Search

Background: Intensive care unit (ICU) sedation guidelines recommend targeting a light sedation level, but light sedation has no accepted definition, and inconsistent levels have been proposed., Objective: To determine Sedation-Agitation Scale and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale scores that best describe patients' ability to follow voice commands., Methods: This prospective, observational pilot study enrolled a convenience sample of ICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Pairs of trained investigators evaluated scores on the Sedation-Agitation Scale and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and ability to follow commands before and up to 2 hours after sedation lightening in a blind, independent, simultaneous fashion. Positive predictive values (PPVs) and likelihood ratios (LRs) of Sedation-Agitation Scale and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale scores associated with light sedation (ability to follow at least 3 commands) were calculated., Results: Ninety-six assessments (50 before and 46 after lightening of sedation) were performed in medical ICU patients. Scores best associated with ability to follow at least 3 commands were Sedation-Agitation Scale score of 4 (PPV, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.70-0.98; LR, 14.0) and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score of -1 (PPV, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-0.93; LR, 10.7), superior to previously recommended thresholds of Sedation-Agitation Scale score of 3 (PPV, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.75; LR, 3.1) and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score of -3 (PPV, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.39-0.64; LR, 2.0)., Conclusions: The level of sedation most associated with the ability to follow commands appears higher than previously recommended. Further study is needed regarding the effects of sedation level on ICU patients' ability to follow commands and assessment of delirium, pain, and patient preferences., (©2022 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.)

Background: Psychoactive medications (PM) are frequently administered in the intensive care unit (ICU) to provide comfort. Interventions focused on preventing their continuation after the acute phase of illness are needed., Objective: To determine the frequency that patients with ICU-initiated PM are continued upon ICU and hospital discharge., Methods: This single-center, prospective, observational study assessed consecutive adult ICU patients who received scheduled PM. Frequency of PM continued at ICU and hospital discharge was recorded. The patient's primary treatment team was contacted by the pharmacist within 72 hours of ICU discharge to establish rationale for continued use or to suggest discontinuation., Results: Of the 60 patients included, 72% were continued on PM at ICU discharge and 30% at hospital discharge. The pharmacist contacted 40% of treatment teams after ICU discharge and intervention resulted in PM discontinued in 50% of patients. Post ICU discharge, the indication of 41% of patients' PM was unknown by the non-ICU care team or incorrect. Medical ICU patients or those transferred to an outside facility were more likely remain on PM at hospital discharge., Conclusion: PM are frequently continued during transitions of care and often without knowledge of the initial indication. Future studies should establish effective PM stewardship methods.

Background: Longitudinal analyses of large, detailed adult critical care datasets provide insights into practice trends and generate useful outcome and process benchmarks., Methods: Data representing 991,571 consecutive critical care visits to 160 US adult ICUs from 2009 to 2013 from the eICU Research Institute clinical practice database were used to quantitate patient characteristics, APACHE IV-based acuity predictions, treatments, and outcomes. Analyses for changes over time were performed for patient characteristics, entry and discharge locations, primary admission diagnosis, treatments, adherence to consensus ICU best practices, length of stay (LOS), and inpatient mortality., Results: We detected significant trends for increasing age, BMI, and risk of mortality, higher frequency of admission from an ED and stepdown unit, and more frequent hospital discharge to substance abuse centers and skilled nursing facilities. Significantly more patients were admitted for sepsis, emphysema, coma, congestive heart failure, diabetic ketoacidosis, and fewer were admitted for asthma, unspecified chest pain, coronary artery bypass graft, and stroke care. The frequency of noninvasive mechanical ventilation and adherence to critical care best practices significantly increased, whereas the duration of renal replacement therapies, frequency of transfusions, antimicrobial use, critical care complications, LOS, and inpatient mortality decreased., Conclusions: Analyses of patients, practices, and outcomes from a large geographically dispersed sample of adult ICUs revealed trends of increasing age and acuity, higher rates of adherence to best practice, use of noninvasive mechanical ventilation, and decreased use of antimicrobials, transfusions, and duration of renal replacement therapies. Acuity-adjusted LOS and in hospital mortality decreased., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Provision of adequate sedation is a fundamental part of caring for critically ill patients. Propofol, dexmedetomidine, and benzodiazepines are the most commonly administered sedative medications for adult patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). These agents are limited by adverse effects, need for a monitored environment for safe administration, and lack of universal effectiveness. Increased interest has recently been expressed about repurposing older pharmacologic agents for patient comfort in the ICU. Valproate, enteral clonidine, and phenobarbital are three agents with increasing evidence supporting their use. Potential benefits associated with their utilization are cost minimization and safe administration after transition out of the ICU. This literature review describes the historical context, pharmacologic characteristics, supportive data, and practical considerations associated with the administration of these agents for comfort in critically ill adult patients., (© 2017 Pharmacotherapy Publications, Inc.)

Introduction: Enteral clonidine represents a potentially less costly alternative to dexmedetomidine for sedation in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. This study describes our practice of transitioning selected adult ICU patients from dexmedetomidine to clonidine with a focus on efficacy, safety, and drug acquisition costs., Methods: We conducted a single-center prospective observational pilot study from January through March 2014. Consecutive patients 18 years and older treated with dexmedetomidine and transitioned to clonidine were followed. The transition was assessed in five phases: dexmedetomidine maintenance, transition, clonidine maintenance, clonidine taper, and post clonidine. Efficacy data included any occurrence of significant pain, excessive agitation or oversedation, delirium, and need for ancillary psychoactive medications. Safety data included any occurrence of bradycardia, hypotension, new second- or third-degree atrioventricular node blockade, and clonidine withdrawal syndrome. Drug acquisition cost avoidances were estimated using average wholesale price., Results: Twenty patients were evaluated. Fifteen (75%) were successfully transitioned from dexmedetomidine within 48 hours of starting clonidine. The initial and maintenance clonidine regimens were 0.3 mg every 6 hours. Clonidine was the sole α2A -receptor agonist administered for 45 hours while in the ICU and for 54 hours outside the ICU. Fentanyl requirements were lower when clonidine was administered as the sole α2A -receptor agonist as compared to dexmedetomidine alone (387 vs. 891 μg/day, p = 0.03). Otherwise, there were no statistically significant differences in efficacy data during the dexmedetomidine and clonidine maintenance phases. No statistically significant differences in safety data were observed. Clonidine withdrawal syndrome criteria were met in one patient. The potential drug acquisition cost avoidance was $819-$2338 per patient during the 3-month study., Conclusions: Transitioning from dexmedetomidine to clonidine may be an efficacious, safe, and less costly method of maintaining α2A -receptor agonist therapy in critically ill adults; these results warrant confirmation in expanded studies., (© 2015 Pharmacotherapy Publications, Inc.)

Objective: Retrospective analyses of several trials suggest etomidate may be unsafe for intubation in patients with sepsis. We evaluated the association of etomidate and mortality in a large cohort of septic patients to determine if single-dose etomidate was associated with increased in-hospital mortality., Design and Setting: Retrospective cohort study at the Philips eICU Research Institute ICU clinical database., Interventions: None., Patients: Among 741,036 patients monitored from 2008 through 2010, we identified 2,014 adults intubated in the ICU 4-96 hrs after admission, having clinical criteria consistent with sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock. In all, 1,102 patients received etomidate and 912 received other induction agents for intubation., Measurements and Main Results: The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality, but we also evaluated demographic and clinical factors, severity of illness, ICU mortality, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, ventilator days, and vasopressor days. Competing risk Cox proportional hazard regression models were used for primary outcomes. Demographics and illness severity were similar between the groups. Hospital mortality was similar between the groups (37.2% vs. 37.8%, p = 0.77), as were ICU mortality (30.1% vs. 30.2%, p = 0.99), ICU length of stay (8.7 days vs. 8.9 days, p = 0.66), and hospital length of stay (15.2 vs. 14.6 days, p = 0.31). More patients in the etomidate group received steroids before and after intubation (52.9% vs. 44.5%, p < 0.001), but vasopressor use and duration of mechanical ventilation were similar. No regression model showed an independent association of etomidate with mortality, shock, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU or hospital length of stay, or vasopressor use. A hospital mortality model limited to only patients with septic shock (n = 650) also showed no association of etomidate and hospital mortality., Conclusion: In a mixed-diagnosis group of critically ill patients with sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock, single-dose etomidate administration for intubation in the ICU was not associated with higher mortality or other adverse clinical outcomes.

Objective: To revise the "Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Sustained Use of Sedatives and Analgesics in the Critically Ill Adult" published in Critical Care Medicine in 2002., Methods: The American College of Critical Care Medicine assembled a 20-person, multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task force with expertise in guideline development, pain, agitation and sedation, delirium management, and associated outcomes in adult critically ill patients. The task force, divided into four subcommittees, collaborated over six years in person, via teleconferences, and via electronic communication. Subcommittees were responsible for developing relevant clinical questions, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method (www.gradeworkinggroup.org) to review, evaluate, and summarize the literature, and to develop clinical statements (descriptive) and recommendations (actionable). With the help of a professional librarian and Refworks database software, they developed a Web-based electronic database of over 19,000 references extracted from eight clinical search engines, related to pain and analgesia, agitation and sedation, delirium, and related clinical outcomes in adult ICU patients. The group also used psychometric analyses to evaluate and compare pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium assessment tools. All task force members were allowed to review the literature supporting each statement and recommendation and provided feedback to the subcommittees. Group consensus was achieved for all statements and recommendations using the nominal group technique and the modified Delphi method, with anonymous voting by all task force members using E-Survey (www.esurvey.com). All voting was completed in December 2010. Relevant studies published after this date and prior to publication of these guidelines were referenced in the text. The quality of evidence for each statement and recommendation was ranked as high (A), moderate (B), or low/very low (C). The strength of recommendations was ranked as strong (1) or weak (2) and either in favor of (+) or against (-) an intervention. A strong recommendation (either for or against) indicated that the intervention's desirable effects either clearly outweighed its undesirable effects (risks, burdens, and costs) or it did not. For all strong recommendations, the phrase "We recommend..." is used throughout. A weak recommendation, either for or against an intervention, indicated that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects was less clear. For all weak recommendations, the phrase "We suggest..." is used throughout. In the absence of sufficient evidence, or when group consensus could not be achieved, no recommendation (0) was made. Consensus based on expert opinion was not used as a substitute for a lack of evidence. A consistent method for addressing potential conflicts of interest was followed if task force members were coauthors of related research. The development of this guideline was independent of any industry funding., Conclusion: These guidelines provide a roadmap for developing integrated, evidence-based, and patient-centered protocols for preventing and treating pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients.

Background: Nationwide benchmarks representing current critical care practice for the range of ICUs are lacking. This information may highlight opportunities for care improvement and allows comparison of ICU practice data., Methods: Data representing 243,553 adult admissions from 271 ICUs and 188 US nonfederal hospitals during 2008 were analyzed using the eICU Research Institute clinical practice database. Participating ICUs and hospitals varied widely regarding bed number, community size, academic status, geographic location, and organizational structure., Results: More than one-half of these critically ill adults were < 65 years old, and most patients returned to their homes after hospital discharge. Most patients were admitted from an ED, had a medical admission diagnosis, and received antimicrobial therapy. Intensive treatment was common, including 27% who received mechanical ventilation, 7.5% who were supported with noninvasive ventilation, 24.3% who were treated with vasoactive infusions, > 20% who received a blood product, and 4.4% who agreed to a care limitation order during their ICU stay. Forty percent of cases had a < 10% mortality risk and did not have an intensive treatment documented., Conclusions: Admission to an ICU in 2008 involved active treatments that often included life support and counseling for those near the end of life and was associated with favorable outcomes for most patients.

As critically ill patients frequently receive analgesics, sedatives, and antipsychotics to optimize patient comfort and facilitate mechanical ventilation, adverse events associated with the use of these agents can affect all organ systems and result in substantial morbidity and mortality. Although many of these adverse effects are common pharmacologic manifestations of the agent, and therefore frequently reversible, others are idiosyncratic and thus unexpected. The critically ill are more susceptible to adverse drug events than nonintensive care unit patients due to the high doses and long periods for which each of these agents are often administered, the frequent use of intravenous formulations that contain adjuvants that may lead to toxicity in some instances, and the high prevalence of end-organ dysfunction that affects the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic response to therapy. This paper will review the most common and serious adverse drug events reported to occur with the use of sedatives, analgesics, and antipsychotics in the intensive care unit; highlight the pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and pharmacogenetic factors that can influence analgesic, sedative, and antipsychotic response and safety in the critically ill; and identify strategies that can be used to minimize toxicity with these agents.

As the volume of data that is electronically available promliferates, the health-care industry is identifying better ways to use this data for patient care. Ideally, these data are collected in real time, can support point-of-care clinical decisions, and, by providing instantaneous quality metrics, can create the opportunities to improve clinical practice as the patient is being cared for. The business-world technology supporting these activities is referred to as business intelligence, which offers competitive advantage, increased quality, and operational efficiencies. The health-care industry is plagued by many challenges that have made it a latecomer to business intelligence and data-mining technology, including delayed adoption of electronic medical records, poor integration between information systems, a lack of uniform technical standards, poor interoperability between complex devices, and the mandate to rigorously protect patient privacy. Efforts at developing a health care equivalent of business intelligence (which we will refer to as clinical intelligence) remains in its infancy. Until basic technology infrastructure and mature clinical applications are developed and implemented throughout the health-care system, data aggregation and interpretation cannot effectively progress. The need for this approach in health care is undisputed. As regional and national health information networks emerge, we need to develop cost-effective systems that reduce time and effort spent documenting health-care data while increasing the application of knowledge derived from that data.

The bispectral index (BIS) is processed electroencephalographic technology used in concert with clinical evaluations to objectively evaluate a patient's level of consciousness and probability of recall. Although the BIS has been extensively studied in the operating room setting, differences in patient populations, goals of treatment, and the environments themselves necessitate the development of BIS data specific to the intensive care unit. Data have evolved over the last several years, but for many reasons, the results and conclusions have varied. Yet within the data are important consistencies that help define the usefulness of BIS in patients who cannot be evaluated with subjective assessment tools such as the Sedation-Agitation Scale or the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale. Some of these patients cannot be evaluated with such tools because they lack motor responsiveness due to therapeutic paralysis or because they are receiving deep sedation. Bispectral index scores that are higher than expected in clinically sedated patients can often be traced to electromyographic activity or to the possibility of inadequate sedation and analgesia. The BIS must not be regarded as the sole indicator of level of consciousness, but should be used as part of an integrated approach to the evaluation of carefully selected patients with critical illness.

Objective: The bispectral index (BIS), a processed variable derived from the raw electroencephalogram (EEG) used to guide sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU), has not been tested during barbiturate therapy for elevated intracranial pressure. We determined the BIS and suppression ratio (SR) values during traditional burst monitoring of the raw EEG during pentobarbital infusions., Design: Prospective, observational cohort study., Setting: A 42-bed multidisciplinary ICU in a tertiary care medical center., Patients: Twelve consecutive patients with elevated intracranial pressure treated with pentobarbital infusions., Intervention: All patients were monitored continuously with the Aspect Medical Systems A-1050 bedside EEG monitor using a bilateral referential montage. Pentobarbital doses were titrated based on the raw EEG to attain a burst-suppression pattern with a goal of 3-5 bursts/minute. Drug dosage, intracranial pressure, cerebral perfusion pressure values, EEG bursts/minute, BIS version 3.2, and SR were recorded daily., Measurements and Main Results: The 12 patients were monitored for 62 patient-days. Mean +/- SD age was 32 +/- 15 years, seven (58%) patients were male, mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Heath Evaluation II score was 17.0 +/- 5.0, and hospital mortality was 42%. The mean pentobarbital infusion rate was 124 +/- 49 mg/hour or 2.3 +/- 1.3 mg/kg/hour, and mean pentobarbital serum concentration was 29.7 +/- 13 microg/ml. The mean BIS value was 18 +/- 14, mean SR 56% +/- 36%; BIS correlated well with SR (r=-0.99, p<0.001). For patient-days with a burst-suppression pattern, BIS 3.2 (r=0.90, p<0.001) and SR (r=-0.89, p<0.001) strongly correlated with the number of bursts/minute. The mean BIS value corresponding to 3-5 bursts/minute was 15 (95% confidence interval [CI] 10-20); SR value was 71 (95% CI 61-80)., Conclusion: The Aspect A-1050 applied to patients and monitored by nurses and physicians works well as a bedside EEG monitor, providing a raw EEG signal to titrate barbiturate therapy. The continuous data trend and real-time digital output for the BIS and SR quantify the degree of EEG suppression well and may prove helpful in facilitating titration of barbiturate infusions.

The recent development of valid and reliable assessment tools to monitor agitation, sedation, analgesia, and delirium in the ICU represents an essential first step in the provision of patient comfort and the development of preferred treatment strategies. To make the ICU a more humane healing environment, these assessment tools must be used as part of a comprehensive evaluation of interventional and preventive treatments, pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic. In the spirit of the JCAHO, it may be time to add the evaluation of sedation, agitation, and delirium to that of pain assessment, making all aspects of patient comfort the fifth vital sign for the critically ill.

Objective: Subjective scales to assess agitation and sedation in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients have rarely been tested for validity or reliability. We revised and prospectively tested the Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) for interrater reliability and compared it with the Ramsay scale and the Harris scale to test construct validity., Design: A convenience sample of ICU patients was simultaneously and independently examined by pairs of trained evaluators by using the revised SAS, Ramsay, and Harris Scales., Setting: Multidisciplinary 34-bed ICU in a nonuniversity, academic medical center., Patients: Forty-five ICU patients (surgical and medical) were examined a total of 69 times by evaluator pairs., Measurements and Main Results: The mean patient age was 63.2 yrs, 36% were female, and 71% were intubated. When classified by using SAS, 45% were anxious or agitated (SAS 5 to 7), 26% were calm (SAS 4), and 29% were sedated (SAS 1 to 3). Interrater correlation was high for SAS (r2 = .83; p < .001) and the weighted kappa score for interrater agreement was 0.92 (p < .001). Of 41 assessments scored as Ramsay 1, 49% scored SAS 6, 41% were SAS 5, 5% were SAS 4, and 2% each were SAS 3 or 7. SAS was highly correlated with the Ramsay (r2 = .83; p < .001) and Harris (r2 = .86; p < .001) scales., Conclusions: SAS is both reliable (high interrater agreement) and valid (high correlation with the Harris and Ramsay scales) in assessing agitation and sedation in adult ICU patients. SAS provides additional information by stratifying agitation into three categories (compared with one for the Ramsay scale) without sacrificing validity or reliability.