Dataset Information

Pain and sedation management and monitoring in pediatric intensive care units across Europe: an ESPNIC survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Management and monitoring of pain and sedation to reduce discomfort as well as side effects, such as over- and under-sedation, withdrawal syndrome and delirium, is an integral part of pediatric intensive care practice. However, the current state of management and monitoring of analgosedation across European pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) remains unknown. The aim of this survey was to describe current practices across European PICUs regarding the management and monitoring of pain and sedation.

Methods

An online survey was distributed among 357 European PICUs assessing demographic features, drug choices and dosing, as well as usage of instruments for monitoring pain and sedation. We also compared low- and high-volume PICUs practices. Responses were collected from January to April 2021.

Results

A total of 215 (60% response rate) PICUs from 27 European countries responded. Seventy-one percent of PICUs stated to use protocols for analgosedation management, more frequently in high-volume PICUs (77% vs 63%, p = 0.028). First-choice drug combination was an opioid with a benzodiazepine, namely fentanyl (51%) and midazolam (71%) being the preferred drugs. The starting doses differed between PICUs from 0.1 to 5 mcg/kg/h for fentanyl, and 0.01 to 0.5 mg/kg/h for midazolam. Daily assessment and documentation for pain (81%) and sedation (87%) was reported by most of the PICUs, using the preferred validated FLACC scale (54%) and the COMFORT Behavioural scale (48%), respectively. Both analgesia and sedation were mainly monitored by nurses (92% and 84%, respectively). Eighty-six percent of the responding PICUs stated to use neuromuscular blocking agents in some scenarios. Monitoring of paralysed patients was preferably done by observation of vital signs with electronic devices support.

Conclusions

This survey provides an overview of current analgosedation practices among European PICUs. Drugs of choice, dosing and assessment strategies were shown to differ widely. Further research and development of evidence-based guidelines for optimal drug dosing and analgosedation assessment are needed.

SUBMITTER: Daverio M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8969245 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pain and sedation management and monitoring in pediatric intensive care units across Europe: an ESPNIC survey.

Daverio Marco M von Borell Florian F Ramelet Anne-Sylvie AS Sperotto Francesca F Pokorna Paula P Brenner Sebastian S Mondardini Maria Cristina MC Tibboel Dick D Amigoni Angela A Ista Erwin E

Critical care (London, England) 20220331 1

<h4>Background</h4>Management and monitoring of pain and sedation to reduce discomfort as well as side effects, such as over- and under-sedation, withdrawal syndrome and delirium, is an integral part of pediatric intensive care practice. However, the current state of management and monitoring of analgosedation across European pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) remains unknown. The aim of this survey was to describe current practices across European PICUs regarding the management and monitori ...[more]

PMID: 35361254

Similar Datasets

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:ImportanceContinuous kidney replacement therapy (CKRT) is the preferred method of kidney support for children with critical illness in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs). However, there are no data on the current CKRT management practices in European PICUs.ObjectiveTo describe current CKRT practices across European PICUs.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional survey of PICUs in 20 European countries was conducted by the Critical Care Nephrology Section of the European Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care from April 1, 2020, to May 31, 2022. Participants included intensivists and nurses working in European PICUs. The survey was developed in English and distributed using SurveyMonkey. One response from each PICU that provided CKRT was included in the analysis. Data were analyzed from June 1 to June 30, 2022.Main outcome and measuresDemographic characteristics of European PICUs along with organizational and delivery aspects of CKRT (including prescription, liberation from CKRT, and training and education) were assessed.ResultsOf 283 survey responses received, 161 were included in the analysis (response rate, 76%). The attending PICU consultant (70%) and the PICU team (77%) were mainly responsible for CKRT prescription, whereas the PICU nurses were responsible for circuit setup (49%) and bedside machine running (67%). Sixty-one percent of permanent nurses received training to use CKRT, with no need for certification or recertification in 36% of PICUs. Continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration was the preferred dialytic modality (51%). Circuit priming was performed with normal saline (67%) and blood priming in children weighing less than 10 kg (56%). Median (IQR) CKRT dose was 35 (30-50) mL/kg/h in neonates and 30 (30-40) mL/kg/h in children aged 1 month to 18 years. Forty-one percent of PICUs used regional unfractionated heparin infusion, whereas 35% used citrate-based regional anticoagulation. Filters were changed for filter clotting (53%) and increased transmembrane pressure (47%). For routine circuit changes, 72 hours was the cutoff in 62% of PICUs. Some PICUs (34%) monitored fluid removal goals every 4 hours, with variation from 12 hours (17%) to 24 hours (13%). Fluid removal goals ranged from 1 to 3 mL/kg/h. Liberation from CKRT was performed with a diuretic bolus followed by an infusion (32%) or a diuretic bolus alone (19%).Conclusions and relevanceThis survey study found a wide variation in current CKRT practice, including organizational aspects, education and training, prescription, and liberation from CKRT, in European PICUs. This finding calls for concerted efforts on the part of the pediatric critical care and nephrology communities to streamline CKRT education and training, research, and guidelines to reduce variation in practice.

Project description:BackgroundThe management of pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD) in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is beneficial for patients and makes it widely applied in clinical practice. Previous studies showed that the clinical practice of PAD in ICU was improving; yet relatively little information is available in China. This study aimed to investigate the practice of PAD in ICUs in China.MethodsA multicenter, nationwide survey was conducted using a clinician-directed questionnaire from September 19 to December 18, 2016. The questionnaire focused on the assessment and management of PAD by the clinicians in ICUs. The practice of PAD was compared among the four regions of China (North, Southeast, Northwest, and Southwest). The data were expressed as percentage and frequency. The Chi-square test, Fisher's exact test, and line-row Chi-square test were used.ResultsOf the 1011 valid questionnaire forms, the response rate was 80.37%. The clinicians came from 704 hospitals across 158 cities of China. The rate of PAD assessment was 75.77%, 90.21%, and 66.77%, respectively. The rates of PAD scores were 45.8%, 68.94%, and 34.03%, respectively. The visual analog scale, Richmond agitation-sedation scale, and confusion assessment method for the ICU were the first choices of scales for PAD assessment. Fentanyl, midazolam, and dexmedetomidine were the first choices of agents for analgesic, sedation, and delirium treatment. While choosing analgesics and sedatives, the clinicians put the pharmacological characteristics of drugs in the first place (66.07% and 76.36%). Daily interruption for sedation was carried out by 67.26% clinicians. Most of the clinicians (87.24%) used analgesics while using sedatives. Of the 738 (73%) clinicians titrating the sedatives on the basis of the proposed target sedation level, 268 (26.61%) clinicians just depended on their clinical experience. Totally, 519 (51.34%) clinicians never used other nondrug strategies for PAD. The working time of clinicians was an important factor in the management of analgesia and sedation rather than their titles and educational background. The ratios of pain score and sedation score in the Southwest China were the highest and the North China were the lowest. The ratios of delirium assessment and score were the same in the four regions of China. Moreover, the first choices of scales for PAD in the four regions were the same. However, the top three choices of agents in PAD treatment in the four regions were not the same.ConclusionsThe practice of PAD in China follows the international guidelines; however, the pain assessment should be improved. The PAD practice is a little different across the four regions of China; however, the trend is consistent.Trial registrationThe study is registered at http://www.clinicaltrials.gov (No. ChiCTR-OOC-16009014, www.chictr. org.cn/index.aspx.).

Dataset Information

Pain and sedation management and monitoring in pediatric intensive care units across Europe: an ESPNIC survey.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Pain and sedation management and monitoring in pediatric intensive care units across Europe: an ESPNIC survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets