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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Aim : To develop clinical practice guidelines for nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia in the cardiac catheterization 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 present means there is a lack of specific guidance regarding optimal nursing practices for the unique circumstances where nurse-administered procedural sedation and analgesia is used in the cardiac catheterization laboratory.

Methods : A sequential mixed methods design was used. 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 according to responses from a modified Delphi study. The first Delphi round was completed by nine senior cardiac catheterization laboratory nurses. All but one of the draft recommendations met the predetermined cut-off point for inclusion with 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 24 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 Postprocedural 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 catheterization laboratory setting.

Estimulación con marcapasos para disminuir recurrencias en pacientes adultos con síncope vasovagal: una revisión sistemática

Introducción: El sincope vasovagal es la principal causa de pérdida transitoria de la consciencia. Las guías internacionales de tratamiento del síncope recomiendan con un nivel de evidencia débil, el implante de marcapasos para pacientes refractarios al tratamiento médico que tienen respuesta cardioinhibitoria. Hasta el momento no existe una revisión sistemática que resuma la mejor evidencia disponible a la fecha sobre la estimulación con marcapasos en síncope vasovagal para disminuir recurrencias. Métodos: Revisión sistemática de la literatura de ensayos clínicos aleatorizados acerca del uso del marcapasos en síncope vasovagal para disminuir recurrencias. Resultados: La búsqueda inicial arrojó un total de 299 resultados, de los cuales solo 8 cumplieron los criterios de selección. Se evaluó la recurrencia de síncopes en el grupo de estimulación con marcapasos comparada con el grupo sin estimulación. Con diferencias metodológicas marcadas en los estudios seleccionados en general no hay una evidencia sólida para asegurar que el marcapasos disminuye recurrencias de síncope vasovagal. Discusión: El marcapasos en síncope vasovagal no tiene efecto benéfico en disminución de recurrencias cuando se implanta a toda la población refractaria al tratamiento médico para disminuir recurrencias. Solamente un grupo con características clínicas muy seleccionadas podría beneficiarse de la estimulación con marcapasos para disminuir recurrencias de síncope. Conclusión: La evidencia disponible sugiere que el marcapasos no tiene efecto en disminución de recurrencias en todo el grupo de pacientes con síncope vasovagal refractarios a tratamiento médico.

Indications à la stimulation cardiaque dans la syncope vasovagale [Pacing in vasovagal syncope].

This article presents a critical review of the literature about the potential benefit of cardiac pacing in patients suffering from vasovagal or neurocardiogenic syncope. The manifestation of vasovagal syncope comprises some reflex bradycardia and vasoplegia resulting in cerebral hypoperfusion that ultimately leads to a loss of consciousness. The literature reports conflicting results of the potential benefit of cardiac pacing on the prevention of recurrence of vasovagal events. A detailed analysis of the inclusion criteria of these studies permits to clarify the discrepancy. Only patients older than 50 years with prolonged sinus pause at time of syncope benefit of the implantation of a cardiac pacemaker.