Inconsistent relationship between depth of sedation and intensive care outcome: systematic review and meta-analysis

Being a patient in the intensive care unit: a narrative approach to understanding patients' experiences of being awake and on mechanical ventilation

PURPOSE

Intensive care patients often struggle to communicate due to the technical equipment used for mechanical ventilation and their critical illness. The aim of the study was to achieve a deeper understanding of how mechanically ventilated intensive care patients construct meaning in the unpredictable trajectory of critical illness.

METHODS

The study was a part of a larger study in which ten patients were video recorded while being in the intensive care. Five patients engaged in interviews about their experiences from the intensive care stay after being discharged and were offered the possibility to see themselves in the video recordings. A narrative, thematic analysis was applied to categorize the patients' experiences from the intensive care.

RESULTS

A pattern of shared experiences among intensive care patients were identified. Three main themes capture the patient's experiences: 1) perceiving the intensive care stay as a life-changing turning point, 2) being dependent on and cared for by others, and 3) living with negative and positive ICU experiences.

CONCLUSION

The patients' narratives revealed how being critically ill affected them, and how they understood their experiences in relation to themselves and their surroundings. The results can be used to pose important questions about our current clinical practice.

Postintensive care syndrome: Development and psychometric validation of a knowledge test

INTRODUCTION

Postintensive care syndrome (PICS) is a combination of short-, medium- and long-term morbidities that occur in patients discharged from the Intensive care unit (ICU). ICU professionals have a crucial role in managing and understanding the PICS. This study aimed to develop the PICS Knowledge Test (PICS-KT), which measures ICU professionals' awareness and knowledge levels regarding PICS, and to determine its validity and reliability.

METHODS

The databases were searched in detail, scientific research related to PICS was analyzed, and the draft scale was created accordingly. A total of 117 doctors and nurses who had been working in the ICU for at least 6 months were included in the study. For the validity and reliability analysis of the test, content validity ratio, item difficulty index, item discrimination index values and Cronbach α were examined.

RESULTS

The Cronbach's α reliability coefficient for the 46-item PICS-KT is 0.93, indicating high reliability. Scores range from 0 to 46, with 32 or higher considered successful, suggesting adequate knowledge of PICS among ICU professionals. Scores of 14 or less indicate minimal knowledge. Those with scores between 14 and 32 possess some knowledge but need improvement. PICS-KT assesses knowledge in four main areas: general information, risk factors/causes, symptoms and findings and interventions. ICU professionals show high awareness of interventions for preventing and treating PICS, as indicated by a high mean score in the interventions subdimension.

CONCLUSION

The PICS-KT is crucial in assessing healthcare professionals' understanding of the various short-, medium- and long-term morbidities associated with PICS. The study ensures that the test is a robust and dependable instrument for evaluating ICU professionals' knowledge about PICS.

Early Deep Sedation Practices Worsened During the Pandemic Among Adult Patients Without COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

There is substantial evidence that patients with COVID-19 were treated with sustained deep sedation during the pandemic. However, it is unknown whether such guideline-discordant care had spillover effects to patients without COVID-19.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Did patterns of early deep sedation change during the pandemic for patients on mechanical ventilation without COVID-19?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We used electronic health record data from 4,237 patients who were intubated without COVID-19. We compared sedation practices in the first 48 h after intubation across prepandemic (February 1, 2018, to January 31, 2020), pandemic (April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021), and late pandemic (April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022) periods.

RESULTS

In the prepandemic period, patients spent an average of 13.0 h deeply sedated in the first 48 h after intubation. This increased 1.9 h (95% CI, 1.0-2.8) during the pandemic period and 2.9 h (95% CI, 2.0-3.8) in the late pandemic period. The proportion of patients that spent over one-half of the first 48 h deeply sedated was 18.9% in the prepandemic period, 22.3% during the pandemic period, and 25.9% during the late pandemic period. Ventilator-free days decreased during the pandemic, with a subdistribution hazard ratio of being alive without mechanical ventilation at 28 days of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.79-0.95) compared with the prepandemic period. Tracheostomy placement increased during the pandemic period compared with the prepandemic period (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.82). In the medical ICU, early deep sedation increased 2.5 h (95% CI, 0.6-4.4) during the pandemic period and 4.9 h (95% CI, 3.0-6.9) during the late pandemic period, compared with the prepandemic period.

INTERPRETATION

We found that among patients on mechanical ventilation without COVID-19, sedation use increased during the pandemic. In the subsequent year, these practices did not return to prepandemic standards.

Surveillance and prevention of healthcare-associated infections: best practices to prevent ventilator-associated events

INTRODUCTION

Ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) leads to an increase in morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. In addition to increased evidence from the latest European and American guidelines (published in 2017 and 2022, respectively), in the last two years, several important clinical experiences have added new prevention tools to be included to improve the management of VAP.

AREAS COVERED

This paper is a narrative review of new evidence on VAP prevention. We divided VAP prevention measures into pharmacological, non-pharmacological, and ventilator care bundles.

EXPERT OPINION

Most of the effective strategies that have been shown to decrease the incidence of complications are easy to implement and inexpensive. The implementation of care bundles, accompanied by educational measures and a multidisciplinary team should be part of optimal management. In addition to ventilator care bundles for the prevention of VAP, it could possibly be beneficial to use ventilator care bundles for the prevention of noninfectious ventilator associated events.

Effect of level of sedation on outcomes in critically ill adult patients: a systematic review of clinical trials with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

Background

Sedation is routinely administered to critically ill patients to alleviate anxiety, discomfort, and patient-ventilator asynchrony. However, it must be balanced against risks such as delirium and prolonged intensive care stays. This study aimed to investigate the effects of different levels of sedation in critically ill adults.

Methods

Systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomised clinical trials including critically ill adults admitted to the intensive care unit. CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and Web of Science were searched from their inception to 13 June 2023. Risks of bias were assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Aggregate data were synthesised with meta-analyses and TSA, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. This study is registered with PROSPERO: CRD42023386960.

Findings

Fifteen trials randomising 4352 patients were included, of which 13 were assessed high risk of bias. Meta-analyses comparing lighter to deeper sedation showed no evidence of a difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-1.06; p = 0.28; 15 trials; moderate certainty evidence), serious adverse events (RR 0.99, CI 0.92-1.06; p = 0.80; 15 trials; moderate certainty evidence), or delirium (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.94-1.09; p = 0.78; 11 trials; moderate certainty evidence). TSA showed that when assessing mortality, a relative risk reduction of 16% or more between the compared interventions could be rejected.

Interpretation

The level of sedation has not been shown to affect the risks of death, delirium, and other serious adverse events in critically ill adult patients. While TSA suggests that additional trials are unlikely to significantly change the conclusion of the meta-analyses, the certainty of evidence was moderate. This suggests a need for future high-quality studies with higher methodological rigor.

Funding

None.

Agitation during anaesthetic emergence: An observational study of adult cardiac surgery patients in two Australian intensive care units

BACKGROUND

Anaesthetic emergence agitation among adult patients being recovered after open cardiac and/or thoracic aorta surgery has not been described.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to characterise emergence agitation in terms of incidence, clinical features, and consequences in a cohort of cardiac surgery patients being recovered in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

A prospective, observational pilot study was implemented. Over a 5-week period, the study was conducted in two metropolitan hospitals in Victoria, Australia. The cohort comprised all patients admitted to the ICUs aged ≥18 years, who had undergone cardiac surgery via an open sternotomy with general anaesthetic, and whose emergence was directly observed. Emergence agitation was defined as a Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale score of ≥+2.

RESULTS

Fifty patients were observed. Emergence agitation occurred in 24/50 (48%) of patients. Patients with emergence agitation experienced more clinical consequences than patients with calm emergence, including a significantly greater number of episodes of airway compromise (12/24, 50%, p < 0.001); ventilator dyssynchrony (23/24, 96%, p = 0.004); and hypertension (13/24, 54%, p = 0.004). Significant treatment interference (potentially dangerous patient movements such as pulling tubes) occurred with 23/24 patients (96%, p < 0.0001). Patients who underwent emergence agitation required significantly more interventions during anaesthetic emergence than patients who underwent a calm emergence. Interventions included extra nursing measures (16/24, 67%, p = 0.001) administration of sedative and/or opioid intravenous boluses (22/24, 92%, p = 0.001) and vasoactive agents (15/24, 63%, p = 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients recovering from cardiac surgery in the ICU, emergence agitation was clinically important. Immediate interventions were required to prevent and manage complications.

Alpha 2 agonists for sedation to produce better outcomes from critical illness (A2B Trial): protocol for a multicentre phase 3 pragmatic clinical and cost-effectiveness randomised trial in the UK

INTRODUCTION

Almost all patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) in intensive care units (ICUs) require analgesia and sedation. The most widely used sedative drug is propofol, but there is uncertainty whether alpha2-agonists are superior. The alpha 2 agonists for sedation to produce better outcomes from critical illness (A2B) trial aims to determine whether clonidine or dexmedetomidine (or both) are clinically and cost-effective in MV ICU patients compared with usual care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Adult ICU patients within 48 hours of starting MV, expected to require at least 24 hours further MV, are randomised in an open-label three arm trial to receive propofol (usual care) or clonidine or dexmedetomidine as primary sedative, plus analgesia according to local practice. Exclusions include patients with primary brain injury; postcardiac arrest; other neurological conditions; or bradycardia. Unless clinically contraindicated, sedation is titrated using weight-based dosing guidance to achieve a Richmond-Agitation-Sedation score of -2 or greater as early as considered safe by clinicians. The primary outcome is time to successful extubation. Secondary ICU outcomes include delirium and coma incidence/duration, sedation quality, predefined adverse events, mortality and ICU length of stay. Post-ICU outcomes include mortality, anxiety and depression, post-traumatic stress, cognitive function and health-related quality of life at 6-month follow-up. A process evaluation and health economic evaluation are embedded in the trial.The analytic framework uses a hierarchical approach to maximise efficiency and control type I error. Stage 1 tests whether each alpha2-agonist is superior to propofol. If either/both interventions are superior, stages 2 and 3 testing explores which alpha2-agonist is more effective. To detect a mean difference of 2 days in MV duration, we aim to recruit 1437 patients (479 per group) in 40-50 UK ICUs.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Scotland A REC approved the trial (18/SS/0085). We use a surrogate decision-maker or deferred consent model consistent with UK law. Dissemination will be via publications, presentations and updated guidelines.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03653832.

Early processed electroencephalography for the monitoring of deeply sedated mechanically ventilated critically ill patients

BACKGROUND

Deep sedation may be indicated in the intensive care unit (ICU) for the management of acute organ failure, but leads to sedative-induced delirium. Whether processed electroencephalography (p-EEG) is useful in this setting is unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a single-centre observational study of non-neurological ICU patients sedated according to a standardized guideline of deep sedation (Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale [RASS] between -5 and -4) during the acute phase of respiratory and/or cardio-circulatory failure. The SedLine (Masimo Incorporated, Irvine, California) was used to monitor the Patient State Index (PSI) (ranging from 0 to 100, <25 = very deep sedation and >50 = light sedation to full awareness) during the first 72 h of care. Delirium was assessed with the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU).

RESULTS

The median duration of PSI monitoring was 43 h. Patients spent 49% in median of the total PSI monitoring duration with a PSI <25. Patients with delirium (n = 41/97, 42%) spent a higher percentage of total monitored time with PSI <25 (median 67% [19-91] vs. 47% [12.2-78.9]) in non-delirious patients (p .047). After adjusting for the cumulative dose of analgesia and sedation, increased time spent with PSI <25 was associated with higher delirium (odds ratio 1.014; 95% CI 1.001-1.027, p = .036).

CONCLUSIONS

A clinical protocol of deep sedation targeted to RASS at the acute ICU phase may be associated with prolonged EEG suppression and increased delirium. Whether PSI-targeted sedation may help reducing sedative dose and delirium deserves further clinical investigation.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Patients requiring deep sedation are at high risk of being over-sedated and developing delirium despite the application of an evidence-based sedation guideline. Development of early objective measures are essential to improve sedation management in these critically ill patients.

Precision-based approaches to delirium in critical illness: A narrative review

Delirium occurs in critical illness and is associated with poor clinical outcomes, having a longstanding impact on survivors. Understanding the complexity of delirium in critical illness and its deleterious outcome has expanded since early reports. Delirium is a culmination of predisposing and precipitating risk factors that result in a transition to delirium. Known risks range from advanced age, frailty, medication exposure or withdrawal, sedation depth, and sepsis. Because of its multifactorial nature, different clinical phenotypes, and potential neurobiological causes, a precise approach to reducing delirium in critical illness requires a broad understanding of its complexity. Refinement in the categorization of delirium subtypes or phenotypes (i.e., psychomotor classifications) requires attention. Recent advances in the association of clinical phenotypes with clinical outcomes expand our understanding and highlight potentially modifiable targets. Several delirium biomarkers in critical care have been examined, with disrupted functional connectivity being precise in detecting delirium. Recent advances reinforce delirium as an acute, and partially modifiable, brain dysfunction, and place emphasis on the importance of mechanistic pathways including cholinergic activity and glucose metabolism. Pharmacologic agents have been assessed in randomized controlled prevention and treatment trials, with a disappointing lack of efficacy. Antipsychotics remain widely used after "negative" trials, yet may have a role in specific subtypes. However, antipsychotics do not appear to improve clinical outcomes. Alpha-2 agonists perhaps hold greater potential for current use and future investigation. The role of thiamine appears promising, yet requires evidence. Looking forward, clinical pharmacists should prioritize the mitigation of predisposing and precipitating risk factors as able. Future research is needed within individual delirium psychomotor subtypes and clinical phenotypes to identify modifiable targets that hold the potential to improve not only delirium duration and severity, but long-term outcomes including cognitive impairment.

Sedation, sleep-promotion, and non-verbal and verbal communication techniques in critically ill intubated or tracheostomized patients: results of a survey

BACKGROUND

The aim of this survey was to describe, on a patient basis, the current practice of sedation, pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic measures to promote sleep and facilitation of communication in critically ill patients oro-tracheally intubated or tracheostomized.

METHODS

Cross-sectional online-survey evaluating sedation, sleep management and communication in oro-tracheally intubated (IP) or tracheostomized (TP) patients in intensive care units on a single point.

RESULTS

Eighty-one intensive care units including 447 patients (IP: n = 320, TP: n = 127) participated. A score of ≤ -2 on the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) was prevalent in 58.2% (IP 70.7% vs. TP 26.8%). RASS -1/0 was present in 32.2% (IP 25.9% vs. TP 55.1%) of subjects. Propofol and alpha-2-agonist were the predominant sedatives used while benzodiazepines were applied in only 12.1% of patients. For sleep management, ear plugs and sleeping masks were rarely used (< 7%). In half of the participating intensive care units a technique for phonation was used in the tracheostomized patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The overall rate of moderate and deep sedation appears high, particularly in oro-tracheally intubated patients. There is no uniform sleep management and ear plugs and sleeping masks are only rarely applied. The application of phonation techniques in tracheostomized patients during assisted breathing is low. More efforts should be directed towards improved guideline implementation. The enhancement of sleep promotion and communication techniques in non-verbal critically ill patients may be a focus of future guideline development.

Level of sedation in critically ill adult patients: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

INTRODUCTION

It is standard of care to provide sedation to critically ill patients to reduce anxiety, discomfort and promote tolerance of mechanical ventilation. Given that sedatives can have differing effects based on a variety of patient and pharmacological characteristics, treatment approaches are largely based on targeting the level of sedation. The benefits of differing levels of sedation must be balanced against potential adverse effects including haemodynamic instability, causing delirium, delaying awakening and prolonging the time of mechanical ventilation and intensive care stay. This systematic review with meta-analysis aims to investigate the current evidence and compare the effects of differing sedation levels in adult critically ill patients.

METHODS AND ANALYSES

We will conduct a systematic review based on searches of preidentified major medical databases (eg, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify trials meeting inclusion criteria. We will include randomised clinical trials comparing any degree of sedation with no sedation and lighter sedation with deeper sedation for critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit. We will include aggregate data meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses. Risk of bias will be assessed with domains based on the Cochrane risk of bias tool. An eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed using Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No formal approval or review of ethics is required as individual patient data will not be included. This systematic review has the potential to highlight (1) whether one should believe sedation to be beneficial, harmful or neither in critically ill adults; (2) the existing knowledge gaps and (3) whether the recommendations from guidelines and daily clinical practice are supported by current evidence. These results will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Seeking the Light in Intensive Care Unit Sedation: The Optimal Sedation Strategy for Critically Ill Patients

The clinical approach to sedation in critically ill patients has changed dramatically over the last two decades, moving to a regimen of light or non-sedation associated with adequate analgesia to guarantee the patient’s comfort, active interaction with the environment and family, and early mobilization and assessment of delirium. Although deep sedation (DS) may still be necessary for certain clinical scenarios, it should be limited to strict indications, such as mechanically ventilated patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), status epilepticus, intracranial hypertension, or those requiring target temperature management. DS, if not indicated, is associated with prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay, and increased mortality. Therefore, continuous monitoring of the level of sedation, especially when associated with the raw EEG data, is important to avoid unnecessary oversedation and to convert a DS strategy to light sedation as soon as possible. The approach to the management of critically ill patients is multidimensional, so targeted sedation should be considered in the context of the ABCDEF bundle, a holistic patient approach. Sedation may interfere with early mobilization and family engagement and may have an impact on delirium assessment and risk. If adequately applied, the ABCDEF bundle allows for a patient-centered, multidimensional, and multi-professional ICU care model to be achieved, with a positive impact on appropriate sedation and patient comfort, along with other important determinants of long-term patient outcomes.