Dataset Information

Daily sedative interruption versus intermittent sedation in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a randomized trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Daily sedative interruption and intermittent sedation are effective in abbreviating the time on mechanical ventilation. Whether one is superior to the other has not yet been determined. Our aim was to compare daily interruption and intermittent sedation during the mechanical ventilation period in a low nurse staffing ICU. METHODS:Adult patients expected to need mechanical ventilation for more than 24 hours were randomly assigned, in a single center, either to daily interruption of continuous sedative and opioid infusion or to intermittent sedation. In both cases, our goal was to maintain a Sedation Agitation Scale (SAS) level of 3 or 4; that is patients should be calm, easily arousable or awakened with verbal stimuli or gentle shaking. Primary outcome was ventilator-free days in 28 days. Secondary outcomes were ICU and hospital mortality, incidence of delirium, nurse workload, self-extubation and psychological distress six months after ICU discharge. RESULTS:A total of 60 patients were included. There were no differences in the ventilator-free days in 28 days between daily interruption and intermittent sedation (median: 24 versus 25 days, P?=?0.160). There were also no differences in ICU mortality (40 versus 23.3%, P?=?0.165), hospital mortality (43.3 versus 30%, P?=?0.284), incidence of delirium (30 versus 40%, P?=?0.472), self-extubation (3.3 versus 6.7%, P?=?0.514), and psychological stress six months after ICU discharge. Also, the nurse workload was not different between groups, but it was reduced on day 5 compared to day 1 in both groups (Nurse Activity Score (NAS) in the intermittent sedation group was 54 on day 1 versus 39 on day 5, P?

SUBMITTER: Nassar Junior AP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4026117 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Daily sedative interruption versus intermittent sedation in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a randomized trial.

Nassar Junior Antonio Paulo AP Park Marcelo M

Annals of intensive care 20140506

<h4>Background</h4>Daily sedative interruption and intermittent sedation are effective in abbreviating the time on mechanical ventilation. Whether one is superior to the other has not yet been determined. Our aim was to compare daily interruption and intermittent sedation during the mechanical ventilation period in a low nurse staffing ICU.<h4>Methods</h4>Adult patients expected to need mechanical ventilation for more than 24 hours were randomly assigned, in a single center, either to daily inte ...[more]

PMID: 24900938

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundsKetamine possesses analgesia, anti-inflammation, anticonvulsant, and neuroprotection properties. However, the evidence that supports its use in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients with COVID-19 is insufficient. The study's goal was to assess ketamine's effectiveness and safety in critically ill, mechanically ventilated (MV) patients with COVID-19.MethodsAdult critically ill patients with COVID-19 were included in a multicenter retrospective-prospective cohort study. Patients admitted between March 1, 2020, and July 31, 2021, to five ICUs in Saudi Arabia were included. Eligible patients who required MV within 24 hours of ICU admission were divided into two sub-cohort groups based on their use of ketamine (Control vs. Ketamine). The primary outcome was the length of stay (LOS) in the hospital. P/F ratio differences, lactic acid normalization, MV duration, and mortality were considered secondary outcomes. Propensity score (PS) matching was used (1:2 ratio) based on the selected criteria.ResultsIn total, 1,130 patients met the eligibility criteria. Among these, 1036 patients (91.7 %) were in the control group, whereas 94 patients (8.3 %) received ketamine. The total number of patients after PS matching, was 264 patients, including 88 patients (33.3 %) who received ketamine. The ketamine group's LOS was significantly lower (beta coefficient (95 % CI): -0.26 (-0.45, -0.07), P = 0.008). Furthermore, the PaO2/FiO2 ratio significantly improved 24 hours after the start of ketamine treatment compared to the pre-treatment period (6 hours) (124.9 (92.1, 184.5) vs. 106 (73.1, 129.3; P = 0.002). Additionally, the ketamine group had a substantially shorter mean time for lactic acid normalization (beta coefficient (95 % CI): -1.55 (-2.42, -0.69), P 0.01). However, there were no significant differences in the duration of MV or mortality.ConclusionsKetamine-based sedation was associated with lower hospital LOS and faster lactic acid normalization but no mortality benefits in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Thus, larger prospective studies are recommended to assess the safety and effectiveness of ketamine as a sedative in critically ill adult patients.

Project description:ObjectiveKetamine has been shown to decrease sedative requirements in intensive care unit (ICU). Randomized trials are limited on patient-centered outcomes. We designed this pilot trial to evaluate the feasibility of a large randomized controlled trial (RCT) testing the effect of ketamine as an adjunct analgosedative compared with standard of care alone as a control group (CG) in critically ill patients with mechanical ventilation (MV). We also provided preliminary evidence on clinically relevant outcomes to plan a larger trial.Material and methodsPilot, active-controlled, open-label RCT was conducted at medical, surgical, and transplant ICUs at a large tertiary and quaternary care medical institution (King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Saudi Arabia). The study included adult patients who were intubated within 24 h, expected to require MV for the next calendar day, and had institutional pain and sedation protocol initiated. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to adjunct ketamine infusion 1-2 μg/kg/min for 48 h or CG alone.ResultsOf 437 patients screened from September 2019 through November 2020, 83 (18.9%) patients were included (43 in CG and 40 in ketamine) and 352 (80.5%) were excluded. Average enrollment rate was 3-4 patients/month. Consent and protocol adherence rates were adequate (89.24% and 76%, respectively). Demographics were balanced between groups. Median MV duration was 7 (interquartile range [IQR] 3-9.25 days) in ketamine and 5 (IQR 2-8 days) in CG. Median VFDs was 19 (IQR 0-24.75 days) in ketamine and 19 (IQR 0-24 days) in the CG (p = 0.70). More patients attained goal Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale at 24 and 48 h in ketamine (67.5% and 73.5%, respectively) compared with CG (52.4% and 66.7%, respectively). Sedatives and vasopressors cumulative use, and hemodynamic changes were similar. ICU length-of-stay was 12.5 (IQR 6-21.2 days) in ketamine, compared with 12 (IQR 5.5-23 days) in CG. No serious adverse events were observed in either group.ConclusionsKetamine as an adjunct analgosedative agent appeared to be feasible and safe with no negative impact on outcomes, including hemodynamics. This pilot RCT identified areas of improvement in study protocol before conducting a large, adequately powered, multicenter RCT which is likely justified to investigate ketamine association with patient-centered outcomes further. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04075006. Registered on 30 August 2019. Current controlled trials: ISRCTN14730035. Registered on 3 February 2020.

Project description:IntroductionDeep sedation is associated with adverse patient outcomes. We recently described a novel sedation-monitoring technology, the Responsiveness Index (RI), which quantifies patient arousal using processed frontal facial EMG data. We explored the potential effectiveness and safety of continuous RI monitoring during early intensive care unit (ICU) care as a nurse decision-support tool.MethodsIn a parallel-group controlled single centre proof of concept trial, patients requiring mechanical ventilation and sedation were randomized via sequential sealed envelopes following ICU admission. Control group patients received hourly clinical sedation assessment and daily sedation holds; the RI monitor was connected but data were concealed from clinical staff. The intervention group received control group care, but RI monitoring was visible and nurses were asked to adjust sedation to maintain patients with an RI>20 whenever possible. Traffic-light colour coding (RI<20, Red; 20-40, Amber; >40, Green) simplified decision-making. The intervention lasted up to 48 hours. Sixteen nurses were interviewed to explore their views of the novel technology.ResultsWe analysed 74 patients treated per protocol (36 intervention; 38 control). The proportion of patients with RI<20 was identical at the start of monitoring (54% both groups). Overall, the proportion of time with RI<20 trended to lower values for the intervention group (median 16% (1-3rd quartile 8-30%) versus 33% (10-54%); P = 0.08); sedation and analgesic use was similar. A post hoc analysis restricted to patients with RI<20 when monitoring started, found intervention patients spent less time with low RI value (16% (11-45%) versus 51% (33-72%); P = 0.02), cumulative propofol use trended to lower values (median 1090 mg versus 2390 mg; P = 0.14), and cumulative alfentanil use was lower (21.2 mg versus 32.3 mg; P = 0.01). RASS scores were similar for both groups. Sedation related adverse event rates were similar (7/36 versus 5/38). Similar proportions of patients had sedation holds (83% versus 87 %) and were extubated (47% versus 44%) during the intervention period. Nurses valued the objective visible data trends and simple colour prompts, and found RI monitoring a useful adjunct to existing practice.ConclusionsRI monitoring was safe and acceptable. Data suggested potential to modify sedation decision-making. Larger trials are justified to explore effects on patient-centred outcomes.Trial registrationNCT01361230 (registered April 19, 2010).

Project description:BackgroundDiaphragm dysfunction develops frequently in ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Both disuse atrophy (ventilator over-assist) and high respiratory muscle effort (ventilator under-assist) seem to be involved. A strong rationale exists to monitor diaphragm effort and titrate support to maintain respiratory muscle activity within physiological limits. Diaphragm electromyography is used to quantify breathing effort and has been correlated with transdiaphragmatic pressure and esophageal pressure. The neuromuscular efficiency index (NME) can be used to estimate inspiratory effort, however its repeatability has not been investigated yet. Our goal is to evaluate NME repeatability during an end-expiratory occlusion (NMEoccl) and its use to estimate the pressure generated by the inspiratory muscles (Pmus).MethodsThis is a prospective cohort study, performed in a medical-surgical ICU. A total of 31 adult patients were included, all ventilated in neurally adjusted ventilator assist (NAVA) mode with an electrical activity of the diaphragm (EAdi) catheter in situ. At four time points within 72 h five repeated end-expiratory occlusion maneuvers were performed. NMEoccl was calculated by delta airway pressure (?Paw)/?EAdi and was used to estimate Pmus. The repeatability coefficient (RC) was calculated to investigate the NMEoccl variability.ResultsA total number of 459 maneuvers were obtained. At time T?=?0 mean NMEoccl was 1.22?±?0.86 cmH2O/?V with a RC of 82.6%. This implies that when NMEoccl is 1.22 cmH2O/?V, it is expected with a probability of 95% that the subsequent measured NMEoccl will be between 2.22 and 0.22 cmH2O/?V. Additional EAdi waveform analysis to correct for non-physiological appearing waveforms, did not improve NMEoccl variability. Selecting three out of five occlusions with the lowest variability reduced the RC to 29.8%.ConclusionsRepeated measurements of NMEoccl exhibit high variability, limiting the ability of a single NMEoccl maneuver to estimate neuromuscular efficiency and therefore the pressure generated by the inspiratory muscles based on EAdi.

Dataset Information

Daily sedative interruption versus intermittent sedation in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a randomized trial.

Publications

Daily sedative interruption versus intermittent sedation in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a randomized trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets