Randomized trial of light versus deep sedation on mental health after critical illness

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.

Our paper 20 years later: 1-year survival and 6-month quality of life after intensive care

INTRODUCTION

In the early 1990s, the in-hospital mortality rate of intensive care unit (ICU) patients dropped, and interest in the quality of life (QOL) of ICU survivors increased. In 1996, we published a study to investigate 1-year survival after hospital discharge and 6-month QOL after intensive care. Now, we compare our previous results with those reported in the recent literature to appraise any changes, and new knowledge in the area.

RESULTS

The 1-year survival of ICU patients after hospital discharge is substantial, lower than in the general population, and different among subgroups. Some studies showed a reduction in QOL at 6 months, as in our study, while others showed an improvement. Different results seem to be related mainly to the case mix. Studies on different types of patients found long-term cognitive impairment in ICU survivors, possibly not disease specific. The proportions of patients with neuropsychological morbidities such as posttraumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression, described after our study, did not show any change over time.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences between studies on long-term survival and QOL do not allow conclusions to be drawn about change over time. No change was found in neuropsychological morbidities. However, a lack of change may not be viewed negatively, because critically ill patients who survive ICU today may be at higher risk for poor long-term outcome than in the past due to the higher severity of their illness and the more aggressive treatments received. Future studies may provide understanding of the relationships between psychiatric symptoms, cognitive impairment, functional disability, and QOL.

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

Effect of sedation on short-term and long-term outcomes of critically ill patients with acute respiratory insufficiency

BACKGROUND

The present study aimed to determine the short-term and long-term outcomes of critically ill patients with acute respiratory insufficiency who had received sedation or no sedation.

METHODS

The data of 91 patients who had received mechanical ventilation in the first 24 hours between November 2008 and October 2009 were retrospectively analyzed. These patients were divided into two groups: a sedation group (n=28) and a non-sedation group (n=63). The patients were also grouped in two groups: deep sedation group and daily interruption and /or light sedation group.

RESULTS

Overall, the 91 patients who had received ventilation ≥48 hours were analyzed. Multivariate analysis demonstrated two independent risk factors for in-hospital death: sequential organ failure assessment score (P=0.019, RR 1.355, 95%CI 1.051-1.747, B=0.304, SE=0.130, Wald=50483) and sedation (P=0.041, RR 5.015, 95%CI 1.072-23.459, B=1.612, SE=0.787, Wald=4.195). Compared with the patients who had received no sedation, those who had received sedation had a longer duration of ventilation, a longer stay in intensive care unit and hospital, and an increased in-hospital mortality rate. The Kaplan-Meier method showed that patients who had received sedation had a lower 60-month survival rate than those who had received no sedation (76.7% vs. 88.9%, Log-rank test=3.630, P=0.057). Compared with the patients who had received deep sedation, those who had received daily interruption or light sedation showed a decreased in-hospital mortality rate (57.1% vs. 9.5%, P=0.008). The 60-month survival of the patients who had received deep sedation was significantly lower than that of those who had daily interruption or light sedation (38.1% vs. 90.5%, Log-rank test=6.783, P=0.009).

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation was associated with in-hospital death. The patients who had received sedation had a longer duration of ventilation, a longer stay in intensive care unit and in hospital, and an increased in-hospital mortality rate compared with the patients who did not receive sedation. Compared with daily interruption or light sedation, deep sedation increased the in-hospital mortality and decreased the 60-month survival for patients who had received sedation.

Propranolol, post-traumatic stress disorder, and intensive care: incorporating new advances in psychiatry into the ICU

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a common complication of an ICU admission. Rarely is there a continuation of care, which is aimed at screening for and treating this debilitating disease. Current treatment options for PTSD are held back by inconsistent efficacy, poor evidence, and a lack of understanding of its psychopathology. Without 'gold standard' assessment techniques to diagnose PTSD after an ICU admission, the development of care pathways is hindered. This paper advocates for two interwoven advances in psychiatric care (specifically for PTSD) after ICU: (1) incorporate the monitoring and treating of psychiatric co-morbidities during extended patient follow-up, and (2) rapidly adopting the latest research to maximize its benefit. The discovery that memories were not fixed, but malleable to change, set off a sequence of experiments that have revolutionized the approach to treating PTSD. It is hoped that the phenomenon of reconsolidation can be exploited therapeutically. In the act of remembering and re-storing traumatic memories, propranolol can act to dissociate the state of sympathetic arousal from their recollection. Often, ICU patients have multiple physical co-morbidities that may be exacerbated, or their treatment disrupted, by such a pervasive psychological condition. The rapid uptake of new techniques, aimed at reducing PTSD after ICU admission, is necessary to maximize the quality of care given to patients. Increasingly, the realization that the role of intensive care specialists may extend beyond the ICU is changing clinical practice. As this field advances, intensivists and psychiatrists alike must collaborate by using the latest psychopharmacology to treat their patients and combat the psychological consequences of experiencing the extremes of physiological existence.

Improved analgesia, sedation, and delirium protocol associated with decreased duration of delirium and mechanical ventilation

RATIONALE

Introduction of sedation protocols has been associated with improved patient outcomes. It is not known if an update to an existing high-quality sedation protocol, featuring increased patient assessment and reduced benzodiazepine exposure, is associated with improved patient process and outcome quality metrics.

METHODS

This was an observational before (n = 703) and after (n = 780) cohort study of mechanically ventilated patients in a 24-bed trauma-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) from 2009 to 2011. The three main protocol updates were: (1) requirement to document Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) scores every 4 hours, (2) requirement to document Confusion Assessment Method-ICU (CAM ICU) twice daily, and (3) systematic, protocolized deescalation of excess sedation. Multivariable linear regression was used for the primary analysis. The primary outcome was the duration of mechanical ventilation. Prespecified secondary endpoints included days of delirium; the frequency of patient assessment with the RASS and CAM-ICU instruments; benzodiazepine dosing; durations of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay, and hospitalization; and hospital mortality and ventilator associated pneumonia rate.

RESULTS

Patients in the updated protocol cohort had 1.22 more RASS assessments per day (5.38 vs. 4.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.39; P < 0.01) and 1.15 more CAM-ICU assessments per day (1.49 vs. 0.35; 95% CI, 1.08-1.21; P < 0.01) than the baseline cohort. The mean hourly benzodiazepine dose decreased by 34.8% (0.08 mg lorazepam equivalents/h; 0.15 vs. 0.23; P < 0.01). In the multivariable model, the median duration of mechanical ventilation decreased by 17.6% (95% CI, 0.6-31.7%; P = 0.04). The overall odds ratio of delirium was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.49-0.91; P = 0.01) comparing updated versus baseline cohort. A 12.4% reduction in median duration of ICU stay (95% CI, 0.5-22.8%; P = 0.04) and a 14.0% reduction in median duration of hospitalization (95% CI, 2.0-24.5%; P = 0.02) were also seen. No significant association with mortality (odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.80-1.76; P = 0.40) was seen.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of an updated ICU analgesia, sedation, and delirium protocol was associated with an increase in RASS and CAM-ICU assessment and documentation; reduced hourly benzodiazepine dose; and decreased delirium and median durations of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay, and hospitalization.

Burst suppression on processed electroencephalography as a predictor of postcoma delirium in mechanically ventilated ICU patients

OBJECTIVES

Many patients, due to a combination of illness and sedatives, spend a considerable amount of time in a comatose state that can include time in burst suppression. We sought to determine if burst suppression measured by processed electroencephalography during coma in sedative-exposed patients is a predictor of post-coma delirium during critical illness.

DESIGN

Observational convenience sample cohort.

SETTING

Medical and surgical ICUs in a tertiary care medical center.

PATIENTS

Cohort of 124 mechanically ventilated ICU patients.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Depth of sedation was monitored twice daily using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and continuously monitored by processed electroencephalography. When noncomatose, patients were assessed for delirium twice daily using Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU. Multiple logistic regression and Cox proportional hazards regression were used to assess associations between time in burst suppression and both prevalence and time to resolution of delirium, respectively, adjusting for time in deep sedation and a principal component score consisting of Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score and cumulative doses of sedatives while comatose. Of the 124 patients enrolled and monitored, 55 patients either never had coma or never emerged from coma, yielding 69 patients for whom we performed these analyses; 42 of these 69 (61%) had post-coma delirium. Most patients had burst suppression during coma, although often short-lived (median [interquartile range] time in burst suppression, 6.4 [1-58] min). After adjusting for covariates, even this short time in burst suppression independently predicted a higher prevalence of post-coma delirium (odds ratio, 4.16; 95% CI, 1.27-13.62; p = 0.02) and a lower likelihood (delayed) resolution of delirium (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.53-0.98; p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Time in burst suppression during coma, as measured by processed electroencephalography, was an independent predictor of prevalence and time to resolution of postcoma/post-deep sedation delirium. These findings of this single-center investigation support lighter sedation strategies.

Assessing, monitoring and managing continuous intravenous sedation for critically ill adult patients and implications for emergency nursing practice: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Critically ill mechanically ventilated patients in ED have complex needs; chief among these is adequate sedation in addition to effective pain-relief. Emergency nurses are increasingly responsible sedation and analgesia for this complex cohort of patients. The aim of this review was to examine (1) the evidence around assessing, monitoring and managing continuous intravenous sedation for critically ill adult patients, and (2) the implications for emergency nursing practice.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review.

METHOD

The review of literature extended from 1946 to 2013 and examined peer review journal articles, policy and guidelines to provide a more complex understanding of a phenomenon of concern. A total of 98 articles were incorporated and comprehensively examined.

RESULTS

Analysis of the literature identified several implications for emergency nursing practice and the management of continuous intravenous sedation: workload, education, monitoring and assessing sedation and policy.

CONCLUSION

Limited literature was found that directly addressed Australasian emergency nursing practices' in managing on-going intravenous sedation and analgesia for patients. Balancing patient sedation and analgesia requires highly complex knowledge, skills and expertise; the degree of education and training required is above that obtained during pre-registration nurse training. No state or national models of education or training were identified to support ED nurses' practices in managing sedation. Little research has addressed the safety of continuous sedation use in ED.

Evaluation of a minimal sedation protocol using ICU sedative consumption as a monitoring tool: a quality improvement multicenter project

Introduction

Oversedation frequently occurs in ICUs. We aimed to evaluate a minimal sedation policy, using sedative consumption as a monitoring tool, in a network of ICUs targeting decrement of oversedation and mechanical ventilation (MV) duration.

Methods

A prospective quality improvement project was conducted in ten ICUs within a network of nonteaching hospitals in Brazil during a 2-year period (2010 to 2012). In the first 12 months (the preintervention period), we conducted an audit to identify sedation practice and barriers to current guideline-based practice regarding sedation. In the postintervention period, we implemented a multifaceted program, including multidisciplinary daily rounds, and monthly audits focusing on sedative consumption, feedback and benchmarking purposes. To analyze the effect of the campaign, we fit an interrupted time series (ITS). To account for variability among the network ICUs, we fit a hierarchical model.

Results

During the study period, 21% of patients received MV (4,851/22,963). In the postintervention period, the length of MV was lower (3.91 ± 6.2 days versus 3.15 ± 4.6 days; mean difference, −0.76 (95% CI, −1.10; −0.43), P <0.001) and 28 ventilator-free days were higher (16.07 ± 12.2 days versus 18.33 ± 11.6 days; mean difference, 2.30 (95% CI, 1.57; 3.00), P <0.001) than in the preintervention period. Midazolam consumption (in milligrams per day of MV) decreased from 329 ± 70 mg/day to 163 ± 115 mg/day (mean difference, −167 (95% CI, −246; −87), P <0.001). In contrast, consumption of propofol (P = 0.007), dexmedetomidine (P = 0.017) and haloperidol (P = 0.002) increased in the postintervention period, without changes in the consumption of fentanyl. Through ITS, age (P = 0.574) and Simplified Acute Physiology Score III (P = 0.176) remained stable. The length of MV showed a secular effect (secular trend β₁ = −0.055, P = 0.012) and a strong decrease immediately after the intervention (intervention β₂ = −0.976, P <0.001). The impact was maintained over the course of one year, despite the waning trend for the intervention’s effect (postintervention trend β₃ = 0.039, P = 0.095).

Conclusions

By using a light sedation policy in a group of nonteaching hospitals, we reproduced the benefits that have previously been demonstrated in controlled settings. Furthermore, systematic monitoring of sedative consumption should be a feasible instrument for supporting the implementation of a protocol on a large scale.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-014-0580-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Intervention to improve intensive care nurses' knowledge of sedation assessment and management

BACKGROUND

Sedation management is an integral component of critical care practice. It requires the greatest attention of critical care practitioners because it carries significant risks to patients. Therefore, it is imperative that nurses are aware of potential adverse consequences of sedation therapy and current sedation practice recommendations.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the impact of an educational intervention on nurses' knowledge of sedation assessment and management.

DESIGNS AND METHODS

A quasi-experimental design with a pre- and post-test method was used. The educational intervention included theoretical sessions on assessing and managing sedation and hands-on sedation assessment practice using the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale. Its effect was measured using self-administered questionnaire, completed at the baseline level and 3 months following the intervention.

RESULTS

Participants were 68 registered nurses from an intensive care unit of a teaching hospital in Malaysia. Significant increases in overall mean knowledge scores were observed from pre- to post-intervention phases (mean of 79·00 versus 102·00, p < 0·001). Nurses with fewer than 5 years of work experience, less than 26 years old, and with a only basic nursing education had significantly greater level of knowledge improvement at the post-intervention phase compared to other colleagues, with mean differences of 24·64 (p = 0·001), 23·81 (p = 0·027) and 27·25 (p = 0·0001), respectively. A repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed a statistically significant effect of educational intervention on knowledge score after controlling for age, years of work and level of nursing education (p = 0·0001, ηp (2) = 0·431).

CONCLUSION

An educational intervention consisting of theoretical sessions and hands-on sedation assessment practice was found effective in improving nurses' knowledge and understanding of sedation management.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

This study highlighted the importance of continuing education to increase nurses' understanding of intensive care practices, which is vital for improving the quality of patient care.

Emergency nurses practices in assessing and administering continuous intravenous sedation for critically ill adult patients: a retrospective record review'

AIM

To generate an initial profile of emergency nurses' practices in and factors influencing the assessment and administration of continuous intravenous sedation and analgesia for critically ill mechanically ventilated adult patients.

BACKGROUND

Emergency nurses are relied upon to assess and manage critically ill patients, some of whom require continuous intravenous sedation. Balancing sedation is a highly complex activity. There is however little evidence relating to how emergency nurses manage continuous intravenous analgesia and sedation for the critically ill intubated patients.

DESIGN

Descriptive study.

METHOD

A 12-month retrospective medical record review was undertaken from January to December 2009 of patients (>16 years) administered continuous intravenous sedation in ED.

RESULTS

Fifty-five patients received ongoing intravenous sedation within the ED during a median length of stay of 3.4 h. Assessment of patient depth/quality of sedation and pain-relief varied and were rarely documented. Adverse events were documented, majority (16%) drug administration related. Thematic analysis identified three themes: 'Maintaining sedation', 'Directionless-directions', and 'Navigating the balance'.

CONCLUSION

Emergency nurses provide continuity of patient care and optimisation of analgesia and sedation for critically ill sedated patients. The safety and effectiveness of continuous intravenous sedation for the critically ill adult patient in ED are dependent on the expertise and decision-making abilities of the nurse.

Current practices of mobilization, analgesia, relaxants and sedation in Indian ICUs: A survey conducted by the Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine

Background and Aim:

Use of sedation, analgesia and neuromuscular blocking agents is widely practiced in Intensive Care Units (ICUs). Our aim is to study the current practice patterns related to mobilization, analgesia, relaxants and sedation (MARS) to help in standardizing best practices in these areas in the ICU.

Materials and Methods:

A web-based nationwide survey involving physicians of the Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine (ISCCM) and the Indian Society of Anesthesiologists (ISA) was carried out. A questionnaire included questions on demographics, assessment scales for delirium, sedation and pain, as also the pharmacological agents and the practice methods.

Results:

Most ICUs function in a semi-closed model. Midazolam (94.99%) and Fentanyl (47.04%) were the most common sedative and analgesic agents used, respectively. Vecuronium was the preferred neuromuscular agent. Monitoring of sedation, analgesia and delirium in the ICU. Ramsay's Sedation Scale (56.1%) and Visual Analogue Scale (48.07%) were the preferred sedation and pain scales, respectively. CAM (Confusion Assessment Method)-ICU was the most preferred method of delirium assessment. Haloperidol was the most commonly used agent for delirium. Majority of the respondents were aware of the benefit of early mobilization, but lack of support staff and safety concerns were the main obstacles to its implementation.

Conclusion:

The results of the survey suggest that compliance with existing guidelines is low. Benzodiazepines still remain the predominant ICU sedative. The recommended practice of giving analgesia before sedation is almost non-existent. Delirium remains an underrecognized entity. Monitoring of sedation levels, analgesia and delirium is low and validated and recommended scales for the same are rarely used. Although awareness of the benefits of early mobilization are high, the implementation is low.

Sedation and its psychological effects following intensive care

Significant psychological impacts, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), have been associated with patients under sedation in intensive care units (ICUs). However, it remains unknown if and how sedation is related to post-ICU psychological outcomes. This literature review explores the relationships between sedation, the depth of sedation and psychological disorders. A review of existing literature was undertaken systematically with key terms and included peer-reviewed primary research and randomised controlled trials (RCTs). To ensure subject relevance pre-2006, non-English and paediatric-based research was excluded. Findings highlighted that reduced sedation levels did not significantly reduce the outcome of PTSD, yet reduced ICU length of stay and length of mechanical ventilation (MV) were both associated with lighter sedation. Further research is recommended into more specific factual and delusional memories post ICU in relation to the level of sedation and to psychological distress.

Correlation of patient-reported outcomes of sedation and sedation assessment scores in critically ill patients

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are recommended as indicators of quality in the intensive care unit. We studied the correlation between PROs of sedation quality and a universal sedation assessment scale in critically ill patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-nine mechanically ventilated adults admitted to a surgical/trauma or medical intensive care unit requiring continuous infusion sedation for 24 hours or more were prospectively included. Patient-reported outcomes were evaluated through sedation questionnaire 24 hours post-continuous infusion sedation. The primary outcome was the correlation of PROs with Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) scores.

RESULTS

Mean (SD) SAS scores per 12-hour nursing shift for propofol (n=179), midazolam (n=42), and dexmedetomidine (n=8) were 3.78 (77), 3.31 (1.1), and 2.98 (0.76), respectively. The mean score for survey questions addressing perceptions of comfort was 5.3 (1, complete comfort; 10, not comfortable at all). Of the patients, 34%, 7%, and 52% would want more, less, or the same amount of sedation, respectively, if this situation were to arise again. Patient perception of comfort correlated with the percent time at goal SAS score; r=0.31 (P<.05).

CONCLUSION

Patient-reported outcomes of sedation correlate with the percentage of time spent in the goal range of scores for a universal sedation assessment scale. These findings represent initial attempts to appreciate the patient's perspective in the management and monitoring of agitation.

How outcomes are defined in clinical trials of mechanically ventilated adults and children

Systematic reviews have considerable potential to provide evidence-based data to aid clinical decision-making. However, there is growing recognition that trials involving mechanical ventilation lack consistency in the definition and measurement of ventilation outcomes, creating difficulties in combining data for meta-analyses. To address the inconsistency in outcome definitions, international standards for trial registration and clinical trial protocols published recommendations, effectively setting the "gold standard" for reporting trial outcomes. In this Critical Care Perspective, we review the problems resulting from inconsistent outcome definitions and inconsistent reporting of outcomes (outcome sets). We present data highlighting the variability of the most commonly reported ventilation outcome definitions. Ventilation outcomes reported in trials over the last 6 years typically fall into four domains: measures of ventilator dependence; adverse outcomes; mortality; and resource use. We highlight the need, first, for agreement on outcome definitions and, second, for a minimum core outcome set for trials involving mechanical ventilation. A minimum core outcome set would not restrict trialists from measuring additional outcomes, but would overcome problems of variability in outcome selection, measurement, and reporting, thereby enhancing comparisons across trials.

Posttraumatic stress disorder among survivors of critical illness: creation of a conceptual model addressing identification, prevention, and management

Quality of life is frequently impaired among survivors of critical illness, and psychiatric morbidity is an important element contributing to poor quality of life in these patients. Among potential manifestations of psychiatric morbidity following critical illness, symptoms of posttraumatic stress are prevalent and intricately linked to the significant stressors present in the intensive care unit (ICU). As our understanding of the epidemiology of post-ICU posttraumatic stress disorder improves, so must our ability to identify those at highest risk for symptoms in the period of time following critical illness and our ability to implement strategies to prevent symptom development. In addition, a focus on strategies to address clinically apparent psychiatric morbidity will be essential. Much remains to be understood about the identification, prevention, and management of this significant public health problem. This article addresses the importance of uniformity in future epidemiologic studies, proposes framing of risk factors into those likely to be modifiable versus non-modifiable, and provides an assessment of modifiable risk factors in the context of a novel conceptual model that offers insight into potential strategies to attenuate symptoms of posttraumatic stress among survivors of critical illness.

Daily sedative interruption versus intermittent sedation in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Daily sedative interruption and intermittent sedation are effective in abbreviating the time on mechanical ventilation. Whether one is superior to the other has not yet been determined. Our aim was to compare daily interruption and intermittent sedation during the mechanical ventilation period in a low nurse staffing ICU.

METHODS

Adult patients expected to need mechanical ventilation for more than 24 hours were randomly assigned, in a single center, either to daily interruption of continuous sedative and opioid infusion or to intermittent sedation. In both cases, our goal was to maintain a Sedation Agitation Scale (SAS) level of 3 or 4; that is patients should be calm, easily arousable or awakened with verbal stimuli or gentle shaking. Primary outcome was ventilator-free days in 28 days. Secondary outcomes were ICU and hospital mortality, incidence of delirium, nurse workload, self-extubation and psychological distress six months after ICU discharge.

RESULTS

A total of 60 patients were included. There were no differences in the ventilator-free days in 28 days between daily interruption and intermittent sedation (median: 24 versus 25 days, P = 0.160). There were also no differences in ICU mortality (40 versus 23.3%, P = 0.165), hospital mortality (43.3 versus 30%, P = 0.284), incidence of delirium (30 versus 40%, P = 0.472), self-extubation (3.3 versus 6.7%, P = 0.514), and psychological stress six months after ICU discharge. Also, the nurse workload was not different between groups, but it was reduced on day 5 compared to day 1 in both groups (Nurse Activity Score (NAS) in the intermittent sedation group was 54 on day 1 versus 39 on day 5, P < 0.001; NAS in daily interruption group was 53 on day 1 versus 38 on day 5, P < 0.001). Fentanyl and midazolam total dosages per patient were higher in the daily interruption group. The tidal volume was higher in the intermittent sedation group during the first five days of ICU stay.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference in the number of ventilator-free days in 28 days between both groups. Intermittent sedation was associated with lower sedative and opioid doses.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00824239.

Improving patient care through the prism of psychology: application of Maslow's hierarchy to sedation, delirium, and early mobility in the intensive care unit

The intensive care unit (ICU) is not only a place where lives are saved; it is also a site of harm and iatrogenic injury for millions of people treated in this setting globally every year. Increasingly, hospitals admit only the sickest patients, and although the overall number of hospital beds remains stable in the United States, the percentage of that total devoted to ICU beds is rising. These 2 realities engender a demographic imperative to address patient safety in the critical care setting. This article addresses the medical community's resistance to adopting a culture of safety in critical care with regard to issues surrounding sedation, delirium, and early mobility. Although there is currently much research and quality improvement in this area, most of what we know from these data and published guidelines has not become reality in the day-to-day management of ICU patients. This article is not intended to provide a comprehensive review of the literature but rather a framework to rethink our currently outdated culture of critical care by employing Maslow's hierarchy of needs, along with a few novel analogies. Application of Maslow's hierarchy will help propel health care professionals toward comprehensive care of the whole person not merely for survival but toward restoration of pre-illness function of mind, body, and spirit.

Role of dexmedetomidine in adults in the intensive care unit: an update

PURPOSE

The role of dexmedetomidine for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is reviewed and updated.

SUMMARY

Searches of MEDLINE (July 2006-March 2012) and an extensive manual review of journals were performed. Relevant literature with a focus on data published since our last review in 2007 was evaluated for topic relevance and clinical applicability. Optimal management of pain, agitation, and delirium in ICUs requires a systematic and multimodal approach aimed at providing comfort while maximizing outcomes. Dexmedetomidine is among multiple agents, including opioids, propofol, benzodiazepines, and antipsychotics, used to facilitate and increase patients' tolerability of mechanical ventilation. This article reviews the newest evidence available for dexmedetomidine use for sedation and analgesia in medical-surgical ICUs. Adverse effects associated with dexmedetomidine were similar among the studies examined herein. The most common adverse effects with dexmedetomidine were bradycardia and hypotension, in some cases severe enough to warrant the use of vasoactive support. Due to the adverse events associated with rapid dosage adjustment and bolus therapy, dexmedetomidine may not be the best agent for treating acute agitation.

CONCLUSION

In medical-surgical ICUs, dexmedetomidine may be a viable non-benzodiazepine option for patients with a need for light sedation. In cardiac surgery patients, dexmedetomidine appears to offer no advantage over propofol as the initial sedative. The role of dexmedetomidine in unique patient populations such as neurosurgical, trauma, and obstetrics is yet to be established.

Responses to noxious stimuli in sedated mechanically ventilated adults

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of sedation on physiologic responses and comfort before, during and after a noxious stimulus (endotracheal tube suctioning).

METHODS

The sample was a subset of a larger, longitudinal descriptive study, blood for endorphins and saliva for alpha-amylase were obtained before and after suctioning. Heart rate (HR), respiration rate (RR), oxygen saturation (SPO2), and arm and leg actigraphy were continuously recorded.

RESULTS

67 subjects from medical and surgical ICUs were primarily deeply (37%) or mildly sedated (54%) prior to suctioning. Alpha-amylase increased post suctioning (p = 0.04); endorphins did not change (p = 0.58). Neither were modified by sedation. There were no changes in HR, RR or SPO2 post suctioning. Arm (p = 0.007) and leg actigraphy (p = 0.057) changed from baseline and depended on sedation level (p = 0.0005).

CONCLUSIONS

While a stress marker did increase during suctioning, only the measure of patient arm movement was significantly affected by sedation level.

Post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms after acute lung injury: a 2-year prospective longitudinal study

BACKGROUND

Survivors of critical illnesses often have clinically significant post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. This study describes the 2-year prevalence and duration of PTSD symptoms after acute lung injury (ALI), and examines patient baseline and critical illness/intensive care-related risk factors.

METHOD

This prospective, longitudinal cohort study recruited patients from 13 intensive care units (ICUs) in four hospitals, with follow-up 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after ALI onset. The outcome of interest was an Impact of Events Scale - Revised (IES-R) mean score ≥1.6 ('PTSD symptoms').

RESULTS

During the 2-year follow-up, 66/186 patients (35%) had PTSD symptoms, with the greatest prevalence by the 3-month follow-up. Fifty-six patients with post-ALI PTSD symptoms survived to the 24-month follow-up, and 35 (62%) of these had PTSD symptoms at the 24-month follow-up; 50% had taken psychiatric medications and 40% had seen a psychiatrist since hospital discharge. Risk/protective factors for PTSD symptoms were pre-ALI depression [hazard odds ratio (OR) 1.96, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.06-3.64], ICU length of stay (for a doubling of days, OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.06-1.83), proportion of ICU days with sepsis (per decile, OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.00-1.16), high ICU opiate doses (mean morphine equivalent ≥100 mg/day, OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.02-4.42) and proportion of ICU days on opiates (per decile, OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74-0.94) or corticosteroids (per decile, OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.84-0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

PTSD symptoms are common, long-lasting and associated with psychiatric treatment during the first 2 years after ALI. Risk factors include pre-ALI depression, durations of stay and sepsis in the ICU, and administration of high-dose opiates in the ICU. Protective factors include durations of opiate and corticosteroid administration in the ICU.

A Randomized, Double-Blind Pilot Study of Dexmedetomidine Versus Midazolam for Intensive Care Unit Sedation

Introduction:

Sedation with dexmedetomidine may facilitate ventilator liberation and limit the occurrence of delirium. No trial has assessed patient recall or the development of psychological outcomes after dexmedetomidine sedation. This pilot study evaluated whether transitioning benzodiazepine sedation to dexmedetomidine alters patient recall and the incidence of anxiety, depression, or acute stress disorder (ASD).

Methods:

This investigation was a randomized, double-blind, single-center study. Existing continuous benzodiazepine sedation was converted to dexmedetomidine or midazolam when patients qualified for daily awakenings. Sedation was titrated to achieve Riker sedation agitation scores of 3 to 4. The intensive care unit (ICU) Stressful Experiences Questionnaire, hospital anxiety and depression scale, and the impact of event scale-revised were administered before hospital discharge to assess recall, anxiety, depression, and manifestations of ASD.

Results:

A total of 11 patients received dexmedetomidine, and 12 patients received midazolam. Median dosing was 0.61 µg/kg/h for 3.5 days for dexmedetomidine and 3.7 mg/h for 3 days for midazolam. Attainment of goal sedation and analgesia was similar; however, more dexmedetomidine patients experienced agitation and pain. The median duration of mechanical ventilation from study drug initiation to extubation was 3.4 days in dexmedetomidine patients and 2.9 days in midazolam patients. Dexmedetomidine patients remembered 18.5 experiences compared with 8.5 in midazolam patients ( P = .015). Rates of anxiety and depression were similar. In all, 5 (62.5%) dexmedetomidine patients and 1 (12.5%) midazolam patient manifested ASD ( P = .063), and 1 dexmedetomidine patient and 5 midazolam patients developed new-onset delirium ( P = .07). Hypotension occurred in 10 (90.9%) dexmedotomidine patients and 6 (50%) midazolam patients ( P = .069).

Conclusions:

Transitioning benzodiazepine sedation to dexmedetomidine when patients qualify for daily awakenings may reduce the development of delirium and facilitate remembrance of ICU experiences but may lead to manifestations of ASD. Monitoring hypotension is required for both the sedatives. Additional comparative studies focusing on the long-term impact of ICU recall and psychological outcomes are needed.

ICU early mobilization: from recommendation to implementation at three medical centers

OBJECTIVE

To compare and contrast the process used to implement an early mobility program in ICUs at three different medical centers and to assess their impact on clinical outcomes in critically ill patients.

DESIGN

Three ICU early mobilization quality improvement projects are summarized utilizing the Institute for Healthcare Improvement framework of Plan-Do-Study-Act.

INTERVENTION

Each of the three ICU early mobilization programs required an interprofessional team-based approach to plan, educate, and implement the ICU early mobility program. Champions from each profession-nursing, physical therapy, physician, and respiratory care-were identified to facilitate changes in ICU culture and clinical practice and to identify and address barriers to early mobility program implementation at each institution.

SETTING

The medical ICU at Wake Forest University, the medical ICU at Johns Hopkins Hospital, and the mixed medical-surgical ICU at the University of California San Francisco Medical Center.

RESULTS

Establishing an ICU early mobilization quality improvement program resulted in a reduced ICU and hospital length of stay at all three institutions and decreased rates of delirium and the need for sedation for the patients enrolled in the Johns Hopkins ICU early mobility program.

CONCLUSION

Instituting a planned, structured ICU early mobility quality improvement project can result in improved outcomes and reduced costs for ICU patients across healthcare systems.

Daily sedation interruption versus targeted light sedation strategies in ICU patients

OBJECTIVE

The updated clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium recommend either daily sedation interruption or maintaining light levels of sedation as methods to improve outcomes for patients who are sedated in the ICU. We review the evidence supporting both methods and discuss whether one method is preferable or if they should be used concurrently.

DATA SOURCE

Original research articles identified using the electronic PubMed database.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Randomized controlled trials and large prospective cohort studies of mechanically ventilated ICU patients requiring sedation were selected.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The methods of daily sedation interruption and targeting light sedation levels (including avoidance of deep sedation) are safe in critically ill patients with no increase, and a potential decrease, in long-term psychiatric disturbances. Randomized trials comparing these methods with standard care, which has traditionally involved moderate to heavy sedation, found that both methods reduced duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay. Additionally, one trial noted that daily sedation interruption paired with spontaneous breathing trials improved 1-year survival, whereas a large observational study found that deep sedation was associated with decreased 180-day survival. Two common characteristics of these interventions in trials showing benefits were avoidance of deep levels of sedation and significant reductions in sedative doses, especially benzodiazepines. Thus, combining targeted light sedation with daily sedation interruption may be more beneficial than either method alone if sedative doses are reduced and arousal and mobility are facilitated during the ICU stay.

CONCLUSION

Daily sedation interruption and targeting light sedation levels are safe and proven to improve outcomes for sedated ICU patients when these approaches result in reduced sedative exposure and facilitate arousal. It remains unclear as to whether one approach is superior, and further studies are needed to evaluate which patients benefit most from either or both techniques.

Top 10 myths regarding sedation and delirium in the ICU

The management of pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients can be complicated by multiple factors. Decisions to administer opioids, sedatives, and antipsychotic medications are frequently driven by a desire to facilitate patients' comfort and their tolerance of invasive procedures or other interventions within the ICU. Despite accumulating evidence supporting new strategies to optimize pain, sedation, and delirium practices in the ICU, many critical care practitioners continue to embrace false perceptions regarding appropriate management in these critically ill patients. This article explores these perceptions in more detail and offers new evidence-based strategies to help critical care practitioners better manage sedation and delirium, particularly in ICU patients.

Diverse attitudes to and understandings of spontaneous awakening trials: results from a statewide quality improvement collaborative*

OBJECTIVES

Spontaneous awakening trials (SATs) improve outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients, but implementation remains erratic. We examined variation in reported practice, prevalence of attitudes and fears regarding spontaneous awakening trials, and organizational practices associated with routine implementation of spontaneous awakening trials in an ICU quality improvement collaborative.

DESIGN

Written survey.

SETTING

Michigan Health and Hospital Association's Keystone ICU, a quality improvement collaborative of 73 hospitals.

SUBJECTS

Attendees of the yearly Keystone ICU meeting, January 2011, including nurses, physicians, hospital administrators, and other healthcare professionals.

INTERVENTION

Respondents were asked about institutional characteristics, spontaneous awakening trial practice, attitudes and barriers regarding spontaneous awakening trials, and organizational cultural characteristics that might influence SAT practice. The association of organizational cultural characteristics and attitudes with reported spontaneous awakening trial use was evaluated using logistic regression.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Three hundred nineteen participants attended the meeting. The survey response rate was 83.4%. Respondents reported wide variation in approach to spontaneous awakening trial performance and patient selection. 48.6% of respondents reported regular spontaneous awakening trial use, defined as greater than 75% of mechanically ventilated patients undergoing spontaneous awakening trials each day. In bivariable analysis, addressing sedation goals routinely in rounds and having spontaneous awakening trials as part of unit culture were positively associated with regular spontaneous awakening trial use, whereas the perception that spontaneous awakening trials increased short-term adverse effects, staff fears of spontaneous awakening trials, and the perception that spontaneous awakening trials are hard work were negatively associated with regular spontaneous awakening trial use. In multivariable analysis, only addressing sedation in rounds (odds ratio, 2.85 [95% CI, 1.55-5.23]), incorporation of spontaneous awakening trials into unit culture (odds ratio, 3.36 [95% CI, 1.75-6.43]), and the perception that spontaneous awakening trials are hard work (odds ratio, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.30-0.96]) remained statistically significantly associated with regular spontaneous awakening trial use. Respondents in managerial positions were less likely to perceive spontaneous awakening trials as hard work (odds ratio, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.22-0.85]).

CONCLUSIONS

Even in a motivated statewide quality improvement collaborative, spontaneous awakening trial practice varies widely and concerns persist regarding spontaneous awakening trials. Cultural practices may counteract the effect of concerns regarding spontaneous awakening trials and are associated with increased performance of this beneficial intervention. Patient selection should be a focus for continuing medical education. Differences in perception of work between management and staff may also be a focus for improved communication.

Delirium in the intensive care unit

Delirium is a serious complication that commonly occurs in critically ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Delirium is frequently unrecognized or missed despite its high incidence and prevalence, and leads to poor clinical outcomes and an increased cost by increasing morbidity, mortality, and hospital and ICU length of stay. Although its pathophysiology is poorly understood, numerous risk factors for delirium have been suggested. To improve clinical outcomes, it is crucial to perform preventive measures against delirium, to detect delirium early using valid and reliable screening tools, and to treat the underlying causes or hazard symptoms of delirium in a timely manner.

Implementation of a protocol for integrated management of pain, agitation, and delirium can improve clinical outcomes in the intensive care unit: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate diagnosis and treatment of pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD) in intensive care settings results in poor patient outcomes. We designed and used a protocol for systematic assessment and management of PAD by the nurses to improve clinical intensive care unit (ICU) outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 201 patients admitted to 2 mixed medical-surgical ICUs were randomly allocated to protocol and control groups. A multidisciplinary team approved the protocol. Pain was assessed by Numerical Rating Scale and Behavioural Pain Scale, agitation by Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, and delirium by Confusion Assessment Method in ICU. The Persian version of the scales was prepared and tested for validity, reliability, and feasibility in a preliminary study. The patients in the protocol group were managed pharmacologically according to the protocol, whereas those in the control group were managed according to the ICU routine.

RESULTS

The median (interquartile range) for the duration of mechanical ventilation in the protocol and control groups was 19 (9.3-67.8) and 40 (0-217) hours, respectively (P = .038). The median (interquartile range) length of ICU stay was 97 (54.5-189) hours in the protocol group vs 170 (80-408) hours in the control group (P < .001). The mortality rate in the protocol group was significantly reduced from 23.8% to 12.5% (P = .046).

CONCLUSION

The current randomized trial provided evidence for a substantial reduction in the duration of need to ventilatory support, length of ICU stay, and mortality rates in ICU-admitted patients through protocol-directed management of PAD.

Sedation in French intensive care units: a survey of clinical practice

Background

Sedation is used frequently for patients in intensive care units who require mechanical ventilation, but oversedation is one of the main side effects. Different strategies have been proposed to prevent oversedation. The extent to which these strategies have been adopted by intensivists is unknown.

Methods

We developed a six-section questionnaire that covered the drugs used, modalities of drug administration, use of sedation scales and procedural pain scales, use of written local procedures, and targeted objectives of consciousness. In November 2011, the questionnaire was sent to 1,078 intensivists identified from the French ICU Society (SRLF) database.

Results

The questionnaire was returned by 195 intensivists (response rate 18.1%), representing 135 of the 282 ICUs (47.8%) listed in the French ICU society (SRLF) database. The analysis showed that midazolam and sufentanil are the most frequently used hypnotics and opioids, respectively, administered in continuous intravenous (IV) infusions. IV boluses of hypnotics without subsequent continuous IV infusion are used occasionally (in <25% of patients) by 65% of intensivists. Anxiolytic benzodiazepines (e.g., clorazepam, alprazolam), hydroxyzine, and typical neuroleptics, via either an enteral or IV route, are used occasionally by two thirds of respondents. The existence of a written, local sedation management procedure in the ICU is reported by 55% of respondents, 54% of whom declare that they use it routinely. Written local sedation procedures mainly rely on titration of continuous IV hypnotics (90% of the sedation procedures); less frequently, sedation procedures describe alternative approaches to prevent oversedation, including daily interruption of continuous IV hypnotic infusion, hypnotic boluses with no subsequent continuous IV infusion, or the use of nonhypnotic drugs. Among the responding intensivists, 98% consider eye opening, either spontaneously or after light physical stimulation, a reasonable target consciousness level in patients with no severe respiratory failure or intracranial hypertension.

Conclusions

Despite a low individual response rate, the respondents to our survey represent almost half of the ICUs in the French SRLF database. The presence of a written local sedation procedure, a cornerstone of preventing oversedation, is reported by only half of respondents; when present, it is used in for a limited number of patients. Sedation procedures mainly rely on titration of continuous IV hypnotics, but other strategies to limit oversedation also are included in sedation procedures. French intensivists no longer consider severely altered consciousness a sedation objective for most patients.

Reducing deep sedation and delirium in acute lung injury patients: a quality improvement project

OBJECTIVE

Deep sedation and delirium are common in the ICU. Mechanically ventilated patients with acute lung injury are at especially high risk for deep sedation, delirium, and associated long-term physical and neuropsychiatric impairments. We undertook an ICU-wide structured quality improvement project to decrease sedation and delirium.

DESIGN

Prospective quality improvement project in comparison with a retrospective acute lung injury control group.

SETTING

Sixteen-bed medical ICU in an academic teaching hospital with pre-existing use of goal-directed sedation with daily interruption of sedative infusions.

PATIENTS

Consecutive acute lung injury patients.

INTERVENTION

A "4Es" framework (engage, educate, execute, evaluate) was used as part of the quality improvement process. A new sedation protocol was created and implemented, which recommends a target Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale score of 0 (alert and calm) and requires failure of intermittent sedative dosing prior to starting continuous infusions. In addition, twice-daily delirium screening using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU was introduced into routine practice.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Sedative use and delirium status in acute lung injury patients after implementation of the quality improvement project (n = 82) were compared with a historical control group (n = 120). During the quality improvement vs. control periods, use of narcotic and benzodiazepine infusions were substantially lower (median proportion of medical ICU days per patient: 33% vs. 74%, and 22% vs. 70%, respectively, both p < 0.001). Further, wakefulness increased (median Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale score per patient: -1.5 vs. -4.0, p < 0.001), and days awake and not delirious increased (median proportion of medical ICU days per patient: 19% vs. 0%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Through a structured quality improvement process, use of sedative infusions can be substantially decreased and days awake without delirium significantly increased, even in severely ill, mechanically ventilated patients with acute lung injury.

Intensive care sedation: the past, present and the future

Despite the universal prescription of sedative drugs in the intensive care unit (ICU), current practice is not guided by high-level evidence. Landmark sedation trials have made significant contributions to our understanding of the problems associated with ICU sedation and have promoted changes to current practice. We identified challenges and limitations of clinical trials which reduced the generalizability and the universal adoption of key interventions. We present an international perspective regarding current sedation practice and a blueprint for future research, which seeks to avoid known limitations and generate much-needed high-level evidence to better guide clinicians' management and therapeutic choices of sedative agents.

Interventions to prevent post-traumatic stress disorder: a systematic review

CONTEXT

Traumatic events are prevalent worldwide; trauma victims seek help in numerous clinical and emergency settings. Using effective interventions to prevent post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is increasingly important. This review assessed the efficacy, comparative effectiveness, and harms of psychological, pharmacologic, and emerging interventions to prevent PTSD.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The following sources were searched for research on interventions to be included in the review: MEDLINE; Cochrane Library; CINAHL; EMBASE; PILOTS (Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress); International Pharmaceutical Abstracts; PsycINFO; Web of Science; reference lists of published literature; and unpublished literature (January 1, 1980 to July 30, 2012). Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data or checked accuracy, assessed study risk of bias, and graded strength of evidence. All data synthesis occurred between January and September 2012.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Nineteen studies covered various populations, traumas, and interventions. In meta-analyses of three trials (from the same team) for people with acute stress disorder, brief trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy was more effective than supportive counseling in reducing the severity of PTSD symptoms (moderate-strength); these two interventions had similar results for incidence of PTSD (low-strength); depression severity (low-strength); and anxiety severity (moderate-strength). PTSD symptom severity after injury decreased more with collaborative care than usual care (single study; low-strength). Debriefing did not reduce incidence or severity of PTSD or psychological symptoms in civilian traumas (low-strength). Evidence about relevant outcomes was unavailable for many interventions or was insufficient owing to methodologic shortcomings.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence is very limited regarding best practices to treat trauma-exposed individuals. Brief cognitive behavioral therapy may reduce PTSD symptom severity in people with acute stress disorder; collaborative care may help decrease symptom severity post-injury.

[Quality of results of therapy of acute respiratory failure : changes over a period of two decades]

Progress in intensive care (ICU) treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) over the last 20 years includes the introduction of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for CO2 removal and the widespread use of evidence-based lung-protective ventilatory strategies. Little is known, however, about whether these changes have resulted in improvements in short-term and long-term outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) within the two decades after introduction. In a retrospective study 167 long-term survivors of severe ARDS who were transferred to the clinic for anesthesiology of the University of Munich, Campus Großhadern by means of specialized intensive care unit (ICU) transport teams and treated over a period of 20 years (1985-2005) were evaluated to investigate whether significant improvements in outcome as a consequence of the above mentioned progress in ARDS therapy have occurred. The ARDS patient cohort studied was characterized with regard to demographic variables, initial acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II score, duration of ICU treatment, the duration of mechanical ventilation and mortality. Data on long-term outcome were collected in a subcohort (n = 125) of patients who responded to mailed questionnaires and included health-related quality of life (HRQL, SF-36 questionnaire), symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), traumatic memories from ICU treatment (PTSS-10 instrument) and current state of employment. During the observation period no significant changes regarding patient age (39 ± 16 years, mean ± SD), disease severity on admission to the ICU (APACHE II scores 22 ± 5), duration of ICU treatment (47 ± 39 days) or duration of mechanical ventilation (39 ± 38 days) were found. Overall ICU mortality during the two decades was 37.3 % (range 25.0 %-38.1 %) between 1995 and 2001 and a non-significant increase in values between 36.8 % and 58.3 % during the time interval from 2002 und 2005. The paO2/FIO2-ratio on ICU admittance improved significantly between 1990 and 2000 (69 ± 5 between 1990 and 1994 versus 101 ± 12 between 1995 and 2000, p < 0.01) and remained nearly unchanged thereafter. Long-term outcome was evaluated on average 5.0 ± 3.1 years after discharge from the ICU. During the time period between 1985 and 1994 survivors of ARDS showed significant impairments in all 8 categories of the SF-36 HRQL instrument when compared to an age and sex-matched normal population with maximal differences regarding physical function (z = -1.01), general health perception (z = -1.17) and mental health (z = -1.3). Patients who were treated from 1995 to 2005 were still impaired in 7 out of 8 categories of HRQL but reported significantly better mental health (49.6 ± 16.5 vs. 68.6 ± 17.8, p < 0,01) and better physical function than individuals from the previous decade (49.6 ± 16.5 vs. 73.4 ± 27.5, p = 0,03). The difference of mental health was no longer significant when compared to a healthy age and sex matched control group (p = 0.14) but the difference in physical function still was (z = -0.48, p < 0.01). The incidence of severe post-traumatic stress defined as a PTSS-10 score ≥ 35 was 20.4 % and remained unchanged throughout the 2 decades of observation. The PTSS-10 scores correlated with the number of traumatic memories present (r = 0.43, p < 0.01, n = 125). More than 50 % of long-term survivors were able to return to full time work with no significant changes during the 2 decades of observation. The introduction of new modalities of ARDS treatment were associated with higher paO2/FIO2-ratios on ICU admittance but had no effect on short-term outcomes including duration of ICU therapy, mechanical ventilation or mortality. The ARDS patients are still at risk for post-traumatic stress and persistent impairments in HRQL. Apart from some improvements in HRQL, the outcome of ARDS therapy remained largely unchanged during two decades.

The pain, agitation, and delirium practice guidelines for adult critically ill patients: a post-publication perspective

The recently published Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the Intensive Care Unit differ from earlier guidelines in the following ways: literature searches were performed in eight databases by a professional librarian; psychometric validation of assessment scales was considered in their recommendation; discrepancies in recommendation votes by guideline panel members are available in online supplements; and all recommendations were made exclusively on the basis of evidence available until December of 2010. Pain recognition and management remains challenging in the critically ill. Patient outcomes improve with routine pain assessment, use of co-analgesics and administration as well as dose adjustment of opiates to patient needs. Thoracic epidurals help ease patients undergoing abdominal aortic surgery. Little data exists to guide clinicians as to the type or dose of co-analgesics; no opiate choice is associated with better patient outcomes. Lighter or no sedation is beneficial, and interruption is desirable in patients who require deep sedation for specific pathologic states. Delirium screening is probably useful; no treatment modality can be unequivocally recommended, and the benefit of prophylaxis is established only for early mobilization. The details of these recommendations, as well as more recent publications that complement the guidelines, are provided in this commentary.

Emergency neurological life support: airway, ventilation, and sedation

Airway management is central to the resuscitation of the neurologically ill. These patients often have evolving processes that threaten the airway and adequate ventilation. Therefore, airway, ventilation, and sedation were chosen as an Emergency Neurological Life Support (ENLS) protocol. Reviewed topics include airway management; the decision to intubate; when and how to intubate with attention to cardiovascular status; mechanical ventilation settings; and the use of sedation, including how to select sedative agents based on the patient's neurological status.

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit

OBJECTIVE

To revise the "Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Sustained Use of Sedatives and Analgesics in the Critically Ill Adult" published in Critical Care Medicine in 2002.

METHODS

The American College of Critical Care Medicine assembled a 20-person, multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task force with expertise in guideline development, pain, agitation and sedation, delirium management, and associated outcomes in adult critically ill patients. The task force, divided into four subcommittees, collaborated over 6 yr in person, via teleconferences, and via electronic communication. Subcommittees were responsible for developing relevant clinical questions, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org) to review, evaluate, and summarize the literature, and to develop clinical statements (descriptive) and recommendations (actionable). With the help of a professional librarian and Refworks database software, they developed a Web-based electronic database of over 19,000 references extracted from eight clinical search engines, related to pain and analgesia, agitation and sedation, delirium, and related clinical outcomes in adult ICU patients. The group also used psychometric analyses to evaluate and compare pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium assessment tools. All task force members were allowed to review the literature supporting each statement and recommendation and provided feedback to the subcommittees. Group consensus was achieved for all statements and recommendations using the nominal group technique and the modified Delphi method, with anonymous voting by all task force members using E-Survey (http://www.esurvey.com). All voting was completed in December 2010. Relevant studies published after this date and prior to publication of these guidelines were referenced in the text. The quality of evidence for each statement and recommendation was ranked as high (A), moderate (B), or low/very low (C). The strength of recommendations was ranked as strong (1) or weak (2), and either in favor of (+) or against (-) an intervention. A strong recommendation (either for or against) indicated that the intervention's desirable effects either clearly outweighed its undesirable effects (risks, burdens, and costs) or it did not. For all strong recommendations, the phrase "We recommend …" is used throughout. A weak recommendation, either for or against an intervention, indicated that the trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects was less clear. For all weak recommendations, the phrase "We suggest …" is used throughout. In the absence of sufficient evidence, or when group consensus could not be achieved, no recommendation (0) was made. Consensus based on expert opinion was not used as a substitute for a lack of evidence. A consistent method for addressing potential conflict of interest was followed if task force members were coauthors of related research. The development of this guideline was independent of any industry funding.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines provide a roadmap for developing integrated, evidence-based, and patient-centered protocols for preventing and treating pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients.

Nurses' perceptions of unpleasant symptoms and signs in ventilated and sedated patients

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To describe intensive care nurses' perceptions and assessments of unpleasant symptoms and signs in mechanically ventilated and sedated adult intensive care patients.

BACKGROUND

Mechanically ventilated patients are unable to express themselves verbally and depend upon nurses to control their symptoms by understanding their unpleasant experiences, such as pain, anxiety or delirium and interpret the relevant signs. Nurses must have enough knowledge to adjust their analgesics and sedatives appropriately and to avoid under- or oversedation.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey design.

METHODS

A study with a self-administrated questionnaire was undertaken in October 2007 to February 2008, with a convenience sample of 183 intensive care nurses in Norway.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was completed by 86 (47%) nurses. Most perceived that critical illness polyneuropathy/myopathy occurred frequently. Half the nurses underestimated pain, anxiety and delirium. Signs such as a response to contact, cough reflex, wakefulness and muscle tone were considered most important in assessing oversedation. Agitation, facial grimacing, tube intolerance and wakefulness were considered most important in assessing undersedation. The Comfort Scale and Adoption of the Intensive Care Environment corresponded best to the signs identified by the nurses.

CONCLUSION

The nurses underestimated unpleasant symptoms other than critical illness polyneuropathy/myopathy. A further mapping of patients' experiences should be conducted, with an emphasis on the more 'silent' distressing symptoms. Further tools to facilitate the communication of consciousness levels and the intolerance of unpleasant symptoms must be developed and implemented.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

A deeper understanding of unpleasant symptoms and signs focused in learning activities may help nurses to recognize patients' early problems and allow targeted interventions. A more active stimulus-response assessment of ICU patients is required to detect oversedation, critical illness polyneuropathy/myopathy and hypoactive delirium. Assessment tools should reflect both the patient's tolerance of various unpleasant symptoms and the level of consciousness.