A Comparative Analysis of Preemptive Versus Targeted Sedation on Cardiovascular Stability After High-Risk Cardiac Surgery in Infants

Effectiveness, quality and implementation of pain, sedation, delirium, and iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome algorithms in pediatric intensive care: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Pain, sedation, delirium, and iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome are conditions that often coexist, algorithms can be used to assist healthcare professionals in decision making. However, a comprehensive review is lacking. This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness, quality, and implementation of algorithms for the management of pain, sedation, delirium, and iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome in all pediatric intensive care settings.

Methods

A literature search was conducted on November 29, 2022, in PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, and Google Scholar to identify algorithms implemented in pediatric intensive care and published since 2005. Three reviewers independently screened the records for inclusion, verified and extracted data. Included studies were assessed for risk of bias using the JBI checklists, and algorithm quality was assessed using the PROFILE tool (higher % = higher quality). Meta-analyses were performed to compare algorithms to usual care on various outcomes (length of stay, duration and cumulative dose of analgesics and sedatives, length of mechanical ventilation, and incidence of withdrawal).

Results

From 6,779 records, 32 studies, including 28 algorithms, were included. The majority of algorithms (68%) focused on sedation in combination with other conditions. Risk of bias was low in 28 studies. The average overall quality score of the algorithm was 54%, with 11 (39%) scoring as high quality. Four algorithms used clinical practice guidelines during development. The use of algorithms was found to be effective in reducing length of stay (intensive care and hospital), length of mechanical ventilation, duration of analgesic and sedative medications, cumulative dose of analgesics and sedatives, and incidence of withdrawal. Implementation strategies included education and distribution of materials (95%). Supportive determinants of algorithm implementation included leadership support and buy-in, staff training, and integration into electronic health records. The fidelity to algorithm varied from 8.2% to 100%.

Conclusions

The review suggests that algorithm-based management of pain, sedation and withdrawal is more effective than usual care in pediatric intensive care settings. There is a need for more rigorous use of evidence in the development of algorithms and the provision of details on the implementation process.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021276053, PROSPERO [CRD42021276053].

A systematic review of the evidence supporting post-operative medication use in congenital heart disease

BACKGROUND

Targeted drug development efforts in patients with CHD are needed to standardise care, improve outcomes, and limit adverse events in the post-operative period. To identify major gaps in knowledge that can be addressed by drug development efforts and provide a rationale for current clinical practice, this review evaluates the evidence behind the most common medication classes used in the post-operative care of children with CHD undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed and EMBASE from 2000 to 2019 using a controlled vocabulary and keywords related to diuretics, vasoactives, sedatives, analgesics, pulmonary vasodilators, coagulation system medications, antiarrhythmics, steroids, and other endocrine drugs. We included studies of drugs given post-operatively to children with CHD undergoing repair or palliation with cardiopulmonary bypass.

RESULTS

We identified a total of 127 studies with 51,573 total children across medication classes. Most studies were retrospective cohorts at single centres. There is significant age- and disease-related variability in drug disposition, efficacy, and safety.

CONCLUSION

In this study, we discovered major gaps in knowledge for each medication class and identified areas for future research. Advances in data collection through electronic health records, novel trial methods, and collaboration can aid drug development efforts in standardising care, improving outcomes, and limiting adverse events in the post-operative period.

Safety of clonidine used for long-term sedation in paediatric intensive care: A systematic review

AIM

Although not approved, the α-adrenoceptor agonist clonidine is considered an option for long-term sedation protocols in paediatric intensive care. We reviewed adverse effects of clonidine occurring in this indication.

METHODS

Relevant literature was systematically identified from PubMed and Embase. We included interventional and observational studies on paediatric patients admitted to intensive care units and systemically long-term sedated with clonidine-containing regimes. In duplicates, we conducted standardised and independent full-text assessment and extraction of safety data.

RESULTS

Data from 11 studies with 909 patients were analysed. The studies were heterogeneous regarding patient characteristics (age groups, comorbidity, or comedication) and sedation regimes (dosage, route, duration, or concomitant sedatives). Just four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and one observational study had comparison groups, using placebo or midazolam. For safety outcomes, our validity evaluation showed low risk of bias only in three studies. All studies focused on haemodynamic problems, particularly bradycardia and hypotension. Observed incidences or subsequent interventions never caused concerns. However, only two RCTs allowed meaningful comparisons with control groups. Odds ratios showed no significant difference between the groups, but small sample sizes (50 and 125 patients) must be considered; pooled analyses were not reasonable.

CONCLUSION

All evaluated studies concluded that the use of clonidine in paediatric intensive care units is safe. However, a valid characterisation of the safety profile remains challenging due to limited, biased and heterogeneous data and missing investigation of long-term effects. This evaluation demonstrates the lack of data, which prevents reliable conclusions on the safety of clonidine for long-term sedation in critically ill children. For an evidence-based use, further studies are needed.

Dexmedetomidine Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Children: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVES

To assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a sedation protocol using dexmedetomidine as the primary sedative in mechanically ventilated critically ill children.

DESIGN

Open-label, pilot, prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. The primary outcome was the proportion of sedation scores in the target sedation range in the first 48 hours. Safety outcomes included device removal, adverse events, and vasopressor use. Feasibility outcomes included time to randomization and protocol fidelity.

SETTING

Six tertiary PICUs in Australia and New Zealand.

PATIENTS

Critically ill children, younger than 16 years old, requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation and expected to be mechanically ventilated for at least 24 hours.

INTERVENTIONS

Children randomized to dexmedetomidine received a dexmedetomidine-based algorithm targeted to light sedation (State Behavioral Scale -1 to +1). Children randomized to usual care received sedation as determined by the treating clinician (but not dexmedetomidine), also targeted to light sedation.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Sedation with dexmedetomidine as the primary sedative resulted in a greater proportion of sedation measurements in the light sedation range (State Behavioral Scale -1 to +1) over the first 48 hours (229/325 [71%] vs 181/331 [58%]; p = 0.04) and the first 24 hours (66/103 [64%] vs 48/116 [41%]; p < 0.001) compared with usual care. Cumulative midazolam dosage was significantly reduced in the dexmedetomidine arm compared with usual care (p = 0.002).There were more episodes of hypotension and bradycardia with dexmedetomidine (including one serious adverse event) but no difference in vasopressor requirements. Median time to randomization after intubation was 6.0 hours (interquartile range, 2.0-9.0 hr) in the dexmedetomidine arm compared with 3.0 hours (interquartile range, 1.0-7.0 hr) in the usual care arm (p = 0.24).

CONCLUSIONS

A sedation protocol using dexmedetomidine as the primary sedative was feasible, appeared safe, achieved early, light sedation, and reduced midazolam requirements. The findings of this pilot study justify further studies of sedative agents in critically ill children.