critically ill patients. Future studies should compare the effect of different sedative agents, and the impact of progressive opioid discontinuation compared with abrupt discontinuation on ICU-acquired infection rates.

Current sedation practices: lessons learned from international surveys

Patient outcomes are significantly influenced by the choice of sedative and analgesic agents, the presence of over- or undersedation, poor pain control, and delirium. Individualized sedation management using sedation assessment tools, sedation protocols, and daily sedative interruption can improve clinical outcomes. Despite the publication of randomized trials and numerous guidelines, the uptake of proven strategies into routine practice can be slow. Surveys of clinicians' self-reported practice and prospective practice audits characterize sedation and analgesia practices and provide directions for education and future research. The objective of this review is to present the findings of surveys and practice audits, evaluating the management of sedation and analgesia in mechanically ventilated adults in the intensive care unit, and to summarize international critical care sedation practices.

Protocolized and target-based sedation and analgesia in the ICU

Administering sedative and analgesic medications is a cornerstone of optimizing patient comfort and minimizing distress, yet may lead to unintended consequences including delayed recovery from critical illness and slower liberation from mechanical ventilation. The use of structured approaches to sedation management, including guidelines, protocols, and algorithms can promote evidence-based care, reduce variation in clinical practice, and systematically reduce the likelihood of excessive and/or prolonged sedation. Patient-focused sedation algorithms are multidisciplinary, including physician, nurse, and pharmacist development and implementation. Key components of sedation algorithms include identification of goals and specific targets, use of valid and reliable tools to assess analgesia, agitation, and sedation, and incorporation of logical medication selection. Sedation protocols generally focus on a) algorithms that incorporate treating sedation and analgesia based upon escalation, de-escalation, or changing medications according to specific targets, or b) daily interruption of sedative and opioid analgesic infusions. Many published sedation protocols have been tested in controlled clinical trials, often demonstrating benefit such as shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, reduced ICU length of stay, and/or superior sedation management compared to usual care. Implementation of sedation algorithms in ICUs is a challenging process for which sufficient resources must be allocated.

Sedation and analgesia for the mechanically ventilated patient

Mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit routinely require sedative and analgesic medications to manage pain and anxiety. These medications may have unpredictable effects with long-term use. Strategies that may help to improve patient outcomes include thoughtful selection of medications, use of objective sedation and pain scales, and implementation of protocolized sedation.

Remifentanil discontinuation and subsequent intensive care unit-acquired infection: a cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Recent animal studies demonstrated immunosuppressive effects of opioid withdrawal resulting in a higher risk of infection. The aim of this study was to determine the impact of remifentanil discontinuation on intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired infection.

METHODS

This was a prospective observational cohort study performed in a 30-bed medical and surgical university ICU, during a one-year period. All patients hospitalised in the ICU for more than 48 hours were eligible. Sedation was based on a written protocol including remifentanil with or without midazolam. Ramsay score was used to evaluate consciousness. The bedside nurse adjusted sedative infusion to obtain the target Ramsay score. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine risk factors for ICU-acquired infection.

RESULTS

Five hundred and eighty-seven consecutive patients were included in the study. A microbiologically confirmed ICU-acquired infection was diagnosed in 233 (39%) patients. Incidence rate of ICU-acquired infection was 38 per 1000 ICU-days. Ventilator-associated pneumonia was the most frequently diagnosed ICU-acquired infection (23% of study patients). Pseudomonas aeruginosa was the most frequently isolated microorganism (30%). Multivariate analysis identified remifentanil discontinuation (odds ratio (OR) = 2.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.28 to 4.99, P = 0.007), simplified acute physiology score II at ICU admission (1.01 per point, 95% CI = 1 to 1.03, P = 0.011), mechanical ventilation (4.49, 95% CI = 1.52 to 13.2, P = 0.006), tracheostomy (2.25, 95% CI = 1.13 to 4.48, P = 0.021), central venous catheter (2.9, 95% CI = 1.08 to 7.74, P = 0.033) and length of hospital stay (1.05 per day, 95% CI = 1.03 to 1.08, P < 0.001) as independent risk factors for ICU-acquired infection.

CONCLUSIONS

Remifentanil discontinuation is independently associated with ICU-acquired infection.

Sedation practice in the intensive care unit: a UK national survey

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate sedation practice in UK intensive care units (ICUs), particularly the implementation of daily sedation holding, written sedation guidelines, sedation scoring tools and choice of agents.

METHODS

A national postal survey was conducted in all UK ICUs.

RESULTS

A total of 192 responses out of 302 addressed units were received (63.5%). Of the responding ICUs, 88% used a sedation scoring tool, most frequently the Ramsey Sedation Scale score (66.4%). The majority of units have a written sedation guideline (80%), and 78% state that daily sedation holding is practiced. A wide variety of sedating agents is used, with the choice of agent largely determined by the duration of action rather than cost. The most frequently used agents were propofol and alfentanil for short-term sedation; propofol, midazolam and morphine for longer sedation; and propofol for weaning purposes.

CONCLUSIONS

Most UK ICUs use a sedation guideline and sedation scoring tool. The concept of sedation holding has been implemented in the majority of units, and most ICUs have a written sedation guideline.