Continuous Sedative Infusions Research Articles

Sex-based Differences in the Use of Best Practices in Mechanically Ventilated Adults in the Intensive Care Unit: An Analysis of the Toronto Multicenter iCORE Database.

Rationale: Patients who are critically ill and require admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) should receive the same quality of care regardless of their sex. Objectives: To determine, using population data from a multicenter database in Ontario, Canada, whether sex is associated with differences in the use of eight best practices and other interventions during the ICU care of mechanically ventilated women and men. Methods: Using a cohort of patients receiving mechanical ventilation in eight ICUs, our coprimary outcomes were differences in compliance with eight evidence-based practices between women and men (opioid administration, use of continuous sedation or opioids, sedation minimization, spontaneous breathing trials, stress ulcer prophylaxis, deep venous thrombosis [DVT] prophylaxis, physical restraint, and mobilization). All analyses were adjusted for confounders using logistic regression and restricted to patients eligible for each best practice Results: We included 19,070 (11,910 men, 7,160 women) patients who were mechanically ventilated for >4 hours. Men and women had similar opioid administration, sedation minimization, stress ulcer prophylaxis, DVT prophylaxis, and mobilization. Women were less likely to receive continuous infusions of sedation or opioids than men (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78-0.95) and less likely to be physically restrained (adjusted OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.74-0.89). Conclusions: In this cohort of mechanically ventilated patients, the use of evidence-based practices was similar between women and men, except for a higher use of continuous sedative or opioid infusions and physical restraints in men.

Comparison of Continuous Sedatives in the Burn ICU on Delirium and Coma.

Lighter sedation targets over the past decade have resulted in improved outcomes for critically ill populations. Although guidelines exist for the general ICU population, these recommendations often exclude the burn population. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of the initial continuous sedative on coma- and delirium-free days in critically ill patients with burns. This retrospective cohort study evaluated adult patients admitted to a burn intensive care unit at an academic medical center between January 2010 and September 2019. Patients were enrolled into 3 groups based on the depth of initial continuous sedation received (deep, light, or analgosedation). Intubated patients were randomly assessed for inclusion from the National V6 Burn Registry. Patients were included if they received a continuous sedative infusion for at least 48 h. A total of 107 patients were included in the study with 36, 41, and 30 patients receiving deep, light, and analgosedation, respectively. The primary outcome of coma- and delirium-free days was significantly different between sedation types with the most days free in analgosedation and the fewest in deep sedation (8 versus 3 days; P = 0.024). The composite primary outcome was divided into secondary outcomes of coma-free days and delirium-free days, with coma-free days being different (P = 0.00008). Other secondary outcomes of length of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital, time on mechanical ventilation, and survival to discharge were not statistically significant; however, a trend toward higher mortality in deep sedation was noted.

548 Volatile Sedation in the Burn Intensive Care Unit: A Quality Improvement Initiative

Abstract Introduction Achieving optimal sedation and analgesia in patients with major burn injuries can be challenging. Reliance on benzodiazepines results in longer durations of mechanical ventilation, delirium and withdrawal. Recent evidence and local experience in our critical care unit has supported the application of volatile agents such as isoflurane for sedation. A local audit determined that 70% of mechanically ventilated patients in our burn center are managed on 3 or more continuous sedative infusions. The aim of this initiative was to reduce the number of continuous sedative infusions to maintain target sedation range (SAS 2-4) by 25% in the 48 hour period following initiation of isoflurane. Methods A multifaceted education approach was applied to engage all bedside staff, including burn surgeons, respiratory therapists and nurses. Training occurred though self-directed modules, in-person learning and just-in-time training upon new patient initiation. Data from the 18 month period since implementation were collected retrospectively via manual chart review. Results Since implementation in March 2021, 18 patients were sedated using isoflurane in our burn intensive care unit (ICU). Within 48 hours of isoflurane initiation, 50% (9/18) of patients had a decrease in the number of sedative infusions and 56% (10/18) obtained an optimal level of sedation using isoflurane and hydromorphone alone. Conclusions Volatile agents provide a safe and reliable method of sedation in mechanically ventilated patients with major burn injuries. Despite limitations related to specialized equipment and training, the introduction of this strategy has been well received, with positive feedback relating to both ease of implementation and titration. Applicability of Research to Practice Patients with major burn injuries require multiple painful surgeries and dressing changes. Volatile sedation has been shown to reduce the number of sedative infusions, specifically, our reliance on benzodiazepines.

Prospective observational study on the use of continuous intravenous ketamine and propofol infusion for prolonged sedation in critical care

IntroductionAnalgesia and sedation are a priority in paediatric intensive care. The combination of ketamine and propofol is a possible option in patients requiring prolonged or difficult sedation and to reduce the use of benzodiazepines and opiates. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of combination ketamine and propofol in continuous infusion for prolonged analgesia/sedation in the paediatric intensive care setting. Patients and methodsProspective, observational single-group cohort study in patients aged 1 month to 16 years admitted to the paediatric intensive care unit in 2016–2018 that received ketamine and propofol in continuous infusion for analgesia and sedation. We collected data on demographic and clinical characteristics, analgesia and sedation scores (MAPS, COMFORT-B and SOPHIA), haemodynamic parameters and adverse events. ResultsThe study included 32 patients. The maximum dose of ketamine was 1.5 mg/kg/h (interquartile range [IQR], 1−2 mg/kg/h) and the infusion duration was 5 days (IQR, 3–5 days). The maximum dose of propofol was 3.2 mg/kg/h (IQR, 2.5–3.6 mg/kg/h) and the infusion duration, 5 days (IQR, 3–5 days). Thirty (93.7%) patients had previously received midazolam and 29 (90.6%) fentanyl. Analgesia scores did not change after initiation of the ketamine and propofol infusion. There was a statistically significant increase in the COMFORT-B score, but the score remained in the adequate sedation range (12–17). There were small but statistically significant decreases in the mean arterial pressure (from 64 mmHg to 60 mmHg; P = .006) and the diastolic blood pressure (from 50.5 to 48 mmHg; P = .023) 1 h after the initiation of the ketamine and propofol infusion, but this difference was not observed 12 h later and did not require administration of vasoactive drugs. No other major adverse events were detected during the infusion. ConclusionsThe combination of ketamine and propofol in continuous infusion is a safe treatment in critically ill children that makes it possible to achieve an appropriate level of analgesia and sedation without relevant haemodynamic repercussions.

Uso concomitante de ketamina y propofol en perfusión continua en cuidados intensivos: eficacia y seguridad para analgesia y sedación prolongada

IntroductionAnalgesia and sedation are a priority in paediatric intensive care. The combination of ketamine and propofol is a possible option in patients requiring prolonged or difficult sedation and to reduce the use of benzodiazepines and opiates. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of combination ketamine and propofol in continuous infusion for prolonged analgesia/sedation in the paediatric intensive care setting. Patients and methodsProspective, observational single-group cohort study in patients aged 1 month to 16 years admitted to the paediatric intensive care unit in 2016–2018 that received ketamine and propofol in continuous infusion for analgesia and sedation. We collected data on demographic and clinical characteristics, analgesia and sedation scores (MAPS, COMFORT-B and SOPHIA), haemodynamic parameters and adverse events. ResultsThe study included 32 patients. The maximum dose of ketamine was 1.5mg/kg/h (interquartile range [IQR], 1–2mg/kg/h) and the infusion duration was 5 days (IQR, 3–5 days). The maximum dose of propofol was 3.2mg/kg/h (IQR, 2.5–3.6mg/kg/h) and the infusion duration, 5 days (IQR, 3–5 days). Thirty (93.7%) patients had previously received midazolam and 29 (90.6%) fentanyl. Analgesia scores did not change after initiation of the ketamine and propofol infusion. There was a statistically significant increase in the COMFORT-B score, but the score remained in the adequate sedation range (12–17). There were small but statistically significant decreases in the mean arterial pressure (from 64mmHg to 60mmHg; P=.006) and the diastolic blood pressure (from 50.5 to 48mmHg; P=.023) 1h after the initiation of the ketamine and propofol infusion, but this difference was not observed 12h later and did not require administration of vasoactive drugs. No other major adverse events were detected during the infusion. ConclusionsThe combination of ketamine and propofol in continuous infusion is a safe treatment in critically ill children that makes it possible to achieve an appropriate level of analgesia and sedation without relevant haemodynamic repercussions.

750: EVALUATION OF IV FENTANYL INFUSION DOSE IN THE INTENSIVE CARE UNIT

Introduction: Fentanyl (F) has a rapid onset of action and short duration of action and is typically given as a continuous infusion for analgesia and sedation in the ICU. There has been concern that F dosing requirements have increased over the past few years. The goal of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the use of F in the ICU to assess whether doses increased over time. Methods: This IRB approved study included intubated ICU adult patients from 2017 - 2021. We identified all patients with F infusions over 24 hours and then randomly pulled 200 patients (40 in each calendar year) to abstract data on F dosing parameters included total length of therapy, time to max dose, and cumulative dose as primary outcomes. F side effects and concomitant diseases were also collected. Continuous variables were analyzed using ANOVA test and discrete variables were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test. Results are presented as mean ± SD or percentages. A significant difference in any variable was determined based on p < 0.05. Results: There were no significant differences among background demographics. The average age of the entire sample was 60.1 ± 16.5, and 52% male. Total length of therapy 102.9 ± 75.4, 111.0 ± 106.8, 139.1 ± 173.6, 101.6 ± 88.9, and 102.7 ± 71.6 hours, p>0.05 for each year. Time to max dose (41.2 ± 59.2, 29.6 ± 67.9, 40.2 ± 69.2, 52.9 ± 64.5, and 35.1 ± 37.6 hours), and cumulative dose (11025 ± 11758.7, 10887.5 ± 12450.7, 16587.5 ± 33974.5, 8912.5 ± 8961.4, and 11912.5 ± 10770.3 mcg) for each year was not different, p>0.05. Respiratory, renal, and psychiatric concomitant conditions were significantly different for all years. Regardless of the year, patients who received concomitant F and ketamine had a significant incidence of hypotension, p=0.006. Conclusions: The results of this retrospective review of intubated ICU patients found no difference in F dosing requirements over a five-year period. A significant higher incidence of hypotension was found when patients received F with ketamine. The data may be limited by the varying presence of comorbidities from year to year.

505: FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH INTENSIVE CARE UTILIZATION AFTER ADULT SPINAL DEFORMITY SURGERY

Introduction: Adult spinal deformity surgery (SDS) has a higher morbidity and mortality relative to other elective spinal procedures, and patients often require post-operative intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The goal of this study is to describe the type and frequency of ICU-specific needs after SDS and identify risk factors for these interventions. Methods: This was a single center, retrospective analysis of adult patients admitted to the ICU after elective SDS over a 6-year period. Demographics and ICU interventions (vasoactive medications, mechanical ventilation (MV), etc.) were recorded. Chi-square test and two sample t-tests were performed to determine risk factors for ICU needs. Results: 236 patient records were analyzed (mean age 68 + 9 years; 65% women). The most common surgery was long-segment thoracolumbar fusion for scoliosis (86%). Mean ICU and hospital lengths of stay (LOS) were 1.6 and 6.2 days, respectively; 2 (0.85%) patients died in the ICU. 42 (18%) required vasoactive medications and 17 (7%) needed MV (15 returned from the operating room (OR) intubated, 1 was re-intubated in the OR, 1 was re-intubated in the ICU for bronchospasm); all patients were extubated safely within 24 hours of ICU admission. Post-operative blood product transfusion was common (65%); 140 (59%) patients received red blood cells (mean units 1.28 + 1.4, max 8). Other ICU events included symptomatic arrhythmias in 14 (6%), acute kidney injury in 8 (3.4%), and acute pulmonary edema in 11 (4.7%). 75% of patients used continuous analgesic or sedative infusions. Age and gender were not significantly different in those requiring ICU interventions versus those who did not. Estimated blood loss (EBL) was associated with post-operative MV (p< 0.0001) and vasopressors (p = 0.04), while length of segmental fusion was associated with MV (p = 0.0001) only. Conclusions: ICU interventions (MV, vasopressors) were required in 53 (22%) patients undergoing SDS, suggesting that ICU destination after SDS is warranted. Intensivists should expect a moderate number of patients to need critical care interventions in the absence of intra-operative complications, however, most patients have a short ICU LOS. In this study, EBL and spinal fusion length was associated with the need for ICU-specific care.

894: PENTOBARBITAL FOR SEDATION OF ADULTS RECEIVING EXTRACORPOREAL MEMBRANE OXYGENATION FOR COVID-19

Introduction: Sedation for ventilated patients with COVID-19 is challenging given the severity and duration of the disease. Complicating this is the introduction of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for patients with refractory respiratory failure. An ECMO circuit can meaningfully alter drug pharmacokinetics by sequestering drug, increasing the volume of distribution, and altering clearance. Many common sedatives are known to be significantly impacted, thus altering standard dosing. In circumstances warranting deep sedation, such as ARDS, clinicians need a wide array of sedatives and analgesics available when managing patients receiving ECMO support. To our knowledge, no studies have assessed the use of pentobarbital as a sedative in adult patients receiving ECMO support for severe ARDS. We aimed to characterize the use of pentobarbital infusions as part of a multi-modal sedation regimen in adult patients with COVID-19 who were receiving ECMO. Methods: Adults with COVID-19 who were receiving both pentobarbital and VV-ECMO support between March 2020 and December 2021 were included. The primary outcome was change in the dose of concomitant sedatives at 24- and 48-hours post-initiation of pentobarbital. Secondary outcomes included depth of sedation, ventilator synchrony, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and vasopressor doses in norepinephrine equivalents. Additionally, we assessed for adverse drug reactions (ADRs) which included hypotension and transaminitis. Results: Five patients were included. All patients were initiated on a pentobarbital infusion for the indication of ventilator dyssynchrony. Patients received pentobarbital at an initial rate of 1 mg/kg/hr and infusion rates ranged between 0.5 – 2 mg/kg/hr. Following pentobarbital initiation, all patients became synchronous with the ventilator and doses of continuous sedative infusions decreased. Additionally, the total number and daily dose of rescue sedative medications decreased following pentobarbital initiation. ADRs were common and included hypotension (60%) and transaminitis (20%). Conclusions: A pentobarbital infusion can be used as part of a multimodal sedation regimen for patients requiring high doses of sedatives to achieve ventilator synchrony.

Evaluation of Dexmedetomidine’s Effect on Temperature in Obese Critically Ill Patients

Introduction: Previous literature showed an association between hyperthermia and dexmedetomidine (DEX) use for ongoing sedation in non-obese patients. The purpose of this study is to evaluate DEX’s effect on temperature in obese critically ill patients. Methods: This single center, retrospective, cohort study included patients ≥18 years, admitted to a surgical or medical ICU, received DEX for ≥8 hours as a single continuous infusion sedative, and weighed ≥120% of ideal body weight. Patients were excluded if they had a fever (≥38°C) and positive cultures within 48 hours of DEX initiation. The primary endpoint was a fever (Tmax of ≥38°C) within 48 hours of DEX initiation. Results: A total of 186 patients were included for evaluation. Forty-two patients (22.5%) had a fever during the first 48 hours of DEX initiation. Median weight was not different between the febrile and afebrile groups (99.4 [90.6-122.4] vs 97.6 [81.6-114.2] kg, P = .6). Median change from baseline temperature for all patients within 48 hours was an increase of .5 (.1-.8) °C, P < .001. In multiple regression analysis, duration of DEX and baseline temperature were the only significant predictors of fever development with an adjusted odds ratio of 1.041 (95% CI 1.009-1.074, P = .012) and 7.058 (95% CI 3.307-15.064, P < .001), respectively. Conclusions: This study suggests that there is a significant increase in body temperature from baseline for obese patients on DEX. Duration of DEX and baseline temperature were found to be risk factors for fever development in this population. Further studies are warranted.

Front-Loaded Versus Low-Intermittent Phenobarbital Dosing for Benzodiazepine-Resistant Severe Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome.

Phenobarbital is frequently used to manage severe alcohol withdrawal. The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of mechanical ventilation in patients with benzodiazepine-resistant alcohol withdrawal between front-loaded and low-intermittent phenobarbital dosing strategies. In this retrospective before-after study, we analyzed patients that received phenobarbital for severe alcohol withdrawal syndrome in a tertiary medical ICU. Patients received low-intermittent phenobarbital doses (260mg intravenous push × 1 followed by 130mg intravenous push every 15min as needed) from January2013 to July 2015, and front-loaded phenobarbital doses (10mg/kg intravenous infusion over 30min) from July 2015 to January 2017. In total, 87 patients met inclusion criteria for this study:41received low-intermittentphenobarbital and 46 receivedfront-loadedphenobarbital). The incidence of mechanical ventilation was 13 (28%) in the front-loaded dosing group vs. 26 (63%) in the low-intermittent dosing group (odds ratio 4.4 [95% CI 1.8-10.9]). The cumulative dose of phenobarbital administered and serum phenobarbital levels were similar between both groups, although the front-loaded group had significantly lower benzodiazepine requirements than the low-intermittent group (median 86mg [IQR 24-197] vs. 228mg [115-298], P < 0.01) and reduced need for any continuous sedative infusion (OR 7.7 [95% CI 1.6-27], P < 0.01). There was no difference in respiratory failure or hypotension. Front-loaded phenobarbital dosing, when compared to low-intermittent phenobarbital dosing, for benzodiazepine-resistant alcohol withdrawal was associated with significantly lower mechanical ventilation incidence and continuous sedative use.

Evaluating Patients for “Light Sedation”

Continuous sedative infusion is commonly used along with some form of pain medication for patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Such therapy has multiple goals: managing agitation and delirium, avoiding patient safety issues such as self-extubation, or maintaining patient/ventilator synchrony. However, research has shown us that use of deep sedation for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is not innocuous.1 Oversedation contributes to delirium, increases ICU stay, and fosters development of post–intensive care syndrome after discharge. Long-term effects of delirium affect quality of life and the ability to return to pre-ICU life and activities. Although sedation goals based on validated scales (eg, Sedation-Agitation Scale, Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale) have been recommended in the guidelines, no measurable target has been determined to be “light sedation.” The purpose of the accompanying study by Brown et al was to determine what the best numerical targets are on the validated scales to achieve light sedation, defined as the patient being able to follow 3 specific commands. Even though this study requires replication, it does take us one step closer to achieving true light sedation and supporting high-quality outcomes for our ICU patients.

Implementation of a Nurse-Driven Spontaneous Awakening Trial Protocol in a Cardiac Intensive Care Unit.

In patients receiving mechanical ventilation, spontaneous awakening trials reduce morbidity and mortality when paired with spontaneous breathing trials. However, spontaneous awakening trials are not performed every day they are indicated and little is known about spontaneous awakening trial protocol use in cardiac intensive care units. Spontaneous awakening trial completion rate at the study institution was low and no trial protocol was regularly used. A preintervention-postintervention retrospective cohort study was performed in adult patients with at least 24 hours of invasive mechanical ventilation in Michigan Medicine's cardiac intensive care unit. Patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection were excluded. Data included demographics, sedation, mechanical ventilation duration, and in-hospital mortality. A nurse-driven spontaneous awakening trial protocol modified for the cardiac intensive care unit was implemented in October 2020. Compared with the preintervention cohort (n = 29, May through July 2020), the postintervention cohort (n = 27, October 2020 through February 2021) had a higher ratio of number of trials performed to number of days eligible for trial (0.91 vs 0.52; P < .01). Median continuous sedative infusion duration was shorter after intervention (2.3 vs 3.6 days; P = .02). Median mechanical ventilation duration (3.8 vs 4.7 days; P = .18) and mortality (41% vs 41%; P = .95) were similar between groups. Spontaneous awakening trial protocol implementation led to a higher trial completion rate and a shorter duration of continuous sedative infusion. Larger studies are needed to assess the impact of protocolized spontaneous awakening trials on cardiac intensive care unit patient outcomes.

622 Oral Ketamine Administration During Bromelain Based Enzymatic Debridement of Burn Injury

IntroductionExisting literature supports bromelain enzymatic debridement as an early tool for selective escharectomy, resulting in fewer skin grafts after burn injury. Enzyme application is painful, so many centers use continuous infusions of narcotics, ketamine, and sedatives in the intensive care unit. The authors utilize oral ketamine in burn practice- as it is safe, can decrease the need for higher level of care, and be used without fasting. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether oral ketamine can safely be utilized as an alternative to continuous infusions of medications for bromelain treatment.MethodsThis was a retrospective study of patients who received oral ketamine (for analgesia) and oral lorazepam (for anxiolysis and prevention of dysphoria) for bromelain-based selective enzymatic debridement application over a 6-month period. Data collected included patient demographics, burn characteristics, sedatives and analgesics administered, pain scores, adjunct medications, and vital signs. Presence of respiratory insufficiency (desaturations < 93%, need for bag-valve mask, or intubation), hypertensive urgency (SBP >180, DBP >110 w/out end organ dysfunction), dysphoric reactions, and uncontrolled pain were recorded. Oral ketamine (2-4 mg/kg) was given 30 minutes prior to the procedure. Patients were monitored per sedation guidelines and had capnography plus supplemental oxygen. Small PRN IV boluses of narcotics were given during the procedure, along with their baseline oral multimodals and narcotics. Pain was measured with the 1-10 verbal rating scale with minimal pain defined as < 4 or the patient clinically observed as sleeping. Patients were not made NPO for the procedure.ResultsTen patients were included. Four patients (40%) had minimal pain during enzyme application, 3 (30%) patients slept through their procedure, and 3 (30%) patients reported 10/10 pain during treatment (2 had 10/10 pain before treatment). Five patients were treated on the floor, 7 were treated in the ICU. The median ketamine dose was 225 mg (IQR:177,250), or 3mg/kg (IQR:2.75,3). Additional oral and IV opioids received during the 8–14-hour interval was 21 morphine milligram equivalents (MEs). The median benzodiazepine dosing before and during enzymatic debridement was 1.4 lorazepam MEs. Three patients (30%) had hypertensive urgency, 2 (20%) of whom reported 10/10 pain, and all 3 received 10mg IV labetalol. No one had dysphoric reactions or respiratory insufficiency.ConclusionsThis preliminary study reveals oral ketamine administration is safe and effective for pain control during bromelain-based enzymatic debridement. Most patients required small to moderate amounts of PRN IV opioids, had acceptable pain control, and there were no significant adverse effects. Future large, prospective studies should evaluate dosing and timing for optimal patient outcomes.

Superficial placement of endotracheal tubes associated with unplanned extubation: A case-control study.

Unplanned extubations (UEs) refer to the inadvertent removal of endotracheal tubes (ETTs). Superficially placed ETTs anecdotally increases the risk of UEs. This study aims to assess the impact of ETT position as well as other factors that could be associated with risk of UEs. A retrospective case-control study was conducted at NewYork-Presbyterian Queens Hospital from January 2017 to February 2020. All adults admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) who received mechanical ventilation (MV) through ETTs were screened to identify UEs. For each case with UE, two controls with planned extubation were identified. A multivariate logistic regression was conducted to identify risk factors associated with UEs. 1100 patients received MV through ETTs during the time period. The incidence of UE was 4.9%. 53 patients with UEs and 106 patients with planned extubation were included for statistical analysis. Overall, patients with UE had higher in-hospital mortality rates (26.4% versus 11.3%, P=0.02) and reintubation rates (28.3% versus 6.6%, P<0.001). Within the UE group, patients who required reintubation had significantly higher in-hospital mortality rates than those who did not require reintubation (53.3% versus 15.8%, P=0.005). Multivariate logistic regression showed higher APACHE II scores (Odds ratios (OR) 1.07; 95% Confidence interval (CI), 1 to 1.13), distance of ETT tips to carina ≥6cm (OR 6.41; 95% CI, 1.1 to 37.3), physical restraint use (OR 2.98; 95% CI, 1.28 to 6.95) and continuous infusions of sedatives and/or analgesics (OR 10.72, 95% CI, 4.19 to 27.43) were associated with UE. UE and the need for reintubation is associated with worse outcomes. Distance of ETT tips to carina ≥6cm may be associated with higher risks of UE. Further prospective studies are needed to establish the optimal position of ETT to prevent UE.

Hemodynamic Effects of Ketamine Infusion in the Intensive Care Unit for Maintenance Sedation Compared With Propofol and Midazolam: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: Sedation and analgesia in the intensive care unit (ICU) are major clinical challenges, and several continuous infusion medications have been used for these purposes. The use of these sedative medications has been associated with hemodynamic effects that complicate the patient's critical illness. Continuous ketamine infusion is an emerging sedative option that has been used more frequently in the ICU since 2017. The purpose of this study was to characterize the hemodynamic differences between 3 continuous sedative infusions: ketamine, propofol, and midazolam.Methods: For this single-center retrospective cohort study, we collected data for patients hospitalized between January 2015 and April 2020 at Saint Luke's Health System in Kansas City, Missouri. Adult patients in the ICU requiring a norepinephrine infusion and sedation were included. The change in norepinephrine requirement from baseline at 1 hour was the primary outcome. The change in vasopressor requirement at 3 and 30 hours after initiation of the infusion was also tabulated.Results: Sixty-eight critically ill patients with several types of shock requiring vasopressor support with norepinephrine were enrolled in our study. Patients who received ketamine had an increase in norepinephrine requirement compared to midazolam and propofol, although this difference was not statistically significant.Conclusion: In our study, continuous ketamine infusion did not reveal a statistically significant favorable hemodynamic effect compared with propofol and midazolam because of the small sample size. A trend toward an unfavorable hemodynamic effect is not expected, but large randomized trials are needed to further evaluate the hemodynamic effects of continuous ketamine infusion in the ICU.

Intensive Care Unit Sedation Practices at a Large, Tertiary Academic Center.

Sedatives are frequently administered in an ICU and are often dependent on patient population and ICU type. These differences may affect patient-centered outcomes. Our primary objective was to identify differences in sedation practice among three different ICU types at an academic medical center. This was a retrospective cross-sectional study of adult patients (≥18 years) requiring a continuous sedative for ≥6 h and admitted to a medical ICU, surgical ICU, and medical/surgical ICU at a single academic medical center in Rochester Minnesota from June 1, 2018 to May 31, 2020. We extracted baseline characteristics; sedative type, dose, and duration; concomitant therapies; and patient outcomes. Summary statistics are presented. A total of 2154 patients met our study criteria (1010 from medical ICU, 539 from surgical ICU, 605 from medical/surgical ICU). Propofol was the most frequently used sedative in all ICU settings (74.1% in medical ICU, 53.8% in surgical ICU, 68.9% in medical/surgical ICU, and 67.5% in all ICUs). The mortality rate was highest in the medical/surgical ICU (40.2% in medical ICU, 26.0% in surgical ICU, 40.7% in medical/surgical ICU, and 36.8% in all ICUs). 90.7% of all patients required mechanical ventilation (92.9% in medical ICU, 88.5% in surgical ICU, and 89.1% in medical/surgical ICU). Overall, patients spent more time in light sedation than deep sedation, 75% versus 10.3%, during their ICU admission. Patients in the medical ICU spent a greater proportion of time positive for delirium than the other ICU settings (35.7% in medical ICU, 9.8% in surgical ICU, and 20% in medical/surgical ICU). Similar amounts of opioids (morphine milligram equivalents) were used during the continuous sedative infusion between the three settings. We observed that patients in the medical ICU spent more time deeply sedated with multiple agents which was associated with a higher proportion of delirium.

Pupil Light Reflex for the Assessment of Analgesia in Critically Ill Sedated Patients With Traumatic Brain Injury: A Preliminary Study.

BACKGROUND: Analgesia monitoring is essential to preserve comfort in critically ill sedated patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Although pupil dilation (PD) and pain behaviors can be used to assess analgesia, these indicators require application of noxious stimulations for elicitation. Recently, the pupillary light reflex (PLR) has emerged as a nonnoxious parameter that may be used to predict analgesia requirements in non-brain-injured patients. Here, we explored whether PLR can be used for the purpose of analgesia monitoring in critically ill sedated TBI patients. METHODS: Fifteen mechanically ventilated TBI patients (11 men; 54 ± 20 years) under continuous analgesia and sedation infusions were assessed at predefined time within 72 hours of intensive care unit admission. Data collection was performed using video-pupillometry and the Behavioral Pain Scale. At each assessment, pupil size and PLR at rest were recorded followed immediately by the documentation of PD and pain behaviors elicited by a calibrated noxious stimulus. Blood concentrations of analgesics/sedatives were monitored. RESULTS: One hundred three assessments were completed. PLR resulted in an average decrease of 19% in pupil diameter, and PD resulted in an average increase of 10% in pupil diameter. Variations in PLR and PD were more pronounced in subjects who showed a Behavioral Pain Scale score greater than 3 (a recognized sign of subanalgesia) compared with those with no behavioral reaction. Multiple regression analyses suggest a significant overlap between fluctuations in pupillary reflexes and blood levels of fentanyl, not propofol. CONCLUSION: In our sample, percentages of variation in PLR and PD were found to be directly representative of TBI patients' fentanyl blood concentration. Considering information about blood drug concentration is generally not available at bedside, PLR could be used as a proxy to assess analgesia requirements before a nociceptive procedure in critically ill sedated TBI patients who are vulnerable to stress.

"Palliative Syringe Driver"? A Mixed-Methods Study in Different Hospital Departments on Continuous Infusions of Sedatives and/or Opioids in End-of-Life Care.

ObjectivesContinuous infusions of sedatives and/or opioids (continuous infusions) are frequently used in end-of-life care. Available data indicate challenges in nonspecialist palliative care settings. We aimed to assess the use of continuous infusions during the last week of life in different hospital departments.MethodsIn a sequential mixed-methods design, a retrospective cohort study was followed by consecutive qualitative interviews in 5 German hospital departments. Medical records of 517 patients who died from January 2015 to December 2017 were used, and 25 interviews with physicians and nurses were conducted. Recorded sedatives were those recommended in guidelines for “palliative sedation”: benzodiazepines, levomepromazine, haloperidol (≥5 mg/d), and propofol. Exploratory statistical analysis (R 3.6.1.) and framework analysis of interviews (MAXQDA 2018.2) were performed.ResultsDuring the last week of life, 359 of 517 deceased patients (69%) received continuous infusions. Some interviewees reported that continuous infusions are a kind of standard procedure for “palliative” patients. According to our interviewees’ views, equating palliative care with continuous infusion therapy, insufficient experience regarding symptom control, and fewer care needs may contribute to this approach. In addition, interviewees reported that continuous infusions may be seen as an “overall-concept” for multiple symptoms. Medical record review demonstrated lack of a documented indication for 80 of 359 patients (22%). Some nurses experienced concerns or hesitations among physicians regarding the prescription of continuous infusions.ConclusionsContinuous infusions seem to be common practice. Lack of documented indications and concerns regarding the handling and perception of a “standard procedure” in these highly individual care situations emphasize the need for further exploration and support to ensure high quality of care.

Comparing the efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus propofol for sedating mechanically ventilated patients after cardiovascular surgeries: Our experience in a tertiary hospital

Many cardiovascular surgeries are fast-tracked to extubation and require short-term sedation. Dexmedetomidine and propofol have very different mechanisms of action and pharmacokinetic profiles that make them attractive sedative agents in this patient population. Recently, there has been increased use of dexmedetomidine in the intensive care unit (ICU), but few studies exist or have been published directly comparing both agents in this setting. We conducted a retrospective cohort study with patients admitted to the ICU after cardiovascular surgery from January 2021 through June 2019 at Apple hospital, Tanuku. Adult patients who underwent coronary artery bypass and/or cardiac valve surgery received either dexmedetomidine or propofol continuous infusion for short-term sedation after cardiovascular surgery. The primary end point was time (hours) on mechanical ventilation after surgery. Secondary end points included ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, incidence of delirium, and requirement of a second sedative agent. A total of 352 patients met study inclusion criteria, with 33 enrolled in the dexmedetomidine group and 319 in the propofol group. Time on mechanical ventilation was shorter in the dexmedetomidine group (7.4 hours vs. 12.9 hours, P = .042). No difference was seen in ICU or hospital LOS. The need for a second sedative agent to achieve optimal sedation (24% vs. 27%, P = .737) and incidence of delirium (9% vs. 7.5%, P = .747) were similar between both groups. Sedation with dexmedetomidine resulted in a significant reduction in time on mechanical ventilation. However, no difference was seen in ICU or hospital LOS, incidence of delirium, or mortality.

Evaluation of Dexmedetomidine Dosing in Obese Critically Ill Patients

Background: Dexmedetomidine is a highly selective α2-adrenoreceptor agonist that produces dose-dependent sedation, anxiolysis, and analgesia without respiratory depression. Due to these ideal sedative properties, there has been increased interest in utilizing dexmedetomidine as a first-line sedative for critically ill patients requiring light sedation. Objective: To evaluate the ability to achieve goal intensive care unit (ICU) sedation before and after an institutional change of dosing from actual (ABW) to adjusted (AdjBW) body weight in obese patients on dexmedetomidine. Methods: This study included patients ≥ 18 years old, admitted to a surgical or medical ICU, required dexmedetomidine for at least 8 hours as a single continuous infusion sedative, and weighed ≥ 120% of ideal body weight. Percentage of RASS measurements within goal range (−1 to +1) during the first 48 hours after initiation of dexmedetomidine as the sole sedative agent or until discontinuation dosed on ABW compared to AdjBW was evaluated. Results: 100 patients were included in the ABW cohort and 100 in the AdjBW cohort. The median dosing weight was significantly higher in the ABW group (95.9 [78.9-119.5] vs 82.2 [72.1-89.8] kg; p = 0.001). There was no statistical difference in percent of RASS measurements in goal range (61.5% vs 69.6%, p = 0.267) in patients that received dexmedetomidine dosed based on ABW versus AdjBW. Conclusion: Dosing dexmedetomidine using AdjBW in obese critically ill patients for ongoing ICU sedation resulted in no statistical difference in the percent of RASS measurements within goal when compared to ABW dosing. Further studies are warranted.