Sedatives,analgesics and antipsychotics in tracheostomised ICU patients – Is less more?

BackgroundSedation and anaesthesia are used universally to facilitate mechanical ventilation – with larger cumulative doses being used in those with prolonged ventilation. Transitioning from an endotracheal to a tracheostomy tube enables the depth of sedation to be reduced. Early use of speaking valves with tracheostomised patients has become routine in some intensive care units (ICU). The return of verbal communication has been observed to improve ease of patient care and increase patient and family engagement, with a perceived reduction in patient agitation.ObjectivesTo investigate the potential impact of speaking valve (SV) use on requirements of sedatives, analgesics and antipsychotics in ICU patients with a tracheostomy.MethodsA retrospective data audit was undertaken for all tracheostomised patients in a cardio-respiratory ICU from 2011 to 2014. Use of sedative, analgesic and antipsychotic drugs was captured for endotracheal tube, tracheostomy and SV periods, including patient demographics, disease specifics and severity. Stratified Cox regression analysis was performed to determine the effects of SV on drug dosage.ResultsOf 257 patients, 144 (56%) received an SV. Use of an SV was associated with reduced risk of being in the upper quartile of daily dosage of analgesics (HR: 0.6; 95% CI: 0.5–0.8; p < 0.001). In the final adjusted multivariable model, analgesic dose was additionally associated with age, and attendance to operating theatre during ICU. Sedative dose was associated with age, gender and SOFA score. Antipsychotic dose was associated with gender (less likely in females: HR 0.6, 95% CI: 0.4–0.8), age and APACHE score.ConclusionsThere was significantly less analgesic used in patients with an SV compared to those without. However, SV use in patients with tracheostomy was not found to be associated with reduced dose of sedatives or antipsychotics, despite the clinical impression. Future prospective studies are needed to more adequately investigate the association between drugs and patients' ability to verbally participate in their care.     

Manipulators and integrated OR systems – requirements and solutions

Videoendoscopic (laparoscopic and thoracoscopic) surgery is characterized by challenges for the whole OR team. Additional equipment must be monitored and managed by the surgeon and the nurses in a rather dark environment. The surgeon is using long‐shafted instruments that reduce the degrees of freedom of the possible instrument movements, thus limiting the dexterity for the surgeon. The use of trocars results in a pivot point effect when moving the instruments, which needs some experience on the surgeon's side to move the instruments adequately and into the right direction. Finally the hand‐eye‐coordination is dependent on the camera position relative to the instruments and a stable image of the situs shown at the monitor. To overcome these challenges, several new technologies have been developed and introduced into the OR by the industry, also using robotics to help the surgeon perform the procedure. Integrated OR systems enable the OR team to control virtually all devices in the OR from a centralized panel; scope‐positioning systems provide the surgeon with a stable image under his own control and manipulators for the instruments allow fine movements with additional degrees of freedom. This article gives a short overview of currently available technologies, describing the design requirements and the functionality of the different systems     

Is inhaled prophylactic heparin useful for prevention and management of pneumonia in ventilated ICU patients?

PurposeThe purpose was to determine the efficacy of prophylactic inhaled heparin for the prevention and treatment of pneumonia in patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV).MethodsA phase 2, double-blind, randomized controlled trial stratified for study center and patient type (nonoperative, postoperative) was conducted in 3 university-affiliated intensive care units. Patients aged at least 18 years and requiring invasive MV for more than 48 hours were randomized to usual care, nebulization of unfractionated sodium heparin (5000 U in 2 mL), or nebulization with 0.9% sodium chloride (2 mL) 4 times daily with the main outcome measures, the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), ventilator-associated complication, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores in patients with admission pneumonia or developing VAP. Trial registration: ACTRN12612000038897.ResultsA total of 214 patients were enrolled (72 usual care, 71 inhaled sodium heparin, 71 inhaled sodium chloride). There were no differences between treatment groups in terms of the development of VAP using either Klompas criteria (6%-7%, P = 1.00) or clinical diagnosis (24%-26%, P = .85).ConclusionLow-dose nebulized heparin cannot be recommended for prophylaxis against VAP or to hasten recovery from pneumonia in patients receiving MV.     

Caring for one and all – Exploring ethical challenges in an ICU

This discussion paper explores some of the complex ethical and moral issues confronting contemporary critical care nurses. In contemporary healthcare discussions, there is an increased appreciation of the complexity of ethical challenges, the multiplicity of stakeholders and that a broad range of possible and practical outcomes exist. Furthermore, many scholars also acknowledge the limitations of principle based ethical frameworks. In seeking to build critical care nurses’ capacity to negotiate the complex – and often conflicting – ethical challenges, the authors have adopted a person-centred, values-based approach in this case study. Furthermore, by exploring these complex issues, this paper supports and builds upon critical care nurses’ decision making capacities in the clinical area. This case study has been purposefully left open-ended with the aim of inviting the reader to consider the questions posed in a collegial, collaborative manner within the particular context in which she/he is embedded.     

Nutritional papers in ICU patients: what lies between the lines?

The abundance of literature related to nutritional support reflects its recently recognised role in preventing metabolic complications and gut dysfunction during critical illness. However, some published studies lack relevance to critically ill patients, as a result of the selection of subjects and outcome variables, or flaws in the study design, as well as in the type, composition, timing, route of administration and amount of nutritional support given. This review will highlight these confounding factors by describing two imaginary (but typical) clinical trials and by analysing some studies published. The point at issue is that basic quality requirements, such as the formulation of a prospective hypothesis and the delineation of the effects of the reference treatment, are often lacking in many studies published. Data analysis was often found to be biased by the absence of statistical power calculation and intention-to-treat analysis. Globally, studies designed to assess the effects of nutritional support on the outcome of critically ill patients, rarely fulfil basic quality requirements and should therefore be interpreted cautiously. We suggest simple strategies or study design that will allow important questions to be answered by future clinical trials.     

Long-term outcome in ICU patients: what about quality of life?

Objective Analysis of mortality and quality of life (QOL) after intensive care unit (ICU) discharge.Design Prospective, observational study.Setting Mixed, 31-bed, medico-surgical ICU.Patients Consecutive adult ICU admissions between June 25 and September 10, 2000, except admissions for uncomplicated elective postoperative surveillance.Interventions None.Measurements and results Age, past history, admission APACHE II, SOFA score (admission, maximum, discharge), ICU and hospital mortality were recorded. A telephone interview employing the EuroQol 5D system was conducted 18 months after discharge. Of 202 patients, 34 (16.8%) died in the ICU and 23 (11.4%) died in the hospital after ICU discharge. Of the 145 patients discharged alive from hospital, 22 could not be contacted and 27 (13.4%) had died after hospital discharge. Of the 96 patients (47.5%) who completed the questionnaire, 38% had a worse QOL than prior to ICU admission, but only 8.3% were severely incapacitated. Twenty-three patients (24%) had reduced mobility, 15 (15.6%) had limited autonomy, 24 (25%) had alteration in usual daily activities, 29 (30.2%) expressed more anxiety/depression, and 42 (44%) had more discomfort or pain. Twenty-eight (62.2% of those who worked previously) patients had returned to work 18 months after ICU discharge.Conclusions Comparing QOL after discharge with that before admission, patients more frequently report worse QOL for the domains of pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression than for physical domains. Factors commonly associated with a change in QOL were previous problems in the affected domains, prolonged hospital length of stay (LOS), greater disease severity at admission and degree of organ dysfunction during ICU stay.