Protocol-directed sedation versus non-protocol-directed sedation in mechanically ventilated intensive care adults and children.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Aitken LM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6516800 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Protocol-directed sedation versus non-protocol-directed sedation in mechanically ventilated intensive care adults and children.
Aitken Leanne M LM Bucknall Tracey T Kent Bridie B Mitchell Marion M Burmeister Elizabeth E Keogh Samantha J SJ
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20181112
<h4>Background</h4>The sedation needs of critically ill patients have been recognized as a core component of critical care that is vital to assist recovery and ensure humane treatment. Evidence suggests that sedation requirements are not always optimally managed. Suboptimal sedation, both under- and over-sedation, have been linked to short-term (e.g. length of stay) and long-term (e.g. psychological recovery) outcomes. Strategies to improve sedation assessment and management have been proposed. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Sedatives are commonly used for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care units (ICU). However, a variety of sedatives are available and their efficacy and safety have been compared in numerous trials with inconsistent results. To resolve uncertainties regarding usefulness of these sedatives, we performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trials comparing sedatives in mechanically ventilated ICU patients were included. Graph-theoretical methods were employed for network meta-analysis. A total of 51 citations comprising 52 RCTs were included in our analysis. Dexmedetomidine showed shorter MV duration than lorazepam (mean difference (MD): 68.7; 95% CI: 18.2-119.3 hours), midazolam (MD: 10.2; 95% CI: 7.7-12.7 hours) and propofol (MD: 3.4; 95% CI: 0.9-5.9 hours). Compared with dexmedetomidine, midazolam was associated with significantly increased risk of delirium (OR: 2.47; 95% CI: 1.17-5.19). Our study shows that dexmedetomidine has potential benefits in reducing duration of MV and lowering the risk of delirium.
| S-EPMC5359583 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAdequate sedation and analgesia are two crucial factors affecting recovery of intensive care patients. Improper use of sedation and analgesia in intensive care patients may adversely lead to brain oxygen desaturation. This study aims to determine cerebral oxygenation as measured by near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) and inotropic interventions received among mechanically ventilated children in the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU).MethodsThis study is a nested case - control study in the PICU of Indonesian tertiary hospital. Children aged 1 month to 17 years on mechanical ventilation and were given sedation and analgesia were included in the study. Subjects were divided into two groups according to the protocol of the main study (Clinical Trial ID NCT04788589). Cerebral oxygenation was measured by NIRS at five time points (before sedation, 5-min, 1, 6, and 12 h after sedation).ResultsThirty-nine of the 69 subjects were categorized into the protocol group and the rest were in the control group. A decrease of >20% NIRS values was found among subjects in the protocol group at 5-min (6.7%), 1-h (11.1%), 6-h (26.3%), and 12-h (23.8%) time-point. The mean NIRS value was lower and the inotropic intervention was more common in the control group (without protocol), although not statistically significant.ConclusionThis study found that mechanically ventilated children who received sedation and analgesia based on the protocol had a greater decrease of >20% NIRS values compared to the other group. The use of sedation and analgesia protocols must be applied in selected patients after careful consideration.
| S-EPMC10824216 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Assessing and managing pain and agitation in critically ill children can be challenging. Multiple factors contribute to the challenges of management, including prior medication exposure, surgical and procedural interventions, pharmacokinetics, and age-related pharmacodynamics making the population heterogeneous. Therefore, individualizing treatment approaches embedded with frequent assessments is likely to improve the management of pain and agitation in critically ill children. Novel approaches to manage pain and agitation continue to evolve and will require ongoing evaluation prior to widespread adoption.
| S-EPMC6513151 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: Compare the duration of mechanical ventilation between patients receiving sedation with continuous infusions of propofol alone or combination with the use of dexmedetomidine and propofol. Design: Retrospective, propensity matched (1:1) cohort study, employing eight variables chosen a priori for matching. Timing of exposure to dexmedetomidine initiation was incorporated into a matching algorithm. Setting: Level 1, university-based, 32-bed, adult, mixed trauma and surgical intensive care unit (SICU). Continuous sedation was delivered according to a protocol methodology with daily sedation vacation and spontaneous breathing trials. Choice of sedation agent was physician directed. Patients: Between 2010 and 2014, 149 SICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation for >24 h received dexmedetomidine with propofol. Propensity matching resulted in 143 pair cohorts. Interventions: Dexmedetomidine with propofol or propofol alone. Measurements and Main Results: There was no statistical difference in SICU length of stay (LOS), with a median absolute difference of 5.3 h for propofol alone group (p = 0.43). The SICU mortality was not statistically different (RR = 1.002, p = 0.88). Examining a 14-day period post-treatment with dexmedetomidine, on any given day (excluding days 1 and 14), dexmedetomidine with propofol-treated patients had a 0.5% to 22.5% greater likelihood of being delirious (CAM-ICU positive). In addition, dexmedetomidine with propofol-treated patients had a 4.5% to 18.8% higher likelihood of being above the target sedation score (more agitated) compared to propofol-alone patients. Conclusions: In this propensity matched cohort study, adjunct use of dexmedetomidine to propofol did not show a statistically significant reduction with respect to mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, SICU LOS, or SICU mortality, despite a trend toward receiving fewer hours of propofol. There was no evidence that dexmedetomidine with propofol improved sedation scores or reduced delirium.
| S-EPMC6164835 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Regionalization has been proposed as a method to improve outcomes for medical patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit.To determine the number of patients who would be affected by regionalization and the potential mortality reduction under a regionalized system of care.We performed a retrospective cohort study with Monte Carlo simulation, using 2001 state discharge data from eight states representing 42% of the U.S. population. Adult medical patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation were identified. Patient location and hospital mortality rates were obtained from the discharge data; estimates of the relative risk reduction in hospital mortality for high-volume hospitals compared with low-volume hospitals were obtained from the published literature and applied to the cohort.Of 180,976 adult medical patients who underwent mechanical ventilation at 1,170 nonfederal hospitals, 83,050 (46%) received mechanical ventilation at 887 (76%) hospitals with low annual volumes (fewer than 275 patients per year). Using published risk estimates, approximately 4,720 lives per year (95% range, 2,522-6,744) could potentially be saved in the 8 states by routinely transferring patients from low- to high-volume hospitals, representing a number needed to treat of 15.7. The median distance that patients would need to travel to reach a high-volume hospital was 8.5 miles (interquartile range, 4.0-21.2 mi).Regionalization of intensive care could potentially improve survival for patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. Transfer distances are modest for most patients.
| S-EPMC2218846 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesFirst, to implement successfully a light-sedation protocol, favoring initial as-needed (prioritizing as-needed) boluses over continuous infusion sedation, and second, to evaluate if this protocol was associated with differences in patient-level sedative requirements, clinical outcomes, and unit-level longitudinal changes in pharmacy charges for sedative medications.DesignRetrospective review comparing patients who received the prioritizing as-needed sedation protocol to similar patients eligible for the prioritizing as-needed protocol but treated initially with continuous infusion sedation.SettingThirty-two bed medical ICUs in a large academic medical center.PatientsA total of 254 mechanical ventilated patients with a target Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale goal of 3 or 4 were evaluated over a 2-year period. Of the evaluable patients, 114 received the prioritizing as-needed sedation protocol and 140 received a primary continuous infusion approach.InterventionsA multidisciplinary leadership team created and implemented a light-sedation protocol, focusing on avoiding initiation of continuous sedative infusions and prioritizing prioritizing as-needed sedation.Measurements and main resultsOverall, 42% of patients in the prioritizing as-needed group never received continuous infusion sedation. Compared with the continuous infusion sedation group, patients treated with the prioritizing as-needed protocol received significantly less opioid, propofol, and benzodiazepine. Patients in the prioritizing as-needed group experienced less delirium, shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, and shorter ICU length of stay. Adverse events were similar between the two groups. At the unit level, protocol implementation was associated with reductions in the use of continuous infusion sedative medications.ConclusionsImplementation and use of a prioritizing as-needed protocol targeting light sedation appear to be safe and effective. These single-ICU retrospective findings require wider, prospective validation.
| S-EPMC7746207 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGuidelines currently recommend targeting light sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol for adults receiving mechanical ventilation. Differences exist between these sedatives in arousability, immunity, and inflammation. Whether they affect outcomes differentially in mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis undergoing light sedation is unknown.MethodsIn a multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis to receive dexmedetomidine (0.2 to 1.5 μg per kilogram of body weight per hour) or propofol (5 to 50 μg per kilogram per minute), with doses adjusted by bedside nurses to achieve target sedation goals set by clinicians according to the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS, on which scores range from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]). The primary end point was days alive without delirium or coma during the 14-day intervention period. Secondary end points were ventilator-free days at 28 days, death at 90 days, and age-adjusted total score on the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status questionnaire (TICS-T; scores range from 0 to 100, with a mean of 50±10 and lower scores indicating worse cognition) at 6 months.ResultsOf 432 patients who underwent randomization, 422 were assigned to receive a trial drug and were included in the analyses - 214 patients received dexmedetomidine at a median dose of 0.27 μg per kilogram per hour, and 208 received propofol at a median dose of 10.21 μg per kilogram per minute. The median duration of receipt of the trial drugs was 3.0 days (interquartile range, 2.0 to 6.0), and the median RASS score was -2.0 (interquartile range, -3.0 to -1.0). We found no difference between dexmedetomidine and propofol in the number of days alive without delirium or coma (adjusted median, 10.7 vs. 10.8 days; odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.26), ventilator-free days (adjusted median, 23.7 vs. 24.0 days; odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.51), death at 90 days (38% vs. 39%; hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.52), or TICS-T score at 6 months (adjusted median score, 40.9 vs. 41.4; odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.33). Safety end points were similar in the two groups.ConclusionsAmong mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis who were being treated with recommended light-sedation approaches, outcomes in patients who received dexmedetomidine did not differ from outcomes in those who received propofol. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01739933.).
| S-EPMC8162695 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Children admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) often require multiple medications to achieve comfort and sedation. Although starting doses are available, these medications are typically titrated to the desired effect. Both oversedation and undersedation are associated with adverse events. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate cumulative medication burden necessary to achieve comfort in patients in the PICU and determine relevant predictors of medication needs. In order to account for all of the sedative medications, z-scores were used to assess the population average dose of each medication and compare each patient day to this population average. Sedation regimens for 130 patients in the PICU were evaluated. Mean overall infusion rates of fentanyl, morphine, and hydromorphone were 1.67 ± 0.81 µg/kg/hour, 0.12 ± 0.08 mg/kg/hour, and 17.84 ± 13.4 µg/kg/hour, respectively. The mean infusion rate of dexmedetomidine was 0.59 ± 0.28 µg/kg/hour, and midazolam was 0.14 ± 0.1 mg/kg/hour. Summation z-sores were used to rank the amount of sedation medication needed to achieve comfort for each individual patient for his/her PICU stay in relation to the entire sample. Patient age, weight, and length of mechanical ventilation were all significant predictors of sedation requirement. This study will provide data necessary to develop a model of cumulative medication burden needed to achieve appropriate sedation in this population. This descriptive model in appropriately ranking patients based on sedative needs is the first step in exploring potential genetic factors that may provide an insight into homing in on the appropriate sedation regimen.
| S-EPMC7877817 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe aims of this study were, first, to compare the predicted (calculated) energy requirements based on standard equations with target energy requirement based on indirect calorimetry (IC) in critically ill, obese mechanically ventilated patients; and second, to compare actual energy intake to target energy requirements.MethodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study of mechanically ventilated critically ill patients with body mass index ≥30.0 kg/m2 for whom enteral feeding was planned. Clinical and demographic data were prospectively collected. Resting energy expenditure was measured by open-circuit IC. American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (APSPEN)/Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) 2016 equations were used to determine predicted (calculated) energy requirements. Target energy requirements were set at 65% to 70% of measured resting energy expenditure as recommended by ASPEN/SCCM. Nitrogen balance was determined via simultaneous measurement of 24-h urinary nitrogen concentration and protein intake.ResultsTwenty-five patients (mean age: 64.5 ± 11.8 y, mean body mass index: 35.2 ± 3.6 kg/m2) underwent IC. The mean predicted energy requirement was 1227 kcal/d compared with mean measured target energy requirement of 1691 kcal/d. Predicted (calculated) energy requirements derived from ASPEN/SCCM equations were less than the target energy requirements in most cases. Actual energy intake from enteral nutrition met 57% of target energy requirements. Protein intake met 25% of target protein requirement and the mean nitrogen balance was -2.3 ± 5.1 g/d.ConclusionsPredictive equations underestimated target energy needs in this population. Further, we found that feeding to goal was often delayed resulting in failure to meet both protein and energy intake goals.
| S-EPMC6702036 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMechanically ventilated patients may receive more sedation during the night than during the day, potentially delaying extubation. We compared nighttime and daytime benzodiazepine and opioid administration in adult patients enrolled in a multicenter sedation trial comparing protocolized sedation alone or protocolized sedation combined with daily sedation interruption; and we evaluated whether nighttime and daytime doses were associated with liberation from mechanical ventilation.MethodsThis is a secondary analysis of a randomized trial which was conducted in 16 North American medical-surgical ICUs. In all 423 patients, nurses applied a validated sedation scale hourly to titrate benzodiazepine and opioid infusions to achieve a light level of sedation. Using fentanyl equivalents and midazolam equivalents, we compared dosages administered during night (19:00 to 07:00) and day (07:00 to 19:00) shifts. Using multivariable logistic regression we evaluated the association between nighttime and daytime opioid and sedative doses, and spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) conduct, SBT success, and extubation.ResultsNighttime benzodiazepine and opioid doses were significantly higher than daytime doses (mean difference midazolam equivalents 23.3 mg, 95 % CI 12.9, 33.8, p < 0.0001; mean difference fentanyl equivalents 356 mcg, 95 % CI 130, 582, p = 0.0021). Mean Sedation Agitation Scale score was similar between night and day, and was at target (3.2 vs 3.3, 95 % CI -0.05, 0.02, p = 0.35). Self-reported nurse workload was similar during the night and day. Patients were more often restrained during day shifts (76.3 % vs 73.7 %, p < 0.0001), and there were more unintentional device removals during the day compared with night (15.9 % vs 9.1 %, p < 0.0001). Increases in nighttime drug doses were independently associated with failure to meet SBT screening criteria, SBT failure, and the decision not to extubate the patient despite successful SBT.ConclusionPatients received higher doses of opioids and benzodiazepines at night. Higher nighttime doses were associated with SBT failure and delayed extubation.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00675363 . Registered 7 May 2008.
| S-EPMC4968433 | biostudies-literature