Responsiveness Index versus the RASS-Based Method for Adjusting Sedation in Critically Ill Patients
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Sedation of intensive care patients is needed for patient safety, but deep sedation is associated with adverse outcomes. Frontal electromyogram-based Responsiveness Index (RI) aims to quantify the level of sedation and is scaled 0–100 (low index indicates deep sedation). We compared RI-based sedation to Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale- (RASS-) based sedation. Our hypothesis was that RI-controlled sedation would be associated with increased total time alive without mechanical ventilation at 30 days without an increased number of adverse events. Methods
32 critically ill adult patients with mechanical ventilation and administration of sedation were randomized to either RI- or RASS-guided sedation. Patients received propofol and oxycodone, if possible. The following standardized sedation protocol was utilized in both groups to achieve the predetermined target sedation level: either RI 40–80 (RI group) or RASS −3 to 0 (RASS group). RI measurement was blinded in the RASS group, and the RI group was blinded to RASS assessments. State Entropy (SE) values were registered in both groups. Results
RI and RASS groups did not differ in total time alive in 30 days without mechanical ventilation (p=0.72). The incidence of at least one sedation-related adverse event did not differ between the groups. Hypertension was more common in the RI group (p=0.01). RI group patients were in the target RI level 22% of the time and RASS group patients had 57% of scores within the target RASS level. The RI group spent significantly more time in their target sedation level than the RASS group spent in the corresponding RI level (p=0.03). No difference was observed between the groups (p=0.13) in the corresponding analysis for RASS. Propofol and oxycodone were administered at higher RI and SE values and lower RASS values in the RI group than in the RASS group. Conclusion
Further studies with a larger sample size are warranted to scrutinize the optimal RI level during different phases of critical illness.
SUBMITTER: Wennervirta J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8516552 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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).
| S-EPMC4570737 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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?<?0.001; NAS in daily interruption group was 53 on day 1 versus 38 on day 5, P?<?0.001). Fentanyl and midazolam total dosages per patient were higher in the daily interruption group. The tidal volume was higher in the intermittent sedation group during the first five days of ICU stay. CONCLUSIONS:There was no difference in the number of ventilator-free days in 28 days between both groups. Intermittent sedation was associated with lower sedative and opioid doses. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00824239.
| S-EPMC4026117 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background Abolished circadian rhythm is associated with altered cognitive function, delirium, and as a result increased mortality in critically ill patients, especially in those who are mechanically ventilated. The causes are multifactorial, of which changes in circadian rhythmicity may play a role. Melatonin plays a crucial role as part of the circadian and sleep/wake cycle. Whether sedation effects circadian regulation is unknown. Hence, the objective of this study was to evaluate the melatonin concentration in critically ill patients randomized to sedation or non-sedation and to investigate the correlation with delirium. Methods All patients were included and randomized at the intensive care unit at the hospital of southwest Jutland, Denmark. Seventy-nine patients completed the study (41 sedated and 38 non-sedated). S-melatonin was measured 3 times per day, (03.00, 14.00, and 22.00), for 4 consecutive days in total, starting on the second day upon randomization/intubation. The study was conducted as a sub-study to the NON-SEDA study in which one hundred consecutive patients were randomized to sedation or non-sedation with a daily wake-up call (50 in each arm). Primary outcome: melatonin concentration in sedated vs. non-sedated patients (analyzed using linear regression). Secondary outcome: risk of developing delirium or non-medically induced (NMI) coma in sedated vs. non-sedated patients, assessed by CAM-ICU (Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit) analyzed using logistic regression. Results Melatonin concentration was suppressed in sedated patients compared to the non-sedated. All patients experienced an elevated peak melatonin level early on in the course of their critical illness (p?=?0.01). The risk of delirium or coma (NMI) was significantly lower in the non-sedated group (OR 0.42 CI 0.27; 0.66 p?<?0.0001). No significant relationship between delirium development and suppressed melatonin concentration was established in this study (OR 1.004 p?=?0.29 95% CI 0.997; 1.010). Conclusion Melatonin concentration was suppressed in sedated, critically ill patients, when compared to non-sedated controls and the frequency of delirium was elevated in sedated patients. Trail registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01967680) on October 23, 2013.
| S-EPMC7936862 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundICU patients must be kept conscious, calm, and cooperative even during the critical phases of illness. Enteral administration of sedative drugs might avoid over sedation, and would be as adequate as intravenous administration in patients who are awake, with fewer side effects and lower costs. This study compares two sedation strategies, for early achievement and maintenance of the target light sedation.MethodsThis was a multicenter, single-blind, randomized and controlled trial carried out in 12 Italian ICUs, involving patients with expected mechanical ventilation duration > 72 h at ICU admission and predicted mortality > 12% (Simplified Acute Physiology Score II > 32 points) during the first 24 h on ICU. Patients were randomly assigned to receive intravenous (midazolam, propofol) or enteral (hydroxyzine, lorazepam, and melatonin) sedation. The primary outcome was percentage of work shifts with the patient having an observed Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) = target RASS ±1. Secondary outcomes were feasibility, delirium-free and coma-free days, costs of drugs, length of ICU and hospital stay, and ICU, hospital, and one-year mortality.ResultsThere were 348 patients enrolled. There were no differences in the primary outcome: enteral 89.8% (74.1-100), intravenous 94.4% (78-100), p = 0.20. Enteral-treated patients had more protocol violations: n = 81 (46.6%) vs 7 (4.2%), p < 0.01; more self-extubations: n = 14 (8.1%) vs 4 (2.4%), p = 0.03; a lighter sedative target (RASS = 0): 93% (71-100) vs 83% (61-100), p < 0.01; and lower total drug costs: 2.39 (0.75-9.78) vs 4.15 (1.20-20.19) €/day with mechanical ventilation (p = 0.01).ConclusionsAlthough enteral sedation of critically ill patients is cheaper and permits a lighter sedation target, it is not superior to intravenous sedation for reaching the RASS target.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01360346 . Registered on 25 March 2011.
| S-EPMC6323792 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFluid responsiveness prediction with continuously available monitoring is an unsettled matter for the vast majority of critically ill patients, and development of new and reliable methods is desired. We hypothesized that the post-ectopic beat, which is associated with increased preload, could be analyzed in relation to preceding sinus beats and that the change in cardiac performance (e.g., systolic blood pressure) at the post-ectopic beat could predict fluid responsiveness.MethodsCritically ill patients were observed when scheduled for a 500-ml volume expansion. The 30-min ECG prior to volume expansion was analyzed for the occurrence of extrasystoles. Classification variables were defined as the change in a variable (e.g., systolic blood pressure or pre-ejection period) from the median of ten preceding sinus beats to extrasystolic post-ectopic beat. A stroke volume increase > 10% following volume expansion defined fluid responsiveness.ResultsTwenty-six patients were included. The change in systolic blood pressure predicted fluid responsiveness with receiver operating characteristic (ROC) area 0.79 (CI [0.52:1.00]), specificity 100%, sensitivity 67%, positive predictive value 100%, and negative predictive value 91% (threshold: 5%). The change in pre-ejection period predicted fluid responsiveness with ROC area 0.74 (CI [0.53:0.94]), specificity 78%, sensitivity 67%, positive predictive value 50%, and negative predictive value 88% (threshold 7.5 ms).ConclusionsBased on standard critical care monitoring, analysis of the extrasystolic post-ectopic beat predicts fluid responsiveness in critical care patients with good accuracy. The presented results are considered preliminary proof-of-concept results, and further validation is needed to confirm these preliminary findings.
| S-EPMC6103985 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC4307177 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC11002878 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe use of processed electroencephalography (pEEG) for depth of sedation (DOS) monitoring is increasing in anesthesia; however, how to use of this type of monitoring for critical care adult patients within the intensive care unit (ICU) remains unclear.MethodsA multidisciplinary panel of international experts consisting of 21 clinicians involved in monitoring DOS in ICU patients was carefully selected on the basis of their expertise in neurocritical care and neuroanesthesiology. Panelists were assigned four domains (techniques for electroencephalography [EEG] monitoring, patient selection, use of the EEG monitors, competency, and training the principles of pEEG monitoring) from which a list of questions and statements was created to be addressed. A Delphi method based on iterative approach was used to produce the final statements. Statements were classified as highly appropriate or highly inappropriate (median rating ≥ 8), appropriate (median rating ≥ 7 but < 8), or uncertain (median rating < 7) and with a strong disagreement index (DI) (DI < 0.5) or weak DI (DI ≥ 0.5 but < 1) consensus.ResultsAccording to the statements evaluated by the panel, frontal pEEG (which includes a continuous colored density spectrogram) has been considered adequate to monitor the level of sedation (strong consensus), and it is recommended by the panel that all sedated patients (paralyzed or nonparalyzed) unfit for clinical evaluation would benefit from DOS monitoring (strong consensus) after a specific training program has been performed by the ICU staff. To cover the gap between knowledge/rational and routine application, some barriers must be broken, including lack of knowledge, validation for prolonged sedation, standardization between monitors based on different EEG analysis algorithms, and economic issues.ConclusionsEvidence on using DOS monitors in ICU is still scarce, and further research is required to better define the benefits of using pEEG. This consensus highlights that some critically ill patients may benefit from this type of neuromonitoring.
| S-EPMC10090014 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeWe evaluated the safety and efficacy of long-term administration of dexmedetomidine in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Primary endpoint was the incidence of hypotension, hypertension, and bradycardia. Secondary endpoints were withdrawal symptoms, rebound effects, the duration of sedation with Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) ≤ 0 relative to the total infusion time of dexmedetomidine, and the dose of additional sedatives or analgesics.MethodsDexmedetomidine 0.2-0.7 μg/kg/h was continuously infused for maintaining RASS ≤ 0 in patients requiring sedation in the ICU. Safety and efficacy of short-term (≤ 24 h) and long-term (>24 h) dexmedetomidine administration were compared.ResultsSeventy-five surgical and medical ICU patients were administered dexmedetomidine. The incidence of hypotension, hypertension, and bradycardia that occurred after 24 h (long-term) was not significantly different from that occurring within 24 h (short-term) (P = 0.546, 0.513, and 0.486, respectively). Regarding withdrawal symptoms, one event each of hypertension and headache occurred after the end of infusion, but both were mild in severity. Increases of mean arterial blood pressure and heart rate after terminating the infusion of dexmedetomidine were not associated with the increasing duration of its infusion. The ratio of duration with RASS ≤ 0 was ≥ 85 % until day 20, except day 9 (70 %) and day 10 (75 %). There was no increase in the dose of additional sedatives or analgesics after the first 24-h treatment period.ConclusionsLong-term safety of dexmedetomidine compared to its use for 24 h was confirmed. Dexmedetomidine was useful to maintain an adequate sedation level (RASS ≤ 0) during long-term infusion.
| S-EPMC3921449 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionA protocol of no sedation has been shown to reduce the time patients receive mechanical ventilation and to reduce intensive care and total hospital length of stay. The long-term psychological effects of this strategy have not yet been described. The purpose of the study was to test whether a strategy of no sedation alters long-term psychological outcome compared with a standard strategy with sedation.MethodsDuring intensive care stay, 140 patients requiring mechanical ventilation were randomized to either no sedation or sedation with daily interruption of sedation. This study was done as a single-blinded cohort study. After discharge, patients were interviewed by a neuropsychologist assessing quality of life, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder.ResultsTwo years after randomization, 38 patients were eligible for interview, and 26 patients were interviewed (13 from each group). No difference was found with respect to quality of life (Medical Outcome Study, 36-item short-form health survey). Both mental and physical components were nonsignificant. The Beck depression index was low in both groups (one patient in intervention group versus three patients in the control group were depressed, p = 0.32). Evaluated with the Impact of Events Scale, both groups had low stress scores (one in the intervention group versus two in the control group had scores greater than 32; p = 0.50). State anxiety scores were also low (28 in the control group versus 30 in the intervention group, p = 0.58).ConclusionsOur data suggest that a protocol of no sedation applied to critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation does not increase the risk of long-term psychological sequelae after intensive care compared with standard treatment with sedation.
| S-EPMC3388632 | biostudies-literature