Current sedation practices: lessons learned from international surveys

A comparation of dexmedetomidine and midazolam for sedation in patients with mechanical ventilation in ICU: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The use of dexmedetomidine rather than midazolam may improve ICU outcomes. We summarized the available recent evidence to further verify this conclusion.

METHODS

An electronic search of PubMed, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was conducted. Risk ratios (RR) were used for binary categorical variables, and for continuous variables, weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated, the effect sizes are expressed as 95% confidence intervals (CI), and trial sequential analysis was performed.

RESULTS

16 randomized controlled trials were enrolled 2035 patients in the study. Dexmedetomidine as opposed to midazolam achieved a shorter length of stay in ICU (MD = -2.25, 95%CI = -2.94, -1.57, p<0.0001), lower risk of delirium (RR = 0.63, 95%CI = 0.50, 0.81, p = 0.0002), and shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (MD = -0.83, 95%CI = -1.24, -0.43, p<0.0001). The association between dexmedetomidine and bradycardia was also found to be significant (RR 2.21, 95%CI 1.31, 3.73, p = 0.003). We found no difference in hypotension (RR = 1.44, 95%CI = 0.87, 2.38, P = 0.16), mortality (RR = 1.02, 95%CI = 0.83, 1.25, P = 0.87), neither in terms of adverse effects requiring intervention, hospital length of stay, or sedation effects.

CONCLUSIONS

Combined with recent evidence, compared with midazolam, dexmedetomidine decreased the risk of delirium, mechanical ventilation, length of stay in the ICU, as well as reduced patient costs. But dexmedetomidine could not reduce mortality and increased the risk of bradycardia.

Self-reported symptoms experienced by intensive care unit patients: a prospective observational multicenter study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to describe the prevalence, intensity and distress of five symptoms in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and to investigate possible predictive factors associated with symptom intensity.

METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study of ICU patients. A symptom questionnaire (i.e., Patient Symptom Survey) was used to describe the prevalence, intensity and distress of pain, thirst, anxiousness, tiredness, and shortness of breath over seven ICU days. Associations between symptom intensity and possible predictive factors were assessed using the general estimating equation (GEE) model.

RESULTS

Out of 603 eligible patients, 353 (Sample 2) were included in the present study. On the first ICU day, 195 patients (Sample 1) reported thirst as the most prevalent symptom (66%), with the highest mean intensity score (6.13, 95% confidence interval (CI) [5.7-6.56]). Thirst was the most prevalent (64%) and most intense (mean score 6.05, 95%CI [5.81-6.3]) symptom during seven days in the ICU. Anxiousness was the most distressful (mean score 5.24, 95%CI [4.32-6.15]) symptom on the first day and during seven days (mean score 5.46, 95%CI [4.95-5.98]). During seven days, analgesic administration and sepsis diagnosis were associated with increased thirst intensity. Older age and being mechanically ventilated were associated with decreased pain intensity, and analgesic administration was associated with increased pain intensity. Family visits and female gender were associated with increased intensity of anxiousness and shortness of breath, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Self-reporting ICU patients experienced a high and consistent symptom burden across seven days. Certain variables were associated with the degree of symptom intensity, but further research is required to better understand these associations.

The advantages of inhalational sedation using an anesthetic-conserving device versus intravenous sedatives in an intensive care unit setting: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Sedation is fundamental to the management of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Its indications in the ICU are vast, including the facilitating of mechanical ventilation, permitting invasive procedures, and managing anxiety and agitation. Inhaled sedation with halogenated agents, such as isoflurane or sevoflurane, is now feasible in ICU patients using dedicated devices/systems. Its use may reduce adverse events and improve ICU outcomes compared to conventional intravenous (IV) sedation in the ICU. This review examined the effectiveness of inhalational sedation using the anesthetic conserving device (ACD) compared to standard IV sedation for adult patients in ICU and highlights the technical aspects of its functioning.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Sage Journals databases using the terms "anesthetic conserving device," "Anaconda," "sedation" and "intensive care unit" in randomized clinical studies that were performed between 2012 and 2022 and compared volatile sedation using an ACD with IV sedation in terms of time to extubation, duration of mechanical ventilation, and lengths of ICU and hospital stay.

RESULTS

Nine trials were included. Volatile sedation (sevoflurane or isoflurane) administered through an ACD shortened the awakening time compared to IV sedation (midazolam or propofol).

CONCLUSION

Compared to IV sedation, volatile sedation administered through an ACD in the ICU shortened the awakening and extubation times, ICU length of stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation. More clinical trials that assess additional clinical outcomes on a large scale are needed.

What are the perceptions of intensive care staff about their sedation practices when caring for a mechanically ventilated patient?: A systematic mixed-methods review

Background

Sedation is used alongside mechanical ventilation for patients in intensive care units internationally; its use is complex and multifaceted. Existing evidence shows that the ways health care professionals use sedation significantly impacts patient outcomes, including how long someone spends on a ventilator, length of stay in intensive care and recovery.

Objective

Our study aimed to systematically review and synthesize qualitative and quantitative evidence about how intensive care staff perceive sedation practices when looking after sedated and mechanically ventilated patients.

Design

We performed a systematic integrated mixed-methods literature review collecting qualitative and quantitative studies according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies were included if they were published from 2009 and focused on perceptions of staff working in general adult intensive care units and caring for mechanically ventilated patients.

Settings

General adult intensive care units.

Participants

Health care professionals working in adult intensive care units.

Methods

Screening, data extraction and quality appraisal was undertaken by SV. Screening for inclusion and quality issues were reviewed by TR, TM and JS. The following databases: Embase, BNI, PubMed, Scopus, AMED, CINAHL, ASSIA, The Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. We used an assessment tool called the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The studies were assessed and analysed by transforming the qualitative and quantitative data into 'text-in-context' statements. The statements were then synthesized using thematic analysis.

Results

Eighteen studies were included from ten countries, fourteen quantitative and four qualitative. Three overarching themes were identified: 'Variation in Decision Making', 'Challenges in Decision Making' and 'Thinking Outside the Box'. Existing studies revealed that there is considerable variation in most aspects of perceived sedation practice. Staff face challenges with interprofessional collaboration and sedation practice, and there are barriers to using sedation protocols and light sedation. There is also evidence that there is a need for health care professionals to develop coping strategies to help them facilitate lighter sedation.

Conclusions

A review of a decade of evidence shows that variation in decision making and challenges in decision making should be addressed to improve the care of the sedated and ventilated patient, and improve the caregiving experience for staff. Staff continue to require support with sedation practice, especially in light sedation. Research should now focus on how to help staff cope with looking after lightly sedated patients. In addition, future studies should focus on exploring sedation practices using qualitative methods as there is a dearth of qualitative evidence.

Tweetable abstract

Staff perceive a range of complex challenges that explain some of the variability in sedation practice for the ventilated patient in ICU.

Pain Assessment with the BPS and CCPOT Behavioral Pain Scales in Mechanically Ventilated Patients Requiring Analgesia and Sedation

BACKGROUND

Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients often experience pain, especially during diagnostic, nursing, and therapeutic interventions. Pain assessment using the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CCPOT) are recommended, but they are difficult to do in patients undergoing deep sedation. This study analyzed the usefulness of the BPS and CCPOT scales in assessing pain among patients with varying degrees of sedation.

METHODS

In 81 mechanically ventilated and sedated ICU patients, 1005 measurements were performed using the BPS and CCPOT scales. The study was conducted by 3 trained observers 3 times a day (each measurement at rest, during painful nursing interventions, and after the intervention). The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II), and the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) were also analyzed from medical records as well as information on the length of hospitalization and treatment.

RESULTS

It was shown that signs of pain increased significantly (p < 0.001) during interventions in patients on both scales (BPS and CCPOT), and then returned to values close to the resting period. RASS results correlated significantly (p < 0.05) and positively with the results of the BPS and CCPOT. A strong correlation was found between the results of both scales at each stage of the study (R = 0.622-0.907).

CONCLUSIONS

Nursing procedures are a source of pain in analgosedated patients. The BPS and CCPOT scales are useful tools for assessing the occurrence of pain in mechanically ventilated patients, including those in deep sedation.

Factors Associated With Deep Sedation Practice in Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Post hoc Analysis of a Cross-Sectional Survey Combined With a Questionnaire for Physicians on Sedation Practices

Purpose

The study aimed to explore factors associated with deep sedation practice in intensive care units (ICUs).

Materials and Methods

A post hoc analysis was conducted for a cross–sectional survey on sedation practices in mechanically ventilated (MV) patients, combined with a questionnaire for physicians regarding their preferences for light sedation (P–pls Score) in 92 Chinese ICUs.

Results

There were 457 and 127 eligible MV patients in the light and deep sedation groups respectively. A multivariable logistic regression analysis demonstrated that the control mode of mechanical ventilation, plasma lactate level, and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score were independent risk factors for deep sedation practice (p <0.01). Notably, the adjusted odds ratio (95% CI) of the average P–pls score in the ICU ≤ 2 for deep sedation practice was 1.861 (1.163, 2.978, p = 0.01). In addition, the areas under curves of receiver operating characteristics (AUC–ROC) of the model to predict the probability of deep sedation practice were 0.753 (0.699, 0.806) and 0.772 (0.64, 0.905) in the training set and the validation set, respectively. The 28–day mortality was increased in patients with exposure to deep sedation practice but not significantly.

Conclusion

Both factors related to stressful stimuli and the ICU physicians' perception of patient tolerability in mechanical ventilation were likely associated with deep sedation practice in MV patients.

Practices in sedation, analgesia, mobilization, delirium, and sleep deprivation in adult intensive care units (SAMDS-ICU): an international survey before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

Since the publication of the 2018 Clinical Guidelines about sedation, analgesia, delirium, mobilization, and sleep deprivation in critically ill patients, no evaluation and adequacy assessment of these recommendations were studied in an international context. This survey aimed to investigate these current practices and if the COVID-19 pandemic has changed them.

Methods

This study was an open multinational electronic survey directed to physicians working in adult intensive care units (ICUs), which was performed in two steps: before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results

We analyzed 1768 questionnaires and 1539 (87%) were complete. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, we received 1476 questionnaires and 292 were submitted later. The following practices were observed before the pandemic: the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (61.5%), the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) (48.2%), the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) (76.6%), and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) (66.6%) were the most frequently tools used to assess pain, sedation level, and delirium, respectively; midazolam and fentanyl were the most frequently used drugs for inducing sedation and analgesia (84.8% and 78.3%, respectively), whereas haloperidol (68.8%) and atypical antipsychotics (69.4%) were the most prescribed drugs for delirium treatment; some physicians regularly prescribed drugs to induce sleep (19.1%) or ordered mechanical restraints as part of their routine (6.2%) for patients on mechanical ventilation; non-pharmacological strategies were frequently applied for pain, delirium, and sleep deprivation management. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the intensive care specialty was independently associated with best practices. Moreover, the mechanical ventilation rate was higher, patients received sedation more often (94% versus 86.1%, p < 0.001) and sedation goals were discussed more frequently in daily rounds. Morphine was the main drug used for analgesia (77.2%), and some sedative drugs, such as midazolam, propofol, ketamine and quetiapine, were used more frequently.

Conclusions

Most sedation, analgesia and delirium practices were comparable before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the intensive care specialty was a variable that was independently associated with the best practices. Although many findings are in accordance with evidence-based recommendations, some practices still need improvement.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13613-022-00985-y.

Tools Are Needed to Promote Sedation Practices for Mechanically Ventilated Patients

Suboptimal sedation practices continue to be frequent, although the updated guidelines for management of pain, agitation, and delirium in mechanically ventilated (MV) patients have been published for several years. Causes of low adherence to the recommended minimal sedation protocol are multifactorial. However, the barriers to translation of these protocols into standard care for MV patients have yet to be analyzed. In our view, it is necessary to develop fresh insights into the interaction between the patients' responses to nociceptive stimuli and individualized regulation of patients' tolerance when using analgesics and sedatives. By better understanding this interaction, development of novel tools to assess patient pain tolerance and to define and predict oversedation or delirium may promote better sedation practices in the future.

Incidence and clinical manifestation of iatrogenic opioid withdrawal syndrome in mechanically ventilated patients

OBJECTIVE

The incidence of iatrogenic opioid withdrawal syndrome (IOWS) in mechanically ventilated adults has been questioned in settings driven by analgosedation strategies. This study aimed to describe the incidence, risk factors and clinical impact of IOWS in mechanically ventilated adults.

METHODS

This prospective, observational study was performed between 1 January and 31 August 2018. IOWS was identified based on the presence of at least three signs or symptoms according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5th edition (DSM-5) criteria after opioid discontinuation or rate reduction. Incidence of IOWS, patient characteristics, opioid administration, and the impact of IOWS on the duration of mechanical ventilator and length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) were collected.

RESULTS

Thirteen out of 55 patients (23.6%) manifested withdrawal symptoms. Two patients in the non-withdrawal group also developed hypertensive urgency after opioid discontinuation. Patients who received rapid once-daily weaning, especially rate reduction more than 50 µg as fentanyl equivalent per hour, were associated with IOWS. However, there was no statistically significant difference in ventilator-free days and ICU-free days.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings showed that approximately one-fourth of mechanically ventilated patients who received opioid infusion experienced IOWS. Monitoring for IOWS is recommended especially in patients who received rapid weaning rate of opioids. Future studies to develop IOWS assessment tools with the change of hemodynamic parameters should be performed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: identifier NCT03374722, date of registration 15 December 2018.

Oversedation Zero as a tool for comfort, safety and intensive care unit management

Sedation is necessary in the management of critically ill patients, both to alleviate suffering and to cure patients with diseases that require admission to the intensive care unit. Such sedation should be appropriate to the patient needs at each timepoint during clinical evolution, and neither too low (undersedation) nor too high (oversedation). Adequate sedation influences patient comfort, safety, survival, subsequent quality of life, bed rotation of critical care units and costs. Undersedation is detected and quickly corrected. In contrast, oversedation is silent and difficult to prevent in the absence of management guidelines, collective awareness and teamwork. The Zero Oversedation Project of the Sedation, Analgesia and Delirium Working Group of the Spanish Society of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine and Coronary Units aims to offer a practical teaching and collective awareness tool for ensuring patient comfort, safety and management with a view to optimizing the clinical outcomes and minimizing the deleterious effects of excessive sedation. The tool is based on a package of measures that include monitoring pain, analgesia, agitation, sedation, delirium and neuromuscular block, keeping patients pain-free, performing dynamic sedation according to clinical objectives, agreeing upon the multidisciplinary protocol to be followed, and avoiding deep sedation where not clinically indicated.

ICU Physicians' Perception of Patients' Tolerance Levels in Light Sedation Impacts Sedation Practice for Mechanically Ventilated Patients

Purpose: To investigate physicians' perception of patients' tolerance levels regarding sedation, which could affect sedation practice for mechanically ventilated (MV) patients.

Methods: This is a questionnaire survey combined with a 24 h cross-sectional study. The physician's propensity score for light sedation (PS-_LS) was estimated by his/her response to the given answers for each item of the questionnaire, which tested the levels of interviewee's desire to manage MV patient with light sedation. Thereby, the mean physicians' PS-_LS of each participating ICU (ICU-_meanPS-_LS) was calculated. The practical measurements of all variables listed on the questionnaire were used to semi-quantitatively assess stimulus intensity of what the recruited patients suffered (i.e., semi-quantitative stimulus intensity, SSI). Sedation depth was assessed by Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS).

Results: 555 of 558 (99.5%) physicians from 102 ICUs were concerned with patients' tolerance levels regarding sedation while titrating sedation depth. The physician's PS-_LS was non-normally distributed with median (IQR) of 3 (0–5). ICU-_meanPS-_LS was calculated in 92 out of 102 ICUs participating in the cross-sectional study, which was ranged from −5 to 7 with a median (IQR) of 2.37 (0.16–4.33). A significant increasing trend in prevalence of light sedation was observed over increasing ICU-_meanPS-_LS quartiles (from Q1 to Q4, χ²-test for trend, p = 0.002). Moreover, odds ratio for probability of light sedation remained significant in MV patients from Q4 ICUs vs. Q1 ICUs, adjusted by APACHE II score (OR, 2.332; 95% CI: 1.463–3.717; p < 0.001) or SSI score (OR, 2.445; 95% CI: 1.468–4.074; p = 0.001). Notably, adjusted OR for mortality was significant in deeply sedated MV patients (OR, 2.034; 95% CI: 1.435–2.884; p < 0.001).

Conclusions: ICU physician's individualized perception for patients' tolerance levels regarding sedation, in light sedation affected sedation practice for MV patients.

Sedation practices and clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients in a prospective multicenter cohort

Objectives

We sought to study the association between sedation status, medications (benzodiazepines, opioids, and antipsychotics), and clinical outcomes in a resource-limited setting.

Design

A longitudinal study of critically ill participants on mechanical ventilation.

Setting

Five intensive care units (ICUs) in four public hospitals in Lima, Peru.

Patients

One thousand six hundred fifty-seven critically ill participants were assessed daily for sedation status during 28 days and vital status by day 90.

Results

After excluding data of participants without a Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale score and without sedation, we followed 1338 (81%) participants longitudinally for 18,645 ICU days. Deep sedation was present in 98% of participants at some point of the study and in 12,942 ICU days. Deep sedation was associated with higher mortality (interquartile odds ratio (OR) = 5.42, 4.23–6.95; p < 0.001) and a significant decrease in ventilator (− 7.27; p < 0.001), ICU (− 4.38; p < 0.001), and hospital (− 7.00; p < 0.001) free days. Agitation was also associated with higher mortality (OR = 39.9, 6.53–243, p < 0.001). The most commonly used sedatives were opioids and benzodiazepines (9259 and 8453 patient days respectively), and the latter were associated with a 41% higher mortality in participants with a higher cumulative dose (75th vs 25th percentile, interquartile OR = 1.41, 1.12–1.77; p < 0.01). The overall cumulative dose of benzodiazepines and opioids was high, 774.5 mg and 16.8 g, respectively, by day 7 and by day 28; these doses approximately doubled. Haloperidol was only used in 3% of ICU days; however, the use of it was associated with a 70% lower mortality (interquartile OR = 0.3, 0.22–0.44, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Deep sedation, agitation, and cumulative dose of benzodiazepines were all independently associated with higher 90-day mortality. Additionally, deep sedation was associated with less ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days. In contrast, haloperidol was associated with lower mortality in our study.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13054-019-2394-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Associação entre sedação e eventos adversos em pacientes de terapia intensiva

Resumo Objetivo Identificar nível de sedação, interrupção diária e associar com eventos adversos como extubação acidental, lesão por pressão, flebite, perda de dispositivos e queda de pacientes em unidade de terapia intensiva. Métodos Estudo retrospectivo e quantitativo, realizado com 204 pacientes, avaliados quanto à sedação por meio da Escala Richimond de Agitação-Sedação, e posteriormente, realizado busca em prontuário eletrônico e análise das notificações de enfermagem. Utilizou-se teste de Fisher para análise estatística. Resultados De 204 pacientes, 168 estavam com sedação profunda e 36 leve. Em sedação profunda, aproximadamente metade, não foi desligada a sedação diariamente, e com sedação leve, também. Ocorreram 28 eventos adversos naqueles com sedação profunda, e 13 em leve, destacando-se a lesão por pressão. Conclusão A maioria dos pacientes estava em sedação profunda. Os eventos adversos não se associaram com a interrupção diária da sedação, mas com processos de trabalho envolvendo a assistência de enfermagem ao paciente.

A prospective, observational, longitudinal cohort study of sedation practices in SGH intensive care units

Background:

Critically ill patients require sedation for patient comfort and ventilator synchrony. Despite the extensive use of sedation, to date there is no consensus on the best sedation practices. We attempt to investigate our local sedation practices.

Method:

This was a single-centre prospective, observation cohort study in medical and surgical intensive care unit (ICU) patients who were ventilated and sedated for more than 24 hours. Baseline demographics were obtained and patients followed-up for 28 days or to ICU discharge. Details on sedatives, ventilation duration, vasopressors and renal replacement therapy use, hospital/ICU length of stay, mortality, delirium, and sedation depth were collected and analysed.

Results:

From March to July 2012, 58 patients were recruited with a mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score of 20.2 ±8.5. Hospital mortality rates were 32.8%. Patients were followed-up for 387 ICU patient-days. In the early period (first 48 h), the most popular sedative used was propofol (74.1%), followed by morphine (29.3%). In the subsequent period (>48 h), most patients were not sedated (47.6%); morphine became the most popular sedation drug (32.5%) followed by propofol (31%). Ketamine, haloperidol and diazepam were not given. In total, 1994 Richmond Agitation and Sedation Score (RASS) assessments were performed over 387 ICU patient-days; 11.1% of RASS assessments were prescribed a sedation target, and 86% of them met the prescribed targets. Delirium was observed in 22.4% of patients. Compared with medical patients, surgical patients were more likely to be prescribed a sedation target (14.2% vs. 7.4%, p<0.01), require lower doses of sedation, have a RASS score of between −2 to 1 (84.8% vs. 72.3%, p<0.01) and have fewer incidences of delirium (4.1% vs. 12.1%, p=0.01).

Conclusion:

Propofol and morphine were the most commonly prescribed sedatives. Different sedation practices between units may contribute to a reduction in delirium incidence.

Comparison of Dexmedetomidine and Midazolam for Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Patients Guided by Bispectral Index and Sedation-Agitation Scale

Background:

Mechanical ventilation and sedation are inextricably linked components of critical care that represent, what we do for the patients during their vulnerable course in Intensive Care Unit (ICU).

Aims:

The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy and safety of midazolam and dexmedetomidine in patients on mechanical ventilator with the help of Bispectral Index (BIS) monitoring and correlation of BIS with Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS).

Settings and Design:

Prospective, observational, and comparative study.

Materials and Methods:

In this study, recruited patients were allocated into two groups of 14 patients each. Group A and Group B patients received injection dexmedetomidine and injection Midazolam, respectively. Hemodynamic parameters, time of extubation, duration of mechanical ventilation, and mortality were compared between two groups.

Statistical Analysis:

Mean and the standard deviation were calculated. Test of analysis between two groups was performed using unpaired t-test. We applied correlation technique, that is, Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (r) to assess the correlation between BIS and SAS. It varies from + 1–0 to −1.

Results:

Heart rate and blood pressure were more stable and less in Group A than Group B. Duration of mechanical ventilation was found extremely significant between Group A (77.86 ± 5.71 h) and Group B (95.64 ± 17.00 h) (P = 0.001). There was significant difference found in the time of extubation between Group A (21 ± 6.44 h) and Group B (30.4 ± 10.62 h) P = 0.008.

Conclusion:

It is concluded in this study that sedation with dexmedetomidine resulted in quick extubation and decreased the duration of mechanical ventilation in comparison to midazolam in ICU patients. There was found moderate to high correlation between BIS index and SAS.

Comparison of sedation strategies for critically ill patients: a protocol for a systematic review incorporating network meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Sedatives and analgesics are administered to provide sedation and manage agitation and pain in most critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. Various sedation administration strategies including protocolized sedation and daily sedation interruption are used to mitigate drug pharmacokinetic limitations and minimize oversedation, thereby shortening the duration of mechanical ventilation. At present, it is unclear which strategy is most effective, as few have been directly compared. Our review will use network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare and rank sedation strategies to determine their efficacy and safety for mechanically ventilated patients.

METHODS

We will search the following from 1980 to March 2016: Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. We will also search the Cochrane Library, gray literature, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We will use a validated randomized control trial search filter to identify studies evaluating any strategy to optimize sedation in mechanically ventilated adult patients. Authors will independently extract data from eligible studies in duplicate and complete the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Our outcomes of interest include duration of mechanical ventilation, time to first extubation, ICU and hospital length of stay, re-intubation, tracheostomy, mortality, total sedative and opioid exposure, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. To inform our NMA, we will first conduct conventional pair-wise meta-analyses using random-effects models. Where appropriate, we will perform Bayesian NMA using WinBUGS software.

DISCUSSION

There are multiple strategies to optimize sedation for mechanically ventilated patients. Current ICU guidelines recommend protocolized sedation or daily sedation interruption. Our systematic review incorporating NMA will provide a unified analysis of all sedation strategies to determine the relative efficacy and safety of interventions that may not have been compared directly. We will provide knowledge users, decision makers, and professional societies with ranking of multiple sedation strategies to inform future sedation guidelines.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016037480.

Neurologic Complications of Commonly Used Drugs in the Hospital Setting

This chapter reviews the neurologic complications of medications administered in the hospital setting, by class, introducing both common and less common side effects. Detail is devoted to the interaction between pain, analgesia, sedation, and their residual consequences. Antimicrobials are given in nearly every hospital setting, and we review their capacity to produce neurologic sequelae with special devotion to cefepime and the antiviral treatment of human immunodeficiency virus. The management of hemorrhagic stroke has become more complex with the introduction of novel oral anticoagulants, and we provide an update on what is known about reversal of the new oral anticoagulants. Both central and peripheral nervous system complications of immunosuppressants and chemotherapies are reviewed. Because diagnosis is generally based on clinical acumen, alone, neurotoxic syndromes resulting from psychotropic medications may be easily overlooked until severe dysautonomia develops. We include a practical approach to the diagnosis of serotonin syndrome and neuroleptic malignant syndrome.

Early deep sedation is associated with decreased in-hospital and two-year follow-up survival

Introduction

There is increasing evidence that deep sedation is detrimental to critically ill patients. The aim of this study was to examine effects of deep sedation during the early period after ICU admission on short- and long-term survival.

Methods

In this observational, matched-pair analysis, patients receiving mechanical ventilation that were admitted to ICUs of a tertiary university hospital in six consecutive years were grouped as either lightly or deeply sedated within the first 48 hours after ICU admission. The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Score (RASS) was used to assess sedation depth (light sedation: −2 to 0; deep: −3 or below). Multivariate Cox regression was conducted to investigate the impact of early deep sedation within the first 48 hours of admission on in-hospital and two-year follow-up survival.

Results

In total, 1,884 patients met inclusion criteria out of which 27.2% (n = 513) were deeply sedated. Deeply sedated patients had longer ventilation times, increased length of stay and higher rates of mortality. Early deep sedation was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.661 (95% CI: 1.074 to 2.567; P = 0.022) for in-hospital survival and 1.866 (95% CI: 1.351 to 2.576; P <0.001) for two-year follow-up survival.

Conclusions

Early deep sedation during the first 48 hours of intensive care treatment was associated with decreased in-hospital and two-year follow-up survival. Since early deep sedation is a modifiable risk factor, this data shows an urgent need for prospective clinical trials focusing on light sedation in the early phase of ICU treatment.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-015-0929-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Perceptions and practices regarding delirium, sedation and analgesia in critically ill patients: a narrative review

A significant number of landmark studies have been published in the last decade that increase the current knowledge on sedation for critically ill patients. Therefore, many practices that were considered standard of care are now outdated. Oversedation has been shown to be hazardous, and light sedation and no-sedation protocols are associated with better patient outcomes. Delirium is increasingly recognized as a major form of acute brain dysfunction that is associated with higher mortality, longer duration of mechanical ventilation and longer lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital. Despite all the available evidence, translating research into bedside care is a daunting task. International surveys have shown that practices such as sedation interruption and titration are performed only in the minority of cases. Implementing best practices is a major challenge that must also be addressed in the new guidelines. In this review, we summarize the findings of sedation and delirium research over the last years. We also discuss the gap between evidence and clinical practice and highlight ways to implement best practices at the bedside.

Nurses' experiences of caring for critically ill, non-sedated, mechanically ventilated patients in the Intensive Care Unit: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to explore nurses' experiences of caring for non-sedated, critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation.

DESIGN AND SETTING

The study had a qualitative explorative design and was based on 13 months of fieldwork in two intensive care units in Denmark where a protocol of no sedation is implemented. Data were generated during participant observation in practice and by interviews with 16 nurses. Data were analysed using thematic interpretive description.

FINDINGS

An overall theme emerged: "Demanding, yet rewarding". The demanding aspects of caring for more awake intubated patients included unpredictability, ambiguous needs and complex actions, while the rewarding aspects included personal interaction. Three sub-themes were identified: (i) caring for and with the patient, (ii) negotiating relational and instrumental care and (iii) managing physical and emotional closeness.

CONCLUSION

Despite the complexity of care, nurses preferred to care for more awake rather than sedated patients and appreciated caring for just one patient at a time. The importance of close collaboration between nurses and doctors to ensure patient comfort during mechanical ventilation was valued. Caring for more awake non-sedated patients required the nurses to act at the interface between ambiguous possibilities and needs, which was perceived as both demanding and rewarding.

Increased use in propofol and reported patterns of adverse events among anesthetics in Korea

BACKGROUND

Propofol is an addictive drug, and the problem of its abuse and dependence has occurred. To compare the safety profiles of propofol and other similar anesthetics such as diazepam, lorazepam, and midazolam, we evaluated their uses and related adverse drug reactions (ADRs) using Korean Adverse Event Reporting System (KAERS) data.

METHODS

The domestic consumption data and the ADR reports of four anesthetics from 2008 to 2012 were retrieved. ADR proportions were calculated using defined daily dose/1000 inhabitants/day (DID) for the denominator. The patient's characteristics were compared among the four drugs statistically, and the types of ADRs were analyzed.

RESULTS

The consumption and ADR reports increased during the study period, particularly in the cases of propofol and midazolam. Lorazepam showed the highest overall and serious ADR proportions (220.81 reports/DID, 58.47 reports/DID, respectively); however, with respect to death proportion, propofol was the first (19.21 reports/DID). Also, ADRs related to drug addiction were mainly observed in the propofol group.

CONCLUSIONS

Four anesthetics were different with regard to the consumption and proportion or the type of ADRs. The use of propofol increased more than 2 times, and propofol showed the highest ADR proportions in death and drug addiction cases among the four anesthetics.

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

A retrospective analysis of determinants of self-extubation in a tertiary care intensive care unit

Background:

Self-extubation is a common event in intensive care units (ICUs) world-wide. The most common factor attributed in various studies is lack of optimal sedation. However, the factors that lead to this inadequacy of sedation are not analyzed.

Aims:

The present study aimed to evaluate the determinants of factors leading to self-extubation in our ICU. Relation of patient profile, nature of sedation and any diurnal variation in extubation frequency was analyzed

Materials and Methods

Retrospective explorative analysis was carried out for patients admitted to ICU from January 2011 to January 2012. Information from medical records for the above parameters was extracted and descriptive statistics was used for assessing the outcomes.

Results:

In the present study, there was a higher incidence of self-extubation in ventilated ICU patients during the changeover periods of the ICU staff. There was no relation of frequency of self-extubation with the medications used for sedation once the sedation was titrated to a common endpoint. A higher incidence of self-extubation was seen in the surgical and younger age group of patients.

Conclusions:

It is recommended that the duty shift finishing time of ICU staff (medical and paramedical) staff should be staggered and should have minimal overlap to prevent self-extubation. A continuous reassessment of level of sedation of patients independent of the type sedative medication should be carried out.

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.

Regional anesthesia and analgesia in critically ill patients: a systematic review

Regional anesthesia has become invaluable for the treatment of pain during and after a wide range of surgical procedures. However, its benefits in the nonsurgical setting have been less well studied. Regional anesthesia is an appealing modality for critically ill patients, providing focused and sustained pain control with beneficial systemic effect profiles. Indications for regional anesthesia in this patient group are not limited to surgical and postsurgical analgesia but expand to the management of trauma-related issues, medical conditions, and painful procedures at the bedside. Patients in the critical care unit present special challenges to the regional anesthesiologist, including coagulopathies, infections, immunocompromised states, sedation- and ventilation-associated problems, and factors potentially increasing the risk for systemic toxicity. This review is intended to evaluate the role of regional anesthesia in critically ill patients, to discuss potential benefits, and to provide a summary of the published evidence on the subject.

Sedation for critically ill or injured adults in the intensive care unit: a shifting paradigm

As most critically ill or injured patients will require some degree of sedation, the goal of this paper was to comprehensively review the literature associated with use of sedative agents in the intensive care unit (ICU). The first and selected latter portions of this article present a narrative overview of the shifting paradigm in ICU sedation practices, indications for uninterrupted or prolonged ICU sedation, and the pharmacology of sedative agents. In the second portion, we conducted a structured, although not entirely systematic, review of the available evidence associated with use of alternative sedative agents in critically ill or injured adults. Data sources for this review were derived by searching OVID MEDLINE and PubMed from their first available date until May 2012 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses and economic evaluations. Advances in the technology of mechanical ventilation have permitted clinicians to limit the use of sedation among the critically ill through daily sedative interruptions or other means. These practices have been reported to result in improved mortality, a decreased length of ICU and hospital stay and a lower risk of drug-associated delirium. However, in some cases, prolonged or uninterrupted sedation may still be indicated, such as when patients develop intracranial hypertension following traumatic brain injury. The pharmacokinetics of sedative agents have clinical importance and may be altered by critical illness or injury, co-morbid conditions and/or drug-drug interactions. Although use of validated sedation scales to monitor depth of sedation is likely to reduce adverse events, they have no utility for patients receiving neuromuscular receptor blocking agents. Depth of sedation monitoring devices such as the Bispectral Index (BIS©) also have limitations. Among existing RCTs, no sedative agent has been reported to improve the risk of mortality among the critically ill or injured. Moreover, although propofol may be associated with a shorter time to tracheal extubation and recovery from sedation than midazolam, the risk of hypertriglyceridaemia and hypotension is higher with propofol. Despite dexmedetomidine being linked with a lower risk of drug-associated delirium than alternative sedative agents, this drug increases risk of bradycardia and hypotension. Among adults with severe traumatic brain injury, there are insufficient data to suggest that any single sedative agent decreases the risk of subsequent poor neurological outcomes or mortality. The lack of examination of confounders, including the type of healthcare system in which the investigation was conducted, is a major limitation of existing pharmacoeconomic analyses, which likely limits generalizability of their results.