Evaluation of a local ICU sedation guideline on goal-directed administration of sedatives and analgesics

The risks of sedation and pain control during burn resuscitation: Increased opioids lead to over-resuscitation and hypotension

INTRODUCTION

Pain management and sedation are necessary in severely burned persons. Balancing pain control, obtundation, and hemodynamic suppression can be challenging. We hypothesized that increased sedation during burn resuscitation is associated with increased intravenous fluid administration and hemodynamic instability.

METHODS

A retrospective review of a single burn center was performed from 2014 to 2019 for all admissions to the burn unit with > 20% total body surface area (TBSA) burns. Within 48 h of admission, we compared total amounts of sedation/pain medications (morphine milligram equivalents (MME), propofol, dexmedetomidine, benzodiazepines) with total resuscitation volumes and frequency of hypotensive episodes. Resuscitation volumes and frequency of hypotension were modeled with multivariable linear regression adjusting for burn severity and weight.

RESULTS

208 patients were included with median age of 43 years (IQR 29-55) and median %TBSA of 31 (IQR 25-44). Median 48-hour resuscitation milliliters per weight per %TBSA were 3.3 (IQR 2.28-4.92). Pain/sedative medications included a combination of opioids in 99%, benzodiazepines in 73%, propofol in 31%, and dexmedetomidine in 11% of patients. MMEs were associated with greater resuscitation volumes (95% CI: 0.15-0.54, p = 0.01) as well as number of hypotensive events (95% CI: 1.57-2.7, p < 0.001). No associations were noted with other sedative medications when comparing the number of hypotensive events and resuscitation volumes.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased opioid administration has physiological consequences and should be carefully monitored during resuscitation as higher volume administrations lead to worse outcomes. Opioids and sedating medications should be titrated to the least amount needed to achieve reasonable comfort and sedation.

Delirium Screening and Pharmacotherapy in the ICU: The Patients Are Not the Only Ones Confused

Background: Delirium is difficult to measure in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). It is possible that by considering the rate of screening, incidence, and rate of treatment with antipsychotic medications (APMs) for suspected delirium, a clearer picture can emerge. Methods: A retrospective, observational study was conducted at two ICUs in Australia, between April and June of 2020. All adult ICU patients were screened; those who spoke English and did not have previous neurocognitive pathology or intracranial pathology were included in the analysis. Data were collected from the hospitals' electronic medical records. The primary outcome was incidence of delirium based on the use of the Confusion Assessment Method for ICU (CAM-ICU). Secondary outcomes included measures of screening for delirium, treatment of suspected delirium with APMs, and identifying clinical factors associated with both delirium and the use of APMs. Results: From 736 patients that were screened, 665 were included in the analysis. The incidence of delirium was 11.3% (75/665); on average, the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) was performed every 2.9 h and CAM-ICU every 40 h. RASS was not performed in 8.4% (56/665) of patients and CAM-ICU was not performed in 40.6% (270/665) of patients. A total of 17% (113/665) of patients were prescribed an APM, with quetiapine being the most used. ICU length of stay (LOS), APACHE-III score, and the use of alpha-2 agonists were associated with the presence of delirium, while ICU LOS, the use of alpha-2 agonists, and the presence of delirium were associated with patients receiving APMs. Conclusions: The incidence of delirium was lower than previously reported, at 11.3%. The rate of screening for delirium was low, while the use of APMs for delirium was higher than the incidence of delirium. It is possible that the true incidence is higher than what was measured. Critical prospective assessment is required to optimize APM indications in the ICU.

Evaluation of Sedation Outcomes Following Increased Dexmedetomidine Use in the ICU

To evaluate sedation practices following a dexmedetomidine guideline update in the ICU.

Design

Single-center, retrospective chart review.

Setting

Tertiary academic medical center.

Patients

Patients were included in this analysis if they were admitted to the ICU and were ordered for continuous infusion sedatives or opioids from September to November 2016 (PRE) and from September to November 2017 (POST). Patients were excluded from this analysis if they met any of the following criteria: mechanical ventilation less than 12 hours, admitted with acute neurologic injury, burn of greater than 20% total body surface area, chronic tracheostomy, admitted to the neuroscience or cardiac surgery ICU, on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support, or received an infusion of neuromuscular blockers.

Interventions

Patients admitted during a restricted dexmedetomidine prescribing guideline were compared with patients admitted during an expanded prescribing guideline.

Measurements and Main Results

Of the 1,426 patients evaluated for inclusion, 427 patients met the criteria in this analysis. Of these, 217 patients were in the PRE and 210 patients in the POST. A majority of patients were excluded for admission to neuroscience or cardiac surgery ICU. Dexmedetomidine was used in 13.8% of encounters in the PRE and 51.9% of encounters in the POST (p < 0.001). The median duration of mechanical ventilation was 49 hours (24-110 hr) in the PRE and 47.5 hours (26-98 hr) in the POST (p = 0.8). ICU length of stay was a median of 136 and 121 hours in the PRE and POST, respectively (p = 0.2). The median hospital length of stay was 296 and 326 hours in the PRE and POST, respectively (p = 0.35). After controlling for possible confounders, ventilation time remained unchanged between the PRE and POST (p = 0.98).

Conclusions

The expansion of a hospital dexmedetomidine prescribing guideline resulted in an increased use of dexmedetomidine but was not associated with a difference in length of mechanical ventilation.

The Effect of Sedation Protocol Using Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) on Some Clinical Outcomes of Mechanically Ventilated Patients in Intensive Care Units: a Randomized Clinical Trial

Introduction: Providing for patients’ comfort and reducing their pain is one of the important tasks of health care professionals in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The current study was conducted to determine the effect of a protocol using a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) on some clinical outcomes of patients under mechanical ventilation (MV) in 2017.

Methods: This single-blind clinical trial was conducted on 79 traumatic patients in the ICU who were randomly allocated into the intervention (N=40) and the control groups (N=39). The sedation was achieved, using a sedation protocol in the intervention group and the routine care in the control group. The clinical outcomes of the patients (duration of MV, length of staying in ICU, final outcome) were measured. As the participants had different lengths of MV and staying in ICU, the data were restructured, and were analyzed, using proper statistical methods.

Results: The patients’ level of sedation in the intervention group was significantly closer to the ideal score of RASS (-1 to +1). The duration of MV was significantly reduced in the intervention group, and the length of stay in the ICU was also significantly shorter. There was no difference in terms of final outcome. The ICU cost in the control group was twice as high as the cost in of the intervention group.

Conclusion: The applied sedation protocol in this study would provide better sedation and could consequently lead to significantly better clinical outcomes, and the cost of caring as a result.

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.

Medication Use and Risk of Delirium in Mechanically Ventilated Patients

One of the principal complications in patients in the intensive care unit, particularly in those receiving mechanical ventilation, is medication-induced delirium. The present study aimed to intensively analyze pharmaceutical factors affecting the development of delirium in mechanically ventilated patients using the electronic health records. The present study was designed as a retrospective case-control study. The delirium group included 500 mechanically ventilated patients. The non-delirium group included 2,000 patients who were hospitalized during the same period as the delirium group and received mechanical ventilation. A total of seven types of medications (narcotic analgesics, non-narcotic analgesics, psychopharmaceuticals, sleep aid medications, anticholinergics, steroids, and diuretics), conventionally used to manage mechanical ventilation, were found to be major risk factors associated with the occurrence of delirium. Since these medications are an integral part of managing mechanically ventilated patients, prudent protocol-based medication approaches are essential to decrease the risk of delirium.

Transition From Continuous Infusion Fentanyl to Hydromorphone in Critically Ill Patients

BACKGROUND

The 2013 Society of Critical Care Medicine guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients recommend intravenous opioids as first-line therapy to treat nonneuropathic pain. There is a paucity of literature describing possible benefits of utilizing specific opioids over others in ICU patients.

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to identify rationales for the transition from continuous infusion fentanyl to continuous infusion hydromorphone in critically ill patients.

METHODS

This was a single-center, prospective, observational analysis of adult ICU patients who were transitioned from fentanyl to hydromorphone. The major end point was to characterize the primary reason for transition. Minor end points included secondary reason(s) for transition, transition dosing, changes in continuous sedative requirements, and level of sedation.

RESULTS

Forty-six patients were included in the analysis. The primary rationale for transition was ventilator compliance (28.3%), followed by tachyphylaxis or better pain control (19.6%), and reduction in sedatives (13.0%). The most common secondary reason(s) for transition included reduction in sedatives (47.8%), opioid rotation (32.6%), and obesity (30.4). Median fentanyl rate of 100 µg/h was transitioned to 1 mg/h of hydromorphone. The percentage of patients requiring the use of continuous sedatives was decreased in the 24 hours following transition (P = .005); however, patients were more deeply sedated (P = .02).

CONCLUSION

Rationales for transition were to improve ventilator compliance, optimize patient-specific pharmacokinetics, and limit overall sedative exposure.

Evaluation of sedatives, analgesics, and neuromuscular blocking agents in adults receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

PURPOSE

The objective of this study was to evaluate the use of sedative, analgesic, and neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) in patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a 2-year, prospective, observational study of adult intensive care unit patients on ECMO support for more than 48hours.

RESULTS

We analyzed 32 patients, including 15 receiving VA (venoarterial) ECMO and 17 VV (venovenous) ECMO. The median daily dose of benzodiazepines (midazolam equivalents) was 24mg, and the median daily dose of opioids (fentanyl equivalents) was 3875 μg. There was a moderate negative correlation between the day of ECMO and the median daily benzodiazepine dose (r=-0.5515) and a very weak negative correlation for the median daily opioid dose (r=-0.0053). On average, patients were sedated to Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale scores between 0 and -1. Continuous infusions of opioids, benzodiazepines, propofol, dexmedetomidine, and NMBAs were administered on 404 (85.1%), 199 (41.9%), 95 (20%), 32 (6.7%), and 60 (12.6%) ECMO days, respectively. Patients in the VA arm received a continuous infusion opioid (96.4% vs 81.6% days; P<.001) and benzodiazepine (58.2% vs 37.0% days; P<.001) more frequently.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients received relatively low doses of sedatives and analgesics while at a light level of sedation on average. Patients rarely required neuromuscular blockade.

Effect of using Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale on duration of mechanical ventilation, type and dosage of sedation on hospitalized patients in intensive care units

Background:

Mechanical ventilation is one of the supporting treatments that are used for different reasons. To reduce patients’ inconvenience caused due to using tracheal tube and ventilator, sedation is routinely used. Using scales for the sedation, for example, Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS), may reduce dose of sedation and length of mechanical ventilation.

Materials and Methods:

This study is a randomized clinical trial on 64 patients selected from three intensive care units (ICUs) in Isfahan, Iran. Through random allocation, 32 patients were assigned to each of the study and control groups. In the control group, patients’ level of consciousness and the amount of drug consumption in every shift, based on physician order, were recorded. In the study group, RASS score was recorded every hour and sedation was administered based on that. The purpose of the study was to investigate of application of RASS for drug consumption until weaning of the patient from the ventilator. Independent t-test with significance level of 0.05 was used.

Results:

Results showed no significant difference in the mean consumption of midazolam and morphine after intervention, but there was a significant difference in fentanyl (P = 0.03) consumption (379 μg in the control group vs 75 μg in the study group) between groups after the intervention. The mean duration of being connected to the ventilator was significantly less in the study group (P = 0.03).

Conclusions:

Application of RASS by nurses leads to a decrease in sedation consumption, connection to ventilator, and length of stay in the hospital.

Testing the implementation of an electronic process-of-care checklist for use during morning medical rounds in a tertiary intensive care unit: a prospective before-after study

Background

To improve the delivery of important care processes in the ICU, morning ward round checklists have been implemented in a number of intensive care units (ICUs) internationally. Good quality evidence supporting their use as clinical support tools is lacking. With increased use of technology in clinical settings, integration of such tools into current work practices can be a challenge and requires evaluation. Having completed preliminary work revealing variations in practice and evidence supporting the construct validity of a process-of-care checklist, the need to develop, test and further validate an e(lectronic)-checklist in an ICU was identified.

Methods

A prospective, before–after study was conducted in a 19-bed general ICU within a tertiary hospital. Data collection occurred during baseline and intervention periods for 6 weeks each, with education and training conducted over a 4-week period prior to intervention. The e-checklist was used at baseline by ICU research nurses conducting post-ward round audits. During intervention, senior medical staff completed the e-checklist after patient assessments during the morning ward rounds, and research staff conducted post-ward round audits for validity testing (via concordance measurement). To examine changes in compliance over time, checklist-level data were analysed using generalised estimating equations that factored in confounding variables, and statistical process control charts were used to evaluate unit-level data. Established measures of concordance were used to evaluate e-checklist validity.

Results

Compliance with each care component improved significantly over time; the largest improvement was for pain management (42% increase; adjusted odds ratio = 23, p < 0.001), followed by glucose management (22% increase, p < 0.001) and head-of-bed elevation (19% increase, p < 0.001), both with odds ratios greater than 10. Most detected omissions were corrected by the following day. Control charts illustrated reduced variability in care compliance over time. There was good concordance between physician and auditor e-checklist responses; seven out of nine cares had kappa values above 0.8.

Conclusion

Improvements in the delivery of essential daily care processes were evidenced after the introduction of an e-checklist to the morning ward rounds in an ICU. High levels of agreement between physician and independent audit responses lend support to the validity of the e-checklist.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13613-015-0060-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Improved analgesia, sedation, and delirium protocol associated with decreased duration of delirium and mechanical ventilation

RATIONALE

Introduction of sedation protocols has been associated with improved patient outcomes. It is not known if an update to an existing high-quality sedation protocol, featuring increased patient assessment and reduced benzodiazepine exposure, is associated with improved patient process and outcome quality metrics.

METHODS

This was an observational before (n = 703) and after (n = 780) cohort study of mechanically ventilated patients in a 24-bed trauma-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) from 2009 to 2011. The three main protocol updates were: (1) requirement to document Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) scores every 4 hours, (2) requirement to document Confusion Assessment Method-ICU (CAM ICU) twice daily, and (3) systematic, protocolized deescalation of excess sedation. Multivariable linear regression was used for the primary analysis. The primary outcome was the duration of mechanical ventilation. Prespecified secondary endpoints included days of delirium; the frequency of patient assessment with the RASS and CAM-ICU instruments; benzodiazepine dosing; durations of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay, and hospitalization; and hospital mortality and ventilator associated pneumonia rate.

RESULTS

Patients in the updated protocol cohort had 1.22 more RASS assessments per day (5.38 vs. 4.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.05-1.39; P < 0.01) and 1.15 more CAM-ICU assessments per day (1.49 vs. 0.35; 95% CI, 1.08-1.21; P < 0.01) than the baseline cohort. The mean hourly benzodiazepine dose decreased by 34.8% (0.08 mg lorazepam equivalents/h; 0.15 vs. 0.23; P < 0.01). In the multivariable model, the median duration of mechanical ventilation decreased by 17.6% (95% CI, 0.6-31.7%; P = 0.04). The overall odds ratio of delirium was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.49-0.91; P = 0.01) comparing updated versus baseline cohort. A 12.4% reduction in median duration of ICU stay (95% CI, 0.5-22.8%; P = 0.04) and a 14.0% reduction in median duration of hospitalization (95% CI, 2.0-24.5%; P = 0.02) were also seen. No significant association with mortality (odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.80-1.76; P = 0.40) was seen.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of an updated ICU analgesia, sedation, and delirium protocol was associated with an increase in RASS and CAM-ICU assessment and documentation; reduced hourly benzodiazepine dose; and decreased delirium and median durations of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay, and hospitalization.