Auditory event-related potentials, bispectral index, and entropy for the discrimination of different levels of sedation in intensive care unit patients

BACKGROUND: Sedation protocols, including the use of sedation scales and regular sedation stops, help to reduce the length of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit stay. Because clinical assessment of depth of sedation is labor-intensive, performed only intermittently, and interferes with sedation and sleep, processed electrophysiological signals from the brain have gained interest as surrogates. We hypothesized that auditory event-related potentials (ERPs), Bispectral Index (BIS), and Entropy can discriminate among clinically relevant sedation levels. METHODS: We studied 10 patients after elective thoracic or abdominal surgery with general anesthesia. Electroencephalogram, BIS, state entropy (SE), response entropy (RE), and ERPs were recorded immediately after surgery in the intensive care unit at Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) scores of -5 (very deep sedation), -4 (deep sedation), -3 to -1 (moderate sedation), and 0 (awake) during decreasing target-controlled sedation with propofol and remifentanil. Reference measurements for baseline levels were performed before or several days after the operation. RESULTS: At baseline, RASS -5, RASS -4, RASS -3 to -1, and RASS 0, BIS was 94 [4] (median, IQR), 47 [15], 68 [9], 75 [10], and 88 [6]; SE was 87 [3], 46 [10], 60 [22], 74 [21], and 87 [5]; and RE was 97 [4], 48 [9], 71 [25], 81 [18], and 96 [3], respectively (all P < 0.05, Friedman Test). Both BIS and Entropy had high variabilities. When ERP N100 amplitudes were considered alone, ERPs did not differ significantly among sedation levels. Nevertheless, discriminant ERP analysis including two parameters of principal component analysis revealed a prediction probability PK value of 0.89 for differentiating deep sedation, moderate sedation, and awake state. The corresponding PK for RE, SE, and BIS was 0.88, 0.89, and 0.85, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Neither ERPs nor BIS or Entropy can replace clinical sedation assessment with standard scoring systems. Discrimination among very deep, deep to moderate, and no sedation after general anesthesia can be provided by ERPs and processed electroencephalograms, with similar P(K)s. The high inter- and intraindividual variability of Entropy and BIS precludes defining a target range of values to predict the sedation level in critically ill patients using these parameters. The variability of ERPs is unknown.

Intra- and inter-individual variation of BIS-index and Entropy during controlled sedation with midazolam/remifentanil and dexmedetomidine/remifentanil in healthy volunteers: an interventional study

INTRODUCTION: We studied intra-individual and inter-individual variability of two online sedation monitors, BIS and Entropy, in volunteers under sedation. METHODS: Ten healthy volunteers were sedated in a stepwise manner with doses of either midazolam and remifentanil or dexmedetomidine and remifentanil. One week later the procedure was repeated with the remaining drug combination. The doses were adjusted to achieve three different sedation levels (Ramsay Scores 2, 3 and 4) and controlled by a computer-driven drug-delivery system to maintain stable plasma concentrations of the drugs. At each level of sedation, BIS and Entropy (response entropy and state entropy) values were recorded for 20 minutes. Baseline recordings were obtained before the sedative medications were administered. RESULTS: Both inter-individual and intra-individual variability increased as the sedation level deepened. Entropy values showed greater variability than BIS(R) values, and the variability was greater during dexmedetomidine/remifentanil sedation than during midazolam/remifentanil sedation. CONCLUSIONS: The large intra-individual and inter-individual variability of BIS and Entropy values in sedated volunteers makes the determination of sedation levels by processed electroencephalogram (EEG) variables impossible. Reports in the literature which draw conclusions based on processed EEG variables obtained from sedated intensive care unit (ICU) patients may be inaccurate due to this variability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Nr. NCT00641563.

Double-blind comparison of rectally administered diazepam to placebo for pediatric sedation: the cardiovascular response.

The sedative and cardiovascular effects of rectally administered diazepam (0.6 mg/kg) were compared to placebo in uncooperative children who required sedation during dental treatment. Twelve healthy preschool children, who required amalgam restorations, were treated during two standardized restorative appointments in a double-blind, crossover study. Blood pressure and pulse were obtained during four specified intervals during the appointment. The behavior of the children during the treatment visits was videotaped and later statistically analyzed using a kinesics/vocalization instrument. Behavioral ratings of cooperation were significantly improved during the treatment visit following diazepam. All interfering bodily movements, patient vocalizations and operator commands for the diazepam group were reduced significantly (p≤0.0001). No significant differences were observed for noninterfering behavioral response. Rectally administered diazepam did not alter blood pressure or pulse significantly in these sedated children when compared to the placebo. These findings indicate that rectal diazepam is an effective sedative agent with minimal effect on the cardiovascular system for the management of the young pediatric dental patient.

Effect of sedation level on the prevalence of delirium when assessed with CAM-ICU and ICDSC

Purpose We hypothesized that reduced arousability (Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, RASS, scores −2 to −3) for any reason during delirium assessment increases the apparent prevalence of delirium in intensive care patients. To test this hypothesis, we assessed delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) in intensive care patients during sedation stops, and related the findings to the level of sedation, as assessed with RASS score. Methods We assessed delirium in 80 patients with ICU stay longer than 48 h using CAM-ICU and ICDSC during daily sedation stops. Sedation was assessed using RASS. The effect of including patients with a RASS of −2 and −3 during sedation stop (“light to moderate sedation”, eye contact less than 10 s or not at all, respectively) on prevalence of delirium was analyzed. Results A total of 467 patient days were assessed. The proportion of CAM-ICU-positive evaluations decreased from 53 to 31 % (p < 0.001) if assessments from patients at RASS −2/−3 (22 % of all assessments) were excluded. Similarly, the number of positive ICDSC results decreased from 51 to 29 % (p < 0.001). Conclusions Sedation per se can result in positive items of both CAM-ICU and ICDSC, and therefore in a diagnosis of delirium. Consequently, apparent prevalence of delirium is dependent on how a depressed level of consciousness after sedation stop is interpreted (delirium vs persisting sedation). We suggest that any reports on delirium using these assessment tools should be stratified for a sedation score during the assessment.

Intensive care sedation: the past, present and the future

Despite the universal prescription of sedative drugs in the intensive care unit (ICU), current practice is not guided by high-level evidence. Landmark sedation trials have made significant contributions to our understanding of the problems associated with ICU sedation and have promoted changes to current practice. We identified challenges and limitations of clinical trials which reduced the generalizability and the universal adoption of key interventions. We present an international perspective regarding current sedation practice and a blueprint for future research, which seeks to avoid known limitations and generate much-needed high-level evidence to better guide clinicians' management and therapeutic choices of sedative agents.

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).

Comparison of Bispectral Index (BIS) and Patient State Index (PSI) as objective measures of sedation and analgesia in critically ill/injured patients

Critically ill and injured patients require pain relief and sedation to reduce the body's stress response and to facilitate painful diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Presently, the level of sedation and analgesia is guided by the use of clinical scores which can be unreliable. There is therefore, a need for an objective measure of sedation and analgesia. The Bispectral Index (BIS) and Patient State Index (PSI) were recently introduced into clinical practice as objective measures of the depth of analgesia and sedation. ^ Aim. To compare the different measures of sedation and analgesia (BIS and PSI) to the standard and commonly used modified Ramsay Score (MRS) and determine if the monitors can be used interchangeably. ^ Methods. MRS, BIS and PSI values were obtained in 50 postoperative cardiac surgery patients requiring analgesia and sedation from June to December 2004. The MRS, BIS and PSI values were assessed hourly for up to 6-h by a single observer. ^ The relationship between BIS and PSI values were explored using scatter plots and correlation between MRS, BIS and PSI was determined using Spearman's correlation coefficient. Intra-class correlation (ICC) was used to determine the inter-rater reliability of MRS, BIS and PSI. Kappa statistics was used to further evaluate the agreement between BIS and PSI at light, moderate and deep levels of sedation. ^ Results. There was a positive correlation between BIS and PSI values (Rho = 0.731, p<0.001). Intra-class correlation between BIS and PSI was 0.58, MRS and BIS 0.43 and MRS and PSI 0.27. Using Kappa statistics, agreement between MRS and BIS was 0.35 (95% CI: 0.27–0.43) and for MRS and PSI was 0.21 (95% CI: 0.15–0.28). The kappa statistic for BIS and PSI was 0.45 (95% CI: 0.37–0.52). Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves constructed to detect undersedation indicated an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.91 (95% CI = 0.87 to 0.94) for the BIS and 0.84 (95% CI = 0.79 to 0.88) for the PSI. For detection of oversedation, AUC for the BIS was 0.89 (95% CI = 0.84 to 0.92) and 0.80 (95% CI = 0.75 to 0.85) for the PSI. ^ Conclusions. There is a statistically significant positive correlation between the BIS and PSI but poor correlation and poor test agreement between the MRS and BIS as well as MRS and PSI. Both the BIS and PSI demonstrated a high level of prediction for undersedation and oversedation; however, the BIS and PSI can not be considered interchangeable monitors of sedation. ^

Propofol sedation administered by cardiologists for patients undergoing catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia

AIMS Propofol sedation has been shown to be safe for atrial fibrillation ablation and internal cardioverter-defibrillator implantation but its use for catheter ablation (CA) of ventricular tachycardia (VT) has yet to be evaluated. Here, we tested the hypothesis that VT ablation can be performed using propofol sedation administered by trained nurses under a cardiologist's supervision. METHODS AND RESULTS Data of 205 procedures (157 patients, 1.3 procedures/patient) undergoing CA for sustained VT under propofol sedation were analysed. The primary endpoint was change of sedation and/or discontinuation of propofol sedation due to side effects and/or haemodynamic instability. Propofol cessation was necessary in 24 of 205 procedures. These procedures (Group A; n = 24, 11.7%) were compared with those with continued propofol sedation (Group B; n = 181, 88.3%). Propofol sedation was discontinued due to hypotension (n = 22; 10.7%), insufficient oxygenation (n = 1, 0.5%), or hypersalivation (n = 1, 0.5%). Procedures in Group A were significantly longer (210 [180-260] vs. 180 [125-220] min, P = 0.005), had a lower per hour propofol rate (3.0 ± 1.2 vs. 3.8 ± 1.2 mg/kg of body weight/h, P = 0.004), and higher cumulative dose of fentanyl administered (0.15 [0.13-0.25] vs. 0.1 [0.05-0.13] mg, P < 0.001), compared with patients in Group B. Five (2.4%) adverse events occurred. CONCLUSION Sedation using propofol can be safely performed for VT ablation under the supervision of cardiologists. Close haemodynamic monitoring is required, especially in elderly patients and during lengthy procedures, which carrying a higher risk for systolic blood pressure decline.

Adoption of a sedation scoring system and sedation guideline in an intensive care unit

Aim. The paper presents a study assessing the rate of adoption of a sedation scoring system and sedation guideline. Background. Clinical practice guidelines including sedation guidelines have been shown to improve patient outcomes by standardizing care. In particular sedation guidelines have been shown to be beneficial for intensive care patients by reducing the duration of ventilation. Despite the acceptance that clinical practice guidelines are beneficial, adoption rates are rarely measured. Adoption data may reveal other factors which contribute to improved outcomes. Therefore, the usefulness of the guideline may be more appropriately assessed by collecting adoption data. Method. A quasi-experimental pre-intervention and postintervention quality improvement design was used. Adoption was operationalized as documentation of sedation score every 4 hours and use of the sedation and analgesic medications suggested in the guideline. Adoption data were collected from patients' charts on a random day of the month; all patients in the intensive care unit on that day were assigned an adoption category. Sedation scoring system adoption data were collected before implementation of a sedation guideline, which was implemented using an intensive information-giving strategy, and guideline adoption data were fed back to bedside nurses. After implementation of the guideline, adoption data were collected for both the sedation scoring system and the guideline. The data were collected in the years 2002-2004. Findings. The sedation scoring system was not used extensively in the pre-intervention phase of the study; however, this improved in the postintervention phase. The findings suggest that the sedation guideline was gradually adopted following implementation in the postintervention phase of the study. Field notes taken during the implementation of the sedation scoring system and the guideline reveal widespread acceptance of both. Conclusion. Measurement of adoption is a complex process. Appropriate operationalization contributes to greater accuracy. Further investigation is warranted to establish the intensity and extent of implementation required to positively affect patient outcomes.