Evidence and consensus-based German guidelines for the management of analgesia, sedation and delirium in intensive care--short version

Ketamine for Critically Ill Patients with Severe Acute Brain Injury: A Systematic Review with Meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Patients with severe acute brain injury have a high risk of a poor clinical outcome due to primary and secondary brain injury. Ketamine reportedly inhibits cortical spreading depolarization, an electrophysiological phenomenon that has been associated with secondary brain injury, making ketamine potentially attractive for patients with severe acute brain injury. The aim of this systematic review is to explore the current literature regarding ketamine for patients with severe acute brain injury.

METHODS

We systematically searched international databases for randomized clinical trials comparing ketamine by any regimen versus placebo, no intervention, or any control drug for patients with severe acute brain injury. Two authors independently reviewed and selected trials for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and performed analysis using Review Manager and Trial Sequential Analysis. Evidence certainty was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation. The primary outcomes were the proportion of participants with an unfavorable functional outcome, the proportion of participants with one or more serious adverse events, and quality of life.

RESULTS

We identified five randomized trials comparing ketamine versus sufentanil, fentanyl, other sedatives, or saline (total N = 149 participants). All outcomes were at overall high risk of bias. The proportions of participants with one or more serious adverse events did not differ between ketamine and sufentanil or fentanyl (relative risk 1.45, 95% confidence interval 0.81-2.58; very low certainty). Trial sequential analysis showed that further trials are needed.

CONCLUSIONS

The level of evidence regarding the effects of ketamine on functional outcome and serious adverse events in patients with severe acute brain injury is very low. Ketamine may markedly, modestly, or not at all affect these outcomes. Large randomized clinical trials at low risk of bias are needed.

Prospective Observational Study of Volatile Sedation with Sevoflurane After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Using the Sedaconda Anesthetic Conserving Device

BACKGROUND

Volatile sedation is still used with caution in patients with acute brain injury because of safety concerns. We analyzed the effects of sevoflurane sedation on systemic and cerebral parameters measured by multimodal neuromonitoring in patients after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) with normal baseline intracranial pressure (ICP).

METHODS

In this prospective observational study, we analyzed a 12-h period before and after the switch from intravenous to volatile sedation with sevoflurane using the Sedaconda Anesthetic Conserving Device with a target Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale score of - 5 to - 4. ICP, cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), brain tissue oxygenation (PBrO2), metabolic values of cerebral microdialysis, systemic cardiopulmonary parameters, and the administered drugs before and after the sedation switch were analyzed.

RESULTS

We included 19 patients with a median age of 61 years (range 46-78 years), 74% of whom presented with World Federation of Neurosurgical Societies grade 4 or 5 aSAH. We observed no significant changes in the mean ICP (9.3 ± 4.2 vs. 9.7 ± 4.2 mm Hg), PBrO2 (31.0 ± 13.2 vs. 32.2 ± 12.4 mm Hg), cerebral lactate (5.0 ± 2.2 vs. 5.0 ± 1.9 mmol/L), pyruvate (136.6 ± 55.9 vs. 134.1 ± 53.6 µmol/L), and lactate/pyruvate ratio (37.4 ± 8.7 vs. 39.8 ± 9.2) after the sedation switch to sevoflurane. We found a significant decrease in mean arterial pressure (MAP) (88.6 ± 7.6 vs. 86.3 ± 5.8 mm Hg) and CPP (78.8 ± 8.5 vs. 76.6 ± 6.6 mm Hg) after the initiation of sevoflurane, but the decrease was still within the physiological range requiring no additional hemodynamic support.

CONCLUSIONS

Sevoflurane appears to be a feasible alternative to intravenous sedation in patients with aSAH without intracranial hypertension, as our study did not show negative effects on ICP, cerebral oxygenation, or brain metabolism. Nevertheless, the risk of a decrease of MAP leading to a consecutive CPP decrease should be considered.

Ultrasound performance using the EU-TIRADS score in the diagnosis of thyroid cancer in Congolese hospitals

The thyroid imaging reporting and data systems by the European Thyroid Association (EU-TIRADS) has been widely used in malignancy risk stratification of thyroid nodules. However, there is a paucity of data in developing countries, especially in Africa, to validate the use of this scoring system. The aim of the study was to assess the diagnostic value of the EU-TIRADS score in Congolese hospitals, using pathological examination after surgery as the gold standard in Congolese hospitals. This retrospective and analytical study examined clinical, ultrasound and pathological data of 549 patients aged 45 ± 14 years, including 468 females (85.2%), operated for thyroid nodule between January 2005 and January 2019. In the present study, only the highest graded nodule according to the EU-TIRADS score in each patient was taken into account for the statistical analyses. So 549 nodules were considered. Nodules classified EU-TIRADS 2 and 3 on the one hand, and, on the other hand, 4 and 5, were considered respectively at low and high risk of malignancy. The sensitivity and specificity of the EU-TIRADS score were calculated. The significance level was set at 5%. Of all patients, 21.7% had malignant nodules. They made 48.4% of the nodules in patients younger than and at 20 years old, and 31.1% in those aged 60 or over. Malignant nodules were more frequent in men than in women (30.9% vs. 20.1%; p = 0.024). Papillary carcinoma (67.2%) and follicular carcinoma (21.8%) were the main types. The malignancy rate was 39.7% and 1.5% among nodules rated EU-TIRADS 4 and 5, and those with EU-TIRADS score 2 and 3, respectively (p < 0.001). The EU-TIRADS score had a sensitivity of 96.6% and a specificity of 59.3%. The ROC curve indicated an area under the curve of 0.862. In a low-income country, a well performed thyroid ultrasound, using the EU-TIRADS score, could be an important tool in the selection of thyroid nodules suspected of malignancy and requiring histopathological examination in the Congolese hospital setting.Trial registration: The research protocol had obtained the favorable opinion of the DRC national health ethics committee no. 197/CNES/BN/PMMF/2020. The data was collected and analyzed anonymously.

Safety and Feasibility of AnaConDa™ to Deliver Inhaled Isoflurane for Sedation in Patients Undergoing Elective Postoperative Mechanical Ventilation: A Prospective, Open-label, Interventional Trial (INSTINCT I Study)

Aim

Sedation is essential during invasive mechanical ventilation, and conventionally intravenous analgesic and sedative drugs are used. Sedation with inhaled anesthetics using anesthesia conserving device (ACD) is an alternative. There is no data on the safety and ease of use of AnaConDa™ from India.

Materials and methods

After IEC approval and informed consent, we used AnaConDa™-S for Isoflurane sedation in 50 hemodynamically stable (need for <0.5 µg/kg/min of Noradrenaline infusion), ASA I and II patients aged 18-80 years, undergoing elective mechanical ventilation for up to 24 hours after elective oncosurgeries. Patients with mental obtundation (GCS <14), or if pregnant, were excluded. The primary outcome was time spent between RASS scores of -3 and -4, while secondary outcomes were incidence of delirium, technical problems with AnaConDa™, and adverse systemic effects of isoflurane. Bolus doses of isoflurane 0.2-0.5 mL were given if the Richmond agitation sedation scale (RASS) score was not achieved.

Results

Fifty patients received isoflurane infusion for a median of 720 (IQR 630-900) minutes, and all remained in the target sedation range. Median time to awakening [19 (IQR, 5-85) minutes], to follow simple verbal commands [20 (IQR 5-180) minutes], and extubation after stopping the infusion of isoflurane was quick [100 (10-470) minutes]. All patients remained hemodynamically stable. None of the patients had delirium.

Conclusion

Target sedation levels were achieved with initial boluses of isoflurane using AnaConDa™-S. Isoflurane sedation delivery using AnaConDa™-S is safe and feasible.

How to cite this article

Kulkarni AP, Bhosale SJ, Kalvit KR, Sahu TK, Mohanty R, Dhas MM, et al. Safety and Feasibility of AnaConDa™ to Deliver Inhaled Isoflurane for Sedation in Patients Undergoing Elective Postoperative Mechanical Ventilation: A Prospective, Open-label, Interventional Trial (INSTINCT I Study). Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(8):906-912.

Sedation in the Intensive Care Unit

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This narrative review illustrates literature over the last 5 years relating to sedation delivery to mechanically ventilated adult patients in intensive care units.

RECENT FINDINGS

There has been an increase in dexmedetomidine-related publications but although systematic reviews suggest dexmedetomidine reduces delirium, agitation, and length of stay, clinical trials have not supported these findings. It is likely to be useful for the managing patients with persisting agitation. Guidelines continue to recommend lightly sedating patients but considerable variation remains in clinical practice and in research trials. Protocols with no sedative infusions and morphine boluses as needed are feasible and safe, while educational interventions can decrease sedation-related adverse events.

SUMMARY

Research trials have mainly focused on individual drugs rather than practice. Given evidence is slow to translate into practice; work is needed to understand and respond to the concerns of clinicians regarding deep sedation and agitation.

Mechanical Ventilation, Sedation and Neuromonitoring of Patients with Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage in Germany: Results of a Nationwide Survey

Objective

Current evidence-based guidelines for the management of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) focus primarily on timing, modality and technique of aneurysm occlusion, and on prevention and treatment of delayed cerebral ischemia. Significant aspects of management in the intensive care unit (ICU) during the later course of aSAH such as ventilation and sedation (VST) remain unaddressed. aSAH patients present unique challenges not accounted for in general ICU recommendations and guidelines, which is why we attempted to further characterize ICU practices in aSAH patients in Germany.

Methods

We conducted a nationwide survey on ICU practices in aSAH in Germany. Secondarily, we assessed the existence of and compliance with current guidelines regarding ICU practices. The questionnaire was designed in interdisciplinary fashion and distributed online through the kwiksurvey^® platform (Bristol, UK).

Results

A total of 50 responses were received, accounting for a response rate of 49%. Twenty-one were university hospitals (UH), 23 high-volume centers (HVC), 6 low-volume centers (LVC). Half of the participating centers do not take into consideration WFNS at presentation to indicate ventilation. While 42% of centers rely on the P/F ratio to indicate ventilation, 62% of them have a cutoff value of < 200, and 38% of < 100. While most UH and HVC used propofol for the first phase of sedation (95%), LVC employed benzodiazepines (100%). Sedation deepening was done with ketamine in UH (75%) and HVC (60%), whereas LVC used predominantly clonidine (100%).

Conclusions

Our study clearly demonstrates that attitudes and practices pertaining to ICU management in aSAH are enormously heterogeneous, reflecting the lack of good quality evidence and differing interpretations thereof.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12028-020-01029-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The German version of the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool for critically ill adults : A prospective validation study

BACKGROUND

The implementation of the Critical-Care Pain Observation tool (CPOT) in intensive care units (ICU) has been associated with more frequent pain assessments, a reduced number of complications, and improved administration of analgesics and sedatives. So far no German translation exists. Translating this tool into foreign languages requires further validation testing.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this prospective observational validation study was to translate the original version of the CPOT according to scientific principles for translation and to establish the validity and reliability of the German translation of CPOT for critically ill adult patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 292 cardiac surgery patients from 2 ICUs of 2 German university teaching hospitals were included (114 patients at center 1 and 178 patients at center 2). Of the included patients 22.6% were female and 76.4% were male with a mean age of 68.5 years ±9.3 SD. Pain was evaluated with the CPOT, the Bhavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and with the Numeric Rating scale (NRS) at three time points (1. intubated + sedated, 2. intubated + awake, 3. extubated + awake) at rest and during nociceptive stimulus (positioning). Assessments were made separately by trained physicians and nursing staff.

RESULTS

Good results for interrater reliability and internal consistency could be demonstrated (weighted Cohen's kappa of 0.73, Cronbach's coefficient alpha of 0.8). Spearman correlation between CPOT and NRS was moderate but significant. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis to obtain optimal thresholds of CPOT to detect pain revealed different results during rest and stimulus and in intubated and extubated patients.

CONCLUSION

The validated German CPOT translation is a reliable tool for pain assessment in cardiac ICU patients in the absence of patients' ability for self-reporting. The use of this German version of CPOT now allows a better international comparability of corresponding data in future studies.

Caring for Critically Ill Patients with the ABCDEF Bundle: Results of the ICU Liberation Collaborative in Over 15,000 Adults

OBJECTIVE

Decades-old, common ICU practices including deep sedation, immobilization, and limited family access are being challenged. We endeavoured to evaluate the relationship between ABCDEF bundle performance and patient-centered outcomes in critical care.

DESIGN

Prospective, multicenter, cohort study from a national quality improvement collaborative.

SETTING

68 academic, community, and federal ICUs collected data during a 20-month period.

PATIENTS

15,226 adults with at least one ICU day.

INTERVENTIONS

We defined ABCDEF bundle performance (our main exposure) in two ways: 1) complete performance (patient received every eligible bundle element on any given day) and 2) proportional performance (percentage of eligible bundle elements performed on any given day). We explored the association between complete and proportional ABCDEF bundle performance and three sets of outcomes: patient-related (mortality, ICU and hospital discharge), symptom-related (mechanical ventilation, coma, delirium, pain, restraint use), and system-related (ICU readmission, discharge destination). All models were adjusted for a minimum of 18 a priori determined potential confounders.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Complete ABCDEF bundle performance was associated with lower likelihood of seven outcomes: hospital death within 7 days (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.32; CI, 0.17-0.62), next-day mechanical ventilation (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.28; CI, 0.22-0.36), coma (AOR, 0.35; CI, 0.22-0.56), delirium (AOR, 0.60; CI, 0.49-0.72), physical restraint use (AOR, 0.37; CI, 0.30-0.46), ICU readmission (AOR, 0.54; CI, 0.37-0.79), and discharge to a facility other than home (AOR, 0.64; CI, 0.51-0.80). There was a consistent dose-response relationship between higher proportional bundle performance and improvements in each of the above-mentioned clinical outcomes (all p < 0.002). Significant pain was more frequently reported as bundle performance proportionally increased (p = 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

ABCDEF bundle performance showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements in outcomes including survival, mechanical ventilation use, coma, delirium, restraint-free care, ICU readmissions, and post-ICU discharge disposition.

A national survey on routines regarding sedation in Swedish intensive care units

Background: Previous studies concerning sedation in Swedish intensive care units (ICU) have shown variability in drug choices and strategies. Currently, there are no national guidelines on this topic. As an update to a Nordic survey from 2004, and as a follow-up to a recently introduced quality indicator from the Swedish Intensive Care Registry, we performed a national survey. Methods: A digital survey was sent to the ICUs in Sweden, asking for sedation routines regarding hypnosedatives, analgosedatives, protocols, sedation scales, etc. Results: Fifty out of 80 ICUs responded to the survey. All units used sedation scales, and 88% used the RASS scale; 80% used written guidelines for sedation. Propofol and dexmedetomidine were the preferred short-term hypnosedatives. Propofol, dexmedetomidine, and midazolam were preferred for long-term hypnosedation. Remifentanil, morphine, and fentanyl were the most frequently used agents for analgosedation. Conclusions: All ICUs used a sedation scale, an increase compared with previous studies. Concerning the choice of hypno- and analgosedatives, the use of dexmedetomidine, clonidine, and remifentanil has increased, and the use of benzodiazepines has decreased since the Nordic survey in 2004.

Sedation Practices and Preferences of Turkish Intensive Care Physicians: A National Survey

Objective

Sedation is one of the most common practices applied in the intensive care units (ICUs), and the management of sedation, analgesia and delirium is a quality measure in the ICUs. Several guidelines on sedation had been published, and many surveys investigated the practices of sedation in the ICUs, but knowledge on the sedation practices in Turkey is lacking. The aim of the present study was to provide baseline knowledge on the sedation practices and preferences of Turkish intensive care physicians and to establish some points to be improved.

Methods

An electronic survey form consisting of 34 questions was generated and posted to email addresses. The survey included questions about demographics and practices on sedation, analgesia, neuromuscular blockage and delirium.

Results

Of 1700 email addresses, 429 (25.0%) were returned. Sedation was practised by 98.0% of the respondents, and mechanical ventilation was indicated as the primary indication (94.0%) for sedation. The presence of a written sedation protocol was 37.0%. For drug choices for sedation, midazolam was the most preferred agent (90.0%). With regard to pain questions, the most commonly used evaluation tool was Visual Analogue Scale (69.0%), and the most preferred drug was tramadol. Nearly half of the participants routinely evaluated delirium and used the confusion assessment method in the ICU.

Conclusion

The results of this survey have indicated some areas to be improved, and a national guideline should be prepared taking pain, agitation and delirium in focus. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03488069.

Pharmacological interventions for prevention and management of delirium in intensive care patients: a systematic overview of reviews and meta-analyses

OBJECTIVES

We assessed the evidence from reviews and meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials on the effects of pharmacological prevention and management of delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.

METHODS

We searched for reviews in July 2017 in: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS Previews, CINAHL and LILACS. We assessed whether reviews were systematic according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and assessed the methodological quality using ROBIS.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes: all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, prevention of delirium and management of delirium.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

quality of life; non-serious adverse events and cognitive function.

RESULTS

We included 378 reviews: 369 narrative reviews, eight semisystematic reviews which failed on a maximum of two arbitrary PRISMA criteria and one systematic review fulfilling all 27 PRISMA criteria. For the prevention of delirium, we identified the one systematic review and eight semisystematic reviews all assessing the effects of alpha-2-agonists. None found evidence of a reduction of mortality (systematic review RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.24). The systematic review and three semisystematic reviews found no evidence of an effect for the prevention of delirium (systematic review RR 0.85, 0.63 to 1.14). Conversely, four semisystematic reviews found a beneficial effect. Serious adverse events, quality of life, non-serious adverse events and cognitive function were not assessed. We did not identify any systematic or semisystematic reviews addressing other pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium. For the management of manifest delirium, we did not identify any systematic or semisystematic review assessing any pharmacological agents.

CONCLUSION

Based on systematic reviews, the evidence for the use of pharmacological interventions for prevention or management of delirium is poor or sparse. A systematic review with low risk of bias assessing the effects of pharmacological prevention of delirium and management of manifest delirium in ICU patients is urgently needed.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016046628.

A hospital-wide evaluation of delirium prevalence and outcomes in acute care patients - a cohort study

Background

Delirium is a well-known complication in cardiac surgery and intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, in many other settings its prevalence and clinical consequences are understudied. The aims of this study were: (1) To assess delirium prevalence in a large, diverse cohort of acute care patients classified as either at risk or not at risk for delirium; (2) To compare these two groups according to defined indicators; and (3) To compare delirious with non-delirious patients regarding hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, nursing hours and cost per case.

Methods

This cohort study was performed in a Swiss university hospital following implementation of a delirium management guideline. After excluding patients aged < 18 years or with a length of stay (LOS) < 1 day, 29′278 patients hospitalized in the study hospital in 2014 were included.

Delirium period prevalence was calculated based on a Delirium Observation Scale (DOS) score ≥ 3 and / or Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) scores ≥4.

Results

Of 10′906 patients admitted, DOS / ICDSC scores indicated delirium in 28.4%. Delirium was most prevalent (36.2–40.5%) in cardiac surgery, neurosurgery, trauma, radiotherapy and neurology patients. It was also common in geriatrics, internal medicine, visceral surgery, reconstructive plastic surgery and cranio-maxillo-facial surgery patients (prevalence 21.6–28.6%). In the unadjusted and adjusted models, delirious patients had a significantly higher risk of inpatient mortality, stayed significantly longer in the ICU and hospital, needed significantly more nursing hours and generated significantly higher costs per case. For the seven most common ICD-10 diagnoses, each diagnostic group’s delirious patients had worse outcomes compared to those with no delirium.

Conclusions

The results indicate a high number of patients at risk for delirium, with high delirium prevalence across all patient groups. Delirious patients showed significantly worse clinical outcomes and generated higher costs. Subgroup analyses highlighted striking variations in delirium period-prevalence across patient groups. Due to the high prevalence of delirium in patients treated in care centers for radiotherapy, visceral surgery, reconstructive plastic surgery, cranio-maxillofacial surgery and oral surgery, it is recommended to expand the current focus of delirium management to these patient groups.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-018-3345-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Age related inverse dose relation of sedatives and analgesics in the intensive care unit

Sedative and analgesic practices in intensive care units (ICUs) are frequently based on anesthesia regimes but do not take account of the important patient related factors. Pharmacologic properties of sedatives and analgesics change when used as continuous infusions in ICU compared to bolus or short-term infusions during anesthesia. In a prospective observational cohort study, we investigated the association between patient related factors and sedatives/analgesics doses in patients on mechanical ventilation (MV) and their association with cessation of sedation/analgesia. We included patients expected to receive MV for at least 24 hours and excluded those with difficulty in assessing the depth of sedation. We collected data for the first 72 hours or until extubation, whichever occurred first. Multivariate analysis of variance, multivariate regression as well as logistic regression were used. The final cohort (N = 576) was predominantly male (64%) with mean (SD) age 61.7 (15.6) years, weight 63.4 (18.2) Kg, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score 28.2 (8) and 30% hospital mortality. Increasing age was associated with reduced propofol and fentanyl doses requirements, adjusted to the weight (p<0.001). Factors associated with higher propofol and fentanyl doses were vasopressor use (Relative mean difference (RMD) propofol 1.56 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.28–1.90); fentanyl 1.48 (1.25–1.76) and central venous line placement (CVL, RMD propofol 1.64 (1.15–2.33); fentanyl 1.41 (1.03–1.91). Male gender was also associated with higher propofol dose (RMD 1.27 (1.06–1.49). Sedation cessation was less likely to occur in restrained patients (Odds Ratio, OR 0.48 (CI 0.30–0.78) or those receiving higher sedative/analgesic doses (OR propofol 0.98 (CI 0.97–0.99); fentanyl 0.99 (CI 0.98–0.997), independent of depth of sedation. In conclusion, increasing age is associated with the use of lower doses of sedative/analgesic in ICU, whereas CVL and vasopressor use were associated with higher doses.

Quality indicators in intensive care medicine for Germany - third edition 2017

Quality improvement in medicine is depending on measurement of relevant quality indicators. The quality indicators for intensive care medicine of the German Interdisciplinary Society of Intensive Care Medicine (DIVI) from the year 2013 underwent a scheduled evaluation after three years. There were major changes in several indicators but also some indicators were changed only minimally. The focus on treatment processes like ward rounds, management of analgesia and sedation, mechanical ventilation and weaning, as well as the number of 10 indicators were not changed. Most topics remained except for early mobilization which was introduced instead of hypothermia following resuscitation. Infection prevention was added as an outcome indicator. These quality indicators are used in the peer review in intensive care, a method endorsed by the DIVI. A validity period of three years is planned for the quality indicators.

The CLOSED trial; CLOnidine compared with midazolam for SEDation of paediatric patients in the intensive care unit: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Sedation is an essential part of paediatric critical care. Midazolam, often in combination with opioids, is the current gold standard drug. However, as it is a far-from-ideal agent, clonidine is increasingly being used in children. This drug is prescribed off-label for this indication, as many drugs in paediatrics are. Therefore, the CLOSED trial aims to provide data on the pharmacokinetics, safety and efficacy of clonidine for the sedation of mechanically ventilated patients in order to obtain a paediatric-use marketing authorisation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The CLOSED study is a multicentre, double-blind, randomised, active-controlled non-inferiority trial with a 1:1 randomisation between clonidine and midazolam. Both treatment groups are stratified according to age in three groups with the same size: <28 days (n=100), 28 days to <2 years (n=100) and 2-18 years (n=100). The primary end point is defined as the occurrence of sedation failure within the study period. Secondary end points include a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationship, pharmacogenetics, occurrence of delirium and withdrawal syndrome, opioid consumption and neurodevelopment in the neonatal age group. Logistic regression will be used for the primary end point, appropriate statistics will be used for the secondary end points.

ETHICS

Written informed consent will be obtained from the parents/caregivers. Verbal or deferred consent will be used in the sites where national legislation allows. The study has institutional review board approval at recruiting sites. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and shared with the worldwide medical community.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

EudraCT: 2014-003582-24; Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02509273; pre-results.

Quality of clinical practice guidelines in delirium: a systematic appraisal

OBJECTIVE

To determine the accessibility and currency of delirium guidelines, guideline summary papers and evaluation studies, and critically appraise guideline quality.

DESIGN

Systematic literature search for formal guidelines (in English or French) with focus on delirium assessment and/or management in adults (≥18 years), guideline summary papers and evaluation studies.Full appraisal of delirium guidelines published between 2008 and 2013 and obtaining a 'Rigour of Development' domain screening score cut-off of >40% using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument.

DATA SOURCES

Multiple bibliographic databases, guideline organisation databases, complemented by a grey literature search.

RESULTS

3327 database citations and 83 grey literature links were identified. A total of 118 retrieved delirium guidelines and related documents underwent full-text screening. A final 21 delirium guidelines (with 10 being >5 years old), 12 guideline summary papers and 3 evaluation studies were included. For 11 delirium guidelines published between 2008 and 2013, the screening AGREE II 'Rigour' scores ranged from 3% to 91%, with seven meeting the cut-off score of >40%. Overall, the highest rating AGREE II domains were 'Scope and Purpose' (mean 80.1%, range 64-100%) and 'Clarity and Presentation' (mean 76.7%, range 38-97%). The lowest rating domains were 'Applicability' (mean 48.7%, range 8-81%) and 'Editorial Independence' (mean 53%, range 2-90%). The three highest rating guidelines in the 'Applicability' domain incorporated monitoring criteria or audit and costing templates, and/or implementation strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

Delirium guidelines are best sourced by a systematic grey literature search. Delirium guideline quality varied across all six AGREE II domains, demonstrating the importance of using a formal appraisal tool prior to guideline adaptation and implementation into clinical settings. Adding more knowledge translation resources to guidelines may improve their practical application and effective monitoring. More delirium guideline evaluation studies are needed to determine their effect on clinical practice.

Alpha-2 agonists for sedation of mechanically ventilated adults in intensive care units: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Care of critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs) often requires potentially invasive or uncomfortable procedures, such as mechanical ventilation (MV). Sedation can alleviate pain and discomfort, provide protection from stressful or harmful events, prevent anxiety and promote sleep. Various sedative agents are available for use in ICUs. In the UK, the most commonly used sedatives are propofol (Diprivan(®), AstraZeneca), benzodiazepines [e.g. midazolam (Hypnovel(®), Roche) and lorazepam (Ativan(®), Pfizer)] and alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonists [e.g. dexmedetomidine (Dexdor(®), Orion Corporation) and clonidine (Catapres(®), Boehringer Ingelheim)]. Sedative agents vary in onset/duration of effects and in their side effects. The pattern of sedation of alpha-2 agonists is quite different from that of other sedatives in that patients can be aroused readily and their cognitive performance on psychometric tests is usually preserved. Moreover, respiratory depression is less frequent after alpha-2 agonists than after other sedative agents.

OBJECTIVES

To conduct a systematic review to evaluate the comparative effects of alpha-2 agonists (dexmedetomidine and clonidine) and propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam and lorazepam) in mechanically ventilated adults admitted to ICUs.

DATA SOURCES

We searched major electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE without revisions, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from 1999 to 2014.

METHODS

Evidence was considered from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dexmedetomidine with clonidine or dexmedetomidine or clonidine with propofol or benzodiazepines such as midazolam, lorazepam and diazepam (Diazemuls(®), Actavis UK Limited). Primary outcomes included mortality, duration of MV, length of ICU stay and adverse events. One reviewer extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included trials. A second reviewer cross-checked all the data extracted. Random-effects meta-analyses were used for data synthesis.

RESULTS

Eighteen RCTs (2489 adult patients) were included. One trial at unclear risk of bias compared dexmedetomidine with clonidine and found that target sedation was achieved in a higher number of patients treated with dexmedetomidine with lesser need for additional sedation. The remaining 17 trials compared dexmedetomidine with propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam or lorazepam). Trials varied considerably with regard to clinical population, type of comparators, dose of sedative agents, outcome measures and length of follow-up. Overall, risk of bias was generally high or unclear. In particular, few trials blinded outcome assessors. Compared with propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam or lorazepam), dexmedetomidine had no significant effects on mortality [risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.24, I (2) = 0%; p = 0.78]. Length of ICU stay (mean difference -1.26 days, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.55 days, I (2) = 31%; p = 0.0004) and time to extubation (mean difference -1.85 days, 95% CI -2.61 to -1.09 days, I (2) = 0%; p < 0.00001) were significantly shorter among patients who received dexmedetomidine. No difference in time to target sedation range was observed between sedative interventions (I (2) = 0%; p = 0.14). Dexmedetomidine was associated with a higher risk of bradycardia (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.77, I (2) = 46%; p = 0.001).

LIMITATIONS

Trials varied considerably with regard to participants, type of comparators, dose of sedative agents, outcome measures and length of follow-up. Overall, risk of bias was generally high or unclear. In particular, few trials blinded assessors.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence on the use of clonidine in ICUs is very limited. Dexmedetomidine may be effective in reducing ICU length of stay and time to extubation in critically ill ICU patients. Risk of bradycardia but not of overall mortality is higher among patients treated with dexmedetomidine. Well-designed RCTs are needed to assess the use of clonidine in ICUs and identify subgroups of patients that are more likely to benefit from the use of dexmedetomidine.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014014101.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. The Health Services Research Unit is core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates.

The Benefit of Benzodiazepine Reduction: Improving Sedation in Surgical Intensive Care

Aims:

Sedation, as it is often required in critical care, is associated with immobilization, prolonged ventilation, and increased morbidity. Most sedation protocols are based on benzodiazepines. The presented study analyzes the benefit of benzodiazepine-free sedation.

Methods:

In 2008, 134 patients were treated according to a protocol using benzodiazepine and propofol (Group 1). In 2009, we introduced a new sedation strategy based on sufentanil, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, neuroleptics, and antidepressants, which was applied in 140 consecutive patients (Group 2). Depth of sedation, duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of Intensive Care Unit, and hospital stay were analyzed.

Results:

Group 1 had both a longer duration of deep sedation (18.7 ± 2.5 days vs. 12.6 ± 1.85 days, P = 0.031) and a longer duration of controlled ventilation (311, 35 ± 32.69 vs. 143, 96 ± 20.76 h, P < 0.0001) than Group 2. Ventilator days were more frequent in Group 1 (653, 66 ± 98.37 h vs. 478, 89 ± 68.92 h, P = 0.128).

Conclusions:

The benzodiazepine-free sedation protocol has been shown to significantly reduce depth of sedation and controlled ventilation. Additional evidence is needed to ascertain reduction of ventilator days which would not only be of benefit for the patient but also for the hospital Management.

Pharmacological interventions for delirium in intensive care patients: a protocol for an overview of reviews

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients is high. Delirium has been associated with morbidity and mortality including more ventilator days, longer ICU stay, increased long-term mortality and cognitive impairment. Thus, the burden of delirium for patients, relatives and societies is considerable. Today, reviews of randomised clinical trials are produced in large scales sometimes making it difficult to get an overview of the available evidence. A preliminary search identified several reviews investigating the effects of pharmacological interventions for the management and prevention of delirium in ICU patients. The conclusions of the reviews showed conflicting results. Despite this unclear evidence, antipsychotics, in particular, haloperidol is often the recommended pharmacological intervention for delirium in ICU patients. The objective of this overview of reviews is to critically assess the evidence of reviews of randomised clinical trials on the effect of pharmacological management and prevention of delirium in ICU patients.

METHODS/DESIGN

We will search for reviews in the following databases: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and Allied and Complementary Medicine Database. Two authors will independently select references for inclusion using Covidence, extract data and assess the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews using the ROBIS tool. Any disagreement will be resolved by consensus. We will present the data as a narrative synthesis and summarise the main results of the included reviews. In addition, we will present an overview of the bias risk assessment of the systematic reviews.

DISCUSSION

Results of this overview may establish a way forward to find and update or to design a high quality systematic review assessing the effects of the most promising pharmacological intervention for delirium in ICU patients.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO - CRD42016046628 .

Delirium in the elderly: Current problems with increasing geriatric age

Delirium is an acute disorder of attention and cognition seen relatively commonly in people aged 65 yr or older. The prevalence is estimated to be between 11 and 42 per cent for elderly patients on medical wards. The prevalence is also high in nursing homes and long term care (LTC) facilities. The consequences of delirium could be significant such as an increase in mortality in the hospital, long-term cognitive decline, loss of autonomy and increased risk to be institutionalized. Despite being a common condition, it remains under-recognised, poorly understood and not adequately managed. Advanced age and dementia are the most important risk factors. Pain, dehydration, infections, stroke and metabolic disturbances, and surgery are the most common triggering factors. Delirium is preventable in a large proportion of cases and therefore, it is also important from a public health perspective for interventions to reduce further complications and the substantial costs associated with these. Since the aetiology is, in most cases, multfactorial, it is important to consider a multi-component approach to management, both pharmacological and non-pharmacological. Detection and treatment of triggering causes must have high priority in case of delirium. The aim of this review is to highlight the importance of delirium in the elderly population, given the increasing numbers of ageing people as well as increasing geriatric age.

Clinical Practice Guideline of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

There is no well-stated practical guideline for mechanically ventilated patients with or without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We generate strong (1) and weak (2) grade of recommendations based on high (A), moderate (B) and low (C) grade in the quality of evidence. In patients with ARDS, we recommend low tidal volume ventilation (1A) and prone position if it is not contraindicated (1B) to reduce their mortality. However, we did not support high-frequency oscillatory ventilation (1B) and inhaled nitric oxide (1A) as a standard treatment. We also suggest high positive end-expiratory pressure (2B), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a rescue therapy (2C), and neuromuscular blockage for 48 hours after starting mechanical ventilation (2B). The application of recruitment maneuver may reduce mortality (2B), however, the use of systemic steroids cannot reduce mortality (2B). In mechanically ventilated patients, we recommend light sedation (1B) and low tidal volume even without ARDS (1B) and suggest lung protective ventilation strategy during the operation to lower the incidence of lung complications including ARDS (2B). Early tracheostomy in mechanically ventilated patients can be performed only in limited patients (2A). In conclusion, of 12 recommendations, nine were in the management of ARDS, and three for mechanically ventilated patients.

[Knowledge and implementation of the S3 guideline on delirium management in Germany]

BACKGROUND

Delirium is a common complication in critical care. The syndrome is often underestimated due to its potentially no less dangerous course as a hypoactive delirium. Therefore, current guidelines ask for a structured, regular and routine screening in all intensive care units. If delirium is diagnosed, symptomatic therapy should be initiated promptly.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the current study was to evaluate recent German anesthetists' strategies regarding delirium care compared to the German guidelines for sedation and delirium in intensive care.

METHODS

In an online survey German hospitals' senior anesthetists (n = 922) were interviewed anonymously between May and June 2015 regarding guideline use in delirium management in German intensive care units. In 33 direct questions the anesthetists were invited to answer items regarding the structure of their hospitals, intensive care and delirium therapy in order to review their knowledge of the German delirium guidelines that expired in 2014.

RESULTS

The 249 senior anesthetists who responded to the survey, can be associated with (or represent) a quarter of German intensive care beds and cases, respectively. In every tenth clinic that runs an intensive care unit the guideline was unknown. In three of four intensive care units physicians specified a preferred delirium score, the CAM-ICU (49.4 %) is used most frequently. With knowledge of the guidelines more often a recommended delirium score is used (p = 0.017). However, only 53.6 % of the respondents ascertain a score every eight hours and 36 % have no facility for standardized documentation in the records. At intensive care rounds, a possible diagnosis of delirium is an inherent part in only 34.9 % of the responders even with guideline knowledge. The particular gold standard for the therapy of delirium (alphaagonists for vegetative symptoms; 89.6 %, benzodiazepines for anxiety, 77.5 %; antipsychotics in 86.7 % for psychotic symptoms) is implemented more often with growing knowledge of the guidelines. The latter applies to the implementation of structured programs for delirium prophylaxis, cognition and therapy.

CONCLUSION

For the first time, this study documents knowledge and implementation of the German S3 guidelines for delirium in intensive care. Overall, the guidelines for delirium care are less well executed than those for sedation. With growing knowledge of the guidelines, diagnosis and treatment of delirium fits the guidelines more frequently. The facility to document a delirium score in intensive records is insufficient. Especially a nursing-based delirium strategy could possibly improve implementation of the guidelines, claiming an eight-hour screening and documentation. However, the small number of hospitals that have integrated the guidelines into in-house standard operating procedures (40 %) shows urgent need for optimization. A re-evaluation involving all relevant caretakers could probably improve the implementation of guidelines in intensive care and perioperative medicine.

The validation and inter-rater reliability of the Serbian translation of the Richmond agitation and sedation scale in post anesthesia care unit patients

BACKGROUND

Targeted light sedation is recommended because it shortens the time of mechanical ventilation and the length of stay in an intensive care unit (ICU). However, there is no validated scale for sedation and agitation in ICU in the Serbian speaking area. The aim of the current study was to validate, verify the reliability and enable the application of the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) in the Serbian speaking area.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort study, RASS was applied to 301 adult patients hospitalized in surgical ICUs by two different research team members. We tested RASS for inter-rater reliability by the correlation between them. The scale was validated by comparison to Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) scores which was applied by the third investigator. Interrater agreement was measured using weighted kappa (k) and for correlation Spearman's test was used.

RESULTS

The inter-rater reliability of the scale was high (k ˃0.7). The degree of correlation between the RASS and the GCS during all five days of observation was high (˃0.7 for both investigators, the fifth day). In all the cases, Spearman's correlation coefficient was highly significant (p ˂0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The Serbian translation of the RASS is a reliable and valid instrument for the assessment of the levels of sedation and agitation with patients in ICU. Hippokratia 2016, 20(1): 50-54.

Long-term Effect of Optimized Sedation and Pain Management after Sudden Cardiac Arrest

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Appropriate use of sedatives and analgesics is essential to keep critically ill patients comfortable and to prevent prolonged mechanical ventilation time and length of stay in ICU. Aim of this study was to analyse the long-term effect of an algorithm-based individual analgesic-sedative protocol on mechanical ventilation time and ICU length of stay in critically ill patients after sudden cardiac arrest due to ST-elevated myocardial infarction.

SUBJECT AND METHODS

We examined a total of 109 patients before and after implementation of an algorithm-based sedation management. Our sedation protocol included individual defined sedation goals achieved by standardized sedation strategies. Mechanical ventilation time and ICU length of stay were analysed for three groups of patients: before and after the intervention and in the long-term follow-up.

RESULTS

We observed shorter median mechanical ventilation time and ICU length of stay in the interventional and longterm follow-up group compared to the standard-care group without statistical significance.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate a long-term reduction of mechanical ventilation time and ICU length of stay achieved by implementation of an individual sedation management. This suggests sedation guidelines as effective tools to reduce the mechanical ventilation time and ICU length of stay in patients after sudden cardiac arrest in ST-elevated myocardial infarction. Investigations with a larger patient number and higher statistical power are required to confirm these findings.

The implausibility of 'usual care' in an open system: sedation and weaning practices in Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICUs) in the United Kingdom (UK)

Background

The power of the randomised controlled trial depends upon its capacity to operate in a closed system whereby the intervention is the only causal force acting upon the experimental group and absent in the control group, permitting a valid assessment of intervention efficacy. Conversely, clinical arenas are open systems where factors relating to context, resources, interpretation and actions of individuals will affect implementation and effectiveness of interventions. Consequently, the comparator (usual care) can be difficult to define and variable in multi-centre trials. Hence outcomes cannot be understood without considering usual care and factors that may affect implementation and impact on the intervention.

Methods

Using a fieldwork approach, we describe PICU context, ‘usual’ practice in sedation and weaning from mechanical ventilation, and factors affecting implementation prior to designing a trial involving a sedation and ventilation weaning intervention. We collected data from 23 UK PICUs between June and November 2014 using observation, individual and multi-disciplinary group interviews with staff.

Results

Pain and sedation practices were broadly similar in terms of drug usage and assessment tools. Sedation protocols linking assessment to appropriate titration of sedatives and sedation holds were rarely used (9 % and 4 % of PICUs respectively). Ventilator weaning was primarily a medical-led process with 39 % of PICUs engaging senior nurses in the process: weaning protocols were rarely used (9 % of PICUs). Weaning methods were variably based on clinician preference. No formal criteria or use of spontaneous breathing trials were used to test weaning readiness. Seventeen PICUs (74 %) had prior engagement in multi-centre trials, but limited research nurse availability. Barriers to previous trial implementation were intervention complexity, lack of belief in the evidence and inadequate training. Facilitating factors were senior staff buy-in and dedicated research nurse provision.

Conclusions

We examined and identified contextual and organisational factors that may impact on the implementation of our intervention. We found usual practice relating to sedation, analgesia and ventilator weaning broadly similar, yet distinctively different from our proposed intervention, providing assurance in our ability to evaluate intervention effects. The data will enable us to develop an implementation plan; considering these factors we can more fully understand their impact on study outcomes.

Early deep sedation is associated with decreased in-hospital and two-year follow-up survival

Introduction

There is increasing evidence that deep sedation is detrimental to critically ill patients. The aim of this study was to examine effects of deep sedation during the early period after ICU admission on short- and long-term survival.

Methods

In this observational, matched-pair analysis, patients receiving mechanical ventilation that were admitted to ICUs of a tertiary university hospital in six consecutive years were grouped as either lightly or deeply sedated within the first 48 hours after ICU admission. The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Score (RASS) was used to assess sedation depth (light sedation: −2 to 0; deep: −3 or below). Multivariate Cox regression was conducted to investigate the impact of early deep sedation within the first 48 hours of admission on in-hospital and two-year follow-up survival.

Results

In total, 1,884 patients met inclusion criteria out of which 27.2% (n = 513) were deeply sedated. Deeply sedated patients had longer ventilation times, increased length of stay and higher rates of mortality. Early deep sedation was associated with a hazard ratio of 1.661 (95% CI: 1.074 to 2.567; P = 0.022) for in-hospital survival and 1.866 (95% CI: 1.351 to 2.576; P <0.001) for two-year follow-up survival.

Conclusions

Early deep sedation during the first 48 hours of intensive care treatment was associated with decreased in-hospital and two-year follow-up survival. Since early deep sedation is a modifiable risk factor, this data shows an urgent need for prospective clinical trials focusing on light sedation in the early phase of ICU treatment.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-015-0929-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Dexmedetomidine versus standard care sedation with propofol or midazolam in intensive care: an economic evaluation

Introduction

Dexmedetomidine was shown in two European randomized double-blind double-dummy trials (PRODEX and MIDEX) to be non-inferior to propofol and midazolam in maintaining target sedation levels in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Additionally, dexmedetomidine shortened the time to extubation versus both standard sedatives, suggesting that it may reduce ICU resource needs and thus lower ICU costs. Considering resource utilization data from these two trials, we performed a secondary, cost-minimization analysis assessing the economics of dexmedetomidine versus standard care sedation.

Methods

The total ICU costs associated with each study sedative were calculated on the basis of total study sedative consumption and the number of days patients remained intubated, required non-invasive ventilation, or required ICU care without mechanical ventilation. The daily unit costs for these three consecutive ICU periods were set to decline toward discharge, reflecting the observed reduction in mean daily Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS) points between the periods. A number of additional sensitivity analyses were performed, including one in which the total ICU costs were based on the cumulative sum of daily TISS points over the ICU period, and two further scenarios, with declining direct variable daily costs only.

Results

Based on pooled data from both trials, sedation with dexmedetomidine resulted in lower total ICU costs than using the standard sedatives, with a difference of €2,656 in the median (interquartile range) total ICU costs—€11,864 (€7,070 to €23,457) versus €14,520 (€7,871 to €26,254)—and €1,649 in the mean total ICU costs. The median (mean) total ICU costs with dexmedetomidine compared with those of propofol or midazolam were €1,292 (€747) and €3,573 (€2,536) lower, respectively. The result was robust, indicating lower costs with dexmedetomidine in all sensitivity analyses, including those in which only direct variable ICU costs were considered. The likelihood of dexmedetomidine resulting in lower total ICU costs compared with pooled standard care was 91.0% (72.4% versus propofol and 98.0% versus midazolam).

Conclusions

From an economic point of view, dexmedetomidine appears to be a preferable option compared with standard sedatives for providing light to moderate ICU sedation exceeding 24 hours. The savings potential results primarily from shorter time to extubation.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00479661 (PRODEX), NCT00481312 (MIDEX).

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-015-0787-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Current practices and barriers impairing physicians' and nurses' adherence to analgo-sedation recommendations in the intensive care unit--a national survey

Introduction

Appropriate management of analgo-sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU) is associated with improved patient outcomes. Our objectives were: a) to describe utilization of analgo-sedation regimens and strategies (assessment using scales, protocolized analgo-sedation and daily sedation interruption (DSI)) and b) to describe and compare perceptions challenging utilization of these strategies, amongst physicians and nurses.

Methods

In the 101 adult ICUs in Belgium, we surveyed all physicians and a sample of seven nurses per ICU. A multidisciplinary team designed a survey tool based on a previous qualitative study and a literature review. The latter was available in paper (for nurses essentially) and web based (for physicians). Topics addressed included: practices, perceptions regarding recommended strategies and demographics. Pre-testing involved respondents’ debriefings and test re-test reliability. Four reminders were sent.

Results

Response rate was 60% (898/1,491 participants) representing 94% (95/101) of all hospitals. Protocols were available to 31% of respondents. Validated scales to monitor pain in patients unable to self-report and to monitor sedation were available to 11% and 75% of respondents, respectively. Frequency of use of sedation scales varied (never to hourly). More physicians than nurses agreed with statements reporting benefits of sedation scales, including: increased autonomy for nurses (82% versus 68%, P <0.001), enhancement of their role (84% versus 66%, P <0.001), aid in monitoring administration of sedatives (83% versus 68%, P <0.001), and cost control (54% versus 29%, P <0.001). DSI was used in less than 25% of patients for 75% of respondents. More nurses than physicians indicated DSI is contra-indicated in hemodynamic instability (66% versus 53%, P <0.001) and complicated weaning from mechanical ventilation (47% versus 29%, P <0.001). Conversely, more physicians than nurses indicated contra-indications including: seizures (56% versus 40%, P <0.001) and refractory intracranial hypertension (90% versus 83%, P <0.001). More nurses than physicians agreed with statements reporting DSI impairs patient comfort (60% versus 37%, P <0.001) and increases complications such as self-extubation (82% versus 69%, P <0.001).

Conclusions

Current analgo-sedation practices leave room for improvement. Physicians and nurses meet different challenges in using appropriate analgo-sedation strategies. Implementational interventions must be tailored according to profession.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-014-0655-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Delirium, sedation and analgesia in the intensive care unit: a multinational, two-part survey among intensivists

Analgesia, sedation and delirium management are important parts of intensive care treatment as they are relevant for patients' clinical and functional long-term outcome. Previous surveys showed that despite this fact implementation rates are still low. The primary aim of the prospective, observational multicenter study was to investigate the implementation rate of delirium monitoring among intensivists. Secondly, current practice concerning analgesia and sedation monitoring as well as treatment strategies for patients with delirium were assesed. In addition, this study compares perceived and actual practice regarding delirium, sedation and analgesia management. Data were obtained with a two-part, anonymous survey, containing general data from intensive care units in a first part and data referring to individual patients in a second part. Questionnaires from 101 hospitals (part 1) and 868 patients (part 2) were included in data analysis. Fifty-six percent of the intensive care units reported to monitor for delirium in clinical routine. Fourty-four percent reported the use of a validated delirium score. In this respect, the survey suggests an increasing use of delirium assessment tools compared to previous surveys. Nevertheless, part two of the survey revealed that in actual practice 73% of included patients were not monitored with a validated score. Furthermore, we observed a trend towards moderate or deep sedation which is contradicting to guideline-recommendations. Every fifth patient was suffering from pain. The implementation rate of adequate pain-assessment tools for mechanically ventilated and sedated patients was low (30%). In conclusion, further efforts are necessary to implement guideline recommendations into clinical practice. The study was registered (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01278524) and approved by the ethical committee.

Current practices of mobilization, analgesia, relaxants and sedation in Indian ICUs: A survey conducted by the Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine

Background and Aim:

Use of sedation, analgesia and neuromuscular blocking agents is widely practiced in Intensive Care Units (ICUs). Our aim is to study the current practice patterns related to mobilization, analgesia, relaxants and sedation (MARS) to help in standardizing best practices in these areas in the ICU.

Materials and Methods:

A web-based nationwide survey involving physicians of the Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine (ISCCM) and the Indian Society of Anesthesiologists (ISA) was carried out. A questionnaire included questions on demographics, assessment scales for delirium, sedation and pain, as also the pharmacological agents and the practice methods.

Results:

Most ICUs function in a semi-closed model. Midazolam (94.99%) and Fentanyl (47.04%) were the most common sedative and analgesic agents used, respectively. Vecuronium was the preferred neuromuscular agent. Monitoring of sedation, analgesia and delirium in the ICU. Ramsay's Sedation Scale (56.1%) and Visual Analogue Scale (48.07%) were the preferred sedation and pain scales, respectively. CAM (Confusion Assessment Method)-ICU was the most preferred method of delirium assessment. Haloperidol was the most commonly used agent for delirium. Majority of the respondents were aware of the benefit of early mobilization, but lack of support staff and safety concerns were the main obstacles to its implementation.

Conclusion:

The results of the survey suggest that compliance with existing guidelines is low. Benzodiazepines still remain the predominant ICU sedative. The recommended practice of giving analgesia before sedation is almost non-existent. Delirium remains an underrecognized entity. Monitoring of sedation levels, analgesia and delirium is low and validated and recommended scales for the same are rarely used. Although awareness of the benefits of early mobilization are high, the implementation is low.

Daily sedation interruption versus no daily sedation interruption for critically ill adult patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation

BACKGROUND

Daily sedation interruption (DSI) is thought to limit drug bioaccumulation, promote a more awake state, and thereby reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation. Available evidence has shown DSI to either reduce, not alter, or prolong the duration of mechanical ventilation.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of this review was to compare the total duration of invasive mechanical ventilation for critically ill adult patients requiring intravenous sedation who were managed with DSI versus those with no DSI. Our other objectives were to determine whether DSI influenced mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital lengths of stay, adverse events, the total doses of sedative drug administered, and quality of life.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched, from database inception to February 2014, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 1); MEDLINE (OvidSP); EMBASE (OvidSP); CINAHL (EBSCOhost); Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS); Web of Science Science Citation Index; Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE); the Health Technology Assessment Database (HTA Database); trial registration websites, and reference lists of relevant articles. We did not apply language restrictions. The reference lists of all retrieved articles were reviewed for additional, potentially relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials that compared DSI with sedation strategies that did not include DSI in mechanically ventilated, critically ill adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and three authors assessed risk of bias. We contacted study authors for additional information as required. We combined data in forest plots using random-effects modelling. A priori subgroups and sensitivity analyses were performed.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials were used in the analysis (n = 1282 patients). These trials were found to be predominantly at low risk of bias. We did not find strong evidence of an effect of DSI on the total duration of ventilation. Pooled data from nine trials demonstrated a 13% reduction in the geometric mean, with relatively wide confidence intervals (CI) indicating imprecision (95% CI 26% reduction to 2% increase, moderate quality evidence). Similarly, we did not find strong evidence of an effect on ICU length of stay (-10%, 95% CI -20% to 3%, n = 9 trials, moderate quality evidence) or hospital length of stay (-6%, 95% CI -18% to 8%, n = 8 trials, moderate quality evidence). Heterogeneity for these three outcomes was moderate and statistically significant. The risk ratio for ICU mortality was 0.96 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.21, n = 7 trials, moderate quality evidence), for rate of accidental endotracheal tube removal 1.07 (95% CI 0.55 to 2.12, n = 6 trials, moderate quality evidence), for catheter removal 1.48 (95% CI 0.76 to 2.90, n = 4 trials), and for incidence of new onset delirium 1.02 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.13, n = 3 trials, moderate quality evidence). Differences in the doses of any drug used or quality of life score (Short Form (SF)-36) did not reach statistical significance. Tracheostomy was performed less frequently in the DSI group (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.92, n = 6 trials, moderate quality evidence). Sensitivity analysis of unlogged data resulted in similar findings. Post hoc analysis to further explain heterogeneity, based on study country of origin, showed that studies conducted in North America resulted in a reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation (-21%, 95% CI -33% to -5%, n = 5 trials).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have not found strong evidence that DSI alters the duration of mechanical ventilation, mortality, length of ICU or hospital stay, adverse event rates, drug consumption, or quality of life for critically ill adults receiving mechanical ventilation compared to sedation strategies that do not include DSI. We advise that caution should be applied when interpreting and applying the findings as the overall effect of treatment is always < 1 and the upper limit of the CI is only marginally higher than the no-effect line. These results should be considered unstable rather than negative for DSI given the statistical and clinical heterogeneity identified in the included trials.

A novel device for target controlled administration and reflection of desflurane--the Mirus™

The Anaconda™ system is used to deliver inhalational sedation in the intensive care unit in mainland Europe. The new Mirus™ system also uses a reflector like the Anaconda; however, it also identifies end-tidal concentrations from the gas flow, injects anaesthetics during early inspiration, controls anaesthetic concentrations automatically, and can be used with desflurane, which is not possible using the Anaconda. We tested the Mirus with desflurane in the laboratory. Compared with an external gas monitor, the bias (two standard deviations) of the end-tidal concentration was 0.11 (0.29)% volume. In addition, automatic control was reasonable and maximum concentration delivered was 10.2%, which was deemed to be sufficient for clinical use. Efficiency was > 80% and was also deemed to be acceptable, but only when delivering a low concentration of desflurane (≤ 1.8%). By modifying the reflector, we improved efficiency up to a concentration of 3.6%. The Mirus appears to be a promising new device for long-term sedation with desflurane on the intensive care unit, but efficiency must be improved before routine clinical use becomes affordable.

[Delirium]

Delirium in older patients is also associated with persistent functional and cognitive impairment. Nevertheless, it frequently remains unrecognized or misinterpreted by treating physicians and this is particularly true in cases of hypoactive delirium. Screening and assessment instruments are helpful in the identification of patients with delirium. A multifactorial model of a combination of predisposing and precipitating factors best explains the etiology of delirium and avoidance is crucial for its prevention. Whenever delirium is suspected, immediate diagnosis and therapy of the precipitating condition are of primary importance. Non-pharmacological interventions, for example environmental modifications, play an important role in managing behavioral symptoms of delirium. Pharmacological interventions are merely symptomatic and should be limited to patients with severe symptoms when non-pharmacological means fail.

[Delirium in patients with neurological diseases: diagnosis, management and prognosis]

Delirium is a common acute neuropsychiatric syndrome. It is characterized by concurrent disturbances of consciousness and attention, perception, reasoning, memory, emotionality, the sleep-wake cycle as well as psychomotor symptoms. Delirium caused by alcohol or medication withdrawal is not the subject of the current review. Specific predisposing and precipitating factors have been identified in delirium which converge in a common final pathway of global brain dysfunction. The major predisposing factors are older age, cognitive impairment or dementia, sensory deficits, multimorbidity and polypharmacy. Delirium is always caused by one or more underlying pathologies which need to be identified. In neurology both primary triggers of delirium, such as stroke or epileptic seizures and also secondary triggers, such as metabolic factors or medication side effects play a major role. Nonpharmacological interventions are important in the prevention of delirium and lead to an improvement in prognosis. Delirium is associated with increased mortality and in the long term the development of cognitive deficits and functional impairment.

The German quality indicators in intensive care medicine 2013--second edition

Quality indicators are key elements of quality management. The quality indicators for intensive care medicine of the German Interdisciplinary Society of Intensive Care Medicine (DIVI) from the year 2010 were recently evaluated when their validity time expired after two years. Overall one indicator was replaced and further three were in part changed. The former indicator I “elevation of head of bed” was replaced by the indicator “Daily multi-professional ward rounds with the documentation of daily therapy goals” and added to the indicator IV “Weaning and other measures to prevent ventilator associated pneumonias (short: Weaning/VAP Bundle)” (VAP = ventilator-associated pneumonia) which aims at the reduction of VAP incidence. The indicator VIII “Documentation of structured relative-/next-of-kin communication” was refined. The indicator X “Direction of the ICU by a specially trained certified intensivist with no other clinical duties in a department” was also updated according to recent study results. These updated quality indicators are part of the Peer Review in intensive care medicine. The next update of the quality indicators is due in 2016.

[Sedation and weaning in neurocritical care: can concepts from general critical care be applied?]

The translation of modern principles of sedation and weaning from mechanical ventilation from general intensive care to neurocritical care has to take into account specific aspects of brain-injured patients. These include interactions with intracranial hypertension, disturbed autoregulation, a higher frequency of seizures and an increased risk of delirium. The advantages of sedation protocols, scoring tools to steer sedation and analgesia and an individualized choice of drugs with emphasis on analgesia gain more interest and importance in neurocritical care as well, but have not been thoroughly investigated so far. When weaning neurological intensive care unit (ICU) patients from the ventilator and approaching extubation it has to be acknowledged that conventional ICU criteria for weaning and extubation can only have an orienting character and that dysphagia is much more frequent in these patients.

Intensive care sedation: the past, present and the future

Despite the universal prescription of sedative drugs in the intensive care unit (ICU), current practice is not guided by high-level evidence. Landmark sedation trials have made significant contributions to our understanding of the problems associated with ICU sedation and have promoted changes to current practice. We identified challenges and limitations of clinical trials which reduced the generalizability and the universal adoption of key interventions. We present an international perspective regarding current sedation practice and a blueprint for future research, which seeks to avoid known limitations and generate much-needed high-level evidence to better guide clinicians' management and therapeutic choices of sedative agents.

Enteral vs. intravenous ICU sedation management: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

A relevant innovation about sedation of long-term Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients is the ‘conscious target’: patients should be awake even during the critical phases of illness. Enteral sedative administration is nowadays unusual, even though the gastrointestinal tract works soon after ICU admission. The enteral approach cannot produce deep sedation; however, it is as adequate as the intravenous one, if the target is to keep patients awake and adapted to the environment, and has fewer side effects and lower costs.

Methods/Design

A randomized, controlled, multicenter, single-blind trial comparing enteral and intravenous sedative treatments has been done in 12 Italian ICUs. The main objective was to achieve and maintain the desired sedation level: observed RASS = target RASS ± 1. Three hundred high-risk patients were planned to be randomly assigned to receive either intravenous propofol/midazolam or enteral melatonin/hydroxyzine/lorazepam. Group assignment occurred through online minimization process, in order to balance variables potentially influencing the outcomes (age, sex, SAPS II, type of admission, kidney failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, sepsis) between groups. Once per shift, the staff recorded neurological monitoring using validated tools. Three flowcharts for pain, sedation, and delirium have been proposed; they have been designed to treat potentially correctable factors first, and, only once excluded, to administer neuroactive drugs. The study lasted from January 24 to December 31, 2012. A total of 348 patients have been randomized, through a centralized website, using a specific software expressly designed for this study. The created network of ICUs included a mix of both university and non-university hospitals, with different experience in managing enteral sedation. A dedicated free-access website was also created, in both Italian and English, for continuous education of ICU staff through CME courses.

Discussion

This ‘educational research’ project aims both to compare two sedative strategies and to highlight the need for a profound cultural change, improving outcomes by keeping critically-ill patients awake.

Trial registration number

Clinicaltrials.gov #NCT01360346

The pain, agitation, and delirium practice guidelines for adult critically ill patients: a post-publication perspective

The recently published Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the Intensive Care Unit differ from earlier guidelines in the following ways: literature searches were performed in eight databases by a professional librarian; psychometric validation of assessment scales was considered in their recommendation; discrepancies in recommendation votes by guideline panel members are available in online supplements; and all recommendations were made exclusively on the basis of evidence available until December of 2010. Pain recognition and management remains challenging in the critically ill. Patient outcomes improve with routine pain assessment, use of co-analgesics and administration as well as dose adjustment of opiates to patient needs. Thoracic epidurals help ease patients undergoing abdominal aortic surgery. Little data exists to guide clinicians as to the type or dose of co-analgesics; no opiate choice is associated with better patient outcomes. Lighter or no sedation is beneficial, and interruption is desirable in patients who require deep sedation for specific pathologic states. Delirium screening is probably useful; no treatment modality can be unequivocally recommended, and the benefit of prophylaxis is established only for early mobilization. The details of these recommendations, as well as more recent publications that complement the guidelines, are provided in this commentary.

[Aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage]

Acute subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is a severe and acute life-threatening cerebrovascular disease. Approximately 80% of all acute non-traumatic SAHs are the result of a ruptured cerebrovascular aneurysm. Despite advances in diagnosis and treatment a high morbidity and mortality still exists. Apart from the primary cerebral damage there are also secondary complications, such as vasospasm, rebleeding, hydrocephalus, cerebral edema or hydrocephalus. For an appropriate therapy an understanding of the extensive pathophysiology, the options in diagnostics and therapy and the complications of the disease are essential. Anesthesiologists are decisively involved in the therapy of the primary and secondary damages and subsequently in the outcome as well. This article provides an overview of the perioperative and intensive care management of patients with SAH.

Delirium in critically ill patients: epidemiology, pathophysiology, diagnosis and management

Delirium is commonly observed in critically ill patients and is associated with negative outcomes. The pathophysiology of delirium is not completely understood. However, alterations to neurotransmitters, especially acetylcholine and dopamine, inflammatory pathways and an aberrant stress response are proposed mechanisms leading to intensive care unit (ICU) delirium. Detection of delirium using a validated delirium assessment tool makes early treatment possible, which may improve prognosis. Patients at high risk of delirium, especially those with cognitive decline and advanced age, should be identified in the first 24 hours of admission to the ICU. Whether these high-risk patients benefit from haloperidol prophylaxis deserves further study. The effectiveness of a multicomponent, non-pharmacological approach is shown in non-ICU patients, which provides proof of concept for use in the ICU. The few studies on this approach in ICU patients suggest that the burden of ICU delirium may be reduced by early mobility, increased daylight exposure and the use of earplugs. In addition, the combined use of sedation, ventilation, delirium and physical therapy protocols can reduce the frequency and severity of adverse outcomes and should become part of routine practice in the ICU, as should avoidance of deliriogenic medication such as anticholinergic drugs and benzodiazepines. Once delirium develops, symptomatic treatment with antipsychotics is recommended, with haloperidol being the drug of first choice. However, there is limited evidence on the safety and effectiveness of antipsychotics in ICU delirium.

Volatile isoflurane sedation in cerebrovascular intensive care patients using AnaConDa(®): effects on cerebral oxygenation, circulation, and pressure

PURPOSE

The anesthetic-conserving device AnaConDa(®), a miniature vaporizer, allows volatile sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU). We investigated the effects of isoflurane sedation on cerebral and systemic physiology parameters in neuromonitored ICU stroke patients.

METHODS

Included in the study were 19 consecutive ventilated patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (12), subarachnoid hemorrhage (4), and ischemic stroke (3) who were switched from intravenous propofol or midazolam to inhalative isoflurane sedation for an average of 3.5 days. During the sedation transition, the following parameters were assessed: mean arterial pressure (MAP), intracranial pressure (ICP), cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), middle cerebral artery mean flow velocity (MFV) and cerebral fractional tissue oxygen extraction (FTOE), as well as systemic cardiopulmonary parameters and administered drugs.

RESULTS

After the first hour, mean ICP showed an increase of 2.1 mmHg that was not clinically relevant. Likewise, MFV did not change. MAP and CPP, however, decreased by 6.5 and 6.3 mmHg, respectively. FTOE was reduced slightly from 0.24 to 0.21 (p = 0.03). Over an observation period of 12 h, ICP remained stable, while MAP and thus CPP showed distinct decreases (CPP: -10 mmHg at 6 h, p < 0.001; -7.5 mmHg at 12 h, p = 0.005, when compared to preswitch levels) despite a 1.5-fold increase in vasopressor administration.

CONCLUSIONS

We suggest that that it is possible to reach sufficient sedation levels in cerebrovascular ICU patients by applying volatile isoflurane long-term without a relevant increase in ICP, if baseline ICP values are low or only moderately elevated. However, caution should be exercised in view of isoflurane's decreasing effect on MAP and CPP. Multimodal neuromonitoring is strongly recommended when applying this off-label sedation method.

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.

Sedation for critically ill or injured adults in the intensive care unit: a shifting paradigm

As most critically ill or injured patients will require some degree of sedation, the goal of this paper was to comprehensively review the literature associated with use of sedative agents in the intensive care unit (ICU). The first and selected latter portions of this article present a narrative overview of the shifting paradigm in ICU sedation practices, indications for uninterrupted or prolonged ICU sedation, and the pharmacology of sedative agents. In the second portion, we conducted a structured, although not entirely systematic, review of the available evidence associated with use of alternative sedative agents in critically ill or injured adults. Data sources for this review were derived by searching OVID MEDLINE and PubMed from their first available date until May 2012 for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs), systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses and economic evaluations. Advances in the technology of mechanical ventilation have permitted clinicians to limit the use of sedation among the critically ill through daily sedative interruptions or other means. These practices have been reported to result in improved mortality, a decreased length of ICU and hospital stay and a lower risk of drug-associated delirium. However, in some cases, prolonged or uninterrupted sedation may still be indicated, such as when patients develop intracranial hypertension following traumatic brain injury. The pharmacokinetics of sedative agents have clinical importance and may be altered by critical illness or injury, co-morbid conditions and/or drug-drug interactions. Although use of validated sedation scales to monitor depth of sedation is likely to reduce adverse events, they have no utility for patients receiving neuromuscular receptor blocking agents. Depth of sedation monitoring devices such as the Bispectral Index (BIS©) also have limitations. Among existing RCTs, no sedative agent has been reported to improve the risk of mortality among the critically ill or injured. Moreover, although propofol may be associated with a shorter time to tracheal extubation and recovery from sedation than midazolam, the risk of hypertriglyceridaemia and hypotension is higher with propofol. Despite dexmedetomidine being linked with a lower risk of drug-associated delirium than alternative sedative agents, this drug increases risk of bradycardia and hypotension. Among adults with severe traumatic brain injury, there are insufficient data to suggest that any single sedative agent decreases the risk of subsequent poor neurological outcomes or mortality. The lack of examination of confounders, including the type of healthcare system in which the investigation was conducted, is a major limitation of existing pharmacoeconomic analyses, which likely limits generalizability of their results.

Efficiency and safety of inhalative sedation with sevoflurane in comparison to an intravenous sedation concept with propofol in intensive care patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

State of the art sedation concepts on intensive care units (ICU) favor propofol for a time period of up to 72 h and midazolam for long-term sedation. However, intravenous sedation is associated with complications such as development of tolerance, insufficient sedation quality, gastrointestinal paralysis, and withdrawal symptoms including cognitive deficits. Therefore, we aimed to investigate whether sevoflurane as a volatile anesthetic technically implemented by the anesthetic-conserving device (ACD) may provide advantages regarding ‘weaning time’, efficiency, and patient’s safety when compared to standard intravenous sedation employing propofol.

Method/Design

This currently ongoing trial is designed as a two-armed, monocentric, randomized prospective phase II study including intubated intensive care patients with an expected necessity for sedation exceeding 48 h. Patients are randomly assigned to either receive intravenous sedation with propofol or sevoflurane employing the ACD. Primary endpoint is the comparison of the ‘weaning time’ defined as the time required from discontinuation of the sedating agent until sufficient spontaneous breathing occurs. Moreover, sedation depth evaluated by Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale and parameters of patient’s safety (that is, vital signs, laboratory monitoring of organ function) as well as the duration of mechanical ventilation and overall stay on the ICU are analyzed and compared. An intention-to-treat analysis will be carried out with all patients for whom it will be possible to define a wake-up time. In addition, a per-protocol analysis is envisaged. Completion of patient recruitment is expected by the end of 2012.

Discussion

This clinical study is designed to evaluate the impact of sevoflurane during long-term sedation of critically ill patients on ‘weaning time’, efficiency, and patient’s safety compared to the standard intravenous sedation concept employing propofol.

Trial registration

EudraCT2007-006087-30; ISCRTN90609144

Association between hospital volume and network membership and an analgesia, sedation and delirium order set quality score: a cohort study

Introduction

Protocols for the delivery of analgesia, sedation and delirium care of the critically ill, mechanically ventilated patient have been shown to improve outcomes but are not uniformly used. The extent to which elements of analgesia, sedation and delirium guidelines are incorporated into order sets at hospitals across a geographic area is not known. We hypothesized that both greater hospital volume and membership in a hospital network are associated with greater adherence of order sets to sedation guidelines.

Methods

Sedation order sets from all nonfederal hospitals without pediatric designation in Washington State that provided ongoing care to mechanically ventilated patients were collected and their content systematically abstracted. Hospital data were collected from Washington State sources and interviews with ICU leadership in each hospital. An expert-validated score of order set quality was created based on the 2002 four-society guidelines. Clustered multivariable linear regression was used to assess the relationship between hospital characteristics and the order set quality score.

Results

Fifty-one Washington State hospitals met the inclusion criteria and all provided order sets. Based on expert consensus, 21 elements were included in the analgesia, sedation and delirium order set quality score. Each element was equally weighted and contributed one point to the score. Hospital order set quality scores ranged from 0 to 19 (median = 8, interquartile range 6 to 14). In multivariable analysis, a greater number of acute care days (P = 0.01) and membership in a larger hospital network (P = 0.01) were independently associated with a greater quality score.

Conclusions

Hospital volume and membership in a larger hospital network were independently associated with a higher quality score for ICU analgesia, sedation and delirium order sets. Further research is needed to determine whether greater order-set quality is associated with improved outcomes in the critically ill. The development of critical care networks might be one strategy to improve order set quality scores.

The paediatric Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (pCAM-ICU): translation and cognitive debriefing for the German-speaking area

PURPOSE

To date there are only a few studies published, dealing with delirium in critically ill patients. The problem with these studies is that prevalence rates of delirium could only be estimated because of the lack of validated delirium assessment tools for the paediatric intensive care unit (PICU). The paediatric Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (pCAM-ICU) was specifically developed and validated for the detection of delirium in PICU patients. The purpose of this study was the translation of the English pCAM-ICU into German according to international validated guidelines.

METHODS

The translation process was performed according to the principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient reported outcomes measures: From three independently created German forward-translation versions one preliminary German version was developed, which was then retranslated to English by a certified, state-approved translator. The back-translated version was submitted to the original author for evaluation. The German translation was evaluated by clinicians and specialists anonymously (German grades) in regards to language and content of the translation.

RESULTS

The results of the cognitive debriefing revealed good to very good results. After that the translation process was successfully completed and the final version of the German pCAM-ICU was adopted by the expert committee.

CONCLUSION

The German version of the pCAM-ICU is a result of a translation process in accordance with internationally acknowledged guidelines. Particularly, with respect to the excellent results of the cognitive debriefing, we could finalise the translation and cultural adaptation process for the German pCAM-ICU.

Influence of algorithm-based analgesia and sedation in patients after sudden cardiac arrest

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to analyse the effect of an algorithm-based analgesic-sedative management on mechanical ventilation time and length of stay in a cardiological ICU with critical ill patients after sudden cardiac arrest.

METHODS

We examined 100 patients after successful resuscitation in a retrospective-prospective single-centre trial by introducing an algorithm-based sedation management. Demographic data, severity of illness classified by APACHE II score (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II), neurological outcome and data for mechanical ventilation time and length of stay were acquired for both groups.

RESULTS

We found a shorter ventilation time for young patients without severe illness, whereby significant longer ventilation time was observed for patients with higher APACHE II score. Between both groups, we found no significant differences in mechanical ventilation time and length of stay.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results demonstrate a tendency towards a reduction of mechanical ventilation time for patients without severe illness after sudden cardiac arrest achieved by implementation of a new sedation management, whereby significant longer ventilation time was observed for severe ill patients. Because of lack of statistical significance of our present study, a randomized study with sufficient power is necessary to demonstrate positive effects of a standardized sedation management and its influence on severity of illness.