Dataset Information

Clinical Practice: Should we Radically Alter our Sedation of Critical Care Patients, Especially Given the COVID-19 Pandemics?

ABSTRACT: The high number of patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus requiring care for ARDS puts sedation in the critical care unit (CCU) to the edge. Depth of sedation has evolved over the last 40 years (no-sedation, deep sedation, daily emergence, minimal sedation, etc.). Most guidelines now recommend determining the depth of sedation and minimizing the use of benzodiazepines and opioids. The broader use of alpha-2 adrenergic agonists ('alpha-2 agonists') led to sedation regimens beginning at admission to the CCU that contrast with hypnotics+opioids ("conventional" sedation), with major consequences for cognition, ventilation and circulatory performance. The same doses of alpha-2 agonists used for 'cooperative' sedation (ataraxia, analgognosia) elicit no respiratory depression but modify the autonomic nervous system (cardiac parasympathetic activation, attenuation of excessive cardiac and vasomotor sympathetic activity). Alpha-2 agonists should be selected only in patients who benefit from their effects ('personalized' indications, as opposed to a 'one size fits all' approach). Then, titration to effect is required, especially in the setting of systemic hypotension and/or hypovolemia. Since no general guidelines exist for the use of alpha-2 agonists for CCU sedation, our clinical experience is summarized for the benefit of physicians in clinical situations in which a recommendation might never exist (refractory delirium tremens; unstable, hypovolemic, hypotensive patients, etc.). Because the physiology of alpha-2 receptors and the pharmacology of alpha-2 agonists lead to personalized indications, some details are offered. Since interactions between conventional sedatives and alpha-2 agonists have received little attention, these interactions are addressed. Within the existing guidelines for CCU sedation, this article could facilitate the use of alpha-2 agonists as effective and safe sedation while awaiting large, multicentre trials and more evidence-based medicine.

SUBMITTER: Longrois D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8158317 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical Practice: Should we Radically Alter our Sedation of Critical Care Patients, Especially Given the COVID-19 Pandemics?

Longrois D D Petitjeans F F Simonet O O de Kock M M Belliveau M M Pichot C C Lieutaud Th T Ghignone M M Quintin L L

Romanian journal of anaesthesia and intensive care 20201201 2

The high number of patients infected with the SARS-CoV-2 virus requiring care for ARDS puts sedation in the critical care unit (CCU) to the edge. Depth of sedation has evolved over the last 40 years (no-sedation, deep sedation, daily emergence, minimal sedation, etc.). Most guidelines now recommend determining the depth of sedation and minimizing the use of benzodiazepines and opioids. The broader use of alpha-2 adrenergic agonists ('alpha-2 agonists') led to sedation regimens beginning at admis ...[more]

PMID: 34056133

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine whether best practice advisories improved sedation protocol compliance and could mitigate potential propofol-related hazardous conditions.DesignRetrospective observational cohort study.SettingTwo adult ICUs at two academic medical centers that share the same sedation protocol.PatientsAdults 18 years old or older admitted to the ICU between January 1, 2016, and January 31, 2018, who received a continuous infusion of propofol.InterventionsTwo concurrent best practice advisories built in the electronic health record as a clinical decision support tool to enforce protocol compliance with triglyceride and lipase level monitoring and mitigate propofol-related hazardous conditions.Measurements and main resultsThe primary outcomes were baseline and day 3 compliance with triglyceride and lipase laboratory monitoring per protocol and time to discontinuation of propofol in the setting of triglyceride and/or lipase levels exceeding protocol cutoffs. A total of 1,394 patients were included in the study cohort (n = 700 in the pre-best practice advisory group; n = 694 in the post-best practice advisory group). In inverse probability weighted regression analyses, implementing the best practice advisory was associated with a 56.6% (95% CI, 52.6-60.9) absolute increase and a 173% relative increase (risk ratio, 2.73; 95% CI, 2.45-3.04) in baseline laboratory monitoring. The best practice advisory was associated with a 34.0% (95% CI, 20.9-47.1) absolute increase and a 74% (95% CI, 1.39-2.19) relative increase in day 3 laboratory monitoring after inverse probability weighted analyses. Among patients with laboratory values exceeding protocol cutoffs, implementation of the best practice advisory resulted in providers discontinuing propofol an average of 16.6 hours (95% CI, 4.8-28.3) sooner than pre-best practice advisory. Findings from alternate analyses using interrupted time series were consistent with the inverse probability weighted analyses.ConclusionsBest practice advisories can be effectively used in ICUs to improve sedation protocol compliance and may mitigate potential propofol-related hazardous conditions. Best practice advisories should undergo continuous quality assurance and optimizations to maximize clinical utility and minimize alert fatigue.

Project description:BackgroundSedation is used frequently for patients in intensive care units who require mechanical ventilation, but oversedation is one of the main side effects. Different strategies have been proposed to prevent oversedation. The extent to which these strategies have been adopted by intensivists is unknown.MethodsWe developed a six-section questionnaire that covered the drugs used, modalities of drug administration, use of sedation scales and procedural pain scales, use of written local procedures, and targeted objectives of consciousness. In November 2011, the questionnaire was sent to 1,078 intensivists identified from the French ICU Society (SRLF) database.ResultsThe questionnaire was returned by 195 intensivists (response rate 18.1%), representing 135 of the 282 ICUs (47.8%) listed in the French ICU society (SRLF) database. The analysis showed that midazolam and sufentanil are the most frequently used hypnotics and opioids, respectively, administered in continuous intravenous (IV) infusions. IV boluses of hypnotics without subsequent continuous IV infusion are used occasionally (in <25% of patients) by 65% of intensivists. Anxiolytic benzodiazepines (e.g., clorazepam, alprazolam), hydroxyzine, and typical neuroleptics, via either an enteral or IV route, are used occasionally by two thirds of respondents. The existence of a written, local sedation management procedure in the ICU is reported by 55% of respondents, 54% of whom declare that they use it routinely. Written local sedation procedures mainly rely on titration of continuous IV hypnotics (90% of the sedation procedures); less frequently, sedation procedures describe alternative approaches to prevent oversedation, including daily interruption of continuous IV hypnotic infusion, hypnotic boluses with no subsequent continuous IV infusion, or the use of nonhypnotic drugs. Among the responding intensivists, 98% consider eye opening, either spontaneously or after light physical stimulation, a reasonable target consciousness level in patients with no severe respiratory failure or intracranial hypertension.ConclusionsDespite a low individual response rate, the respondents to our survey represent almost half of the ICUs in the French SRLF database. The presence of a written local sedation procedure, a cornerstone of preventing oversedation, is reported by only half of respondents; when present, it is used in for a limited number of patients. Sedation procedures mainly rely on titration of continuous IV hypnotics, but other strategies to limit oversedation also are included in sedation procedures. French intensivists no longer consider severely altered consciousness a sedation objective for most patients.

Project description:BackgroundThis survey assessed satisfaction with the practice environment among physicians who have completed fellowship training in critical care medicine (CCM) as recognized by the American Board of Anesthesiology (and are members of the American Society of Anesthesiology) and evaluated the perceived effectiveness of training programs in preparing fellows for critical care practice.MethodsA cross-sectional online survey composed of 39 multiple choice and open-ended questions was administered between August and December 2018 to all members of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) who self-identified as being CCM trained. The survey instrument was developed and revised in an iterative fashion by ASA committee on CCM and the Society for Education in Anesthesia (SEA). Survey results were analyzed using a mixed-method approach.ResultsThree hundred fifty-three of the 1400 anesthesiologists who self-identified to the ASA as having CCM training (25.2%) completed the survey. Most were men (72.3%), board certified in CCM (98.7%), and had practiced a median of 5 years. Half of the respondents rated their training as "excellent." A total of 70.6% described currently working in academic centers with 53.6% providing care in open surgical intensive care units (ICUs). Most anesthesiologist intensivists (75%) spend at least 25% of their clinical time providing ICU care (versus clinical anesthesia). A total of 89% of the respondents were involved in educational activities, 60% reported being in administrative leadership roles, and 37% engaged in scholarly activity. Areas of dissatisfaction included fatigue, lack of collegiality or respect, lack of research training, decreased job satisfaction, and burnout. Analysis suggested moderate levels of job satisfaction (49%), work-life balance (52%), and high levels of burnout (74%). A significant contributor to burnout was with a perception of lack of respect (P = .005) in the work environment. Burnout was not significantly associated with gender or duration of practice. Qualitative analysis of the open-ended responses also identified these 3 variables as major themes.ConclusionsThis survey of CCM-trained anesthesiologists described a high rate of board certification, practice in academic settings, and participation in resident education. Areas of dissatisfaction with an anesthesia/critical care practice included burnout, work/life balance, and lack of respect. These results may increase recruitment of anesthesiologists into critical care and inform strategies to improve satisfaction with anesthesia critical care practice, fellowship training.

Project description:BackgroundFor patients with COVID-19 who undergo emergency endotracheal intubation, data are limited regarding the practice, outcomes, and complications of this procedure.Research questionFor patients with COVID-19 requiring emergency endotracheal intubation, how do the procedural techniques, the incidence of first-pass success, and the complications associated with the procedure compare with intubations of critically ill patients before the COVID-19 pandemic?Study design and methodsWe conducted a retrospective study of adult patients with COVID-19 at Montefiore Medical Center who underwent first-time endotracheal intubation by critical care physicians between July 19, 2019, and May 1, 2020. The first COVID-19 patient was admitted to our institution on March 11, 2020; patients admitted before this date are designated the prepandemic cohort. Descriptive statistics were used to compare groups. A Fisher exact test was used to compare categorical variables. For continuous variables, a two-tailed Student t test was used for parametric variables or a Wilcoxon rank-sum test was used for nonparametric variables.ResultsOne thousand two hundred sixty intubations met inclusion criteria (782 prepandemic cohort, 478 pandemic cohort). Patients during the pandemic were more likely to be intubated for hypoxemic respiratory failure (72.6% vs 28.1%; P < .01). During the pandemic, operators were more likely to use video laryngoscopy (89.4% vs 53.3%; P < .01) and neuromuscular blocking agents (86.0% vs 46.2%; P < .01). First-pass success was higher during the pandemic period (94.6% vs 82.9%; P < .01). The rate of associated complications was higher during the pandemic (29.5% vs 15.2%; P < .01), a finding driven by a higher rate of hypoxemia during or immediately after the procedure (25.7% vs 8.2%; P < .01).InterpretationVideo laryngoscopy and neuromuscular blockade were used increasingly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite a higher rate of first-pass success during the pandemic, the incidence of complications associated with the procedure was higher.

Dataset Information

Clinical Practice: Should we Radically Alter our Sedation of Critical Care Patients, Especially Given the COVID-19 Pandemics?

Publications

Clinical Practice: Should we Radically Alter our Sedation of Critical Care Patients, Especially Given the COVID-19 Pandemics?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets