Characterization of Nocturnal Neuroactive Medication Use and Related Sleep Documentation in Critically Ill Adults

Chrononutrition in Critical Illness

Circadian rhythms in humans are biological rhythms that regulate various physiological processes within a 24-hour time frame. Critical illness can disrupt the circadian rhythm, as can environmental and clinical factors, including altered light exposure, organ replacement therapies, disrupted sleep-wake cycles, noise, continuous enteral feeding, immobility, and therapeutic interventions. Nonpharmacological interventions, controlling the ICU environment, and pharmacological treatments are among the treatment strategies for circadian disruption. Nutrition establishes biological rhythms in metabolically active peripheral tissues and organs through appropriate synchronization with endocrine signals. Therefore, adhering to a feeding schedule based on the biological clock, a concept known as "chrononutrition," appears to be vitally important for regulating peripheral clocks. Chrononutritional approaches, such as intermittent enteral feeding that includes overnight fasting and consideration of macronutrient composition in enteral solutions, could potentially restore circadian health by resetting peripheral clocks. However, due to the lack of evidence, further studies on the effect of chrononutrition on clinical outcomes in critical illness are needed. The purpose of this review was to discuss the role of chrononutrition in regulating biological rhythms in critical illness, and its impact on clinical outcomes.

Pharmacologic Sleep Aids in the Intensive Care Unit: A Systematic Review

Background: Patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) often experience poor sleep quality. Pharmacologic sleep aids are frequently used as primary or adjunctive therapy to improve sleep, although their benefits in the ICU remain uncertain. This review aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of the objective and subjective effects of medications used for sleep in the ICU, as well as their adverse effects. Methods: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were systematically searched from their inception until June 2023 for comparative studies assessing the effects of pharmacologic sleep aids on objective and subjective metrics of sleep. Results: Thirty-four studies with 3498 participants were included. Medications evaluated were melatonin, ramelteon, suvorexant, propofol, and dexmedetomidine. The majority of studies were randomized controlled trials. Melatonin and dexmedetomidine were the best studied agents. Objective sleep metrics included polysomnography (PSG), electroencephalography (EEG), bispectral index, and actigraphy. Subjective outcome measures included patient questionnaires and nursing observations. Evidence for melatonin as a sleep aid in the ICU was mixed but largely not supportive for improving sleep. Evidence for ramelteon, suvorexant, and propofol was too limited to offer definitive recommendations. Both objective and subjective data supported dexmedetomidine as an effective sleep aid in the ICU, with PSG/EEG in 303 ICU patients demonstrating increased sleep duration and efficiency, decreased arousal index, decreased percentage of stage N1 sleep, and increased absolute and percentage of stage N2 sleep. Mild bradycardia and hypotension were reported as side effects of dexmedetomidine, whereas the other medications were reported to be safe. Several ongoing studies have not yet been published, mostly on melatonin and dexmedetomidine. Conclusions: While definitive conclusions cannot be made for most medications, dexmedetomidine improved sleep quantity and quality in the ICU. These benefits need to be balanced with possible hemodynamic side effects.

Intensive care unit interventions to promote sleep and circadian biology in reducing incident delirium: a scoping review

RATIONALE/OBJECTIVES

Despite plausible pathophysiological mechanisms, research is needed to confirm the relationship between sleep, circadian rhythm and delirium in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). The objective of this review is to summarise existing studies promoting, in whole or in part, the normalisation of sleep and circadian biology and their impact on the incidence, prevalence, duration and/or severity of delirium in ICU.

METHODS

A sensitive search of electronic databases and conference proceedings was completed in March 2023. Inclusion criteria were English-language studies of any design that evaluated in-ICU non-pharmacological, pharmacological or mixed intervention strategies for promoting sleep or circadian biology and their association with delirium, as assessed at least daily. Data were extracted and independently verified.

RESULTS

Of 7886 citations, we included 50 articles. Commonly evaluated interventions include care bundles (n=20), regulation or administration of light therapy (n=5), eye masks and/or earplugs (n=5), one nursing care-focused intervention and pharmacological intervention (eg, melatonin and ramelteon; n=19). The association between these interventions and incident delirium or severity of delirium was mixed. As multiple interventions were incorporated in included studies of care bundles and given that there was variable reporting of compliance with individual elements, identifying which components might have an impact on delirium is challenging.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review summarises the existing literature as it relates to ICU sleep and circadian disruption (SCD) and delirium in ICU. Further studies are needed to better understand the role of ICU SCD promotion interventions in delirium mitigation.

A Rapid Systematic Review of Pharmacologic Sleep Promotion Modalities in the Intensive Care Unit

Background: The Society of Critical Care Medicine Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Pain, Agitation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep recommend protocolized non-pharmacologic sleep improvement. Pharmacologic interventions are frequently initiated to promote sleep but the evidence supporting these strategies remains controversial. Purpose: To systematically search and synthesize evidence evaluating pharmacologic sleep promotion modalities in critically ill adults. Methods: A rapid systematic review protocol was used to search Medline, Cochrane Library, and Embase for reports published through October 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and before-and-after cohort studies evaluating pharmacologic modalities intended to improve sleep in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Sleep-related endpoints were the primary outcome of interest. Study and patient characteristics and relevant safety and non-sleep outcome data were also collected. The Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias or Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions were used to assess the risk of bias for all included studies. Results: Sixteen studies (75% RCTs) enrolling 2573 patients were included; 1207 patients were allocated to the pharmacologic sleep intervention. Most studies utilized dexmedetomidine (7/16; total n = 505 patients) or a melatonin agonist (6/16; total n = 592 patients). Only half of the studies incorporated a sleep promotion protocol as standard of care. Most (11/16, 68.8%) studies demonstrated a significant improvement in ≥1 sleep endpoint (n = 5 dexmedetomidine, n = 3 melatonin agonists, n = 2 propofol/benzodiazepines). Risk of bias was generally low for RCTs and moderate-severe for cohort studies. Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine and melatonin agonists are the most studied pharmacologic sleep promotion modalities, but current evidence does not support their routine administration in the ICU to improve sleep. Future RCTs evaluating pharmacologic modalities for ICU sleep should consider patients' baseline and ICU risks for disrupted sleep, incorporate a non-pharmacologic sleep improvement protocol, and evaluate the effect of these medication interventions on circadian rhythm, physiologic sleep, patient-perceived sleep quality, and delirium.

Impacts of antipsychotic medication prescribing practices in critically ill adult patients on health resource utilization and new psychoactive medication prescriptions

BACKGROUND

Antipsychotic medications are commonly prescribed to critically ill adult patients and initiation of new antipsychotic prescriptions in the intensive care unit (ICU) increases the proportion of patients discharged home on antipsychotics. Critically ill adult patients are also frequently exposed to multiple psychoactive medications during ICU admission and hospitalization including benzodiazepines and opioid medications which may increase the risk of psychoactive polypharmacy following hospital discharge. The associated impact on health resource utilization and risk of new benzodiazepine and opioid prescriptions is unknown.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the burden of health resource utilization and odds of new prescriptions of benzodiazepines and opioids up to 1-year post-hospital discharge in critically ill patients with new antipsychotic prescriptions at hospital discharge?

STUDY DESIGN & METHODS

We completed a multi-center, propensity-score matched retrospective cohort study of critically ill adult patients. The primary exposure was administration of ≥1 dose of an antipsychotic while the patient was admitted in the ICU and ward with continuation at hospital discharge and a filled outpatient prescription within 1-year following hospital discharge. The control group was defined as no doses of antipsychotics administered in the ICU and hospital ward and no filled outpatient prescriptions for antipsychotics within 1-year following hospital discharge. The primary outcome was health resource utilization (72-hour ICU readmission, 30-day hospital readmission, 30-day emergency room visitation, 30-day mortality). Secondary outcomes were administration of benzodiazepines and/or opioids in-hospital and following hospital discharge in patients receiving antipsychotics.

RESULTS

1,388 propensity-score matched patients were included who did and did not receive antipsychotics in ICU and survived to hospital discharge. New antipsychotic prescriptions were not associated with increased health resource utilization or 30-day mortality following hospital discharge. There was increased odds of new prescriptions of benzodiazepines (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.61 [95%CI 1.19-2.19]) and opioids (aOR 1.82 [95%CI 1.38-2.40]) up to 1-year following hospital discharge in patients continuing antipsychotics at hospital discharge.

INTERPRETATION

New antipsychotic prescriptions at hospital discharge are significantly associated with additional prescriptions of benzodiazepines and opioids in-hospital and up to 1-year following hospital discharge.

Sleep during and following critical illness: A narrative review

Sleep is a complex process influenced by biological and environmental factors. Disturbances of sleep quantity and quality occur frequently in the critically ill and remain prevalent in survivors for at least 12 mo. Sleep disturbances are associated with adverse outcomes across multiple organ systems but are most strongly linked to delirium and cognitive impairment. This review will outline the predisposing and precipitating factors for sleep disturbance, categorised into patient, environmental and treatment-related factors. The objective and subjective methodologies used to quantify sleep during critical illness will be reviewed. While polysomnography remains the gold-standard, its use in the critical care setting still presents many barriers. Other methodologies are needed to better understand the pathophysiology, epidemiology and treatment of sleep disturbance in this population. Subjective outcome measures, including the Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire, are still required for trials involving a greater number of patients and provide valuable insight into patients’ experiences of disturbed sleep. Finally, sleep optimisation strategies are reviewed, including intervention bundles, ambient noise and light reduction, quiet time, and the use of ear plugs and eye masks. While drugs to improve sleep are frequently prescribed to patients in the ICU, evidence supporting their effectiveness is lacking.

Causes, Consequences, and Treatments of Sleep and Circadian Disruption in the ICU: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement

Background: Sleep and circadian disruption (SCD) is common and severe in the ICU. On the basis of rigorous evidence in non-ICU populations and emerging evidence in ICU populations, SCD is likely to have a profound negative impact on patient outcomes. Thus, it is urgent that we establish research priorities to advance understanding of ICU SCD. Methods: We convened a multidisciplinary group with relevant expertise to participate in an American Thoracic Society Workshop. Workshop objectives included identifying ICU SCD subtopics of interest, key knowledge gaps, and research priorities. Members attended remote sessions from March to November 2021. Recorded presentations were prepared and viewed by members before Workshop sessions. Workshop discussion focused on key gaps and related research priorities. The priorities listed herein were selected on the basis of rank as established by a series of anonymous surveys. Results: We identified the following research priorities: establish an ICU SCD definition, further develop rigorous and feasible ICU SCD measures, test associations between ICU SCD domains and outcomes, promote the inclusion of mechanistic and patient-centered outcomes within large clinical studies, leverage implementation science strategies to maximize intervention fidelity and sustainability, and collaborate among investigators to harmonize methods and promote multisite investigation. Conclusions: ICU SCD is a complex and compelling potential target for improving ICU outcomes. Given the influence on all other research priorities, further development of rigorous, feasible ICU SCD measurement is a key next step in advancing the field.

A National Modified Delphi Consensus Process to Prioritize Experiences and Interventions for Antipsychotic Medication Deprescribing Among Adult Patients With Critical Illness

Antipsychotic medications are frequently prescribed to critically ill patients leading to their continuation at transitions of care thereafter. The aim of this study was to generate evidence-informed consensus statements with key stakeholders on antipsychotic minimization and deprescribing for ICU patients.

DESIGN

We completed three rounds of surveys in a National modified Delphi consensus process. During rounds 1 and 2, participants used a 9-point Likert scale (1-strongly disagree, 9-strongly agree) to rate perceptions related to antipsychotic prescribing (i.e., experiences regarding delivery of patient care), knowledge and frequency of antipsychotic use, knowledge surrounding antipsychotic guideline recommendations, and strategies (i.e., interventions addressing current antipsychotic prescribing practices) for antipsychotic minimization and deprescribing. Consensus was defined as a median score of 1-3 or 7-9. During round 3, participants ranked statements on antipsychotic minimization and deprescribing strategies that achieved consensus (median score 7-9) using a weighted ranking scale (0-100 points) to determine priority.

SETTING

Online surveys distributed across Canada.

SUBJECTS

Fifty-seven stakeholders (physicians, nurses, pharmacists) who work with ICU patients.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Participants prioritized six consensus statements on strategies for consideration when developing and implementing interventions to guide antipsychotic minimization and deprescribing. Statements focused on limiting antipsychotic prescribing to patients: 1) with hyperactive delirium, 2) at risk to themselves, their family, and/or staff due to agitation, and 3) whose care and treatment are being impacted due to agitation or delirium, and prioritizing 4) communication among staff about antipsychotic effectiveness, 5) direct and efficient communication tools on antipsychotic deprescribing at transitions of care, and 6) medication reconciliation at transitions of care.

CONCLUSIONS

We engaged diverse stakeholders to generate evidence-informed consensus statements regarding antipsychotic prescribing perceptions and practices that can be used to implement interventions to promote antipsychotic minimization and deprescribing strategies for ICU patients with and following critical illness.

Optimizing Sleep and Circadian Health in the NeuroICU

Purpose of Review

This article introduces fundamental concepts in circadian biology and the neuroscience of sleep, reviews recent studies characterizing circadian rhythm and sleep disruption among critically ill patients and potentially links to functional outcomes, and draws upon existing literature to propose therapeutic strategies to mitigate those harms. Particular attention is given to patients with critical neurologic conditions and the unique environment of the neuro-intensive care unit.

Recent Findings

Circadian rhythm disruption is widespread among critically ill patients and sleep time is reduced and abnormally fragmented. There is a strong association between the degree of arousal suppression observed at the bedside and the extent of circadian disruption at the system (e.g., melatonin concentration rhythms) and cellular levels (e.g., core clock gene transcription rhythms). There is a paucity of electrographically normal sleep, and rest-activity rhythms are severely disturbed. Common care interventions such as neurochecks introduce unique disruptions in neurologic patients. There are no pharmacologic interventions proven to normalize circadian rhythms or restore physiologically normal sleep. Instead, interventions are focused on reducing pharmacologic and environmental factors that perpetuate disruption.

Summary

The intensive care environment introduces numerous potent disruptors to sleep and circadian rhythms. Direct neurologic injury and neuro-monitoring practices likely compound those factors to further derange circadian and sleep functions. In the absence of direct interventions to induce normalized rhythms and sleep, current therapy depends upon normalizing external stimuli.

Sleep-Promotion Bundle Development, Implementation, and Evaluation in Critically Ill Adults: Roles for Pharmacists

OBJECTIVE

To review evidence for intensive care unit (ICU) sleep improvement bundle use, identify preferred sleep bundle components and implementation strategies, and highlight the role for pharmacists in developing and evaluating bundle efforts.

DATA SOURCES

Multiple databases were searched from January 1, 1990, to September 1, 2021, using the MeSH terms sleep, intensive care or critical care, protocol or bundle to identify comparative studies evaluating ICU sleep bundle implementation.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Study screening, data extraction, and risk-of-bias evaluation were conducted in tandem. The ICU quality improvement literature and Institute for Healthcare Improvement bundle improvement guidance were also reviewed to identify recommended strategies for successful sleep bundle use.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Nine studies (3 randomized, 1 quasi-experimental, 5 before-and-after) were identified. Bundle elements varied and were primarily focused on nonpharmacological interventions designed to be performed during either the day or night; only 2 studies included a medication-based strategy. Five studies were associated with reduced delirium; 2 studies were associated with improved total sleep time and 2 with improved patient-perceived sleep. Pharmacists were involved directly in 4 studies.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Sleep improvement bundles are recommended for use in all critically ill adults; specific bundle elements and ICU team member roles should be individualized at the institution/ICU level. Pharmacists can help lead bundle development efforts and routinely deliver key elements.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacists can play an important role in the development and implementation of ICU sleep bundles. Further research regarding the relative benefit of individual bundle elements on relevant patient outcomes is needed.