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

Optimizing patient outcomes: a comprehensive evaluation of protocolized sedation in intensive care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Amidst the routine utilization of protocolized sedation in ventilated ICU patients, existing management guidelines exhibit a lack of unanimous recommendations for its widespread adoption. This study endeavors to comprehensively assess the effectiveness and safety of protocolized sedation in critically ill ventilated patients.

OBJECTIVE

The primary objective of this study was to systematically review and conduct a meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing protocolized sedation with standard management in critically ill ventilated patients. Key outcomes under scrutiny include ICU and hospital mortality, ventilation days, duration of ICU stay, and incidents of self-extubation. The evaluation incorporates the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool to assess the quality of included studies. Data analysis utilizes a random-effects model for relative risk (RR) and mean differences. Subgroup analysis categorizes sedation protocols into algorithmic or daily interruption, addressing potential heterogeneity. Additionally, a GRADE evaluation is performed to ascertain the overall certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

From an initial pool of 1504 records, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. Protocolized sedation demonstrated a reduced RR for mortality (RR: 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.93, p < 0.01, I2 = 0%) and a decrease in ventilation days (mean difference: - 1.12, 95% CI - 2.11 to - 0.14, p = 0.03, I2 = 84%). Furthermore, there was a notable reduction in ICU stay (mean difference: - 2.24, 95% CI - 3.59 to - 0.89, p < 0.01, I2 = 81%). However, incidents of self-extubation did not exhibit a significant difference (RR: 1.20, 95% CI 0.49-2.94, p = 0.69, I2 = 35%). Subgroup analyses effectively eliminated heterogeneity (I2 = 0%), and the GRADE evaluation yielded moderate results for mortality, ventilation days, and ICU duration.

CONCLUSION

Protocolized sedation, whether implemented algorithmically or through daily interruption, emerges as a safe and effective approach when compared to standard management in ventilated ICU patients. The findings from this study contribute valuable insights to inform evidence-based practices in sedation management for this critical patient population.

Naloxegol to Prevent Constipation in ICU Adults Receiving Opioids: A Randomized Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled Pilot Trial

Background

Constipation is frequent in critically ill adults receiving opioids. Naloxegol (N), a peripherally acting mu-receptor antagonist (PAMORA), may reduce constipation. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of N to prevent constipation in ICU adults receiving opioids. Methods and Patients. In this single-center, double-blind, randomized trial, adults admitted to a medical ICU receiving IV opioids (≥100 mcg fentanyl/day), and not having any of 17 exclusion criteria, were randomized to N (25 mg) or placebo (P) daily randomized to receive N (25mg) or placebo (P) and docusate 100 mg twice daily until ICU discharge, 10 days, or diarrhea (≥3 spontaneous bowel movement (SBM)/24 hours) or a serious adverse event related to study medication. A 4-step laxative protocol was initiated when there was no SBM ≥3 days.

Results

Only 318 (20.6%) of the 1542 screened adults during the 1/17–10/19 enrolment period met all inclusion criteria. Of these, only 19/381 (4.9%) met all eligibility criteria. After 7 consent refusals, 12 patients were randomized. The study was stopped early due to enrolment futility. The N (n = 6) and P (n = 6) groups were similar. The time to first SBM (N 41.4 ± 31.7 vs. P 32.5 ± 25.4 hours, P = 0.56) was similar. The maximal daily abdominal pressure was significantly lower in the N group (N 10 ± 4 vs. P 13 ± 5, P = 0.002). The median (IQR) daily SOFA scores were higher in N (N 7 (4, 8) vs. P 4 (3, 5), P < 0.001). Laxative protocol use was similar (N 83.3% vs. P 66.6%; P = 0.51). Diarrhea prevalence was high but similar (N 66.6% vs. P 66.6%; P = 1.0). No patient experienced opioid withdrawal.

Conclusions

Important recruitment challenges exist for ICU trials evaluating the use of PAMORAs for constipation prevention. Despite being underpowered, our results suggest time to first SBM with naloxegol, if different than P, may be small. The effect of naloxegol on abdominal pressure, SOFA, and the interaction between the two requires further research.

Effects of daily sedation interruption in intensive care unit patients undergoing mechanical ventilation: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

AIM

This study aimed to assess the effects of daily sedation interruption on the mechanical ventilation duration and relevant outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).

BACKGROUND

Previously, three meta-analyses on the association of daily sedation interruption with the mechanical ventilation duration have reported conflicting findings, and these did not support current guideline recommendations that daily sedation interruption can be routinely used in mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients.

DESIGN

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies.

DATA SOURCES

Data were from PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, ProQuest dissertation and theses, Airiti Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data Chinese, Science Direct and PsycINFO databases.

REVIEW METHODS

Two reviewers independently assessed, extracted and appraised the included studies. Then, pooled estimates were calculated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

In total, 45 studies involving 5493 participants were included. Compared with controls, daily sedation interruption significantly reduced the mechanical ventilation duration, ICU stay length, sedation duration, and tracheostomy and ventilator-associated pneumonia risks (all p ≤ 0.001). Moreover, the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score and study quality were significant moderators.

CONCLUSION

Daily sedation interruption could substantially reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation, particularly when it was applied to patients with high disease severity.

SUMMARY STATEMENT

What is already known about this topic? Daily sedation interruption has been associated with reductions in excessive sedation and excessive use of sedative agents. The findings on the effects of daily sedation interruption on the mechanical ventilation duration have been inconsistent. What this paper adds? Daily sedation interruption could effectively reduce the mechanical ventilation duration, intensive care unit stay length, sedation duration, and tracheostomy and ventilator-associated pneumonia risks in intensive care unit patients. Applying daily sedation interruption to patients with high disease severity yielded a larger reduction in the mechanical ventilation duration. The implications of this paper: There is a need to adopt daily sedation interruption as routine care to reduce the mechanical ventilation duration, especially in higher disease severity population.

Remifentanil provides an increased proportion of time under light sedation than fentanyl when combined with dexmedetomidine for mechanical ventilation

Objective

To compare the effects of remifentanil versus fentanyl during light sedation with dexmedetomidine in adults receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) in the intensive care unit.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, we compared the use of remifentanil versus fentanyl in adults receiving MV with dexmedetomidine sedation. The primary outcome was the proportion of time under light sedation (Richmond Agitation–Sedation Scale score between −1 and 0) during MV.

Results

We included 94 patients and classified 58 into the remifentanil group and 36 into the fentanyl group. The mean proportion of time under light sedation during MV was 66.6% ± 18.5% in the remifentanil group and 39.9% ± 27.3% in the fentanyl group. In the multivariate analysis with control for confounding factors, patients in the remifentanil group showed a significantly higher proportion of time under light sedation than patients in the fentanyl group (mean difference: 24.3 percentage points; 95% confidence interval: 12.9–35.8).

Conclusions

Remifentanil use might increase the proportion of time under light sedation in patients receiving MV compared with fentanyl administration.

Effect of remifentanil-based fast-track anesthesia on postoperative analgesia and sedation in adult patients undergoing transthoracic device closure of ventricular septal defect

Objective

To investigate the effect of remifentanil-based fast-track anesthesia on analgesia and sedation after transthoracic device closure of ventricular septal defects (VSDs) in adult patients.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on 59 patients aged 21–53 years who underwent transthoracic device closure of VSDs from January 2019 to September 2019. According to the different anesthesia strategies, the patients were divided into the R group (using remifentanil-based anesthesia, n = 33) and the S group (using sufentanil-based anesthesia, n = 26). Patient-related clinical data, postoperative analgesia, and sedation scores were collected and analyzed.

Results

There was no significant difference in age, gender, body weight, and operation time between the group R and the group S (P > 0.05). There was also no significant difference in intraoperative hemodynamic changes, BIS scores, postoperative analgesia, and sedation scores between the two groups (P > 0.05). The duration of mechanical ventilation, the length of ICU stay, and hospital stay in the group R were significantly lower than those in the group S (P < 0.05).

Conclusion

Remifentanil-based fast-track anesthesia is effective for adult patients undergoing transthoracic device closure of VSDs, which may shorten the mechanical ventilation duration, the ICU and hospital stay of patients.