Development of a rapid screening test for veterinary sedatives and the beta-blocker carazolol in porcine kidney by ELISA

Sedatives and tranquillisers are frequently used to reduce stress during the transportation of food producing animals. The most widely used classes of sedatives include the butyrophenone azaperone, the phenothiazines acepromazine, propionylpromazine, chlorpromazine and the beta-blocker, carazolol. For regulatory control purposes, tolerances for azaperone and carazolol have been set by the European Union as 100 and 25 mug kg(-1), respectively. Furthermore, the use of the phenothiazines is prohibited and therefore has a zero tolerance. A method for the detection of residues of five tranquillisers and one beta-blocker using a single ELISA plate has been developed. Kidney samples (2.5 g) were extracted with dichloromethane and applied to a competitive enzyme immunoassay using three polyclonal antibodies raised in rabbits against azaperol, propionylpromazine and carazolol conjugates. In sample matrix, the azaperol antibody cross-reacted 28.0% with azaperone and the propionylpromazine antibody cross-reacted 24.9% with acepromazine and 11.7% with chlorpromazine. In the ELISA, the detection capabilities of the six sedatives, azaperol, azaperone, carazolol, acepromazine, chlorpromazine, and propionylpromazine are 5, 15, 5, 5, 20 and 5 mug kg(-1), respectively. The proposed method is a sensitive and rapid multi-residue technique that offers a cost effective alternative to current published procedures, without any concession on the ability to detect sedative misuse.

Utilization of analgesics, sedatives, and pain scores in infants with a prolonged hospitlaization: A prospective descriptive cohort study

Aim
Describe the utilization of analgesic and sedative medications and documentation of pain scores in a cohort of critically ill infants in a neonatal intensive care unit.

Method
A prospective, longitudinal, cohort study of infants with a predicted length of stay =28 days. Dosages and routes of administration of analgesic and sedative medications and documentation of pain scores were collected on a daily basis.

Results
55 infants were enrolled into the study. Oral sucrose was administered to all 55 infants, 51 infants (93%) were administered enteral acetaminophen and 50 (91%) infants were administered morphine during their hospitalization. Sedatives were administered to 42 infants (76%); 36 (65%) were administered chloral hydrate and 32 (58%) were administered intravenous midazolam. With the exception of the first week of admission, when there was highest utilization of opioids and lower use of sucrose, acetaminophen and sedatives, the pattern of administration of analgesic and sedative agents remained relatively constant throughout the hospitalization. Pain scores were documented for 36 (65%) infants during their hospitalisation, however for these 36 infants, pain scores were infrequently recorded.

Conclusion
There was substantial and varied analgesic and sedative use in this cohort of infants, yet infrequent documentation of pain assessment scores. These practices highlight important clinical implications for sick infants requiring careful consideration of pain and distress management.

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.

Weaning from ventilation

Aims/purpose: Getting off the ventilator is an important patient-centred outcome for patients with acute respiratory failure. It signifies an improvement in patient condition, enables easier communication, reduces fear and anxiety and consequently a reduced requirement for sedatives. Weaning from ventilation therefore is a core ICU nursing task that is addressed in this presentation.
Presentation description: There are different schools of thought on when ventilator weaning begins including: (a) from intubation with titration of support; and (b) only when the patient’s condition improves. There are also different schools of thought on how to wean including gradual reductions in ventilator support to: (a) a low level consistent with extubation; or (b) to a level to attempt a spontaneous breathing trial followed by extubation if successful. Regardless of the approach, what is patient-relevant is the need to determine early when the patient may be ‘ready’ to discontinue ventilation. This time point can be assessed using simple criteria and should involve all ICU staff to the level of their experience. This presentation challenges the notion that only senior nurses or nurses with a ‘weaning course’ should be involved in the weaning process and proposes opportunities for engaging nurses with all levels of experience.
Conclusion: An ICU nursing taskforce that is focused and engaged in determining patient readiness for weaning can make a strong contribution to patient-relevant outcomes.