Analgesia and Sedation Requirements in Mechanically Ventilated Trauma Patients With Acute, Preinjury Use of Cocaine and/or Amphetamines.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to determine whether mechanically ventilated trauma patients with a positive urine drug screen (UDS) for cocaine and/or amphetamines have different opioid analgesic and sedative requirements compared with similar patients with a negative drug screen for these stimulants.This retrospective, single-center cohort study at a tertiary care, academic medical and level 1 trauma center in the United States included patients ?16 years of age who were admitted to an adult intensive care unit with a diagnosis of trauma between 2009 and 2013 with a UDS documented within 24 hours of admission, and were mechanically ventilated for >24 hours. The primary end point was the daily dose of opioid received during mechanical ventilation, expressed as morphine equivalents, for patients presenting with a positive UDS for cocaine and/or amphetamines compared with patients with a negative UDS for these stimulants. Secondary end points included the daily benzodiazepine dose and median infusion rates of propofol and dexmedetomidine received during mechanical ventilation, duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. Analgesic and sedative goals were similar for the duration of the study period, and both intermittent and continuous infusions of opioids and sedatives were administered to achieve these targets, although a standardized approach was not used. A multivariate logistic regression analysis and a propensity-adjusted model evaluated patient characteristics predictive of a higher median opioid requirement.A total of 150 patients were included in the final analysis. In a univariate analysis, opioid and sedative requirements were similar for patients presenting with a positive UDS for cocaine and/or amphetamines compared with patients with a negative UDS for these stimulants. In the multivariate regression analysis, increasing age and Abbreviated Injury Scale (head and neck) were associated with decreased daily opioid requirements (odds ratio [OR], .95, 95% confidence interval [CI], .93-.97 and OR, .71, 95% CI, .65-.77, respectively), whereas preinjury stimulant use was not predictive of opioid requirements (OR, .88, 95% CI, .40-1.90). In a propensity score--adjusted model, preinjury stimulant use was similarly not predictive of opioid requirements during mechanical ventilation (OR, .97, 95% CI, .44-2.11).For trauma patients presenting with acute, preinjury use of cocaine and/or amphetamines, analgesic and sedative requirements are variables and may not be greater than those patients presenting with a stimulant-negative UDS to achieve desirable pain control and depth of sedation, although this observation should be interpreted cautiously in light of the wide CI observed in the propensity score--adjusted model. Although unexpected, these findings indicate that empirically increasing analgesic and sedative doses based on positive UDS results for these stimulants may not be necessary.
<h4>Background</h4>The purpose of this study was to determine whether mechanically ventilated trauma patients with a positive urine drug screen (UDS) for cocaine and/or amphetamines have different opioid analgesic and sedative requirements compared with similar patients with a negative drug screen for these stimulants.<h4>Methods</h4>This retrospective, single-center cohort study at a tertiary care, academic medical and level 1 trauma center in the United States included patients ≥16 years of ag ...[more]
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.
Project description:Over the last 10 years, there has been an explosion of literature surrounding sedation management for critically ill patients. The clinical target has moved away from an unconscious and immobile patient toward a goal of light or no sedation and early mobility. The move away from terms such as 'sedation' toward more patient-centered and symptom-based control of pain, anxiety, and agitation makes the management of critically ill patients more individualized and dynamic. Over-sedation has been associated with negative ICU outcomes, including longer durations of mechanical ventilation and lengths of stay, but few studies have been able to associate deep sedation with increased mortality.
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.).
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.
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:Purpose: To investigate physicians' perception of patients' tolerance levels regarding sedation, which could affect sedation practice for mechanically ventilated (MV) patients. Methods: This is a questionnaire survey combined with a 24 h cross-sectional study. The physician's propensity score for light sedation (PS-LS) was estimated by his/her response to the given answers for each item of the questionnaire, which tested the levels of interviewee's desire to manage MV patient with light sedation. Thereby, the mean physicians' PS-LS of each participating ICU (ICU-meanPS-LS) was calculated. The practical measurements of all variables listed on the questionnaire were used to semi-quantitatively assess stimulus intensity of what the recruited patients suffered (i.e., semi-quantitative stimulus intensity, SSI). Sedation depth was assessed by Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS). Results: 555 of 558 (99.5%) physicians from 102 ICUs were concerned with patients' tolerance levels regarding sedation while titrating sedation depth. The physician's PS-LS was non-normally distributed with median (IQR) of 3 (0-5). ICU-meanPS-LS was calculated in 92 out of 102 ICUs participating in the cross-sectional study, which was ranged from -5 to 7 with a median (IQR) of 2.37 (0.16-4.33). A significant increasing trend in prevalence of light sedation was observed over increasing ICU-meanPS-LS quartiles (from Q1 to Q4, ?2-test for trend, p = 0.002). Moreover, odds ratio for probability of light sedation remained significant in MV patients from Q4 ICUs vs. Q1 ICUs, adjusted by APACHE II score (OR, 2.332; 95% CI: 1.463-3.717; p < 0.001) or SSI score (OR, 2.445; 95% CI: 1.468-4.074; p = 0.001). Notably, adjusted OR for mortality was significant in deeply sedated MV patients (OR, 2.034; 95% CI: 1.435-2.884; p < 0.001). Conclusions: ICU physician's individualized perception for patients' tolerance levels regarding sedation, in light sedation affected sedation practice for MV patients.
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.
Project description:Appropriate sedation benefits patients by reducing the stress response, but it requires an appropriate method of assessment to adjust the dosage of sedatives. The aim of this study was to compare the difference in the sedation of mechanically ventilated patients undergoing flexible bronchoscopy (FB) monitored by auditory-evoked potentials (AEPs) or the Ramsay sedation scale (RSS).In a prospective, randomized, controlled study, all patients who underwent FB with propofol sedation were monitored and their sedation adjusted. During FB, one group was monitored by AEP and another group was monitored by RSS. The propofol dosage was adjusted by the nursing staff during examination to maintain the Alaris AEP index (AAI) value between 25 and 40 in the AEP group and the RSS at 5 or 6 in the RSS group. Before FB and during FB, the AAI, heart rate (HR), and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were recorded every 5 min. The percentages of time at the sedation target and the propofol dosages were calculated.Nineteen patients received AEP monitoring and 18 patients received RSS monitoring. The percentage of time at the sedation target during FB was significantly higher in the AEP monitoring group (51.3%; interquartile range [IQR], 47.0-63.5%) than in the RSS group (15.4%; IQR, 9.5-23.4%), (P < 0.001). During FB, the RSS group had a significantly higher AAI (P = 0.011), HR (P < 0.001), and MAP (P < 0.001) than the AEP group.In mechanically ventilated patients undergoing FB, AEP monitoring resulted in less variation in AAI, HR, and MAP, and a higher percentage of time at the sedation target than RSS monitoring.
Project description:IntroductionSedation overuse is frequent and possibly associated with poor outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, the association of early oversedation with clinical outcomes has not been thoroughly evaluated. The aim of this study was to assess the association of early sedation strategies with outcomes of critically ill adult patients under mechanical ventilation (MV).MethodsA secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort conducted in 45 Brazilian ICUs, including adult patients requiring ventilatory support and sedation in the first 48 hours of ICU admissions, was performed. Sedation depth was evaluated after 48 hours of MV. Multivariate analysis was used to identify variables associated with hospital mortality.ResultsA total of 322 patients were evaluated. Overall, ICU and hospital mortality rates were 30.4% and 38.8%, respectively. Deep sedation was observed in 113 patients (35.1%). Longer duration of ventilatory support was observed (7 (4 to 10) versus 5 (3 to 9) days, P?=?0.041) and more tracheostomies were performed in the deep sedation group (38.9% versus 22%, P?=?0.001) despite similar PaO2/FiO2 ratios and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) severity. In a multivariate analysis, age (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.03), Charlson Comorbidity Index >2 (OR 2.06; 95% CI, 1.44 to 2.94), Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 (SAPS 3) score (OR 1.02; CI 95%, 1.00 to 1.04), severe ARDS (OR 1.44; CI 95%, 1.09 to 1.91) and deep sedation (OR 2.36; CI 95%, 1.31 to 4.25) were independently associated with increased hospital mortality.ConclusionsEarly deep sedation is associated with adverse outcomes and constitutes an independent predictor of hospital mortality in mechanically ventilated patients.
