Search

RESUMO Objetivo: Caracterizar o conhecimento e as atitudes percebidas em relação às intervenções farmacológicas para sedação superficial em pacientes sob ventilação mecânica e entender as lacunas atuais, comparando a prática atual com as recomendações das Diretrizes de Prática Clínica para a Prevenção e Tratamento da Dor, Agitação/Sedação, Delirium, Imobilidade e Interrupção do Sono em Pacientes Adultos na Unidade de Terapia Intensiva. Métodos: Trata-se de estudo de coorte transversal baseado na aplicação de um questionário eletrônico centrado nas práticas de sedação. Resultados: Responderam ao inquérito 303 médicos intensivistas. A maioria dos entrevistados relatou uso de rotina de uma escala de sedação estruturada (281; 92,6%). Quase metade dos entrevistados relatou realizar interrupções diárias da sedação (147; 48,4%), e a mesma percentagem de participantes (48,0%) concordou com a afirmação de que os pacientes costumam ser sedados em excesso. Durante a pandemia da COVID-19, os participantes relataram que os pacientes tinham maior chance de receber midazolam do que antes da pandemia (178; 58,8% versus 106; 34,0%; p = 0,05); além disso, a sedação profunda foi mais comum durante a pandemia da COVID-19 (241; 79,4% versus 148; 49,0%; p = 0,01). Conclusão: Este inquérito fornece dados valiosos sobre as atitudes percebidas dos médicos intensivistas brasileiros em relação à sedação. Embora a interrupção diária da sedação fosse um conceito bem conhecido e as escalas de sedação fossem frequentemente utilizadas pelos entrevistados, foi colocado esforço insuficiente no monitoramento frequente, no uso de protocolos e na implementação sistemática de estratégias de sedação. Apesar da percepção dos benefícios associados à sedação superficial, há necessidade de identificar metas de melhoria para se proporem estratégias educacionais que melhorem as práticas atuais. ABSTRACT Objective: To characterize the knowledge and perceived attitudes toward pharmacologic interventions for light sedation in mechanically ventilated patients and to understand the current gaps comparing current practice with the recommendations of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the Intensive Care Unit. Methods: This was a cross-sectional cohort study based on the application of an electronic questionnaire focused on sedation practices. Results: A total of 303 critical care physicians provided responses to the survey. Most respondents reported routine use of a structured sedation scale (281; 92.6%). Almost half of the respondents reported performing daily interruptions of sedation (147; 48.4%), and the same percentage of participants (48.0%) agreed that patients are often over sedated. During the COVID-19 pandemic, participants reported that patients had a higher chance of receiving midazolam compared to before the pandemic (178; 58.8% versus 106; 34.0%; p = 0.05), and heavy sedation was more common during the COVID-19 pandemic (241; 79.4% versus 148; 49.0%; p = 0.01). Conclusion: This survey provides valuable data on the perceived attitudes of Brazilian intensive care physicians regarding sedation. Although daily interruption of sedation was a well-known concept and sedation scales were often used by the respondents, insufficient effort was put into frequent monitoring, use of protocols and systematic implementation of sedation strategies. Despite the perception of the benefits linked with light sedation, there is a need to identify improvement targets to propose educational strategies to improve current practices.

Across Latin American and Caribbean countries (LACs), the fight against dementia faces pressing challenges, such as heterogeneity, diversity, political instability, and socioeconomic disparities. These can be addressed more effectively in a collaborative setting that fosters open exchange of knowledge. In this work, the Latin American and Caribbean Consortium on Dementia (LAC-CD) proposes an agenda for integration to deliver a Knowledge to Action Framework (KtAF). First, we summarize evidence-based strategies (epidemiology, genetics, biomarkers, clinical trials, nonpharmacological interventions, networking, and translational research) and align them to current global strategies to translate regional knowledge into transformative actions. Then we characterize key sources of complexity (genetic isolates, admixture in populations, environmental factors, and barriers to effective interventions), map them to the above challenges, and provide the basic mosaics of knowledge toward a KtAF. Finally, we describe strategies supporting the knowledge creation stage that underpins the translational impact of KtAF.