Managing Profound Suffering at the End-of-Life: Should expanding access to continuous deep sedation be the priority?

Commentaire / Commentary

Nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheter laboratory : an integrative review

Objectives: To identify and appraise the literature concerning nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheter laboratory. Design and data sources: An integrative review method was chosen for this study. MEDLINE and CINAHL databases as well as The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Joanna Briggs Institute were searched. Nineteen research articles and three clinical guidelines were identified. Results: The authors of each study reported nurse-administered sedation in the CCL is safe due to the low incidence of complications. However, a higher percentage of deeply sedated patients were reported to experience complications than moderately sedated patients. To confound this issue, one clinical guideline permits deep sedation without an anaesthetist present, while others recommend against it. All clinical guidelines recommend nurses are educated about sedation concepts. Other findings focus on pain and discomfort and the cost-savings of nurse-administered sedation, which are associated with forgoing anaesthetic services. Conclusions: Practice is varied due to limitations in the evidence and inconsistent clinical practice guidelines. Therefore, recommendations for research and practice have been made. Research topics include determining how and in which circumstances capnography can be used in the CCL, discerning the economic impact of sedation-related complications and developing a set of objectives for nursing education about sedation. For practice, if deep sedation is administered without an anaesthetist present, it is essential nurses are adequately trained and have access to vital equipment such as capnography to monitor ventilation because deeply sedated patients are more likely to experience complications related to sedation. These initiatives will go some way to ensuring patients receiving nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia for a procedure in the cardiac catheter laboratory are cared for using consistent, safe and evidence-based practices.

Trends in nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia across cardiac catheterisation laboratories in Australia and New Zealand : results of an electronic survey

Background Knowledge of current trends in nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory (CCL) may provide important insights into how to improve safety and effectiveness of this practice. Objective To characterise current practice as well as education and competency standards regarding nurse-administered PSA in Australian and New Zealand CCLs. Design A quantitative, cross-sectional, descriptive survey design was used. Methods Data were collected using a web-based questionnaire on practice, educational standards and protocols related to nurse-administered PSA. Descriptive statistics were used to analyse data. Results A sample of 62 nurses, each from a different CCL, completed a questionnaire that focused on PSA practice. Over half of the estimated total number of CCLs in Australia and New Zealand was represented. Nurse-administered PSA was used in 94% (n = 58) of respondents CCLs. All respondents indicated that benzodiazepines, opioids or a combination of both is used for PSA (n = 58). One respondent indicated that propofol was also used. 20% (n = 12) indicated that deep sedation is purposefully induced for defibrillation threshold testing and cardioversion without a second medical practitioner present. Sedation monitoring practices vary considerably between institutions. 31% (n = 18) indicated that comprehensive education about PSA is provided. 45% (n = 26) indicated that nurses who administer PSA should undergo competency assessment. Conclusion By characterising nurse-administered PSA in Australian and New Zealand CCLs, a baseline for future studies has been established. Areas of particular importance to improve include protocols for patient monitoring and comprehensive PSA education for CCL nurses in Australia and New Zealand.

Issues and challenges associated with nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory : a qualitative study

Aims and objectives To explore issues and challenges associated with nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory from the perspectives of senior nurses. Background Nurses play an important part in managing sedation because the prescription is usually given verbally directly from the cardiologist who is performing the procedure and typically, an anaesthetist is not present. Design A qualitative exploratory design was employed. Methods Semi-structured interviews with 23 nurses from 16 cardiac catheterisation laboratories across four states in Australia and also New Zealand were conducted. Data analysis followed the guide developed by Braun and Clark to identify the main themes. Results Major themes emerged from analysis regarding the lack of access to anaesthetists, the limitations of sedative medications, the barriers to effective patient monitoring and the impact that the increasing complexity of procedures has on patients' sedation requirements. Conclusions The most critical issue identified in this study is that current guidelines, which are meant to apply regardless of the clinical setting, are not practical for the cardiac catheterisation laboratory due to a lack of access to anaesthetists. Furthermore, this study has demonstrated that nurses hold concerns about the legitimacy of their practice in situations when they are required to perform tasks outside of clinical practice guidelines. To address nurses' concerns, it is proposed that new guidelines could be developed, which address the unique circumstances in which sedation is used in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. Relevance to clinical practice Nurses need to possess advanced knowledge and skills in monitoring for the adverse effects of sedation. Several challenges impact on nurses' ability to monitor patients during procedural sedation and analgesia. Preprocedural patient education about what to expect from sedation is essential.

Risk factors for impaired respiratory function during nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory : a matched case-control study

Background: Side effects of the medications used for procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory are known to cause impaired respiratory function. Impaired respiratory function poses considerable risk to patient safety as it can lead to inadequate oxygenation. Having knowledge about the conditions that predict impaired respiratory function prior to the procedure would enable nurses to identify at-risk patients and selectively implement intensive respiratory monitoring. This would reduce the possibility of inadequate oxygenation occurring. Aim: To identify pre-procedure risk factors for impaired respiratory function during nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. Design: Retrospective matched case–control. Methods: 21 cases of impaired respiratory function were identified and matched to 113 controls from a consecutive cohort of patients over 18 years of age. Conditional logistic regression was used to identify risk factors for impaired respiratory function. Results: With each additional indicator of acute illness, case patients were nearly two times more likely than their controls to experience impaired respiratory function (OR 1.78; 95% CI 1.19–2.67; p = 0.005). Indicators of acute illness included emergency admission, being transferred from a critical care unit for the procedure or requiring respiratory or haemodynamic support in the lead up to the procedure. Conclusion: Several factors that predict the likelihood of impaired respiratory function were identified. The results from this study could be used to inform prospective studies investigating the effectiveness of interventions for impaired respiratory function during nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory.

Respiratory monitoring practices during procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory could be improved by using capnography to assess ventilation

Background: Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) administered by nurses in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory (CCL) is unlikely to yield serious complications. However, the safety of this practice is dependent on timely identification and treatment of depressed respiratory function. Aim: Describe respiratory monitoring in the CCL. Methods: Retrospective medical record audit of adult patients who underwent a procedure in the CCLs of one private hospital in Brisbane during May and June 2010. An electronic database was used to identify subjects and an audit tool ensured data collection was standardised. Results: Nurses administered PSA during 172/473 (37%) procedures including coronary angiographies, percutaneous coronary interventions, electrophysiology studies, radiofrequency ablations, cardiac pacemakers, implantable cardioverter defibrillators, temporary pacing leads and peripheral vascular interventions. Oxygen saturations were recorded during 160/172 (23%) procedures, respiration rate was recorded during 17/172 (10%) procedures, use of oxygen supplementation was recorded during 40/172 (23%) procedures and 13/172 (7.5%; 95% CI=3.59–11.41%) patients experienced oxygen desaturation. Conclusion: Although oxygen saturation was routinely documented, nurses did not regularly record respiration observations. It is likely that surgical draping and the requirement to minimise radiation exposure interfered with nurses’ ability to observe respiration. Capnography could overcome these barriers to respiration assessment as its accurate measurement of exhaled carbon dioxide coupled with the easily interpretable waveform output it produces, which displays a breath-by-breath account of ventilation, enables identification of respiratory depression in real-time. Results of this audit emphasise the need to ascertain the clinical benefits associated with using capnography to assess ventilation during PSA in the CCL.

Nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory : a mixed methods study

The cardiac catheterisation laboratory (CCL) is a specialised medical radiology facility where both chronic-stable and life-threatening cardiovascular illness is evaluated and treated. Although there are many potential sources of discomfort and distress associated with procedures performed in the CCL, a general anaesthetic is not usually required. For this reason, an anaesthetist is not routinely assigned to the CCL. Instead, to manage pain, discomfort and anxiety during the procedure, nurses administer a combination of sedative and analgesic medications according to direction from the cardiologist performing the procedure. This practice is referred to as nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA). While anecdotal evidence suggested that nurse-administered PSA was commonly used in the CCL, it was clear from the limited information available that current nurse-led PSA administration and monitoring practices varied and that there was contention around some aspects of practice including the type of medications that were suitable to be used and the depth of sedation that could be safely induced without an anaesthetist present. The overall aim of the program of research presented in this thesis was to establish an evidence base for nurse-led sedation practices in the CCL context. A sequential mixed methods design was used over three phases. The objective of the first phase was to appraise the existing evidence for nurse-administered PSA in the CCL. Two studies were conducted. The first study was an integrative review of empirical research studies and clinical practice guidelines focused on nurse-administered PSA in the CCL as well as in other similar procedural settings. This was the first review to systematically appraise the available evidence supporting the use of nurse-administered PSA in the CCL. A major finding was that, overall, nurse-administered PSA in the CCL was generally deemed to be safe. However, it was concluded from the analysis of the studies and the guidelines that were included in the review, that the management of sedation in the CCL was impacted by a variety of contextual factors including local hospital policy, workforce constraints and cardiologists’ preferences for the type of sedation used. The second study in the first phase was conducted to identify a sedation scale that could be used to monitor level of sedation during nurse-administered PSA in the CCL. It involved a structured literature review and psychometric analysis of scale properties. However, only one scale was found that was developed specifically for the CCL, which had not undergone psychometric testing. Several weaknesses were identified in its item structure. Other sedation scales that were identified were developed for the ICU. Although these scales have demonstrated validity and reliability in the ICU, weaknesses in their item structure precluded their use in the CCL. As findings indicated that no existing sedation scale should be applied to practice in the CCL, recommendations for the development and psychometric testing of a new sedation scale were developed. The objective of the second phase of the program of research was to explore current practice. Three studies were conducted in this phase using both quantitative and qualitative research methods. The first was a qualitative explorative study of nurses’ perceptions of the issues and challenges associated with nurse-administered PSA in the CCL. Major themes emerged from analysis of the qualitative data regarding the lack of access to anaesthetists, the limitations of sedative medications, the barriers to effective patient monitoring and the impact that the increasing complexity of procedures has on patients' sedation requirements. The second study in Phase Two was a cross-sectional survey of nurse-administered PSA practice in Australian and New Zealand CCLs. This was the first study to quantify the frequency that nurse-administered PSA was used in the CCL setting and to characterise associated nursing practices. It was found that nearly all CCLs utilise nurse-administered PSA (94%). Of note, by characterising nurse-administered PSA in Australian and New Zealand CCLs, several strategies to improve practice, such as setting up protocols for patient monitoring and establishing comprehensive PSA education for CCL nurses, were identified. The third study in Phase Two was a matched case-control study of risk factors for impaired respiratory function during nurse-administered PSA in the CCL setting. Patients with acute illness were found to be nearly twice as likely to experience impaired respiratory function during nurse-administered PSA (OR=1.78; 95%CI=1.19-2.67; p=0.005). These significant findings can now be used to inform prospective studies investigating the effectiveness of interventions for impaired respiratory function during nurse-administered PSA in the CCL. The objective of the third and final phase of the program of research was to develop recommendations for practice. To achieve this objective, a synthesis of findings from the previous phases of the program of research informed a modified Delphi study, which was conducted to develop a set of clinical practice guidelines for nurse-administered PSA in the CCL. The clinical practice guidelines that were developed set current best practice standards for pre-procedural patient assessment and risk screening practices as well as the intra and post-procedural patient monitoring practices that nurses who administer PSA in the CCL should undertake in order to deliver safe, evidence-based and consistent care to the many patients who undergo procedures in this setting. In summary, the mixed methods approach that was used clearly enabled the research objectives to be comprehensively addressed in an informed sequential manner, and, as a consequence, this thesis has generated a substantial amount of new knowledge to inform and support nurse-led sedation practice in the CCL context. However, a limitation of the research to note is that the comprehensive appraisal of the evidence conducted, combined with the guideline development process, highlighted that there were numerous deficiencies in the evidence base. As such, rather than being based on high-level evidence, many of the recommendations for practice were produced by consensus. For this reason, further research is required in order to ascertain which specific practices result in the most optimal patient and health service outcomes. Therefore, along with necessary guideline implementation and evaluation projects, post-doctoral research is planned to follow up on the research gaps identified, which are planned to form part of a continuing program of research in this field.

Acute illness is a risk factor for impaired respiratory function during nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterization laboratory

Impaired respiratory function (IRF) during procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) poses considerable risk to patient safety as it can lead to inadequate oxygenation and ventilation. Risk factors that can be screened prior to the procedure have not been identified for the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL).

Utility of dexmedetomidine in sedation for radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation.

[Letter to the Editor] I read with great interest the article recently published in the Journal of PeriAnesthesia Nursing that examined the utility of using dexmedetomidine (DEX) as an adjunct to midazolam and fentanyl for procedural sedation and analgesia during radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) of atrial fibrillation (AF).1 With the view toward advancing knowledge about more effective medications for sedation in this challenging context, I offer the following insights for readers to consider regarding this study...

Clinical practice guidelines for nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory : A modified Delphi study

Aim To develop clinical practice guidelines for nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. Background Numerous studies have reported that nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia is safe. However, the broad scope of existing guidelines for the administration and monitoring of patients who receive sedation during medical procedures without an anaesthetist presents means there is a lack of specific guidance regarding optimal nursing practices for the unique circumstances in which nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia is used in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory. Methods A sequential mixed methods design was utilised. Initial recommendations were produced from three studies conducted by the authors: an integrative review; a qualitative study; and a cross-sectional survey. The recommendations were revised in accordance with responses from a modified Delphi study. The first Delphi round was completed by nine senior cardiac catheterisation laboratory nurses. All but one of the draft recommendations met the pre-determined cut-off point for inclusion. There were a total of 59 responses to the second round. Consensus was reached on all recommendations. Implications for nursing The guidelines that were derived from the Delphi study offer twenty four recommendations within six domains of nursing practice: Pre-procedural assessment; Pre-procedural patient and family education; Pre-procedural patient comfort; Intra-procedural patient comfort; Intra-procedural patient assessment and monitoring; and Post-procedural patient assessment and monitoring. Conclusion These guidelines provide an important foundation towards the delivery of safe, consistent and evidence-based nursing care for the many patients who receive sedation in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory setting.

A review of sedation scales for the cardiac catheterization laboratory

Sedation scales have the potential to facilitate effective procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterization laboratory (CCL). For this potential to become realised, a scale that is suitable for use in the CCL either needs to be identified or developed. To identify sedation scales, a review of Medline and CINHAL was conducted. One sedation scale for the CCL, the NASPE SED, 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. 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 because it will be the most 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 paper.

Depth of anaesthesia monitoring during procedural sedation and analgesia: A systematic review protocol

Background Procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is used to attenuate the pain and distress that may otherwise be experienced during diagnostic and interventional medical or dental procedures. As the risk of adverse events increases with the depth of sedation induced, frequent monitoring of level of consciousness is recommended. Level of consciousness is usually monitored during PSA with clinical observation. Processed electroencephalogram-based depth of anaesthesia (DoA) monitoring devices provide an alternative method to monitor level of consciousness that can be used in addition to clinical observation. However, there is uncertainty as to whether their routine use in PSA would be justified. Rigorous evaluation of the clinical benefits of DoA monitors during PSA, including comprehensive syntheses of the available evidence, is therefore required. One potential clinical benefit of using DoA monitoring during PSA is that the technology could improve patient safety by reducing sedation-related adverse events, such as death or permanent neurological disability. We hypothesise that earlier identification of lapses into deeper than intended levels of sedation using DoA monitoring leads to more effective titration of sedative and analgesic medications, and results in a reduction in the risk of adverse events caused by the consequences of over-sedation, such as hypoxaemia. The primary objective of this review is to determine whether using DoA monitoring during PSA in the hospital setting improves patient safety by reducing the risk of hypoxaemia (defined as an arterial partial pressure of oxygen below 60 mmHg or percentage of haemoglobin that is saturated with oxygen [SpO2] less than 90 %). Other potential clinical benefits of using DoA monitoring devices during sedation will be assessed as secondary outcomes. Methods/design Electronic databases will be systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing the use of depth of anaesthesia monitoring devices with clinical observation of level of consciousness during PSA. Language restrictions will not be imposed. Screening, study selection and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers. Disagreements will be resolved by discussion. Meta-analyses will be performed if suitable. Discussion This review will synthesise the evidence on an important potential clinical benefit of DoA monitoring during PSA within hospital settings.

Inadvertent hypothermia after procedural sedation and analgesia in a cardiac catheterisation laboratory: A prospective observational study

Objective To identify the prevalence of and risk factors for inadvertent hypothermia after procedures performed with procedural sedation and analgesia in a cardiac catheterisation laboratory. Design Single-centre, prospective observational study. Setting Tertiary care private hospital in Australia. Participants A convenience sample of 399 patients undergoing elective procedures with procedural sedation and analgesia were included. Propofol infusions were used when an anaesthetist was present. Otherwise, bolus doses of either midazolam or fentanyl or a combination of these medications was used. Interventions None Measurements and main results Hypothermia was defined as a temperature <36.0° Celsius. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify risk factors. Hypothermia was present after 23.3% (n=93; 95% confidence interval [CI] 19.2%-27.4%) of 399 procedures. Sedative regimens with the highest prevalence of hypothermia were any regimen that included propofol (n=35; 40.2%; 95% CI 29.9%-50.5%) and the use of fentanyl combined with midazolam (n=23; 20.3%; 95% CI 12.9%-27.7%). Difference in mean temperature from pre to post-procedure was -0.27°C (Standard deviation [SD] 0.45). Receiving propofol (odds ratio [OR] OR 4.6 95% CI 2.5-8.6), percutaneous coronary intervention (OR 3.2 95% CI 1.7-5.9), body mass index <25 (OR 2.5 95% CI 1.4-4.4) and being hypothermic prior to the procedure (OR 4.9; 95% CI 2.3-10.8) were independent predictors of post-procedural hypothermia. Conclusions A moderate prevalence of hypothermia was observed. The small absolute change in temperature observed may not be a clinically important amount. More research is needed to increase confidence in our estimates of hypothermia in sedated patients and its impact on clinical outcomes.

Capnography monitoring during procedural sedation and analgesia: A systematic review protocol

Background An important potential clinical benefit of using capnography monitoring during procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) is that this technology could improve patient safety by reducing serious sedation-related adverse events, such as death or permanent neurological disability, which are caused by inadequate oxygenation. The hypothesis is that earlier identification of respiratory depression using capnography leads to a change in clinical management that prevents hypoxaemia. As inadequate oxygenation/ventilation is the most common reason for injury associated with PSA, reducing episodes of hypoxaemia would indicate that using capnography would be safer than relying on standard monitoring alone. Methods/design The primary objective of this review is to determine whether using capnography during PSA in the hospital setting improves patient safety by reducing the risk of hypoxaemia (defined as an arterial partial pressure of oxygen below 60 mmHg or percentage of haemoglobin that is saturated with oxygen [SpO2] less than 90 %). A secondary objective of this review is to determine whether changes in the clinical management of sedated patients are the mediating factor for any observed impact of capnography monitoring on the rate of hypoxaemia. The potential adverse effect of capnography monitoring that will be examined in this review is the rate of inadequate sedation. Electronic databases will be searched for parallel, crossover and cluster randomised controlled trials comparing the use of capnography with standard monitoring alone during PSA that is administered in the hospital setting. Studies that included patients who received general or regional anaesthesia will be excluded from the review. Non-randomised studies will be excluded. Screening, study selection and data extraction will be performed by two reviewers. The Cochrane risk of bias tool will be used to assign a judgment about the degree of risk. Meta-analyses will be performed if suitable. Discussion This review will synthesise the evidence on an important potential clinical benefit of capnography monitoring during PSA within hospital settings. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42015023740