Article

A protocol of no sedation for critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a randomised trial

Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Denmark.
The Lancet (Impact Factor: 45.22). 02/2010; 375(9713):475-80. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)62072-9
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Standard treatment of critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation is continuous sedation. Daily interruption of sedation has a beneficial effect, and in the general intesive care unit of Odense University Hospital, Denmark, standard practice is a protocol of no sedation. We aimed to establish whether duration of mechanical ventilation could be reduced with a protocol of no sedation versus daily interruption of sedation.
Of 428 patients assessed for eligibility, we enrolled 140 critically ill adult patients who were undergoing mechanical ventilation and were expected to need ventilation for more than 24 h. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio (unblinded) to receive: no sedation (n=70 patients); or sedation (20 mg/mL propofol for 48 h, 1 mg/mL midazolam thereafter) with daily interruption until awake (n=70, control group). Both groups were treated with bolus doses of morphine (2.5 or 5 mg). The primary outcome was the number of days without mechanical ventilation in a 28-day period, and we also recorded the length of stay in the intensive care unit (from admission to 28 days) and in hospital (from admission to 90 days). Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00466492.
27 patients died or were successfully extubated within 48 h, and, as per our study design, were excluded from the study and statistical analysis. Patients receiving no sedation had significantly more days without ventilation (n=55; mean 13.8 days, SD 11.0) than did those receiving interrupted sedation (n=58; mean 9.6 days, SD 10.0; mean difference 4.2 days, 95% CI 0.3-8.1; p=0.0191). No sedation was also associated with a shorter stay in the intensive care unit (HR 1.86, 95% CI 1.05-3.23; p=0.0316), and, for the first 30 days studied, in hospital (3.57, 1.52-9.09; p=0.0039), than was interrupted sedation. No difference was recorded in the occurrences of accidental extubations, the need for CT or MRI brain scans, or ventilator-associated pneumonia. Agitated delirium was more frequent in the intervention group than in the control group (n=11, 20%vs n=4, 7%; p=0.0400).
No sedation of critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation is associated with an increase in days without ventilation. A multicentre study is needed to establish whether this effect can be reproduced in other facilities.
Danish Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, the Fund of Danielsen, the Fund of Kirsten Jensa la Cour, and the Fund of Holger og Ruth Hess.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Thomas Strøm, Jun 25, 2015
2 Followers
 · 
244 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Inappropriate sedation assessment can jeopardize patient comfort and safety. Therefore, nurses' abilities in assessing and managing sedation are vital for effective care of mechanically ventilated patients.Aims and objectivesThis study assessed nurses' sedation scoring and management abilities as primary outcomes following educational interventions. Nurses' perceived self-confidence and barriers to effective sedation management were assessed as secondary outcomes.DesignA post-test-only quasi-experimental design was used. Data were collected at 3 and 9 months post-intervention.MethodsA total of 66 nurses from a 14-bed intensive care unit of a Malaysian teaching hospital participated. The educational interventions included theoretical sessions, hands-on sedation assessment practice using the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale, and a brief sedation assessment tool. Nurses' sedation scoring and management abilities and perceived self-confidence level were assessed at both time points using self-administered questionnaires with case scenarios. Sedation assessment and management barriers were assessed once at 9 months post-intervention.ResultsMedian scores for overall accurate sedation scoring (9 months: 4·00; 3 months: 2·00, p = 0·0001) and overall sedation management (9 months: 14·0; 3 months: 7·0, p = 0·0001) were significantly higher at 9 months compared to 3 months post-intervention. There were no significant differences in the perceived self-confidence level for rating sedation level. Overall perceived barrier scores were low (M = 27·78, SD = 6·26, possible range = 11·0–55·0). Patient conditions (M = 3·68, SD = 1·13) and nurses' workload (M = 3·54, SD = 0·95) were the greatest barriers to effective sedation assessment and management. Demographic variables did not affect sedation scoring or management abilities.Conclusions Positive changes in nurses' sedation assessment and management abilities were observed, indicating that adequate hands-on clinical practice following educational interventions can improve nurses' knowledge and skills.Relevance to clinical practiceEducational initiatives are necessary to improve ICU practice, particularly in ICUs with inexperienced nurses.
    Nursing in Critical Care 04/2015; DOI:10.1111/nicc.12180 · 0.87 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The purpose of this work was to obtain a detailed perspective of sedation practice. Sedation included sedative and opioid choice, presence of local guidelines, and use of scoring systems. A Web-based survey was designed. The aim was to gain sufficient detail of UK sedation while also being succinct enough to complete in 15 minutes. It was composed of relevant demographics, policy, sedative choice, and analgesia. The survey was piloted before launch. The investigators selected the intensive care unit (ICU) pharmacist as the respondent. One hundred fifty-seven ICUs responded. Eighty-nine (59%) reported use of sedation guidelines, 78% undertook sedation holds, and 87% use sedation scores. Only 42% used a daily sedation target. Seventy (43%) assess for delirium; 27 of those use a validated tool. Propofol (89%) use was common, followed by midazolam (49%). Morphine (49%), fentanyl (34%), and alfentanil (34%) were the most frequently used opioids. This survey confirmed expected variation in UK sedation practice. Recognized strategies such as target sedation score and sedation policy are underused. A 43% uptake in delirium screening suggests that larger engagement is required to meet national standards. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Journal of Critical Care 11/2014; 30(2). DOI:10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.11.006 · 2.19 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aims and objectivesTo evaluate the impact of an educational intervention on nurses' knowledge of sedation assessment and management.Background Sedation management is an integral component of critical care practice. It requires the greatest attention of critical care practitioners because it carries significant risks to patients. Therefore, it is imperative that nurses are aware of potential adverse consequences of sedation therapy and current sedation practice recommendations.Designs and methodsA quasi-experimental design with a pre- and post-test method was used. The educational intervention included theoretical sessions on assessing and managing sedation and hands-on sedation assessment practice using the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale. Its effect was measured using self-administered questionnaire, completed at the baseline level and 3 months following the intervention.ResultsParticipants were 68 registered nurses from an intensive care unit of a teaching hospital in Malaysia. Significant increases in overall mean knowledge scores were observed from pre- to post-intervention phases (mean of 79·00 versus 102·00, p < 0·001). Nurses with fewer than 5 years of work experience, less than 26 years old, and with a only basic nursing education had significantly greater level of knowledge improvement at the post-intervention phase compared to other colleagues, with mean differences of 24·64 (p = 0·001), 23·81 (p = 0·027) and 27·25 (p = 0·0001), respectively. A repeated-measures analysis of variance revealed a statistically significant effect of educational intervention on knowledge score after controlling for age, years of work and level of nursing education (p = 0·0001, ηp2 = 0·431).Conclusion An educational intervention consisting of theoretical sessions and hands-on sedation assessment practice was found effective in improving nurses' knowledge and understanding of sedation management.Relevance to clinical practiceThis study highlighted the importance of continuing education to increase nurses' understanding of intensive care practices, which is vital for improving the quality of patient care.
    Nursing in Critical Care 09/2014; DOI:10.1111/nicc.12105 · 0.87 Impact Factor