Dataset Information

Clinical recommendations for pain, sedation, withdrawal and delirium assessment in critically ill infants and children: an ESPNIC position statement for healthcare professionals.

ABSTRACT: This position statement provides clinical recommendations for the assessment of pain, level of sedation, iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome and delirium in critically ill infants and children. Admission to a neonatal or paediatric intensive care unit (NICU, PICU) exposes a child to a series of painful and stressful events. Accurate assessment of the presence of pain and non-pain-related distress (adequacy of sedation, iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome and delirium) is essential to good clinical management and to monitoring the effectiveness of interventions to relieve or prevent pain and distress in the individual patient.A multidisciplinary group of experts was recruited from the members of the European Society of Paediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care (ESPNIC). The group formulated clinical questions regarding assessment of pain and non-pain-related distress in critically ill and nonverbal children, and searched the PubMed/Medline, CINAHL and Embase databases for studies describing the psychometric properties of assessment instruments. Furthermore, level of evidence of selected studies was assigned and recommendations were formulated, and grade or recommendations were added on the basis of the level of evidence.An ESPNIC position statement was drafted which provides clinical recommendations on assessment of pain (n = 5), distress and/or level of sedation (n = 4), iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome (n = 3) and delirium (n = 3). These recommendations were based on the available evidence and consensus amongst the experts and other members of ESPNIC.This multidisciplinary ESPNIC position statement guides professionals in the assessment and reassessment of the effectiveness of treatment interventions for pain, distress, inadequate sedation, withdrawal syndrome and delirium.

SUBMITTER: Harris J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4846705 | biostudies-other | 2016 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical recommendations for pain, sedation, withdrawal and delirium assessment in critically ill infants and children: an ESPNIC position statement for healthcare professionals.

Harris Julia J Ramelet Anne-Sylvie AS van Dijk Monique M Pokorna Pavla P Wielenga Joke J Tume Lyvonne L Tibboel Dick D Ista Erwin E

Intensive care medicine 20160415 6

<h4>Background</h4>This position statement provides clinical recommendations for the assessment of pain, level of sedation, iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome and delirium in critically ill infants and children. Admission to a neonatal or paediatric intensive care unit (NICU, PICU) exposes a child to a series of painful and stressful events. Accurate assessment of the presence of pain and non-pain-related distress (adequacy of sedation, iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome and delirium) is essential to go ...[more]

PMID: 27084344

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:IntroductionSmoking is highly addictive, and nicotine abstinence is associated with withdrawal syndrome in hospitalized patients. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the impact of sudden nicotine abstinence on the development of agitation and delirium, and on morbidities and outcomes in critically ill patients who required respiratory support, either noninvasive ventilation or intubation, and mechanical ventilation.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, observational study in two intensive care units (ICUs). The 144 consecutive patients admitted to ICUs and requiring mechanical ventilation for >48 hours were included. Smoking status was assessed at ICU admission by using the Fagerström Test of Nicotine Dependence (FTND). Agitation, with the Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS), and delirium, with the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC), were tested twice daily during the ICU stay. Agitation and delirium were defined by SAS >4 and ICDSC >4, respectively. Nosocomial complications and outcomes were evaluated.ResultsSmokers (n = 44) were younger and more frequently male and were more likely to have a history of alcoholism and to have septic shock as the reason for ICU admission than were nonsmokers. The incidence of agitation, but not delirium, increased significantly in the smoker group (64% versus 32%; P = 0.0005). Nicotine abstinence was associated with higher incidences of self-removal of tubes and catheters, and with more interventions, including the need for supplemental sedatives, analgesics, neuroleptics, and physical restraints. Sedation-free days, ventilator-free days, length of stay, and mortality in ICUs did not differ between groups. Multivariate analysis identified active smoking (OR, 3.13; 95% CI, 1.45-6.74; P = 0.003) as an independent risk factor for agitation. Based on a subgroup of 56 patients, analysis of 28 pairs of patients (smokers and nonsmokers in a 1:1 ratio) matched for age, gender, and alcoholism status found similar results regarding the role of nicotine withdrawal in increasing the risk of agitation during an ICU stay.ConclusionsNicotine withdrawal was associated with agitation and higher morbidities in critically ill patients. These results suggest the need to look specifically at those patients with tobacco dependency by using the FTND in ICU settings. Identifying patients at risk of behavioral disorders may lead to earlier interventions in routine clinical practice.

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.

Project description:BackgroundCOVID-19 has been a devastating pandemic with little known of its neuropsychiatric complications. Delirium is one of the most common neuropsychiatric syndromes among hospitalized cancer patients with incidence ranging from 25% to 40% and rates of up to 85% in the terminally ill. Data on the incidence, risk factors, duration, and outcomes of delirium in critically ill cancer patients with COVID-19 are lacking.ObjectiveTo report the incidence, risks and outcomes of critically ill cancer patients who developed COVID-19.MethodsThis is a retrospective single-center study evaluating delirium frequency and outcomes in all critically ill cancer patients with COVID-19 admitted between March 1 and July 10, 2020. Delirium was assessed by Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit, performed twice daily by trained intensive care unit (ICU) nursing staff. Patients were considered to have a delirium-positive day if Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit was positive at least once per day.ResultsA total of 70 patients were evaluated. Of those 70, 53 (75.7%) were found to be positive for delirium. Patients with delirium were significantly older than patients without delirium (median age 67.5 vs 60.3 y, P = 0.013). There were no significant differences in demographic characteristics, chronic medical conditions, neuropsychiatric history, cancer type, or application of prone positioning between the 2 groups. Delirium patients were less likely to receive cancer-directed therapies (58.5% vs 88.2%, P = 0.038) but more likely to receive antipsychotics (81.1% vs 41.2%, P = 0.004), dexmedetomidine (79.3% vs 11.8%, P < 0.001), steroids (84.9% vs 58.8%, P = 0.039), and vasopressors (90.6% vs 58.8%, P = 0.006). Delirium patients were more likely to be intubated (86.8% vs 41.2%, P < 0.001), and all tracheostomies (35.9%) occurred in patients with delirium. ICU length of stay (19 vs 8 d, P < 0.001) and hospital length of stay (37 vs 12 d, P < 0.001) were significantly longer in delirium patients, but there was no statistically significant difference in hospital mortality (43.4% vs 58.8%, P = 0.403) or ICU mortality (34.0% vs 58.8%, P = 0.090).ConclusionsDelirium in critically ill cancer patients with COVID-19 was associated with less cancer-directed therapies and increased hospital and ICU length of stay. However, the presence of delirium was not associated with an increase in hospital or ICU mortality.

Project description:IntroductionThis systematic review aimed to evaluate the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and recommendations for managing pain, sedation, delirium, and iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome in pediatric intensive care (PICU). The objectives included evaluating the quality of recommendations, synthesizing recommendations, harmonizing the strength of the recommendation (SoR) and the certainty of evidence (CoE), and assessing the relevance of supporting evidence.MethodsA comprehensive search in four electronic databases (Medline, Embase.com, CINAHL and JBI EBP Database), 9 guideline repositories, and 13 professional societies was conducted to identify CPGs published from January 2010 to the end of May 2023 in any language. The quality of CPGs and recommendations was assessed using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instruments. Thematic analysis was used to synthesize recommendations, and the GRADE SoR and CoE harmonization method was used to interpret the credibility of summary recommendations.ResultsA total of 18 CPGs and 170 recommendations were identified. Most CPGs were of medium-quality, and three were classified as high. A total of 30 summary recommendations were synthesized across each condition, focused on common management approaches. There was inconsistency in the SoRs and CoE for summary recommendations, those for assessment showed the highest consistency, the remaining were conditional, inconsistent, inconclusive, and lacked support from evidence.ConclusionThis systematic review provides an overview of the quality of CPGs for these four conditions in the PICU. While three CPGs achieved high-quality ratings, the overall findings reveal gaps in the evidence base of recommendations, patient and family involvement, and resources for implementation. The findings highlight the need for more rigorous and evidence-based approaches in the development and reporting of CPGs to enhance their trustworthiness. Further research is necessary to enhance the quality of recommendations for this setting. The results of this review can provide a valuable foundation for future CPG development.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=274364, PROSPERO (CRD42021274364).

Dataset Information

Clinical recommendations for pain, sedation, withdrawal and delirium assessment in critically ill infants and children: an ESPNIC position statement for healthcare professionals.

Publications

Clinical recommendations for pain, sedation, withdrawal and delirium assessment in critically ill infants and children: an ESPNIC position statement for healthcare professionals.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets