Dataset Information

Effect of a Sedation and Ventilator Liberation Protocol vs Usual Care on Duration of Invasive Mechanical Ventilation in Pediatric Intensive Care Units: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

There is limited evidence on the optimal strategy for liberating infants and children from invasive mechanical ventilation in the pediatric intensive care unit.

Objective

To determine if a sedation and ventilator liberation protocol intervention reduces the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation in infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation.

Design, setting, and participants

A pragmatic multicenter, stepped-wedge, cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted that included 17 hospital sites (18 pediatric intensive care units) in the UK sequentially randomized from usual care to the protocol intervention. From February 2018 to October 2019, 8843 critically ill infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation were recruited. The last date of follow-up was November 11, 2019.

Interventions

Pediatric intensive care units provided usual care (n = 4155 infants and children) or a sedation and ventilator liberation protocol intervention (n = 4688 infants and children) that consisted of assessment of sedation level, daily screening for readiness to undertake a spontaneous breathing trial, a spontaneous breathing trial to test ventilator liberation potential, and daily rounds to review sedation and readiness screening and set patient-relevant targets.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was the duration of invasive mechanical ventilation from initiation of ventilation until the first successful extubation. The primary estimate of the treatment effect was a hazard ratio (with a 95% CI) adjusted for calendar time and cluster (hospital site) for infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation.

Results

There were a total of 8843 infants and children (median age, 8 months [interquartile range, 1 to 46 months]; 42% were female) who completed the trial. There was a significantly shorter median time to successful extubation for the protocol intervention compared with usual care (64.8 hours vs 66.2 hours, respectively; adjusted median difference, -6.1 hours [interquartile range, -8.2 to -5.3 hours]; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 1.02 to 1.20], P = .02). The serious adverse event of hypoxia occurred in 9 (0.2%) infants and children for the protocol intervention vs 11 (0.3%) for usual care; nonvascular device dislodgement occurred in 2 (0.04%) vs 7 (0.1%), respectively.

Conclusions and relevance

Among infants and children anticipated to require prolonged mechanical ventilation, a sedation and ventilator liberation protocol intervention compared with usual care resulted in a statistically significant reduction in time to first successful extubation. However, the clinical importance of the effect size is uncertain.

Trial registration

isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN16998143.

SUBMITTER: Blackwood B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8335576 | 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:To determine whether benzodiazepine and propofol doses are increased at night and whether daytime and nighttime sedative doses are associated with delirium, coma, and delayed liberation from mechanical ventilation.Single-center, prospective cohort study nested within the Awakening and Breathing Controlled randomized trial.Saint Thomas Hospital in Nashville, TN, from 2004 to 2006.Adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation for >12 hrs with continuous recording of hourly sedation dosing.We measured hourly doses of benzodiazepine and propofol exposure during the daytime (7 AM to 11 PM) and nighttime (11 PM to 7 AM) for 5 days. We quantified nighttime dose increases by subtracting the average hourly daytime dose on the preceding day from subsequent average hourly nighttime dose. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine whether daytime and nighttime dose increases were independently associated with delirium, coma, and delayed liberation from mechanical ventilation.Among 140 patients, the median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was 27 (interquartile range 22-33). Among those receiving the sedatives, benzodiazepine and propofol doses were increased at night on 40% and 41% of patient-days, respectively. Of 485 patient-days, delirium was present on 160 (33%) and coma on 206 (42%). In adjusted models, greater daytime benzodiazepine dose was independently associated with failed spontaneous breathing trial and extubation, and subsequent delirium (p<.02 for all). Nighttime increase in benzodiazepine dose was associated with failed spontaneous breathing trial (p<.01) and delirium (p=.05). Daytime propofol dose was marginally associated with subsequent delirium (p=.06).Nearly half of mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients received greater doses of sedation at night, a practice associated with failed spontaneous breathing trials, coma, and delirium. Over the first 5 days in our study, patients spent 75% of their time in coma or delirium, outcomes that may be reduced by efforts to decrease sedative exposure during both daytime and nighttime hours in the intensive care unit.