Administration of Sedatives and Level of Sedation: Comparative Evaluation via the Sedation-Agitation Scale and the Bispectral Index

Is Sedation of Choice in Thyroplasty Surgery? A Study on the Effects of Sedatives on Voice Quality

OBJECTIVE

In order to establish the ideal anesthetic protocol in thyroplasty type I surgery, where the intraoperative voice test is used to guide the medialization of the paralyzed fold, we have studied the effects of a sedation with midazolam premedication and adjusted intravenous doses of propofol and remifentanil on voice quality in patients without vocal fold pathology undergoing otorhinolaryngology surgery other than thyroplasty.

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective cross-sectional study included 40 adult patients.

METHOD

A voice recording was performed when the patient was fully awake and when an appropriate level of conscious sedation was reached. Following premedication with midazolam at anxiolytic doses, remifentanil and propofol were administrated by target controlled infusion pumps (TCI). These results were compared with those obtained in a previous study carried out by the same team using intravenous bolus (IV) according to weight. The recorded voice analysis was performed using the computer program Praat (v.5.3.39) for a sustained vowel.

RESULTS

All the parameters obtained from the acoustic analysis of the voice were altered after sedation with target controlled infusion in a statistically significant way. Comparing with bolus intravenous, harmonic and noise ratio (HNR) was the only parameter that decreased less in the TCI group.

CONCLUSION

The state of sedation obtained using midazolam premedication, propofol and remifentanil adjusted intravenous doses alters significantly all the voice parameters, although this alteration is considerably less than the changes produced by the medication administered in bolus IV. According to these results, the sedation and the voice test during thyroplasty surgery would present a series of limitations when it comes to guiding the medialization of the paralyzed vocal fold and therefore it could not be considered as the ideal anesthetic protocol in thyroplasty surgery.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU

OBJECTIVE

To update and expand the 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the ICU.

DESIGN

Thirty-two international experts, four methodologists, and four critical illness survivors met virtually at least monthly. All section groups gathered face-to-face at annual Society of Critical Care Medicine congresses; virtual connections included those unable to attend. A formal conflict of interest policy was developed a priori and enforced throughout the process. Teleconferences and electronic discussions among subgroups and whole panel were part of the guidelines' development. A general content review was completed face-to-face by all panel members in January 2017.

METHODS

Content experts, methodologists, and ICU survivors were represented in each of the five sections of the guidelines: Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption). Each section created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome, and nonactionable, descriptive questions based on perceived clinical relevance. The guideline group then voted their ranking, and patients prioritized their importance. For each Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question, sections searched the best available evidence, determined its quality, and formulated recommendations as "strong," "conditional," or "good" practice statements based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation principles. In addition, evidence gaps and clinical caveats were explicitly identified.

RESULTS

The Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) panel issued 37 recommendations (three strong and 34 conditional), two good practice statements, and 32 ungraded, nonactionable statements. Three questions from the patient-centered prioritized question list remained without recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

We found substantial agreement among a large, interdisciplinary cohort of international experts regarding evidence supporting recommendations, and the remaining literature gaps in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. Highlighting this evidence and the research needs will improve Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) management and provide the foundation for improved outcomes and science in this vulnerable population.

The Impact of Bispectral Index Monitoring on Sedation Administration in Mechanically Ventilated Patients

The aim of this prospective randomised controlled trial was to assess the effectiveness of the Bispectral Index (BIS) monitor in supporting clinical sedation management decisions in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients. Fifty adult mechanically ventilated surgical and general intensive care unit patients receiving sedative infusions of morphine and midazolam were randomly allocated to receive BIS monitoring (n=25) or standard sedation management (n=25). In the BIS group, sedation was titrated to maintain a BIS value of greater than 70. In the standard management group, sedative needs were titrated based on subjective assessment and clinical signs.

There was no statistically significant difference in the amount of sedation administered (morphine P =0.67 and midazolam P =0.85). However, there was a statistically significant difference in sedation administration over time. Patients in the BIS group received increasing amounts of sedation over time whilst those in the control group received decreasing amounts of sedation over time. The same inverse relationship existed for both sedative agents (morphine P=0.005, midazolam P=0.03). Duration of mechanical ventilation was comparable in the two groups. We conclude that the use of BIS monitoring did not reduce the amount of sedation used, the length of mechanical ventilation time or the length of ICU stay.

Terminal Withdrawal of Mechanical Ventilation: A Hospice Perspective for the Intensivist

The intensive care unit (ICU) and hospice inpatient unit (IPU) environments differ in many ways. Although both endeavor to provide the best care possible for their patients, the day-to-day goals of these environments are almost antithetical. Similarly, the experiences and expertise of the staff differ. When performing a similar clinical task, it may be addressed in different ways because each group is engrained in their primary day-to-day focus. Terminal withdrawal of mechanical ventilation is a procedure that is performed in both ICUs and some hospice IPUs. Previous examinations of this subject have been based largely upon the correlative background, practices, and perceptions of the ICU prescriber. The purpose of this review is to examine how the manner in which this procedure is performed in the hospice environment may differ in ways that the intensivist can incorporate into their own plan of care, or better appreciate when making the decision to remove mechanical ventilation in the critical care unit or transfer the patient to a hospice environment for the procedure to be completed.

Predisposing factors, clinical assessment, management and outcomes of agitation in the trauma intensive care unit

BACKGROUND

Agitation occurs frequently among critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). We aimed to evaluate the frequency, predisposing factors and outcomes of agitation in trauma ICU.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted to include patients who were admitted to the trauma ICU between April 2014 and March 2015. Data included patient's demographics, initial vitals, associated injuries, Ramsey Sedation Scale, Glasgow Coma Scale, head injury lesions, use of sedatives and analgesics, head interventions, ventilator days, and ICU length of stay. Patients were divided into two groups based on the agitation status.

RESULTS

A total of 102 intubated patients were enrolled; of which 46 (45%) experienced agitation. Patients in the agitation group were 7 years younger, had significantly lower GCS and sustained higher frequency of head injuries (P<0.05). Patients who developed agitation were more likely to be prescribed propofol alone or in combination with midazolam and to have frequent ICP catheter insertion, longer ventilatory days and higher incidence of pneumonia (P<0.05). On multivariate analysis, use of propofol alone (OR=4.97; 95% CI=1.35-18.27), subarachnoid hemorrhage (OR=5.11; 95% CI=1.38-18.91) and ICP catheter insertion for severe head injury (OR=4.23; 95% CI=1.16-15.35) were independent predictors for agitation (P<0.01).

CONCLUSION

Agitation is a frequent problem in trauma ICU and is mainly related to the type of sedation and poor outcomes in terms of prolonged mechanical ventilation and development of nosocomial pneumonia. Therefore, understanding the main predictors of agitation facilitates early risk-stratification and development of better therapeutic strategies in trauma patients.

Bispectral Index Can Reliably Detect Deep Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Patients: A Prospective Multicenter Validation Study

BACKGROUND

Excessively deep sedation is prevalent in mechanically ventilated patients and often considered suboptimal. We hypothesized that the bispectral index (BIS), a quantified electroencephalogram instrument, would accurately detect deep levels of sedation.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled 90 critically ill mechanically ventilated patients who were receiving sedation. The BIS was monitored for 24 hours and compared with the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) evaluated every 4 hours. Deep sedation was defined as a RASS of -3 to -5. Threshold values of baseline BIS (the lowest value before RASS assessment) and stimulated BIS (the highest value after standardized assessment) for detecting deep sedation were determined in a training set (45 patients, 262 RASS assessments). Diagnostic accuracy was then analyzed in a validation set (45 patients, 264 RASS assessments).

RESULTS

Deep sedation was only prescribed in 6 (6.7%) patients, but 76 patients (84.4%) had at least 1 episode of deep sedation. Thresholds for detecting deep sedation of 50 for baseline and 80 for stimulated BIS were identified, with respective areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curve of 0.771 (95% confidence interval, 0.714-0.828) and 0.805 (0.752-0.857). The sensitivity and specificity of baseline BIS were 94.0% and 66.5% and of stimulated BIS were 91.0% and 66.5%. When baseline and stimulated BIS were combined, the sensitivity, specificity, and clinical utility index were 85.0% (76.1%-91.1%), 85.9% (79.5%-90.7%), and 66.9% (57.8%-76.0%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Combining baseline and stimulated BIS may help detect deep sedation in mechanically ventilated patients.

Role of the Bispectral Index in Sedation Monitoring in the ICU

Objective:

To review and critique evidence for the use of the bispectral index (BIS) in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.

Data Sources:

A computer search of English-language articles in MEDLINE (1966–July 2005), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1971–July 2005), and Scientific Citation Index Expanded (1980–July 2005) was conducted. A manual search of abstracts was also performed using the key search terms BIS, sedation, and critical care.

Study Selection and Data Extraction:

Case series, letters, editorials, and clinical studies that evaluated BIS in ICU patients were considered for inclusion.

Data Synthesis:

Nineteen studies comparing the BIS with sedation scales were evaluated, revealing that the BIS trends lower with increasing sedation. The BIS appeared to correlate better when sedation scores were grouped rather than individual values. However, correlations between BIS and subjective scales were low in most studies (r2 0.21–0.93). Additionally, there was poor correlation between drug dosage and the BIS. Randomized, controlled trials demonstrating improved outcomes with BIS monitoring have not been reported.

Conclusions:

Interpreting literature on the usefulness of the BIS in the ICU is difficult for reasons that include heterogeneous populations, different methods of collecting BIS data, and use of different versions of BIS software and hardware. Outcomes data are lacking. The 2002 Society of Critical Care Medicine Sedation Guidelines recommendation that more data are needed before the BIS should be used routinely in the ICU remains unchanged. We recommend that further studies be conducted to determine the optimal method of obtaining BIS data and evaluate the impact of the BIS on relevant patient outcomes.

Consensus statement on continuous EEG in critically ill adults and children, part I: indications

INTRODUCTION

Critical Care Continuous EEG (CCEEG) is a common procedure to monitor brain function in patients with altered mental status in intensive care units. There is significant variability in patient populations undergoing CCEEG and in technical specifications for CCEEG performance.

METHODS

The Critical Care Continuous EEG Task Force of the American Clinical Neurophysiology Society developed expert consensus recommendations on the use of CCEEG in critically ill adults and children.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The consensus panel recommends CCEEG for diagnosis of nonconvulsive seizures, nonconvulsive status epilepticus, and other paroxysmal events, and for assessment of the efficacy of therapy for seizures and status epilepticus. The consensus panel suggests CCEEG for identification of ischemia in patients at high risk for cerebral ischemia; for assessment of level of consciousness in patients receiving intravenous sedation or pharmacologically induced coma; and for prognostication in patients after cardiac arrest. For each indication, the consensus panel describes the patient populations for which CCEEG is indicated, evidence supporting use of CCEEG, utility of video and quantitative EEG trends, suggested timing and duration of CCEEG, and suggested frequency of review and interpretation.

CONCLUSION

CCEEG has an important role in detection of secondary injuries such as seizures and ischemia in critically ill adults and children with altered mental status.

Toward Solving the Sedation-Assessment Conundrum: Neurofunction Monitoring

The sedation-assessment conundrum is the struggle to balance the need for sedation against the need to awaken the patient and perform a neurologic examination. This article discusses the nuances of the sedation-assessment conundrum as well as approaches to resolve this and reduce the negative impact of abruptly stopping sedative infusions. Both oversedation and undersedation affect critically ill patients. This article discusses methods of assessing sedation and interpreting individualized patient responses to sedation. The use of neurofunction monitors and periods of sedation interruption are discussed within the context of addressing the sedation-assessment conundrum.

A review of sedation scales for the cardiac catheterization laboratory

PURPOSE

Sedation scales have the potential to facilitate effective procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL). For this potential to become realized, a scale that is suitable for use in the CCL either needs to be identified or developed.

DESIGN

A structured review strategy was applied.

METHODS

To identify sedation scales, a review of Medline and CINHAL was conducted.

FINDINGS

One sedation scale for the CCL, the North American Society for Pacing and Electrophysiology Sedation Scale, and 15 intensive care unit (ICU) scales met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Analysis of the scale's item structures and psychometric properties was then performed.

CONCLUSION

None of these scales were deemed suitable for use in the CCL. As such, further research is required to develop a new scale. The new scale should consist of more than one item to make it more effective for tracking the patient's response to medications. Specific tests required to conduct a rigorous evaluation of the new scale's psychometric properties are outlined in this article.

The validity, reliability, responsiveness and applicability of observation sedation-scoring instruments for use with adult patients in the emergency department: a systematic literature review

AIM

This paper reports a systematic literature review examining the range of published observational sedation-scoring instruments available in the assessment, monitoring and titration of continuous intravenous sedation to critically ill adult patients in the Emergency Department, and the extent to which validity, reliability, responsiveness and applicability of the instruments has been addressed.

BACKGROUND

Emergency nurses are increasingly responsible for the ongoing assessment, monitoring and titration of continuous intravenous sedation, in addition to analgesia for the critically ill adult patient. One method to optimise patient sedation is to use a validated observational sedation-scoring tool. It is not clear however what the optimal instrument available is for use in this clinical context.

METHODS

A systematic literature review methodology was employed. A range of electronic databases were searched for the period 1946-2013. Search terms incorporated "sedation scale", "sedation scoring system", "measuring sedation", and "sedation tool" and were used to retrieve relevant literature. In addition, manual searches were conducted and articles retrieved from those listed in key papers. Articles were assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) making sense of evidence tools.

RESULTS

A total of 27 observational sedation-scoring instruments were identified. Sedation-scoring instruments can be categorised as linear or composite, the former being the most common. A wide variety of patient behaviours are used within the instruments to measure depth and quality of patient sedation. Typically sedation-scoring instruments incorporated three patient behaviours, which were then rated to generate a numerical score. The majority of the instruments have been subjected to validity and reliability testing, however few have been examined for responsiveness or applicability.

CONCLUSIONS

None of the 27 observational sedation-scoring instruments were designed or trialled within ED. The Richmond Agitation and Assessment Scale was identified as most suitable to be trialled prospectively within an Australian ED.

Dexmedetomidine as an adjunct to epidural analgesia after abdominal surgery in elderly intensive care patients: A prospective, double-blind, clinical trial

BACKGROUND

The ideal postoperative analgesia management of elderly surgical patients in intensive care units (ICUs) is continually being investigated.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of IV administration of dexmedetomidine as an adjunct to a low-dose epidural bupivacaine infusion for postoperative analgesia after abdominal surgery in elderly patients in the ICU.

METHODS

ICU patients aged >70 years undergoing abdominal surgery were eligible for the study. A lumbar epidural catheter was inserted at the beginning of the surgery with no medication. On arrival at the ICU, the catheter was loaded with 0.25% bupivacaine 25 mg at the T8 to T10 sensory level, and a continuous infusion of 0.125% bupivacaine was started at 4 to 6 mL/h in combination with patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) of fentanyl (4 μg/bolus) for pain treatment. Patients in the treatment group received dexmedetomidine as an IV loading dose of 0.6 pg/kg for 30 minutes followed by continuous infusion at 0.2 μg/kg · h(-1). Patients in the control group were not administered dexmedetomidine. The effectiveness of the pain relief was determined using a visual analog scale (VAS) (0 = no pain to 10 = worst pain imaginable) at rest. VAS score, heart rate (HR), systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure, and arterial blood gases were monitored periodically for 24 hours after surgery. If required, tenoxicam (20-mg IV bolus) was used to ensure a VAS score of ≤3. The number of times PCEA and tenoxicam were administered and the occurrence of adverse events (AEs) were also recorded.

RESULTS

Sixty patients (34 men, 26 women; mean [SD] age, 75.96 [4.25] years; mean [SD] weight, 74.13 [10.62] kg) were included in the study. VAS scores were significantly lower in the dexmedetomidine group compared with the control group at hours 1, 2, and 12 (VAS [hour 1]: 2.8 [0.4], P < 0.001; VAS [hour 2]: 2.7 [0.5], P < 0.001; and VAS [hour 12]: 0.9 [0.7], P 0.044). The mean number of administrations of fentanyl via PCEA was significantly greater in the control group compared with the dexmedetomidine group (2.20 vs 6.63 times; P < 0.001). The mean number of administrations of tenoxicam was significantly lower in the treatment group than the control group (0.27 vs 1.07 times; P < 0.001). In the control group, the decreases in sedation at 0, 8, 12, 16, and 20 hours were significant compared with baseline (P = 0.024, P = 0.001, P = 0.020, P < 0.001, and P = 0.005, respectively). Mean HR, SBR and AEs (eg, bradycardia [HR <60 beats/min], respiratory depression [respiratory rate <8 breaths/min], hypotension \SBP <90 mm Hg], oversedation, hypoxia, and hypercapnia) decreased significantly in the dexmedetomidine group (all, P < 0.05). Significantly more patients in the dexmedetomidine group rated their satisfaction with postoperative pain control as excellent compared with the control group (12 vs 6 patients; P = 0.014).

CONCLUSION

Intravenous dexmedetomidine was effective and generally well tolerated as an analgesic adjunct to epidural low-dose bupivacaine infusion for pain treatment, with lower need for opioids after abdominal surgery in these elderly intensive care patients than in the control group.

No Superiority of Granisetron Over Metoclopramide in Prevention of Post-operative Nausea and Vomiting: A Randomized Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is considered as one of the most disturbing sequels of surgeries under general anesthesia, which if not controlled appropriately increases post-operative morbidity, nursing burden, and general healthcare costs. In this study, we compared granisetron with its brand Kytril(®) and also with metoclopramide regarding PONV management.

METHODS

A total of 180 obstetrics and gynecology patients who underwent surgeries under general anesthesia participated in this prospective study at the Dr. Shariati Teaching Hospital, Tehran, Iran. The patients were randomly assigned to single-dose generic granisetron (40 mcg/kg), Kytril(®) (40 mcg/kg), or metoclopramide (0.2 mg/kg) at the end of the surgery. Two episodes of emetic symptoms (nausea and vomiting) were recorded by a gynecologist who had no knowledge of which treatment each patient had received. This gynecologist observed the patients at three different intervals: 0-6, 6-12, and 12-18 h post-surgery.

RESULTS

One hundred and thirty-seven patients (76.1 %) underwent hysterectomy and 40 patients (22.2 %) underwent myomectomy. Each group consisted of 60 patients (33 %). The incidence of vomiting in the first 6, 12, and 18 h post-surgery was 22, 15.2, and 13.3 % for granisetron; 18.6, 10, and 8.3 % for Kytril; and 22, 11.9, and 5 % for generic metoclopramide, respectively. There was no significant difference in the incidence of PONV with any of these agents.

CONCLUSIONS

All three anti-nausea and vomiting agents, granisetron, its brand (Kytril), and generic metoclopramide, have a similar effect to manage PONV in obstetrics and gynecological surgeries. Trial registration This trial is registered with www.irct.ir, number IRCT201010134927N1.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Nurses' perceptions of unpleasant symptoms and signs in ventilated and sedated patients

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To describe intensive care nurses' perceptions and assessments of unpleasant symptoms and signs in mechanically ventilated and sedated adult intensive care patients.

BACKGROUND

Mechanically ventilated patients are unable to express themselves verbally and depend upon nurses to control their symptoms by understanding their unpleasant experiences, such as pain, anxiety or delirium and interpret the relevant signs. Nurses must have enough knowledge to adjust their analgesics and sedatives appropriately and to avoid under- or oversedation.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional survey design.

METHODS

A study with a self-administrated questionnaire was undertaken in October 2007 to February 2008, with a convenience sample of 183 intensive care nurses in Norway.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was completed by 86 (47%) nurses. Most perceived that critical illness polyneuropathy/myopathy occurred frequently. Half the nurses underestimated pain, anxiety and delirium. Signs such as a response to contact, cough reflex, wakefulness and muscle tone were considered most important in assessing oversedation. Agitation, facial grimacing, tube intolerance and wakefulness were considered most important in assessing undersedation. The Comfort Scale and Adoption of the Intensive Care Environment corresponded best to the signs identified by the nurses.

CONCLUSION

The nurses underestimated unpleasant symptoms other than critical illness polyneuropathy/myopathy. A further mapping of patients' experiences should be conducted, with an emphasis on the more 'silent' distressing symptoms. Further tools to facilitate the communication of consciousness levels and the intolerance of unpleasant symptoms must be developed and implemented.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

A deeper understanding of unpleasant symptoms and signs focused in learning activities may help nurses to recognize patients' early problems and allow targeted interventions. A more active stimulus-response assessment of ICU patients is required to detect oversedation, critical illness polyneuropathy/myopathy and hypoactive delirium. Assessment tools should reflect both the patient's tolerance of various unpleasant symptoms and the level of consciousness.

Sedation practice in three Norwegian ICUs: a survey of intensive care nurses' perceptions of personal and unit practice

OBJECTIVES

To describe intensive care nurses' perceptions of unit and personal sedation practice in the context of nursing and medical treatment of adult intensive care patients sedated and ventilated for more than 24 hours.

METHODS

Self-administered questionnaire.

SETTING

Three general ICUs in three university hospitals in Norway.

RESULTS

Eighty-six questionnaires were returned (response rate 47%). Continuous infusions of fentanyl and midazolam were perceived as most common and nurses often gave both analgesics and sedatives prior to care. Daily interruption of sedation or analgesia-based sedation was not perceived as practice in the units. MAAS was most commonly used, whilst protocols or objective scoring systems were not. Documentation of sedation levels was fairly routine, whereas documentation of patient needs was not perceived as important. Collaboration with physicians was viewed as most important, whilst no significance was assigned to collaboration with relatives.

CONCLUSION

The study shows that a focus on analgesia-based sedation and continual control of the sedation level should be considered in order to decrease the risk of oversedation. Inclusion of relatives' opinions, increased collaboration between nurses and physicians, and implementation of sedation tools, may contribute to even better patient outcome and should be focus in further studies.

[Sedation and analgesia assessment tools in ICU patients]

Sedative and analgesic treatment administered to critically ill patients need to be regularly assessed to ensure that predefinite goals are well achieved as the risk of complications of oversedation is minimized. In most of the cases, which are lightly sedation patients, the goal to reach is a calm, cooperative and painless patient, adapted to the ventilator. Recently, eight new bedside scoring systems to monitor sedation have been developed and mainly tested for reliability and validity. The choice of a sedation scale measuring level of consciousness, could be made between the Ramsay sedation scale, the Richmond Agitation Sedation scale (RASS) and the Adaptation to The Intensive Care Environment scale-ATICE. The Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) is a behavioral pain scale. Two of them have been tested with strong evidence of their clinimetric properties: ATICE, RASS. The nurses'preference for a convenient tool could be defined by the level of reliability, the level of clarity, the variety of sedation and agitation states represented user friendliness and speed. In fine, the choice between a simple scale easy to use and a well-defined and complex scale has to be discussed and determined in each unit. Actually, randomized controlled studies are needed to assess the potential superiority of one scale compared with others scales, including evaluation of the reliability and the compliance to the scale. The usefulness of the BIS in ICU for patients lightly sedated is limited, mainly because of EMG artefact, when subjective scales are more appropriated in this situation. On the other hand, subjective scales are insensitive to detect oversedation in patients requiring deep sedation. The contribution of the BIS in deeply sedation patients, patients under neuromuscular blockade or barbiturates has to be proved. Pharmacoeconomics studies are lacking.

Perspectives on sedation assessment in critical care

Multiple studies have been undertaken to show that neurofunction monitors can correlate to objective sedation assessments. Showing a correlation between these 2 patient assessments tools may not be the correct approach for validation of neurofunction monitors. Two different methods of assessing 2 different modes of the patient's response to sedation should not be expected to precisely correlate unless the desire is to replace one method with the other. We provide a brief summary of several sedation scales, physiologic measures and neurofunction monitoring tools, and correlations literature for bispectral index monitoring, and the Ramsay Scale and the Sedation Agitation Scale. Neurofunction monitors provide near continuous information about a different domain of the sedation response than intermittent observational assessments. Further research should focus on contributions from this technology to the improvement of patient outcomes when neurofunction monitoring is used as a complement, not a replacement, for observational methods of sedation assessment.

Part 2. Chemical and physical restraints in the management of mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU: A patient perspective

An important goal of the care for the mechanically ventilated patient is to minimize patient discomfort and anxiety. This is partly achieved by frequent use of chemical and physical restraints. The majority of patients in intensive care will receive some form of sedation. The goal and use of sedation has changed considerably over the past few decades with literature evidencing trends toward overall lighter sedation levels and daily interruption of sedation. Conversely, the use of physical restraint for the ventilated patient in ICU differs considerably between nations and continents. A large portion of the literature on the use of physical restraint is from general hospital wards and residential homes, and not from the ICU environment. Recent literature suggests minimal use of physical restraint in the ICU, and that reduction programmes have been initiated. However, very few papers illuminate the patient's experience of physical and chemical restraints as a treatment strategy. In Part 1 of this two-part review, the evidence on chemical and physical restraints was explored with specific focus on definitions of terms, unplanned extubation, agitation, delirium as well as the impact of nurse-patient ratios in the ICU on these issues. This paper, Part 2, examines the evidence related to chemical and physical restraints from the mechanically ventilated patient's perspective.

"Between the fixed and the changing": examining and comparing reliability and validity of 3 sedation-agitation measuring scales

The goal of the study was to compare the reliability and validity of 3 Sedation Agitation Scale. Two nurses and a physician conducted 130 observations simultaneously. They found an excellent interrater reliability in the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (r>0.86), and high correlations between the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale and the Sedation Agitation Scale and Visual Analog Scale scales (r=0.92, r=0.85). The research findings will help to assert Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale as a daily assessment tool in the intensive care unit, and it will pave the way for construction a sedation protocol according to the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale level.

Awareness in retrieval medicine

Awareness is the spontaneous recall of an event(s) that occurred during general anaesthesia and surgery. The incidence of awareness is approximately 0.2% of cases where neuromuscular blockers are used and half that where they are omitted. The majority of data relating to awareness is from anaesthetic practice. We report a case of awareness associated with an out-of-hospital transportation of a critically ill patient requiring a medical escort (retrieval). We discuss the risk factors associated with awareness during retrieval, in particular the trend toward excessive administration of neuromuscular blockers, and the unique challenges for the prevention of awareness within the retrieval environment.

The correlation between the richmond agitation–sedation scale and bispectral index during dexmedetomidine sedation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The primary objective of sedation in the critically ill patient is to achieve security and comfort. The routine use of standardized and validated sedation scales and monitors are needed. The Richmond agitation sedation scale has been used but some patients cannot be evaluated with subjective assessment tools such as the Richmond agitation sedation scale because they lack motor responsiveness due to therapeutic paralysis or because they are receiving deep sedation. We aimed to assess the correlation of bispectral index with Richmond agitation sedation scale during dexmedetomidine sedation and evaluate the use of the bispectral index in monitoring the levels of sedation in intensive care patients.

METHODS

This was a single centre, prospective, clinical study. Eleven mechanically-ventilated critically ill patients, aged 17-82 (50.09 +/- 17.76; mean +/- SD) yr, 3 males and 8 females, APACHE II score 12.63 +/- 3.90, SOFA score 3.27 +/- 1.73 were enrolled in the study. Patients received a dexmedetomidine infusion of 1 microg kg-1 over 10 min followed by a maintenance infusion of 0.5 microg kg-1 h-1 for 8 h. Sedation was assessed using the Richmond agitation sedation scale and bispectral index monitoring. Heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate and SPO2 were monitored. Wilcoxon signed rank sum test and Spearman's rank correlation analysis were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

The variation of Richmond agitation sedation scale score was between 0.9 and -1.7 bispectral index varied from 65 to 75. Significant correlations between Richmond agitation sedation scale and bispectral index values were found in this study. (r = 0.900; P = 0.0001)

CONCLUSIONS

Richmond agitation sedation scale levels significantly correlated with bispectral index values during dexmedetomidine sedation in critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit.

Nurses’ and physicians’ sedation practices in Danish ICUs in 2003

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to describe and compare physicians' and nurses' estimated use of sedatives and analgesics in patients requiring mechanical ventilation in Danish Intensive Care Units (ICUs) in 2003.

DESIGN

Questionnaires were mailed in January 2003 to all Danish ICUs providing mechanical ventilation (n = 48). One physician and one nurse at each site were included in the study.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine questionnaires were returned by physicians (response rate 81%) and 43 by the nurses (response rate 90%). Physicians and nurses agreed that sedation related decisions are predominately made during rounds and that most decisions are made by physicians and nurses collaboratively. Only 9% of the nurses and 23% of the physicians reported using a written protocol for sedation, while 30% of the nurses and 44% of the physicians reported the use of sedation scoring systems. The study generally supported the hypothesis, that nurses' and physicians' would respond similarly, but there were, however, significant variations, regarding formal sedation practices.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedation decisions are made collaboratively by nurses and physicians, while sedation protocols and scoring systems are still not systematically implemented in Danish ICUs. The most common drugs for sedation of the mechanically ventilated patient are propofol and fentanyl by continuous infusion. It is recommended that the ICUs collaborate on developing evidence-based standards for sedation and that clinical databases are introduced, which may be used to assess the efficacy of such standards.

Trends in sedation practices in Danish intensive care units in 2003: a national survey

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to explore trends and changes in sedation practices for mechanically ventilated patients in Danish intensive care units (ICUs) and to compare sedation practices in 1997 and 2003.

DESIGN

The study was a follow-up survey with a descriptive and comparative cross-sectional multicenter design.

SETTING

Questionnaires were mailed in January 2003 to all Danish ICUs providing mechanical ventilation (n=48).

PARTICIPANTS

One head physician at each ICU in Denmark. INTERVENTIONS, MEASUREMENTS, AND RESULTS: Thirty-nine questionnaires were returned, yielding a response rate of 81%, representing 82% of Danish ICU beds. The main findings were a significant increase in the use of sedation scoring systems and a significant reduction of sedation and analgesia in relation to various modalities of mechanical ventilation and disease groups. Other important findings were a significant reduction in the use of benzodiazepines and opioids and a significant increase in the use of propofol in relation to all ventilator modes. The administration routes of sedative agents remained unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

Sedatives and analgesics are still widely used in Danish ICUs. The trend is toward lighter sedation along with a shift from benzodiazepines toward propofol and from morphine toward fentanyl given by continuous infusion. More attention needs to be directed toward sedation standards and scoring systems in order to reduce the risk associated with sedation in mechanically ventilated patients.

Toward Solving the Sedation-Assessment Conundrum: Bispectral Index Monitoring and Sedation Interruption

The sedation-assessment conundrum is defined by two diametrically opposed goals: to maintain an appropriate level of sedation, and to obtain a comprehensive neurologic examination that most accurately reflects the patient's neurologic status. A case presentation leads to a discussion of over-sedation and under-sedation issues that impact the care of critically ill patients. This information is useful in understanding the many methods of assessing sedation and interpreting individualized patient responses to sedation. The use of bi-spectral index monitoring and periods of sedation interruption are discussed within the context of addressing the sedation-assessment conundrum.

Bispectral Index Monitoring in the Intensive Care Unit Provides More Signal Than Noise

The bispectral index (BIS) is processed electroencephalographic technology used in concert with clinical evaluations to objectively evaluate a patient's level of consciousness and probability of recall. Although the BIS has been extensively studied in the operating room setting, differences in patient populations, goals of treatment, and the environments themselves necessitate the development of BIS data specific to the intensive care unit. Data have evolved over the last several years, but for many reasons, the results and conclusions have varied. Yet within the data are important consistencies that help define the usefulness of BIS in patients who cannot be evaluated with subjective assessment tools such as the Sedation-Agitation Scale or the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale. Some of these patients cannot be evaluated with such tools because they lack motor responsiveness due to therapeutic paralysis or because they are receiving deep sedation. Bispectral index scores that are higher than expected in clinically sedated patients can often be traced to electromyographic activity or to the possibility of inadequate sedation and analgesia. The BIS must not be regarded as the sole indicator of level of consciousness, but should be used as part of an integrated approach to the evaluation of carefully selected patients with critical illness.

Sedation and comfort issues in the ventilated infant and child

Intubated infants and children require optimal sedation and comfort measures. Key elements that ensure the provision of quality care for these patients include the use of pain, comfort, and sedation assessment tools; pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic strategies; and the inclusion of the patient and parents as part of the team. This article describes approaches for using sedation and ensuring comfort in these patients. Application of research and the education of team members and the patient and family are crucial aspects of care and are also discussed.

Sedation Assessment in Critically Ill Adults: 2001–2004 Update

OBJECTIVE

To review recently published literature on the validity and reliability of sedation assessment tools in critically ill adults and evaluate the potential advantages and disadvantages of each.

DATA SOURCES

A computerized search of MEDLINE and PubMed (2001–May 2004) was conducted.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Sedation assessment tools used in adult intensive care units (ICUs) were identified.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Six subjective and 3 objective assessment tools were identified. Four subjective assessment tools have reliability and 4 have validity data published that were not previously available. There are reliability data to further support the use of the previously published Motor Activity Assessment Scale. Additional reliability data exist for the Ramsay Scale and Glasgow Coma Scale. Conflicting evidence is available with the use of the Bispectral Index monitor in the ICU. Recently, the Patient State Index and Auditory Evoked Potentials were introduced for objective monitoring in critically ill patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing data on sedation assessment were published over the last few years, probably in response to supporting evidence that goal-driven sedation therapy improves patient outcomes. Reliability and/or validity testing exists for many of these scales. Several useful tools are available to guide sedation therapy in critically ill patients.

Consciousness monitoring in ventilated patients: bispectral EEG monitors arousal not delirium

OBJECTIVE

Bispectral index (BIS) is being evaluated as a monitor of consciousness, yet it is unclear what components of consciousness (i.e., arousal vs. content of consciousness) the BIS measures. This study compared BIS levels to well-validated clinical measures of arousal and the presence or absence of delirium.

DESIGN

A prospective, blinded, observational cohort study.

PATIENTS

124 mechanically ventilated, adult, medical ICU patients.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Using BIS 3.4 and BIS-XP 4.0 algorithms, BIS values were calculated immediately prior to clinical assessments. The clinical assessments included the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) and presence or absence of delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU. A total of 484 assessments were collected among 124 patients. BIS-XP values demonstrated greater correlation with RASS than BIS 3.4 ( R(2)=0.36 vs. 0.20), although considerable overlap of BIS-XP scores remained across RASS levels. Median BIS-XP values for delirious and nondelirious observations were 74 and 96, respectively, while BIS 3.4 values were 91 and 96, respectively. However, neither BIS 3.4 nor BIS-XP were significantly associated with delirium after controlling for RASS value.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison with clinical measures of arousal in mechanically ventilated patients, BIS-XP algorithm demonstrated stronger correlation with RASS levels than did BIS 3.4, yet marked overlap across different levels of arousal persist using both algorithms. After controlling for level of arousal, neither BIS-XP nor BIS 3.4 algorithms distinguished between the presence and absence of delirium.