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.

Staff perceptions on the use of a sedation protocol in the intensive care setting

Sedation protocols are increasingly being investigated as a method of achieving improved patient outcomes whilst guiding the decision making of both nursing and medical practitioners. However, only a limited number of studies have investigated the perceptions of staff towards a sedation protocol during its implementation. This study was designed to survey the perceptions of staff regarding the implementation of a sedation protocol in an Australian intensive care unit (ICU). Questionnaires were distributed to all multidisciplinary team members who had used the sedation protocol. The response rate was 50% (n=70). The questionnaire combined the use of visual analogue scales plus a comments section to obtain qualitative data.

The results revealed that staff perceived sedation management to be enhanced with the use of a protocol and therefore should be incorporated into routine clinical practice. Staff perceived that providing clear guidelines that facilitated decision making and assisted beginner practitioners enhanced sedation management. In addition, there was a perceived improvement in the patient outcomes, including a decrease in the frequency of over-sedation resulting in a reduced ICU stay.

Positive perceptions may assist in the introduction of other interventional protocols. Other protocols may target areas where variability in clinical decision making exists, despite research evidence that supports specific therapeutic interventions. Further studies addressing protocol implementation for clinical interventions are warranted in other ICU settings.

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.

A randomized trial of protocol-directed sedation management for mechanical ventilation in an Australian intensive care unit

Objective: To compare protocol-directed sedation management with traditional non-protocol-directed practice in mechanically ventilated patients. Design: Randomized, controlled trial. Setting: General intensive care unit (24 beds) in an Australian metropolitan teaching hospital. Patients: Adult, mechanically ventilated patients (n = 312). Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive sedation directed by formal guidelines (protocol group, n = 153) or usual local clinical practice (control, n = 159). Measurements and Main Results: The median (95% confidence interval) duration of ventilation was 79 hrs (56-93 hrs) for patients in the protocol group compared with 58 hrs (44-78 hrs) for patients who received control care (p = .20). Lengths of stay (median [range]) in the intensive care unit (94 [2-1106] hrs vs. 88 (14-962) hrs, p = .58) and hospital (13 [1-113] days vs. 13 (1-365) days, p = .97) were similar, as were the proportions of subjects receiving a tracheostomy (17% vs. 15%, p = .64) or undergoing unplanned self-extubation (1.3% vs. 0.6%, p = .61). Death in the intensive care unit occurred in 32 (21%) patients in the protocol group and 32 (20%) control subjects (p = .89), with a similar overall proportion of deaths in hospital (25% vs. 22%, p = .51). A Cox proportional hazards model, after adjustment for age, gender, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, diagnostic category, and doses of commonly used drugs, estimated that protocol sedation management was associated with a 22% decrease (95% confidence interval 40% decrease to 2% increase, p = .07) in the occurrence of successful weaning from mechanical ventilation. Conclusions: This randomized trial provided no evidence of a substantial reduction in the duration of mechanical ventilation or length of stay, in either the intensive care unit or the hospital, with the use of protocol-directed sedation compared with usual local management. Qualified high-intensity nurse staffing and routine Australian intensive care unit nursing responsibility for many aspects of ventilatory practice may explain the contrast between these findings and some recent North American studies. (C) 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

A critical review of daily sedation interruption in the intensive care unit

Background. Daily sedation interruption (DSI) has been proposed as a method of improving sedation management of critically ill patients by reducing the adverse effects of continuous sedation infusions.

Aim. To critique the research regarding daily sedation interruption, to inform education, research and practice in this area of intensive care practice.

Design. Literature review.

Method. Medline, CINAHL and Web of Science were searched for relevant key terms. Eight research-based studies, published in the English language between 1995–December 2006 and three conference abstracts were retrieved.

Results. Of the eight articles and three conference abstracts reviewed, five originated from one intensive care unit (ICU) in the USA. The research indicates that DSI reduces ventilation time, length of stay in ICU, complications of critical illness, incidence of post-traumatic stress disorder and is reportedly used by 15–62% of ICU clinicians in Australia, Europe, USA and Canada.

Conclusions. DSI improves patients' physiological and psychological outcomes when compared with routine sedation management. However, research relating to these findings has methodological limitations, such as the use of homogenous samples, single-centre trials and retrospective design, thus limiting their generalisability.

Relevance to clinical practice. DSI may provide clinicians with a simple, cost-effective method of reducing some adverse effects of sedation on ICU patients. However, the evidence supporting DSI is limited and cannot be generalised to heterogeneous ICU populations internationally. More robust research is required to assess the potential impact of DSI on the physical and mental health of ICU survivors.

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

Does an evidence-based sedation protocol improve practice and patient outcomes in critical care?

Learning Objective 1: compare protocol-directed sedation management with traditional non-protocol-directed practice in mechanically ventilated patients in an Australian critical care.

Learning Objective 2: explain the contrasting international research findings on sedation protocol implementation.
Minimization of sedation in critical care patients has recently received widespread support. Professional organizations internationally have published sedation management guidelines for critically ill patients to improve the use of research in practice, decrease practice variability and shorten mechanical ventilation duration. Innovations in practice have included the introduction of decision making protocols, daily sedation interruptions and new drugs and monitoring technologies. The aim of this study was to compare protocol-directed sedation management with traditional non-protocol-directed practice in mechanically ventilated patients in an Australian critical care setting.

A randomized, controlled trial design was used to study 312 mechanically ventilated adult patients in a general critical care unit at an Australian metropolitan teaching hospital. Patients were randomly assigned to receive protocol directed sedation management developed from evidence based guidelines (n=153) or usual clinical practice (n=159).

The median (95% CI) duration of ventilation was 58 hrs (44–78 hrs) for patients in the non-protocol group and 79 hrs (56–93) for those patients in the protocol group (p=0.20). Results were not significant for length of stay in critical care or hospital, the frequency of tracheostomies, and unplanned extubations. A Cox proportional hazards model estimated that protocol directed sedation management was associated with a 22% decrease (95% CI: 40% decrease to 2% increase, p=0.07) in the occurrence of successful weaning from mechanical ventilation.

Few randomized controlled trials have evaluated the effectiveness of protocol-directed sedation outside of North America. This study highlights the lack of transferability between different settings and different models of care. Qualified, high intensity nursing in the Australian critical care setting facilitates rapid, responsive decisions for sedation management and an increased success rate for weaning from mechanical ventilation.

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.