A national survey of critical care nurses' practices related to administration of neuromuscular blocking agents.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations on use of neuromuscular blocking agents include using peripheral nerve stimulators to monitor depth of blockade and concomitantly administering sedatives and/or analgesics. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate critical care nurses' practices in administering neuromuscular blocking agents. METHODS: A 16-item survey was mailed to 483 acute care facilities in the United States. Of these, 246 surveys (51%) were returned and analyzed to determine use of neuromuscular blocking agents, peripheral nerve stimulators, sedatives, and analgesics. Logistic regression analysis was used to find independent predictors of use of peripheral nerve stimulators. RESULTS: Seventy-five percent of respondents reported long-term use of neuromuscular blocking agents in critically ill patients. Of those, 63% monitored the level of blockade with peripheral nerve stimulators. Reasons for not using peripheral nerve stimulators included unavailability of equipment (48%), lack of training (36%), and insufficient evidence that peripheral nerve stimulators improve care (23%). Predictors of use of stimulators were facilities with more than 150 beds (P < .001) and administration of neuromuscular blocking agents by continuous infusion (P < .001). Ninety-five percent of respondents reported using concurrent analgesics/sedatives always or most of the time. Facilities with fewer than 10 beds in the intensive care unit used concurrent analgesics/sedatives significantly less often than did facilities with 10 beds or more (90% vs 98%, respectively; P = .03). CONCLUSIONS: Small and large facilities differ in concomitant use of analgesics/sedatives and peripheral nerve stimulators. Education and research are needed to ensure that patients receive adequate monitoring and sedation during administration of neuromuscular blocking agents.     

Intensive care unit drug use and subsequent quality of life in acute lung injury patients

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between the use of sedative and neuromuscular blocking agents during a patient's intensive care unit (ICU) stay and subsequent measures of health-related quality of life. DESIGN: Cross-sectional mail survey and retrospective medical record abstraction of a prospectively identified cohort of lung injury patients. SETTING: ICUs in three teaching hospitals in a major metropolitan area. PATIENTS: Patients with acute lung injury (n = 24). INTERVENTIONS: None--observational study. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients' charts were reviewed for those patients returning postdischarge quality-of-life questionnaires. Duration, daily dose, and route of administration for sedatives and neuromuscular blocking agents were abstracted from ICU flow sheets. Relationships among ICU variables (days of sedation, days of neuromuscular blockade, and severity of illness as measured by Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III score) and outcomes (symptoms of depression and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder) were assessed. Depressive symptoms at follow-up were correlated with days of sedation (p = .007), but not with days of neuromuscular blockade or initial severity of illness. The composite posttraumatic stress disorder symptom impact score was correlated with days of sedation (p = .006) and days of neuromuscular blockade (p = .035), but not with initial severity of illness. There were no significant differences between the frequency of patients reporting a specific posttraumatic stress disorder symptom in the high sedation group and the low sedation group, and there were no significant differences in specific posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms between the group that had received neuromuscular blockade and those who had not. CONCLUSIONS: The use of sedatives and neuromuscular blocking agents in the ICU is positively associated with subsequent measures of depression and posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms 6-41 months after ICU treatment for acute lung injury.     

National survey of the use of sedating drugs, neuromuscular blocking agents, and reversal agents in the intensive care unit

The objectives of this study were to describe the sedative, neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) and reversal agents utilized in adult intensive care units across the United States and determine the adherence to American College of Critical Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) guidelines. In addition, the authors assessed the use of written protocols, criteria used for selecting these agents, and monitoring practices. Questionnaires were mailed to attending physician members of SCCM in the spring of 1998. A cover letter was enclosed that explained the purpose of the survey asking the respondent to forward the questionnaire to a colleague if unable to complete. Four-hundred fifty-seven questionnaires were returned representing 393 different institutions for a response rate of 50.4% (393/780). Respondents were physicians (91.2%) practicing in a community (49.7%) or university teaching hospital (38.3%). The sedative agents used most often were opioids and benzodiazepines for >72 hours, and NMBA utilized were vecuronium and pancuronium for >24 hours. The most often cited indications for sedatives were agitation, anxiety/fear, and facilitation of intubation and maintenance of mechanical ventilation for NMBA. Only 32.6% used written protocols for sedatives and 46.8% for NMBA. Decisions regarding agent selection were based on clinician preference and experience and agent duration of action. Seventy-eight percent monitored sedative use primarily with the Glasgow Coma Scale and the modified Ramsay score. Monitoring of NMBA was used more frequently (91.3%) with peripheral nerve stimulation. The most common reversal agents used were naloxone and flumazenil for adverse drug effects. While many of the respondents indicated they used morphine and lorazepam for long-term sedation, the majority utilized midazolam and propofol for >24 hours despite the recommendation of SCCM. Vecuronium was prescribed more routinely than pancuronium. The number of institutions utilizing protocols for any of these agents was low; instead, decisions were based on clinician preference.     

Daily interruption of sedative infusions in an adult medical–surgical intensive care unit: randomized controlled trial

Title. Daily interruption of sedative infusions in an adult medical–surgical intensive care unit: randomized controlled trial. Aim. This article is a report of a study conducted to determine if a nursing‐implemented protocol of daily interruption of sedative infusions vs. sedation as directed by the intensive care unit team would decrease duration of mechanical ventilation. Background. Continuous rather than intermittent infusion of sedative and analgesic agents leads to greater stability in sedation level, but has been correlated with prolongation of mechanical ventilation and hospitalization of critical care patients. Daily interruption of sedative infusions in mechanically ventilated patients has reduced the duration of mechanical ventilation and length of stay in intensive care. Method. A randomized controlled trial was carried out from November 2004 to March 2006 with 97 patients receiving mechanical ventilation and continuous infusion of sedative drugs in an intensive care unit in Greece. The primary outcome measure was the duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were length of intensive care unit stay, length of hospital stay, overall mortality, total doses of sedative and analgesic medicines and Ramsay scores and duration of cessation of sedative infusions per day. Results. The median duration of mechanical ventilation was 8·7 days vs. 7·7 days (P = 0·7). Length of intensive care unit stay (median: 14 vs. 12, P = 0·5) and in the hospital (median: 31 vs. 21, P = 0·1) was similar between the intervention and control groups. The absence of statistically significant differences in these variables remained when patients with brain injury were examined separately. Conclusion. The nursing‐implemented protocol of daily interruption of sedative infusions was neither beneficial nor harmful compared with usual practice, which has as its primary target the earliest possible awakening of patients.     

A national survey on the practice patterns of anesthesiologist intensivists in the use of muscle relaxants.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the practice patterns of anesthesiologist intensivists (with the special certificate of competence in critical care medicine from the American Board of Anesthesiology) in the use of neuromuscular blocking drugs, in the ICU setting. DESIGN: A survey. PARTICIPANTS: All anesthesiologists with the special certificate of competence in critical care (n = 374) were selected for this study. Of the 339 who could be contacted and who were still actively practicing, 185 (55%) completed the survey. RESULTS: In the ICU setting, anesthesiologist intensivists most commonly used vecuronium (52%) administered by bolus injection, bolus injection followed by infusion, or by continuous infusion. The most frequent indication for muscle relaxation was facilitation of mechanical ventilation (89%). Neuromuscular blockade was most commonly monitored clinically (55%), with only 34% of respondents using a peripheral nerve stimulator. All respondents indicated the concomitant use of sedatives or narcotics with muscle relaxants. CONCLUSIONS: This study was created to address the dearth of information regarding actual usage of muscle relaxants in the ICU setting. The survey population was chosen as one with great familiarity in the use of muscle relaxants. The 55% response rate was significantly greater than the expected response rate for a single mailing survey. In the ICU setting, neuromuscular blocking drugs are most frequently used to facilitate mechanical ventilation. The prevalence of vecuronium use is of interest in light of recent case reports of prolonged neuromuscular blockade after long-term vecuronium administration. The low frequency of peripheral nerve stimulator monitoring during muscle relaxation may contribute, in part, to the problem of prolonged blockade after drug withdrawal. Muscle relaxants are not used in the absence of sedation and/or analgesia by this practitioner population.     

La sédation comme facteur de risque d’infection acquise en réanimation

Sedative and analgesic drugs are routinely and heterogeneously used in mechanically ventilated patients. Several epidemiologic studies suggested a relationship between sedation and intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired infections. Sedation may promote infection, a common complication in the ICU, associated with a high morbidity, mortality, and cost. Prolongation of exposure to risk factors for infection, microaspiration, gastrointestinal motility disturbances, and microcirculatory effects are the main mechanisms by which sedation may favour infection in the critically ill patients. Experimental evidence based on both human and animal studies suggests that sedatives and analgesics may alter the immunologic response to exogenous stimuli. Clinical studies comparing different sedative agents do not provide evidence to recommend the use of a particular agent to reduce the rate of ICU-acquired infection. However, sedation strategies aiming to reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation including daily interruption of sedatives or nursing-implementing sedation protocols should be promoted.     

Sédation-analgésie en réanimation : arrêt quotidien par les médecins ou gestion continue par les infirmières

During the past decade, practice in sedation and analgesia has progressed with the use of new drugs and administration strategies including algorithm-based protocols of drug administration by nurses and daily interruption of sedatives and analgesics. Implementation of each of these strategies has been demonstrated to reduce duration of mechanical ventilation and length of stay in the intensive care unit as well as 6-month mortality rate in one study. In contrast to the daily interruption of sedation which seems easy to implement at the individual level of the primary care physician, implementation of a sedation protocol requires a large education and training of the whole nurse team. This training aims at managing not only the clinical tools used to standardize the subjective assessment of sedation and pain levels but also the sedation protocols of variable complexity. Published trials comparing sedation protocol implementation versus daily interruption of sedation are limited, making difficult any definitive conclusion regarding the feasibility and effectiveness of each of these strategies. Both strategies should not be opposed but considered as complementary. Protocols should be used to avoid overdose in sedation-analgesia and criteria allowing for the daily interruption of sedation-analgesia checked to avoid futile administration. Clinical studies are mandatory to determine which sedation interruption criteria are the most feasible, effective and safe. The impact of pain and neuropsychological disorders after sedation interruption should be also clearly evaluated. Education of nursing staff should be one of the top priority in regards to sedation management and interruption.     

Daily interruption of sedative infusions and complications of critical illness in mechanically ventilated patients

OBJECTIVE: In critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation, daily interruption of sedative infusions decreases duration of mechanical ventilation and intensive care unit length of stay. Whether this sedation strategy reduces the incidence of complications commonly associated with critical illness is not known. DESIGN: Blinded, retrospective chart review. SETTING: University-based hospital in Chicago, IL. PATIENTS: One hundred twenty-eight patients receiving mechanical ventilation and continuous infusions of sedative drugs in a medical intensive care unit. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We performed a blinded, retrospective evaluation of the database from our previous trial of 128 patients randomized to daily interruption of sedative infusions vs. sedation as directed by the medical intensive care unit team without this strategy. Seven distinct complications associated with mechanical ventilation and critical illness were identified: a) ventilator-associated pneumonia; b) upper gastrointestinal hemorrhage; c) bacteremia; d) barotrauma; e) venous thromboembolic disease; and f) cholestasis or g) sinusitis requiring surgical intervention. The incidence of complications was evaluated for each patient's hospital course.One hundred twenty-six of 128 charts were available for review. Patients undergoing daily interruption of sedative infusions experienced 13 complications (2.8%) vs. 26 (6.2%) in those subjected to conventional sedation techniques (p =.04). CONCLUSIONS: Daily interruption of sedative infusions in critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation reduces intensive care unit length of stay and, in turn, decreases the incidence of complications of critical illness associated with prolonged intubation and mechanical ventilation.     

When should sedation or neuromuscular blockade be used during mechanical ventilation?

Sedation has become an important part of critical care practice in minimizing patient discomfort and agitation during mechanical ventilation. Pain, anxiety, and delirium form a triad of factors that can lead to agitation. Achieving and maintaining an optimal level of comfort and safety in the intensive care unit plays an essential part in caring for critically ill patients. Sedatives, opioids, and neuromuscular blocking agents are commonly used in the intensive care unit. The goal of therapy should be directed toward a specific indication, not simply to provide restraint. Standard rating scales and unit-based guidelines facilitate the proper use of sedation and neuromuscular blocking agents. The goal of sedation is a calm, comfortable patient who can easily be aroused and who can tolerate mechanical ventilation and procedures required for their care.     

Postal survey on the long-term use of neuromuscular block in the intensive care

Objective To assess the long-term use of neuromuscular blocking (NMB) agents in intensive care, expecially with reference to the potential problems of the long-term use of NMB drugs in the intensive care unit (ICU).Method A postal survey questionnaire was sent to 409 ICUs in Great Britain.Results Two hundred thirty-eight completed questionnaires were returned and analysed. Most ICUs were anaesthetist-led (85.8%) with only five ICUs being staffed by full-time intensivists. Facilitation of mechanical ventilation and increased intracranial pressure were the main indications for the prolonged use of neuromuscular blockade. Atracurium and vecuronium (83%) were administered most commonly by bolus alone (13.8%), bolus followed by continuous infusion (23.9%) or continuous infusion only (60.9%). The most frequently cited criteria for the use of either vecuronium or stracurium were their pharmacokinetics and haemodynamic stability. Neuromuscular block was most commonly monitored clinically (91.7%), with only 8.3% of the responders using a peripheral nerve stimulator. All responders indicated the concomitant use of sedatives (propofol/midazolam alone or in combination in 89.4% of responders) and/or opioids (morphine, fentanyl or alfentanil in 74.8% of respondents) with muscle relaxants.Conclusion Most responders agreed that while neuromuscular block in the ICU population may provide advantages, it cannot be considered benign. Indeed, a great majority consider that NMB agents should be used only as a last option andfor as short a period as possible.This paper was presented at the Joint meeting of the Intensive Care Society and Société de Réanimation de Langue Française, Brighton, May 1995     

Bispectral index monitoring during the administration of neuromuscular blocking agents in the pediatric intensive care unit patient

Bispectral index (BIS) values were prospectively recorded in pediatric intensive care unit patients receiving continuous infusion of a neuromuscular blocking agent. Sedation was provided by a continuous infusion of midazolam or propofol. The BIS number was recorded by a bedside computer every 10 seconds but was concealed from health care workers. BIS values were recorded for 476 hours (161 893 BIS values) in 12 patients. The BIS number was 50 to 70, 57% of the time; < or =49, 35% of the time; and > or =71, 8% of the time. When supplemental doses of sedatives were administered, the BIS number was >70, 64% of the time; 50 to 70, 31% of the time; and < or =49, 5% of the time. Oversedation was more likely with propofol than midazolam. During the use of neuromuscular blocking agents, oversedation is a common occurrence. Physiologic parameters are not an accurate means of assessing the depth of sedation.     

Practice variability in management of acute respiratory distress syndrome: bringing evidence and clinician education to the bedside using a web-based teaching tool

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice often lags behind publication of evidence-based research and national consensus guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To assess practice variability in the clinical management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and test an evidence-based, online clinician-education tool designed to improve intensive-care clinicians' understanding of current evidence about ARDS management. METHODS: We surveyed 117 intensive care clinicians (16 critical care physician specialists, 28 resident physicians, 50 critical care nurses, and 23 respiratory therapists) with an online questionnaire in our tertiary academic institution. Fifty of the original respondents (12 residents, 26 critical care nurses, and 12 respiratory therapists) also responded to a repeat survey that included context-sensitive hypertext links to a summary of critically appraised primary articles regarding ARDS management, to determine if the responses changed after the clinicians had read the evidence-based summary information. RESULTS: Critical care physician specialists were most likely to choose the low-tidal-volume (low-VT) ventilation strategy and protocol-based ventilator weaning and were least likely to choose neuromuscular blockade or parenteral nutrition (p < 0.05). In a paired comparison, individual respondents were more likely to choose treatment options that are based on stronger evidence (low-VT, daily interruption in sedation, and protocol weaning [p < 0.01]). We also reviewed the medical records of 100 patients who were mechanically ventilated for > 48 h, during the 6 months before and after the survey, from which we identified 45 ARDS patients. Following the clinician-education intervention, ARDS patients were less likely to receive potentially injurious high-VT ventilation (mean day-3 VT 10.3 +/- 2.3 mL/kg before vs 8.9 +/- 1.7 mL/kg after, p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: Web-based teaching tools are useful to educate intensive-care practitioners and to promote evidence-based practice.     

Comparison of the effect of protocol-directed sedation with propofol vs. midazolam by nurses in intensive care: efficacy, haemodynamic stability and patient satisfaction

Aim. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of protocol‐directed sedation propofol vs. midazolam by nurses in intensive care on efficacy, haemodynamic stability and patient satisfaction. Background. Protocols represent one method potentially to reduce treatment delays and ensure that medical care is administered in a standardised manner. Propofol and midazolam are often used for sedation in intensive care units. Method. A randomised, prospective cohort study and data were collected in 2003. The subjects were randomised either into propofol (n = 32) or into midazolam (n = 28) group. Efficacy of sedation, haemodynamic stability, pulse oximetry saturation, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II score), weaning time from mechanical ventilation, duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay at intensive care unit, sedative drugs cost and patient satisfaction were measured. Results. The nursing staff were able to maintain patients at Ramsay sedation scale (RSS) 3–4 during the sedative period. The efficacy of sedation was 74·2% and 66·9% of time in propofol and midazolam group respectively. Both sedatives reduced the arterial blood pressure and heart rate, but did not alter haemodynamic stability. The mean score of satisfactory sedation was not significantly different between the two groups (propofol: 11·4 SEM 0·2 vs. midazolam: 11·5 SEM 0·7). Conclusion. Protocol‐directed sedation with propofol vs. midazolam by nurses were similar in quality during the sedative period. Relevance to clinical practice. This sedation practice for titration of propofol and midazolam by nurses was of similar quality and able to achieve an appropriate depth of sedation during the sedative period. Furthermore, they should provide care for patients’ needs during the sedative period.     

Intensivists' Religiosity and Perceived Conflict During a Simulated ICU Family Meeting

ContextConflict is frequently reported by both clinicians and surrogate decision makers for adult patients in intensive care units. Because religious clinicians view religion as an important dimension of end-of-life care, we hypothesized that religious critical care attendings (intensivists) would be more comfortable and perceive less conflict when discussing a patient's critical illness with a religious surrogate.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to assess if religious intensivists are more or less likely to perceive conflict during a simulated family meeting than secular colleagues.MethodsIntensivists were recruited to participate in a standardized, simulated family meeting with an actor portraying a family member of a critically ill patient. Intensivists provided demographic information including their current religion and the importance of religion in their lives. After the simulation, intensivists rated the amount of conflict they perceived during the simulation. The association between intensivist's self-reported religiosity and perceived conflict was estimated using both univariate analysis and multivariable logistic regression.ResultsAmong 112 participating intensivists, 43 (38%) perceived conflict during the simulation. Among intensivists who perceived conflict, 49% were religious, and among those who did not perceive conflict, 35% were religious. After adjusting for physician race, gender, years in practice, intensive care unit weeks worked per year and actor, physician religiosity was associated with greater odds of perceiving conflict during the simulated family meeting (adjusted prevalence ratio = 2.77, [95% CI 1.12–7.16], P = 0.03).ConclusionReligious intensivists were more likely to perceive conflict during a simulated family meeting.     

The use of neuromuscular blocking drugs in the intensive care unit: A US perspective

Surprisingly little is known about the use of neuromuscular blockers (NMBs) in intensive care units (ICUs) in the USA. Recently, Klessig et al. [1] surveyed anesthesiologists/intensivists in the USA and found that the 55% who responded used NMBs in the ICU in an average of 10 patients per ICU per month. Anxiolytics and analgesics were administered concomitantly with NMBs, but a majority of respondents did not use electrophysiologic measures of the degree of blockade. Another survey of predominantly medical ICUs also demonstrated widespread use of NMBs, but internists did not use sedation/analgesia as frequently as anesthesiologists for patients receiving NMBs, and infrequently monitored the degree of neuromuscular blockade [2]. Because these were retrospective surveys, we decided to monitor prospectively the use of NMBs in our ICUs. The use of NMBs was ascertained by daily review of pharmacy records and, when use was documented, the patients hospital records were reviewed. Where information was missing or not found, attending physicians were interviewed. On averages, one patient per month per ICU received NMBs. Approximately 5% of neonatal and pediatric, and 1% of adult, ICU patients received NMBs. Eighty-three percent of patients received NMBs to facilitate mechanical ventilation, and mortality was high (51%) in those critically ill patients. More than half the patients were treated for ≤24 h, the remainder for 2 days to >3 weeks. Twitch monitors were used for monitoring the degree of neuromuscular blockade in adult patients, and all patients received sedatives/analgesics. We estimated that the risk of clinically significant, prolonged neuromuscular blockade following the discontinuation of NMBs was 5% per year. Our data demonstrate that NMBs in our practice are used less frequently than previous surveys indicate, that it is possible to change behavior with respect to the use of monitors of neuromuscular treatment, and that clinically significant prolonged blockade was an infrequent but serious problem in this population of critically ill patients.     

Burnout,resilience and work engagement among Dutch intensivists in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis: A nationwide survey

PurposeThe COVID-19 crisis put a strain on intensive care resources everywhere in the world increasing the risk of burnout. Previously, the prevalence of burnout among Dutch intensivists was found to be low. Engagement and resilience among intensivists have not previously been studied quantitatively, however, both are related to burnout and provide a possible way to mitigate burnout. Our objective was to study burnout and its association with work engagement and resilience among Dutch intensivists in the aftermath of the COVID-19 crisis.MethodsAn online questionnaire was sent to all Dutch intensivists. The questionnaire consisted of questions on personal and work-related characteristics and validated questionnaires: the Maslach Burnout Inventory, the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale, and the Resilience Evaluation Scale.ResultsThe response rate was 27.2% with 162 evaluable responses. Thirteen respondents (8.0%) were classified as having burnout, 63 (38.9%) respondents were reporting high work engagement. Burnout was found to be negatively associated with both work engagement and resilience.ConclusionIn the aftermath of the 2020 COVID-19 crisis, we found a raised prevalence of burnout among intensivists, however this is still low in international comparisons. Intensivists with burnout scored low on resilience and low on work engagement.     

Daily interruptions of sedation: a clinical approach to improve outcomes in critically ill patients

The continuous infusion of sedative agents is often necessary for critically ill patients. However, it has been associated with several disadvantages. Numerous interventions to reduce these risks have been evaluated, including the practice of interrupting sedative infusions on a daily basis. A literature search was conducted, and 7 studies were reviewed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of daily interruption of sedative infusions and its outcomes. The implementation of daily sedation interruptions was suggested to minimize multiple complications associated with continuous sedative infusions and was not associated with intensive care-related complications or long-term psychological effects. Additional studies have revealed perceived barriers to the implementation of daily sedation interruptions. Further randomized controlled trials enrolling larger, more diverse samples are needed to provide more evidence regarding the safety and effectiveness of this intervention.     

Implementation of standard sedation management in paediatric intensive care: effective and feasible?

Objective. To study the effects of the introduction of a sedation treatment protocol for children in intensive care, including nurses’ compliance. Background. While several sedation guidelines for adults and children have been developed and implemented, there is little evidence on use of sedation protocols in critically ill infants. Design. Pretest–posttest intervention study. Methods. Administered sedatives and analgesics over the first seven days of admission were documented for convenience samples, before (n = 27) and after (n = 29) implementation of standard sedation assessments and a sedation protocol. Sedation was assessed with the COMFORT behaviour scale, Nurse Interpretation of Sedation Score and the Visual Analogue Scale for three‐month periods, both pretest and posttest. Starting 21 months after the posttest, nurses’ compliance with the sedation protocol, as well as administered sedatives and analgesics were evaluated for 12 months. Results. Infants in the posttest period received significantly more midazolam and morphine. The proportion of patients adequately sedated on the grounds of COMFORT scores had increased from 63% pretest to 72% posttest and to 75% in the long run. Adequate sedation as judged from the sedation protocol cutoffs was found in 71% of the assessments. In 45% of assessments indicating undersedation, the infusion rate had been increased on the guidance of the protocol. A survey among staff revealed that most considered the sedation protocol comprehensible and useful. Conclusion. This study showed that regular sedation assessment in critically ill children was feasible and had become standard practice two years after the first posttest. There is insufficient evidence to conclude whether implementation of a sedation treatment protocol indeed improves sedation treatment. Relevance to clinical practice. This sedation protocol provides decision trees for increasing or weaning of sedatives in both haemodynamically stable and unstable patients. It standardises sedation management and allows nurses to adapt medication themselves.     

Severe agitation among ventilated medical intensive care unit patients: frequency,characteristics and outcomes

Objective To determine the frequency, characteristics and outcomes of severe agitation among ventilated medical intensive care unit (MICU) patients.Design Prospective cohort study.Setting Eighteen-bed MICU in 964-bed tertiary care center.Patients All ventilated patients, aged 18 years or older and admitted for more than 24 h between January 1, 2001 and May 8, 2001.Interventions None.Measurements Data were collected daily by concurrent chart abstractions. Variables included sociodemographic, clinical, laboratory, pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions, ventilator settings and adverse events. Severe agitation, the main outcome variable, was defined as two or more Motor Activity Assessment Scale (MAAS) scores above 4 in a 24-h period and sedative and/or narcotic doses above the established sedation and analgesia protocol or a combination of two or more sedatives.Results Twenty-three (16.1%) of 143 enrolled patients exhibited severe agitation. Agitated patients were younger (hazard ratio [HR] 1.32), more likely to be admitted from an outside hospital ICU (HR 2.48), had lower pH (HR 1.55) and PaO₂/FIO₂ less than 200 mmHg (HR 2.59). Agitated patients had longer MICU stays (median 12 versus 5 days, p<0.0001) and more ventilator days (median 14 versus 6, p<0.0001). Agitated patients were more likely to self-extubate (26% versus 6%, p=0.002). Benzodiazepines, narcotics and neuromuscular blocking agents were administered more frequently and at higher doses, but haloperidol was not.Conclusion Severe agitation occurs commonly in critically ill patients and is associated with adverse events including longer ICU stays, duration of mechanical ventilation and self-extubation.Electronic Supplementary Material Supplementary material is available in the online version of this article at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00134-004-2193-9This research was partially supported by Nursing Education and Research Fund. Presented in part at the 2002 Annual Meeting of Society of Critical Care Medicine, San Diego, California.     

Characteristics associated with analgesia ordering in the intensive care unit and relationships with outcome

OBJECTIVE: To describe clinical characteristics associated with analgesia utilization in the intensive care unit. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study of adult patients admitted to a medical intensive care unit. SUBJECTS: Four hundred adult patients. SETTING: Twelve-bed medical intensive care unit of an inner-city, university-affiliated hospital. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Collected data included demographics, sedation and neuromuscular blocking agents used, mechanical ventilation, hemodynamic monitoring, Therapeutic Intervention Scoring System score, Logistic Organ Dysfunction System (LODS) score, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score. Hospital outcome was noted. The odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals were determined by using multiple logistic regression analyses. Patients' mean age (+/-sd) was 47.8 +/- 17.1 yrs; 58% were male, 84% African-American. Their APACHE II-predicted hospital mortality rate was 33%. Analgesics were used in 36% of patients. There were no differences in demographics, initial LODS score, APACHE II score, and mechanical ventilation use between patients who did and did not receive analgesics. Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that analgesic use was independently associated with sedation (odds ratio, 2.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-4.14), neuromuscular blockade (odds ratio, 4.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.85-13.41), and pulmonary artery flotation catheter utilization (odds ratio, 2.31; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-4.20). The median duration of mechanical ventilation was 5 days for those who received analgesia compared with 2 for those who did not (p =.0001). The median length of stay in the intensive care unit (4 vs. 2, p <.0001) and hospital (11 vs. 7, p <.0001) was higher in patients who received analgesics. There were no significant differences in intensive care unit and hospital mortality rates between patients who did and did not receive analgesics. CONCLUSIONS: Intensive care unit patients for whom analgesics were prescribed have a higher frequency of hemodynamic monitoring and use of sedative and neuromuscular blocking agents, more mechanical ventilation days, and longer intensive care unit and hospital lengths of stay.