Effect of a scoring system and protocol for sedation on duration of patients' need for ventilator support in a surgical intensive care unit

Management of pain and sedation in the intensive care unit

Advances in our approach to treating pain and sedation when caring for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) have been propelled by decades of robust trial data, knowledge gained from patient experiences, and our evolving understanding of how pain and sedation strategies affect patient survival and long term outcomes. These data contribute to current practice guidelines prioritizing analgesia-first sedation strategies (analgosedation) that target light sedation when possible, use of short acting sedatives, and avoidance of benzodiazepines. Together, these strategies allow the patient to be more awake and able to participate in early mobilization and family interactions. The covid-19 pandemic introduced unique challenges in the ICU that affected delivery of best practices and patient outcomes. Compliance with best practices has not returned to pre-covid levels. After emerging from the pandemic and refocusing our attention on optimal pain and sedation management in the ICU, it is imperative to revisit the data that contributed to our current recommendations, review the importance of best practices on patient outcomes, and consider new strategies when advancing patient care.

Nursing implementation of a validated agitation and sedation scale: An evaluation of its outcomes on ventilator days and ICU length of stay

BACKGROUND

Intensive Care Units (ICU) often initiate mechanical ventilation (MV) in conjunction with sedation for patients who cannot maintain adequate oxygenation or ventilation on their own. Continuous use of sedation increases the likelihood of negative events associated with ventilators such as ventilator-associated pneumonia while, at the same time, continuing to increase the length of MV.

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to analyze the effects of implementing a mandated Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) entry with each sedative scan on a unit where no parameters were in place to monitor sedation levels.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cross-sectional study which included chart-review of a Medical ICU. The data was gathered on ventilator days and sedation use for patients prior to and after the implementation of the RASS.

RESULTS

A median weighted analysis and Mann-Whitney U test of 138 pre-RASS ventilator patients and 86 post-RASS ventilator patients appears to indicate that implementation of the RASS resulted in a 31% decrease of ventilator days (p = .0002). The pulmonary diagnosis subgroup showed a significant 39% reduction in ICU length of stay (U = 324, p = .042).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study lead to the conclusion that the implementation of the mandated RASS score entry limits over-sedation of ventilated patients, thereby reducing the number of MV days in the ICU. Sufficient evidence suggests that the mandated RASS entry also reduces the length of stay in the ICU.

The Effect of Daily Sedation-Weaning Application on Morbidity and Mortality in Intensive Care Unit Patients

Background/aims

Sedation is one of the most important components of intensive care unit (ICU) in patients who are mechanically ventilated at intensive care conditions. As a result of sedation and analgesia in the intensive care unit, the patient is to be awakened a comfortable and easy process. The aim of the study is to demonstrate the effects of day-time sedation interruptions in intensive care patients.

Material and methods

We made a retrospective review of 100 patients who were monitored, mechanically ventilated and treated at our intensive care unit between January 2008 and January 2013. Patients were divided into two groups, including Group P (continuous infusion of sedative agent) and Group D (daily sedation interruptions - daily recovery).

Demographics, mechanical ventilation time, stay at intensive care unit, hospitalization period, time of first weaning, success of weaning, ventilator-related pneumonia (VRP), total doses of drugs, re-intubation frequency, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores and mortality rates of patients were compared. Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS) was used to evaluate the level of sedation. Considering that ideal sedation level is "3" with RSS, RSS < 3 is considered as mild sedation, while RSS > 3 is considered as deep sedation.

Results

There was no difference between demographics of patients. Mechanical ventilation period was significantly longer in Group P than Group D (p < 0.001). When stay at ICU unit was considered, ICU stay was significantly longer in Group P than Group D (p < 0.001). No statistically significant difference was found between two groups with respect to hospitalization period. In inter-group comparison, time to start first weaning was significantly late in Group P than Group D (p < 0.05). There was no difference between groups in terms of frequency of success of weaning and mortality rate (p > 0.05). In inter-group comparison the frequency of reintubation viewed in Group D was significantly less than in Group P (p < 0.05). Considering development of VRP, it was significantly more common in Group P in comparison with Group D (p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was found between groups in terms of doses of sedative agents (p > 0.05). Considering doses of opioid analgesics, the total dose of fentanyl was significantly higher in Group P than Group D (p = 0.04), while no difference was found for doses of morphine (p > 0.05). Again, no statistical difference was found in doses of muscle relaxant agents (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

It was observed that the sedation technique with daily interruption is superior to continuous infusion of sedatives. Accordingly, we believe that daily weaning will make positive contributions to patients who are mechanically ventilated at intensive care unit.

Comparison of sedation strategies for critically ill patients: a protocol for a systematic review incorporating network meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Sedatives and analgesics are administered to provide sedation and manage agitation and pain in most critically ill mechanically ventilated patients. Various sedation administration strategies including protocolized sedation and daily sedation interruption are used to mitigate drug pharmacokinetic limitations and minimize oversedation, thereby shortening the duration of mechanical ventilation. At present, it is unclear which strategy is most effective, as few have been directly compared. Our review will use network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare and rank sedation strategies to determine their efficacy and safety for mechanically ventilated patients.

METHODS

We will search the following from 1980 to March 2016: Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. We will also search the Cochrane Library, gray literature, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We will use a validated randomized control trial search filter to identify studies evaluating any strategy to optimize sedation in mechanically ventilated adult patients. Authors will independently extract data from eligible studies in duplicate and complete the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Our outcomes of interest include duration of mechanical ventilation, time to first extubation, ICU and hospital length of stay, re-intubation, tracheostomy, mortality, total sedative and opioid exposure, health-related quality of life, and adverse events. To inform our NMA, we will first conduct conventional pair-wise meta-analyses using random-effects models. Where appropriate, we will perform Bayesian NMA using WinBUGS software.

DISCUSSION

There are multiple strategies to optimize sedation for mechanically ventilated patients. Current ICU guidelines recommend protocolized sedation or daily sedation interruption. Our systematic review incorporating NMA will provide a unified analysis of all sedation strategies to determine the relative efficacy and safety of interventions that may not have been compared directly. We will provide knowledge users, decision makers, and professional societies with ranking of multiple sedation strategies to inform future sedation guidelines.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016037480.

How Well Is Quality Improvement Described in the Perioperative Care Literature? A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Quality improvement (QI) approaches are widely used across health care, but how well they are reported in the academic literature is not clear. A systematic review was conducted to assess the completeness of reporting of QI interventions and techniques in the field of perioperative care.

METHODS

Searches were conducted using Medline, Scopus, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care database, and PubMed. Two independent reviewers used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) check list, which identifies 12 features of interventions that studies should describe (for example, How: the interventions were delivered [e. g., face to face, internet]), When and how much: duration, dose, intensity), to assign scores for each included article. Articles were also scored against a small number of additional criteria relevant to QI.

RESULTS

The search identified 16,103 abstracts from databases and 19 from other sources. Following review, full-text was obtained for 223 articles, 100 of which met the criteria for inclusion. Completeness of reporting of QI in the perioperative care literature was variable. Only one article was judged fully complete against the 11 TIDieR items used. The mean TIDieR score across the 100 included articles was 6.31 (of a maximum 11). More than a third (35%) of the articles scored 5 or lower. Particularly problematic was reporting of fidelity (absent in 74% of articles) and whether any modifications were made to the intervention (absent in 73% of articles).

CONCLUSIONS

The standard of reporting of quality interventions and QI techniques in surgery is often suboptimal, making it difficult to determine whether an intervention can be replicated and used to deliver a positive effect in another setting. This suggests a need to explore how reporting practices could be improved.

A Census of Current Sedation Monitoring Practices in Adult General Intensive Care Units in England

Under- and over-sedation in intensive care units (ICUs) have potentially deleterious consequences. The Intensive Care Society (ICS) produced guidelines in 2007 to unify sedation management. The aim of the current census was to investigate how sedation practice was subsequently implemented in England. A telephone-based questionnaire to the ‘nurse-in-charge’ was iteratively developed at the host institution until respondent concordance was greater than 80%. Two hundred and four adult general ICUs across England were then contacted. One hundred and sixty units (79%) completed the survey; 82% of responding ICUs had a written sedation policy; all responding ICUs used a sedation scoring system, mainly the Richmond Scale (64%). All responding ICUs assessed and documented sedation levels, with 73% formally assessing this at least two-hourly; 91% of responding ICUs had a formal sedation holding policy; 73% of responding nurses felt there was adequate medical guidance provided on sedation depth; 27% of responding ICUs had bispectral index (BIS) monitors, with 74% of these units using them for monitoring sedated patients receiving neuromuscular blocking agents. Sedation management has improved nationally over the last five years. Written sedation policies, sedation scoring and sedation holding are standard practice. However, some nurses feel they need more guidance on choosing sedation depth, and some units assess sedation depth less frequently than two-hourly. In order to optimise clinical practice, we propose that sedation depth be a goal-directed therapy that is addressed at each patient review.

Sedative and Analgesic Use on Night and Day Shifts in a Pediatric Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit

Introduction:

The use of sedative and analgesic medications is directly linked to patient outcomes. The practice of administering as-needed sedative or analgesic medications deserves further exploration. We hypothesized that important variations exist in the practice of administering as-needed medications in the intensive care unit (ICU). We aimed to determine the influence of time of day on the practice of administering as-needed sedative or analgesic medications to children in the ICU.

Methods:

Medication administration records of patients admitted to our pediatric cardiovascular ICU during a 4-month period were reviewed to determine the frequency and timing of as-needed medication usage by shift.

Results:

A total of 152 ICU admissions (1854 patient days) were reviewed. A significantly greater number of as-needed doses were administered during the night shift (fentanyl, P = .005; lorazepam, P = .03; midazolam, P = .0003; diphenhydramine, P = .0003; and chloral hydrate, P = .0006). These differences remained statistically significant after excluding doses given during the first 6 hours after cardiovascular surgery. Morphine administration was similar between shifts (P = .08).

Conclusions:

We identified a pattern of increased administration of as-needed sedative or analgesic medications during nights. Further research is needed to identify the underlying causes of this practice variation.

Daily sedation interruption versus targeted light sedation strategies in ICU patients

OBJECTIVE

The updated clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium recommend either daily sedation interruption or maintaining light levels of sedation as methods to improve outcomes for patients who are sedated in the ICU. We review the evidence supporting both methods and discuss whether one method is preferable or if they should be used concurrently.

DATA SOURCE

Original research articles identified using the electronic PubMed database.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Randomized controlled trials and large prospective cohort studies of mechanically ventilated ICU patients requiring sedation were selected.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The methods of daily sedation interruption and targeting light sedation levels (including avoidance of deep sedation) are safe in critically ill patients with no increase, and a potential decrease, in long-term psychiatric disturbances. Randomized trials comparing these methods with standard care, which has traditionally involved moderate to heavy sedation, found that both methods reduced duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay. Additionally, one trial noted that daily sedation interruption paired with spontaneous breathing trials improved 1-year survival, whereas a large observational study found that deep sedation was associated with decreased 180-day survival. Two common characteristics of these interventions in trials showing benefits were avoidance of deep levels of sedation and significant reductions in sedative doses, especially benzodiazepines. Thus, combining targeted light sedation with daily sedation interruption may be more beneficial than either method alone if sedative doses are reduced and arousal and mobility are facilitated during the ICU stay.

CONCLUSION

Daily sedation interruption and targeting light sedation levels are safe and proven to improve outcomes for sedated ICU patients when these approaches result in reduced sedative exposure and facilitate arousal. It remains unclear as to whether one approach is superior, and further studies are needed to evaluate which patients benefit most from either or both techniques.

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit

OBJECTIVE

To revise the "Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Sustained Use of Sedatives and Analgesics in the Critically Ill Adult" published in Critical Care Medicine in 2002.

METHODS

The American College of Critical Care Medicine assembled a 20-person, multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task force with expertise in guideline development, pain, agitation and sedation, delirium management, and associated outcomes in adult critically ill patients. The task force, divided into four subcommittees, collaborated over 6 yr in person, via teleconferences, and via electronic communication. Subcommittees were responsible for developing relevant clinical questions, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org) to review, evaluate, and summarize the literature, and to develop clinical statements (descriptive) and recommendations (actionable). With the help of a professional librarian and Refworks database software, they developed a Web-based electronic database of over 19,000 references extracted from eight clinical search engines, related to pain and analgesia, agitation and sedation, delirium, and related clinical outcomes in adult ICU patients. The group also used psychometric analyses to evaluate and compare pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium assessment tools. All task force members were allowed to review the literature supporting each statement and recommendation and provided feedback to the subcommittees. Group consensus was achieved for all statements and recommendations using the nominal group technique and the modified Delphi method, with anonymous voting by all task force members using E-Survey (http://www.esurvey.com). All voting was completed in December 2010. Relevant studies published after this date and prior to publication of these guidelines were referenced in the text. The quality of evidence for each statement and recommendation was ranked as high (A), moderate (B), or low/very low (C). The strength of recommendations was ranked as strong (1) or weak (2), and either in favor of (+) or against (-) an intervention. A strong recommendation (either for or against) indicated that the intervention's desirable effects either clearly outweighed its undesirable effects (risks, burdens, and costs) or it did not. For all strong recommendations, the phrase "We recommend …" is used throughout. A weak recommendation, either for or against an intervention, indicated that the trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects was less clear. For all weak recommendations, the phrase "We suggest …" is used throughout. In the absence of sufficient evidence, or when group consensus could not be achieved, no recommendation (0) was made. Consensus based on expert opinion was not used as a substitute for a lack of evidence. A consistent method for addressing potential conflict of interest was followed if task force members were coauthors of related research. The development of this guideline was independent of any industry funding.

CONCLUSION

These guidelines provide a roadmap for developing integrated, evidence-based, and patient-centered protocols for preventing and treating pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients.

Pharmacist-developed sedation protocol and impact on ventilator days

BACKGROUND

Up to one-third of intensive care unit (ICU) patients require mechanical ventilation. Mechanical ventilation is associated with numerous complications including ventilator-induced lung injury and gastrointestinal bleeding due to ulcerations.(1) Sedation protocols are used in order to optimize treatment and decrease days spent on mechanical ventilation.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of an ICU sedation protocol. The primary end point was days on mechanical ventilation.

DESIGN

A retrospective chart review was performed. The medical records of 21 patients treated prior to the protocol and 21 patients treated after protocol implementation were reviewed.

RESULTS

The duration of mechanical ventilation was decreased in the postprotocol patients compared to the preprotocol patients. The mean duration of mechanical ventilation in the preprotocol group was 6.39 ± 5.24 versus the postprotocol group which was 3.78 ± 3.21 days. After implementing the sedation protocol, the number of days to extubation was decreased by 2.61 days.

CONCLUSION

The use of sedation protocols can decrease the days spent on mechanical ventilation. The results also illustrate the enormous impact pharmacists have on policy and protocol development.

Sedation in the intensive care setting

Critically ill patients are routinely provided analgesia and sedation to prevent pain and anxiety, permit invasive procedures, reduce stress and oxygen consumption, and improve synchrony with mechanical ventilation. Regional preferences, patient history, institutional bias, and individual patient and practitioner variability, however, create a wide discrepancy in the approach to sedation of critically ill patients. Untreated pain and agitation increase the sympathetic stress response, potentially leading to negative acute and long-term consequences. Oversedation, however, occurs commonly and is associated with worse clinical outcomes, including longer time on mechanical ventilation, prolonged stay in the intensive care unit, and increased brain dysfunction (delirium and coma). Modifying sedation delivery by incorporating analgesia and sedation protocols, targeted arousal goals, daily interruption of sedation, linked spontaneous awakening and breathing trials, and early mobilization of patients have all been associated with improvements in patient outcomes and should be incorporated into the clinical management of critically ill patients. To improve outcomes, including time on mechanical ventilation and development of acute brain dysfunction, conventional sedation paradigms should be altered by providing necessary analgesia, incorporating propofol or dexmedetomidine to reach arousal targets, and reducing benzodiazepine exposure.

The 90% effective dose of a sufentanil bolus for the management of painful positioning in intubated patients in the ICU

CONTEXT

Pain and discomfort arising from the routine care of intubated patients in the ICU is managed by continuous infusion of narcotic and sedative drugs. There is benefit in keeping infusion rates low because lightening sedation improves clinical outcome, but this risks breakthrough pain. Management of this discomfort by bolus administration could permit lower background infusion rates, but the lowest effective bolus dose of sufentanil to achieve this is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the effective analgesic dose in 90% of intubated patients (ED90) in the ICU given bolus sufentanil. Pain was assessed using a Behavioural Pain Scale (BPS) requiring a score of 3-4 during moving to the lateral decubitus position.

DESIGN

Prospective, dose response study.

SETTING

A 16-bed multidisciplinary ICU in a French university hospital. Study period was from January to June 2010.

PATIENTS

Intubated and ventilated patients were eligible for the study once they had reached a BPS of 3 or 4 and Ramsay score of 3-5 within 48 h of admission to the ICU.

INTERVENTION

The analgesic efficacy of a sufentanil bolus was measured during successive lateral decubitus positioning over a 72-h study period, using the BPS scale. The dose was increased with each subsequent turn to lateral decubitus until a BPS score of 3-4 was obtained (dose escalation, starting at zero).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

BPS, Ramsay score, heart rate and mean arterial pressure were collected before and during each procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 25 patients were enrolled over 6 months. The ED90 bolus for sufentanil was 0.15 μg kg, but 40% of the patients subsequently demonstrated increased BPS with this dose.

CONCLUSION

The effective dose in 90% was 0.15 μg kg during the first 5 days of sedation. There were no adverse effects. A pre-emptive sufentanil bolus can be used to treat anticipated pain in the ICU. Regular and frequent assessments of acute pain and sedation are essential for adjusting the dose, on a case-by-case basis. This strategy may help clinicians to keep background infusions of sedatives and narcotics as low as possible and may improve clinical outcome.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01356732.

Protocolized and target-based sedation and analgesia in the ICU

Protocolized target-based sedation and analgesia is central to effective management of sedation. Important components include identifying goals and specific targets,using valid and reliable tools to measure pain, agitation, and sedation, and titrating a logically selected combination of sedatives and analgesics to defined end-points.A variety of approaches to structured management have been tested in controlled trials with major categories of (1) sedation algorithms and protocols and (2) daily interruption of sedation. Although not all studies that compare new interventions to “usual care” document dramatic improvements, many studies show that by reducing oversedation, using a structured approach, faster recovery from respiratory failure may ensue. The somewhat discrepant results illustrate, however, that various approaches,such as DIS, may not be optimal for all patients. Further research will be necessary to define these patients and examine alternative strategies. Finally, implementation of structured approaches to sedation management is a challenging, time-consuming process for clinicians that must be supported with sufficient resources to be successful.

Towards improved sedation control in critically ill patients

Patients in intensive care units are often prescribed a combination of sedative and analgesic to manage anxiety and pain relief. Proper sedation management is crucial to patient recovery but few intensive care units routinely employ strategies that tailor drug delivery to ongoing patient needs. The Infuse-Rite has been developed to automate a protocol that eliminates the possibility of excessive sedation. Changing clinical demands have provided the impetus for ongoing enhancements to improve the sedation control of patients in intensive care.

A systematic review of the impact of sedation practice in the ICU on resource use, costs and patient safety

Introduction

Patients in intensive care units (ICUs) often receive sedation for prolonged periods. In order to better understand the impact of sub-optimal sedation practice on outcomes, we performed a systematic review, including observational studies and controlled trials which were conducted in sedated patients in the ICU and which compared the impact of changes in or different protocols for sedation management on economic and patient safety outcomes.

Methods

We searched Medline, Embase and CINAHL online literature databases from 1988 to 15^th May 2008 and hand searched conferences. English-language studies set in the ICU, in sedated adult humans on mechanical ventilation, which reported the impact of sedation practice on cost and resource use and patient safety outcomes, were included. All abstracts were reviewed twice by two independent reviewers, with all conflicts resolved by a third reviewer, to check that they met the review inclusion criteria. Full-text papers of all included studies were retrieved and again reviewed twice against inclusion criteria. Data were doubly extracted from studies. Study aims, design, population, and outcomes including duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in ICU and hospital, costs and rates of mortality and adverse events were extracted. Due to heterogeneity between study designs and outcomes reported, no quantitative data synthesis such as meta-analysis was possible.

Results

Included studies varied in design, patient population and aim, with the majority being before-after studies. Overall, studies showed that improvements in sedation practice, such as the introduction of guidelines and protocols, or daily interruption of sedation, were associated with improvements in outcomes including ICU and hospital length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and costs. Mortality and the incidence of nosocomial infections were also reduced.

Conclusions

Systematic interventions to improve sedation practice and maintain patients at an optimal sedation level in the ICU may improve patient outcomes and optimize resource usage.

Clinical pathways: effects on professional practice, patient outcomes, length of stay and hospital costs

BACKGROUND

Clinical pathways are structured multidisciplinary care plans used by health services to detail essential steps in the care of patients with a specific clinical problem. They aim to link evidence to practice and optimise clinical outcomes whilst maximising clinical efficiency.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of clinical pathways on professional practice, patient outcomes, length of stay and hospital costs.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (DARE), the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and bibliographic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, NHS EED and Global Health. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted relevant professional organisations.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series studies comparing stand alone clinical pathways with usual care as well as clinical pathways as part of a multifaceted intervention with usual care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened all titles to assess eligibility and methodological quality. Studies were grouped into those comparing clinical pathways with usual care and those comparing clinical pathways as part of a multifaceted intervention with usual care.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies involving 11,398 participants met the eligibility and study quality criteria for inclusion. Twenty studies compared stand alone clinical pathways with usual care. These studies indicated a reduction in in-hospital complications (odds ratio (OR) 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.36 to 0.94) and improved documentation (OR 13.65: 95%CI 5.38 to 34.64). There was no evidence of differences in readmission to hospital or in-hospital mortality. Length of stay was the most commonly employed outcome measure with most studies reporting significant reductions. A decrease in hospital costs/ charges was also observed, ranging from WMD +261 US$ favouring usual care to WMD -4919 US$ favouring clinical pathways (in US$ dollar standardized to the year 2000). Considerable heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis of length of stay and hospital cost results. An assessment of whether lower hospital costs contributed to cost shifting to another health sector was not undertaken.Seven studies compared clinical pathways as part of a multifaceted intervention with usual care. No evidence of differences were found between intervention and control groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Clinical pathways are associated with reduced in-hospital complications and improved documentation without negatively impacting on length of stay and hospital costs.

Protocolized and target-based sedation and analgesia in the ICU

Administering sedative and analgesic medications is a cornerstone of optimizing patient comfort and minimizing distress, yet may lead to unintended consequences including delayed recovery from critical illness and slower liberation from mechanical ventilation. The use of structured approaches to sedation management, including guidelines, protocols, and algorithms can promote evidence-based care, reduce variation in clinical practice, and systematically reduce the likelihood of excessive and/or prolonged sedation. Patient-focused sedation algorithms are multidisciplinary, including physician, nurse, and pharmacist development and implementation. Key components of sedation algorithms include identification of goals and specific targets, use of valid and reliable tools to assess analgesia, agitation, and sedation, and incorporation of logical medication selection. Sedation protocols generally focus on a) algorithms that incorporate treating sedation and analgesia based upon escalation, de-escalation, or changing medications according to specific targets, or b) daily interruption of sedative and opioid analgesic infusions. Many published sedation protocols have been tested in controlled clinical trials, often demonstrating benefit such as shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, reduced ICU length of stay, and/or superior sedation management compared to usual care. Implementation of sedation algorithms in ICUs is a challenging process for which sufficient resources must be allocated.

[Management of the sedated patient]

A sedation strategy aimed at minimizing alteration of consciousness once comfort, analgesia and adaptation to the ventilator have been ensured is feasible in critically-ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation, even if, in patients with severe ARDS or ICH, the high dosages of sedatives and analgesics transiently required to provide perfect adaptation to the ventilator often preclude preservation of consciousness. The main components of a sedation algorithm include a clear objective of sedation-analgesia, regular assessments of patient status using validated clinical tools and a precise yet simple dosage adaptation schedule. Development and implementation of a sedation algorithm requires a multidisciplinary approach and an important input from both physicians and nurses. However, several methodologically-correct interventional studies have shown that using an algorithm to administrate sedatives and analgesics results in a significant reduction of MV duration, reaching 50% in some studies. This might translate into a real benefit for the patient point of view provided that preserving patient's comfort remains a constant concern for the caregivers. There is no reliable evidence to date to use propofol rather than midazolam as a sedative agent. Indeed, the way the sedative drug is used, as part of a sedation algorithm, is very likely more important than the selection of the drug itself. Analgesia-based sedation, promoting the use of morphinics alone before the adjunction of hypnotics, represents a new alternative to the traditional combined administration of hypnotics and morphinics. However data on the impact of analgesia-based sedation on patients' outcomes remain sparse to date.

Analgesia and sedation in the intensive care unit: an overview of the issues

Analgesic and sedative medications are widely used in intensive care units to achieve patient comfort and tolerance of the intensive care unit environment, and to eliminate pain, anxiety, delirium and other forms of distress. Surveys and prospective cohort studies have revealed wide variability in medication selection, monitoring using sedation scales, and implementation of structured treatment algorithms among practitioners in different countries and regions of the world. Successful management of analgesia and sedation incorporates a patient-based approach that includes detection and management of predisposing and causative factors, including delirium; monitoring using analgesia and sedation scales and other instruments; proper medication selection, with an emphasis on analgesia-based drugs; and incorporation of structured strategies that have been demonstrated to reduce likelihood of excessive or prolonged sedation.

A survey of sedation assessment and management in Australian and New Zealand paediatric intensive care patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation

INTRODUCTION

A retrospective analysis of sedation management for children receiving prolonged ventilation in one Australian paediatric intensive care unit (PICU) revealed no identifiable pattern in sedation management and an inadequacy in the sedation scoring system. Therefore, the investigators sought to explore the current practice of sedation in critically ill children in PICUs across Australia and New Zealand.

METHOD

This study used a mail-out survey to audit sedation management within the eight dedicated Australian and New Zealand PICUs.

RESULTS

100% of the units surveyed replied (n=8). There were a total of 6,133 admissions to 8 Australian and New Zealand PICUs, where 3036 (49.5%) required ventilation. Of these children, 888 (29.2%) required ventilation > or =72 hours. Only 4 units had written guidelines for sedation management. A combined sedation regime of benzodiazepines and opioids was employed in six units. Administration and titration of sedation agents was managed by nursing staff alone in six units. All units indicated that they aimed to achieve a 'moderate level' of sedation. Two units used designated assessment tools for sedation and withdrawal assessment. One unit utilised Bispectral Index (BIS) monitoring.

CONCLUSION

There were similarities observed in the methods and types of sedation agents used within Australian and New Zealand PICUs. However, only half of the units had guidelines for sedation management, and most units did not use validated paediatric scales to assist staff in assessing patient sedation and pain levels. Therefore it is recommended that a standardised approach to sedation assessment and management of critically ill children requiring prolonged ventilation be developed and tested.

Regional analgesia in the critically ill

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to analyze and describe the use of regional analgesia in the critically ill.

DATA SOURCE

A Medline search from 1966 to 2004 using the search terms critically ill, nerve blocks, regional analgesia, and regional anesthesia, as well as a search in the Cochrane library, was performed, and standard international textbooks related to critical care and regional anesthesia were searched for practice recommendations.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies, case reports, and review articles relevant to the topic were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were extracted and analyzed in a descriptive fashion.

CONCLUSION

Regional analgesia using single-injection regional blocks and continuous neuraxial and peripheral catheters can play a valuable role in a multimodal approach to pain management in the critically ill patient to achieve optimum patient comfort and to reduce physiologic and psychological stress. By avoiding high systemic doses of opioids, several complications like withdrawal syndrome, delirium, mental status changes, and gastrointestinal dysfunction can be reduced or minimized. Because of limited patient cooperation during placement and monitoring of continuous regional analgesia, indications for their use must be carefully chosen based on anatomy, clinical features of pain, coagulation status, and logistic circumstances. High-quality nursing care and well-trained physicians are essential prerequisites to use these techniques safely in the critical care environment.