Dataset Information

Practice of sedation and analgesia in German intensive care units: results of a national survey.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Sedation and analgesia are provided by using different agents and techniques in different countries. The goal is to achieve early spontaneous breathing and to obtain an awake and cooperative pain-free patient. It was the aim of this study to conduct a survey of the agents and techniques used for analgesia and sedation in intensive care units in Germany.

Methods

A survey was sent by mail to 261 hospitals in Germany. The anesthesiologists running the intensive care unit were asked to fill in the structured questionnaire about their use of sedation and analgesia.

Results

A total of 220 (84%) questionnaires were completed and returned. The RAMSAY sedation scale was used in 8% of the hospitals. A written policy was available in 21% of hospitals. For short-term sedation in most hospitals, propofol was used in combination with sufentanil or fentanyl. For long-term sedation, midazolam/fentanyl was preferred. Clonidine was a common part of up to two-thirds of the regimens. Epidural analgesia was used in up to 68%. Neuromuscular blocking agents were no longer used.

Conclusion

In contrast to the US 'Clinical practice guidelines for the sustained use of sedatives and analgesics in the critically ill adult', our survey showed that in Germany different agents, and frequently neuroaxial techniques, were used.

SUBMITTER: Martin J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC1175921 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:BackgroundWe aimed to examine current bedside analgesia/sedation (A/S) and pain assessment (PA) practices in Italian neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) in relation to the findings of an epidemiological European study and recently-introduced national guidelines.MethodsWe analyzed the Italian data from the EUROPAIN (EUROpean-Pain-Audit-In-Neonates) prospective observational study on A/S practices that involved 6680 newborns admitted to tertiary-level NICUs in 18 European countries. Demographics, type of assisted ventilation, type and mode of A/S administration and PA were analyzed. Multivariate linear regression models were used to identify factors predicting A/S and PA practices.ResultsFrom October 1st, 2012 to June 30th, 2013, thirty Italian NICUs gathered data on 422 newborn: 131 on invasive ventilation (IV); 150 on noninvasive ventilation (NIV); and 141 on spontaneous ventilation (SV). A/S was documented for 35.3% of all infants admitted (86.3% IV; 17.3% NIV; 7.1% SV [p = 0.0001]), and varied considerably between NICUs (as reported in other European countries). Strong analgesics were used in 32.5% of cases, sedatives in 10.2%, mild analgesics in 3.8%. Fentanyl was used in 78.6% of cases, morphine in 8.4%, neuromuscular blockers in 5.3%, midazolam in 22.1%. The performance of PA was documented in 67.5% of all newborn (85.5% IV; 67.3% NIV; 51.1% SV [p = 0.001]). Illness severity, type of ventilation, bedside PA, and number of NICU beds were all factors associated with A/S use on multivariate analysis, while gestational age ≤ 32 weeks, and type of ventilation and presence of a pain team were associated with PA.ConclusionsWe documented a generally widespread, but still highly variable use of A/S and PA at Italian NICUs, despite the diffusion of national guidelines. There is an urgent need to improve routine PA to enable customized pain and stress control (and prevention) in all infants.Trial registrationClinical Trials.gov # NCT01694745 .

Project description:BackgroundEarly rehabilitation improves outcomes, and increased use of physical therapist services in the intensive care unit (ICU) has been recommended. Little is known about the implementation of early rehabilitation programs or physical therapists' preparation and perceptions of care in the United States.ObjectiveA national survey was conducted to determine the current status of physical therapist practice in the ICU.DesignThis study used a cross-sectional, observational design.MethodsSelf-report surveys were mailed to members of the Acute Care Section of the American Physical Therapy Association. Questions addressed staffing, training, barriers, and protocols, and case scenarios were used to determine perceptions about providing rehabilitation.ResultsThe response rate was 29% (667/2,320). Staffing, defined as the number of physical therapists per 100 ICU beds, was highest in community hospitals (academic: median=5.4 [range=3.6-9.2]; community: median=6.7 [range=4.4-10.0]) and in the western United States (median=7.5 [range=4.2-12.9]). Twelve percent of physical therapists reported no training. Barriers to providing ICU rehabilitation included insufficient staffing and training, departmental prioritization policies, and inadequate consultation criteria. Responses to case scenarios demonstrated differences in the likelihood of consultation and physical therapists' prescribed frequency and intensity of care based on medical interventions rather than characteristics of patients. Physical therapists in academic hospitals were more likely to be involved in the care of patients in each scenario and were more likely to perform higher-intensity mobilization.LimitationsMembers of the Acute Care Section of the American Physical Therapy Association may not represent most practicing physical therapists, and the 29% return rate may have contributed to response bias.ConclusionsAlthough staffing was higher in community hospitals, therapists in academic and community hospitals cited insufficient staffing as the most common barrier to providing rehabilitation in the ICU. Implementing strategies to overcome barriers identified in this study may improve the delivery of ICU rehabilitation services.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) has recently become a useful tool that intensivists are incorporating into clinical practice. However, the incorporation of ultrasonography in critical care in developing countries is not straightforward. METHODS:Our objective was to investigate current practice and education regarding POCUS among Brazilian intensivists. A national survey was administered to Brazilian intensivists using an electronic questionnaire. Questions were selected by the Delphi method and assessed topics included organizational issues, POCUS technique and training patterns, machine availability, and main applications of POCUS in daily practice. RESULTS:Of 1533 intensivists who received the questionnaire, 322 responded from all of Brazil's regions. Two hundred and five (63.8%) reported having access to an ultrasound machine dedicated to the intensive care unit (ICU); however, this was more likely in university hospitals than in non-university hospitals (80.6 vs. 59.6%; risk ratio [RR]?=?1.35 [1.16-1.58], p?=?0.002). The main applications of POCUS were ultrasound-guided central vein catheterization (49.4%) and bedside echocardiographic assessment (33.9%). Two hundred and fifty-eight (80.0%) reported having at least one POCUS-trained intensivist in their staff (trained units). Trained units were more likely to perform routine ultrasound-guided jugular vein catheterization than non-trained units (38.6 vs. 16.4%; RR?=?2.35 [1.31-4.23], p?=?0.001). The proportion of POCUS-trained intensivists and availability of a dedicated ultrasound machine were both independently associated with performing ultrasound-guided jugular vein catheterization (RR?=?1.91 [1.32-2.77], p?=?0.001) and (RR?=?2.20 [1.26-3.29], p?=?0.005), respectively. CONCLUSIONS:A significant proportion of Brazilian ICUs had at least one intensivist with POCUS capability in their staff. Although ultrasound-guided central vein catheterization constitutes the main application of POCUS, adherence to guideline recommendations is still suboptimal.

Project description:BackgroundSince the publication of the 2018 Clinical Guidelines about sedation, analgesia, delirium, mobilization, and sleep deprivation in critically ill patients, no evaluation and adequacy assessment of these recommendations were studied in an international context. This survey aimed to investigate these current practices and if the COVID-19 pandemic has changed them.MethodsThis study was an open multinational electronic survey directed to physicians working in adult intensive care units (ICUs), which was performed in two steps: before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsWe analyzed 1768 questionnaires and 1539 (87%) were complete. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, we received 1476 questionnaires and 292 were submitted later. The following practices were observed before the pandemic: the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (61.5%), the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) (48.2%), the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) (76.6%), and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) (66.6%) were the most frequently tools used to assess pain, sedation level, and delirium, respectively; midazolam and fentanyl were the most frequently used drugs for inducing sedation and analgesia (84.8% and 78.3%, respectively), whereas haloperidol (68.8%) and atypical antipsychotics (69.4%) were the most prescribed drugs for delirium treatment; some physicians regularly prescribed drugs to induce sleep (19.1%) or ordered mechanical restraints as part of their routine (6.2%) for patients on mechanical ventilation; non-pharmacological strategies were frequently applied for pain, delirium, and sleep deprivation management. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the intensive care specialty was independently associated with best practices. Moreover, the mechanical ventilation rate was higher, patients received sedation more often (94% versus 86.1%, p < 0.001) and sedation goals were discussed more frequently in daily rounds. Morphine was the main drug used for analgesia (77.2%), and some sedative drugs, such as midazolam, propofol, ketamine and quetiapine, were used more frequently.ConclusionsMost sedation, analgesia and delirium practices were comparable before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the intensive care specialty was a variable that was independently associated with the best practices. Although many findings are in accordance with evidence-based recommendations, some practices still need improvement.