Pain management and the effect of guidelines in neonatal units in Austria, Germany and Switzerland

BACKGROUND: Painful invasive procedures are frequently performed on preterm infants admitted to a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU). The aim of the present study was to investigate current pain management in Austrian, German and Swiss NICU and to identify factors associated with improved pain management in preterm infants. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all Austrian, German and Swiss pediatric hospitals with an NICU (n = 370). Pain assessment and documentation, use of analgesics for 13 painful procedures, presence of written guidelines for pain management and the use of 12 analgesics and sedatives were examined. RESULTS: A total of 225 units responded (61%). Pain assessment and documentation and frequent analgesic therapy for painful procedures were performed more often in units using written guidelines for pain management and in those treating >50 preterm infants at <32 weeks of gestation per year. This was also the case for the use of opioid analgesics and sucrose solution. Non-opioid analgesics were used more often in smaller units and in units with written guidelines. There was a broad variation in dosage of analgesics and sedatives within all groups. CONCLUSION: Pain assessment, documentation of pain and analgesic therapy are more frequently performed in NICU with written guidelines for pain management and in larger units with more than 50 preterm infants at <32 weeks of gestation per year.

When drugs disappear from the patient: elimination of intravenous medication by hemodiafiltration

Twenty-three hours after heart transplantation, life-threatening acute right heart failure was diagnosed in a patient requiring continuous venovenous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF). Increasing doses of catecholamines, sedatives, and muscle relaxants administered through a central venous catheter were ineffective. However, a bolus of epinephrine injected through an alternative catheter provoked a hypertensive crisis. Thus, interference with the central venous infusion by the dialysis catheter was suspected. The catheters were changed, and hemodynamics stabilized at lower catecholamine doses. When the effects of IV drugs are inadequate in patients receiving CVVHDF, interference with adjacent catheters resulting in elimination of the drug by CVVHDF should be suspected.

Dexmedetomidine versus standard care sedation with propofol or midazolam in intensive care: an economic evaluation.

INTRODUCTION Dexmedetomidine was shown in two European randomized double-blind double-dummy trials (PRODEX and MIDEX) to be non-inferior to propofol and midazolam in maintaining target sedation levels in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Additionally, dexmedetomidine shortened the time to extubation versus both standard sedatives, suggesting that it may reduce ICU resource needs and thus lower ICU costs. Considering resource utilization data from these two trials, we performed a secondary, cost-minimization analysis assessing the economics of dexmedetomidine versus standard care sedation. METHODS The total ICU costs associated with each study sedative were calculated on the basis of total study sedative consumption and the number of days patients remained intubated, required non-invasive ventilation, or required ICU care without mechanical ventilation. The daily unit costs for these three consecutive ICU periods were set to decline toward discharge, reflecting the observed reduction in mean daily Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System (TISS) points between the periods. A number of additional sensitivity analyses were performed, including one in which the total ICU costs were based on the cumulative sum of daily TISS points over the ICU period, and two further scenarios, with declining direct variable daily costs only. RESULTS Based on pooled data from both trials, sedation with dexmedetomidine resulted in lower total ICU costs than using the standard sedatives, with a difference of €2,656 in the median (interquartile range) total ICU costs-€11,864 (€7,070 to €23,457) versus €14,520 (€7,871 to €26,254)-and €1,649 in the mean total ICU costs. The median (mean) total ICU costs with dexmedetomidine compared with those of propofol or midazolam were €1,292 (€747) and €3,573 (€2,536) lower, respectively. The result was robust, indicating lower costs with dexmedetomidine in all sensitivity analyses, including those in which only direct variable ICU costs were considered. The likelihood of dexmedetomidine resulting in lower total ICU costs compared with pooled standard care was 91.0% (72.4% versus propofol and 98.0% versus midazolam). CONCLUSIONS From an economic point of view, dexmedetomidine appears to be a preferable option compared with standard sedatives for providing light to moderate ICU sedation exceeding 24 hours. The savings potential results primarily from shorter time to extubation. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00479661 (PRODEX), NCT00481312 (MIDEX).