Effect of an analgo-sedation protocol for neurointensive patients: a two-phase interventional non-randomized pilot study

Weaning from mechanical ventilation in neurocritical care

In the intensive care unit (ICU), weaning from mechanical ventilation follows a step-by-step process that has been well established in the general ICU population. However, little data is available in brain injury patients, who are often intubated to protect airways and prevent central hypoventilation. In this narrative review, we describe the general principles of weaning and how these principles can be adapted to brain injury patients. We focus on three major issues regarding weaning from mechanic ventilation in brain injury patients: (1) sedation protocol, (2) weaning and extubation protocol and criteria, (3) criteria, timing and technique for tracheostomy.

A One-Day Prospective National Observational Study on Sedation-Analgesia of Patients with Brain Injury in French Intensive Care Units: The SEDA-BIP-ICU (Sedation-Analgesia in Brain Injury Patient in ICU) Study

BACKGROUND

Sedation/analgesia is a daily challenge faced by intensivists managing patients with brain injury (BI) in intensive care units (ICUs). The optimization of sedation in patients with BI presents particular challenges. A choice must be made between the potential benefit of a rapid clinical evaluation and the potential exacerbation of intracranial hypertension in patients with impaired cerebral compliance. In the ICU, a pragmatic approach to the use of sedation/analgesia, including the optimal titration, management of multiple drugs, and use of any type of brain monitor, is needed. Our research question was as follows: the aim of the study is to identify what is the current daily practice regarding sedation/analgesia in the management of patients with BI in the ICU in France?

METHODS

This study was composed of two parts. The first part was a descriptive survey of sedation practices and characteristics in 30 French ICUs and 27 academic hospitals specializing in care for patients with BI. This first step validates ICU participation in data collection regarding sedation-analgesia practices. The second part was a 1-day prospective cross-sectional snapshot of all characteristics and prescriptions of patients with BI.

RESULTS

On the study day, among the 246 patients with BI, 106 (43%) had a brain monitoring device and 74 patients (30%) were sedated. Thirty-nine of the sedated patients (53%) suffered from intracranial hypertension, 14 patients (19%) suffered from agitation and delirium, and 7 patients (9%) were sedated because of respiratory failure. Fourteen patients (19%) no longer had a formal indication for sedation. In 60% of the sedated patients, the sedatives were titrated by nurses based on sedation scales. The Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale was used in 80% of the patients, and the Behavioral Pain Scale was used in 92%. The common sedatives and opioids used were midazolam (58.1%), propofol (40.5%), and sufentanil (67.5%). The cerebral monitoring devices available in the participating ICUs were transcranial Doppler ultrasound (100%), intracranial and intraventricular pressure monitoring (93.3%), and brain tissue oxygenation (60%). Cerebral monitoring by one or more monitoring devices was performed in 62% of the sedated patients. This proportion increased to 74% in the subgroup of patients with intracranial hypertension, with multimodal cerebral monitoring in 43.6%. The doses of midazolam and sufentanil were lower in sedated patients managed based on a sedation/analgesia scale.

CONCLUSIONS

Midazolam and sufentanil are frequently used, often in combination, in French ICUs instead of alternative drugs. In our study, cerebral monitoring was performed in more than 60% of the sedated patients, although that proportion is still insufficient. Future efforts should stress the use of multiple monitoring modes and adherence to the indications for sedation to improve care of patients with BI. Our study suggests that the use of sedation and analgesia scales by nurses involved in the management of patients with BI could decrease the dosages of midazolam and sufentanil administered. Updated guidelines are needed for the management of sedation/analgesia in patients with BI.

Effects of nurse-led sedation protocols on mechanically ventilated intensive care adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to compare nurse-led sedation protocols with physician-led usual care in intensive care units (ICUs) in treating mechanically ventilated adult patients.

REVIEW METHOD USED

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and China Wanfang databases were interrogated for articles published before May 2020.

REVIEW METHOD

As per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, eight randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and six preintervention and postintervention studies published in English and Chinese met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. Two reviewers independently extracted data into a tabular format using predefined data fields. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. The quality of the included RCTs and preintervention and postintervention studies was assessed using the Cochrane Quality Assessment Tool and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions assessment tool.

RESULTS

Eight RCTs were of intermediate methodological quality, and six preintervention and postintervention studies exhibited a low to moderate risk of bias. Compared with usual care, nurse-led sedation protocols resulted in significantly decreased durations of mechanical ventilation (days) (standardised mean difference = -1.765; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -2.461, -1.068); P < 0.001; I² = 97.7%); decreased length of ICU stay (days) (standardised mean difference = -1.463; 95% CI = -2.181, -0.745; P < 0.001; I² = 97.3%); reduced ICU mortality (relative risk [RR] = 0.854; 95% CI = 0.747, 0.983; P = 0.027), I² = 0%); and decreased incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR = 0.438; 95% CI = 0.292, 0.657; P < 0.001; I² = 41.4%), delirium (RR = 0.522; 95% CI = 0.338, 0.807; P = 0.003; I² = 26.6%), and extubation failure (RR = 0.498; 95% CI = 0.266, 0.932; P = 0.029; I² = 45.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although pre-post intervention study design cannot establish causality, the present findings raise the considerable possibility that a sedation protocol can be safely implemented by nurses to reduce mortality in ICUs and sedation-related adverse events in patients on mechanical ventilation compared with physician-led usual care.

Sedatives in neurocritical care: an update on pharmacological agents and modes of sedation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this article, the specific and general indications for sedatives in the neurocritical care unit are discussed, together with an overview on current insights in sedative protocols for these patients. In addition, physiological effects of sedative agents on the central nervous system are reviewed.

RECENT FINDINGS

In the general ICU population, a large body of evidence supports light protocolized sedation over indiscriminate deep sedation. Unfortunately, in patients with severe acute brain injury, the evidence from randomized controlled trials is scarce to nonexistent, and practice is supported by expert opinion, physiological studies and observational or small interventional trials. The different sedatives each have different beneficial effects and side-effects.

SUMMARY

Extrapolating the findings from studies in the general ICU population suggests to reserve deep continuous sedation in the neuro-ICU for specific indications. Although an improved understanding of cerebral physiological changes in patients with brain injury may be helpful to guide individualized sedation, we still lack the evidence base to make broad recommendations for specific patient groups.

Delirium prevalence and prevention in patients with acute brain injury: A prospective before-and-after intervention study

OBJECTIVES

Knowledge regarding delirium prevention in patients with acute brain injury remains limited. We tested the hypothesis that an intervention bundle which targeted sedation, sleep, pain, and mobilisation would reduce delirium in patients with acute brain injury.

DESIGN

A prospective before-after intervention study: a five-month phase of standard care was followed by a six-month intervention phase.

SETTING

The neuro-intensive care unit, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Denmark.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist was used to detect delirium. Primary outcome was delirium duration; secondary outcomes were delirium prevalence, ICU length of stay and one year mortality.

RESULTS

Forty-four patients were included during the standard care phase, and 50 during the intervention phase. Delirium was present in 90% of patients in the standard care group and 88% in the intervention group (p = 1.0), and time with delirium was 4 days vs 3.5 days (p = 0.26), respectively. Also, ICU length of stay (13 vs. 10.5 days (p = 0.4)) and the one year mortality (21% vs 12% (p = 0.38))) were similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

We found a high prevalence of delirium in patients with acute brain injury. The intervention bundle did not significantly reduce prevalence or duration of delirium, ICU length of stay or one year mortality.

Movements and trends in intensive care pain treatment and sedation: What matters to the patient?

BACKGROUND

Oversedation, delirium and immobilisation in the intensive care unit are associated with increased length of stay in the unit. Routines of systematic pain and sedation assessment and the use of valid tools are highly stressed in international guidelines. For improving the quality of pain treatment and sedation in a Norwegian intensive care unit, in 2009-2015, we compared supplementation with an analgosedation approach and the existing systematic approach, measured by the adherence to current international pain, sedation and delirium guidelines.

METHODS

In a longitudinal study following the Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies, pain, sedation, delirium and mobilisation data from patients' complete intensive care unit stays, encompassing three separate periods of 4-6 months, were compared. The primary outcome was adherence to current protocol including assessment and documentation of patients' level of pain, sedation and prevalence of delirium at least every 8 hr, early mobilisation and titration towards a light level of sedation.

RESULTS

We included 205 patients, corresponding to 1,607 patient intensive care unit days. The patient sedation levels, measured by the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale, decreased significantly, from -2.2 in 2009--1.7 in 2015, so did the amount of administrated propofol. Mean pain scores measured by the numeric rating scale during activity were maximum 3.1 in 2014, decreasing to 2.2 in 2015. In patients not able to self-report, pain mean scores were 1.7 in 2014 and 1.6 in 2015, measured by the Critical Care Pain Observational Tool. The number of patients unable to assess for delirium decreased significantly. By discounting the group of patients unable to assess, the prevalence of delirium varied from 32%, 25% and 33%.

CONCLUSION

The goal of having an awake patient able to cooperate, with acceptable levels of pain, was gradually achieved during a 6-year period. The results showed that pain treatment and sedation in the intensive care unit primarily succeeded in the setting of an established routine of systematic assessment and documentation.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The results of the study draw attention to pain treatment, sedation and delirium in intensive care patients, as well as implementation strategies aimed at achieving healthcare personnel's adherence to international guidelines in clinical practice.

Predictors of recovery in moderate to severe traumatic brain injury

OBJECTIVE

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Clinical outcomes in TBI are determined by the severity of injury, which is dependent on the primary and secondary brain injury processes. Whereas primary brain injury lesions are related to the site of impact, secondary brain injury results from physiological changes caused by oxidative stress and inflammatory responses that occur after the primary insult. The aim of this study was to identify important clinical and biomarker profiles that were predictive of recovery after moderate to severe TBI. A good functional outcome was defined as a Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score of ≥ 4.

METHODS

This was a prospective study of patients with moderate to severe TBI managed at the Nelson Mandela Academic Hospital during the period between March 2014 and March 2016. Following admission and initial management, the patient demographic data (sex, age) and admission Glasgow Coma Scale score were recorded. Oxidative stress and inflammatory biomarkers in blood and CSF were sampled on days 1-7. On day 14, only blood was sampled for the same biomarkers. The primary outcome was the GOS score-due to its simplicity, the GOS was used to assess clinical outcomes at day 90. Because of difficulty in performing regular follow-up due to the vastness of the region, difficult terrain, and long travel distances, a 3-month follow-up period was used to avoid default.

RESULTS

Sixty-four patients with Glasgow Coma Scale scores of ≤ 12 were seen and managed. Among the 56 patients who survived, 42 showed significant recovery (GOS score ≥ 4) at 3 months. Important predictors of recovery included antioxidant activity in the CSF (superoxide dismutase and total antioxidant capacity).

CONCLUSIONS

Recovery after TBI was dependent on the resolution of oxidative stress imbalance.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU

OBJECTIVE

To update and expand the 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the ICU.

DESIGN

Thirty-two international experts, four methodologists, and four critical illness survivors met virtually at least monthly. All section groups gathered face-to-face at annual Society of Critical Care Medicine congresses; virtual connections included those unable to attend. A formal conflict of interest policy was developed a priori and enforced throughout the process. Teleconferences and electronic discussions among subgroups and whole panel were part of the guidelines' development. A general content review was completed face-to-face by all panel members in January 2017.

METHODS

Content experts, methodologists, and ICU survivors were represented in each of the five sections of the guidelines: Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption). Each section created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome, and nonactionable, descriptive questions based on perceived clinical relevance. The guideline group then voted their ranking, and patients prioritized their importance. For each Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question, sections searched the best available evidence, determined its quality, and formulated recommendations as "strong," "conditional," or "good" practice statements based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation principles. In addition, evidence gaps and clinical caveats were explicitly identified.

RESULTS

The Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) panel issued 37 recommendations (three strong and 34 conditional), two good practice statements, and 32 ungraded, nonactionable statements. Three questions from the patient-centered prioritized question list remained without recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

We found substantial agreement among a large, interdisciplinary cohort of international experts regarding evidence supporting recommendations, and the remaining literature gaps in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. Highlighting this evidence and the research needs will improve Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) management and provide the foundation for improved outcomes and science in this vulnerable population.

Pain measurement techniques: spotlight on mechanically ventilated patients

Background

Procedural pain is a frequent problem in intensive care units (ICUs). For that, pain assessment has been increasingly introduced to the ICU professional’s routine, and studies have been developed to show the relevance of measuring pain in critically ill patients.

Objective

This review aimed to describe pain measurement techniques for mechanically ventilated adult patients based on evidence and already published.

Method

Systematic literature search was performed on PubMed and Google Scholar. Keywords “pain”, “pain measurement”, “intensive care units” and “respiration, artificial” were combined to the Boolean operator AND. No language or publication year was limited in this search. The purpose and method of all papers were analyzed and only studies which described pain assessment in mechanically ventilated patients were included in this review.

Results

Objective methods were found in the literature to assess pain in mechanically ventilated adults. Behavioral scales were the most used method for pain measurement in noncommunicative patients. Vital signs were used, but the reliability of this method was questioned. Pupillometry, bispectral index and skin conductance were found and described as pain assessment methods.

Conclusion

This review showed that objective measures, as behavioral scales, are the gold standard tools to measure pain intensity in noncommunicative subjects. These data contribute to professionals’ knowledge about ICU pain measurement and emphasize its importance and consequences for adequate pain management.

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.

Management of severe traumatic brain injury (first 24hours)

The latest French Guidelines for the management in the first 24hours of patients with severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) were published in 1998. Due to recent changes (intracerebral monitoring, cerebral perfusion pressure management, treatment of raised intracranial pressure), an update was required. Our objective has been to specify the significant developments since 1998. These guidelines were conducted by a group of experts for the French Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (Société francaise d'anesthésie et de réanimation [SFAR]) in partnership with the Association de neuro-anesthésie-réanimation de langue française (ANARLF), The French Society of Emergency Medicine (Société française de médecine d'urgence (SFMU), the Société française de neurochirurgie (SFN), the Groupe francophone de réanimation et d'urgences pédiatriques (GFRUP) and the Association des anesthésistes-réanimateurs pédiatriques d'expression française (ADARPEF). The method used to elaborate these guidelines was the Grade^® method. After two Delphi rounds, 32 recommendations were formally developed by the experts focusing on the evaluation the initial severity of traumatic brain injury, the modalities of prehospital management, imaging strategies, indications for neurosurgical interventions, sedation and analgesia, indications and modalities of cerebral monitoring, medical management of raised intracranial pressure, management of multiple trauma with severe traumatic brain injury, detection and prevention of post-traumatic epilepsia, biological homeostasis (osmolarity, glycaemia, adrenal axis) and paediatric specificities.

"Pain relieved, but still struggling"-Critically ill patients experiences of pain and other discomforts during analgosedation

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To explore how critically ill patients treated according to a strategy of analgosedation experience and handle pain, other discomforts and wakefulness.

BACKGROUND

Patients experience both pain and discomfort while in the intensive care unit. International guidelines recommend focused pain treatment and light sedation. An analgosedation protocol favouring pain management, light sedation and early mobilisation was implemented in our university hospital medical and surgical intensive care unit in Norway in 2014. The analgosedation approach may affect patients' experiences of the intensive care unit stay.

DESIGN

Exploratory, descriptive design using semi-structured interviews.

METHOD

Eighteen adult patients treated in intensive care unit >24 hr and receiving mechanical ventilation were interviewed 1-9 days after intensive care unit discharge. Ten patients were re-interviewed after 3 months. Data were analysed using the "systematic text condensation" approach.

FINDINGS

Four main categories emerged from the analysis: "In discomfort, but rarely in pain," "Struggling to get a grip on reality," "Holding on" and "Handling emotionally trapped experiences." "Pain relieved, but still struggling" was the overarching theme. Analgosedation provided good pain relief, but patients still described frequent physical and psychological discomforts, in particular related to mechanical ventilation, not understanding what was going on, and experiences of delusions. To come to terms with their intensive care unit stay, patients needed to participate, trust in others and endure suffering. After hospital discharge, patients described both repression of experiences and searching for recognition of what they had gone through.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Despite good pain relief during analgosedation, other discomforts were commonly described. Critically ill patients still experience an intensive care unit stay as a traumatic part of their illness trajectory. Nurses need to attend carefully also to discomforts other than pain.

Current views of the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit

International best practice endorses the use of standardized approaches in the management of pediatric patients in the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU). There is increasing awareness of the risk of prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation as a consequence of morphine use leading to ventilator-associated pneumonia, extended PICU and hospital length of stay and increased morbidity and mortality. Accordingly, a fundamental outcome measure of this study was to determine whether raising awareness of these issues and the introduction of analgesia and sedation guidelines led to a reduction in the amount of analgesics and sedatives administered to PICU patients, while not exposing them to pain and distress. The present review article is devoted to discussing all important aspects of PICU.

Risk factors and prognosis of pain events during mechanical ventilation: a retrospective study

Background

Pain assessment is highly recommended in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. However, pain intensity and its impact on outcomes in these patients remain obscure. We collected the results of routine pain assessments, utilizing the behavioral pain scale (BPS), from 151 patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Risk factors associated with a pain event, defined as BPS of >5, and its impact on patient outcomes were investigated.

Methods

A total of 151 consecutive adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation for more than 24 h in a single 10-bed ICU were enrolled in this study. The highest BPS within 48 h after the initiation of mechanical ventilation was collected, as well as information about the patients’ characteristics and medication received. We also recorded patient outcomes, including time to successful weaning from mechanical ventilation, time to successful ICU discharge, and 30-day in-hospital mortality. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to determine factors independently associated with patients with a BPS of >5. Clinical outcomes were also assessed using multivariate logistic regression analysis, correcting for risk factors.

Results

We analyzed 151 patients. The median highest BPS was 4. The percentage of patients who recorded a BPS of >5 was 19.9% (n = 30). Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that the disuse of fentanyl and inotropic support was an independent predictor of pain event. Multivariable Cox regression analysis suggested that the development of a BPS of >5 was associated with increased mortality and a not statistically significant trend towards prolonged mechanical ventilation.

Conclusions

A significant proportion of ventilated patients experienced a BPS of >5 soon after the initiation of mechanical ventilation. Disuse of fentanyl and use of inotropic agents increased the risk of developing a BPS of >5 during mechanical ventilation. An association between adequate analgesia and improved patient outcomes provides a rationale for the assessment of pain during mechanical ventilation, with subsequent intervention if necessary.

Pain events were common among ventilated patients. In critical care settings, appropriate and adequate pain management is warranted, given the association with improved patient outcomes.

Development of a pain management algorithm for intensive care units

OBJECTIVES

To develop a pain management algorithm for intensive care unit (ICU) patients and to evaluate the psychometric properties of the translated tools used in the algorithm.

BACKGROUND

Many ICU patients experience pain. However, an evidence-based algorithm for pain management does not exist.

METHODS

Literature review, expert panel, and pilot testing were used to develop the algorithm. The tools were evaluated for inter-rater reliability between two nurses. Discriminant validity was evaluated by comparing pain during turning and rest.

RESULTS

An algorithm was developed. The Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and the Behavioral Pain Scale-Non Intubated (BPS-NI) discriminated between pain scores during turning and rest. Inter-rater reliability for the BPS varied from moderate (0.46) to very good (1.00). Inter-rater reliability for the BPS-NI varied from fair (0.21) to good (0.63).

CONCLUSIONS

The content of the pain management algorithm is consistent with the latest clinical practice guideline recommendations. It may be a useful tool to improve pain assessment and management in adult ICU patients.

Evidence-based guidelines for the management of large hemispheric infarction : a statement for health care professionals from the Neurocritical Care Society and the German Society for Neuro-intensive Care and Emergency Medicine

Large hemispheric infarction (LHI), also known as malignant middle cerebral infarction, is a devastating disease associated with significant disability and mortality. Clinicians and family members are often faced with a paucity of high quality clinical data as they attempt to determine the most appropriate course of treatment for patients with LHI, and current stroke guidelines do not provide a detailed approach regarding the day-to-day management of these complicated patients. To address this need, the Neurocritical Care Society organized an international multidisciplinary consensus conference on the critical care management of LHI. Experts from neurocritical care, neurosurgery, neurology, interventional neuroradiology, and neuroanesthesiology from Europe and North America were recruited based on their publications and expertise. The panel devised a series of clinical questions related to LHI, and assessed the quality of data related to these questions using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation guideline system. They then developed recommendations (denoted as strong or weak) based on the quality of the evidence, as well as the balance of benefits and harms of the studied interventions, the values and preferences of patients, and resource considerations.

Implementation of a pain management algorithm in intensive care units and evaluation of nurses' level of adherence with the algorithm

OBJECTIVES

To implement a pain management algorithm in intensive care units (ICU) and to evaluate nurses' level of adherence with the algorithm.

BACKGROUND

Many ICU patients experience pain. Therefore, an evidence-based algorithm for pain management was developed.

METHODS

A pain management algorithm was implemented in three units over three weeks. Nurses' level of adherence with the algorithm and associations between level of adherence and patient and unit characteristics over 22 weeks were evaluated using multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

Nurses' level of adherence was 74.6%. Adherence rates were lower on the evening and night shifts compared to the day shift. Males were assessed significantly less frequently than females. Patients with "injury, poisoning, or certain other consequences of external causes" were assessed significantly less frequently than patients with "diseases of the respiratory system."

CONCLUSIONS

ICU nurses can use a pain management algorithm consistently. Findings from this study suggest that a pain management algorithm is a useful tool to increase ICU nurses' adherence with pain assessment.

Remifentanil, ketamine, and fospropofol: a review of alterative continuous infusion agents for sedation in the critically ill

Sedation and analgesia are integral aspects in the care of critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit. In recent years, many of the commonly used sedative agents in the United States have experienced manufacturing and sterility issues leading to decreased availability. In addition, current practice has shifted to providing lighter levels of sedation as clinicians have gained a better understanding of the consequences of prolonged deep sedation. Benzodiazepines have fallen out of favor due to findings including increased delirium and duration of mechanical ventilation. Alterations in end-organ function in critically ill patients may also lead to varied responses to commonly used sedatives. With numerous factors impacting choice of sedation in the intensive care unit, fospropofol, ketamine, and remifentanil have been considered potential alternatives to standard therapy. The purpose of this review was to discuss strategies for the safe and effective use of fospropofol, ketamine, and remifentanil for continuous intravenous sedation in critically ill patients.

Evaluating pain, sedation, and delirium in the neurologically critically ill-feasibility and reliability of standardized tools: a multi-institutional study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the feasibility and reliability of systematic evaluations of analgesia, sedation level, and delirium features in the neurologically critically ill and to determine whether delirium features are linked to clinical outcomes in this population.

DESIGN

Multicentered prospective observational study.

SETTING

Neurological, Neurosurgical, Neurosciences or Surgical Trauma ICUs from three hospitals (two in Canada and one in the United States).

PATIENTS

A convenience sample of adult NICU or neurologic, neurosurgical, neurosciences, or surgical trauma ICU patients admitted for greater than 12 hours from November 2011 to April 2012.

INTERVENTIONS

Systematic assessments were simultaneously and independently performed by a neurologist, intensivists, or trauma surgeon, and a nurse in three multispecialty ICUs. Pain was evaluated with the numeric rating scale or behavioral pain scale. Sedation was assessed using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale. Patients with Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale greater than or equal to -4 were screened for features of delirium with the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. Intraclass correlation coefficient was used to evaluate inter-rater reliability between the nurse and the physician for pain and sedation scales, and the kappa coefficient was calculated for concordance of the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist items.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

151 patients had 439 assessments. Pain and sedation were always assessable with excellent inter-rater reliability (numeric rating scale intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.92; behavior pain scale intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.83; and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.92). Patients were sufficiently alert for delirium screening 3/4 of the time; Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist items had good concordance (kappa coefficients between 0.58 and 0.91 for the eight Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist items). Nonevaluable items were most often orientation, hallucinations, and speech or mood content. Furthermore, each additional Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist item present in proportion to the total evaluable Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist score was associated with a 10% increase in ICU length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Pain and sedation can be systematically assessed in the neurologically critically ill; the majority can also be screened for delirium features with excellent inter-rater reliability. Increased proportion of Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist items is associated with worse outcomes.

[Sedation and weaning in neurocritical care: can concepts from general critical care be applied?]

The translation of modern principles of sedation and weaning from mechanical ventilation from general intensive care to neurocritical care has to take into account specific aspects of brain-injured patients. These include interactions with intracranial hypertension, disturbed autoregulation, a higher frequency of seizures and an increased risk of delirium. The advantages of sedation protocols, scoring tools to steer sedation and analgesia and an individualized choice of drugs with emphasis on analgesia gain more interest and importance in neurocritical care as well, but have not been thoroughly investigated so far. When weaning neurological intensive care unit (ICU) patients from the ventilator and approaching extubation it has to be acknowledged that conventional ICU criteria for weaning and extubation can only have an orienting character and that dysphagia is much more frequent in these patients.

Pro/con debate: should PaCO2 be tightly controlled in all patients with acute brain injuries?

You are the attending intensivist in a neurointensive care unit caring for a woman five days post-rupture of a cerebral aneurysm (World Federation of Neurological Surgeons Grade 4 and Fisher Grade 3). She is intubated for airway protection and mild hypoxemia related to an aspiration event at the time of aneurysm rupture, but is breathing spontaneously on the ventilator. Your patient is spontaneously hyperventilating with high tidal volumes despite minimal support and has developed significant hypocapnia. She has not yet developed the acute respiratory distress syndrome. You debate whether to tightly control her partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide, weighing the known risks of acute hypocapnia in other forms of brain injury against the potential loss of clinical neuromonitoring associated with deep sedation and neuromuscular blockade in this patient who is at high risk of delayed ischemia from vasospasm. You are also aware of the potential implications of tidal volume control if this patient were to develop the acute respiratory distress syndrome and the effect of permissive hypercapnia on her intracranial pressure. In this paper we provide a detailed and balanced examination of the issues pertaining to this clinical scenario, including suggestions for clinical management of ventilation, sedation and neuromonitoring. Until more definitive clinical trial evidence is available to guide practice, clinicians are forced to carefully weigh the potential benefits of tight carbon dioxide control against the potential risks in each individual patient based on the clinical issues at hand.

Sedation in traumatic brain injury

Several different classes of sedative agents are used in the management of patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). These agents are used at induction of anaesthesia, to maintain sedation, to reduce elevated intracranial pressure, to terminate seizure activity and facilitate ventilation. The intent of their use is to prevent secondary brain injury by facilitating and optimising ventilation, reducing cerebral metabolic rate and reducing intracranial pressure. There is limited evidence available as to the best choice of sedative agents in TBI, with each agent having specific advantages and disadvantages. This review discusses these agents and offers evidence-based guidance as to the appropriate context in which each agent may be used. Propofol, benzodiazepines, narcotics, barbiturates, etomidate, ketamine, and dexmedetomidine are reviewed and compared.

A critical appraisal of sedation, analgesia and delirium in neurocritical care

Administering analgesics, sedatives and antipsychotics is challenging in the Neurological Intensive Care Unit (NICU). We reviewed this literature and our current practice to better inform the critical care practitioner and to identify gaps for future research. We electronically searched observational, intervention and outcome studies addressing sedation, analgesia and delirium in the NICU, and their bibliographies. Practice patterns were assessed in three critical care units with specialized neurological care in Montreal. Bedside pain assessment tools are psychometrically validated in the neuro-critically ill but sedation and delirium tools are not. Rigorous pain and sedation assessments appear feasible; delirium screening has not been tested. Publications addressing outcomes and responses to pharmacologic treatment lack consistency, rigor or both. In daily practice, pharmacologic management varies greatly. Clearly, little information exists on analgesia, sedation and delirium in the NICU. Systematic evaluation of pain improves outcome. No evidence-based therapeutic recommendations can be proffered.