Associated Factors of High Sedative Requirements within Patients with Moderate to Severe COVID-19 ARDS

Volatile versus propofol sedation after cardiac valve surgery: a single-center prospective randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Optimal intensive care of patients undergoing valve surgery is a complex balancing act between sedation for monitoring and timely postoperative awakening. It remains unclear, if these requirements can be fulfilled by volatile sedations in intensive care medicine in an efficient manner. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the time to extubation and secondary the workload required.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective randomized single-center trial at a tertiary university hospital to evaluate the postoperative management of open valve surgery patients. The study was randomized with regard to the use of volatile sedation compared to propofol sedation. Sedation was discontinued 60 min after admission for critical postoperative monitoring.

RESULTS

We observed a significantly earlier extubation (91 ± 39 min vs. 167 ± 77 min; p < 0.001), eye-opening (86 ± 28 min vs. 151 ± 71 min; p < 0.001) and command compliance (93 ± 38 min vs. 164 ± 75 min; p < 0.001) using volatile sedation, which in turn was associated with a significantly increased workload of a median of 9:56 min (± 4:16 min) set-up time. We did not observe any differences in complications. Cardiopulmonary bypass time did not differ between the groups 101 (IQR 81; 113) versus 112 (IQR 79; 136) minutes p = 0.36.

CONCLUSIONS

Using volatile sedation is associated with few minutes additional workload in assembling and enables a significantly accelerated evaluation of vulnerable patient groups. Volatile sedation has considerable advantages and emerges as a safe sedation technique in our vulnerable study population.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical trials registration (NCT04958668) was completed on 1 July 2021.

An early scoring system to predict mechanical ventilation for botulism: a single-center-based study

BACKGROUND

Early identification of patients requiring ventilator support will be beneficial for the outcomes of botulism. The present study aimed to establish a new scoring system to predict mechanical ventilation (MV) for botulism patients.

METHODS

A single-center retrospective study was conducted to identify risk factors associated with MV in botulism patients from 2007 to 2022. Univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression analysis were used to screen out risk factors for constructing a prognostic scoring system. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 153 patients with botulism (66 males and 87 females, with an average age of 43 years) were included. Of these, 49 patients (32.0%) required MV, including 21 (13.7%) with invasive ventilation and 28 (18.3%) with non-invasive ventilation. Multivariate analysis revealed that botulinum toxin type, pneumonia, incubation period, degree of hypoxia, and severity of muscle involvement were independent risk factors for MV. These risk factors were incorporated into a multivariate logistic regression analysis to establish a prognostic scoring system. Each risk factor was scored by allocating a weight based on its regression coefficient and rounded to whole numbers for practical utilization ([botulinum toxin type A: 1], [pneumonia: 2], [incubation period ≤1 day: 2], [hypoxia <90%: 2], [severity of muscle involvement: grade II, 3; grade III, 7; grade IV, 11]). The scoring system achieved an area under the ROC curve of 0.82 (95% CI 0.75-0.89, P<0.001). At the optimal threshold of 9, the scoring system achieved a sensitivity of 83.7% and a specificity of 70.2%.

CONCLUSION

Our study identified botulinum toxin type, pneumonia, incubation period, degree of hypoxia, and severity of muscle involvement as independent risk factors for MV in botulism patients. A score ≥9 in our scoring system is associated with a higher likelihood of requiring MV in botulism patients. This scoring system needs to be validated externally before it can be applied in clinical settings.

Bleeding Complications in COVID-19 Critically Ill ARDS Patients Receiving VV-ECMO Therapy

Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) therapy is rapidly expanding worldwide, yet this therapy has a serious risk of bleeding. Whether coagulation-activating viral infections such as COVID-19 may have an impact on the risk of bleeding is largely unknown. This study conducted a monocentric investigation of severely affected COVID-19 patients receiving VV-ECMO therapy with regard to the occurrence and possible influences of minor and major bleeding and transfusion requirements. Among the 114 included study patients, we were able to assess more than 74,000 h of VV-ECMO therapy. In these, 103 major bleeding events and 2283 minor bleeding events were detected. In total, 1396 red blood concentrates (RBCs) were administered. A statistically significant correlation with the applied anticoagulation or demographic data of the patients was not observed. Contrary to the frequently observed thromboembolic complications among COVID-19 patients, patients with VV-ECMO therapy, even under low-dose anticoagulation, show a distinct bleeding profile, especially of minor bleeding, with a substantial need for blood transfusions. COVID-19 patients show a tendency to have frequent bleeding and require repeated RBC transfusions during VV-ECMO. This fact might not be solely explained by the mechanical alteration of ECMO or anticoagulation.

Comparison of Sedation and Analgesia Requirements in Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Versus Non-SARS-CoV-2 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome on Veno-Venous ECMO

BACKGROUND

Increased analgosedation requirements have been described in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support due to unique pharmacokinetic challenges. There is a paucity of data comparing sedation requirements in patients on ECMO for ARDS secondary to SARS-CoV-2 versus other etiologies of respiratory failure.

OBJECTIVE

To compare sedation and analgesia requirements in adult patients with SARS-CoV-2 versus non-SARS-CoV-2 ARDS requiring veno-venous (VV) ECMO support.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients receiving sedation and analgesia on VV-ECMO support. Patients were excluded if cannulated at an outside hospital for greater than 24 hours, expired within 48 hours of ECMO cannulation, or received neuromuscular blocking agents for greater than 7 consecutive days following ECMO cannulation.

RESULTS

We evaluated 108 patients on VV-ECMO support, including 44 with non-SARS-CoV-2 ARDS and 64 with SARS-CoV-2 ARDS. The median daily dexmedetomidine requirements were significantly higher in the SARS-CoV-2 cohort (16.7 vs 13.4 mcg/kg/day, P = 0.03), while the median propofol daily requirements were significantly higher in the non-SARS-CoV-2 cohort (40.3 vs 53.5 mg/kg/day, P < 0.01). There was no difference in daily requirements of opioids, benzodiazepines, and ketamine between groups. Use of adjunct agents to facilitate weaning was significantly higher in the SARS-CoV-2 cohort (78.1% vs 43.2%, P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Patients with ARDS on VV-ECMO support require multiple analgosedative agents with concomitant use of nonparenteral adjunct agents. Further studies are needed to evaluate optimal analgosedation strategies in patients on ECMO support.

Impact of COVID-19 on Sedation Requirements during Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

COVID-19-associated ARDS (C-ARDS) is mentioned to express higher analgosedation needs, in comparison to ARDS of other etiologies. The objective of this monocentric retrospective cohort study was to compare the analgosedation needs between C-ARDS and non-COVID-19 ARDS (non-C-ARDS) on veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO). Data were collected from the electronic medical records of all adult patients treated with C-ARDS in our Department of Intensive Care Medicine between March 2020 and April 2022. The control group included patients treated with non-C-ARDS between the years 2009 and 2020. A sedation sum score was created in order to describe the overall analgosedation needs. A total of 115 (31.5%) patients with C-ARDS and 250 (68.5%) with non-C-ARDS requiring VV-ECMO therapy were included in the study. The sedation sum score was significantly higher in the C-ARDS group (p < 0.001). COVID-19 was significantly associated with analgosedation in the univariable analysis. By contrast, the multivariable model did not show a significant association between COVID-19 and the sum score. The year of VV-ECMO support, BMI, SAPS II and prone positioning were significantly associated with sedation needs. The potential impact of COVID-19 remains unclear, and further studies are warranted in order to evaluate specific disease characteristics linked with analgesia and sedation.

Trends in the Use of Sedative-Hypnotics, Opioids, and Neuromuscular Blockers in Hospitalized Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Observational Retrospective Study

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has increased the use of drugs administered for mechanical ventilation, leading to shortages in some countries.

Objective

The aim was to identify trends in the consumption of sedatives, hypnotics, neuromuscular blockers, and opioids used for anesthetic induction and deep sedation in hospitals in Colombia.

Method

This was a descriptive, longitudinal, and retrospective study with monthly follow-up of sedative, hypnotic, opioid, and neuromuscular blocker dispensing in 20 clinics and hospitals from January to November 2020. The frequencies of use of each drug and variations in the institutions and intensive care units (ICUs) were identified.

Results

A total of 1,252,576 units of the analyzed drugs were delivered to 79,094 treated patients, 55.0% of whom were women (n = 43,521). The drugs with the greatest increase in consumption were rocuronium (1058% variation in March–November) and propofol (511%). The consumption of midazolam and vecuronium initially increased, but by the end of the study period, it decreased. Among drugs dispensed only in ICUs, 920,170 units were delivered (73.5% of the drugs dispensed during the study), and the most often dispensed drugs were fentanyl (n = 251,519; 27.3% of the drugs used in the ICU) and midazolam (5 mg/5 mL) solution (n = 188,568; 20.5%). Specifically in the ICU, the drugs with the greatest increase in use were rocuronium (19,709%), propofol (2622%), and ketamine (2591%).

Conclusion

Rapid changes in the use of drugs were evident, which demonstrates the need for closer cooperation among treating physicians, service providers, pharmaceutical managers, and state institutions to maintain a sufficient and timely supply of critical drugs in this type of contingency.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40801-022-00337-z.

Prone Positioning Decreases Inhomogeneity and Improves Dorsal Compliance in Invasively Ventilated Spontaneously Breathing COVID-19 Patients—A Study Using Electrical Impedance Tomography

Background: We studied prone positioning effects on lung aeration in spontaneously breathing invasively ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods: changes in lung aeration were studied prospectively by electrical impedance tomography (EIT) from before to after placing the patient prone, and back to supine. Mixed effect models with a random intercept and only fixed effects were used to evaluate changes in lung aeration. Results: fifteen spontaneously breathing invasively ventilated patients were enrolled, and remained prone for a median of 19 [17 to 21] hours. At 16 h the global inhomogeneity index was lower. At 2 h, there were neither changes in dorsal nor in ventral compliance; after 16 h, only dorsal compliance (βFe +18.9 [95% Confidence interval (CI): 9.1 to 28.8]) and dorsal end-expiratory lung impedance (EELI) were increased (βFe, +252 [95% CI: 13 to 496]); at 2 and 16 h, dorsal silent spaces was unchanged (βFe, –4.6 [95% CI: –12.3 to +3.2]). The observed changes induced by prone positioning disappeared after turning patients back to supine. Conclusions: in this cohort of spontaneously breathing invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients, prone positioning decreased inhomogeneity, increased lung volumes, and improved dorsal compliance.

Electroencephalogram-Based Evaluation of Impaired Sedation in Patients with Moderate to Severe COVID-19 ARDS

The sedation management of patients with severe COVID-19 is challenging. Processed electroencephalography (pEEG) has already been used for sedation management before COVID-19 in critical care, but its applicability in COVID-19 has not yet been investigated. We performed this prospective observational study to evaluate whether the patient sedation index (PSI) obtained via pEEG may adequately reflect sedation in ventilated COVID-19 patients. Statistical analysis was performed by linear regression analysis with mixed effects. We included data from 49 consecutive patients. None of the patients received neuromuscular blocking agents by the time of the measurement. The mean value of the PSI was 20 (±23). The suppression rate was determined to be 14% (±24%). A deep sedation equivalent to the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale of −3 to −4 (correlation expected PSI 25−50) in bedside examination was noted in 79.4% of the recordings. Linear regression analysis revealed a significant correlation between the sedative dosages of propofol, midazolam, clonidine, and sufentanil (p < 0.01) and the sedation index. Our results showed a distinct discrepancy between the RASS and the determined PSI. However, it remains unclear to what extent any discrepancy is due to the electrophysiological effects of neuroinflammation in terms of pEEG alteration, to the misinterpretation of spinal or vegetative reflexes during bedside evaluation, or to other causes.