Flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy and remifentanil target-controlled infusion in ICU: a preliminary study

Dyspnoea in acutely ill mechanically ventilated adult patients: an ERS/ESICM statement

This statement outlines a review of the literature and current practice concerning the prevalence, clinical significance, diagnosis and management of dyspnoea in critically ill, mechanically ventilated adult patients. It covers the definition, pathophysiology, epidemiology, short- and middle-term impact, detection and quantification, and prevention and treatment of dyspnoea. It represents a collaboration of the European Respiratory Society and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Dyspnoea ranks among the most distressing experiences that human beings can endure. Approximately 40% of patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) report dyspnoea, with an average intensity of 45 mm on a visual analogue scale from 0 to 100 mm. Although it shares many similarities with pain, dyspnoea can be far worse than pain in that it summons a primal fear response. As such, it merits universal and specific consideration. Dyspnoea must be identified, prevented and relieved in every patient. In the ICU, mechanically ventilated patients are at high risk of experiencing breathing difficulties because of their physiological status and, in some instances, because of mechanical ventilation itself. At the same time, mechanically ventilated patients have barriers to signalling their distress. Addressing this major clinical challenge mandates teaching and training, and involves ICU caregivers and patients. This is even more important because, as opposed to pain which has become a universal healthcare concern, very little attention has been paid to the identification and management of respiratory suffering in mechanically ventilated ICU patients.

Dyspnoea in acutely ill mechanically ventilated adult patients: an ERS/ESICM statement

This statement outlines a review of the literature and current practice concerning the prevalence, clinical significance, diagnosis and management of dyspnoea in critically ill, mechanically ventilated adult patients. It covers the definition, pathophysiology, epidemiology, short- and middle-term impact, detection and quantification, and prevention and treatment of dyspnoea. It represents a collaboration of the European Respiratory Society (ERS) and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). Dyspnoea ranks among the most distressing experiences that human beings can endure. Approximately 40% of patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) report dyspnoea, with an average intensity of 45 mm on a visual analogue scale from 0 to 100 mm. Although it shares many similarities with pain, dyspnoea can be far worse than pain in that it summons a primal fear response. As such, it merits universal and specific consideration. Dyspnoea must be identified, prevented and relieved in every patient. In the ICU, mechanically ventilated patients are at high risk of experiencing breathing difficulties because of their physiological status and, in some instances, because of mechanical ventilation itself. At the same time, mechanically ventilated patients have barriers to signalling their distress. Addressing this major clinical challenge mandates teaching and training, and involves ICU caregivers and patients. This is even more important because, as opposed to pain which has become a universal healthcare concern, very little attention has been paid to the identification and management of respiratory suffering in mechanically ventilated ICU patients.

Management of procedural pain in the intensive care unit

Pain is a common experience for inpatients, and intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergo more pain than other departmental patients, with an incidence of 50% at rest and up to 80% during common care procedures. At present, the management of persistent pain in ICU patients has attracted considerable attention, and there are many related clinical studies and guidelines. However, the management of transient pain caused by certain ICU procedures has not received sufficient attention. We reviewed the different management strategies for procedural pain in the ICU and reached a conclusion. Pain management is a process of continuous quality improvement that requires multidisciplinary team cooperation, pain-related training of all relevant personnel, effective relief of all kinds of pain, and improvement of patients' quality of life. In clinical work, which involves complex and diverse patients, we should pay attention to the following points for procedural pain: (1) Consider not only the patient's persistent pain but also his or her procedural pain; (2) Conduct multimodal pain management; (3) Provide combined sedation on the basis of pain management; and (4) Perform individualized pain management. Until now, the pain management of procedural pain in the ICU has not attracted extensive attention. Therefore, we expect additional studies to solve the existing problems of procedural pain management in the ICU.

Pain and dyspnea control during awake fiberoptic bronchoscopy in critically ill patients: safety and efficacy of remifentanil target-controlled infusion

Purpose

Flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy is frequently used in intensive care unit, but is a source of discomfort, dyspnea and anxiety for patients. Our objective was to assess the feasibility and tolerance of a sedation using remifentanil target-controlled infusion, to perform fiberoptic bronchoscopy in awake ICU patients.

Materials, patients and methods

This monocentric, prospective observational study was conducted in awake patients requiring fiberoptic bronchoscopy. In accordance with usual practices in our center, remifentanil target-controlled infusion was used under close monitoring and adapted to the patient’s reactions. The primary objective was the rate of successful procedures without additional analgesia or anesthesia. The secondary objectives were clinical tolerance and the comfort of patients (graded from “very uncomfortable” to “very comfortable”) and operators (numeric scale from 0 to 10) during the procedure.

Results

From May 2014 to December 2015, 72 patients were included. Most of them (69%) were hypoxemic and admitted for acute respiratory failure. No additional medication was needed in 96% of the patients. No severe side-effects occurred. Seventy-eight percent of patients described the procedure as “comfortable or very comfortable”. Physicians rated their comfort with a median [IQR] score of 9 [8–10].

Conclusion

Remifentanil target-controlled infusion administered to perform awake fiberoptic bronchoscopy in critically ill patients is feasible without requirement of additional analgesics or sedative drugs. Clinical tolerance as well as patients’ and operators’ comfort were good to excellent. This technique could benefit patients’ experience.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13613-021-00832-6.

Analgosedation during flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy: comparing the clinical effectiveness and safety of remifentanil versus midazolam/propofol

Background

There are limited data regarding the efficacy and safety of remifentanil sedation for diagnostic bronchoscopy. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and safety of remifentanil by comparing it with those of conventional drugs, midazolam and propofol.

Methods

A retrospective study of 186 patients who underwent diagnostic bronchoscopy at Chonbuk National University Hospital was performed. Patients were classified into the remifentanil group and midazolam/propofol group according to the drugs used during bronchoscopy.

Results

Of the 186 patients, 111 patients received remifentanil and 75 received midazolam/propofol during the bronchoscopy. The proportion of patients who required bronchoscopy for endobronchial inspection alone was significantly higher in the midazolam/propofol group than in the remifentanil group (93.3% vs. 73.0%; p <  0.001). In contrast, the proportion of patients who required more invasive procedures, such as bronchoscopic biopsy, bronchoalveolar lavage, or transbronchial lung biopsy, was significantly higher in the remifentanil group than in the midazolam/propofol group (27.0% vs. 6.7%; p <  0.001). The recovery time was significantly shorter in the remifentanil group than in the midazolam/propofol group (mean 6.4 min vs. 11.6 min, p <  0.001). There were no significant differences between the groups with regard to safety events including desaturation, hypotension, and arrhythmia.

Conclusions

Despite the higher proportion of patients who underwent more invasive procedures in the remifentanil group than in the midazolam/propofol group, there was no significant difference in safety events between the groups. Those in the remifentanil group also demonstrated a faster recovery time than those in the midazolam/propofol group.

The use of bronchoscopy in critically ill patients: considerations and complications

INTRODUCTION

Flexible bronchoscopy has been well established for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes in critically ill patients. Areas covered: This review outlines the clinical evidence of the utility and safety of flexible bronchoscopy in the intensive care unit, as well as specific considerations, including practical points and potential complications, in critically ill patients. Expert commentary: Its ease to learn and perform and its capacity for bedside application with relatively few complications make flexible bronchoscopy an indispensable tool in the intensive care unit setting. The main indications for flexible bronchoscopy in the intensive care unit are the visualization of the airways, sampling for diagnostic purposes and management of the artificial airways. The decision to perform flexible bronchoscopy can only be made by trade-offs between potential risks and benefits because of the fragile nature of the critically ill. Flexible bronchoscopy-associated serious adverse events are inevitable in cases of a lack of expertise or appropriate precautions.

Effect of dexmedetomidine and midazolam for flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy in intensive care unit patients: A retrospective study

This study aimed to investigate the clinical effectiveness of dexmedetomidine and midazolam for sedation of intensive care unit (ICU) patients requiring flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy (FFB).This retrospective cohort study included 148 patients from the third ICU ward of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University (Harbin, China) who received simultaneous invasive mechanical ventilation and FFB between March 2012 and December 2014. Patients were divided into dexmedetomidine (n  =  72) and midazolam (n  =  76) groups according to sedative mode. The sedative effects, incidence of adverse events, and bronchoscopist satisfaction scores were compared between groups.During FFB, total sedation time and total time of FFB were significantly shorter in the midazolam group (P < .001, respectively), with a lower percentage of these patients requiring propofol for remedial sedation (P < .001). The incidence of FFB-related adverse events (including bronchospasm, cough, and decreased oxygen saturation) was significantly higher in dexmedetomidine group compared with midazolam group (P  =  .007, .014 and .008, respectively). However, the incidence of other adverse events was not significantly different between groups. In addition, bronchoscopist satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the midazolam compared with dexmedetomidine group (7.72 ± 1.65 vs 7.08 ± 1.77; P  =  .030).For sedation of ICU patients during FFB, combination of midazolam and dexmedetomidine demonstrated an enhanced sedative effect, lower incidence of adverse events, and higher bronchoscopist satisfaction score compared with dexmedetomidine alone, thus represents a suitable alternative sedative for FFB patients.

Fiber optic bronchoscopy and remifentanil target-controlled infusion in critically ill patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: A descriptive study

INTRODUCTION

Sedation optimizes patient comfort and ease of execution during fiber optic bronchoscopy (FOB). Our objective was to describe the safety and efficacy of remifentanil-TCI during FOB in non-intubated, hypoxaemic, thoracic surgery ICU patients.

METHODS

Consecutive spontaneously breathing adults requiring FOB after thoracic surgery were included if they had hypoxaemia (PaO₂/FiO₂<300mmHg or need for non-invasive ventilation [NIV]) and prior FOB failure under topical anaesthesia. The remifentanil initial target was chosen at 1ng/mL brain effect-site concentration (Cet), then titrated to 0.5ng/mL Cet increments according to patient comfort and coughing. Outcomes were patient-reported pain and discomfort (Visual Analogue Scale scores), ventilatory support intensification within 24hours after bronchoscopy, and ease of FOB execution.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine patients were included; all had a successful FOB. Their median PO₂/FiO₂ before starting FOB was 187±84mmHg and 24 patients received NIV. Median [interquartile range] pain scores were not different before and after FOB (1.0 [0.0-3.0] and 0.0 [0.0-2.0], respectively). Discomfort was reported as absent or minimal by 27 patients (69%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 54-81%) and as bothersome but tolerable by 12 patients (31%; 95% CI, 19-46%). Mean FiO₂ returned to baseline within 2hours after FOB in 30 patients; the remaining 9 patients (23%; 95% CI, 13-38%) received ventilatory support intensification. Ease of execution was good or very good in 34 patients (87%; 95% CI, 73-94%), acceptable in 4 patients, and poor in 1 patient (persistent cough).

CONCLUSION

Sedation with remifentanil-TCI during FOB with prior failure under topical anaesthesia alone was effective and acceptably safe in non-intubated hypoxaemic thoracic surgery patients.

Noninvasive Ventilation

Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) has assumed a prominent role in the treatment of patients with both hypoxemic and hypercapnic acute respiratory failure (ARF). The main theoretic advantages of NIV include avoiding side effects and complications associated with endotracheal intubation, improving patient comfort, and preserving airway defense mechanisms. Factors that affect the success of NIV in patients with ARF are clinicians' expertise, selection of patient, choice of interface, selection of ventilator setting, proper monitoring, and patient motivation. Advances in the understanding of the physiologic aspects of using NIV through different interfaces and ventilator modalities have improved patient-machine interaction, thus enhancing favorable NIV outcome.

Anesthesia for Advanced Bronchoscopic Procedures: State-of-the-Art Review

The bronchoscopic procedures have seen a remarkable increase in both numbers and complexity. Although many anesthesia providers have kept pace with the challenge, the practice is varied and frequently suboptimal. Shared airway during bronchoscopy poses unique challenges. The available reviews have tried to address this lacuna; however, these have frequently dealt with the technical aspects of bronchoscopy than anesthetic challenges. The present review provides evidence-based management insights into anesthesia for bronchoscopy-both flexible and rigid. A systematic approach toward pre-procedural evaluation and risk stratification is presented. The possible anatomical and physiological factors that can influence the outcomes are discussed. Pharmacological principles guiding sedation levels and appropriate selection of sedatives form the crux of safe anesthetic management. The newer and safer drugs that can have potential role in anesthesia for bronchoscopy in the near future are discussed. Ventilatory strategies during bronchoscopy for prevention of hypoxia and hypercarbia are emphasized.

Management of anesthetic emergencies and complications outside the operating room

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Anesthesia outside the operating room is commonly uncomfortable and risky. In this setting, anesthetic emergencies or complications may occur. This review aims to report the most recent updates regarding the management of prehospital anesthesia, anesthesia in the trauma and emergency rooms, and anesthesia for endoscopy and interventional radiology.

RECENT FINDINGS

After tracheal intubation failure, airway control of outpatients could be achieved by pharmacologically assisted laryngeal mask insertion. Management of traumatic injured patients is best guided in the frame of checklists. Monitoring sedation in this setting is challenging notably because of the threat of haemodynamic instability. Unfortunately, BIS monitoring cannot be recommended to guide sedation in this setting. Ketamine can be used to prevent hypotension during prehospital anesthesia or procedural sedation, especially as its neuroprotective effects have been recently best understood. Target-controlled infusion propofol administration with small concentration increments is adapted to prevent hypotension and hypoxaemia during sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy and interventional radiology. Target-controlled infusion remifentanil administration is also adapted to many procedures.

SUMMARY

Anesthesia outside the operating room requires careful monitoring to avoid side-effects and education of nonanaesthetists when they are involved. A useful tool is to continuously improve the protocols and checklists to make anesthesia in this setting safer.

Effectiveness of high dose remifentanil in preventing coughing and laryngospasm in non-paralyzed patients for advanced bronchoscopic procedures

BACKGROUND:

Anesthesia for bronchoscopy presents unique challenges, as constant stimulus due to bronchoscope needs to be obtunded using drugs with a minimal post-procedure residual effect. Remifentanil for maintenance is an ideal choice, but optimal doses are yet to be determined.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Bronchoscopic procedures were prospectively evaluated for 4 months studying the frequency of complications and anesthesia techniques. Anesthesia was maintained on remifentanil/propofol infusion avoiding neuromuscular blockers. Laryngeal mask airway was used for the controlled ventilation (with high oxygen concentration) that also served as a conduit for bronchoscope insertions. Anesthesiologists were blinded to the study (avoiding performance bias) and the Pulmonologist was blinded to the anesthesia technique (to document unbiased procedural satisfaction scores). Procedures were divided into 2 groups based on the dose of remifentanil used for maintenance: Group-H (high dose −0.26 to 0.5 μg/kg/min and Group-NH (non-high dose ≤0.25 μg/kg/min).

RESULTS:

Observed 75 procedures were divided into Group-H (42) and Group-NH (33). Number of statistical difference was found in demography, procedural profile, hemodynamic parameters and total phenylephrine used. Chi-square test showed Group-NH had significantly higher frequency of laryngospasm (P = 0.047) and coughing (P = 0.002). The likelihood ratio of patient coughing and developing laryngospasm in Group-NH was found to be 4.56 and 10.97 times respectively. Minimum pulse-oximeter saturation was statistically higher in Group-H (98.80% vs. 96.50% P = 0.009). Pulmonologist satisfaction scores were significantly better in Group-H.

CONCLUSIONS:

High dose of remifentanil infusion is associated with a lower incidence of coughing and laryngospasms during bronchoscopy. Simultaneously, it improves Pulmonologist's satisfaction and procedural conditions.

The potential regimen of target-controlled infusion of propofol in flexible bronchoscopy sedation: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

Target-controlled infusion (TCI) provides precise pharmacokinetic control of propofol concentration in the effect-site (Ce), eg. brain. This pilot study aims to evaluate the feasibility and optimal TCI regimen for flexible bronchoscopy (FB) sedation.

METHODS

After alfentanil bolus, initial induction Ce of propofol was targeted at 2 μg/ml. Patients were randomized into three titration groups (i.e., by 0.5, 0.2 and 0.1 μg/ml, respectively) to maintain stable sedation levels and vital signs. Adverse events, frequency of adjustments, drug doses, and induction and recovery times were recorded.

RESULTS

The study was closed early due to significantly severe hypoxemia events (oxyhemoglobin saturation <70%) in the group titrated at 0.5 μg/ml. Forty-nine, 49 and 46 patients were enrolled into the 3 respective groups before study closure. The proportion of patients with hypoxemia events differed significantly between groups (67.3 vs. 46.9 vs. 41.3%, p = 0.027). Hypotension events, induction and recovery time and propofol doses were not different. The Ce of induction differed significantly between groups (2.4±0.5 vs. 2.1±0.4 vs. 2.1±0.3 μg/ml, p = 0.005) and the Ce of procedures was higher at 0.5 μg/ml titration (2.4±0.5 vs. 2.1±0.4 vs. 2.2±0.3 μg/ml, p = 0.006). The adjustment frequency tended to be higher for titration at 0.1 μg/ml but was not statistically significant (2 (0∼6) vs. 3 (0∼6) vs. 3 (0∼11)). Subgroup analysis revealed 14% of all patients required no further adjustment during the whole sedation. Comparing patients requiring at least one adjustment with those who did not, they were observed to have a shorter induction time (87.6±34.9 vs. 226.9±147.9 sec, p<0.001), a smaller induction dose and Ce (32.5±4.1 vs. 56.8±22.7 mg, p<0.001; 1.76±0.17 vs. 2.28 ±0.41, p<0.001, respectively), and less hypoxemia and hypotension (15.8 vs.56.9%, p = 0.001; 0 vs. 24.1%, p = 0.008, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Titration at 0.5 μg/ml is risky for FB sedation. A subgroup of patients required no more TCI adjustment with fewer complications. Further studies are warranted to determine the optimal regimen of TCI for FB sedation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01101477.