Utility of bispectral index in the management of multiple trauma patients

Comparing Bispectral Index Monitoring vs Clinical Assessment for Deep Sedation in the ICU: Effects on Delirium Reduction and Sedative Drug Doses-A Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Sedative overdoses pose a risk of delirium among patients in the ICU, with potential mitigation through the use of a processed EEG monitor (the bispectral index [BIS]) to guide depth of sedation.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Can BIS-guided deep sedation (Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale [RASS] score, -4 or -5) reduce sedative dosage and increase delirium-free and coma-free (DFCF) days?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted in a tertiary mixed ICU, enrolling patients requiring deep sedation for > 8 h. Patients were assigned randomly to either the clinical assessment (CA) or BIS groups (BIS range, 40-60). Both groups used a BIS sensor, whereas the CA group's screen remained covered. After deep sedation, BIS sensors were removed, and delirium was assessed twice daily by researchers masked to the randomization. The primary outcome was the number of DFCF days within 14 days after deep sedation. Additionally, we compared doses of sedative drugs and BIS values during deep sedation.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine patients were included in the study. We found no significant difference in DFCF days (P = .1) between CA and BIS arms, but propofol doses were significantly lower in the BIS group (CA group, 1.77 mg/kg/h [95% CI, 1.60-1.93] vs BIS group, 1.44 mg/kg/h [95% CI, 1.04-1.83]; P = .03). During deep sedation, the CA group spent 46% of the total hours (95% CI, 35%-57%) with BIS values of < 40, whereas the BIS group spent 32% (95% CI, 25%-40%; P = .03). Subgroup analysis focusing on patients sedated for > 24 h revealed an increase in DFCF days in the BIS group (CA group: median, 1 day [interquartile range, 0-9 days] vs BIS group: median, 8 days [interquartile range, 0-13 days]; P = .04).

INTERPRETATION

In this study, BIS-guided deep sedation did not improve DFCF days, but did reduce sedative drug use. In patients requiring sedation for > 24 h, it showed an improvement in DFCF days.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03840577; URL: www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

Bundled Bispectral Index Monitoring and Sedation During Paralysis in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Clinical assessments of depth of sedation are insufficient for patients undergoing neuromuscular blockade during treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This quality initiative was aimed to augment objective assessment and improve sedation during therapeutic paralysis using the bispectral index (BIS).

METHODS

This quality improvement intervention provided education and subsequent implementation of a BIS monitoring and sedation/analgesia bundle in a large, urban, safety-net intensive care unit. After the intervention, a retrospective review of the first 70 admissions with ARDS assessed use and documented sedation changes in response to BIS.

RESULTS

Therapeutic neuromuscular blockade was initiated for 58 of 70 patients (82.8%) with ARDS, of whom 43 (74%) had BIS monitoring and 29.3% had bundled BIS sedation-titration orders. Explicit documentation of sedation titration in response to BIS values occurred in 27 (62.8%) of those with BIS recordings.

CONCLUSIONS

BIS sedation/analgesia bundled order sets are underused, but education and access to BIS monitoring led to high use of monitoring alone and subsequent sedation changes.

Evaluation of Prognosis of Coma Patients With Acute Brain Injury by Electroencephalogram Bispectral Index Monitoring

BACKGROUND

The high mortality rate of comatose patients with traumatic brain injury is a prominent public health issue that negatively impacts patients and their families. Objective, reliable tools are needed to guide treatment decisions and prioritize resources.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of the bispectral index (BIS) in comatose patients with severe brain injury.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of 84 patients with severe brain injury and Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores of 8 and less treated from January 2015 to June 2017. Sedatives were withheld at least 24 hr before BIS scoring. The BIS value, GCS scores, and Full Outline of UnResponsiveness (FOUR) were monitored hourly for 48 hr. Based on the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score, the patients were divided into poor (GOS score: 1-2) and good prognosis groups (GOS score: 3-5). The correlation between BIS and prognosis was analyzed by logistic regression, and the receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) of the BIS value: 54.63 (11.76), p = .000; and GCS score: 5.76 (1.87), p = .000, were higher in the good prognosis group than in the poor prognosis group. Lower BIS values and GCS scores were correlated with poorer prognosis. Based on the area under the curve of receiver operating characteristic curves, the optimal diagnostic cutoff value of the BIS was 43.6, and the associated sensitivity and specificity were 85.4% and 74.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Taken together, our study indicates that BIS had good predictive value on prognosis. These findings suggested that BIS could be used to evaluate the severity and prognosis of severe brain injury.

Characterization of Traumatic Brain Injury Research in the Middle East and North Africa Region: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVES

Traumatic brain injury (TBI) represents a major health concern worldwide with a large impact in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region as a consequence of protracted wars and conflicts that adversely affect the general population. Currently, systematic TBI studies in the MENA region are lacking, nonetheless they are immensely needed to enhance trauma management and increase survival rates among TBI patients. This systematic review aims to characterize TBI in the MENA region to guide future policy choices and research efforts and inform tailored guidelines capable of improving TBI management and patient treatment and outcome. Furthermore, it will serve as a road map to evaluate and assess knowledge of trauma impact on regional health systems that can be adopted by health-care providers to raise awareness and improve trauma care.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive search strategy of several databases including MEDLINE/Ovid, PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and the grey literature in accordance with the PROSPERO systematic review protocol CRD42017058952. Abstracts were screened, and selected eligible studies were reviewed independently by 2 reviewers. We collected demographics information along with TBI characteristics, mortality rates, and regional distribution. Data were extracted using REDCap and checked for accuracy.

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded 23,385 citations; 147 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review. Motor vehicle accident (MVA) was the leading cause of TBI (41%) in the MENA region, followed by the military- (15.6%) and fall- (8.8%) related TBI. Males predominantly suffer from TBI-related injuries (85%), with a high prevalence of MVA- and military-related TBI injuries. The TBI mortality rate was 12.9%. The leading causes of mortality were MVA (68%), military (20.5%), and assault (2.9%). The vast majority of reported TBI severity was mild (63.1%) compared to moderate (10.7%) and severe TBI (20.2%). Patients mainly underwent a Glasgow Coma Scale assessment (22.1%), followed by computed tomography scan (8.9%) and surgery (4.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite its clinical, social, and economic burden, the evidence of TBI research in the MENA region is scarce. Further research and high-quality epidemiological studies are urgently needed to gain a deep understanding of the TBI burden in the region, facilitate the allocation of adequate resources, implement effective preventive and intervention strategies and advise on the TBI patient management as reflective on the TBI patterns and modes.

Technologies to Optimize the Care of Severe COVID-19 Patients for Health Care Providers Challenged by Limited Resources

Health care systems are belligerently responding to the new coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a specific condition, whose distinctive features are severe hypoxemia associated with (>50% of cases) normal respiratory system compliance. When a patient requires intubation and invasive ventilation, the outcome is poor, and the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) is usually 2 or 3 weeks. In this article, the authors review several technological devices, which could support health care providers at the bedside to optimize the care for COVID-19 patients who are sedated, paralyzed, and ventilated. Particular attention is provided to the use of videolaryngoscopes (VL) because these can assist anesthetists to perform a successful intubation outside the ICU while protecting health care providers from this viral infection. Authors will also review processed electroencephalographic (EEG) monitors which are used to better titrate sedation and the train-of-four monitors which are utilized to better administer neuromuscular blocking agents in the view of sparing limited pharmacological resources. COVID-19 can rapidly exhaust human and technological resources too within the ICU. This review features a series of technological advancements that can significantly improve the care of patients requiring isolation. The working conditions in isolation could cause gaps or barriers in communication, fatigue, and poor documentation of provided care. The available technology has several advantages including (a) facilitating appropriate paperless documentation and communication between all health care givers working in isolation rooms or large isolation areas; (b) testing patients and staff at the bedside using smart point-of-care diagnostics (SPOCD) to confirm COVID-19 infection; (c) allowing diagnostics and treatment at the bedside through point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) and thromboelastography (TEG); (d) adapting the use of anesthetic machines and the use of volatile anesthetics. Implementing technologies for safeguarding health care providers as well as monitoring the limited pharmacological resources are paramount. Only by leveraging new technologies, it will be possible to sustain and support health care systems during the expected long course of this pandemic.

Technologies to Optimize the Care of Severe COVID-19 Patients for Health Care Providers Challenged by Limited Resources

Health care systems are belligerently responding to the new coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a specific condition, whose distinctive features are severe hypoxemia associated with (>50% of cases) normal respiratory system compliance. When a patient requires intubation and invasive ventilation, the outcome is poor, and the length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) is usually 2 or 3 weeks. In this article, the authors review several technological devices, which could support health care providers at the bedside to optimize the care for COVID-19 patients who are sedated, paralyzed, and ventilated. Particular attention is provided to the use of videolaryngoscopes (VL) because these can assist anesthetists to perform a successful intubation outside the ICU while protecting health care providers from this viral infection. Authors will also review processed electroencephalographic (EEG) monitors which are used to better titrate sedation and the train-of-four monitors which are utilized to better administer neuromuscular blocking agents in the view of sparing limited pharmacological resources. COVID-19 can rapidly exhaust human and technological resources too within the ICU. This review features a series of technological advancements that can significantly improve the care of patients requiring isolation. The working conditions in isolation could cause gaps or barriers in communication, fatigue, and poor documentation of provided care. The available technology has several advantages including (a) facilitating appropriate paperless documentation and communication between all health care givers working in isolation rooms or large isolation areas; (b) testing patients and staff at the bedside using smart point-of-care diagnostics (SPOCD) to confirm COVID-19 infection; (c) allowing diagnostics and treatment at the bedside through point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) and thromboelastography (TEG); (d) adapting the use of anesthetic machines and the use of volatile anesthetics. Implementing technologies for safeguarding health care providers as well as monitoring the limited pharmacological resources are paramount. Only by leveraging new technologies, it will be possible to sustain and support health care systems during the expected long course of this pandemic.

Modelling the PSI response in general anesthesia

In anesthesia automation, one of the main important issues is the availability of a reliable measurement of the depth of consciousness level (hypnosis) of the patient. According to this value, the hypnotic drug dosage can be adequately calculated. One of the most studied hypnosis indexes is the bispectral index (BIS). In this article we analyzed an alternative called patient state index (PSI). The objectives of this study are, first, to validate the accuracy of the PSI describing the hypnosis level during the maintenance phase of general anesthesia, by comparing with the BIS and, second, to model the relationship between propofol infusion rate and PSI values, obtained from a SEDLine monitor. For this, real data from patients undergoing general anesthesia simultaneously monitored with both BIS and PSI signals was used. Results obtained are interesting for a correct interpretation of PSI signal in clinical practice.

Essential Noninvasive Multimodality Neuromonitoring for the Critically Ill Patient

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2020. Other selected articles can be found online at https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2020. Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from http://www.springer.com/series/8901.

Processed EEG monitoring for anesthesia and intensive care practice

Individual response to sedatives and hypnotics is characterized by high variability and the identification of a personalized dose during anesthesia in the operating room and during sedation in the intensive care unit may have beneficial effects. Although the brain is the main target of general intravenous and inhaled anesthetic agents, electroencephalography (EEG) is not routinely utilized to explore cerebral response to sedation and anesthesia probably because EEG trace reading is complex and requires encephalographers' skills. Automated processing algorithms (processed EEG, pEEG) of raw EEG traces provide easy-to-use indices that can be utilized to optimize anesthetic management. A large number of high-quality studies and the recommendations of international scientific societies have confirmed the deleterious consequences of inadequate or excessively deep anesthesia (and sedation) level. In this context, anesthesia in the operating rooms and moderate/deep sedation in intensive care units driven by pEEG monitors could become a standard practice in the near future. The aim of the present review was to provide an overview of current knowledge and debate on available technologies for pEEG monitoring and their role in clinical practice for anesthesia and sedation.

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.

The Effect of Intravenous Dexmedetomidine Compared to Propofol on Patients Hemodynamics as a Sedative in Brachial Plexus Block: A Comparative Study

Background:

The quest for an ideal sedative during regional anesthesia is on. Although propofol has been accepted as a sedative intraoperatively, it can be associated with troublesome hemodynamic changes. Dexmedetomidine is a new alpha 2 agonist used widely for sedation.

Aims:

In this study, we tried to compare equivalent doses of dexmedetomidine infusion with propofol with emphasis on their effect on the hemodynamics.

Settings and Design:

Prospective, single-blinded randomized controlled trial.

Materials and Methods:

In a single blinded study, 60 American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I and II patients scheduled for forearm surgeries under brachial plexus block were randomized to receive either propofol (Group I) or dexmedetomidine (Group II) infusion. Ultrasound-guided supraclavicular brachial plexus block was given in all the patients. After confirming adequate motor and sensory blockade, they were administered an initial loading dose of the drug over 10 min followed by a maintenance dose till the end of the surgery. The rate of infusion was titrated to maintain Ramsay sedation score of 2–4. Intraoperative hemodynamic and respiratory effects were documented along with surgeon and patient satisfaction. Any adverse effect such as hypotension, bradycardia, nausea, and vomiting was also noted.

Statistical Analysis Used:

The data collected were evaluated using Stata version 10. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results:

Heart rate decreased significantly in Group II (dexmedetomidine) while mean arterial pressure decreased significantly in Group I (propofol). There was no increase in the incidence of bradycardia or hypotension in either groups. Patient satisfaction score was significantly greater in Group II (dexmedetomidine) while surgeon satisfaction score was similar in both the groups.

Conclusion:

Dexmedetomidine at equivalent doses of propofol has a similar hemodynamic and respiratory effect, similar surgeon's satisfaction score, higher patient's satisfaction score, and no significant side effects in ASA I/II patients. Thus, dexmedetomidine may prove to be a valuable alternative to propofol for sedation in patients undergoing upper limb surgeries in brachial plexus block.