An examination of sedation requirements and practices for mechanically ventilated critically ill patients with COVID-19

Observational study of the effect of ketamine infusions on sedation depth, inflammation, and clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients with SARS-CoV-2

Severely ill patients with COVID-19 are challenging to sedate and often require high-dose sedation and analgesic regimens. Ketamine can be an effective adjunct to facilitate sedation of critically ill patients but its effects on sedation level and inflammation in COVID-19 patients have not been studied. This retrospective, observational cohort study evaluated the effect of ketamine infusions on inflammatory biomarkers and clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. A total of 186 patients were identified (47 received ketamine, 139 did not). Patients who received ketamine were significantly younger than those who did not (mean (standard deviation) 59.2 (14.2) years versus 66.3 (14.4) years; P = 0.004), but there was no statistically significant difference in body mass index (P = 0.25) or sex distribution (P = 0.91) between groups. Mechanically ventilated patients who received ketamine infusions had a statistically significant reduction in Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score (-3.0 versus -2.0, P < 0.001). Regarding inflammatory biomarkers, ketamine was associated with a reduction in ferritin (P = 0.02) and lactate (P = 0.01), but no such association was observed for C-reactive protein (P = 0.27), lactate dehydrogenase (P = 0.64) or interleukin-6 (P = 0.87). No significant association was observed between ketamine administration and mortality (odds ratio 0.971; 95% confidence interval 0.501 to 1.882; P = 0.93). Ketamine infusion was associated with improved sedation depth in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients and provided a modest anti-inflammatory benefit but did not confer benefit with respect to mortality or intensive care unit length of stay.

Combination of a propofol emulsion with alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonists used for multimodal analgesia or sedation in intensive care units: a physicochemical stability study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the physicochemical stability of the combination of a propofol emulsion with an alpha-2 (α2) adrenergic receptor agonist (α2A; clonidine or dexmedetomidine) under conditions mimicking routine practice in an intensive care unit or in multimodal analgesia procedures.

METHODS

We developed and validated three stability-indicating methods based on high-performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet (HPLC-UV) detection. Eight different conditions per combination were evaluated in triplicate, with variations in the simulated, bodyweight-adjusted dose level and the drugs' flow rate. The drugs were mixed in clinically relevant concentrations and proportions and then stored unprotected from light, in clear glass vials at room temperature for 96 hours. At each sampling point, we assessed the chemical stability (the HPLC-UV drug level, pH, and osmolality) and physical compatibility (visual aspect, zeta potential (ZP), mean droplet diameter (MDD, Z-average) and polydispersity index (PDI)). We validated our stability findings in positive and negative control experiments.

RESULTS

Over the 96-hour test, the concentrations of propofol, clonidine and dexmedetomidine did not fall below 90% of the initial value, and the pH and osmolality were stable. The visual aspect of the mixed propofol emulsions did not change. The MDD remained below 500 nm (range 165-195 nm). The PDI was always below 0.4; 78.7% of the measurements were below 0.1 and 21.3% were between 0.1 and 0.4. The ZP measurements (-31.3 to -42.9 mV) suggested that the emulsion was stable. The MDD and PDI increased slightly at 96 hours under some conditions, which might indicate early destabilisation of the emulsion. Given that the MDD remained below 500 nm, these emulsions are compatible with intravenous administration.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate the chemical and physical compatibility of propofol-α2 agonist mixtures at concentrations and in proportions representative of standard protocols when stored unprotected from light at room temperature for 96 hours.

Impact of Sedation Practices on Mortality in COVID-19-Associated Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Descriptive Study

Background: Reduction in sedation exposure is an important metric in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, challenges arose during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in adhering to this practice, driven by concerns on transmission and disease severity issues. Accordingly, diverse sedation approaches emerged, although the effect on mortality has not been studied thoroughly. Methods: Retrospective cohort study in the medical ICU of seven hospitals within a major Health System in Northeast Ohio. We included all adult patients admitted with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) from March 2020 to December 2021. Results: Study included 2394 COVID-19 patients requiring IMV. Across waves, sample included 55-63% male subjects, with an average age of 61-68 years (P < 0.001), Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE)-III score 65.8-68.9 (P = 0.37), median IMV duration 8-10 days (P = 0.14), and median ICU duration 9.8-11.6 days (P = 0.084). Propofol remained the primary sedative (84-92%; P = 0.089). Ketamine use increased from the first (9.7%) to fourth (19%) wave (P = 0.002). Midazolam use decreased from the first (27.4%) to third (9.4%) wave (P = 0.001). Dexmedetomidine use declined from 35% to 27-28% (P = 0.002) after the first wave. A multivariable regression analysis indicated clinical variables explained 34% of the variation in hospital mortality (R2). Factors associated with higher mortality included age [aOR = 1.059 (95% CI 1.049-1.069); P < 0.001], COVID-19 wave, especially fourth wave [aOR = 2.147, (95% CI 1.370-3.365); P = 0.001], and higher number of vasopressors [aOR = 31.636, (95% CI 17.603-56.856); P < 0.001]. Addition of sedative medications to a second model led to an increase in the R2 by only 1.6% to 35.6% [aOR = 1 (95% CI 1-1); P > 0.05] for propofol, ketamine, and midazolam. Dexmedetomidine demonstrated a decrease in the odds of mortality [aOR = 0.96 (95% CI 0.94-0.97); P < 0.001]. Conclusion: Mortality in critical COVID-19 patients was mostly driven by illness severity, and the choice of sedation might have minimal impact when other factors are controlled.

Risk Factors Associated With Opioid/Benzodiazepine Iatrogenic Withdrawal Syndrome in COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

BackgroundMechanically ventilated COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients often receive deeper sedation and analgesia to maintain respiratory compliance and minimize staff exposure, which incurs greater risk of iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome (IWS) and has been associated with worse patient outcomes. Objective: To identify potential risk factors and differences in patient outcomes associated with the development of IWS in COVID-19 ARDS patients. Methods: Retrospective analysis of ventilated COVID-19 ARDS intensive care unit (ICU) patients who received continuous intravenous (IV) analgesia and sedation for ≥5 days from March 2020-May 2021. Patients were classified as IWS and non-IWS based on receipt of scheduled oral sedative/analgesic regimens after cessation of IV therapy. Risk factors were assessed in univariate analyses and multivariable modeling. Results: A total of 115 patients were included. The final multivariable model showed: (1) each additional day of IV opioid therapy was associated with an 8% increase in odds of IWS (95% CI, 1.02-1.14), (2) among sedatives, receipt of lorazepam was associated with 3 times higher odds of IWS (95% CI 1.12-8.15), and (3) each 1-point increase in Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II was associated with a 4% reduction in odds of IWS (95% CI 0.93-0.999). Conclusion: Prolonged and high dose exposures to IV opioids and benzodiazepines should be limited when possible. Additional prospective studies are needed to identify modifiable risk factors to prevent IWS.

International Analgesia and Sedation Weaning and Withdrawal Practices in Critically Ill Adults: The Adult Iatrogenic Withdrawal Study in the ICU

OBJECTIVES

Iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome (IWS) associated with opioid and sedative use for medical purposes has a reported high prevalence and associated morbidity. This study aimed to determine the prevalence, utilization, and characteristics of opioid and sedative weaning and IWS policies/protocols in the adult ICU population.

DESIGN

International, multicenter, observational, point prevalence study.

SETTING

Adult ICUs.

PATIENTS

All patients aged 18 years and older in the ICU on the date of data collection who received parenteral opioids or sedatives in the previous 24 hours.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

ICUs selected 1 day for data collection between June 1 and September 30, 2021. Patient demographic data, opioid and sedative medication use, and weaning and IWS assessment data were collected for the previous 24 hours. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients weaned from opioids and sedatives using an institutional policy/protocol on the data collection day. There were 2,402 patients in 229 ICUs from 11 countries screened for opioid and sedative use; 1,506 (63%) patients received parenteral opioids, and/or sedatives in the previous 24 hours. There were 90 (39%) ICUs with a weaning policy/protocol which was used in 176 (12%) patients, and 23 (10%) ICUs with an IWS policy/protocol which was used in 9 (0.6%) patients. The weaning policy/protocol for 47 (52%) ICUs did not define when to initiate weaning, and the policy/protocol for 24 (27%) ICUs did not specify the degree of weaning. A weaning policy/protocol was used in 34% (176/521) and IWS policy/protocol in 9% (9/97) of patients admitted to an ICU with such a policy/protocol. Among 485 patients eligible for weaning policy/protocol utilization based on duration of opioid/sedative use initiation criterion within individual ICU policies/protocols 176 (36%) had it used, and among 54 patients on opioids and/or sedatives ≥ 72 hours, 9 (17%) had an IWS policy/protocol used by the data collection day.

CONCLUSIONS

This international observational study found that a small proportion of ICUs use policies/protocols for opioid and sedative weaning or IWS, and even when these policies/protocols are in place, they are implemented in a small percentage of patients.

Renal safety of critical care sedation with sevoflurane: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Volatile anesthetic agents are increasingly widely used for critical care sedation. There are concerns that sevoflurane presents a risk of renal injury when used in this role. RCTs comparing the use of critical care sevoflurane sedation with any control in humans were systematically identified using MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL, web of Science, and CINAHL (until May 2022), if they presented comparative data on renal function or serum inorganic fluoride levels. Pooled SMDs (95% CI) were calculated where possible after assessment of quality with GRADE and risk of bias with ROB-2. Eight studies analyzing 793 patients were included. The median duration of use of critical care sevoflurane sedation was 4.8 [IQR 3.5-9.2] hours; however, most trials also included a period of prior intraoperative use. No significant difference was found in serum creatinine at 1 day (SMD 0.05, 95% CI - 0.12 to 0.21), 48 h (SMD = - 0.04; 95% Cl - 0.25 to 0.17), 72 h (SMD = - 0.15; 95% CI - 0.45 to 0.15), and at discharge (SMD = - 0.1; 95% CI - 0.3 to 0.13) between the sevoflurane group and the control groups. Creatinine clearance was measured in two studies at 48 h with no significant difference (SMD = - 0.13; 95% Cl - 0.38 to 0.11). Levels of serum inorganic fluoride were significantly elevated in patients where sevoflurane was used. Sevoflurane was not associated with renal failure when used for critical care sedation of fewer than 72-h duration, despite the elevation of serum fluoride. Longer-term studies are currently inadequate, including in patients with compromised renal function, to further evaluate the role of sevoflurane in this setting.Trial registration PROSPERO (CRD42022333099).

Use of Methadone Versus Oxycodone to Facilitate Weaning of Parenteral Opioids in Critically Ill Adult Patients

BACKGROUND

No previous literature has compared methadone with oxycodone for intravenous (IV) opioid weaning.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if a weaning strategy using enteral methadone or oxycodone results in faster time to IV opioid discontinuation.

METHODS

This was a single-center, retrospective, cohort medical record review of mechanically ventilated adults in an intensive care unit (ICU) who received a continuous IV infusion of fentanyl or hydromorphone for ≥72 hours and an enteral weaning strategy using either methadone or oxycodone from January 1, 2020, through December 31, 2021. Differences between groups were controlled for using Cox proportional hazards models. The primary outcome was time to continuous IV opioid discontinuation from the initiation of enteral opioids. Secondary outcomes included the primary endpoint stratified for COVID-19, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU and hospital length of stay, and safety measures.

RESULTS

Ninety-three patients were included, with 36 (38.7%) patients receiving methadone and 57 (61.3%) receiving oxycodone. Patients weaned using methadone received IV opioids significantly longer before the start of weaning (P = 0.04). However, those on methadone had a significantly faster time to discontinuation of IV opioids than those on oxycodone, mean (standard deviation) 104.7 (79.4) versus 158.3 hours (171.2), P = 0.04, and, at any time, were 1.89 times as likely to be weaned from IV opioids (hazard ratio, HR 1.89, 95% confidence interval, CI 1.16-3.07, P = 0.01).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

This was the first study showing enteral methadone was associated with a shorter duration of IV opioids without differences in secondary outcomes compared with oxycodone. Prospective research is necessary to confirm this finding.

Impact of COVID-19 on Sedation Requirements during Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

COVID-19-associated ARDS (C-ARDS) is mentioned to express higher analgosedation needs, in comparison to ARDS of other etiologies. The objective of this monocentric retrospective cohort study was to compare the analgosedation needs between C-ARDS and non-COVID-19 ARDS (non-C-ARDS) on veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO). Data were collected from the electronic medical records of all adult patients treated with C-ARDS in our Department of Intensive Care Medicine between March 2020 and April 2022. The control group included patients treated with non-C-ARDS between the years 2009 and 2020. A sedation sum score was created in order to describe the overall analgosedation needs. A total of 115 (31.5%) patients with C-ARDS and 250 (68.5%) with non-C-ARDS requiring VV-ECMO therapy were included in the study. The sedation sum score was significantly higher in the C-ARDS group (p < 0.001). COVID-19 was significantly associated with analgosedation in the univariable analysis. By contrast, the multivariable model did not show a significant association between COVID-19 and the sum score. The year of VV-ECMO support, BMI, SAPS II and prone positioning were significantly associated with sedation needs. The potential impact of COVID-19 remains unclear, and further studies are warranted in order to evaluate specific disease characteristics linked with analgesia and sedation.

An Exploration of Critical Care Professionals' Strategies to Enhance Daily Implementation of the Assess, Prevent, and Manage Pain; Both Spontaneous Awakening and Breathing Trials; Choice of Analgesia and Sedation; Delirium Assess, Prevent, and Manage; Early Mobility and Exercise; and Family Engagement and Empowerment: A Group Concept Mapping Study

The goals of this exploratory study were to engage professionals from the Society for Critical Care Medicine ICU Liberation Collaborative ICUs to: 1) conceptualize strategies to enhance daily implementation of the Assess, prevent, and manage pain; Both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials; Choice of analgesia and sedation; Delirium assess, prevent, and manage; Early mobility and exercise; and Family engagement and empowerment (ABCDEF) bundle from different perspectives and 2) identify strategies to prioritize for implementation.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods group concept mapping over 8 months using an online method. Participants provided strategies in response to a prompt about what was needed for successful daily ABCDEF bundle implementation. Responses were summarized into a set of unique statements and then rated on a 5-point scale on degree of necessity (essential) and degree to which currently used.

SETTING

Sixty-eight academic, community, and federal ICUs.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 121 ICU professionals consisting of frontline and leadership professionals.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A final set of 76 strategies (reduced from 188 responses) were suggested: education (16 strategies), collaboration (15 strategies), processes and protocols (13 strategies), feedback (10 strategies), sedation/pain practices (nine strategies), education (eight strategies), and family (five strategies). Nine strategies were rated as very essential but infrequently used: adequate staffing, adequate mobility equipment, attention to (patient's) sleep, open discussion and collaborative problem solving, nonsedation methods to address ventilator dyssynchrony, specific expectations for night and day shifts, education of whole team on interdependent nature of the bundle, and effective sleep protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

In this concept mapping study, ICU professionals provided strategies that spanned a number of conceptual implementation clusters. Results can be used by ICU leaders for implementation planning to address context-specific interdisciplinary approaches to improve ABCDEF bundle implementation.

A dual-center cohort study on the association between early deep sedation and clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: The COVID-SED study

BACKGROUND

Mechanically ventilated patients have experienced greater periods of prolonged deep sedation during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Multiple studies from the pre-COVID era demonstrate that early deep sedation is associated with worse outcome. Despite this, there is a lack of data on sedation depth and its impact on outcome for mechanically ventilated patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to characterize the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) sedation practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to determine if early deep sedation was associated with worse clinical outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Dual-center, retrospective cohort study conducted over 6 months (March-August, 2020), involving consecutive, mechanically ventilated adults. All sedation-related data during the first 48 h were collected. Deep sedation was defined as Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of - 3 to - 5 or Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale of 1-3. To examine impact of early sedation depth on hospital mortality (primary outcome), we used a multivariable logistic regression model. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days.

RESULTS

391 patients were studied, and 283 (72.4%) experienced early deep sedation. Deeply sedated patients received higher cumulative doses of fentanyl, propofol, midazolam, and ketamine when compared to light sedation. Deep sedation patients experienced fewer ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days, and greater mortality (30.4% versus 11.1%) when compared to light sedation (p < 0.01 for all). After adjusting for confounders, early deep sedation remained significantly associated with higher mortality (adjusted OR 3.44; 95% CI 1.65-7.17; p < 0.01). These results were stable in the subgroup of patients with COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of sedation for mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU has changed during the COVID pandemic. Early deep sedation is common and independently associated with worse clinical outcomes. A protocol-driven approach to sedation, targeting light sedation as early as possible, should continue to remain the default approach.

Monitoring of sedation in mechanically ventilated patients using remote technology

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Two years of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted that excessive sedation in the ICU leading to coma and other adverse outcomes remains pervasive. There is a need to improve monitoring and management of sedation in mechanically ventilated patients. Remote technologies that are based on automated analysis of electroencephalogram (EEG) could enhance standard care and alert clinicians real-time when severe EEG suppression or other abnormal brain states are detected.

RECENT FINDINGS

High rates of drug-induced coma as well as delirium were found in several large cohorts of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, high doses of sedatives comparable to general anesthesia have been commonly administered without defined EEG endpoints. Continuous limited-channel EEG can reveal pathologic brain states such as burst suppression, that cannot be diagnosed by neurological examination alone. Recent studies documented that machine learning-based analysis of continuous EEG signal is feasible and that this approach can identify burst suppression as well as delirium with high specificity.

SUMMARY

Preventing oversedation in the ICU remains a challenge. Continuous monitoring of EEG activity, automated EEG analysis, and generation of alerts to clinicians may reduce drug-induced coma and potentially improve patient outcomes.

Avoiding kidney damage in ICU sedation with sevoflurane: use isoflurane instead

Intensive care unit (ICU) sedation with sevoflurane is associated with nephrogenic diabetes insipidus. Given that isoflurane is now licenced (in Europe) for ICU sedation and has Investigational New Drug status in the USA, evidence indicates that clinicians should stop using sevoflurane in this indication except in the context of clinical trials.

Temporal Trends and Variability in Ketamine Use for Mechanically Ventilated Adults in the United States

Rationale The epidemiology of continuous ketamine use in the management of critically ill adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) in the U.S. is unknown. Objective To quantify the temporal trends and variation across U.S. hospitals in continuous ketamine use. Methods We performed a retrospective cohort study of adults (age ≥18) receiving MV who were discharged (alive or dead) from U.S. hospitals contributing data to the Premier Healthcare Database between January 2008 and September 2018. We used mixed effects multivariable logistic regression modeling (fixed effects: patient and hospital characteristics; random effect: discharge hospital) to evaluate the associations of discharge quarter and discharge hospital with continuous ketamine use (defined as a charge for intravenous ketamine on ≥2 consecutive calendar days). Results We identified 2,059,599 MV adults across 842 hospitals; of these, 7,927 (0.4%) received continuous ketamine. Ketamine use increased over time from 0.07% of all patients in quarter 1 2008 to 1.1% of all patients in quarter 3 2018. After adjustment, the odds of receiving continuous ketamine were consistently increased starting in quarter 4 2011 (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 1.83 [1.09-3.06] vs quarter 1 2008, p=0.023) with >10-fold increased odds starting in quarter 2 2017. Out of 842 hospitals, 486 (57.7%) used continuous ketamine on at least one cohort patient during the study period. Across these hospitals ever using ketamine, median use was 0.2% (IQR 0.08%-0.5%) with 5 hospitals using continuous ketamine in >5% of patients. The adjusted median odds ratio for discharge hospital was 3.72 (95% confidence interval: 3.37-4.13) which was higher than the odds ratio for any patient or hospital covariable other than discharge quarter. Conclusions In U.S. hospitals, use of continuous infusion ketamine increased markedly over time in critically ill patients receiving MV, with substantial variability between hospitals. Given the unique properties of ketamine as a sedative, further research is needed to assess its safety and utility in critically ill populations.

Use of Sedatives and Neuromuscular-Blocking Agents in Mechanically Ventilated Patients with COVID-19 ARDS

OBJECTIVES

To assess differences in the use of analgesics, sedatives and neuromuscular-blocking agents (NMBA) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19 or other conditions.

METHODS

Retrospective observational cohort study, single-center tertiary Intensive Care Unit. COVID-19 patients with ARDS (March-May 2020) and non-COVID ARDS patients (2017-2020) on mechanical ventilation and receiving sedation for at least 48 h.

RESULTS

A total of 39 patients met the inclusion criteria in each group, with similar demographics at baseline. COVID-19 patients had a longer duration of MV (median 22 (IQRs 16-29) vs. 9 (6-18) days; p < 0.01), of sedatives administration (18 (11-22) vs. 5 (4-9) days; p < 0.01) and NMBA therapy (12 (9-16) vs. 3 (2-7) days; p < 0.01). During the first 7 days of sedation, compared to non-COVID patients, COVID patients received more frequently a combination of multiple sedative drugs (76.9% vs. 28.2%; p < 0.01) and a higher NMBA regimen (cisatracurium: 3.0 (2.1-3.7) vs. 1.3 (0.9-1.9) mg/kg/day; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The duration and consumption of sedatives and NMBA was significantly increased in patients with COVID-19 related ARDS than in non-COVID ARDS. Different sedation strategies and protocols might be needed in COVID-19 patients with ARDS, with potential implications on long-term complications and drugs availability.

Clinical outcomes of concomitant use of enteral and intravenous sedatives and analgesics in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19

DISCLAIMER

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

PURPOSE

To evaluate potential differences in days on mechanical ventilation for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) based on route of administration of analgesic and sedative medications: intravenous (IV) alone vs IV + enteral (EN).

SUMMARY

This institutional review board-approved study evaluated ventilation time and fentanyl or midazolam requirements with or without concurrent EN hydromorphone and lorazepam. Patients were included in the study if they were 18 to 89 years old and were admitted to the intensive care unit with a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 reverse transcription and polymerase chain reaction or antigen test and respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 72 hours. In total, 100 patients were evaluated, 60 in the IV-only group and 40 in the IV + EN group. There was not a significant difference in ventilation time between the groups (mean [SD], 19.6 [12.8] days for IV + EN vs 15.6 [11.2] days for IV only; P = 0.104). However, fentanyl (2,064 [847] μg vs 2,443 [779] μg; P < 0.001) and midazolam (137 [72] mg vs 158 [70] mg; P = 0.004) requirements on day 3 were significantly higher in the IV-only group, and the increase in fentanyl requirements from day 1 to day 3 was greater in the IV-only group than in the IV + EN group (378 [625] μg vs 34 [971] μg; P = 0.033).

CONCLUSION

Addition of EN analgesic and sedative medications to those administered by the IV route did not change the duration of mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19, but the combination may reduce IV opioid requirements, decreasing the impact of IV medication shortages.

Post-Intensive Care Syndrome and Its New Challenges in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic: A Review of Recent Advances and Perspectives

Intensive care unit survivors experience prolonged physical impairments, cognitive impairments, and mental health problems, commonly referred to as post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). Previous studies reported the prevalence, assessment, and prevention of PICS, including the ABCDEF bundle approach. Although the management of PICS has been advanced, the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) posed an additional challenge to PICS. The prevalence of PICS after COVID-19 extensively varied with 28-87% of cases pertaining to physical impairments, 20-57% pertaining to cognitive impairments, and 6-60% pertaining to mental health problems after 1-6 months after discharge. Each component of the ABCDEF bundle is not sufficiently provided from 16% to 52% owing to the highly transmissible nature of the virus. However, new data are emerging about analgesia, sedation, delirium care, nursing care, early mobilization, nutrition, and family support. In this review, we summarize the recent data on PICS and its new challenge in PICS after COVID-19 infection.