Efficacy and safety of analgosedation with fentanyl compared with traditional sedation with propofol

Challenges in Sedation Management in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: a Brief Review

Purpose of Review

To highlight the challenges associated with providing sedation and analgesia to critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and also understand the pathophysiological alterations induced by the disease process as well as the logistical difficulties encountered by providers caring for these patients. We also discuss the rationale and risks associated with the use of common sedative agents specifically within the context of COVID-19 and provide evidence-based management strategies to help manage sedation and analgesia in such patients.

Recent Findings

A significant proportion of patients with COVID-19 require intensive care and mechanical ventilation, thus requiring sedation and analgesia. These patients tend to require higher doses of sedative medications and often for long periods of time. Most of the commonly used sedative and analgesic agents carry unique risks that should be considered within the context of the unique pathophysiology of COVID-19, the logistical issues the disease poses, and the ongoing drug shortages.

Summary

With little attention being paid to sedation practices specific to patients with COVID-19 in critical care literature and minimal mention in national guidelines, there is a significant gap in knowledge. We review the existing literature to discuss the unique challenges that providers face while providing sedation and analgesia to critically ill patients with COVID-19 and propose evidence-based management strategies.

Movements and trends in intensive care pain treatment and sedation: What matters to the patient?

BACKGROUND

Oversedation, delirium and immobilisation in the intensive care unit are associated with increased length of stay in the unit. Routines of systematic pain and sedation assessment and the use of valid tools are highly stressed in international guidelines. For improving the quality of pain treatment and sedation in a Norwegian intensive care unit, in 2009-2015, we compared supplementation with an analgosedation approach and the existing systematic approach, measured by the adherence to current international pain, sedation and delirium guidelines.

METHODS

In a longitudinal study following the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies, pain, sedation, delirium and mobilisation data from patients' complete intensive care unit stays, encompassing three separate periods of 4-6 months, were compared. The primary outcome was adherence to current protocol including assessment and documentation of patients' level of pain, sedation and prevalence of delirium at least every 8 hr, early mobilisation and titration towards a light level of sedation.

RESULTS

We included 205 patients, corresponding to 1,607 patient intensive care unit days. The patient sedation levels, measured by the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale, decreased significantly, from -2.2 in 2009--1.7 in 2015, so did the amount of administrated propofol. Mean pain scores measured by the numeric rating scale during activity were maximum 3.1 in 2014, decreasing to 2.2 in 2015. In patients not able to self-report, pain mean scores were 1.7 in 2014 and 1.6 in 2015, measured by the Critical Care Pain Observational Tool. The number of patients unable to assess for delirium decreased significantly. By discounting the group of patients unable to assess, the prevalence of delirium varied from 32%, 25% and 33%.

CONCLUSION

The goal of having an awake patient able to cooperate, with acceptable levels of pain, was gradually achieved during a 6-year period. The results showed that pain treatment and sedation in the intensive care unit primarily succeeded in the setting of an established routine of systematic assessment and documentation.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The results of the study draw attention to pain treatment, sedation and delirium in intensive care patients, as well as implementation strategies aimed at achieving healthcare personnel's adherence to international guidelines in clinical practice.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU

OBJECTIVE

To update and expand the 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the ICU.

DESIGN

Thirty-two international experts, four methodologists, and four critical illness survivors met virtually at least monthly. All section groups gathered face-to-face at annual Society of Critical Care Medicine congresses; virtual connections included those unable to attend. A formal conflict of interest policy was developed a priori and enforced throughout the process. Teleconferences and electronic discussions among subgroups and whole panel were part of the guidelines' development. A general content review was completed face-to-face by all panel members in January 2017.

METHODS

Content experts, methodologists, and ICU survivors were represented in each of the five sections of the guidelines: Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption). Each section created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome, and nonactionable, descriptive questions based on perceived clinical relevance. The guideline group then voted their ranking, and patients prioritized their importance. For each Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question, sections searched the best available evidence, determined its quality, and formulated recommendations as "strong," "conditional," or "good" practice statements based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation principles. In addition, evidence gaps and clinical caveats were explicitly identified.

RESULTS

The Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) panel issued 37 recommendations (three strong and 34 conditional), two good practice statements, and 32 ungraded, nonactionable statements. Three questions from the patient-centered prioritized question list remained without recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

We found substantial agreement among a large, interdisciplinary cohort of international experts regarding evidence supporting recommendations, and the remaining literature gaps in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. Highlighting this evidence and the research needs will improve Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) management and provide the foundation for improved outcomes and science in this vulnerable population.

Analgesia-first sedation in critically ill adults: A U.S. pilot, randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

To determine the feasibility of conducting a multicenter ICU RCT of AFS compared to either protocol-directed sedation (PDS) or both PDS and daily sedation interruption (DSI) in North America.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-center RCT compared AFS [fentanyl (bolus ± infusions) to reach CPOT ≤2; if RASS ≥1, CPOT ≤2 and additional fentanyl failed to reach RASS goal (-2 to 0), low-dose propofol (up to 6 h) was given] with either PDS or both PDS and DSI daily in adults mechanically ventilated (MV) ≥48 h. Relevant feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes were defined and evaluated.

RESULTS

90 of 160 eligible patients were enrolled [AFS = 27; PDS = 28; PDS + DSI = 31]; rate = 3/month. Time from intubation to randomization was 17.5 ± 11.6 h. Study days fully adherent to the study intervention [AFS = 95%; PDS = 99%; PDS + DSI = 96%] and time spent in the first 48 h after randomization without pain (CPOT ≤2)[AFS = 82%; PDS = 78%; PDS + DSI = 77%] and at goal RASS[AFS = 88%; PDS = 83%; PDS + DSI = 95%] were high and similar. Nurse-perceived [median (IQR)] study workload (10-point VAS) was higher with AFS [4(2-6)] than PDS [1(1-3)] or PDS + DSI [2(1-5)]; p = .002). Unplanned extubation was rare (AFS = 1; PDS = 0; PDS + DSI = 1). Days [median (IQR)] free of MV in the 28d after intubation [AFS 24(23,26); PDS 24(20,26); PDS + DSI 24(21,26)] was not different (p = .62).

CONCLUSION

A multicenter RCT evaluating AFS is feasible to conduct in North America.

Comparison of Fentanyl, Remifentanil, Sufentanil and Alfentanil in Combination with Propofol for General Anesthesia: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Opioid analgesics are commonly used along with propofol during general anesthesia. Due to the dearth of data on the quality of anesthesia achieved with this combination, the present meta-analysis was carried out.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for appropriate studies using a suitable search strategy. Randomized clinical trials comparing the combination of remifentanil/sufentanil/alfentanil with propofol with fentanyl and propofol, were included. The outcome measures were as follows: total propofol dose to achieve the desired general anesthesia; time of onset and duration of general anesthesia; depth of general anesthesia; and recovery time (time for eye-opening and time taken for extubation). Risk of bias was assessed and Forest plots were generated for eligible outcomes. The weighted mean difference [95% confidence intervals] was used as the effect estimate.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included in the systematic review and 13 were included in the metaanalysis. Statistically significant differences were observed for remifentanil in comparison to fentanyl when combined with propofol: Propofol dose (in mg) -76.18 [-94.72, -57.64]; time of onset of anesthesia (min) -0.44 [-0.74, -0.15]; time taken for eye-opening (min) -3.95 [-4.8, -3.1]; and time for extubation (min) -3.53 [-4.37, -2.7]. No significant differences were observed for either sufentanil or alfentanil about the dose of propofol required and due to scanty data, pooling of the data could not be attempted for other outcome measures for either sufentanil or alfentanil.

CONCLUSION

To conclude, we found that remifentanil has a statistically significant anesthetic profile than fentanyl when combined with propofol. Scanty evidence for both alfentanil and sufentanil precludes any such confirmation.

Evaluations of Morphine and Fentanyl for Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Respiratory Disorders in Intensive Care: A Systematic Review of Methodological Trends and Reporting Quality

BACKGROUND

Mechanically ventilated patients with respiratory disorders may require sedatives, such as opioids.

OBJECTIVES

To define methodological trends, gaps, and the reporting quality of the comparative clinical and economic evaluations of fentanyl and morphine in ventilated patients in the intensive care unit.

METHODS

We conducted a literature review of the MEDLINE, Embase, OVID, ScienceDirect, Springer Link, and EconLit databases, comparing studies in the management of ventilated patients with respiratory disorders in the intensive care unit using either fentanyl or morphine, or both. We assessed the methodological aspects of the literature characteristics and trends of, for example, modeling, data sources, cost calculation, and data analysis, appraising the quality of reporting via the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials, STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology, and the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards checklists.

RESULTS

Among 1327 articles, 33 (comprising 22 in adults, 8 in neonates, and 3 in pediatrics) met the inclusion criteria. No head-to-head morphine versus fentanyl evaluations explicitly confined to subjects with respiratory conditions were undertaken. Studies relied on various scales to measure the sedation level as a primary study outcome, limiting the comparability of study conclusions. Seven articles of adults were identified to be economic studies from the hospital perspective. On the basis of different endpoints, the same sedation regimen performed differently in various studies. None of the randomized controlled trials, observational cohorts, or pharmacoeconomics studies met most of the assessed reporting quality criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review identified poor reporting quality and high heterogeneity of methods used, potentially limiting the degree to which studies could be interpreted, decisions could be influenced, and findings could be generalized.

Terminal Withdrawal of Mechanical Ventilation: A Hospice Perspective for the Intensivist

The intensive care unit (ICU) and hospice inpatient unit (IPU) environments differ in many ways. Although both endeavor to provide the best care possible for their patients, the day-to-day goals of these environments are almost antithetical. Similarly, the experiences and expertise of the staff differ. When performing a similar clinical task, it may be addressed in different ways because each group is engrained in their primary day-to-day focus. Terminal withdrawal of mechanical ventilation is a procedure that is performed in both ICUs and some hospice IPUs. Previous examinations of this subject have been based largely upon the correlative background, practices, and perceptions of the ICU prescriber. The purpose of this review is to examine how the manner in which this procedure is performed in the hospice environment may differ in ways that the intensivist can incorporate into their own plan of care, or better appreciate when making the decision to remove mechanical ventilation in the critical care unit or transfer the patient to a hospice environment for the procedure to be completed.

Impact of an Analgesia-Based Sedation Protocol on Mechanically Ventilated Patients in a Medical Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

Recent attention to adverse effects of intensive care unit (ICU) sedation has led to the use of strategies that target a "lighter" depth of sedation. Among these strategies are "analgosedation" protocols, which prioritize pain management and preferentially use IV opioids before administration of continuously infused sedatives such as propofol or midazolam. We hypothesized that using an analgosedation protocol would result in a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation than a protocol with greater emphasis on IV sedatives

METHODS

: We conducted a retrospective study comparing the duration of mechanical ventilation before and after implementation of an analgosedation protocol in a 24-bed medical ICU. Patients were aged 18 years or older and required mechanical ventilation where a light level of sedation was clinically appropriate. Exclusion criteria included a clinical need for deeper levels of sedation or tracheal intubation confined to the perioperative period.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine patients were included in the postimplementation group and 65 in the preimplementation group. After adjustment for baseline covariates, introduction of the 2013 analgosedation protocol was associated with a decreased duration of mechanical ventilation (-26.62 hours; 95% confidence interval, - 44.98 to -8.26, P = 0.005). Patients managed with the analgosedation protocol experienced a lighter level of sedation (median Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, -2.57 vs -1.25, P = 0.001) and improved pain management (median Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool score, 2.0 vs 1.5, P = 0.03). The use of continuously infused sedatives was reduced by 54.3% (92.3% vs 38.0%, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that implementation of an analgosedation protocol was associated with an overall lighter level of sedation, shorter mean ventilator duration, and a reduced use of continuous infusion sedatives. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of such protocols on ICU delirium.

Ten Myths and Misconceptions Regarding Pain Management in the ICU

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this article is to expose common myths and misconceptions regarding pain assessment and management in critically ill patients that interfere with effective care. We comprehensively review the literature refuting these myths and misconceptions and describe evidence-based strategies for improving pain management in the ICU.

DATA SOURCES

Current peer-reviewed academic journals, as well as standards and guidelines from professional societies.

STUDY SELECTION

The most current evidence was selected for review based on the highest degree of supportive evidence.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data were obtained via medical search databases, including OvidSP, and the National Library of Medicine's MEDLINE database via PubMed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

After a comprehensive literature review, conclusions were drawn based on the strength of evidence and the most current understanding of pain management practices in ICU.

CONCLUSIONS

Myths and misconceptions regarding management of pain in the ICU are prevalent. Review of current evidence refutes these myths and misconceptions and provides insights and recommendations to ensure best practices.

The Sick and the Weak: Neuropathies/Myopathies in the Critically Ill

Critical illness polyneuropathies (CIP) and myopathies (CIM) are common complications of critical illness. Several weakness syndromes are summarized under the term intensive care unit-acquired weakness (ICUAW). We propose a classification of different ICUAW forms (CIM, CIP, sepsis-induced, steroid-denervation myopathy) and pathophysiological mechanisms from clinical and animal model data. Triggers include sepsis, mechanical ventilation, muscle unloading, steroid treatment, or denervation. Some ICUAW forms require stringent diagnostic features; CIM is marked by membrane hypoexcitability, severe atrophy, preferential myosin loss, ultrastructural alterations, and inadequate autophagy activation while myopathies in pure sepsis do not reproduce marked myosin loss. Reduced membrane excitability results from depolarization and ion channel dysfunction. Mitochondrial dysfunction contributes to energy-dependent processes. Ubiquitin proteasome and calpain activation trigger muscle proteolysis and atrophy while protein synthesis is impaired. Myosin loss is more pronounced than actin loss in CIM. Protein quality control is altered by inadequate autophagy. Ca(2+) dysregulation is present through altered Ca(2+) homeostasis. We highlight clinical hallmarks, trigger factors, and potential mechanisms from human studies and animal models that allow separation of risk factors that may trigger distinct mechanisms contributing to weakness. During critical illness, altered inflammatory (cytokines) and metabolic pathways deteriorate muscle function. ICUAW prevention/treatment is limited, e.g., tight glycemic control, delaying nutrition, and early mobilization. Future challenges include identification of primary/secondary events during the time course of critical illness, the interplay between membrane excitability, bioenergetic failure and differential proteolysis, and finding new therapeutic targets by help of tailored animal models.