Light Sedation Strategy Research Articles

Analgesia and sedation strategy for mechanically ventilated patients in the respiratory ICU

Abstract Background Mechanical ventilation is typically required for ICU patients as part of their care. This recommends the use of analgesia and sedation in a balanced strategy to alter patients’ comfort and assist synchronization with mechanical ventilation while avoiding the downsides of excessive sedation. Objective The aim of the study was to compare between deep sedation and light sedation, analgesia, and no sedation strategies and their effects on the length of mechanical ventilation, and their effects on patients’ prognosis. Patients and methods This cohort prospective pilot study was conducted at the medical respiratory ICU at Ain Shams University Hospital in Cairo, Egypt, on 54 patients separated into four groups according to the type of sedation and analgesia suited for each patient’s severity condition. Results In this study, 54 mechanically ventilated patients in respiratory ICU were recruited. The patients were divided into group 1: no sedation or analgesia, group 2: analgesia only, group 3: light sedation, and group 4: deep sedation. There was a significant difference in Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score and severity%, although the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation score and severity % were the highest in group 1 (25.53, 55.11%) and group 4 (23.40, 47.68%), but the prognosis was poorer in group 4 and was affected by deep sedation (100% death rate) than that in group 1 (60.0%). The average infusion rate of fentanyl and the total dose were significantly different between groups, the highest being in the deep sedation group. ICU length of stay was nonsignificant between groups but it was lower in group 4 (median: 9 days) than other groups. The average rate of dormicum infusion in the deep sedation group was 5 µg, while there was no daily vacation period; so, it can be explained that higher doses of sedation and analgesia in group 4 affected their prognosis to be poorer than other groups. Delirium occurred in 80% of group 4 patients, but only in 6.7% of subgroups, indicating a highly significant difference. Complications either metabolic, cardiac, or hematologic in the postextubation period were higher in group 4 (60%), than in group 1 (47.7%), group 2 (40%), and group 3 (15%). Conclusion Light sedation and analgesia strategies with daily sedation interruption would have a better survival outcome and cause fewer issues in patients, who were on mechanical ventilation than a heavy sedation approach.

Expert consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019.

Expert consensus on the diagnosis and treatment of severe and critical coronavirus disease 2019.

International clinical research of critical care medicine in 2021

The progress of critical care medicine in 2021 is still encouraging. The new international guideline for management of sepsis and septic shock came out after 4 years. Besides, a couple of preferable clinical evidences were released including restrictive blood transfusion strategy for patients with acute myocardial infarction, prevention of peripheral venous catheter infection, heparin inhalation and driving pressure setting in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), lower oxygenation target for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, low level positive end-expiratory pressure in non-ARDS patients with respiratory failure, light sedation or non-sedation strategy, biological phenotypes, as well machine learning in sepsis and ARDS. However, we also encounter negative results such as balanced solution during fluid resuscitation, hypothermia therapy after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest or traumatic brain injury, adrenomedullin-specific antibody adrecizumab therapy and coupled plasma filtration-adsorption (CPFA) therapy for patients with septic shock, extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal (ECCO2R) implementation in acute hypoxic respiratory failure, continuous infusion of hypertonic saline in patients with traumatic brain injury. Collectively, in the future, individualized diagnosis and management based on the principle of "wise choice" will become the daily practice scene for all intensivists.

Study on the effect of sedation strategy guided by driving pressure on prognosis of patients with mechanical ventilation

To evaluate the effect of airway driving pressure (ΔP) guided sedation strategy on the prognosis of patients with mechanical ventilation. Patients who needed invasive mechanical ventilation and admitted to the department of intensive care unit (ICU) of Jiangxi Provincial People's Hospital from January 2017 to December 2018 were enrolled. The patients were divided into study group and control group according to the random number table. After informed consent of patients or their families, both groups received routine treatment in ICU. The control group was treated with light sedation strategy, the Richmond agitation sedation score (RASS) was performed every 4 hours, and the target was RASS > -3. ΔP in the study group was measured once a day, and the sedative target of patients with low driving pressure (ΔP ≤ 14 cmH2O, 1 cmH2O = 0.098 kPa) was RASS > -3, while the patients with high driving pressure (ΔP > 14 cmH2O) was RASS ≤ -3. The evaluation was conducted at 28 days after admission to ICU, and the patients were followed up to 60 days. The main outcome was days without mechanical ventilation in 28 days. The secondary outcomes were the rate of extubation, discharge outcome, incidence of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) and delirium, and 60-day survival rate. A total of 60 patients with respiratory failure due to various reasons were recruited, 30 in each group. There was no significant difference in gender, age, primary disease, severity of disease or ΔP between the two groups. The days without mechanical ventilation within 28 days in the study group were significantly more than that in the control group [days: 20 (0, 23) vs. 12 (0, 16), P = 0.018], and the incidences of VAP (3.3% vs. 16.7%, P = 0.045) and delirium (0% vs. 10.0%, P = 0.038) were significantly lower than that in the control group. There were no significant differences in the rate of extubation (73.3% vs. 66.7%, P = 0.273), discharge outcome [improvement (cases): 24 vs. 21, unhealed (cases): 2 vs. 5, deaths (cases): 4 vs. 4, P = 0.506] and 60-day survival rate (83.3% vs. 76.7%, P = 0.519) between the study group and control group. Compared with light sedation strategy, ΔP directed sedation strategy can effectively shorten the duration of mechanical ventilation and reduce the incidence of VAP and delirium in the ICU patients.

Neuromuscular blockade in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BackgroundNeuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) has been proposed by medical guidelines for early severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) because of its survival benefits. However, new studies have provided evidence contradicting these results.MethodA search was performed of the Pubmed, Scopus, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Virtual Health Library databases for randomized controlled trials (RCT) evaluating 28-day mortality in ARDS patients treated with NMBA within 48 h. An English language restriction was applied. Relevant data were extracted and pooled into risk ratios (RR), mean differences (MD), and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effect model. Sensitivity and meta-regression analysis were performed.ResultsFrom 2675 studies, we included five RCTs in the analysis, for a total of 1461 patients with a mean PaO2/FIO2 of 104 ± 35 mmHg. The cisatracurium group had the same risk of death at 28 days (RR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.78–1.03; I2 = 50%, p = 0.12) and 90 days (RR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.62–1.06; I2 = 56%, p = 0.06) as the control group (no cisatracurium). The secondary outcomes of mechanical ventilation duration and ventilator-free days were not different between the two groups. Cisatracurium had a significantly lower risk of barotrauma than the control group with no difference in intensive care unit (ICU)–induced weakness. The PaO2/FIO2 ratio was higher in the cisatracurium group but not until 48 h. Meta-regression analysis of the baseline PaO2/FIO2 ratio, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) revealed no heterogeneity. Subgroup analysis excluding the trial using high PEEP and light sedation strategy yielded an improvement in all mortality outcomes.ConclusionNMBA improves oxygenation only after 48 h in moderate, severe ARDS patients and has a lower barotrauma risk without affecting ICU weakness. However, NMBA does not reduce ventilator-free days, duration of mechanical ventilation or, most importantly, the mortality risk regardless of the severity of ARDS.

Sedation Requirements in Patients on Venovenous or Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

Background:There is a paucity of data evaluating optimal dosing strategies of commonly utilized opioids and sedatives for patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support where pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic variables of these administered agents are altered. Objective: To assess the daily dosing requirement of sedatives and analgesics for patients on venovenous (VV) and venoarterial (VA) ECMO after the initial ECMO cannulation period. Methods: We performed a retrospective, observational study of adult patients receiving sedation and analgesia while receiving ECMO support for at least 24 hours. Patients cannulated at an outside hospital more than 24 hours before transfer, those with a history of intravenous drug use or acute alcohol withdrawal, or those who died within 48 hours of ECMO initiation were excluded. Results: We evaluated 26 patients on ECMO, including 13 on VV and 13 on VA ECMO. The median dose of fentanyl was 140 µg/h, with the VV group requiring a higher dose compared with the VA group (167 vs 106 µg/h, P < 0.001). The median doses of dexmedetomidine and propofol were 0.7 µg/kg/h and 26 µg/kg/min, respectively, with no significant differences between groups (P = 0.38 and P = 0.24, respectively). The median daily doses of fentanyl, dexmedetomidine, and propofol did not significantly increase throughout the time on ECMO support. Conclusions and Relevance: We found that the overall opioid daily dosing requirements were lower than previously reported in the literature. Additionally, light sedation strategies with a target RASS of -1 to 0 are feasible in this patient population.

Limiting sedation for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome - time to wake up.

Critically ill patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) may require sedation in their clinical care. The goals of sedation in ARDS patients are to improve patient comfort and tolerance of supportive and therapeutic measures without contributing to adverse outcomes. This review discusses the current evidence for sedation management in patients with ARDS. Deep sedation strategies should be avoided in the care of patients with ARDS because deep sedation has been associated with increased time on mechanical ventilation, longer ICU and hospital length of stay, and higher mortality in critically ill patients. Adoption of protocol-based, light-sedation strategies is preferred and improves patient outcomes. Although the optimal sedative agent for ARDS patients is unclear, benzodiazepines should be avoided because of associations with oversedation, delirium, prolonged ICU and hospital length of stay, and increased mortality. Minimizing sedation in patients with ARDS facilitates early mobilization and early discharge from the ICU, potentially aiding in recovery from critical illness. Strategies to optimize ventilation in ARDS patients, such as low tidal volume ventilation and high positive end-expiratory pressure can be employed without deep sedation; however, deep sedation is required if patients receive neuromuscular blockade, which may benefit some ARDS patients. Knowledge gaps persist as to whether or not prone positioning and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation can be tolerated with light sedation. Current evidence supports the use of protocol-based, light-sedation strategies in critically ill patients with ARDS. Further research into sedation management specifically in ARDS populations is needed.

The progress of light sedation for critically ill adult patients in intensive care unit

The latest advance of sedation for critically ill adult patients in intensive care unit (ICU) was reviewed in order to provide certain clinical information for the ICU physicians about sedation. Guidelines, clinical research, Meta-analysis, and reviews in recent years were collected using electronic data base. Discussions included: (1) the definition of light sedation, and its effects on clinical outcome, stress, sleep and delirium; (2) light sedation strategies included: the target population, the target sedation strategy and daily sedation interruption, clinical assessment and monitoring of sedation, selection of sedative drugs, light sedation extenuation; (3) light sedation strategies and pain, agitation, delirium control bundles; (4) the problems and prospects of light sedation. Light sedation is the main principle of currently ICU sedation strategy in critically ill adult patients. Goal-directed light sedation should be considered as a routine therapy in most clinical situation, and its goal should be achieved as early as possible in the early stage of sedation. Routine use of benzodiazepines should be avoided, especially in patients with or at a risk of delirium. Prevention and treatment of agitation with a combination of non-pharmacologic or pharmacologic methods; ICU specification rules for pain, agitation and delirium prevention and treatment should be made. Light sedation is the main ICU sedation strategy in adult patients now, but must be individualized for each patient.

Light sedation strategies and posttraumatic stress disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Strategies aiming at light sedation are associated with decreased times on mechanical ventilation. However, awake or easily aroused patients may be prone to have greater prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety of light sedation strategies in the prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder.

Protocolized sedation effect on post-ICU posttraumatic stress disorder prevalence: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

PurposeStrategies aiming light sedation are associated with decreased length on mechanical ventilation. However, awake or easily arousable patients may be prone to greater prevalence of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). These systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the safety of light sedation strategies regarding the prevalence of PTSD. MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to November 2014 for randomized controlled trials that evaluated light sedation strategies and addressed PTSD prevalence in the follow-up as a specific outcome. Because not all trials performed the same comparisons, we performed a network meta-analysis to evaluate indirect comparisons. ResultsFive studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. Two studies compared daily sedation interruption with usual care (92 patients), 2 studies compared a light sedation protocol with daily sedation interruption (47 patients), and 1 study compared light and deep sedation (102 patients). Compared with usual sedation care/deep sedation, neither daily interruption of sedation (odds ratio = 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-1.98) nor a light sedation protocol (odds ratio = 0.90, 95% confidence interval, 0.27-3.05) was associated with increased risks on long-term PTSD prevalence. ConclusionLight sedation strategies seem to be safe in terms of PTSD prevalence. However, the small number of included trials and patients may not be sufficient to drive strong statements.

Daily Sedation Interruption Versus Targeted Light Sedation Strategies in ICU

Daily Sedation Interruption Versus Targeted Light Sedation Strategies in ICU

Daily Sedation Interruption Versus Targeted Light Sedation Strategies in ICU Patients

The updated clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium recommend either daily sedation interruption or maintaining light levels of sedation as methods to improve outcomes for patients who are sedated in the ICU. We review the evidence supporting both methods and discuss whether one method is preferable or if they should be used concurrently. Original research articles identified using the electronic PubMed database. Randomized controlled trials and large prospective cohort studies of mechanically ventilated ICU patients requiring sedation were selected. The methods of daily sedation interruption and targeting light sedation levels (including avoidance of deep sedation) are safe in critically ill patients with no increase, and a potential decrease, in long-term psychiatric disturbances. Randomized trials comparing these methods with standard care, which has traditionally involved moderate to heavy sedation, found that both methods reduced duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay. Additionally, one trial noted that daily sedation interruption paired with spontaneous breathing trials improved 1-year survival, whereas a large observational study found that deep sedation was associated with decreased 180-day survival. Two common characteristics of these interventions in trials showing benefits were avoidance of deep levels of sedation and significant reductions in sedative doses, especially benzodiazepines. Thus, combining targeted light sedation with daily sedation interruption may be more beneficial than either method alone if sedative doses are reduced and arousal and mobility are facilitated during the ICU stay. Daily sedation interruption and targeting light sedation levels are safe and proven to improve outcomes for sedated ICU patients when these approaches result in reduced sedative exposure and facilitate arousal. It remains unclear as to whether one approach is superior, and further studies are needed to evaluate which patients benefit most from either or both techniques.