Remifentanil/midazolam versus fentanyl/midazolam for analgesia and sedation of mechanically ventilated neonates and young infants: a randomized controlled trial

Purpose

Common opioids for analgesia and sedation of mechanically ventilated infants may tend to accumulate and cause prolonged sedation with an unpredictable extubation time. Remifentanil is a promising option due to its unique pharmacokinetic properties, which seem to be valid in adults as well as in infants.

Methods

In this double-blind, randomized, controlled trial mechanically ventilated neonates and young infants (<60?days) received either a remifentanil or fentanyl-based analgesia and sedation regimen with low dose midazolam. The primary endpoint of the trial was the extubation time following discontinuation of the opioid infusion. Secondary endpoints included efficacy and safety aspects.

Results

Between November 2006 and March 2010, we screened 431 mechanically ventilated infants for eligibility. The intention to treat group included 23 infants who were assigned to receive either remifentanil (n?=?11) or fentanyl (n?=?12). Although this was designed as a pilot study, median extubation time was significantly shorter in the remifentanil group (80.0?min, IQR?=?15.0–165.0) compared to the fentanyl group (782.5?min, IQR?=?250.8–1,875.0) (p?=?0.005). Remifentanil and fentanyl provided comparable efficacy with more than two-thirds of the measurements indicating optimal analgesia and sedation (66.4 and 70.2?%, respectively; p?=?0.743). Overall, both groups had good hemodynamic stability and a comparably low incidence of adverse events.

Conclusions

As neonates and young infants have a decreased metabolism of common opioids like fentanyl and are more prone to respiratory depression, remifentanil could be the ideal opioid for analgesia and sedation of mechanically ventilated infants.     

Effect of an analgo-sedation protocol for neurointensive patients: a two-phase interventional non-randomized pilot study

Introduction

Sedation protocols are needed for neurointensive patients. The aim of this pilot study was to describe sedation practice at a neurointensive care unit and to assess the feasibility and efficacy of a new sedation protocol. The primary outcomes were a shift from sedation-based to analgesia-based sedation and improved pain management. The secondary outcomes were a reduction in unplanned extubations and duration of sedation.

Methods

This was a two-phase (before-after), prospective controlled study at a university-affiliated, 14-bed neurointensive care unit in Denmark. The sample included patients requiring mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours treated with continuous sedative and analgesic infusions or both. During the observation phase the participants (n = 106) were sedated as usual (non-protocolized), and during the intervention phase the participants (n = 109) were managed according to a new sedation protocol.

Results

Our study showed a shift toward analgo-sedation, suggesting feasibility of the protocol. We found a significant reduction in the use of propofol (P <.001) and midazolam (P =.001) and an increase in fentanyl (P <.001) and remifentanil (P =.003). Patients selected for daily sedation interruption woke up faster, and estimates of pain free patients increased from 56.8% to 82.7% (P <.001), suggesting efficacy of the protocol. The duration of sedation and unplanned extubations were unchanged.

Conclusions

Our pilot study showed feasibility and partial efficacy of our protocol. Some neurointensive patients might not benefit from protocolized practice. We recommend an interdisciplinary effort to target patients requiring less sedation, as issues of oversedation and inadequate pain management still need more attention.

Trial registration

ISRCTN80999859.     

Is it safe to use propofol in the emergency department? A randomized controlled trial to compare propofol and midazolam

Background

This study examined the safety and effectiveness of the procedural sedation analgesia (PSA) technique carried out in the emergency department (ED) of a university hospital over a period of 1 year. The research was done to compare the effectiveness and efficacy of moderate sedation of fentanyl combined with either midazolam or propofol for any brief, intense procedure in the ED setting.

Aims

The objectives were to observe the occurrence of adverse events in subjects undergoing PSA for intense and painful procedures in the emergency department and to implement the use of capnography as a method of monitoring the patients when they were under PSA.

Methods

Forty patients were selected for this study. They were randomly divided into two equal groups using the computer-generated random permuted blocks of four patients. Twenty patients were grouped together as group A and the remaining 20 patients as group B. Drugs used were single blinded to prevent any bias. Drug A was propofol and fentanyl, while drug B was midazolam and fentanyl. The procedures involved included orthopedic manipulation such as reduction of fractures, reduction of dislocated joints, abscess drainage, wound debridement, laceration wound repair and cardioversion. All of the subjects were monitored for their vital signs and end tidal carbon dioxide level every 10 min till the PSA was completed. The duration of stay in the ED was documented when the subjects had completed the procedure and were released from the department.

Result

Of the study population, 75.6% were males. The mean age was 37.8 years (95% CI 33.2, 39.8). None of the patients developed any major complications while under PSA. The vital signs pre-, intra- and post-procedure were not significantly different in either the propofol or mizadolam groups (p value >0.05).

Conclusion

This study had proven that there was no difference in adverse event occurrence between the studied drugs during PSA. Propofol can be recommended for use in PSA if the operator is well trained and familiar with the drug.     

Dexmedetomidine use in the ICU: Are we there yet?

Expanded abstract

Citation

Jakob SM, Ruokonen E, Grounds RM, Sarapohja T, Garratt C, Pocock SJ, Bratty JR, Takala J; Dexmedeto midine for Long-Term Sedation Investigators: Dexmedetomidine vesus midazolam or propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation: two randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2012, 307:1151-1160.

Background

Long-term sedation with midazolam or propofol in intensive care units (ICUs) has serious adverse effects. Dexmedetomidine, an alpha-2 agonist available for ICU sedation, may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and enhance patient comfort.

Methods

Objective

The objective was to determine the efficacy of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam or propofol (preferred usual care) in maintaining sedation, reducing duration of mechanical ventilation, and improving patients'' interaction with nursing care.

Design

Two phase 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind trials were conducted.

Setting

The MIDEX (Midazolam vs. Dexmedetomidine) trial compared midazolam with dexmedetomidine in ICUs of 44 centers in nine European countries. The PRODEX (Propofol vs. Dexmedetomidine) trial compared propofol with dexmedetomidine in 31 centers in six European countries and two centers in Russia.

Subjects

The subjects were adult ICU patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation and who needed light to moderate sedation for more than 24 hours.

Intervention

After enrollment, 251 and 249 subjects were randomly assigned midazolam and dexmedetomidine, respectively, in the MIDEX trial, and 247 and 251 subjects were randomly assigned propofol and dexmedetomidine, respectively, in the PRODEX trial. Sedation with dexmedetomidine, midazolam, or propofol; daily sedation stops; and spontaneous breathing trials were employed.

Outcomes

For each trial, investigators tested whether dexmedetomidine was noninferior to control with respect to proportion of time at target sedation level (measured by Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale) and superior to control with respect to duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary end points were the ability of the patient to communicate pain (measured by using a visual analogue scale [VAS]) and length of ICU stay. Time at target sedation was analyzed in per-protocol (midazolam, n = 233, versus dexmedetomidine, n = 227; propofol, n = 214, versus dexmedetomidine, n = 223) population.

Results

Dexmedetomidine/midazolam ratio in time at target sedation was 1.07 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.18), and dexmedetomidine/propofol ratio in time at target sedation was 1.00 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.08). Median duration of mechanical ventilation appeared shorter with dexmedetomidine (123 hours, interquartile range (IQR) 67 to 337) versus midazolam (164 hours, IQR 92 to 380; P = 0.03) but not with dexmedetomidine (97 hours, IQR 45 to 257) versus propofol (118 hours, IQR 48 to 327; P = 0.24). Patient interaction (measured by using VAS) was improved with dexmedetomidine (estimated score difference versus midazolam 19.7, 95% CI 15.2 to 24.2; P <0.001; and versus propofol 11.2, 95% CI 6.4 to 15.9; P <0.001). Lengths of ICU and hospital stays and mortality rates were similar. Dexmedetomidine versus midazolam patients had more hypotension (51/247 [20.6%] versus 29/250 [11.6%]; P = 0.007) and bradycardia (35/247 [14.2%] versus 13/250 [5.2%]; P <0.001).

Conclusions

Among ICU patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation, dexmedetomidine was not inferior to midazolam and propofol in maintaining light to moderate sedation. Dexmedetomidine reduced duration of mechanical ventilation compared with midazolam and improved the ability of patients to communicate pain compared with midazolam and propofol. Greater numbers of adverse effects were associated with dexmedetomidine.     

Sedation practice in the intensive care unit: a UK national survey

Introduction

The purpose of this study was to evaluate sedation practice in UK intensive care units (ICUs), particularly the implementation of daily sedation holding, written sedation guidelines, sedation scoring tools and choice of agents.

Methods

A national postal survey was conducted in all UK ICUs.

Results

A total of 192 responses out of 302 addressed units were received (63.5%). Of the responding ICUs, 88% used a sedation scoring tool, most frequently the Ramsey Sedation Scale score (66.4%). The majority of units have a written sedation guideline (80%), and 78% state that daily sedation holding is practiced. A wide variety of sedating agents is used, with the choice of agent largely determined by the duration of action rather than cost. The most frequently used agents were propofol and alfentanil for short-term sedation; propofol, midazolam and morphine for longer sedation; and propofol for weaning purposes.

Conclusions

Most UK ICUs use a sedation guideline and sedation scoring tool. The concept of sedation holding has been implemented in the majority of units, and most ICUs have a written sedation guideline.     

Association between tidal volume size,duration of ventilation,and sedation needs in patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: an individual patient data meta-analysis

Purpose

Mechanical ventilation with lower tidal volumes (≤6 ml/kg of predicted body weight, PBW) could benefit patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, tidal volume reduction could be associated with increased patient discomfort and sedation needs, and consequent longer duration of ventilation. The aim of this individual patient data meta-analysis was to assess the associations between tidal volume size, duration of mechanical ventilation, and sedation needs in patients without ARDS.

Methods

Studies comparing ventilation with different tidal volume sizes in patients without ARDS were screened for inclusion. Corresponding authors were asked to provide individual participant data. Patients were assigned to three groups based on tidal volume size (≤6 ml/kg PBW, 6–10 ml/kg PBW, or ≥10 ml/kg PBW). Ventilator-free days, alive at day 28, and dose and duration of sedation (propofol and midazolam), analgesia (fentanyl and morphine), and neuromuscular blockade (NMB) were compared.

Results

Seven investigations (2,184 patients) were included in the analysis. The number of patients breathing without assistance by day 28 was higher in the group ventilated with tidal volume ≤6 ml/kg PBW compared to those ventilated with tidal volume ≥10 ml/kg PBW (93.1 vs. 88.6 %; p = 0.027, respectively). Only two investigations (187 patients) could be included in the meta-analysis of sedation needs. There were neither differences in the percentage of study days that patients received sedatives, opioids, or NMBA nor in the total dose of benzodiazepines, propofol, opioids, and NMBA.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis suggests that use of lower tidal volumes in patients without ARDS at the onset of mechanical ventilation could be associated with shorter duration of ventilation. Use of lower tidal volumes seems not to affect sedation or analgesia needs, but this must be confirmed in a robust, well-powered randomized controlled trial.     

Automated sedation outperforms manual administration of propofol and remifentanil in critically ill patients with deep sedation: a randomized phase II trial

Purpose

To compare automated administration of propofol and remifentanil guided by the Bispectral index (BIS) versus manual administration of short-acting drugs in critical care patients requiring deep sedation. The primary outcome was the percentage of BIS values between 40 and 60 (BIS_40–60).

Methods

This randomized controlled phase II trial in the intensive care unit (ICU) was conducted in adults with multiorgan failure. Thirty-one patients were assigned to receive sedation with propofol or remifentanil either by an automated or a manual system, both targeting BIS_40–60. Performance and feasibility of an automated administration were assessed.

Results

The study groups were well balanced in terms of demographic characteristics. Study duration averaged 18 [8–24] h in the automated group and 14 [9–21] h in the manual group (p = 0.81). Adequate sedation (BIS_40–60) was significantly more frequent in the automated group 77 [59–82] % than in the manual group 36 [22–56] %, with p = 0.001. Propofol consumption was reduced by a factor of 2 in the automated group with a median change of infusion rates of 39 ± 9 times per hour. In contrast, there were only 2 ± 1 propofol and 1 ± 1 remifentanil dose changes per hour in the manual group compared to 40 ± 9 for remifentanil in the automated group (p < 0.001). Vasopressors were more often discontinued or reduced in the automated group than in the manual control group (36 [6–40] vs. 12 [4–20] modifications, p = 0.03).

Conclusions

Continuous titration of propofol and remifentanil sedation with an automatic controller maintains deep sedation better than manual control in severely ill patients. It is associated with reduced sedative and vasopressor use.     

Intra- and inter-individual variation of BIS-index® and Entropy® during controlled sedation with midazolam/remifentanil and dexmedetomidine/remifentanil in healthy volunteers: an interventional study

Introduction

We studied intra-individual and inter-individual variability of two online sedation monitors, BIS^® and Entropy^®, in volunteers under sedation.

Methods

Ten healthy volunteers were sedated in a stepwise manner with doses of either midazolam and remifentanil or dexmedetomidine and remifentanil. One week later the procedure was repeated with the remaining drug combination. The doses were adjusted to achieve three different sedation levels (Ramsay Scores 2, 3 and 4) and controlled by a computer-driven drug-delivery system to maintain stable plasma concentrations of the drugs. At each level of sedation, BIS^® and Entropy^® (response entropy and state entropy) values were recorded for 20 minutes. Baseline recordings were obtained before the sedative medications were administered.

Results

Both inter-individual and intra-individual variability increased as the sedation level deepened. Entropy^® values showed greater variability than BIS^® values, and the variability was greater during dexmedetomidine/remifentanil sedation than during midazolam/remifentanil sedation.

Conclusions

The large intra-individual and inter-individual variability of BIS^® and Entropy^® values in sedated volunteers makes the determination of sedation levels by processed electroencephalogram (EEG) variables impossible. Reports in the literature which draw conclusions based on processed EEG variables obtained from sedated intensive care unit (ICU) patients may be inaccurate due to this variability.

Trial registration

clinicaltrials.gov Nr. NCT00641563.     

Effect of sedation level on the prevalence of delirium when assessed with CAM-ICU and ICDSC

Purpose

We hypothesized that reduced arousability (Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, RASS, scores ?2 to ?3) for any reason during delirium assessment increases the apparent prevalence of delirium in intensive care patients. To test this hypothesis, we assessed delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) in intensive care patients during sedation stops, and related the findings to the level of sedation, as assessed with RASS score.

Methods

We assessed delirium in 80 patients with ICU stay longer than 48 h using CAM-ICU and ICDSC during daily sedation stops. Sedation was assessed using RASS. The effect of including patients with a RASS of ?2 and ?3 during sedation stop (“light to moderate sedation”, eye contact less than 10 s or not at all, respectively) on prevalence of delirium was analyzed.

Results

A total of 467 patient days were assessed. The proportion of CAM-ICU-positive evaluations decreased from 53 to 31 % (p < 0.001) if assessments from patients at RASS ?2/?3 (22 % of all assessments) were excluded. Similarly, the number of positive ICDSC results decreased from 51 to 29 % (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Sedation per se can result in positive items of both CAM-ICU and ICDSC, and therefore in a diagnosis of delirium. Consequently, apparent prevalence of delirium is dependent on how a depressed level of consciousness after sedation stop is interpreted (delirium vs persisting sedation). We suggest that any reports on delirium using these assessment tools should be stratified for a sedation score during the assessment.     

Volatile isoflurane sedation in cerebrovascular intensive care patients using AnaConDa?: effects on cerebral oxygenation, circulation, and pressure

Purpose

The anesthetic-conserving device AnaConDa^?, a miniature vaporizer, allows volatile sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU). We investigated the effects of isoflurane sedation on cerebral and systemic physiology parameters in neuromonitored ICU stroke patients.

Methods

Included in the study were 19 consecutive ventilated patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (12), subarachnoid hemorrhage (4), and ischemic stroke (3) who were switched from intravenous propofol or midazolam to inhalative isoflurane sedation for an average of 3.5?days. During the sedation transition, the following parameters were assessed: mean arterial pressure (MAP), intracranial pressure (ICP), cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), middle cerebral artery mean flow velocity (MFV) and cerebral fractional tissue oxygen extraction (FTOE), as well as systemic cardiopulmonary parameters and administered drugs.

Results

After the first hour, mean ICP showed an increase of 2.1?mmHg that was not clinically relevant. Likewise, MFV did not change. MAP and CPP, however, decreased by 6.5 and 6.3?mmHg, respectively. FTOE was reduced slightly from 0.24 to 0.21 (p?=?0.03). Over an observation period of 12?h, ICP remained stable, while MAP and thus CPP showed distinct decreases (CPP: ?10?mmHg at 6?h, p?<?0.001; ?7.5?mmHg at 12?h, p?=?0.005, when compared to preswitch levels) despite a 1.5-fold increase in vasopressor administration.

Conclusions

We suggest that that it is possible to reach sufficient sedation levels in cerebrovascular ICU patients by applying volatile isoflurane long-term without a relevant increase in ICP, if baseline ICP values are low or only moderately elevated. However, caution should be exercised in view of isoflurane’s decreasing effect on MAP and CPP. Multimodal neuromonitoring is strongly recommended when applying this off-label sedation method.     

Midazolam and propofol used alone or sequentially for long-term sedation in critically ill,mechanically ventilated patients: a prospective,randomized study

Introduction

Midazolam and propofol used alone for long-term sedation are associated with adverse effects. Sequential use may reduce the adverse effects, and lead to faster recovery, earlier extubation and lower costs. This study evaluates the effects, safety, and cost of midazolam, propofol, and their sequential use for long-term sedation in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients.

Methods

A total of 135 patients who required mechanical ventilation for >3 days were randomly assigned to receive midazolam (group M), propofol (group P), or sequential use of both (group M-P). In group M-P, midazolam was switched to propofol until the patients passed the spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) safety screen. The primary endpoints included recovery time, extubation time and mechanical ventilation time. The secondary endpoints were pharmaceutical cost, total cost of ICU stay, and recollection to mechanical ventilation-related events.

Results

The incidence of agitation following cessation of sedation in group M-P was lower than group M (19.4% versus 48.7%, P = 0.01). The mean percentage of adequate sedation and duration of sedation were similar in the three groups. The recovery time, extubation time and mechanical ventilation time of group M were 58.0 (interquartile range (IQR), 39.0) hours, 45.0 (IQR, 24.5) hours, and 192.0 (IQR, 124.0) hours, respectively; these were significantly longer than the other groups, while they were similar between the other two groups. In the treatment-received analysis, ICU duration was longer in group M than group M-P (P = 0.016). Using an intention-to-treat analysis and a treatment-received analysis, respectively, the pharmaceutical cost of group M-P was lower than group P (P <0.01) and its ICU cost was lower than group M (P <0.01; P = 0.015). The proportion of group M-P with unbearable memory of the uncomfortable events was lower than in group M (11.7% versus 25.0%, P <0.01), while the proportion with no memory was similar (P >0.05). The incidence of hypotension in group M-P was lower than group (P = 0.01).

Conclusion

Sequential use of midazolam and propofol was a safe and effective sedation protocol, with higher clinical effectiveness and better cost-benefit ratio than midazolam or propofol used alone, for long-term sedation of critically ill mechanically ventilated patients.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN01173443. Registered 25 February 2014.     

Propofol–fentanyl versus propofol–ketamine for procedural sedation and analgesia in patients with trauma

Objective

Many procedures performed in emergency department are stressful and painful, and creating proper and timely analgesia and early and effective assessment are the challenges in this department. This study has been conducted in order to compare the efficacy of propofol and fentanyl combination with propofol and ketamine combination for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in trauma patients in the emergency department.

Clonidin bei Remifentanil-induzierter Hyperalgesie

Background

In the postoperative period, ??2-adrenergic agonists have an opioid sparing effect. In a previous, experimental study, it was also shown that clonidine attenuates remifentanil-induced hyperalgesia. In this study, we examined under clinical conditions whether early administration of a single dose of clonidine can inhibit remifentanil-induced hyperalgesia in patients undergoing elective surgery of the shoulder and with continuous intraoperative use of remifentanil.

Patients and methods

In this study 40?patients received double-blind and randomized either 150???g clonidine or placebo intravenously before skin incision. Anaesthesia was maintained with propofol and remifentanil (0.23±0.09???g/kg body weight/min) and morphine (0.1?mg/kg body weight) was administered 20?min before incision closure. Postoperatively, the patients were given a patient-controlled analgesia pump (PCA) with morphine.

Results

Overall morphine consumption as well as overall assessment of pain with the visual analogue scale in the first 24?h postoperatively did not differ significantly between the groups. Isolated pain scores at 12?h and 24?h were significantly enhanced in the clonidine group (p<0.05).

Conclusion

An early single dose of 150???g of clonidine did not reduce the postoperative morphine consumption and pain scores in patients undergoing elective surgery of the shoulder with remifentanil/propofol-based anaesthesia. After the effect of clonidine has presumably subsided the pain can even increase, therefore further studies with repetitive doses of clonidine should be carried out.     

Sedation in the intensive care unit with remifentanil/propofol versus midazolam/fentanyl: a randomised, open-label, pharmacoeconomic trial

Introduction  

Remifentanil is an opioid with a unique pharmacokinetic profile. Its organ-independent elimination and short context-sensitive half time of 3 to 4 minutes lead to a highly predictable offset of action. We tested the hypothesis that with an analgesia-based sedation regimen with remifentanil and propofol, patients after cardiac surgery reach predefined criteria for discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU) sooner, resulting in shorter duration of time spent in the ICU, compared to a conventional regimen consisting of midazolam and fentanyl. In addition, the two regimens were compared regarding their costs.     

Impact of the United States propofol ban on emergency providers’ procedural sedation agent choice and patient length of stay

BACKGROUND:

In the recent past, propofol was temporarily removed from the emergency department (ED) for use in procedural sedation. We sought to determine which agents replaced it in clinical practice and the impact this change had on turnaround times (TAT) for sedated patients.

METHODS:

This study is a retrospective chart review at a level one trauma center. Patients receiving sedative agents (propofol, ketamine, midazolam, and etomidate) were identified by pharmacy codes, and their charts were then reviewed for demographics and TAT. Propofol was unavailable in the emergency department (ED) between May 2010 and February 2011. The study period extended from May 2009 until May 2011. Patients receiving sedation by non-emergency medicine physicians and those receiving sedation related to intubation were excluded.

RESULTS:

In total 2466 charts were reviewed and 209 met inclusion criteria. When propofol was available, the most commonly used sedative agent was etomidate (40%), followed by propofol (28%), ketamine (20%), and midazolam (6%). When propofol was unavailable, etomidate remained the most commonly used agent (43%), followed by ketamine (41%), and midazolam (11%). When propofol was available, the median TAT for sedated patients was 163 minutes compared to 178 minutes when propofol was unavailable (P=0.83). When propofol was the primary sedative agent used, the median TAT was 166 minutes as compared with a median TAT of 172 minutes for all other sedative agents combined (P=0.87).

CONCLUSION:

When propofol was unavailable, ketamine became a preferred ED sedation agent. Removal of propofol from the sedation armamentarium did not affect ED TAT.KEY WORDS: Procedural sedation, Turnaround time, Propofol, Ketamine, Etomidate, Midazolam     

Noninvasive ventilation after early extubation in patients recovering from hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: a single-centre feasibility study

Purpose

The use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) to facilitate discontinuation of mechanical ventilation in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (hypoxemic ARF) has never been explored. This pilot study aims to assess the feasibility of early extubation followed by immediate NIV, compared conventional weaning, in patients with resolving hypoxemic ARF.

Methods

Twenty consecutive hypoxemic patients were randomly assigned to receive either conventional weaning or NIV. The changes in arterial blood gases and respiratory rate were compared between the two groups at 1, 12, 24 and 48?h. Differences in the rate of extubation failure, ICU and hospital mortality, number of invasive-ventilation-free-days at day 28, septic complications, number of tracheotomies, days and rates of continuous intravenous sedation, and ICU length of stay were also determined.

Results

No patient interrupted the study protocol. Arterial blood gases were similar during invasive mechanical ventilation, 1?h after NIV application following extubation, and after 12, 24 and 48?h. Respiratory rate was higher after 1?h in the NIV group, but no different after 12, 24 and 48?h. The number of invasive-ventilation-free-days at day 28 was 20?±?8 (min?=?0, max?=?25) days in the treatment group and 10?±?9 (min?=?0, max?=?25) days in the control group (p?=?0.014). The rate of extubation failure, ICU and hospital mortality, tracheotomies, septic complications, days and rates of continuous sedation, and ICU length of stay were not significantly different between the two groups.

Conclusions

In a highly experienced centre NIV may be used to facilitate discontinuation of mechanical ventilation in selected patients with resolving hypoxemic ARF.     

Impact of addition of propofol to ED formulary

Study Objectives

Access to propofol remains a challenge for many emergency physicians. This report examines changes in patient care after the introduction of propofol to an emergency department formulary.

Methods

The Procedural Sedation in the Community Emergency Department registry is a prospective multicentered database of community emergency physician–directed procedural sedation cases. Medication selection and patient outcome were compared at a single Procedural Sedation in the Community Emergency Department registry study site before and after credentialing of emergency physicians for the use of propofol. Analysis was done through analysis of variance and χ² test.

Results

Over a 36-month period, 573 patients were entered into the registry from the single study site, 255 before and 318 after propofol introduction. The percentage of propofol use increased from 26% of procedural sedation cases in the first 3 months of availability to 69% in the final 3 months analyzed. Before propofol use, 46% of cases were completed with a single agent compared with after propofol use, in which 66% were completed with a single agent (P < .001). Complications decreased from 9% of patients before propofol use to 3% of patients after propofol use (P < .05), whereas sedation failures decreased from 5.1% to 4.1% (P < .02).

Conclusion

Granted access to propofol, emergency physicians will preferentially use this medication over prior procedural sedation agents with fewer procedural sedation complications and greater procedural success.     

Prospective observational Italian study on palliative sedation in two hospice settings: differences in casemixes and clinical care

Purpose

Palliative sedation (PS) has been defined as the use of sedative medications to relieve intolerable suffering from refractory symptoms by a reduction in patient consciousness. It is sometimes necessary in end-of-life care when patients present refractory symptoms. We investigated PS for refractory symptoms in different hospice casemixes in order to (1) assess clinical decision-making, (2) monitor the practice of PS, and (3) examine the impact of PS on survival.

Methods

This observational longitudinal cohort study was conducted over a period of 9?months on 327 patients consecutively admitted to two 11-bed Italian hospices (A and B) with different casemixes in terms of median patient age (hospice A, 66?years vs. hospice B, 73?years; P?=?0.005), mean duration of hospice stay (hospice A, 13.5?days vs. hospice B, 18.3?days; P?=?0.005), and death rate (hospice A, 57.2% vs. hospice B, 89.9%; P?Results Patient involvement in clinical decision-making about sedation was significantly higher in hospice B (59.3% vs. 24.4%; P?=?0.007). Family involvement was 100% in both hospices. The maximum level of sedation (RASS, ?5) was necessary in only 58.3% of sedated patients. Average duration of sedation was similar in the two hospices (32.2?h [range, 2.5–253.0]). Overall survival in sedated and nonsedated patients was superimposable, with a trend in favor of sedated patients.

Conclusions

PS represents a highly reproducible clinical intervention with its own indications, assessment methodologies, procedures, and results. It does not have a detrimental effect on survival.     

A systematic review and meta-analysis of propofol versus midazolam sedation in adult intensive care (ICU) patients

PurposeCompare outcomes of adult patients admitted to ICU- length of ICU stay, length of mechanical ventilation (MV), and time until extubation- according to the use of propofol versus midazolam.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and Cochrane databases to retrieve RCTs that compared propofol and midazolam used as sedatives in adult ICU patients. We applied a random-effects, meta-analytic model in all calculations. We applied the Cochrane collaboration tool and GRADE. We separated patients into two groups: acute surgical patients (hospitalization up to 24 h) and critically-ill patients (hospitalization over 24 h and whose articles mostly mix surgical, medical and trauma patients).ResultsGlobally, propofol was associated with a reduced MV time of 4.46 h (MD: -4.46 [95% CI -7.51 to −1.42] p = 0.004, I2 = 63%, 6 studies) and extubation time of 7.95 h (MD: -7.95 [95% CI -9.86 to −6.03] p < 0.00001, I2 = 98%, 16 studies). Acute surgical patients sedation with propofol compared to midazolam was associated with a reduced ICU stay of 5.07 h (MD: -5.07 [95% CI -8.68 to −1.45] p = 0.006, I2 = 41%, 5 studies), MV time of 4.28 h (MD: −4.28; [95% CI -4.62 to −3.94] p < 0.0001, I2 = 0%, 3 studies), extubation time of 1.92 h (MD: −1.92; [95% CI -2.71 to −1.13] p = 0.00001, I2 = 89%, 9 studies). In critically-ill patients sedation with propofol compared to midazolam was associated with a reduced extubation time of 32.68 h (MD: -32.68 [95% CI -48.37 to −16.98] p = 0.0001, I2 = 97%, 9 studies). GRADE was very low for all outcomes.ConclusionsSedation with propofol compared to midazolam is associated with improved clinical outcomes in ICU, with reduced ICU stay MV time and extubation time in acute surgical patients and reduced extubation time in critically-ill patients.