Dataset Information

A study protocol for a multicentre, prospective, before-and-after trial evaluating the feasibility of implementing targeted SEDation after initiation of mechanical ventilation in the emergency department (The ED-SED Pilot Trial).

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Sedation is a cornerstone therapy in the management of patients receiving mechanical ventilation and is highly influential on outcome. Early sedation depth appears especially influential, as early deep sedation is associated with worse outcome when compared with light sedation. Our research group has shown that patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the emergency department (ED) are exposed to deep sedation commonly, and ED sedation depth is impactful on intensive care unit (ICU) care and clinical outcomes. While extensive investigation has occurred for patients in the ICU, comparatively little data exist from the ED. Given the influence that ED sedation seems to carry, as well as a lack of ED-based sedation trials, there is significant rationale to investigate ED-based sedation as a means to improve outcome.

Methods and analysis

This is a multicentre (n=3) prospective, before-and-after pilot trial examining the feasibility of implementing targeted sedation in the immediate postintubation period in the ED. A cohort of 344 patients receiving mechanical ventilation in ED will be included. Feasibility outcomes include: (1) participant recruitment; (2) proportion of Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) scores in the deep sedation range; (3) reliability (agreement) of RASS measurements performed by bedside ED nurses; and (4) adverse events. The proportion of deep sedation measurements before and after the intervention will be compared using the ?² test. Logistic regression will be used to compare before-and-after differences, adjusting for potential confounders. The inter-rater correlation coefficient will be used to assess paired observations between a study team member and bedside ED nurses, and to describe reliability of RASS measurements.

Ethics and dissemination

The Human Research Protection Office at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine has approved the study. The publication of peer-reviewed manuscripts and the presentation of abstracts at scientific meetings will be used to disseminate the work.

Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT04410783; Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Fuller BM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7745689 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A study protocol for a multicentre, prospective, before-and-after trial evaluating the feasibility of implementing targeted SEDation after initiation of mechanical ventilation in the emergency department (The ED-SED Pilot Trial).

Fuller Brian M BM Roberts Brian W BW Mohr Nicholas M NM Pappal Ryan D RD Stephens Robert J RJ Yan Yan Y Carpenter Chris C Kollef Marin H MH Avidan Michael Simon MS

BMJ open 20201216 12

<h4>Introduction</h4>Sedation is a cornerstone therapy in the management of patients receiving mechanical ventilation and is highly influential on outcome. Early sedation depth appears especially influential, as early deep sedation is associated with worse outcome when compared with light sedation. Our research group has shown that patients receiving mechanical ventilation in the emergency department (ED) are exposed to deep sedation commonly, and ED sedation depth is impactful on intensive care ...[more]

PMID: 33328261

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesDeep sedation in the emergency department (ED) is common, increases deep sedation in the ICU, and is negatively associated with outcome. Limiting ED deep sedation may, therefore, be a high-yield intervention to improve outcome. However, the feasibility of conducting an adequately powered ED-based clinical sedation trial is unknown. Our objectives were to assess trial feasibility in terms of: 1) recruitment, 2) protocol implementation and practice change, and 3) safety. Patient-centered clinical outcomes were assessed to better plan for a future large-scale clinical trial.DesignPragmatic, multicenter ( n = 3), prospective before-after pilot and feasibility trial.SettingThe ED and ICUs at three medical centers.PatientsConsecutive, adult mechanically ventilation ED patients.InterventionsAn educational initiative aimed at reliable ED sedation depth documentation and reducing the proportion of deeply sedated patients (primary outcome).Measurements and main resultsSedation-related data in the ED and the first 48 ICU hours were recorded. Deep sedation was defined as a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of -3 to -5 or a Sedation-Agitation Scale of 1-3. One thousand three hundred fifty-six patients were screened; 415 comprised the final population. Lighter ED sedation was achieved in the intervention group, and the proportion of deeply sedated patients was reduced from 60.2% to 38.8% ( p < 0.01). There were no concerning trends in adverse events (i.e., inadvertent extubation, device removal, and awareness with paralysis). Mortality was 10.0% in the intervention group and 20.4% in the preintervention group ( p < 0.01). Compared with preintervention, the intervention group experienced more ventilator-free days [22.0 (9.0) vs 19.9 (10.6)] and ICU-free days [20.8 (8.7) vs 18.1 (10.4)], p < 0.05 for both.ConclusionsThis pilot trial confirmed the feasibility of targeting the ED in order to improve sedation practices and reduce deep sedation. These findings justify an appropriately powered clinical trial regarding ED-based sedation to improve clinical outcomes.

Project description:In critically ill patients, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and ventilator-associated conditions (VACs) are associated with increased mortality, survivor morbidity and healthcare resource utilisation. Studies conclusively demonstrate that initial ventilator settings in patients with ARDS, and at risk for it, impact outcome. No studies have been conducted in the emergency department (ED) to determine if lung-protective ventilation in patients at risk for ARDS can reduce its incidence. Since the ED is the entry point to the intensive care unit for hundreds of thousands of mechanically ventilated patients annually in the USA, this represents a knowledge gap in this arena. A lung-protective ventilation strategy was instituted in our ED in 2014. It aims to address the parameters in need of quality improvement, as demonstrated by our previous research: (1) prevention of volutrauma; (2) appropriate positive end-expiratory pressure setting; (3) prevention of hyperoxia; and (4) aspiration precautions.The lung-protective ventilation initiated in the emergency department (LOV-ED) trial is a single-centre, quasi-experimental before-after study testing the hypothesis that lung-protective ventilation, initiated in the ED, is associated with reduced pulmonary complications. An intervention cohort of 513 mechanically ventilated adult ED patients will be compared with over 1000 preintervention control patients. The primary outcome is a composite outcome of pulmonary complications after admission (ARDS and VACs). Multivariable logistic regression with propensity score adjustment will test the hypothesis that ED lung-protective ventilation decreases the incidence of pulmonary complications.Approval of the study was obtained prior to data collection on the first patient. As the study is a before-after observational study, examining the effect of treatment changes over time, it is being conducted with waiver of informed consent. This work will be disseminated by publication of full-length manuscripts, presentation in abstract form at major scientific meetings and data sharing with other investigators through academically established means.NCT02543554.

Project description:ObjectivesTo characterize prehospital air medical transport sedation practices and test the hypothesis that modifiable variables related to the monitoring and delivery of analgesia and sedation are associated with prehospital deep sedation.DesignMulticenter, retrospective cohort study.SettingA nationwide, multicenter (approximately 130 bases) air medical transport provider.PatientsConsecutive, adult mechanically ventilated air medical transport patients treated in the prehospital environment (January 2015 to December 2020).InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsAll data involving sedation (medications, monitoring) were recorded. Deep sedation was defined as: 1) Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of -3 to -5; 2) Ramsay Sedation Scale of 5 or 6; or 3) Glasgow Coma Scale of less than or equal to 9. Coma was defined as being unresponsive and based on median sedation depth: 1) Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of -5; 2) Ramsay of 6; or 3) Glasgow Coma Scale of 3. A total of 72,148 patients were studied. Prehospital deep sedation was observed in 63,478 patients (88.0%), and coma occurred in 42,483 patients (58.9%). Deeply sedated patients received neuromuscular blockers more frequently and were less likely to have sedation depth documented with a validated sedation depth scale (i.e., Ramsay or Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale). After adjusting for covariates, a multivariable logistic regression model demonstrated that the use of longer-acting neuromuscular blockers (i.e., rocuronium and vecuronium) was an independent predictor of deep sedation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.22-1.35; p < 0.001), while use of a validated sedation scale was associated with a lower odds of deep sedation (adjusted odds ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.27-0.30; p < 0.001).ConclusionsDeep sedation (and coma) is very common in mechanically ventilated air transport patients and associated with modifiable variables related to the monitoring and delivery of analgesia and sedation. Sedation practices in the prehospital arena and associated clinical outcomes are in need of further investigation.

Project description:BackgroundThrough many years, the standard care has been to use continuous sedation of critically ill patients during mechanical ventilation. However, preliminary randomised clinical trials indicate that it is beneficial to reduce the sedation level. No randomised trial has been conducted comparing sedation with no sedation, a priori powered to have all-cause mortality as primary outcome.The objective is to assess the benefits and harms of non-sedation versus sedation with a daily wake-up trial in critically ill patients.Methods/designThe non-sedation (NONSEDA) trial is an investigator-initiated, randomised, clinical, parallel-group, multinational trial designed to include 700 patients from at least six ICUs in Denmark, Norway and Sweden.Inclusion criteria are mechanically ventilated patients with expected duration of mechanical ventilation >24 hours.Exclusion criteria are non-intubated patients, patients with severe head trauma, coma at admission or status epilepticus, patients treated with therapeutic hypothermia, patients with PaO2/FiO2?<?9 where sedation might be necessary to ensure sufficient oxygenation or place the patient in prone position.Experimental intervention is non-sedation supplemented with pain management during mechanical ventilation.Control intervention is sedation with a daily wake-up trial.The primary outcome will be all cause mortality at 90 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes will be: days until death throughout the total observation period; coma- and delirium-free days; highest RIFLE score; days until discharge from the intensive care unit (within 28 days); days until the participant is without mechanical ventilation (within 28 days); and proportion of patients with a major cardiovascular outcome. Explorative outcomes will be: all cause mortality at 28 days after randomisation; days until discharge from the intensive care unit; days until the participant is without mechanical ventilation; days until discharge from the hospital; organ failure.Trial size: we will include 700 participants (2?×?350) in order to detect or reject 25% relative risk reduction in mortality with a type I error risk of 5% and a type II error risk of 20% (power at 80%).DiscussionThe trial investigates potential benefits of non-sedation. This might have large impact on the future treatment of mechanically ventilated critically ill patients.Trial registerClinicalTrials.gov NCT0196768, 09.01.2014.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:The primary objective of this study was to ascertain the reasons for emergency department (ED) attendance among patients with a history of atrial fibrillation (AF). DESIGN:Appropriate ED attendance was defined by the requirement for an electrical or chemical cardioversion and/or an attendance resulting in hospitalisation or administration of intravenous medications for ventricular rate control. Quantitative and qualitative responses were recorded and analysed using descriptive statistics and content analysis, respectively. Random effects logistic regression was performed to estimate the OR of inappropriate ED attendance based on clinically relevant patient characteristics. PARTICIPANTS:Participants ?18 years with a documented history of AF were approached in one of eight centres partaking in the study across Canada (Ontario, Nova Scotia, Alberta and British Columbia). RESULTS:Of the 356 patients enrolled (67±13, 45% female), the majority (271/356, 76%) had inappropriate reasons for presentation and did not require urgent ED treatment. Approximately 50% of patients(172/356, 48%) were driven to the ED due to symptoms, while the remainder presented on the basis of general fear or anxiety (67/356, 19%) or prior medical advice (117/356, 33%). Random effects logistic regression analysis showed that patients with a history of congestive heart failure were significantly more likely to seek urgent care for appropriate reasons (p=0.03). Likewise, symptom-related concerns for ED presentation were significantly less likely to result in inappropriate visitation (p=0.02). When patients were surveyed on alternatives to ED care, the highest proportion of responses among both groups was in favour of specialised rapid assessment outpatient clinics (186/356, 52%). Qualitative content analysis confirmed these results. CONCLUSIONS:Improved education focused on symptom management and alleviating disease-related anxiety as well as the institution of rapid access arrhythmias clinics may reduce the need for unnecessary healthcare utilisation in the ED and subsequent hospitalisation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03127085.

Dataset Information

A study protocol for a multicentre, prospective, before-and-after trial evaluating the feasibility of implementing targeted SEDation after initiation of mechanical ventilation in the emergency department (The ED-SED Pilot Trial).

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Registration

Publications

A study protocol for a multicentre, prospective, before-and-after trial evaluating the feasibility of implementing targeted SEDation after initiation of mechanical ventilation in the emergency department (The ED-SED Pilot Trial).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets