Sedation and analgesia management for mechanically ventilated adults: literature review, case study and recommentations for practice.

The quality of sedation management in mechanically ventilated patients has been a source of concern in recent years. This paper summarises the literature on the principles of optimal sedation, discusses the consequences of over and undersedation, highlighting the importance of appropriate pain management, and presents a case study using the results of an audit of 48 mechanically ventilated adults. As a result of the review and audit, we are implementing changes to practice.

The most important recommendations from the literature are the use of a sedation scale, setting of a goal sedation score, appropriate pain management and implementation of a nurse initiated sedation algorithm. Other recommendations include use of bolus rather than continuous sedative infusions and recommencing regular medications for anxiety, depression and other phychiatric disorders as soon as possible. A recommendation arising from our audit was the need to identify patients at high risk of oversedation and undersedation and adopt a proactive rather than reactive approach to management. The practice goal is to provide adequate and appropriate analgesia and anxiolysis for patients. This will improve patient comfort while reducing length of mechanical ventilation and minimising risk of complications.

Assessing the reliability of the sedation-agitation scale between nurses and doctors in a New Zealand ICU

The aim of the study was to determine whether nurses and doctors rate “real world” intensive care unit (ICU) patients similarly using the Sedation–Agitation Scale (SAS) in a generalist ICU context outside USA

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 realized, a scale that is suitable for use in the CCL either needs to be identified or developed.

Patients' experiences of cardiology procedures using minimal conscous sedation

Aim: The study's purpose was to describe patients' experiences of minimal conscious sedation during diagnostic and interventional cardiology procedures.

Methods: Over a 6-week period, 119 consecutive patients (10% of annual throughput) from a major metropolitan hospital in Melbourne, Australia, were interviewed using a modified version of the American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire. Patients identified pain severity using a 10-point visual analogue scale and rated their overall comfort on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from very comfortable to very uncomfortable.

Results: Patients were aged 67.6 years (standard deviation 11.1), 70.8% were male, and the mean body mass index was 27.7 (standard deviation 4.8). Patients underwent diagnostic coronary angiography (67.5%), percutaneous coronary interventions (13.3%), or combined procedures (19.2%). Most patients (65%) were comfortable in the context of low-dose conscious sedation. Slight discomfort was reported by 26% of patients; 9% reported feeling uncomfortable primarily as a result of a combination of musculoskeletal pain, angina, and vasovagal symptoms experienced during the procedure. There was significant correlation (rho = .25, P = .01) between procedure length and patients' report of overall comfort, suggesting longer procedures were less comfortable for patients.

Conclusions: The minimal sedation protocol was effective for the majority of patients; however, 9% of patients experienced significant discomfort related to preexisting conditions, highlighting the need for individual patient assessment before, during, and after the procedure.

General anaesthesia or conscious sedation for painful procedures in childhood cancer: the family's perspective

Background: Until recently, midazolam sedation was routinely used in our institution for bone marrow aspirates and lumbar punctures in children with cancer. It has been perceived by many doctors and nurses as being well tolerated by children and their families.

Aim: To compare the efficacy of inhalational general anaesthesia and midazolam sedation for these procedures.

Methods: A total of 96 children with neoplastic disorders, who received either inhalational general anaesthesia with sevoflurane, nitrous oxide, and oxygen (GA) or sedation with oral or nasal midazolam (SED) as part of their routine preparation for procedures were studied. The experiences of these childen were examined during their current procedure and during their first ever procedure. Main outcome measures were the degree of physical restraint used on the child, and the levels of distress and pain experienced by the child during the current procedure and during the first procedure. The family‘s preference for future procedures was also determined.

Results: During 102 procedures under GA, restraint was needed on four occasions (4%) when the anaesthetic mask was first applied, minimal pain was reported, and children were reported as distressed about 25% of the time. During 80 SED procedures, restraint was required in 94%, firm restraint was required in 66%, the child could not be restrained in 14%, median pain score was 6 (scale 0 (no pain) to 6 (maximum pain)), and 90% of the parents reported distress in their child. Ninety per cent of families wanted GA for future procedures. Many families reported dissatisfaction with the sedation regime and raised concerns about the restraint used on their child.

Conclusions: This general anaesthetic regime minimised the need for restraint and was associated with low levels of pain and distress. The sedation regime, by contrast, was much less effective. There was a significant disparity between the perceptions of health professionals and those of families with respect to how children coped with painful procedures.

Patient comfort in the intensive care unit : a multicentre, binational point prevalence study of analgesia, sedation and delirium management

Objective: To measure the prevalence of assessment and management practices for analgesia, sedation and delirium in patients in Australian and New Zealand intensive care units.
Materials and Methods: We developed survey items from a modified Delphi panel and included them in a binational, point prevalence study. We used a standard case report form to capture retrospective patient data on management of analgesia, sedation and delirium at the end of a 4-hour period on the study day. Other data were collected during independent assessment of patient status and medication requirements.
Results: Data were collected on 569 patients in 41 ICUs. Pain assessment was documented in the 4 hours before study observation in 46% of patients. Of 319 assessable patients, 16% had moderate pain and 6% had severe pain. Routine sedation assessment using a scale was recorded in 63% of intubated and ventilated patients. When assessed, 38% were alert and calm, or drowsy and rousable, 22% were lightly to moderately sedated, 31% were deeply sedated (66% of these had a documented indication), and 9% were agitated or restless. Sedatives were titrated to a target level in 42% of patients. Routine assessment of delirium occurred in 3%, and at study assessment 9% had delirium. Wrist or arm restraints were used for 7% of patients.
Conclusions: Only two-thirds of sedated patients had their sedation levels formally assessed, half had pain assessed and very few had formal assessment of delirium. Our description of current practices, and other observational data, may help in planning further research in this area.

Protocol-directed sedation versus non-protocol-directed sedation to reduce duration of mechanical ventilation in mechanically ventilated intensive care patients (review)

Background : The sedation needs of critically ill patients have been recognized as a core component of critical care and meeting these is vital to assist recovery and ensure humane treatment. There is growing evidence to suggest that sedation requirements are not always optimally managed. Sub-optimal sedation incorporates both under- and over-sedation and has been linked to both short-term (e.g. length of stay) and long-term (e.g. psychological recovery) outcomes. Various strategies have been proposed to improve sedation management and address aspects of assessment as well as delivery of sedation.

Objectives : To assess the effects of protocol-directed sedation management on the duration of mechanical ventilation and other relevant patient outcomes in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. We looked at various outcomes and examined the role of bias in order to examine the level of evidence for this intervention.

Search methods : We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL) (2013; Issue 11), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1990 to November 2013), EMBASE (OvidSP) (1990 to November 2013), CINAHL (BIREME host) (1990 to November 2013), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) (1990 to November 2013), LILACS (1990 to November 2013), Current Controlled Trials and US National Institutes of Health Clinical Research Studies (1990 to November 2013), and reference lists of articles. We re-ran the search in October 2014. We will deal with any studies of interest when we update the review.

Selection criteria : We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in adult ICUs comparing management with and without protocol-directed sedation.

Data collection and analysis : Two authors screened the titles and abstracts and then the full-text reports identified from our electronic search. We assessed seven domains of potential risk of bias for the included studies. We examined the clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity and used the random-effects model for meta-analysis where we considered it appropriate. We calculated the mean difference (MD) for duration of mechanical ventilation and risk ratio (RR) for mortality across studies, with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

Main results : We identified two eligible studies with 633 participants. Both included studies compared the use of protocol-directed sedation, specifically protocols delivered by nurses, with usual care. We rated the risk of selection bias due to random sequence generation low for one study and unclear for one study. The risk of selection bias related to allocation concealment was low for both studies. We also assessed detection and attrition bias as low for both studies while we considered performance bias high due to the inability to blind participants and clinicians in both studies. Risk due to other sources of bias, such as potential for contamination between groups and reporting bias, was considered unclear. There was no clear evidence of differences in duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -5.74 hours, 95% CI -62.01 to 50.53, low quality evidence), ICU length of stay (MD -0.62 days, 95% CI -2.97 to 1.73) and hospital length of stay (MD -3.78 days, 95% CI -8.54 to 0.97) between people being managed with protocol-directed sedation versus usual care. Similarly, there was no clear evidence of difference in hospital mortality between the two groups (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.31, low quality evidence). ICU mortality was only reported in one study preventing pooling of data. There was no clear evidence of difference in the incidence of tracheostomy (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.89). The studies reported few adverse event outcomes; one study reported self extubation while the other study reported re-intubation; given this difference in outcomes, pooling of data was not possible. There was significant heterogeneity between studies for duration of mechanical ventilation (I2 = 86%, P value = 0.008), ICU length of stay (I2 = 82%, P value = 0.02) and incidence of tracheostomy (I2 = 76%, P value = 0.04), with one study finding a reduction in duration of mechanical ventilation and incidence of tracheostomy and the other study finding no difference.

Authors' conclusions : There is currently insufficient evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of protocol-directed sedation. Results from the two RCTs were conflicting, resulting in the quality of the body of evidence as a whole being assessed as low. Further studies, taking into account contextual and clinician characteristics in different ICU environments, are necessary to inform future practice. Methodological strategies to reduce the risk of bias need to be considered in future studies.

Trajectory of sedation assessment and sedative use in intubated and ventilated patients in intensive care: a clinical audit

Background: Sedation is crucial for the recovery of patients in intensive care units (ICUs). Maintaining comfort and safety promotes optimal care for critically ill patients. Purpose: To examine sedation assessment and management undertaken by health professionals for mechanically ventilated patients in one Australian ICU. Methods: A retrospective clinical audit was undertaken of medical records of all eligible, mechanically ventilated patients admitted to an ICU of an Australian metropolitan, teaching hospital over a 12-month period. A Sedation Audit Tool was used to collect data from the day of intubation to 5 days after intubation. Findings: Data were extracted from medical records of 150 patients. The Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) was the scoring system used. Patients were unarousable or very sedated between 57% and 81% at some point during the study period, while between 5% and 11% were agitated, very agitated or extremely agitated across this time. Patients' sedation scores were not documented in between 3.3% and 23.3% of patients. Medications commonly used were propofol, midazolam, morphine, and fentanyl. There were 135 situations of adverse events, which related to patients pulling endotracheal tubes leading to malpositioning, patients biting endotracheal tubes causing desaturation, patient experiencing excessive agitation requiring restraint use, patients experiencing increased intracranial pressure above desired limits, patients self-extubating, and patients experiencing over-drowsiness leading to delays in extubation. Conclusions: Many patients were either very sedated or agitated at some point during the study period, and some patients experienced adverse outcomes associated with sedation practices. The findings inform future quality initiatives to improve sedation practices.