The effect of an algorithm-based sedation guideline on the duration of mechanical ventilation in an Australian intensive care unit

To examine the effect of an algorithm-based sedation guideline developed in a North American intensive care unit (ICU) on the duration of mechanical ventilation of patients in an Australian ICU. The intervention was tested in a pre-intervention, post-intervention comparative investigation in a 14-bed adult intensive care unit. Adult mechanically ventilated patients were selected consecutively (n =322) The pre-intervention and post-intervention groups were similar except for a higher number of patients with a neurological diagnosis in the pre-intervention group. An algorithm-based sedation guideline including a sedation scale was introduced using a multifaceted implementation strategy. The median duration of ventilation was 5.6 days in the post-intervention group, compared with 4.8 days for the pre-intervention group (P = 0.99). The length of stay was 8.2 days in the post-intervention group versus 7.1 days in the pre-intervention group (P = 0.04). There were no statistically significant differences for the other secondary outcomes, including the score on the Experience of Treatment in ICU 7 item questionnaire, number of tracheostomies and number of self-extubations. Records of compliance to recording the sedation score during both phases revealed that patients were slightly more deeply sedated when the guideline was used. The use of the algorithm-based sedation guideline did not reduce duration of mechanical ventilation in the setting of this study.

PRN Sedation-patterns of prescribing and administration in a child and adolescent mental health inpatient service

Objective: To identify utilisation rates of prn (pro re nata) sedation in children and adolescents receiving inpatient psychiatric treatment, and to compare correlates of prn prescribing and administration. Method A retrospective chart review examined 122 medical charts from a child and youth mental health inpatient service. Results 71.3% of patients were prescribed prn sedation and 50.8% were administered prn sedation. Patients received an average of 8.0 doses of prn sedation, with 9.8% receiving 10 or more doses. Chlorpromazine and diazepam were the most commonly utilised agents. Prescribing of prn sedation was only related to use of regular medications (p < 0.01), and non-parent carers (p < 0.01). In contrast, administration of prn sedation was associated with multiple diagnoses (p < 0.01), pervasive development disorder (p < 0.01), mental retardation (p < 0.01) ADHD (p < 0.01), longer hospital admission (p < 0.01), use of atypical antipsychotics (p < 0.01) and polypharmacy (p < 0.01). Conclusions Despite lack of data to inform practice, prn sedation is widely utilised, especially in complex patients. Future research in this area needs to incorporate nurses and examine whether patients benefit from prn sedation, which drugs and dosing patterns optimise safety and efficacy, and what is the role of prn sedation in the context of other medication.

Sedation in paediatric intensive care

Paediatric intensive care is an expanding specialty that has been shown to improve the quality of care provided to critically ill children. An important aspect of the management of critically ill children includes the provision of effective sedation to reduce stress and anxiety during their stay in intensive care. However, to achieve effective and safe sedation in these children, is recognised as a challenge that is not without risk. Often children receive too much or too little sedation resulting in over sedation or under sedation respectively. These problems have arisen owing to a lack of information regarding altered pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of medicines administered to critically ill children. In addition there are few validated sedation scoring systems in practice with which to monitor level of sedation and titrate medication appropriately. This study consisted of two stages. Stage 1 investigated the reproducibility and practicality of two observational sedation assessment scales for use in critically ill children. The two scales were different in design, the first being simple in design requiring a single assessment of the patient. The second was more complex in design requiring assessment of five patient parameters to obtain an overall sedation score. Both scales were found to achieve good reproducibility (kappa values 0.50 and 0.62 respectively). Practicality of each sedation scale was undertaken by obtaining nursing staff opinion about both scales using questionnaire and interview technique. It was established that nursing staff preferred the second, more complex sedation scale mainly because it was perceived to give a more accurate assessment of level of sedation and anxiety rather than merely level of sedation. Stage 2 investigated the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of midazolam in critically ill children. 52 children, aged between 0 and 18 years were recruited to the study and 303 blood samples taken to analyse midazolam and its metabolites, I-hydroxyrnidazolam (I-OR) and 4-hydroxymidazolam (4-0H). Analysis of plasma was undertaken using high performance liquid chromatography. A significant correlation was found between midazolam plasma concentration and sedative effect (r=0.598, p=O.OI). It was found that a midazolam plasma concentration of 223ng/ml (±31.9) achieved a satisfactory level of sedation. Only a poor correlation was found between dose of midazolam and plasma concentration of midazolam. Similarly only a poor correlation was found between sedative effect and dose of midazolam. Clearance of midazolam was found to be 6.3mllkglmin (±0.36), which is lower than that reported in healthy children (9.Il-13.3mllkg/min). Age related differences in midazolam clearance were observed in the study. Neonates produced the lowest clearance values (l.63mllkg/min), compared to children aged 1 to 12 months (8.52mllkg/min) who achieved the highest clearance values. Clearance was found to decrease after the age of 12 months to values of 5.34mllkglmin in children aged 7 years and above. Patients with renal (n=5) and liver impairment (n~4) were found to have reduced midazolam clearance (1.37 and 0.74ml/kg/min respectively). Plasma concentrations of I-OH and 4-0H ranged from 0-5 1 89nglml and 0-27 Inglml respectively. All children were found to be capable of producing both metabolites irrespective of age, although no trend was established between age and extent of production of either metabolite. Disease state was found to affect production of l-OH. Patients with renal impairment (n=5) produced the lowest I-OH midazolam plasma ratio (0.059) compared to patients with head injury (0.858). Patients with severe liver impairment were found to be capable of manufacturing both metabolites despite having a severely damaged liver.

DESCRIBING SLEEP AND SEDATION PRACTICES IN THE ICU: A MULTINATIONAL SURVEY

Introduction Sleep disturbances are common in critically ill patients treated in the intensive care unit (ICU) with the potential for serious consequences and long-term effects on health outcomes and patient morbidity.
Objectives Our aim was to describe sleep management and sedation practices of adult ICUs in ten countries and to evaluate roles and responsibilities of the ICU staff in relation to key sleep and sedation decisions.
Methods A multicenter, self-administered survey sent to nurse managers of adult ICUs across 10 countries. The questionnaire comprised four domains: sleep characteristics of the critically ill; sleep and sedation practices; non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions used to improve sleep; and the autonomy and influence of nurses on sleeping practices in the ICU.
Results Overall response rate was 66% (range 32% UK to 100% Cyprus), providing data from 522 ICUs. In all countries, the most frequent patient characteristic perceived to identify sleep was lying quietly with closed eyes (N=409, 78%) (range 92% Denmark to 36% Italy). The most commonly used sedation scale was the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Score (RASS) (N=220, 42%) (range 81% UK to 0% Denmark, Cyprus where most ICUs used the Ramsay score). In most ICUs, selection of sleep medication (N=265, 51%) and assessment of effect (N=309, 59%) was performed by physicians and nurses based on collaborative discussion. In a minority of ICUs (N=161, 31%), decisions and assessments were made by physicians alone. The most commonly used (in all countries) non-pharmacological intervention to promote sleep was reducing ICU staff noise (N=473, 91%) (range 100% Denmark, Norway to 78% Canada). Only 95 ICUs (18%) used earplugs on a frequent basis (range 0% Greece, Cyprus, Denmark to 57% Sweden). Propofol was the drug used most commonly for sedation (N=359, 69%) (range 96% Sweden to 29% Canada). Chloral hydrate was used by only 63 (12%) ICUs (range 0% Greece, Cyprus, Denmark, Italy to 56% Germany). Sedation scales were used on a routine basis by 77% of the 522 ICUs. Participants scored nursing autonomy for sleep and sedation management as moderate; median score of 5 (scale of 0 to 10), range 7 (Canada, Greece, Sweden) to 4 (Norway, Poland). Nursing influence on sleep and sedation decisions was perceived considerable; median score 8, range 9 (Denmark) to 5 (Poland).
Conclusions We found considerable across country variation in sleep promotion and sedation management practices though most have adopted a sedation scale as recommended in professional society guidelines. Most ICUs in all countries used a range of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to promote sleep. Most units reported inter-professional decision-making with nurses perceived to have substantial influence on sleep/sedation decisions.

Responsiveness of the frontal EMG for monitoring the sedation state of critically ill patients.

Background. Excessive sedation is associated with adverse patient outcomes during critical illness, and a validated monitoring technology could improve care. We developed a novel method, the responsiveness index (RI) of the frontal EMG. We compared RI data with Ramsay clinical sedation assessments in general and cardiac intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Methods. We developed the algorithm by iterative analysis of detailed observational data in 30 medical–surgical ICU patients and described its performance in this cohort and 15 patients recovering from scheduled cardiac surgery. Continuous EMG data were collected via frontal electrodes and RI data compared with modified Ramsay sedation state assessments recorded regularly by a blinded trained observer. RI performance was compared with EntropyTM across Ramsay categories to assess validity. Results. RI correlated well with the Ramsay category, especially for the cardiac surgery cohort (general ICU patients r¼0.55; cardiac surgery patients r¼0.85, both P,0.0001). Discrimination across all Ramsay categories was reasonable in the general ICU patient cohort [PK¼0.74 (SEM 0.02)] and excellent in the cardiac surgery cohort [PK¼0.92 (0.02)]. Discrimination between ‘lighter’ vs ‘deeper’ (Ramsay 1–3 vs 4–6) was good for general ICU patients [PK¼0.80 (0.02)] and excellent for cardiac surgery patients [PK¼0.96 (0.02)]. Performance was significantly better than EntropyTM. Examination of individual cases suggested good face validity. Conclusions. RI of the frontal EMG has promise as a continuous sedation state monitor in critically ill patients. Further investigation to determine its utility in ICU decision-making is warranted.

Safety and risk factors for difficult endoscopist-directed ERCP sedation in daily practice: a hospital-based case-control study

Background: There are limited data concerning endoscopist-directed endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography deep sedation. The aim of this study was to establish the safety and risk factors for difficult sedation in daily practice. Patients and methods: Hospital-based, frequency matched case-control study. All patients were identified from a database of 1,008 patients between 2014 and 2015. The cases were those with difficult sedations. This concept was defined based on the combination of the receipt of high-doses of midazolam or propofol, poor tolerance, use of reversal agents or sedation-related adverse events. The presence of different factors was evaluated to determine whether they predicted difficult sedation. Results: One-hundred and eighty-nine patients (63 cases, 126 controls) were included. Cases were classified in terms of high-dose requirements (n = 35, 55.56%), sedation-related adverse events (n = 14, 22.22%), the use of reversal agents (n = 13, 20.63%) and agitation/discomfort (n = 8, 12.7%). Concerning adverse events, the total rate was 1.39%, including clinically relevant hypoxemia (n = 11), severe hypotension (n = 2) and paradoxical reactions to midazolam (n = 1). The rate of hypoxemia was higher in patients under propofol combined with midazolam than in patients with propofol alone (2.56% vs. 0.8%, p < 0.001). Alcohol consumption (OR: 2.674 [CI 95%: 1.098-6.515], p = 0.030), opioid consumption (OR: 2.713 [CI 95%: 1.096-6.716], p = 0.031) and the consumption of other psychoactive drugs (OR: 2.015 [CI 95%: 1.017-3.991], p = 0.045) were confirmed to be independent risk factors for difficult sedation. Conclusions: Endoscopist-directed deep sedation during endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography is safe. The presence of certain factors should be assessed before the procedure to identify patients who are high-risk for difficult sedation.

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.

Midazolam for sedation before procedures

BACKGROUND: Midazolam is used for sedation before diagnostic and therapeutic medical procedures. It is an imidazole benzodiazepine that has depressant effects on the central nervous system (CNS) with rapid onset of action and few adverse effects. The drug can be administered by several routes including oral, intravenous, intranasal and intramuscular. OBJECTIVES: To determine the evidence on the effectiveness of midazolam for sedation when administered before a procedure (diagnostic or therapeutic). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL to January 2016), MEDLINE in Ovid (1966 to January 2016) and Ovid EMBASE (1980 to January 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials in which midazolam, administered to participants of any age, by any route, at any dose or any time before any procedure (apart from dental procedures), was compared with placebo or other medications including sedatives and analgesics. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias for each included study. We performed a separate analysis for each different drug comparison. MAIN RESULTS: We included 30 trials (2319 participants) of midazolam for gastrointestinal endoscopy (16 trials), bronchoscopy (3), diagnostic imaging (5), cardioversion (1), minor plastic surgery (1), lumbar puncture (1), suturing (2) and Kirschner wire removal (1). Comparisons were: intravenous diazepam (14), placebo (5) etomidate (1) fentanyl (1), flunitrazepam (1) and propofol (1); oral chloral hydrate (4), diazepam (2), diazepam and clonidine (1); ketamine (1) and placebo (3); and intranasal placebo (2). There was a high risk of bias due to inadequate reporting about randomization (75% of trials). Effect estimates were imprecise due to small sample sizes. None of the trials reported on allergic or anaphylactoid reactions. Intravenous midazolam versus diazepam (14 trials; 1069 participants)There was no difference in anxiety (risk ratio (RR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 1.62; 175 participants; 2 trials) or discomfort/pain (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.49; 415 participants; 5 trials; I² = 67%). Midazolam produced greater anterograde amnesia (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.30 to 0.66; 587 participants; 9 trials; low-quality evidence). Intravenous midazolam versus placebo (5 trials; 493 participants)One trial reported that fewer participants who received midazolam were anxious (3/47 versus 15/35; low-quality evidence). There was no difference in discomfort/pain identified in a further trial (3/85 in midazolam group; 4/82 in placebo group; P = 0.876; very low-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus chloral hydrate (4 trials; 268 participants)Midazolam increased the risk of incomplete procedures (RR 4.01; 95% CI 1.92 to 8.40; moderate-quality evidence). Oral midazolam versus placebo (3 trials; 176 participants)Midazolam reduced pain (midazolam mean 2.56 (standard deviation (SD) 0.49); placebo mean 4.62 (SD 1.49); P < 0.005) and anxiety (midazolam mean 1.52 (SD 0.3); placebo mean 3.97 (SD 0.44); P < 0.0001) in one trial with 99 participants. Two other trials did not find a difference in numerical rating of anxiety (mean 1.7 (SD 2.4) for 20 participants randomized to midazolam; mean 2.6 (SD 2.9) for 22 participants randomized to placebo; P = 0.216; mean Spielberger's Trait Anxiety Inventory score 47.56 (SD 11.68) in the midazolam group; mean 52.78 (SD 9.61) in placebo group; P > 0.05). Intranasal midazolam versus placebo (2 trials; 149 participants)Midazolam induced sedation (midazolam mean 3.15 (SD 0.36); placebo mean 2.56 (SD 0.64); P < 0.001) and reduced the numerical rating of anxiety in one trial with 54 participants (midazolam mean 17.3 (SD 18.58); placebo mean 49.3 (SD 29.46); P < 0.001). There was no difference in meta-analysis of results from both trials for risk of incomplete procedures (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.12; downgraded to low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no high-quality evidence to determine if midazolam, when administered as the sole sedative agent prior to a procedure, produces more or less effective sedation than placebo or other medications. There is low-quality evidence that intravenous midazolam reduced anxiety when compared with placebo. There is inconsistent evidence that oral midazolam decreased anxiety during procedures compared with placebo. Intranasal midazolam did not reduce the risk of incomplete procedures, although anxiolysis and sedation were observed. There is moderate-quality evidence suggesting that oral midazolam produces less effective sedation than chloral hydrate for completion of procedures for children undergoing non-invasive diagnostic procedures.

The efficacy of an augmented virtual reality system to alleviate pain in children undergoing burns dressing changes : a randomised controlled trial

In children, the pain and anxiety associated with acute burn dressing changes can be severe, with drug treatment alone frequently proving to be inadequate. Virtual reality (VR) systems have been successfully trialled in limited numbers of adult and paediatric burn patients. Augmented reality (AR) differs from VR in that it overlays virtual images onto the physical world, instead of creating a complete virtual world. This prospective randomised controlled trial investigated the use of AR as an adjunct to analgesia and sedation in children with acute burns. Forty-two children (30 male and 12 female), with an age range of 3–14 years (median age 9 years) and a total burn surface area ranging from 1 to 16% were randomised into a treatment (AR) arm and a control (basic cognitive therapy) arm after administration of analgesia and/or sedation. Pain scores, pulse rates (PR), respiratory rates (RR) and oxygen saturations (SaO2) were recorded pre-procedurally, at 10 min intervals and post-procedurally. Parents were also asked to grade their child's overall pain score for the dressing change. Mean pain scores were significantly lower (p = 0.0060) in the AR group compared to the control group, as were parental pain assessment scores (p = 0.015). Respiratory and pulse rates showed significant changes over time within groups, however, these were not significantly different between the two study groups. Oxygen saturation did not differ significantly over time or between the two study groups. This trial shows that augmented reality is a useful adjunct to pharmacological analgesia.

Nursing care of the mechanically ventilated patient: what does the evidence say? Part one.

The care of the mechanically ventilated patient is at the core of a nurse's clinical practice in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Published work relating to the numerous nursing issues of the care of the mechanically ventilated patient in the ICU is growing significantly. Literature focuses on patient assessment and management strategies for patient stressors, pain and sedation. Yet this literature is fragmentary by nature. The purpose of this paper is to provide a single comprehensive examination of the evidence related to the care of the mechanically ventilated patient. In part one of this two-part paper, the evidence on nursing care of the mechanically ventilated patient is explored with specific focus on patient safety: particularly patient and equipment assessment. Part two of the paper examines the evidence related to the mechanically ventilated patient's comfort, the patient/family unit, patient position, hygiene, management of stressors, pain management and sedation.

Nursing care of the mechanically ventilated patient: What does the evidence say?: Part two

The care of the mechanically ventilated patient is a fundamental component of a nurse's clinical practice in the intensive care unit (ICU). Published work relating to the numerous nursing issues of the care of the mechanically ventilated patient in the ICU is growing significantly, yet is fragmentary by nature. The purpose of this paper is to provide a single comprehensive examination of the evidence related to the care of the mechanically ventilated patient. In part one of this two-part paper, the evidence on nursing care of the mechanically ventilated patient was explored with specific focus on patient safety: particularly patient and equipment assessment. This article, part two, examines the evidence related to the mechanically ventilated patient's comfort: patient position, hygiene, management of stressors (such as communication, sleep disturbance and isolation), pain management and sedation.

Part 1. Chemical and Physical Restraints in the Management of Mechanically Ventilated Patients in the ICU: Contributing Factors

Chemical and physical restraints are frequently used in the intensive care unit (ICU) to control agitated patients and to prevent self-harm and unplanned extubations. Published work relating to the numerous issues of the care and treatment strategies for these patients remains conflicting and unclear. Literature regarding sedation and chemical restraint reveals a trend towards management with lighter sedation, use of sedation assessment tools and sedation protocols. It remains unclear which treatment is best for agitated and delirious patients, and the evidence on the effect of sedation is conflicting. A large portion of the literature on the use of physical restraint is from general hospital wards and residential homes, and not from the ICU environment. The purpose of this paper is to provide a summary of the existing literature on the use of physical and chemical restraints in the ICU setting. In Part 1 of this two-part paper, the evidence on chemical and physical restraints is explored with specific focus on definition of terms, unplanned

Part 2. Chemical and physical restraints in the management of mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU: A patient perspective

An important goal of the care for the mechanically ventilated patient is to minimize patient discomfort and anxiety. This is partly achieved by frequent use of chemical and physical restraints. The majority of patients in intensive care will receive some form of sedation. The goal and use of sedation has changed considerably over the past few decades with literature evidencing trends toward overall lighter sedation levels and daily interruption of sedation. Conversely, the use of physical restraint for the ventilated patient in ICU differs considerably between nations and continents. A large portion of the literature on the use of physical restraint is from general hospital wards and residential homes, and not from the ICU environment. Recent literature suggests minimal use of physical restraint in the ICU, and that reduction programmes have been initiated. However, very few papers illuminate the patient's experience of physical and chemical restraints as a treatment strategy. In Part 1 of this two-part review, the evidence on chemical and physical restraints was explored with specific focus on definitions of terms, unplanned extubation, agitation, delirium as well as the impact of nurse–patient ratios in the ICU on these issues. This paper, Part 2, examines the evidence related to chemical and physical restraints from the mechanically ventilated patient's perspective.