"Difficult to Sedate": Successful Implementation of a Benzodiazepine-Sparing Analgosedation-Protocol in Mechanically Ventilated Children

Analgesia and sedation in critically ill pediatric patients: an update from the recent guidelines and point of view

In the last decades, the advancement of knowledge in analgesia and sedation for critically ill pediatric patients has been conspicuous and relevant. Many recommendations have changed to ensure patients' comfort during their intensive care unit (ICU) stay and prevent and treat sedation-related complications, as well as improve functional recovery and clinical outcomes. The key aspects of the analgosedation management in pediatrics have been recently reviewed in two consensus-based documents. However, there remains a lot to be researched and understood. With this narrative review and authors' point of view, we aimed to summarize the new insights presented in these two documents to facilitate their interpretation and application in clinical practice, as well as to outline research priorities in the field.    Conclusion: With this narrative review and authors' point of view, we aimed to summarize the new insights presented in these two documents to facilitate their interpretation and application in clinical practice, as well as to outline research priorities in the field. What is Known: • Critically ill pediatric patients receiving intensive care required analgesia and sedation to attenuate painful and stressful stimuli. •Optimal management of analgosedation is a challenge often burdened with complications such as tolerance, iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome, delirium, and possible adverse outcomes. What is New: •The new insights on the analgosedation treatment for critically ill pediatric patients delineated in the recent guidelines are summarized to identify strategies for changes in clinical practice. •Research gaps and potential for quality improvement projects are also highlighted.

2021 Year in Review: Pediatric Mechanical Ventilation

Mechanical ventilation is commonly used in the pediatric intensive care unit. This paper reviews studies of pediatric mechanical ventilation published in 2021. Topics include physiology, ventilator modes, alarms, disease states, airway suctioning, ventilator liberation, prolonged ventilation, and others.

Modified ABCDEF-Bundles for Critically Ill Pediatric Patients - What Could They Look Like?

Background and Significance

Advances in pediatric intensive care have led to markedly improved survival rates in critically ill children. Approximately 70% of those children survive with varying forms of complex chronic diseases or impairment/disabilities. Length of stay, length of mechanical ventilation and number of interventions per patient are increasing with rising complexity of underlying diseases, leading to increasing pain, agitation, withdrawal symptoms, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption. The ICU-Liberation Collaborative of the Society of Critical Care Medicine has developed a number of preventative measures for prevention, early detection, or treatment of physical and psychiatric/psychological sequelae of oftentimes traumatic intensive care medicine. These so called ABCDEF-Bundles consist of elements for (A) assessment, prevention and management of pain, (B) spontaneous awakening and breathing trials (SAT/SBT), (C) choice of analgesia and sedation, (D) assessment, prevention and management of delirium, (E) early mobility and exercise and (F) family engagement and empowerment. For adult patients in critical care medicine, research shows significant effects of bundle-implementation on survival, mechanical ventilation, coma, delirium and post-ICU discharge disposition. Research regarding PICS in children and possible preventative or therapeutic intervention is insufficient as yet. This narrative review provides available information for modification and further research on the ABCDEF-Bundles for use in critically ill children.

Material and Methods

A narrative review of existing literature was used.

Results

One obvious distinction to adult patients is the wide range of different developmental stages of children and the even closer relationship between patient and family. Evidence for pediatric ABCDEF-Bundles is insufficient and input can only be collected from literature regarding different subsections and topics.

Conclusion

In addition to efforts to improve analgesia, sedation and weaning protocols with the aim of prevention, early detection and effective treatment of withdrawal symptoms or delirium, efforts are focused on adjusting ABCDEF bundle for the entire pediatric age group and on strengthening families' decision-making power, understanding parents as a resource for their child and involving them early in the care of their children.

Implementation Science in Pediatric Critical Care - Sedation and Analgesia Practices as a Case Study

Sedation and analgesia (SA) management is essential practice in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Over the past decade, there has been significant interest in optimal SA management strategy, due to reports of the adverse effects of SA medications and their relationship to ICU delirium. We reviewed 13 studies examining SA practices in the PICU over the past decade for the purposes of reporting the study design, outcomes of interest, SA protocols used, strategies for implementation, and the patient-centered outcomes. We highlighted the paucity of evidence-base for these practices and also described the existing gaps in the intersection of implementation science (IS) and SA protocols in the PICU. Future studies would benefit from a focus on effective implementation strategies to introduce and sustain evidence-based SA protocols, as well as novel quasi-experimental study designs that will help determine their impact on relevant clinical outcomes, such as the occurrence of ICU delirium. Adoption of the available evidence-based practices into routine care in the PICU remains challenging. Using SA practice as an example, we illustrated the need for a structured approach to the implementation science in pediatric critical care. Key components of the successful adoption of evidence-based best practice include the assessment of the local context, both resources and barriers, followed by a context-specific strategy for implementation and a focus on sustainability and integration of the practice into the permanent workflow.

Four-in-One: A Comprehensive Checklist for the Assessment of Pain, Undersedation, Iatrogenic Withdrawal and Delirium in the PICU: A Delphi Study

OBJECTIVES

Children's pain, undersedation, iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome and delirium often have overlapping symptoms, which makes it difficult to decide why a child in the PICU is not comfortable. Validated assessment tools for these conditions are available, but regular assessment with multiple instruments may be too time-consuming. Therefore, we aimed to develop a new holistic instrument-the mosaIC checklist-that incorporates the assessment of the four conditions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a two-rounds international Delphi study among experts working in PICUs worldwide to find cues that in combination or separately are relevant for the four conditions.

RESULTS

In the first Delphi round, 38 of the 48 enrolled participants (79%) completed a questionnaire; in the second round 32 of 48 (67%). Eventually, 46 cues in eight categories (e.g., facial, vocal/verbal, body movements, sleep /behavioral state, posture/muscle tone, agitation, physiological and contextual) were found relevant. Thirty-three (72%) were considered relevant for pain, 24 for undersedation (52%), 35 for iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome (76%) and 28 (61%) for pediatric delirium. Thirteen cues (28%) were considered relevant for all four conditions; 11's (24%) for only one condition.

CONCLUSION

This Delphi study is the first step in developing a 4-in-1 comprehensive checklist to assess pain, undersedation, iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome and delirium in a holistic manner. Further validation is needed before the checklist can be applied in practice. Application of the mosaIC checklist could help determine what condition is most likely to cause a child's discomfort-and at the same time help reduce the PICU staff's registration burden.

The LiberAction Project: Implementation of a Pediatric Liberation Bundle to Screen Delirium, Reduce Benzodiazepine Sedation, and Provide Early Mobilization in a Human Resource-Limited Pediatric Intensive Care Unit

Background: Delirium, bed immobilization, and heavy sedation are among the major contributors of pediatric post-intensive care syndrome. Recently, the Society of Critical Care Medicine has proposed the implementation of daily interventions to minimize the incidence of these morbidities and optimize children functional outcomes and quality of life. Unfortunately, these interventions require important clinical and economical efforts which prevent their use in many pediatric intensive care units (PICU). Aim: First, to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a PICU bundle implementation prioritizing delirium screening and treatment, early mobilization (<72 h from PICU admission) and benzodiazepine-limited sedation in a human resource-limited PICU. Second, to evaluate the incidence of delirium and describe the early mobilization practices and sedative drugs used during the pre- and post-implementation periods. Third, to describe the barriers and adverse events encountered during early mobilization. Methods: This observational study was structured in a pre- (15th November 2019-30th June 2020) and post-implementation period (1st July 2020-31st December 2020). All patients admitted in PICU for more than 72 h during the pre and post-implementation period were included in the study. Patients were excluded if early mobilization was contraindicated. During the pre-implementation period, a rehabilitation program including delirium screening and treatment, early mobilization and benzodiazepine-sparing sedation guidelines was developed and all PICU staff trained. During the post-implementation period, delirium screening with the Connell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium scale was implemented at bedside. Early mobilization was performed using a structured tiered protocol and a new sedation protocol, limiting the use of benzodiazepine, was adopted. Results: Two hundred and twenty-five children were enrolled in the study, 137 in the pre-implementation period and 88 in the post-implementation period. Adherence to delirium screening, benzodiazepine-limited sedation and early mobilization was 90.9, 81.1, and 70.4%, respectively. Incidence of delirium was 23% in the post-implementation period. The median cumulative dose of benzodiazepines corrected for the total number of sedation days (mg/kg/sedation days) was significantly lower in the post-implementation period compared with the pre-implementation period: [0.83 (IQR: 0.53-1.31) vs. 0.74 (IQR: 0.55-1.16), p = 0.0001]. The median cumulative doses of fentanyl, remifentanil, and morphine corrected for the total number of sedation days were lower in the post-implementation period, but these differences were not significant. The median number of mobilizations per patient and the duration of each mobilization significantly increased in the post-implementation period [3.00 (IQR: 2.0-4.0) vs. 7.00 (IQR: 3.0-12.0); p = 0.004 and 4 min (IQR: 3.50-4.50) vs. 5.50 min (IQR: 5.25-6.5); p < 0.0001, respectively]. Barriers to early mobilization were: disease severity and bed rest orders (55%), lack of physicians' order (20%), lack of human resources (20%), and lack of adequate devices for patient mobilization (5%). No adverse events related to early mobilization were reported in both periods. Duration of mechanical ventilation and PICU length of stay was significantly lower in the post-implementation period as well as the occurrence of iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome. Conclusion: This study showed that the implementation of a PICU liberation bundle prioritizing delirium screening and treatment, benzodiazepine-limited sedation and early mobilization was feasible and safe even in a human resource-limited PICU. Further pediatric studies are needed to evaluate the clinical impact of delirium, benzodiazepine-limited sedation and early mobilization protocols on patients' long-term functional outcomes and on hospital finances.