Agitation control with clonidine and haloperidol in critically ill patients: A retrospective analysis.

Sedation Scales in the ICU

The correlation among the Ramsay sedation scale, Richmond agitation sedation scale and Riker sedation agitation scale during midazolam-remifentanil sedation

The correlation among the Ramsay sedation scale, Richmond agitation sedation scale and Riker sedation agitation scale during midazolam-remifentanil sedation

Background & objective: Agitation is a frequent and serious complication in ICU patients undergoing mechanical ventilation (MV). It may be due to many causes, the most important being incomplete paralysis and inadequate sedation. Intensivists have used a variety of different options to prevent agitation. This study compared dexmedetomidine and midazolam in reducing agitation using the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) and Bispectral Index (BIS), and assessed sedation quality and hemodynamic effects. Methods: A double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted on 28 ICU patients who were on MV. The patients were divided into two groups: either to receive an infusion of dexmedetomidine (0.4 µg/kg/hr) or midazolam (0.04 mg/kg/hr) following a standardized loading dose. RASS, BIS, and hemodynamic parameters were recorded at baseline, 4, 8, and 24 hours, and compared in two groups. Results: At 8 and 24 hours, agitation occurred in 28.6% of midazolam patients versus 14.3% and 7.1% in the dexmedetomidine group (P < 0.05). BIS and RASS were strongly correlated (r > 0.8, P < 0.001). Dexmedetomidine significantly reduced heart rate and mean arterial pressure without adverse effects. Conclusion: Dexmedetomidine is more effective than midazolam in reducing agitation, offering better sedation quality with stable hemodynamics. BIS complements RASS in guiding sedation in ICU settings. Abbreviations: BIS: Bispectral Index, ICU: Intensive Care Unit, MAP: mean arterial pressure, RASS: Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, Keyword: Agitation; Bispectral Index; Dexmedetomidine; Intensive Care Units, Midazolam; Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale; Sedation Citation: Adnani MI, Wijaya DW, Lubis B, Wahyuni AS. Comparison of dexmedetomidine and midazolam in reducing agitation in the ICU patients using the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) and Bispectral Index (BIS). Anaesth. pain intensive care 2025;29(7):743-748. DOI: 10.35975/apic.v29i7.2965 Received: May 22, 2025; Revised: June 09, 2025; Accepted: July 24, 2025

S87. Sedation prediction using EEG spectrogram in ICU patients

Analgesia-based sedation

HP34: Usefulness of EEG for patients in ICU with agitation and delirium

Introduction Our American Burn Association verified regional burn center has approximately 700 admissions for burn injury per year, 200 of which are admitted to the burn intensive care unit (BICU). Sedation practices during acute burn resuscitations remain variable. In order to standardize our sedation practices, we developed a Background Pain and Anxiety Decision Tree for Mechanically Intubated Adults in March 2017. Concern over hypotension led to the removal of propofol as the sedative of choice. The new protocol made midazolam the primary choice and recommended the use of adjunct analgesics, including acetaminophen, for background pain. It uses the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) to determine whether patients were oversedated (RASS< 0) or anxious (RASS >1+). Methods We conducted a single center retrospective chart review on intubated patients admitted to the BICU from November 2017 through November 2018. Data collection focused primarily on sedation practices during this time to determine whether our protocol had the desired effects. Highest and lowest RASS were collected, and the difference between the two (delta RASS) was used to determine changes in patient agitation and sedation. Results Thirty three adult patients requiring mechanical ventilation were admitted to the BICU between November 2017 and November 2018. Of these patients, 21 (66%) received propofol on hospital day one, and 12 (38%) received propofol on hospital day two. Eleven patients received both propofol and midazolam on hospital day one. Of these patients, the average propofol dose was 511 micrograms per day and the average midazolam dose was 13.3mg per day (p=0.02). Eighteen (56%) and twenty five (78%) patients received acetaminophen on hospital days one and two, respectively. Twenty four patients had a RASS recorded during their first hospital day. The average highest RASS recorded was 1.3 and the average lowest recorded RASS was -3.2. Patients who received both propofol and midazolam had a higher peak RASS (2.4) and a lower minimum RASS (3.4), creating a larger delta RASS for this group. Conclusions Despite eliminating propofol from our sedation guidelines, its use remains the predominant mode of sedation for burn patients throughout the first forty eight hours of hospitalization. There is also room for improvement for administration of non-opioid analgesics, including acetaminophen. Finally, our ventilated patients tend to be more oversedated than undersedated, and a combination of midazolam and propofol creates the largest swings in patients’ sedation and agitation status. Applicability of Research to Practice Changing sedation and pain management practices in the ICU is a multifactorial process that requires more than ICU guideline implementation. The use of two sedatives during the first hospital day can result in larger swings in RASS as opposed to use of a single agent.

Delirium is frequently missed in older emergency department (ED) patients. Brief (<2minutes) delirium assessments have been validated for the ED, but some ED health care providers may consider them to be cumbersome. The Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) is an observational scale that quantifies level of consciousness and takes less than 10seconds to perform. The authors sought to explore the diagnostic accuracy of the RASS for delirium in older ED patients. This was a preplanned analysis of a prospective observational study designed to validate brief delirium assessments for the ED. The study was conducted at an academic ED and enrolled patients who were 65years or older. Patients who were non-English-speaking, deaf, blind, comatose or had end-stage dementia were excluded. A research assistant (RA) and a physician performed the RASS at the time of enrollment. Within 3hours, a consultation-liaison psychiatrist performed his or her comprehensive reference standard assessment for delirium using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria. Sensitivities, specificities, and likelihood ratios with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Of 406 enrolled patients, 50 (12.3%) had delirium diagnosed by the consult-liaison psychiatrist reference rater. When performed by the RA, a RASS other than 0 (RASS > 0 or < 0) was 84.0% sensitive (95% CI=73.8% to 94.2%) and 87.6% specific (95% CI=84.2% to 91.1%) for delirium. When performed by physician, a RASS other than 0 was 82.0% sensitive (95% CI=71.4% to 92.6%) and 85.1% specific (95% CI=81.4% to 88.8%) for delirium. Using a RASS > +1 or < -1 as the cutoff, the specificity improved to approximately 99% for both raters at the expense of sensitivity; the sensitivities were 22.0% (95% CI=10.5% to 33.5%) and 16.0% (95% CI=5.8% to 25.2%) in the RAs and physician raters, respectively. The positive likelihood ratio was 19.6 (95% CI=6.5 to 59.1) when performed by the RA and 57.0 (95% CI=7.3 to 445.9) when performed by the physician, indicating that a RASS > +1 or < -1 strongly increased the likelihood of delirium. The weighted kappa was 0.63, indicating moderate interobserver reliability. In older ED patients, a RASS other than 0 has very good sensitivity and specificity for delirium as diagnosed by a psychiatrist. A RASS > +1 or < -1 is nearly diagnostic for delirium, given the very high positive likelihood ratio.

Altered mental status is a significant predictor of mortality in inpatients. Several scales exist to characterize mental status, including the AVPU (Alert, responds to Voice, responds to Pain, Unresponsive) scale, which is used in many early-warning scores in the general-ward setting. The use of the Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) and Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) is not well established in this population. To compare the accuracies of AVPU, GCS, and RASS for predicting inpatient mortality. Retrospective cohort study. Single, urban, academic medical center. Adult inpatients on the general wards. Nurses recorded GCS and RASS on consecutive adult hospitalizations. AVPU was extracted from the eye subscale of the GCS. We compared the accuracies of each scale for predicting in-hospital mortality within 24 hours of a mental-status observation using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC). There were 295,974 paired observations of GCS and RASS obtained from 26,873 admissions; 417 (1.6%) resulted in in-hospital death. GCS and RASS more accurately predicted mortality than AVPU (AUC 0.80 and 0.82, respectively, vs 0.73; P < 0.001 for both comparisons). Simultaneous use of GCS and RASS produced an AUC of 0.85 (95% confidence interval: 0.82-0.87, P < 0.001 when compared to all 3 scales). In ward patients, both GCS and RASS were significantly more accurate predictors of mortality than AVPU. In addition, combining GCS and RASS was more accurate than any scale alone. Routine tracking of GCS and/or RASS on general wards may improve the accuracy of detecting clinical deterioration.

Intravenous Midazolam for Anxiolysis in MRI

The primary objective of sedation in the critically ill patient is to achieve security and comfort. The routine use of standardized and validated sedation scales and monitors are needed. The Richmond agitation sedation scale has been used but some patients cannot be evaluated with subjective assessment tools such as the Richmond agitation sedation scale because they lack motor responsiveness due to therapeutic paralysis or because they are receiving deep sedation. We aimed to assess the correlation of bispectral index with Richmond agitation sedation scale during dexmedetomidine sedation and evaluate the use of the bispectral index in monitoring the levels of sedation in intensive care patients. This was a single centre, prospective, clinical study. Eleven mechanically-ventilated critically ill patients, aged 17-82 (50.09 +/- 17.76; mean +/- SD) yr, 3 males and 8 females, APACHE II score 12.63 +/- 3.90, SOFA score 3.27 +/- 1.73 were enrolled in the study. Patients received a dexmedetomidine infusion of 1 microg kg-1 over 10 min followed by a maintenance infusion of 0.5 microg kg-1 h-1 for 8 h. Sedation was assessed using the Richmond agitation sedation scale and bispectral index monitoring. Heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate and SPO2 were monitored. Wilcoxon signed rank sum test and Spearman's rank correlation analysis were used for statistical analysis. The variation of Richmond agitation sedation scale score was between 0.9 and -1.7 bispectral index varied from 65 to 75. Significant correlations between Richmond agitation sedation scale and bispectral index values were found in this study. (r = 0.900; P = 0.0001) Richmond agitation sedation scale levels significantly correlated with bispectral index values during dexmedetomidine sedation in critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit.

<h3>Objectives</h3> Whether and how delirium and sleep quality in the intensive care unit (ICU) are linked remains unclear. A recent randomised trial reported nocturnal low-dose dexmedetomidine (DEX) significantly reduces incident ICU delirium. Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire (LSEQ) scores were similar between intervention (DEX; n=50) and control (placebo (PLA); n=50) groups. We measured the association between morning LSEQ and delirium occurrence in the prior 24 hours (retrospective analysis) and the association between morning LSEQ and delirium occurrence in the following 24 hours (predictive analysis). <h3>Design</h3> Post hoc analysis of randomised controlled trial data. <h3>Participants</h3> Adult ICU patients (n=100) underwent delirium screening twice a day using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) if Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) was ≥−3 and patient-reported sleep quality evaluations at 09:00 daily with the LSEQ if RASS was ≥−1. <h3>Outcomes</h3> The analysis included all 24-hour study periods with LSEQ documentation and matched delirium screening in coma-free patients. Separate logistic regression models controlling for age, baseline Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score and DEX/PLA allocation evaluated the association between morning LSEQ and delirium occurrence for both retrospective and predictive analyses. <h3>Results</h3> The 100 patients spent 1115 24-hour periods in the ICU. Coma, delirium and no delirium occurred in 130 (11.7%), 114 (10.2%) and 871 (78.1%), respectively. In the retrospective analysis, when an LSEQ result was preceded by an ICDSC result (439/985 (44.6%) 24-hour periods), delirium occurred during 41/439 (9.3%) periods. On regression analysis, the LSEQ score had no relationship to prior delirium occurrence (OR (per every 1 point average LSEQ change) 0.97, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.31). For the predictive analysis, among the 387/985 (39.1%) 24-hour periods where an LSEQ result was followed by an ICDSC result, delirium occurred during 56/387 (14.5%) periods. On regression analysis, the LSEQ score did not predict subsequent delirium occurrence (OR (per 1 point LSEQ change) 1.02, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.05). <h3>Conclusions</h3> The sleep quality ICU patients perceive neither affects nor predicts delirium occurrence. <h3>Trial registration number</h3> NCT01791296

Variability in sedation may increase the incidence of delirium and mortality, as well as increased intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital lengths of stay (LOS), despite mean Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) scores at goal. Coefficient of variation (CV) can be used to represent variability with a higher ratio indicating increased variability. Do patients with an increased variability in sedation, as evaluated by CV in RASS, have an increased incidence of delirium? We conducted a retrospective chart review of adult medical ICU patients requiring mechanical ventilation (MV) for ≥24 hours between January and April 2013. Patients were excluded if intubated at an outside hospital, neuromuscularly blocked, suffering from anoxic brain injury, or had a goal RASS of -4 or -5. Outcomes assessed included the presence of delirium, as evaluated by the Confusion Assessment Method, RASS, CV in RASS, duration of MV, ICU, and hospital LOS, and survival. Of 45 included patients, 32 experienced delirium during their ICU admission and 13 did not. The groups were similar at baseline. There was no difference in mean RASS when comparing the delirium and nondelirium groups (-1.6 ± 1.3 vs. -1.8 ± 0.8, respectively; P = 0.61). Patients with delirium had a greater CV in RASS (0.3 ± 0.135 vs. 0.2 ± 0.105; P = 0.02), a longer MV duration [4 (2-8) vs. 3 (2-3) days; P = 0.045], and a trend toward increased ICU LOS [8 (5-12.25) vs. 4 (3-8) days; P = 0.096], but no difference in hospital LOS [13 (10-25) vs. 18 (9-39) days; P = 0.83] and survival (71.9% vs. 69.2%; P = 1.0). Medical ICU patients with delirium had a higher CV in RASS compared with patients without delirium, suggesting that greater variability in sedation may increase the incidence of delirium. Patients with delirium also had a greater duration of MV and a trend toward longer ICU LOS.

Sedative medications are routinely administered to provide comfort and facilitate clinical care in critically ill ICU patients. Prior work shows that brain monitoring using electroencephalography (EEG) to track sedation levels may help medical personnel to optimize drug dosing and avoid the adverse effects of oversedation and undersedation. However, the performance of sedation monitoring methods proposed to date deal poorly with individual variability across patients, leading to inconsistent performance. To address this challenge we develop an online learning approach based on Adaptive Regularization of Weight Vectors (AROW). Our approach adaptively updates a sedation level prediction algorithm under a continuously evolving data distribution. The prediction model is gradually calibrated for individual patients in response to EEG observations and routine clinical assessments over time. The evaluations are performed on a population of 172 sedated ICU patients whose sedation levels were assessed using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (scores between -5 = comatose and 0 = awake). The proposed adaptive model achieves better performance than the same model without adaptation (average accuracies with tolerance of one level difference: 68.76% vs. 61.10%). Moreover, our approach is shown to be robust to sudden changes caused by label noise. Medication administrations have different effects on model performance. We find that the model performs best in patients receiving only propofol, compared to patients receiving no sedation or multiple simultaneous sedative medications.