ASAP ECMO : antibiotic, sedative and analgesic pharmacokinetics during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation : a multi-centre study to optimise drug therapy during ECMO

BACKGROUND: Given the expanding scope of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and its variable impact on drug pharmacokinetics as observed in neonatal studies, it is imperative that the effects of the device on the drugs commonly prescribed in the intensive care unit (ICU) are further investigated. Currently, there are no data to confirm the appropriateness of standard drug dosing in adult patients on ECMO. Ineffective drug regimens in these critically ill patients can seriously worsen patient outcomes. This study was designed to describe the pharmacokinetics of the commonly used antibiotic, analgesic and sedative drugs in adult patients receiving ECMO. METHODS: This is a multi-centre, open-label, descriptive pharmacokinetic (PK) study. Eligible patients will be adults treated with ECMO for severe cardiac and/or respiratory failure at five Intensive Care Units in Australia and New Zealand. Patients will receive the study drugs as part of their routine management. Blood samples will be taken from indwelling catheters to investigate plasma concentrations of several antibiotics (ceftriaxone, meropenem, vancomycin, ciprofloxacin, gentamicin, piperacillin-tazobactum, ticarcillin-clavulunate, linezolid, fluconazole, voriconazole, caspofungin, oseltamivir), sedatives and analgesics (midazolam, morphine, fentanyl, propofol, dexmedetomidine, thiopentone). The PK of each drug will be characterised to determine the variability of PK in these patients and to develop dosing guidelines for prescription during ECMO. DISCUSSION: The evidence-based dosing algorithms generated from this analysis can be evaluated in later clinical studies. This knowledge is vitally important for optimising pharmacotherapy in these most severely ill patients to maximise the opportunity for therapeutic success and minimise the risk of therapeutic failure

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.

Is sedation by non-anaesthetists really safe?

I read with great interest the editorial recently published in the British Journal of Anaesthesia that questioned whether sedation by non-anaesthetists is really safe. The authors noted their ‘grave concerns’ about the emerging practice of non-anaesthetist administered propofol (NAAP) during electrophysiology procedures. I offer the following insights into this issue.

A review of the effects of sedation on thermoregulation : insights for the cardiac catheterisation laboratory

Purpose To examine the effects that the sedative and analgesic medications which are commonly used in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory have on thermoregulation. Design A structured review strategy was used. Methods Medline and CINAHL were searched for published studies and reference lists of retrieved studies were scrutinized for further research. Data were extracted using a standardised extraction tool. Results A total of nine studies examined the effect that sedative and analgesic medications have on thermoregulation. Midazolam has minimal impact on thermoregulation while opioids, dexmedetomidine and propofol markedly decrease vasoconstriction and shivering thresholds. Conclusions Patients who receive sedation in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory may be at risk of hypothermia, due to the use of medications that impair thermoregulation. Further research is required to identify the prevalence of unplanned hypothermia during sedation in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory.

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.