Current sedation practices: lessons learned from international surveys

Factors influencing nurses' use of sedation interruptions in a critical care unit: a descriptive qualitative study

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS

This study examined critical care nurses', physicians', and allied health professionals' perceptions of factors that support, inhibit, or limit the use of sedation interruption (SI) to improve the use of this integral component of care for mechanically ventilated patients.

METHOD

We conducted a theory-based, descriptive qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with critical care registered nurses, respiratory therapists, a pharmacist, and a physician in a hospital in Ontario, Canada. The interview guide and analysis were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and transcripts were analyzed using content analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 9 facilitators and 20 barriers to SI use by nurses. Facilitators included the innovation (importance of protocols) and potential adopters (comfort with the skill). The barriers were the potential adopters' (nurses) knowledge gaps regarding the performance and goal of SI and the practice environment (lack of time, availability of extra staff, and lack of multidisciplinary rounds).

CONCLUSION

This study identified facilitators and barriers to SI for mechanically ventilated patients. Implementation efforts must address barriers associated with nurses, the environment, and contextual factors. A team-based approach is essential, as the absence of interprofessional rounds is a significant barrier to the appropriate use or non-use of SI. Future research can focus on the indications, contraindications, and goals of SI, emphasizing a shared appreciation for these factors across disciplines. Nursing capacity to manage a patient waking up from sedation is necessary for point-of-care adherence; future research should focus on the best ways to do so. Implementation study designs should use theory and evidence-based determinants of SI to bridge the evidence-to-practice gap.

SPANISH ABSTRACT

http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A178.

Pain assessment of the adult sedated and ventilated patients in the intensive care setting: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Pain is frequently encountered in the intensive care setting. Given the impact of pain assessment on patient outcomes and length of hospital stay, studies have been conducted to validate tools, establish guidelines and cast light on practices relating to pain assessment.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the extent, range and nature of the evidence around pain assessment practices in adult patients who cannot self-report pain in the intensive care setting and summarise the findings from a heterogenous body of evidence to aid in the planning and the conduct of future research and management of patient care. The specific patient cohort studied was the sedated/ ventilated patient within the intensive care setting.

DESIGN

A scoping review protocol utilised the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping review checklist (PRISMA-ScR).

METHODS

The review comprised of five phases: identifying the research question, identifying relevant studies, study selection, charting the data and collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. Databases were systematically searched from January to April 2020. Databases included were Scopus, Web of Science, Medline via Ovid, CINAHL COMPLETE via EBSCO host, Health Source and PUBMED. Limits were applied on dates (2000 to current), language (English), subject (human) and age (adult). Key words used were "pain", "assessment", "measurement", "tools", "instruments", "practices", "sedated", "ventilated", "adult". A hand search technique was used to search citations within articles. Database alerts were set to apprise the availability of research articles pertaining to pain assessment practices in the intensive care setting.

RESULTS

The review uncovered literature categorised under five general themes: behaviour pain assessment tools, pain assessment guidelines, position statements and quality improvement projects, enablers and barriers to pain assessment, and evidence appertaining to actual practices. Behaviour pain assessment tools are the benchmark for pain assessment of sedated and ventilated patients. The reliability and validity of physiologic parameters to assess pain is yet to be determined. Issues of compliance with pain assessment guidelines and tools exist and impact on practices. In some countries like Australia, there is a dearth of information regarding the prevalence and characteristics of patients receiving analgesia, type of analgesia used, pain assessment practices and the process of recording pain management. In general, pain assessment varies across different intensive care settings and lacks consistency.

CONCLUSION

Research on pain assessment practices requires further investigation to explore the causative mechanisms that contribute to poor compliance with established pain management guidelines. The protocol of this review was registered with Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/25a6) Tweetable abstract: Pain assessment in intensive care settings lacks consistency. New information is needed to understand the causative mechanisms underpinning poor compliance with guidelines.

Delirium in cancer patients admitted to the intensive care unit: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To describe the occurrence of delirium in cancer patients admitted to the intensive care unit according to clinical and demographic characteristics.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted with 135 adults admitted to the intensive care unit of a public cancer hospital in the city of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, between January and March 2016. Fisher's exact test and the linear association test were used to identify statistically significant associations between the occurrence of delirium and categorical and ordinal variables, respectively, considering a p-value < 0.05.

RESULTS

The overall occurrence of delirium was 39.3%. Delirium was more frequent among individuals aged 60 years or older and those who required extensive assistance or were bedbound, were admitted to the intensive care unit for clinical reasons, were using sedative drugs, were undergoing chemotherapy, and those who remained 8 or more days in the intensive care unit. Considering only patients on mechanical ventilation, the overall occurrence of delirium was 64.6%, and only a length of stay in the intensive care unit ≥ 8 days showed a statistically significant association with delirium.

CONCLUSION

The occurrence of delirium in critically ill cancer patients is high. When only those on mechanical ventilation are considered, the occurrence of delirium is even greater.

Impact of a nurse engagement intervention on pain, agitation and delirium assessment in a community intensive care unit

Background

In 2013, the Society of Critical Care Medicine published a revised version of the ICU Pain, Agitation, and Delirium (PAD) guidelines. Immobility and sleep were subsequently added in 2018. Despite the well-established advantages of implementing these guidelines, adoption and adherence remain suboptimal. This is especially true in community settings, where PAD assessment is performed less often, and the implementation of PAD guidelines has not yet been studied. The purpose of this prospective interventional study is to evaluate the effect of a multifaceted nurse engagement intervention on PAD assessment in a community intensive care unit (ICU).

Methods

All patients admitted to our community ICU for over 24 hours were included. A 20-week baseline audit was performed, followed by the intervention, and a 20-week postintervention audit. The intervention consisted of a survey, focus groups and education sessions. Primary outcomes included rates of daily PAD assessment using validated tools.

Results

There were improvements in the number of patients with at least one assessment per day of pain (67.5% vs 59.3%, p=0.04), agitation (93.1% vs 78.7%, p<0.001) and delirium (54.2% vs 39.4%, p<0.001), and the number of patients with target Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale ordered (63.1% vs 46.8%, p=0.002). There was a decrease in the rate of physical restraint use (10.0% vs 30.9%, p<0.001) and no change in self-extubation rate (0.9% vs 2.5%, p=0.2).

Conclusion

The implementation of a multifaceted nurse engagement intervention has the potential to improve rates of PAD assessment in community ICUs. Screening rates in our ICU remain suboptimal despite these improvements. We plan to implement multidisciplinary interventions targeting physicians, nurses and families to close the observed care gap.

Early Sedation with Dexmedetomidine in Critically Ill Patients

BACKGROUND

Dexmedetomidine produces sedation while maintaining a degree of arousability and may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and delirium among patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). The use of dexmedetomidine as the sole or primary sedative agent in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation has not been extensively studied.

METHODS

In an open-label, randomized trial, we enrolled critically ill adults who had been undergoing ventilation for less than 12 hours in the ICU and were expected to continue to receive ventilatory support for longer than the next calendar day to receive dexmedetomidine as the sole or primary sedative or to receive usual care (propofol, midazolam, or other sedatives). The target range of sedation-scores on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (which is scored from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]) was -2 to +1 (lightly sedated to restless). The primary outcome was the rate of death from any cause at 90 days.

RESULTS

We enrolled 4000 patients at a median interval of 4.6 hours between eligibility and randomization. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis involving 3904 patients, the primary outcome event occurred in 566 of 1948 (29.1%) in the dexmedetomidine group and in 569 of 1956 (29.1%) in the usual-care group (adjusted risk difference, 0.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.9 to 2.8). An ancillary finding was that to achieve the prescribed level of sedation, patients in the dexmedetomidine group received supplemental propofol (64% of patients), midazolam (3%), or both (7%) during the first 2 days after randomization; in the usual-care group, these drugs were administered as primary sedatives in 60%, 12%, and 20% of the patients, respectively. Bradycardia and hypotension were more common in the dexmedetomidine group.

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in the ICU, those who received early dexmedetomidine for sedation had a rate of death at 90 days similar to that in the usual-care group and required supplemental sedatives to achieve the prescribed level of sedation. More adverse events were reported in the dexmedetomidine group than in the usual-care group. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; SPICE III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01728558.).

"Having the compass-drawing the map": Exploring nurses' management of pain and other discomforts during use of analgosedation in intensive care

AIM

To explore the deliberation and enactment processes of nurses in relation to pain and other discomforts in the critically ill patients after the implementation of an analgosedation protocol.

BACKGROUND

Nurses in intensive care units (ICU) face great challenges when managing pain and other discomforts and distinguishing between patients' needs for analgesics and sedatives. An analgosedation protocol favouring pain management, light sedation and early mobilization was implemented in a university hospital ICU in Norway in 2014. Changing sedation paradigms resulting in an increasing number of awake patients during critical illness is expected to affect nursing practice.

DESIGN

Exploratory, single-unit study in a mixed adult ICU.

METHODS

Data collection with participant observation and semi-structured interviews in sixteen clinical situations in 2014 and 2015. Thirteen experienced certified critical care nurses were included. Thematic content analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

An overall theme "Having the compass-drawing the map" emerged from the analysis. The protocol or strategy of analgosedation appeared to provide a direction for treatment and care, although requiring extensive interpretation of needs and individualization of care, often in challenging situations. The overall theme was abstracted from three themes: "Interpreting a complex whole," "Balancing conflicting goals" and "Experiencing strain from acting across ideals."

CONCLUSION

Nurses seem to attend adequately to patient pain, but the approach to discomforts other than pain appears unsystematic and haphazard. More explicit goals of care and strategies to handle discomfort as distinct from pain are needed. More research is needed to identify effective comfort measures for ICU patients.

Sedative drugs used for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The effects of different sedative drugs on all-cause mortality rate, duration of ICU stay, and risk of delirium in mechanically ventilated ICU patients are unclear. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of individual sedative drugs and drug combinations in mechanically ventilated ICU patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Medline, Embase, Cochrane, EBSCOhost, and ISI Web of Science databases were searched for studies that assessed sedation in ICU mechanically ventilated patients. A Bayesian random-effects model was used to combine the direct comparisons and indirect evidence.

RESULTS

Thirty-one randomized, controlled trials were included, which consisted of 4491 patients who received one of seven sedative drugs or a combination of drugs. There were no significant differences regarding the all-cause mortality rate. Compared to propofol, inhalation anesthetics (hazard ratio [HR] 0.121; 95% credible interval [CrI] -7.58 to 7.62), alpha agonists (HR 2.2; 95% CrI 0.776 to 5.22), propofol with benzodiazepines (HR 0.306; 95% CrI -6.97 to 7.65), ketamine with benzodiazepines (HR 6.57; 95% CrI -6.05 to 19.1) and placebo (HR 2.4; 95% CrI -5.37 to 10.3), benzodiazepines (HR 3.62; 95% CrI 0.834 to 6.2) may increase the duration of ICU stay. Compared to alpha agonists, propofol (HR 2.4; 95% CrI 0.304 to 21.1) and placebo (HR 6.12; 95% CrI 0.745 to 54.6), benzodiazepines (HR 2.59; 95% CrI 1.08 to 7.4) were associated with incremental risks of delirium.

CONCLUSION

Compared to propofol, benzodiazepines may increase the duration of ICU stay. Compared to alpha agonists, benzodiazepines were associated with an increased risk of delirium.

An Analysis of Psychoactive Medications Initiated in the ICU but Continued Beyond Discharge: A Pilot Study of Stewardship

BACKGROUND

Psychoactive medications (PM) are frequently administered in the intensive care unit (ICU) to provide comfort. Interventions focused on preventing their continuation after the acute phase of illness are needed.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the frequency that patients with ICU-initiated PM are continued upon ICU and hospital discharge.

METHODS

This single-center, prospective, observational study assessed consecutive adult ICU patients who received scheduled PM. Frequency of PM continued at ICU and hospital discharge was recorded. The patient's primary treatment team was contacted by the pharmacist within 72 hours of ICU discharge to establish rationale for continued use or to suggest discontinuation.

RESULTS

Of the 60 patients included, 72% were continued on PM at ICU discharge and 30% at hospital discharge. The pharmacist contacted 40% of treatment teams after ICU discharge and intervention resulted in PM discontinued in 50% of patients. Post ICU discharge, the indication of 41% of patients' PM was unknown by the non-ICU care team or incorrect. Medical ICU patients or those transferred to an outside facility were more likely remain on PM at hospital discharge.

CONCLUSION

PM are frequently continued during transitions of care and often without knowledge of the initial indication. Future studies should establish effective PM stewardship methods.

Sedation Practices and Preferences of Turkish Intensive Care Physicians: A National Survey

Objective

Sedation is one of the most common practices applied in the intensive care units (ICUs), and the management of sedation, analgesia and delirium is a quality measure in the ICUs. Several guidelines on sedation had been published, and many surveys investigated the practices of sedation in the ICUs, but knowledge on the sedation practices in Turkey is lacking. The aim of the present study was to provide baseline knowledge on the sedation practices and preferences of Turkish intensive care physicians and to establish some points to be improved.

Methods

An electronic survey form consisting of 34 questions was generated and posted to email addresses. The survey included questions about demographics and practices on sedation, analgesia, neuromuscular blockage and delirium.

Results

Of 1700 email addresses, 429 (25.0%) were returned. Sedation was practised by 98.0% of the respondents, and mechanical ventilation was indicated as the primary indication (94.0%) for sedation. The presence of a written sedation protocol was 37.0%. For drug choices for sedation, midazolam was the most preferred agent (90.0%). With regard to pain questions, the most commonly used evaluation tool was Visual Analogue Scale (69.0%), and the most preferred drug was tramadol. Nearly half of the participants routinely evaluated delirium and used the confusion assessment method in the ICU.

Conclusion

The results of this survey have indicated some areas to be improved, and a national guideline should be prepared taking pain, agitation and delirium in focus. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03488069.

Protocol-directed sedation versus non-protocol-directed sedation in mechanically ventilated intensive care adults and children

BACKGROUND

The sedation needs of critically ill patients have been recognized as a core component of critical care that is vital to assist recovery and ensure humane treatment. Evidence suggests that sedation requirements are not always optimally managed. Suboptimal sedation, both under- and over-sedation, have been linked to short-term (e.g. length of stay) and long-term (e.g. psychological recovery) outcomes. Strategies to improve sedation assessment and management have been proposed. This review was originally published in 2015 and updated in 2018.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of protocol-directed sedation management compared to usual care on the duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital mortality and other patient outcomes in mechanically ventilated ICU adults and children.

SEARCH METHODS

We used the standard search strategy of the Cochrane Anaesthesia, Critical and Emergency Care Group (ACE). We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL) (December 2017), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (2013 to December 2017), Embase (OvidSP) (2013 to December 2017), CINAHL (BIREME host) (2013 to December 2017), LILACS (2013 to December 2017), trial registries and reference lists of articles. (The original search was run in November 2013).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomized controlled trials conducted in ICUs comparing management with and without protocol-directed sedation in intensive care adults and children.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors screened the titles and abstracts and then full-text reports identified from our electronic search. We assessed seven domains of potential risk of bias for the included studies. We examined clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity and used the random-effects model for meta-analysis where we considered it appropriate. We calculated the mean difference (MD) for duration of mechanical ventilation and risk ratio (RR) for mortality across studies, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included four studies with a total of 3323 participants (864 adults and 2459 paediatrics) in this update. Three studies were single-centre, patient-level RCTs and one study was a multicentre cluster-RCT. The settings were in metropolitan centres and included general, mixed medical-surgical, medical only and a range of paediatric units. All four included studies compared the use of protocol-directed sedation, specifically protocols delivered by nurses, with usual care. We rated the risk of selection bias due to random sequence generation low for two studies and unclear for two studies. The risk of bias was highly variable across the domains and studies, with the risk of selection and performance bias generally rated high and the risk of detection and attrition bias generally rated low.When comparing protocol-directed sedation with usual care, there was no clear evidence of difference in duration of mechanical ventilation in hours for the entire duration of the first ICU stay for each patient (MD -28.15 hours, 95% CI -69.15 to 12.84; I² = 85%; 4 studies; adjusted sample 2210 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of difference in ICU mortality (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.50; I² = 67%; 2 studies; 513 participants; low-quality evidence), or hospital mortality (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.13; I² = 10%; 3 studies; adjusted sample 2088 participants; low-quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of difference in ICU length of stay (MD -1.70 days, 95% CI-3.71 to 0.31; I² = 82%; 4 studies; adjusted sample of 2123 participants; low-quality of evidence), however there was evidence of a significant reduction in hospital length of stay (MD -3.09 days, 95% CI -5.08 to -1.10; I² = 2%; 3 studies; adjusted sample of 1922 participants; moderate-quality evidence). There was no clear evidence of difference in the incidence of self-extubation (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.42; I² = 0%; 2 studies; adjusted sample of 1687 participants; high-quality evidence), or incidence of tracheostomy (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.30; I² = 66%; 3 studies; adjusted sample of 2008 participants; low-quality evidence). Only one study examined incidence of reintubation, therefore we could not pool data; there was no clear evidence of difference (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.24; 1 study; 321 participants; low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently limited evidence from RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of protocol-directed sedation on patient outcomes. The four included RCTs reported conflicting results and heterogeneity limited the interpretation of results for the primary outcomes of duration of mechanical ventilation and mortality. Further studies, taking into account differing contextual characteristics, are necessary to inform future practice. Methodological strategies to reduce the risk of bias need to be considered in future studies.

Feasibility of a Nurse-Managed Pain, Agitation, and Delirium Protocol in the Surgical Intensive Care Unit

BACKGROUND

Society of Critical Care Medicine guidelines recommend the use of pain, agitation, and delirium protocols in the intensive care unit. The feasibility of nurse management of such protocols in the surgical intensive care unit has not been well assessed.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the percentage of adherent medication interventions for patients assessed by using a pain, sedation, and delirium protocol.

METHODS

Data on all adult patients admitted to a surgical intensive care unit from January 2013 through September 2013 who were assessed at least once by using a pain, sedation, and delirium protocol were retrospectively reviewed. Protocol adherence was evaluated for interventions implemented after a nursing assessment. Patients were further divided into 2 groups on the basis of adherence, and achievement of pain and sedation goals was evaluated between groups.

RESULTS

Data on 41 patients were included. Of the 603 pain assessments, 422 (70.0%) led to an intervention adherent to the protocol. Of the 249 sedation assessments, 192 (77.1%) led to an adherent intervention. Among patients with 75% or greater adherent pain interventions, all interventions met pain goals with significantly less fentanyl than that used in interventions that did not meet goals. Despite 75% or greater adherence with interventions for sedation assessments, only 8.7% of the interventions met sedation goals.

CONCLUSIONS

A nurse-managed pain, agitation, and delirium protocol can be feasibly implemented in a surgical intensive care unit.

Age related inverse dose relation of sedatives and analgesics in the intensive care unit

Sedative and analgesic practices in intensive care units (ICUs) are frequently based on anesthesia regimes but do not take account of the important patient related factors. Pharmacologic properties of sedatives and analgesics change when used as continuous infusions in ICU compared to bolus or short-term infusions during anesthesia. In a prospective observational cohort study, we investigated the association between patient related factors and sedatives/analgesics doses in patients on mechanical ventilation (MV) and their association with cessation of sedation/analgesia. We included patients expected to receive MV for at least 24 hours and excluded those with difficulty in assessing the depth of sedation. We collected data for the first 72 hours or until extubation, whichever occurred first. Multivariate analysis of variance, multivariate regression as well as logistic regression were used. The final cohort (N = 576) was predominantly male (64%) with mean (SD) age 61.7 (15.6) years, weight 63.4 (18.2) Kg, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score 28.2 (8) and 30% hospital mortality. Increasing age was associated with reduced propofol and fentanyl doses requirements, adjusted to the weight (p<0.001). Factors associated with higher propofol and fentanyl doses were vasopressor use (Relative mean difference (RMD) propofol 1.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28–1.90); fentanyl 1.48 (1.25–1.76) and central venous line placement (CVL, RMD propofol 1.64 (1.15–2.33); fentanyl 1.41 (1.03–1.91). Male gender was also associated with higher propofol dose (RMD 1.27 (1.06–1.49). Sedation cessation was less likely to occur in restrained patients (Odds Ratio, OR 0.48 (CI 0.30–0.78) or those receiving higher sedative/analgesic doses (OR propofol 0.98 (CI 0.97–0.99); fentanyl 0.99 (CI 0.98–0.997), independent of depth of sedation. In conclusion, increasing age is associated with the use of lower doses of sedative/analgesic in ICU, whereas CVL and vasopressor use were associated with higher doses.

Interprofessional Implementation of a Pain/Sedation Guideline on a Trauma Intensive Care Unit

Trauma patients experience pain and agitation during their hospitalization. Many complications have been noted both in the absence of symptom management and the in presence of oversedation/narcotization. To combat noted untoward effects of pain and sedation management, an interprofessional team convened to develop a pain and sedation guideline for use in a trauma intensive care unit. Guideline development began with a comprehensive review of the literature. With the input of unit stakeholders, a nurse-driven analgosedation guideline was implemented for a 6-month trial. During this time, unit champions were integral to successful trial execution. Outcome measurement included patient and unit outcomes, nursing satisfaction, and a pre- and postimplementation patient comparison. Following implementation, unit length of stay decreased by 4.16% and there was a 17.81% decrease in average time on the ventilator following the initiation of weaning. Patient reports of nurse sensitivity and responsiveness to pain increased from 93.7 to 94.9. Nurses reported satisfaction with the practice change and improvements in care. In comparing pre- and postimplementation patient data, there was a significant decrease in mean analgesic treatment duration and an increase in the use of antipsychotics for delirium management. Following the trial period, this guideline was permanently adopted across the adult critical care service. The development of a nurse-driven analgosedation guideline was noted to be both feasible and successful.

Multicenter assessment of sedation and delirium practices in the intensive care units in Poland - is this common practice in Eastern Europe?

Background

The majority of critically ill patients experience distress during their stay in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), resulting from systemic illness, multiple interventions and environmental factors. Providing humane care should address concomitant treatment of pain, agitation and delirium. The use of sedation and approaches to ICU delirium should be monitored according to structured guidelines. However, it is unknown to what extent these concepts are followed in Eastern European countries like Poland. The aim of this study was to evaluate sedation and delirium practices in ICUs in Poland, as a representative of the Eastern European block, particularly the implementation of sedation and ICU delirium screening tools, availability of written sedation guidelines, choice of sedation and delirium treatment agents.

Methods

A national postal survey was conducted in all Polish ICUs in early 2016.

Results

A total of 165 responses out of 436 addressed units were received (37.8%). Out of responding ICUs delirium is monitored in only 11.9% of the units in Poland. Sedation monitoring tool is used in only 46.1% of units. Only 19.4% of ICUs have written protocols for sedation and 32.1% do not practice daily sedation interruption. The most frequently used agents for short-term sedation (<24 h) were propofol and fentanyl infusions and benzodiazepines (midazolam) and morphine for longer sedation (>24 h). The preferred agents for delirium treatment were haloperidol (77.6%), dexmedetomidine (43.6%) and quetiapine (19.4%). Close to one-third (32.7%) of respondents chose a benzodiazepine (diazepam) for ICU delirium treatment. Non-pharmacological treatment for ICU delirium was reported by only 45% of the respondents.

Conclusions

A majority of Polish ICUs do not adhere to international guidelines regarding sedation and delirium practices. There continues to be inadequate use of sedation and delirium monitoring tools. High usage of benzodiazepines for sedation and ICU delirium treatment reveals persistence of non-evidence-based practice. This study should prompt further assessment of other Eastern Europe countries and help generate a collective response to update these aspects of patient safety and comfort.

Iatrogenic Opioid Withdrawal in Critically Ill Patients: A Review of Assessment Tools and Management

OBJECTIVE

To (1) provide an overview of the epidemiology, clinical presentation, and risk factors of iatrogenic opioid withdrawal in critically ill patients and (2) conduct a literature review of assessment and management of iatrogenic opioid withdrawal in critically ill patients.

DATA SOURCES

We searched MEDLINE (1946-June 2017), EMBASE (1974-June 2017), and CINAHL (1982-June 2017) with the terms opioid withdrawal, opioid, opiate, critical care, critically ill, assessment tool, scale, taper, weaning, and management. Reference list of identified literature was searched for additional references as well as www.clinicaltrials.gov .

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

We restricted articles to those in English and dealing with humans.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We identified 2 validated pediatric critically ill opioid withdrawal assessment tools: (1) Withdrawal Assessment Tool-Version 1 (WAT-1) and (2) Sophia Observation Withdrawal Symptoms Scale (SOS). Neither tool differentiated between opioid and benzodiazepine withdrawal. WAT-1 was evaluated in critically ill adults but not found to be valid. No other adult tool was identified. For management, we identified 5 randomized controlled trials, 2 prospective studies, and 2 systematic reviews. Most studies were small and only 2 studies utilized a validated assessment tool. Enteral methadone, α-2 agonists, and protocolized weaning were studied.

CONCLUSION

We identified 2 validated assessment tools for pediatric intensive care unit patients; no valid tool for adults. Management strategies tested in small trials included methadone, α-2 agonists, and protocolized sedation/weaning. We challenge researchers to create validated tools assessing specifically for opioid withdrawal in critically ill children and adults to direct management.

Alpha-2 agonists for sedation of mechanically ventilated adults in intensive care units: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Care of critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs) often requires potentially invasive or uncomfortable procedures, such as mechanical ventilation (MV). Sedation can alleviate pain and discomfort, provide protection from stressful or harmful events, prevent anxiety and promote sleep. Various sedative agents are available for use in ICUs. In the UK, the most commonly used sedatives are propofol (Diprivan(®), AstraZeneca), benzodiazepines [e.g. midazolam (Hypnovel(®), Roche) and lorazepam (Ativan(®), Pfizer)] and alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonists [e.g. dexmedetomidine (Dexdor(®), Orion Corporation) and clonidine (Catapres(®), Boehringer Ingelheim)]. Sedative agents vary in onset/duration of effects and in their side effects. The pattern of sedation of alpha-2 agonists is quite different from that of other sedatives in that patients can be aroused readily and their cognitive performance on psychometric tests is usually preserved. Moreover, respiratory depression is less frequent after alpha-2 agonists than after other sedative agents.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review to evaluate the comparative effects of alpha-2 agonists (dexmedetomidine and clonidine) and propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam and lorazepam) in mechanically ventilated adults admitted to ICUs.

DATA SOURCES

We searched major electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE without revisions, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from 1999 to 2014.

METHODS

Evidence was considered from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dexmedetomidine with clonidine or dexmedetomidine or clonidine with propofol or benzodiazepines such as midazolam, lorazepam and diazepam (Diazemuls(®), Actavis UK Limited). Primary outcomes included mortality, duration of MV, length of ICU stay and adverse events. One reviewer extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included trials. A second reviewer cross-checked all the data extracted. Random-effects meta-analyses were used for data synthesis.

RESULTS

Eighteen RCTs (2489 adult patients) were included. One trial at unclear risk of bias compared dexmedetomidine with clonidine and found that target sedation was achieved in a higher number of patients treated with dexmedetomidine with lesser need for additional sedation. The remaining 17 trials compared dexmedetomidine with propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam or lorazepam). Trials varied considerably with regard to clinical population, type of comparators, dose of sedative agents, outcome measures and length of follow-up. Overall, risk of bias was generally high or unclear. In particular, few trials blinded outcome assessors. Compared with propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam or lorazepam), dexmedetomidine had no significant effects on mortality [risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.24, I (2) = 0%; p = 0.78]. Length of ICU stay (mean difference -1.26 days, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.55 days, I (2) = 31%; p = 0.0004) and time to extubation (mean difference -1.85 days, 95% CI -2.61 to -1.09 days, I (2) = 0%; p < 0.00001) were significantly shorter among patients who received dexmedetomidine. No difference in time to target sedation range was observed between sedative interventions (I (2) = 0%; p = 0.14). Dexmedetomidine was associated with a higher risk of bradycardia (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.77, I (2) = 46%; p = 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

Trials varied considerably with regard to participants, type of comparators, dose of sedative agents, outcome measures and length of follow-up. Overall, risk of bias was generally high or unclear. In particular, few trials blinded assessors.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on the use of clonidine in ICUs is very limited. Dexmedetomidine may be effective in reducing ICU length of stay and time to extubation in critically ill ICU patients. Risk of bradycardia but not of overall mortality is higher among patients treated with dexmedetomidine. Well-designed RCTs are needed to assess the use of clonidine in ICUs and identify subgroups of patients that are more likely to benefit from the use of dexmedetomidine.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014014101.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. The Health Services Research Unit is core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates.

The Benefit of Benzodiazepine Reduction: Improving Sedation in Surgical Intensive Care

Aims:

Sedation, as it is often required in critical care, is associated with immobilization, prolonged ventilation, and increased morbidity. Most sedation protocols are based on benzodiazepines. The presented study analyzes the benefit of benzodiazepine-free sedation.

Methods:

In 2008, 134 patients were treated according to a protocol using benzodiazepine and propofol (Group 1). In 2009, we introduced a new sedation strategy based on sufentanil, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, neuroleptics, and antidepressants, which was applied in 140 consecutive patients (Group 2). Depth of sedation, duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of Intensive Care Unit, and hospital stay were analyzed.

Results:

Group 1 had both a longer duration of deep sedation (18.7 ± 2.5 days vs. 12.6 ± 1.85 days, P = 0.031) and a longer duration of controlled ventilation (311, 35 ± 32.69 vs. 143, 96 ± 20.76 h, P < 0.0001) than Group 2. Ventilator days were more frequent in Group 1 (653, 66 ± 98.37 h vs. 478, 89 ± 68.92 h, P = 0.128).

Conclusions:

The benzodiazepine-free sedation protocol has been shown to significantly reduce depth of sedation and controlled ventilation. Additional evidence is needed to ascertain reduction of ventilator days which would not only be of benefit for the patient but also for the hospital Management.

Sedation and Analgesia

Patients in the cardiothoracic intensive care unit (CTICU) are subject to numerous physical and mental stresses. While most of these cannot be completely eliminated, intensivists have many tools in their armamentarium to alleviate patients' pain and suffering. This chapter will consider the importance of analgesia and sedation in the CTICU and the relevant consequences of over- or under-treatment. We will examine the tools available for monitoring and titrating analgesia and sedation in critically ill patients. The major classes of medications available will be reviewed, with particular attention to their clinical effects, metabolism and excretion, and hemodynamic characteristics. Lastly, experimental evidence will be assessed regarding the best strategies for treatment of pain and agitation in the CTICU, including use of non-pharmacologic adjuvants.

Continuing to challenge practice to be evidence based

Practice habits continue in clinical practice despite the availability of research and other forms of evidence that should be used to guide critical care practice interventions. This article is based on a presentation at the 2014 National Teaching Institute of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses. The article is part of a series of articles that challenge critical care nurses to examine the evidence guiding nursing practice interventions. Four common practice interventions are reviewed: (1) weight-based medication administration, (2) chest tube patency maintenance, (3) daily interruption of sedation, and (4) use of chest physiotherapy in children. For weight-based administration of medication, the patient's actual weight should be measured, rather than using an estimate. The therapeutic effectiveness and dosages of medications used in obese patients must be critically evaluated. Maintaining patency of chest tubes does not require stripping and milking, which probably do more harm than good. Daily interruption of sedation and judicious use of sedatives are appropriate in most patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Traditional chest physiotherapy does not help children with pneumonia, bronchiolitis, or asthma and does not prevent atelectasis after extubation. Critical care nurses are challenged to evaluate their individual practice and to adopt current evidence-based practice interventions into their daily practice.

National survey and point prevalence study of sedation practice in UK critical care

Background

The present study was designed to (1) establish current sedation practice in UK critical care to inform evidence synthesis and potential future primary research and (2) to compare practice reported via a survey with actual practice assessed in a point prevalence study (PPS).

Methods

UK adult general critical care units were invited to participate in a survey of current sedation practice, and a representative sample of units was invited to participate in a PPS of sedation practice at the patient level. Survey responses were compared with PPS data where both were available.

Results

Survey responses were received from 214 (91 %) of 235 eligible critical care units. Of these respondents, 57 % reported having a written sedation protocol, 94 % having a policy of daily sedation holds and 94 % using a sedation scale to assess depth of sedation. In the PPS, across units reporting a policy of daily sedation holds, a median of 50 % (IQR 33–75 %) of sedated patients were considered for a sedation hold. A median of 88 % (IQR 63–100 %) of patients were assessed using the same sedation scale as reported in the survey. Both the survey and the PPS indicated propofol as the preferred sedative and alfentanil, fentanyl and morphine as the preferred analgesics. In most of the PPS units, all patients had received the unit’s reported first-choice sedative (median across units 100 %, IQR 64–100 %), and a median of 80 % (IQR 67–100 %) of patients had received the unit’s reported first-choice analgesic. Most units (83 %) reported in the survey that sedatives are usually administered in combination with analgesics. Across units that participated in the PPS, 69 % of patients had received a combination of agents – most frequently propofol combined with either alfentanil or fentanyl.

Conclusions

Clinical practice reported in the national survey did not accurately reflect actual clinical practice at the patient level observed in the PPS. Employing a mixed methods approach provided a more complete picture of sedation practice in terms of breadth and depth of information.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1532-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Predictors of clinicians' underuse of daily sedation interruption and sedation scales

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study is to identify predictors of underuse of sedation scales and daily sedation interruption (DSI).

METHODS

We surveyed all physicians and seven nurses in every Belgian intensive care unit (ICU), addressing practices and perceptions on guideline recommendations. Underuse was defined for sedation scales as use less than 3× per day and for DSI as never using it. Classification trees and logistic regressions identified predictors of underuse.

RESULTS

Underuse of sedation scales and DSI was found for 16.6% and 32.5% of clinicians, respectively. Strongest predictors of underuse of sedation scales were agreeing that using them daily takes much time and being a physician (rather than a nurse). Further predictors were confidence in their ability to measure sedation levels without using scales, for physicians, and nurse/ICU bed ratios less than 1.98, for nurses. The strongest predictor of underuse of DSI among physicians was the perception that DSI impairs patients' comfort. Among nurses, lack of familiarity with DSI, region, and agreeing DSI should only be performed upon medical orders best predicted underuse.

CONCLUSIONS

Workload considerations hamper utilization of sedation scales. Poor familiarity, for nurses, and negative perception of impact on patients' comfort, for physicians, both reduce DSI utilization. Targeting these obstacles is essential while designing quality improvement strategies to minimize sedative use.

Sedation protocols to reduce duration of mechanical ventilation in the ICU: a Cochrane Systematic Review

AIMS

Assess the effects of protocol-directed sedation management on the duration of mechanical ventilation and other relevant patient outcomes in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients.

BACKGROUND

Sedation is a core component of critical care. Sub-optimal sedation management incorporates both under- and over-sedation and has been linked to poorer patient outcomes.

DESIGN

Cochrane systematic review of randomized controlled trials.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, LILACS, Current Controlled Trials and US National Institutes of Health Clinical Research Studies (1990-November 2013) and reference lists of articles were used.

REVIEW METHODS

Randomized controlled trials conducted in intensive care units comparing management with and without protocol-directed sedation were included. Two authors screened titles, abstracts and full-text reports. Potential risk of bias was assessed. Clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity were examined and the random-effects model used for meta-analysis where appropriate. Mean difference for duration of mechanical ventilation and risk ratio for mortality, with 95% confidence intervals, were calculated.

RESULTS

Two eligible studies with 633 participants comparing protocol-directed sedation delivered by nurses vs. usual care were identified. There was no evidence of differences in duration of mechanical ventilation or hospital mortality. There was statistically significant heterogeneity between studies for duration of mechanical ventilation.

CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of protocol-directed sedation as results from the two randomized controlled trials were conflicting.

Transition from dexmedetomidine to enteral clonidine for ICU sedation: an observational pilot study

INTRODUCTION

Enteral clonidine represents a potentially less costly alternative to dexmedetomidine for sedation in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. This study describes our practice of transitioning selected adult ICU patients from dexmedetomidine to clonidine with a focus on efficacy, safety, and drug acquisition costs.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center prospective observational pilot study from January through March 2014. Consecutive patients 18 years and older treated with dexmedetomidine and transitioned to clonidine were followed. The transition was assessed in five phases: dexmedetomidine maintenance, transition, clonidine maintenance, clonidine taper, and post clonidine. Efficacy data included any occurrence of significant pain, excessive agitation or oversedation, delirium, and need for ancillary psychoactive medications. Safety data included any occurrence of bradycardia, hypotension, new second- or third-degree atrioventricular node blockade, and clonidine withdrawal syndrome. Drug acquisition cost avoidances were estimated using average wholesale price.

RESULTS

Twenty patients were evaluated. Fifteen (75%) were successfully transitioned from dexmedetomidine within 48 hours of starting clonidine. The initial and maintenance clonidine regimens were 0.3 mg every 6 hours. Clonidine was the sole α2A -receptor agonist administered for 45 hours while in the ICU and for 54 hours outside the ICU. Fentanyl requirements were lower when clonidine was administered as the sole α2A -receptor agonist as compared to dexmedetomidine alone (387 vs. 891 μg/day, p = 0.03). Otherwise, there were no statistically significant differences in efficacy data during the dexmedetomidine and clonidine maintenance phases. No statistically significant differences in safety data were observed. Clonidine withdrawal syndrome criteria were met in one patient. The potential drug acquisition cost avoidance was $819-$2338 per patient during the 3-month study.

CONCLUSIONS

Transitioning from dexmedetomidine to clonidine may be an efficacious, safe, and less costly method of maintaining α2A -receptor agonist therapy in critically ill adults; these results warrant confirmation in expanded studies.

Effect of Protocolized Sedation on Clinical Outcomes in Mechanically Ventilated Intensive Care Unit Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of protocolized sedation (algorithm or daily interruption) compared with usual care without protocolized sedation on clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients via a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov from their inception to February 28, 2013. A random-effects model was used to synthesize risk ratios (RRs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs).

RESULTS

Of 4782 records screened, 6 RCTs including 1243 patients met the inclusion criteria. Protocolized sedation was associated with significant reductions in overall mortality (RR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.97; P=.02; number needed to treat, 20; P=.11), ICU length of stay (WMD, -1.73 days; 95% CI, -3.32 to -0.14 days; P=.03), hospital length of stay (WMD, -3.55 days; 95% CI, -5.98 to -1.12 days; P=.004), and tracheostomy (RR, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.96; P=.03; number needed to treat, 16.6; P=.04; 5 RCTs) compared with usual care. Protocolized sedation produced no significant differences in duration of mechanical ventilation (WMD, -1.04 days; 95% CI, -2.54 to 0.47 days; P=.18), reintubation (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.52 to 1.15; P=.21; 3 RCTs), and self-extubation (RR, 1.49; 95% CI, 0.46 to 4.82; P=.51; 4 RCTs) compared with usual care. Included studies did not report delirium incidence.

CONCLUSION

In mechanically ventilated adults in closed, nonspecialty ICUs, protocolized sedation seems to decrease overall mortality (15%), ICU and hospital lengths of stay (1.73 and 3.55 days, respectively), and tracheostomy (31%) compared with usual care without protocolized sedation.

Sedation scoring and managing abilities of intensive care nurses post educational intervention

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate sedation assessment can jeopardize patient comfort and safety. Therefore, nurses' abilities in assessing and managing sedation are vital for effective care of mechanically ventilated patients.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This study assessed nurses' sedation scoring and management abilities as primary outcomes following educational interventions. Nurses' perceived self-confidence and barriers to effective sedation management were assessed as secondary outcomes.

DESIGN

A post-test-only quasi-experimental design was used. Data were collected at 3 and 9 months post-intervention.

METHODS

A total of 66 nurses from a 14-bed intensive care unit of a Malaysian teaching hospital participated. The educational interventions included theoretical sessions, hands-on sedation assessment practice using the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, and a brief sedation assessment tool. Nurses' sedation scoring and management abilities and perceived self-confidence level were assessed at both time points using self-administered questionnaires with case scenarios. Sedation assessment and management barriers were assessed once at 9 months post-intervention.

RESULTS

Median scores for overall accurate sedation scoring (9 months: 4·00; 3 months: 2·00, p = 0·0001) and overall sedation management (9 months: 14·0; 3 months: 7·0, p = 0·0001) were significantly higher at 9 months compared to 3 months post-intervention. There were no significant differences in the perceived self-confidence level for rating sedation level. Overall perceived barrier scores were low (M = 27·78, SD = 6·26, possible range = 11·0-55·0). Patient conditions (M = 3·68, SD = 1·13) and nurses' workload (M = 3·54, SD = 0·95) were the greatest barriers to effective sedation assessment and management. Demographic variables did not affect sedation scoring or management abilities.

CONCLUSIONS

Positive changes in nurses' sedation assessment and management abilities were observed, indicating that adequate hands-on clinical practice following educational interventions can improve nurses' knowledge and skills.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Educational initiatives are necessary to improve ICU practice, particularly in ICUs with inexperienced nurses.

Practice guidelines for sedation and analgesia management of critically ill children: a pilot study evaluating guideline impact and feasibility in the PICU

AIMS

The aim of this study was to develop and implement guidelines for sedation and analgesia management in the paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) and evaluate the impact, feasibility and acceptability of these as part of a programme of research in this area and as a prelude to future trial work.

METHOD

This pilot study used a pre-post design using a historical control.

SETTING

Two PICUs at different hospitals in an Australian metropolitan city.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients admitted to the PICU and ventilated for ≥24 h, aged more than 1 month and not admitted for seizure management or terminal care.

INTERVENTION

Guidelines for sedation and analgesia management for critically ill children including algorithm and assessment tools.

OUTCOME VARIABLES

In addition to key outcome variables (ventilation time, medication dose and duration, length of stay), feasibility outcomes data (recruitment, data collection, safety) were evaluated. Guideline adherence was assessed through chart audit and staff were surveyed about merit and the use of guidelines.

RESULTS

The guidelines were trialled for a total of 12 months on 63 patients and variables compared with the historical control group (n=75). Analysis revealed differences in median Morphine infusion duration between groups (pretest 3.63 days (87 h) vs post-test 2.83 days (68 h), p=0.05) and maximum doses (pretest 120 μg/kg/h vs post-test 97.5 μg/kg/h) with no apparent change to ventilation duration. Chart audit revealed varied use of tools, but staff were positive about the guidelines and their use in practice.

CONCLUSIONS

The sedation guidelines impacted on the duration and dosage of agents without any apparent impact on ventilation duration or length of stay. Furthermore, the guidelines appeared to be feasible and acceptable in clinical practice. The results of the study have laid the foundation for follow-up studies in withdrawal from sedation, point prevalence and longitudinal studies of sedation practices as well as drug trial work.

Protocol-directed sedation versus non-protocol-directed sedation to reduce duration of mechanical ventilation in mechanically ventilated intensive care patients

BACKGROUND

The sedation needs of critically ill patients have been recognized as a core component of critical care and meeting these is vital to assist recovery and ensure humane treatment. There is growing evidence to suggest that sedation requirements are not always optimally managed. Sub-optimal sedation incorporates both under- and over-sedation and has been linked to both short-term (e.g. length of stay) and long-term (e.g. psychological recovery) outcomes. Various strategies have been proposed to improve sedation management and address aspects of assessment as well as delivery of sedation.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of protocol-directed sedation management on the duration of mechanical ventilation and other relevant patient outcomes in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. We looked at various outcomes and examined the role of bias in order to examine the level of evidence for this intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL) (2013; Issue 11), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1990 to November 2013), EMBASE (OvidSP) (1990 to November 2013), CINAHL (BIREME host) (1990 to November 2013), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (1990 to November 2013), LILACS (1990 to November 2013), Current Controlled Trials and US National Institutes of Health Clinical Research Studies (1990 to November 2013), and reference lists of articles. We re-ran the search in October 2014. We will deal with any studies of interest when we update the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in adult ICUs comparing management with and without protocol-directed sedation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors screened the titles and abstracts and then the full-text reports identified from our electronic search. We assessed seven domains of potential risk of bias for the included studies. We examined the clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity and used the random-effects model for meta-analysis where we considered it appropriate. We calculated the mean difference (MD) for duration of mechanical ventilation and risk ratio (RR) for mortality across studies, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two eligible studies with 633 participants. Both included studies compared the use of protocol-directed sedation, specifically protocols delivered by nurses, with usual care. We rated the risk of selection bias due to random sequence generation low for one study and unclear for one study. The risk of selection bias related to allocation concealment was low for both studies. We also assessed detection and attrition bias as low for both studies while we considered performance bias high due to the inability to blind participants and clinicians in both studies. Risk due to other sources of bias, such as potential for contamination between groups and reporting bias, was considered unclear. There was no clear evidence of differences in duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -5.74 hours, 95% CI -62.01 to 50.53, low quality evidence), ICU length of stay (MD -0.62 days, 95% CI -2.97 to 1.73) and hospital length of stay (MD -3.78 days, 95% CI -8.54 to 0.97) between people being managed with protocol-directed sedation versus usual care. Similarly, there was no clear evidence of difference in hospital mortality between the two groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.31, low quality evidence). ICU mortality was only reported in one study preventing pooling of data. There was no clear evidence of difference in the incidence of tracheostomy (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.89). The studies reported few adverse event outcomes; one study reported self extubation while the other study reported re-intubation; given this difference in outcomes, pooling of data was not possible. There was significant heterogeneity between studies for duration of mechanical ventilation (I(2) = 86%, P value = 0.008), ICU length of stay (I(2) = 82%, P value = 0.02) and incidence of tracheostomy (I(2) = 76%, P value = 0.04), with one study finding a reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation and incidence of tracheostomy and the other study finding no difference.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is currently insufficient evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of protocol-directed sedation. Results from the two RCTs were conflicting, resulting in the quality of the body of evidence as a whole being assessed as low. Further studies, taking into account contextual and clinician characteristics in different ICU environments, are necessary to inform future practice. Methodological strategies to reduce the risk of bias need to be considered in future studies.

Current practices and barriers impairing physicians' and nurses' adherence to analgo-sedation recommendations in the intensive care unit--a national survey

Introduction

Appropriate management of analgo-sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU) is associated with improved patient outcomes. Our objectives were: a) to describe utilization of analgo-sedation regimens and strategies (assessment using scales, protocolized analgo-sedation and daily sedation interruption (DSI)) and b) to describe and compare perceptions challenging utilization of these strategies, amongst physicians and nurses.

Methods

In the 101 adult ICUs in Belgium, we surveyed all physicians and a sample of seven nurses per ICU. A multidisciplinary team designed a survey tool based on a previous qualitative study and a literature review. The latter was available in paper (for nurses essentially) and web based (for physicians). Topics addressed included: practices, perceptions regarding recommended strategies and demographics. Pre-testing involved respondents’ debriefings and test re-test reliability. Four reminders were sent.

Results

Response rate was 60% (898/1,491 participants) representing 94% (95/101) of all hospitals. Protocols were available to 31% of respondents. Validated scales to monitor pain in patients unable to self-report and to monitor sedation were available to 11% and 75% of respondents, respectively. Frequency of use of sedation scales varied (never to hourly). More physicians than nurses agreed with statements reporting benefits of sedation scales, including: increased autonomy for nurses (82% versus 68%, P <0.001), enhancement of their role (84% versus 66%, P <0.001), aid in monitoring administration of sedatives (83% versus 68%, P <0.001), and cost control (54% versus 29%, P <0.001). DSI was used in less than 25% of patients for 75% of respondents. More nurses than physicians indicated DSI is contra-indicated in hemodynamic instability (66% versus 53%, P <0.001) and complicated weaning from mechanical ventilation (47% versus 29%, P <0.001). Conversely, more physicians than nurses indicated contra-indications including: seizures (56% versus 40%, P <0.001) and refractory intracranial hypertension (90% versus 83%, P <0.001). More nurses than physicians agreed with statements reporting DSI impairs patient comfort (60% versus 37%, P <0.001) and increases complications such as self-extubation (82% versus 69%, P <0.001).

Conclusions

Current analgo-sedation practices leave room for improvement. Physicians and nurses meet different challenges in using appropriate analgo-sedation strategies. Implementational interventions must be tailored according to profession.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-014-0655-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

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.

Clinician perspectives on protocols designed to minimize sedation

PURPOSE

Within a multicenter randomized trial comparing protocolized sedation with protocolized sedation plus daily interruption (DI), we sought perspectives of intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians regarding each strategy.

METHODS

At 5 ICUs, we administered a questionnaire daily to nurses and physicians, asking whether they liked using the assigned strategy, reasons for their responses, and concerns regarding DI.

RESULTS

A total of 301 questionnaires were completed, for 31 patients (15 protocol only and 16 DI); 117 (59 physicians and 58 nurses) were the first questionnaire completed by that health care provider for that patient and were included in analyses. Most respondents liked using the assigned strategy (81% protocol only and 81% DI); more physicians than nurses liked DI (100% vs 61%; P < .001). Most common reasons for liking the assigned sedation strategy were better neurologic assessment (70% DI), ease of use (58% protocol only), and improved patient outcomes (51% protocol only and 44% DI). Only 19% of clinicians disliked the assigned sedation strategy (equal numbers for protocol only and DI). Respondents' concerns during DI were respiratory compromise (61%), pain (48%), agitation (45%), and device removal (26%). More questionnaires from nurses than physicians expressed concerns about DI.

CONCLUSIONS

Most respondents liked both sedation strategies. Nurses and physicians had different preferences and rationales for liking or disliking each strategy.

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.

Daily sedation interruption versus no daily sedation interruption for critically ill adult patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation

BACKGROUND

Daily sedation interruption (DSI) is thought to limit drug bioaccumulation, promote a more awake state, and thereby reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation. Available evidence has shown DSI to either reduce, not alter, or prolong the duration of mechanical ventilation.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to compare the total duration of invasive mechanical ventilation for critically ill adult patients requiring intravenous sedation who were managed with DSI versus those with no DSI. Our other objectives were to determine whether DSI influenced mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital lengths of stay, adverse events, the total doses of sedative drug administered, and quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched, from database inception to February 2014, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 1); MEDLINE (OvidSP); EMBASE (OvidSP); CINAHL (EBSCOhost); Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS); Web of Science Science Citation Index; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE); the Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA Database); trial registration websites, and reference lists of relevant articles. We did not apply language restrictions. The reference lists of all retrieved articles were reviewed for additional, potentially relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that compared DSI with sedation strategies that did not include DSI in mechanically ventilated, critically ill adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and three authors assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors for additional information as required. We combined data in forest plots using random-effects modelling. A priori subgroups and sensitivity analyses were performed.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials were used in the analysis (n = 1282 patients). These trials were found to be predominantly at low risk of bias. We did not find strong evidence of an effect of DSI on the total duration of ventilation. Pooled data from nine trials demonstrated a 13% reduction in the geometric mean, with relatively wide confidence intervals (CI) indicating imprecision (95% CI 26% reduction to 2% increase, moderate quality evidence). Similarly, we did not find strong evidence of an effect on ICU length of stay (-10%, 95% CI -20% to 3%, n = 9 trials, moderate quality evidence) or hospital length of stay (-6%, 95% CI -18% to 8%, n = 8 trials, moderate quality evidence). Heterogeneity for these three outcomes was moderate and statistically significant. The risk ratio for ICU mortality was 0.96 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.21, n = 7 trials, moderate quality evidence), for rate of accidental endotracheal tube removal 1.07 (95% CI 0.55 to 2.12, n = 6 trials, moderate quality evidence), for catheter removal 1.48 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.90, n = 4 trials), and for incidence of new onset delirium 1.02 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.13, n = 3 trials, moderate quality evidence). Differences in the doses of any drug used or quality of life score (Short Form (SF)-36) did not reach statistical significance. Tracheostomy was performed less frequently in the DSI group (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.92, n = 6 trials, moderate quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis of unlogged data resulted in similar findings. Post hoc analysis to further explain heterogeneity, based on study country of origin, showed that studies conducted in North America resulted in a reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation (-21%, 95% CI -33% to -5%, n = 5 trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have not found strong evidence that DSI alters the duration of mechanical ventilation, mortality, length of ICU or hospital stay, adverse event rates, drug consumption, or quality of life for critically ill adults receiving mechanical ventilation compared to sedation strategies that do not include DSI. We advise that caution should be applied when interpreting and applying the findings as the overall effect of treatment is always < 1 and the upper limit of the CI is only marginally higher than the no-effect line. These results should be considered unstable rather than negative for DSI given the statistical and clinical heterogeneity identified in the included trials.

Analgesic, sedative, antipsychotic, and neuromuscular blocker use in Canadian intensive care units: a prospective, multicentre, observational study

PURPOSE

Our aim was to describe analgo-sedation and antipsychotic and neuromuscular blocking drug (NMBD) use in critically ill patients, management strategies, and variables associated with these practice patterns.

METHODS

This prospective observational study in 51 intensive care units (ICUs) included all patients who underwent invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) over a two-week period during 2008-2009.

RESULTS

We included 712 patients representing 3,620 patient-days. Median MV duration was 3.0 days (interquartile range 2-6). During MV, 92% of patients received analgo-sedation, 32% an adjunct agent (e.g., acetaminophen), 18% NMBDs, and 10% antipsychotics. Opioids were used more frequently than benzodiazepines or propofol (84.8% vs 62.2% vs 10.1% patients, respectively, P < 0.0001). Independent predictors of opioid and benzodiazepine use were a longer MV duration, assessment scales, physical restraints, and university-affiliated hospital. Although more than 50% of ICUs reported that assessment tools, protocols, and daily sedation interruption (DSI) were available for use, application was modest: sedation scale 53.0%, pain scale 19.1%, delirium scale 5.2%, protocol 25.0%, DSI 42.1%. Accidental device removal occurred in 4.6% of patients, with 75.8% of events during DSI. Daily sedation interruption was associated with protocol use, physical restraints, university-affiliated hospital, and short-duration MV. Variables associated with protocol use included assessment scales, longer MV duration, lack of physical restraints, and admission to a community hospital.

CONCLUSION

Nearly all MV patients received analgo-sedation. Opioids were used more often than sedatives despite infrequent use of pain scales. Few patients received antipsychotic therapy, but physical restraint was common. Protocol use was poor compared to DSI. Duration of MV predicted the use of either.

Daily Interruption of Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Adults without Tracheostomy

The use of sedative and analgesic dugs is essential in intensive care. The lowest effective doses should be used for the shortest period of time in order to limit the risk of serious complications. Daily interruption of sedation (DIS) is one strategy that has been shown to reduce overall sedative drug use and to promote earlier liberation from mechanical ventilation. However, uptake has been limited because of concerns over accidental removal of devices, the additional human resources required to accomplish the sedation break and the large numbers of patients who may be ineligible for the intervention. Some recent studies have challenged the usefulness of DIS and have promoted instead, nurse-controlled protocols and the use of sedation scoring tools. This review examines the evidence for and against DIS in the adult ICU setting.

Achieving Quality Health Outcomes Through the Implementation of a Spontaneous Awakening and Spontaneous Breathing Trial Protocol

Background:

Continuous sedation infusions can lead to prolonged treatment with mechanical ventilation (MV), resulting in serious complications. Spontaneous awakening trials (SATs) and spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) are strategies that limit the amount of sedative agents a patient receives and promote extubation.

Objective:

The objective of this performance improvement project was to evaluate the outcomes of an evidence-based practice protocol that included SATs and SBTs on the duration of treatment with MV, ventilator utilization ratio (VUR), intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), and incidence of self-extubations and reintubations.

Methods:

A convenience sample of 112 discharged patients’ medical records was used for this descriptive, comparative secondary data analysis. An evidence-based SAT/SBT practice protocol was designed by a multidisciplinary team and implemented. Three months after the implementation, a retrospective medical record review was conducted to evaluate patient outcomes.

Results:

The median duration of treatment with MV was significantly lower in the postprotocol group (3.8 days vs 2.7 days, U = 1222, Z = −2.013, P = .04, r = 0.19). A significant decrease was found in the VUR (0.68 vs 0.52, U = 2.5, Z = −2.293, P = .02, r = 0.69). No difference was found in the ICU LOS and frequency of self-extubation or reintubation after a self-extubation between the preprotocol and postprotocol groups. Ten of 45 SAT opportunities (22%) and 67 of 130 SBT opportunities (52%) were missed by the nurse or the respiratory therapist.

Conclusion:

The duration of treatment with MV and the VUR were reduced in patients who received the SAT/SBT protocol. The incidence of self-extubation was not different when an SAT was implemented. The ICU LOS was not reduced in patients who received SATs and SBTs.

What stops us from following sedation recommendations in intensive care units? A multicentric qualitative study

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study is to explore health care professionals' (HCPs) perceptions regarding sedation recommendations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a qualitative study, using face-to-face semistructured interviews. Health care professionals from 4 Belgian hospitals were purposively sampled. We focused on recommendations involving strategies such as protocolized sedation, sedation scales, daily sedation interruption (DSI), and providing analgesia before sedation. Knowledge, perceived barriers, expected outcomes, and responsibilities were discussed for each recommendation. Two researchers independently performed content analysis, classifying quotes according to an interdisciplinary framework and creating new categories for emerging themes.

RESULTS

Data saturation was reached after 21 HCPs (physicians, nurses, and physiotherapists) were interviewed. Quotes were related to HCPs, guidelines or the system. Barriers were diverse according to the type of HCP or level of experience. Task characteristics impairing implementation of protocolized sedation included lack of means communicating goals or tasks to all HCPs providing care, ambiguous responsibilities, and unclear methodology on how to execute the recommendation. Fear of adverse events and lack of clarity regarding contraindications impair implementation of DSI.

CONCLUSION

Barriers impairing implementation of sedation recommendations vary according to the type of HCP and the choice of strategy targeting light sedation (protocolized sedation vs DSI). Improvement strategies must target HCPs separately and tailored to specific recommendation choices.

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.

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.

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.

Efficacy of dexmedetomidine compared with midazolam for sedation in adult intensive care patients: a systematic review

Patients in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) often require sedatives which commonly include midazolam and the more recently developed α2-receptor agonist, dexmedetomidine. It was our aim to compare the sedative and clinical effectiveness of dexmedetomidine vs midazolam in adults admitted to ICU, using an objective appraisal of randomized control trials. Medline, Embase, SCOPUS, Web of Knowledge, Cinhal, the United States National Library of Medicine, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched using keywords: 'dexmedetomidine', 'midazolam', and 'intensive care'. These were limited to human studies and adults (>18 yr old). Six randomized controlled trials were found and were critically appraised using a standardized appraisal method. Two papers described the time spent by each intervention group within a specified target sedation range and both found no statistically significant difference between midazolam and dexmedetomidine (P=0.18 and P=0.15). A third paper found no statistically significant difference in the length of time that patients were sedated within a target zone (P=0.445). Two additional pilot studies did not report P values as they were insufficiently statistically powered. A final paper found that, of the eight occasions measured, patients on dexmedetomidine were more often within the target sedation range than patients on midazolam. The sedative benefits of dexmedetomidine vs midazolam remain inconclusive. While some secondary outcomes showed clinical effectiveness of dexmedetomidine, more research is needed to validate the findings of these studies.

A phenomenological study of experiences of being cared for in a critical care setting: the meanings of the patient room as a place of care

Previous research highlights the impact of care and treatment in ICUs on the patient recovery process and wellbeing. However, little is known about how the interior design in the ICU settings may affect patients' wellbeing.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is, by using a lifeworld perspective, to reveal the meanings of the ICU settings as a place of care.

DESIGN

Nine patients from three ICUs in Sweden participated. Data were collected using photo-voice methodology and were analysed using a reflective lifeworld phenomenological approach.

RESULTS

The ICU setting as a place of care for critically ill patients is a complex and multidimensional phenomenon. The place is constituted of patients, staff and technical equipment. The struggle for life and occurrences taking place there determine how the room is perceived. The tone and touch of caring together with interior design are fundamental for the room as lived. The room is experienced in various moods; a place of vulnerability, a place inbetween, a place of trust and security, a life-affirming place, a place of tenderness and care and an embodied place.

CONCLUSION

Promoting patients' well-being and satisfaction of care involves integrating a good design and a caring attitude and paying attention to patients' needs.

Sedation depth and long-term mortality in mechanically ventilated critically ill adults: a prospective longitudinal multicentre cohort study

Purpose

To ascertain the relationship among early (first 48 h) deep sedation, time to extubation, delirium and long-term mortality.

Methods

We conducted a multicentre prospective longitudinal cohort study in 11 Malaysian hospitals including medical/surgical patients (n = 259) who were sedated and ventilated ≥24 h. Patients were followed from ICU admission up to 28 days in ICU with 4-hourly sedation and daily delirium assessments and 180-day mortality. Deep sedation was defined as Richmond Agitation Sedation Score (RASS) ≤−3.

Results

The cohort had a mean (SD) age of 53.1 (15.9) years and APACHE II score of 21.3 (8.2) with hospital and 180-day mortality of 82 (31.7 %) and 110/237 (46.4 %). Patients were followed for 2,657 ICU days and underwent 13,836 RASS assessments. Midazolam prescription was predominant compared to propofol, given to 241 (93 %) versus 72 (28 %) patients (P < 0.0001) for 966 (39.6 %) versus 183 (7.5 %) study days respectively. Deep sedation occurred in (182/257) 71 % patients at first assessment and in 159 (61 %) patients and 1,658 (59 %) of all RASS assessments at 48 h. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis adjusting for a priori assigned covariates including sedative agents, diagnosis, age, APACHE II score, operative, elective, vasopressors and dialysis showed that early deep sedation was independently associated with longer time to extubation [hazard ratio (HR) 0.93, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.89–0.97, P = 0.003], hospital death (HR 1.11, 95 % CI 1.05–1.18, P < 0.001) and 180-day mortality (HR 1.09, 95 % CI 1.04–1.15, P = 0.002), but not time to delirium (HR 0.98, P = 0.23). Delirium occurred in 114 (44 %) of patients.

Conclusion

Irrespective of sedative choice, early deep sedation was independently associated with delayed extubation and higher mortality, and thus was a potentially modifiable risk in interventional trials.

Does music influence stress in mechanically ventilated patients?

OBJECTIVES

Mechanically ventilated patients experience profound stress. Interventions are needed to ameliorate stress that does not cause adverse effects. The purpose of this study was to explore the influence of music on stress in a sample of patients over the duration of ventilatory support.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY/DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial; randomised patients (56.8+16.9 years, 61% male, APACHE III 57.2+18.3) receiving ventilatory support to: (1) patient-directed music (PDM) where patients self-initiated music listening whenever desired from a preferred collection, (2) headphones only to block ICU noise, or (3) usual ICU care. Twenty-four hour urinary cortisol samples were collected from a sub-set of subjects with intact renal function and not receiving medications known to influence cortisol levels (n=65).

SETTING

12 ICUs in the Midwestern United States.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Urinary free cortisol (UFC), an integrative biomarker of stress.

RESULTS

Controlling for illness severity, gender, and baseline UFC (29-45 mg/day), mixed models analysis revealed no significant differences among groups in UFC over the course of ventilatory support.

CONCLUSION

While music did not significantly reduce cortisol, less profound spikes in UFC levels were observed but that, given the limitations of the research, this observation could have occurred merely by chance.