Critical care sedation for neuroscience patients

Palliative sedation in paediatric solid tumour patients: choosing the best drugs

OBJECTIVES

Cancer remains the leading cause of mortality by disease in childhood in high-income countries. For terminally ill children, care focuses on quality of life, and patient management fundamentally affects grieving families. This paper describes our experience of palliative sedation (PS) for children with refractory symptoms caused by solid tumours, focusing on the drugs involved.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected data on all children treated for cancer who died at the pediatric oncology unit of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori between January 2016 and December 2020.

RESULTS

Of the 29 patients eligible for the study, all but 4 received PS. Midazolam was always used, combined in 16 cases with other drugs (mainly classic neuroleptics, alpha-2 agonists and antihistamines). Throughout the period of PS and on the day of death, patients with sarcoma were given higher doses of midazolam and morphine, and more often received combinations of drugs than patients with brain tumours. Sarcoma causes significant symptoms, while brain tumours require less intensive analgesic-sedative therapies because they already impair a patient's state of consciousness.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimising pharmacological treatments demands a medical team that knows how drugs (often developed for other indications) work. Emotional and relational aspects are important too, and any action to lower a patient's consciousness should be explained to the family and justified. Parents should not feel like helpless witnesses. Guidelines on PS in paediatrics could help, providing they acknowledge that a child's death is always a unique case.

Electroencephalography characteristics of patients with supratentorial glioma in different consciousness states induced by propofol

Gliomas are the most common primary intracranial malignant tumors. Some of these patients exhibit previously clinically undetected neurological deficits after sedation. The absence of neurophysiological evidence for this phenomenon limits the use of time-sensitive monitoring methods. The study aims to compare differences between glioma patients under sedation and those without intracranial lesions by comparing their EEG features. Twenty-one patients without intracranial tumors and 21 with frontal lobe supratentorial gliomas were enrolled. The EEG power spectrum of the glioma group was comparable to that of the control group for both sides of the brain (P>0.05 for all frequencies). Compared with those without intracranial lesions, the weighted phase lag index (wPLI) in the alpha and beta bands on the non-occupied side decreased. Glioma patients had weaker functional connectivity during sedation than patients without intracranial lesions, manifesting as reduced functional connectivity on the non-occupied side.

What's new on EEG monitoring in the ICU

Continuous video-EEG (cEEG, lasting hours to several days) is increasingly used in ICU patients, as it is more sensitive than routine video-EEG (rEEG, lasting 20-30 min) to detect seizures or status epilepticus, and allows more frequent changes in therapeutic regimens. However, cEEG is more resource-consuming, and its relationship to outcome compared to repeated rEEG has only been formally assessed very recently in a randomized controlled trial, which did not show any significant difference in terms of long-term mortality or functional outcome. Awaiting more refined trials, it seems therefore that using repeated rEEG in ICU patients may represent a reasonable alternative in resource-limited settings. Prolonged EEG has been used recently in patients with severe COVID-19 infection, the proportion of seizures seems albeit relatively low, and similar to ICU patients with medical conditions. As in any case a timely EEG recording is recommended in the ICU, r ecent technical developments may ease its use in clinical practice.

Potential EEG biomarkers of sedation doses in intensive care patients unveiled by using a machine learning approach

OBJECTIVE

Sedation of neurocritically ill patients is one of the most challenging situation in ICUs. Quantitative knowledge on the sedation effect on brain activity in that complex scenario could help to uncover new markers for sedation assessment. Hence, we aim to evaluate the existence of changes of diverse EEG-derived measures in deeply-sedated (RASS-Richmond agitation-sedation scale  -4 and  -5) neurocritically ill patients, and also whether sedation doses are related with those eventual changes.

APPROACH

We performed an observational prospective cohort study in the intensive care unit of the Hospital de la Princesa. Twenty-six adult patients suffered from traumatic brain injury and subarachnoid hemorrhage were included in the present study. Long-term continuous electroencephalographic (EEG) recordings (2141 h) and hourly annotated information were used to determine the relationship between intravenous sedation infusion doses and network and spectral EEG measures. To do that, two different strategies were followed: assessment of the statistical dependence between both variables using the Spearman correlation rank and by performing an automatic classification method based on a machine learning algorithm.

MAIN RESULTS

More than 60% of patients presented a correlation greater than 0.5 in at least one of the calculated EEG measures with the sedation dose. The automatic classification method presented an accuracy of 84.3% in discriminating between different sedation doses. In both cases the nodes' degree was the most relevant measurement.

SIGNIFICANCE

The results presented here provide evidences of brain activity changes during deep sedation linked to sedation doses. Particularly, the capability of network EEG-derived measures in discriminating between different sedation doses could be the framework for the development of accurate methods for sedation levels assessment.

Outcomes of protocolised analgesia and sedation in a neurocritical care unit

OBJECTIVES

Providing analgesia and sedation while allowing for neurological assessment is important in the neurocritical care unit (NCCU), yet data are limited about the effects of protocolised analgesia and sedation. We developed an analgesia-based sedation protocol and evaluated its effect on medication utilisation and costs in the NCCU.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who are mechanically ventilated and admitted to a 12-bed NCCU over four years. To compare outcomes, we used gamma and negative binomial regression models, and interrupted time-series sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

The study cohort consisted of 1197 patients: 576 pre-protocol and 621 post-protocol. The protocol resulted in an increase in fentanyl use [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 2.8, (95% confidence limits (CLs) 1.9, 4.2)] and a decrease in propofol use (IRR = 0.8, CLs 0.6, 1.0). There was a decrease in fentanyl (cost ratio = 0.8, CLs 0.5, 1.1) and propofol costs (cost ratio = 0.6, CLs 0.5, 0.8). The sensitivity analyses results were similar. There was no effect on healthcare utilisation, healthcare costs, and in-hospital mortality.

CONCLUSION

Protocolised analgesia and sedation increased analgesia use, decreased sedative use, and reduced medication-associated costs in the NCCU. Our results suggest that similar NCCUs should consider use of population-specific protocols to manage analgesia and sedation.

A Review of Agents for Palliative Sedation/Continuous Deep Sedation: Pharmacology and Practical Applications

Continuous deep sedation at the end of life is a specific form of palliative sedation requiring a care plan that essentially places and maintains the patient in an unresponsive state because their symptoms are refractory to any other interventions. Because this application is uncommon, many providers may lack practical experience in this specialized area and resources they can access are outdated, nonspecific, and/or not comprehensive. The purpose of this review is to provide an evidence- and experience-based reference that specifically addresses those medications and regimens and their practical applications for this very narrow, but vital, aspect of hospice care. Patient goals in a hospital and hospice environments are different, so the manner in which widely used sedatives are dosed and applied can differ greatly as well. Parameters applied in end-of-life care that are based on experience and a thorough understanding of the pharmacology of those medications will differ from those applied in an intensive care unit or other medical environments. By recognizing these different goals and applying well-founded regimens geared specifically for end-of-life sedation, we can address our patients' symptoms in a more timely and efficacious manner.

Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of Short-Course Deep Sedation Therapy for the Treatment of Intracerebral Hemorrhage After Surgery: A Non-Randomized Control Study

Background

While mild and moderate sedation have been widely used to reduce sudden agitation in intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) patients after surgery, agitation is still a frequent problem, which may cause postoperative blood pressure fluctuation. The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of short-course deep sedation for the treatment of ICH after surgery.

Material/Methods

A total of 41 ICH patients who received surgery, including traditional craniotomy hematoma removal and decompressive craniectomy, were including in this non-randomized control study. Patients in the deep sedation group received continuous postoperative sedation with a target course for ≤12 hours and reached SAS scores of 1~2. Patients in the traditional sedition group received continuous light sedation and reached SAS scores of 3~4. Additional therapeutic interventions included antihypertensive treatment, mechanical ventilation, tracheotomy, and re-operation.

Results

Patients in the deep sedation group had deeper sedation degree, and lower systolic blood pressure (SBP) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP). Residual hematoma after surgery in patients in the deep sedation group were smaller on the second, seventh, and fourteenth day after surgery (p=0.023, 0.003, 0.004, respectively). The 3-month mortality and quality of life of patients in the deep sedation group were lower and better than that of patients in the traditional sedation group, respectively (p=0.044, p<0.01). No significant difference in the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) and ICU days were observed between the two groups.

Conclusions

Short-course deep sedation therapy in ICH patients after surgery is efficient in controlling postoperative blood pressure, reducing re-bleeding, and improving clinical prognosis.

Mild Sedation Exacerbates or Unmasks Focal Neurologic Dysfunction in Neurosurgical Patients with Supratentorial Brain Mass Lesions in a Drug-specific Manner

BACKGROUND

Sedation is commonly used in neurosurgical patients but has been reported to produce transient focal neurologic dysfunction. The authors hypothesized that in patients with frontal-parietal-temporal brain tumors, focal neurologic deficits are unmasked or exacerbated by nonspecific sedation independent of the drug used.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, single-blind, self-controlled design with parallel arms. With institutional approval, patients were randomly assigned to one of the four groups: "propofol," "midazolam," "fentanyl," and "dexmedetomidine." The sedatives were titrated by ladder administration to mild sedation but fully cooperative, equivalent to Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation score = 4. National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) was used to evaluate the neurologic function before and after sedation. The study's primary outcome was the proportion of NIHSS-positive change in patients after sedation to Observer's Assessment of Alertness and Sedation = 4.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-four patients were included. Ninety had no neurologic deficits at baseline. The proportion of NIHSS-positive change was midazolam 72%, propofol 52%, fentanyl 27%, and dexmedetomidine 23% (P less than 0.001 among groups). No statistical difference existed between propofol and midazolam groups (P = 0.108) or between fentanyl and dexmedetomidine groups (P = 0.542). Midazolam and propofol produced more sedative-induced focal neurologic deficits compared with fentanyl and dexmedetomidine. The neurologic function deficits were mainly limb motor weakness and ataxia. Patients with high-grade gliomas were more susceptible to the induced neurologic dysfunction regardless of the sedative.

CONCLUSIONS

Midazolam and propofol augmented or revealed neurologic dysfunction more frequently than fentanyl and dexmedetomidine at equivalent sedation levels. Patients with high-grade gliomas were more susceptible than those with low-grade gliomas.

Consensus statement on continuous EEG in critically ill adults and children, part I: indications

INTRODUCTION

Critical Care Continuous EEG (CCEEG) is a common procedure to monitor brain function in patients with altered mental status in intensive care units. There is significant variability in patient populations undergoing CCEEG and in technical specifications for CCEEG performance.

METHODS

The Critical Care Continuous EEG Task Force of the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society developed expert consensus recommendations on the use of CCEEG in critically ill adults and children.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The consensus panel recommends CCEEG for diagnosis of nonconvulsive seizures, nonconvulsive status epilepticus, and other paroxysmal events, and for assessment of the efficacy of therapy for seizures and status epilepticus. The consensus panel suggests CCEEG for identification of ischemia in patients at high risk for cerebral ischemia; for assessment of level of consciousness in patients receiving intravenous sedation or pharmacologically induced coma; and for prognostication in patients after cardiac arrest. For each indication, the consensus panel describes the patient populations for which CCEEG is indicated, evidence supporting use of CCEEG, utility of video and quantitative EEG trends, suggested timing and duration of CCEEG, and suggested frequency of review and interpretation.

CONCLUSION

CCEEG has an important role in detection of secondary injuries such as seizures and ischemia in critically ill adults and children with altered mental status.

Evidence and consensus based guideline for the management of delirium, analgesia, and sedation in intensive care medicine. Revision 2015 (DAS-Guideline 2015) - short version

In 2010, under the guidance of the DGAI (German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine) and DIVI (German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine), twelve German medical societies published the “Evidence- and Consensus-based Guidelines on the Management of Analgesia, Sedation and Delirium in Intensive Care”. Since then, several new studies and publications have considerably increased the body of evidence, including the new recommendations from the American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) in conjunction with Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) from 2013. For this update, a major restructuring and extension of the guidelines were needed in order to cover new aspects of treatment, such as sleep and anxiety management. The literature was systematically searched and evaluated using the criteria of the Oxford Center of Evidence Based Medicine. The body of evidence used to formulate these recommendations was reviewed and approved by representatives of 17 national societies. Three grades of recommendation were used as follows: Grade “A” (strong recommendation), Grade “B” (recommendation) and Grade “0” (open recommendation). The result is a comprehensive, interdisciplinary, evidence and consensus-based set of level 3 guidelines. This publication was designed for all ICU professionals, and takes into account all critically ill patient populations. It represents a guide to symptom-oriented prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of delirium, anxiety, stress, and protocol-based analgesia, sedation, and sleep-management in intensive care medicine.

Sedation in neurological intensive care unit

Analgesia and sedation has been widely used in intensive care units where iatrogenic discomfort often complicates patient management. In neurological patients maximal comfort without diminishing patient responsiveness is desirable. In these patients successful management of sedation and analgesia incorporates a patient based approach that includes detection and management of predisposing and causative factors, including delirium, monitoring using sedation scales, proper medication selection, emphasis on analgesia based drugs and incorporation of protocols or algorithms. So, to optimize care clinician should be familiar with the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variables that can affect the safety and efficacy of analgesics and sedatives.

Pharmacology of commonly used analgesics and sedatives in the ICU: benzodiazepines, propofol, and opioids

The ideal sedative or analgesic agent should have a rapid onset of activity, a rapid recovery after drug discontinuation, a predictable dose response, a lack of drug accumulation,and no toxicity. Unfortunately, none of the earlier analgesics, the benzodiazepines,or propofol share all of these characteristics. Patients who are critically ill experience numerous physiologic derangements and commonly require high doses and long durations of analgesic and sedative therapy. There is a paucity of well designed clinical trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of earlier sedative and analgesic agents in the ICU. In addition, the ever-changing dynamics of patients who are critically ill makes the use of sedation a continual challenge during the course of each patient’s admission. To optimize care, clinicians should be familiar with the many pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and pharmacogenetic variables that can affect the safety and efficacy of sedatives and analgesics.

Evidence and consensus-based German guidelines for the management of analgesia, sedation and delirium in intensive care--short version

Targeted monitoring of analgesia, sedation and delirium, as well as their appropriate management in critically ill patients is a standard of care in intensive care medicine. With the undisputed advantages of goal-oriented therapy established, there was a need to develop our own guidelines on analgesia and sedation in intensive care in Germany and these were published as 2(nd) Generation Guidelines in 2005. Through the dissemination of these guidelines in 2006, use of monitoring was shown to have improved from 8 to 51% and the use of protocol-based approaches increased to 46% (from 21%). Between 2006-2009, the existing guidelines from the DGAI (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin) and DIVI (Deutsche Interdisziplinäre Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin) were developed into 3(rd) Generation Guidelines for the securing and optimization of quality of analgesia, sedation and delirium management in the intensive care unit (ICU). In collaboration with another 10 professional societies, the literature has been reviewed using the criteria of the Oxford Center of Evidence Based Medicine. Using data from 671 reference works, text, diagrams and recommendations were drawn up. In the recommendations, Grade "A" (very strong recommendation), Grade "B" (strong recommendation) and Grade "0" (open recommendation) were agreed. As a result of this process we now have an interdisciplinary and consensus-based set of 3(rd) Generation Guidelines that take into account all critically illness patient populations. The use of protocols for analgesia, sedation and treatment of delirium are repeatedly demonstrated. These guidelines offer treatment recommendations for the ICU team. The implementation of scores and protocols into routine ICU practice is necessary for their success.