International Analgesia, Sedation, and Delirium Practices: a prospective cohort study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Owen GD
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6480848 | biostudies-literature | 2019
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
International Analgesia, Sedation, and Delirium Practices: a prospective cohort study.
Owen Gary D GD Stollings Joanna L JL Rakhit Shayan S Wang Li L Yu Chang C Hosay Morgan A MA Stewart James W JW Frutos-Vivar Fernando F Peñuelas Oscar O Esteban Andres A Anzueto Antonio R AR Raymondos Konstantinos K Rios Fernando F Thille Arnaud W AW González Marco M Du Bin B Maggiore Salvatore M SM Matamis Dimitrios D Abroug Fekri F Amin Pravin P Zeggwagh Amine Ali AA Patel Mayur B MB
Journal of intensive care 20190424
<h4>Background</h4>While understanding of critical illness and delirium continue to evolve, the impact on clinical practice is often unknown and delayed. Our purpose was to provide insight into practice changes by characterizing analgesia and sedation usage and occurrence of delirium in different years and international regions.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a retrospective analysis of two multicenter, international, prospective cohort studies. Mechanically ventilated adults were followed for up t ...[more]
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC8815719 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIt is unknown whether lung-protective ventilation is applied in burn patients and whether they benefit from it. This study aimed to determine ventilation practices in burn intensive care units (ICUs) and investigate the association between lung-protective ventilation and the number of ventilator-free days and alive at day 28 (VFD-28).MethodsThis is an international prospective observational cohort study including adult burn patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Low tidal volume (V T) was defined as V T ≤ 8 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW). Levels of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and maximum airway pressures were collected. The association between V T and VFD-28 was analyzed using a competing risk model. Ventilation settings were presented for all patients, focusing on the first day of ventilation. We also compared ventilation settings between patients with and without inhalation trauma.ResultsA total of 160 patients from 28 ICUs in 16 countries were included. Low V T was used in 74% of patients, median V T size was 7.3 [interquartile range (IQR) 6.2-8.3] mL/kg PBW and did not differ between patients with and without inhalation trauma (p = 0.58). Median VFD-28 was 17 (IQR 0-26), without a difference between ventilation with low or high V T (p = 0.98). All patients were ventilated with PEEP levels ≥5 cmH2O; 80% of patients had maximum airway pressures <30 cmH2O.ConclusionIn this international cohort study we found that lung-protective ventilation is used in the majority of burn patients, irrespective of the presence of inhalation trauma. Use of low V T was not associated with a reduction in VFD-28.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02312869. Date of registration: 9 December 2014.
| S-EPMC8676707 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionProcedural sedation and analgesia allows the clinician to safely and efficiently administer sedation, analgesia, anxiolysis and sometimes amnesia to facilitate the performance of various procedures in the emergency centre. The aim of this study is to determine current sedation practices, common indications and major obstacles in selected emergency centres across Southern Gauteng, South Africa, with a view to improving future standards and practices.MethodsThis was a prospective, questionnaire based, cross-sectional interview of emergency centre managers or their designee of selected private-sector and public-sector hospitals in Southern Gauteng.ResultsOverall, 17 hospitals completed the interview, nine (53%) public-sector and eight (47%) private-sector hospitals, with 36% of hospitals being aligned to an academic institute. All hospitals performed procedural sedation in their emergency centre. Forty seven percent of managers had between ten and 19 years of clinical experience post internship. Although eleven (64.7%) managers achieved a postgraduate qualification in emergency medicine, only seven (41%) were accredited with a Fellowship of the College of Emergency Medicine (FCEM) qualification and only three (17.7%) centres employed three or more specialists. The majority of centres (52.3%) performed between ten and 30 procedures per month requiring sedation. Staff training in the practice of procedural sedation was mostly obtained internally (52.9%), from in-house seniors. Essential drugs, procedure monitors, resuscitation equipment and protocols were all available in 70.6% of centres.ConclusionAlthough the safe practice and awareness of procedural sedation and analgesia in both public-sector and private-sector emergency centres in Southern Gauteng appears to be on the increase, there is still a need to enhance practitioner training and promote awareness of current local and international trends, protocols and recommendations.
| S-EPMC6400002 | biostudies-literature
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 .
| S-EPMC5341165 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Prospective cohort carriage study
| PRJEB53187 | ENA
Project description:ObjectivesWe sought to study the association between sedation status, medications (benzodiazepines, opioids, and antipsychotics), and clinical outcomes in a resource-limited setting.DesignA longitudinal study of critically ill participants on mechanical ventilation.SettingFive intensive care units (ICUs) in four public hospitals in Lima, Peru.PatientsOne thousand six hundred fifty-seven critically ill participants were assessed daily for sedation status during 28 days and vital status by day 90.ResultsAfter excluding data of participants without a Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale score and without sedation, we followed 1338 (81%) participants longitudinally for 18,645 ICU days. Deep sedation was present in 98% of participants at some point of the study and in 12,942 ICU days. Deep sedation was associated with higher mortality (interquartile odds ratio (OR) = 5.42, 4.23-6.95; p < 0.001) and a significant decrease in ventilator (- 7.27; p < 0.001), ICU (- 4.38; p < 0.001), and hospital (- 7.00; p < 0.001) free days. Agitation was also associated with higher mortality (OR = 39.9, 6.53-243, p < 0.001). The most commonly used sedatives were opioids and benzodiazepines (9259 and 8453 patient days respectively), and the latter were associated with a 41% higher mortality in participants with a higher cumulative dose (75th vs 25th percentile, interquartile OR = 1.41, 1.12-1.77; p < 0.01). The overall cumulative dose of benzodiazepines and opioids was high, 774.5 mg and 16.8 g, respectively, by day 7 and by day 28; these doses approximately doubled. Haloperidol was only used in 3% of ICU days; however, the use of it was associated with a 70% lower mortality (interquartile OR = 0.3, 0.22-0.44, p < 0.001).ConclusionsDeep sedation, agitation, and cumulative dose of benzodiazepines were all independently associated with higher 90-day mortality. Additionally, deep sedation was associated with less ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days. In contrast, haloperidol was associated with lower mortality in our study.
| S-EPMC6472077 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Practice guidelines provide clear evidence-based recommendations for the use of drug therapy to manage pain, agitation, and delirium associated with critical illness. Dosing recommendations however are often based on strategies used in patients with normal body habitus. Recommendations specific to critically ill patients with extreme obesity are lacking. Nonetheless, clinicians must craft dosing regimens for this population. This paper is intended to help clinicians design initial dosing regimens for medications commonly used in the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients with extreme obesity. A detailed literature search was conducted with an emphasis on obesity, pharmacokinetics, and dosing. Relevant manuscripts were reviewed and strategies for dosing are provided.
| S-EPMC7282067 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesWe examined the relationship between dominant sedation strategy, risk of delirium and patient-centred outcomes in adults admitted to intensive care units (ICUs).DesignRetrospective propensity-matched cohort study.SettingMechanically ventilated adults (≥ 18 years) admitted to four Canadian hospital medical/surgical ICUs from 2014 to 2016 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.Participants2837 mechanically ventilated adults (≥ 18 years) requiring admission to a medical/surgical ICU were evaluated for the relationship between sedation strategy and delirium.InterventionsNone.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary exposure was dominant sedation strategy, defined as the sedative infusion, including midazolam, propofol or fentanyl, with the longest duration before the first delirium assessment. The primary outcome was 'ever delirium' identified using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. Secondary outcomes included mortality, length of stay (LOS), ventilation duration and days with delirium. The cohort was analysed in two propensity score (patient characteristics and therapies received) matched cohorts (propofol vs fentanyl and propofol vs midazolam).Results2837 patients (60.7% male; median age 57 years (IQR 43-68)) were considered for propensity matching. In propensity score-matched cohorts(propofol vs midazolam, n=712; propofol vs fentanyl, n=1732), the odds of delirium were significantly higher with midazolam (OR 1.46 (95% CI 1.06 to 2.00)) and fentanyl (OR 1.22 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.48)) compared with propofol dominant sedation strategies. Dominant sedation strategy with midazolam and fentanyl were associated with a longer duration of ventilation compared with propofol. Fentanyl was also associated with increased ICU mortality (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.12)) ICU and hospital LOS compared with a propofol dominant sedation strategy.ConclusionsWe identified a novel association between fentanyl dominant sedation strategies and an increased risk of delirium, a composite outcome of delirium or death, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU LOS and hospital LOS. Midazolam dominant sedation strategies were associated with increased delirium risk and mechanical ventilation duration.
| S-EPMC8292822 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess if ongoing delirium research activity within an acute admissions unit impacts on prevalent delirium recognition.DesignProspective cohort study.SettingSingle-site tertiary university teaching hospital.Participants125 patients with delirium, as diagnosed by an expert using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition reference criteria, were recruited to a prospective cohort study investigating use of informant tools to detect unrecognised dementia. This study evaluated recognition of delirium and documentation of delirium by medical staff.InterventionsThe main study followed an observational design; the intervention discussed was the implementation of this study itself.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was recognition of delirium by the admitting medical team prior to study diagnosis. Secondary outcomes included recording of or description of delirium in discharge summaries, and factors which may be associated with unrecognised delirium.ResultsDelirium recognition improved between the first half (48%) and second half (71%) of recruitment (p=0.01). There was no difference in recording of delirium or description of delirium in the text of discharge summaries.ConclusionDelirium research activity can improve recognition of delirium. This has the potential to improve patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC6252640 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Analgesia, sedation and delirium management are important parts of intensive care treatment as they are relevant for patients' clinical and functional long-term outcome. Previous surveys showed that despite this fact implementation rates are still low. The primary aim of the prospective, observational multicenter study was to investigate the implementation rate of delirium monitoring among intensivists. Secondly, current practice concerning analgesia and sedation monitoring as well as treatment strategies for patients with delirium were assesed. In addition, this study compares perceived and actual practice regarding delirium, sedation and analgesia management. Data were obtained with a two-part, anonymous survey, containing general data from intensive care units in a first part and data referring to individual patients in a second part. Questionnaires from 101 hospitals (part 1) and 868 patients (part 2) were included in data analysis. Fifty-six percent of the intensive care units reported to monitor for delirium in clinical routine. Fourty-four percent reported the use of a validated delirium score. In this respect, the survey suggests an increasing use of delirium assessment tools compared to previous surveys. Nevertheless, part two of the survey revealed that in actual practice 73% of included patients were not monitored with a validated score. Furthermore, we observed a trend towards moderate or deep sedation which is contradicting to guideline-recommendations. Every fifth patient was suffering from pain. The implementation rate of adequate pain-assessment tools for mechanically ventilated and sedated patients was low (30%). In conclusion, further efforts are necessary to implement guideline recommendations into clinical practice. The study was registered (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01278524) and approved by the ethical committee.
| S-EPMC4232258 | biostudies-literature