Patient anxiety and IV sedation in Northern Ireland

Background In recent years there has been an increase in the provision of conscious sedation, which is said to be a safe and effective means of managing the anxious patient. However, there are no guidelines to aid the dental practitioner in assessing the patient's need for sedation based on their level of anxiety.

Aims and methods The present study investigated the importance of patient anxiety as an indicator for IV sedation, using focus groups to inform the development of narrative vignettes. Ninety-nine practitioners responded to a series of scenarios to determine whether the level of patient anxiety and the patient's demand for IV sedation influenced their decision making.

Results Level of dental anxiety had a stronger influence on the clinician's decision making than patient demand, with increasing levels of dental anxiety being positively associated with the likelihood of clinicians indicating a need for IV patient sedation and also, the likelihood of clinicians providing IV sedation to these patients. Only 14% (n = 14) of respondents reported formally assessing dental anxiety.

Conclusions While dental anxiety is considered to be a key factor in determining the need for IV sedation, there is a lack of guidance regarding the assessment of anxiety among patients.

A study of patient attitudes towards fasting prior to intravenous sedation for dental treatment in a dental hospital department

INTRODUCTION: Intravenous sedation is the most commonly used method of sedation for the provision of adult dental care. However, disparity exists in pre-operative fasting times in use for patients throughout the United Kingdom.

AIMS: The aims of the study were to obtain information on the effects of existing extended pre-operative fasting regimens, to canvas patient opinions on the fasting process, and to record their positive and negative experiences associated with it.

METHODS: A prospective cross-sectional descriptive study using survey methodology was conducted of adult patients attending a dental hospital for operative treatment under intravenous sedation. Sixty-four questionnaires were distributed over a four-month period, beginning 2nd October 2007.

RESULTS: The surveyed patient pool consisted of 38 females and 14 males with a mean age of 32.4 years. The response rate achieved was 81.2%. Seventy-one per cent of patients indicated that normally they consumed something for breakfast, the most common items being tea and toast. Fifty-one per cent of patients indicated that they would wish to eat the same as normal prior to their appointment and 59% wished to drink as normal. Only 19% of respondents reported that they did not wish to eat anything, with 8% preferring not to drink anything at all. Seventy-nine per cent of the patients reported that they had experienced at least one adverse symptom after fasting and 42% had experienced two or more such symptoms. In general, those patients with more experience of sedation found fasting less unpleasant than those attending for the first time (P<0.05). In addition, one-quarter of all patients indicated that the fasting process had made them feel more nervous about their sedation appointment.

CONCLUSIONS: The extended fasting regimen prior to intravenous sedation appeared to affect patients' wellbeing, as the majority reported adverse symptoms.

Pre-operative fasting for intravenous conscious sedation used in dental treatment: are conclusions based on relative risk management or evidence?

Intravenous sedation is a widely used pharmacological method of patient management commonly used in dental surgery for the treatment of anxious patients. Variety exists in fasting regimes between different centres offering dental sedation, with some advocating starvation in line with general anaesthesia protocols and others not enforcing starvation at all. The currently available guidelines on fasting protocols are ambiguous and open to interpretation partly because they are based on expert opinion rather than evidence-based research. This article reviews the available evidence on the subject of pre-operative fasting and discusses current guidelines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014014101.

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

DESCRIBING SLEEP AND SEDATION PRACTICES IN THE ICU: A MULTINATIONAL SURVEY

Introduction Sleep disturbances are common in critically ill patients treated in the intensive care unit (ICU) with the potential for serious consequences and long-term effects on health outcomes and patient morbidity.
Objectives Our aim was to describe sleep management and sedation practices of adult ICUs in ten countries and to evaluate roles and responsibilities of the ICU staff in relation to key sleep and sedation decisions.
Methods A multicenter, self-administered survey sent to nurse managers of adult ICUs across 10 countries. The questionnaire comprised four domains: sleep characteristics of the critically ill; sleep and sedation practices; non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions used to improve sleep; and the autonomy and influence of nurses on sleeping practices in the ICU.
Results Overall response rate was 66% (range 32% UK to 100% Cyprus), providing data from 522 ICUs. In all countries, the most frequent patient characteristic perceived to identify sleep was lying quietly with closed eyes (N=409, 78%) (range 92% Denmark to 36% Italy). The most commonly used sedation scale was the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Score (RASS) (N=220, 42%) (range 81% UK to 0% Denmark, Cyprus where most ICUs used the Ramsay score). In most ICUs, selection of sleep medication (N=265, 51%) and assessment of effect (N=309, 59%) was performed by physicians and nurses based on collaborative discussion. In a minority of ICUs (N=161, 31%), decisions and assessments were made by physicians alone. The most commonly used (in all countries) non-pharmacological intervention to promote sleep was reducing ICU staff noise (N=473, 91%) (range 100% Denmark, Norway to 78% Canada). Only 95 ICUs (18%) used earplugs on a frequent basis (range 0% Greece, Cyprus, Denmark to 57% Sweden). Propofol was the drug used most commonly for sedation (N=359, 69%) (range 96% Sweden to 29% Canada). Chloral hydrate was used by only 63 (12%) ICUs (range 0% Greece, Cyprus, Denmark, Italy to 56% Germany). Sedation scales were used on a routine basis by 77% of the 522 ICUs. Participants scored nursing autonomy for sleep and sedation management as moderate; median score of 5 (scale of 0 to 10), range 7 (Canada, Greece, Sweden) to 4 (Norway, Poland). Nursing influence on sleep and sedation decisions was perceived considerable; median score 8, range 9 (Denmark) to 5 (Poland).
Conclusions We found considerable across country variation in sleep promotion and sedation management practices though most have adopted a sedation scale as recommended in professional society guidelines. Most ICUs in all countries used a range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to promote sleep. Most units reported inter-professional decision-making with nurses perceived to have substantial influence on sleep/sedation decisions.

Effects of amisulpride, risperidone and chlorpromazine on auditory and visual latent inhibition, prepulse inhibition, executive function and eye movements in healthy volunteers.

In view of the evidence that cognitive deficits in schizophrenia are critically important for long-term outcome, it is essential to establish the effects that the various antipsychotic compounds have on cognition, particularly second-generation drugs. This parallel group, placebo-controlled study aimed to compare the effects in healthy volunteers (n = 128) of acute doses of the atypical antipsychotics amisulpride (300 mg) and risperidone (3 mg) to those of chlorpromazine (100 mg) on tests thought relevant to the schizophrenic process: auditory and visual latent inhibition, prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle response, executive function and eye movements. The drugs tested were not found to affect auditory latent inhibition, prepulse inhibition or executive functioning as measured by the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Battery and the FAS test of verbal fluency. However, risperidone disrupted and amisulpride showed a trend to disrupt visual latent inhibition. Although amisulpride did not affect eye movements, both risperidone and chlorpromazine decreased peak saccadic velocity and increased antisaccade error rates, which, in the risperidone group, correlated with drug-induced akathisia. It was concluded that single doses of these drugs appear to have little effect on cognition, but may affect eye movement parameters in accordance with the amount of sedation and akathisia they produce. The effect risperidone had on latent inhibition is likely to relate to its serotonergic properties. Furthermore, as the trend for disrupted visual latent inhibition following amisulpride was similar in nature to that which would be expected with amphetamine, it was concluded that its behaviour in this model is consistent with its preferential presynaptic dopamine antagonistic activity in low dose and its efficacy in the negative symptoms of schizophrenia.

A randomised, controlled trial of conventional versus automated weaning from mechanical ventilation using SmartcareTM/PS

Objective
Preliminary assessment of an automated weaning system (SmartCare™/PS) compared to usual management of weaning from mechanical ventilation performed in the absence of formal protocols.


Design and setting
A randomised, controlled pilot study in one Australian intensive care unit.


Patients
A total of 102 patients were equally divided between SmartCare/PS and Control.

Interventions
The automated system titrated pressure support, conducted a spontaneous breathing trial and provided notification of success (“separation potential”).

Measurements and results
The median time from the first identified point of suitability for weaning commencement to the state of “separation potential” using SmartCare/PS was 20 h (interquartile range, IQR, 2–40) compared to 8 h (IQR 2–43) with Control (log-rank P = 0.3). The median time to successful extubation was 43 h (IQR 6–169) using SmartCare/PS and 40 (14–87) with Control (log-rank P = 0.6). Unadjusted, the estimated probability of reaching “separation potential” was 21% lower (95% CI, 48% lower to 20% greater) with SmartCare/PS compared to Control. Adjusted for other covariates (age, gender, APACHE II, SOFAmax, neuromuscular blockade, corticosteroids, coma and elevated blood glucose), these estimates were 31% lower (95% CI, 56% lower to 9% greater) with SmartCare/PS. The study groups showed comparable rates of reintubation, non-invasive ventilation post-extubation, tracheostomy, sedation, neuromuscular blockade and use of corticosteroids.

Conclusions
Substantial reductions in weaning duration previously demonstrated were not confirmed when the SmartCare/PS system was compared to weaning managed by experienced critical care specialty nurses, using a 1:1 nurse-to-patient ratio. The effect of SmartCare/PS may be influenced by the local clinical organisational context.

Neonatal procedural pain exposure predicts lower cortisol and behavioral reactivity in preterm infants in the NICU

Data from animal models indicate that neonatal stress or pain can permanently alter subsequent behavioral and/or physiological reactivity to stressors. However, cumulative effects of pain related to acute procedures in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) on later stress and/or pain reactivity has received limited attention. The objective of this study is to examine relationships between prior neonatal pain exposure (number of skin breaking procedures), and subsequent stress and pain reactivity in preterm infants in the NICU. Eighty-seven preterm infants were studied at 32 (+/-1 week) postconceptional age (PCA). Infants who received analgesia or sedation in the 72 h prior to each study, or any postnatal dexamethasone, were excluded. Outcomes were infant responses to two different stressors studied on separate days in a repeated measures randomized crossover design: (1) plasma cortisol to stress of a fixed series of nursing procedures; (2) behavioral (Neonatal Facial Coding System; NFCS) and cardiac reactivity to pain of blood collection. Among infants born