Impact of a Pharmacist-Led Intensive Care Unit Sleep Improvement Protocol on Sleep Duration and Quality

The Impact of a Pharmacist-Driven Multicomponent Sleep-Promoting Protocol on Delirium in Critically Ill Patients

Background: Sleep deprivation is reported in 80% of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) and is associated with delirium. Guidelines recommend implementing a sleep-promoting protocol in critically ill patients which may increase the quantity and quality of sleep and may decrease delirium. Our objective was to implement a pharmacist-led interdisciplinary sleep-promoting protocol and analyze its impact on delirium in ICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV). Methods: The study involved pre-implementation education, protocol development, and post-implementation analysis. ICU pharmacists completed prospective patient chart reviews to reduce exposure to deliriogenic medications and assess the need for a pharmacologic sleep aid. The primary outcome was the incidence of delirium and delirium-free days. Secondary outcomes included ICU length of stay (LOS), incidence of MV, and pharmacist medication interventions. Results: Post-protocol patients (n = 185) had a higher incidence of delirium compared to pre-protocol patients (n = 237) (51.3% vs 39.0%; P = .01). Post-protocol patients had a higher average APACHE III score (P = <.001). Delirium-free days were not significantly different between groups (P = .97). Difference in ICU LOS was not significant (P = .80). More patients received MV post-protocol implementation (55.7% vs 36.1%; P < .001). Pharmacists documented a total of 113 medication interventions. Conclusion and Relevance: A pharmacist-led, ICU sleep-promoting protocol was successfully implemented but did not reduce the incidence of delirium or the administration of insomnia agents. Post-protocol patients had higher disease severity and were more likely to receive MV. Incidence of delirium was consistent with the national reported prevalence of ICU delirium. ICU pharmacists on all shifts had an active role in optimizing sleep.

Intensive care unit interventions to promote sleep and circadian biology in reducing incident delirium: a scoping review

RATIONALE/OBJECTIVES

Despite plausible pathophysiological mechanisms, research is needed to confirm the relationship between sleep, circadian rhythm and delirium in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). The objective of this review is to summarise existing studies promoting, in whole or in part, the normalisation of sleep and circadian biology and their impact on the incidence, prevalence, duration and/or severity of delirium in ICU.

METHODS

A sensitive search of electronic databases and conference proceedings was completed in March 2023. Inclusion criteria were English-language studies of any design that evaluated in-ICU non-pharmacological, pharmacological or mixed intervention strategies for promoting sleep or circadian biology and their association with delirium, as assessed at least daily. Data were extracted and independently verified.

RESULTS

Of 7886 citations, we included 50 articles. Commonly evaluated interventions include care bundles (n=20), regulation or administration of light therapy (n=5), eye masks and/or earplugs (n=5), one nursing care-focused intervention and pharmacological intervention (eg, melatonin and ramelteon; n=19). The association between these interventions and incident delirium or severity of delirium was mixed. As multiple interventions were incorporated in included studies of care bundles and given that there was variable reporting of compliance with individual elements, identifying which components might have an impact on delirium is challenging.

CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review summarises the existing literature as it relates to ICU sleep and circadian disruption (SCD) and delirium in ICU. Further studies are needed to better understand the role of ICU SCD promotion interventions in delirium mitigation.

A Rapid Systematic Review of Pharmacologic Sleep Promotion Modalities in the Intensive Care Unit

Background: The Society of Critical Care Medicine Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Pain, Agitation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep recommend protocolized non-pharmacologic sleep improvement. Pharmacologic interventions are frequently initiated to promote sleep but the evidence supporting these strategies remains controversial. Purpose: To systematically search and synthesize evidence evaluating pharmacologic sleep promotion modalities in critically ill adults. Methods: A rapid systematic review protocol was used to search Medline, Cochrane Library, and Embase for reports published through October 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and before-and-after cohort studies evaluating pharmacologic modalities intended to improve sleep in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Sleep-related endpoints were the primary outcome of interest. Study and patient characteristics and relevant safety and non-sleep outcome data were also collected. The Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias or Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions were used to assess the risk of bias for all included studies. Results: Sixteen studies (75% RCTs) enrolling 2573 patients were included; 1207 patients were allocated to the pharmacologic sleep intervention. Most studies utilized dexmedetomidine (7/16; total n = 505 patients) or a melatonin agonist (6/16; total n = 592 patients). Only half of the studies incorporated a sleep promotion protocol as standard of care. Most (11/16, 68.8%) studies demonstrated a significant improvement in ≥1 sleep endpoint (n = 5 dexmedetomidine, n = 3 melatonin agonists, n = 2 propofol/benzodiazepines). Risk of bias was generally low for RCTs and moderate-severe for cohort studies. Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine and melatonin agonists are the most studied pharmacologic sleep promotion modalities, but current evidence does not support their routine administration in the ICU to improve sleep. Future RCTs evaluating pharmacologic modalities for ICU sleep should consider patients' baseline and ICU risks for disrupted sleep, incorporate a non-pharmacologic sleep improvement protocol, and evaluate the effect of these medication interventions on circadian rhythm, physiologic sleep, patient-perceived sleep quality, and delirium.

Quantifying Critical Care Pharmacist Interventions in COVID-19

Purpose/Background: Pharmacists have been shown to play an important role in the medication management of critically ill patients. Pharmacist interventions in the care of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have not been quantitatively described. Methodology: A single center, retrospective, observational study was conducted at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. All adult patients admitted to the COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) or Medical ICU with a COVID-19 diagnosis between March 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021, were included. All interventions made by pharmacists were documented electronically, collected, categorized, and analyzed. The primary outcome of this study was the median number of interventions by pharmacists per patient. The secondary outcome was the number of different types of interventions performed. Results: A total of 768 patients were included in the analysis. The median age was 63 years old; 63% of patients were male and 71% were Caucasian. Median hospital length of stay (LOS) was 12 days (interquartile range (IQR) 7-21) and ICU LOS was 5 days (IQR 1-11). The median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 4 (IQR 2-7) and Charlson Comorbidity Index was 3 (IQR 2-5). Mortality at 60 days occurred in 352 patients (46%). Pharmacists performed a total of 7027 interventions for 655 patients with a median number of pharmacist interventions per patient of 6 (IQR 3-14). The most common pharmacist interventions were medication discontinuation (24%), completion of components of the ICU liberation bundle (19%), medication dose adjustment (18%), therapeutic drug monitoring (15%), and medication initiation (10%). Conclusions: Pharmacists made multiple interventions related to medication use and management in critically ill patients with COVID-19. This study adds important information of the evolving role clinical pharmacists play in the care of critical illness, specifically during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Sleep during and following critical illness: A narrative review

Sleep is a complex process influenced by biological and environmental factors. Disturbances of sleep quantity and quality occur frequently in the critically ill and remain prevalent in survivors for at least 12 mo. Sleep disturbances are associated with adverse outcomes across multiple organ systems but are most strongly linked to delirium and cognitive impairment. This review will outline the predisposing and precipitating factors for sleep disturbance, categorised into patient, environmental and treatment-related factors. The objective and subjective methodologies used to quantify sleep during critical illness will be reviewed. While polysomnography remains the gold-standard, its use in the critical care setting still presents many barriers. Other methodologies are needed to better understand the pathophysiology, epidemiology and treatment of sleep disturbance in this population. Subjective outcome measures, including the Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire, are still required for trials involving a greater number of patients and provide valuable insight into patients’ experiences of disturbed sleep. Finally, sleep optimisation strategies are reviewed, including intervention bundles, ambient noise and light reduction, quiet time, and the use of ear plugs and eye masks. While drugs to improve sleep are frequently prescribed to patients in the ICU, evidence supporting their effectiveness is lacking.

Causes, Consequences, and Treatments of Sleep and Circadian Disruption in the ICU: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement

Background: Sleep and circadian disruption (SCD) is common and severe in the ICU. On the basis of rigorous evidence in non-ICU populations and emerging evidence in ICU populations, SCD is likely to have a profound negative impact on patient outcomes. Thus, it is urgent that we establish research priorities to advance understanding of ICU SCD. Methods: We convened a multidisciplinary group with relevant expertise to participate in an American Thoracic Society Workshop. Workshop objectives included identifying ICU SCD subtopics of interest, key knowledge gaps, and research priorities. Members attended remote sessions from March to November 2021. Recorded presentations were prepared and viewed by members before Workshop sessions. Workshop discussion focused on key gaps and related research priorities. The priorities listed herein were selected on the basis of rank as established by a series of anonymous surveys. Results: We identified the following research priorities: establish an ICU SCD definition, further develop rigorous and feasible ICU SCD measures, test associations between ICU SCD domains and outcomes, promote the inclusion of mechanistic and patient-centered outcomes within large clinical studies, leverage implementation science strategies to maximize intervention fidelity and sustainability, and collaborate among investigators to harmonize methods and promote multisite investigation. Conclusions: ICU SCD is a complex and compelling potential target for improving ICU outcomes. Given the influence on all other research priorities, further development of rigorous, feasible ICU SCD measurement is a key next step in advancing the field.

Sleep assessment in critically ill adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To systematically review sleep evaluation, characterize sleep disruption, and explore effects of sleepdisruption on outcomes in adult ICU patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We systematically searched databases from May 1969 to June 2021 (PROSPERO protocol number: CRD42020175581). Prospective and retrospective studies were included studying sleep in critically ill adults, excluding patients with sleep or psychiatric disorders. Meta-regression methods were applied when feasible.

RESULTS

132 studies (8797 patients) were included. Fifteen sleep assessment methods were identified, with only two validated. Patients had significant sleep disruption, with low sleep time, and low proportion of restorative rapid eye movement (REM). Sedation was associated with higher sleep efficiency and sleep time. Surgical versus medical patients had lower sleep quality. Patients on ventilation had a higher amount of light sleep. Meta-regression only suggested an association between total sleep time and occurrence of delirium (p < 0.001, 15 studies, 519 patients). Scarce data precluded further analyses. Sleep characterized with polysomnography (PSG) correlated well with actigraphy and Richards Campbell Sleep Questionnaire (RCSQ).

CONCLUSIONS

Sleep in critically ill patients is severely disturbed, and actigraphy and RCSQ seem reliable alternatives to PSG. Future studies should evaluate impact of sleep disruption on outcomes.

Sleep-Promotion Bundle Development, Implementation, and Evaluation in Critically Ill Adults: Roles for Pharmacists

OBJECTIVE

To review evidence for intensive care unit (ICU) sleep improvement bundle use, identify preferred sleep bundle components and implementation strategies, and highlight the role for pharmacists in developing and evaluating bundle efforts.

DATA SOURCES

Multiple databases were searched from January 1, 1990, to September 1, 2021, using the MeSH terms sleep, intensive care or critical care, protocol or bundle to identify comparative studies evaluating ICU sleep bundle implementation.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Study screening, data extraction, and risk-of-bias evaluation were conducted in tandem. The ICU quality improvement literature and Institute for Healthcare Improvement bundle improvement guidance were also reviewed to identify recommended strategies for successful sleep bundle use.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Nine studies (3 randomized, 1 quasi-experimental, 5 before-and-after) were identified. Bundle elements varied and were primarily focused on nonpharmacological interventions designed to be performed during either the day or night; only 2 studies included a medication-based strategy. Five studies were associated with reduced delirium; 2 studies were associated with improved total sleep time and 2 with improved patient-perceived sleep. Pharmacists were involved directly in 4 studies.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

Sleep improvement bundles are recommended for use in all critically ill adults; specific bundle elements and ICU team member roles should be individualized at the institution/ICU level. Pharmacists can help lead bundle development efforts and routinely deliver key elements.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmacists can play an important role in the development and implementation of ICU sleep bundles. Further research regarding the relative benefit of individual bundle elements on relevant patient outcomes is needed.

Characterization of Nocturnal Neuroactive Medication Use and Related Sleep Documentation in Critically Ill Adults

We retrospectively characterized scheduled, newly initiated, nocturnal neuroactive medication use, and related clinician documentation, in a cohort of consecutive adults admitted greater than or equal to 24 hours to seven different medical/surgical ICUs at two academic centers who had not received a scheduled nocturnal neuroactive medication prior to admission, over a 5-month period (April 1, 2017, to August 31, 2017). A total of 207 different newly initiated, scheduled nocturnal neuroactive medication orders were written (melatonin agonist 101 [48.8%], antipsychotic 80 [38.6%], antidepressant 17 [8.2%], benzodiazepine 9 [4.3%]) in 189 (9.7%) of the 1,955 patients. Among the 1,553 nights, the 189 patients spent in the ICU, a scheduled nocturnal neuroactive medication was administered on 1,103 (71%), an “as needed” nocturnal neuroactive medication was solely administered on 183 (11.8%), delirium occurred on 736 (47.4%), and nurses were twice as likely as physicians (28.8% vs 11.4%; p < 0.0001) to document a note about sleep quality. Among the 69.8% of patients discharged to the floor, and the 64.5% from the hospital, the scheduled nocturnal neuroactive medication was continued in 85.6% and 87.3%, respectively. Scheduled nocturnal neuroactive medication initiation is common, often continued beyond hospital discharge, and poorly documented.