Article

A screening, prevention, and restoration model for saving the injured brain in intensive care unit survivors.

Center for Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt School of Medicine, Nashville, TN, USA.
Critical care medicine (Impact Factor: 6.15). 10/2010; 38(10 Suppl):S683-91. DOI: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181f245d3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We face a profound and emerging public health problem in the form of acute and chronic brain dysfunction. This affects both young and elderly intensive care unit survivors and is altering the landscape of society. Two-thirds of intensive care unit patients develop delirium, and this is associated with longer stays, increased costs, and excess mortality. In addition, over half of intensive care unit survivors suffer a dementia-like illness that impacts their physical and cognitive functional abilities and which appears to be related to the duration of their intensive care unit delirium. A new paradigm of how intensivists handle the brain is required. We propose a three-step approach to address this emerging epidemic, which includes Screening, Prevention, and Restoration of brain function (SPR). Screening combines risk factor identification and delirium assessment using validated instruments. Prevention of acute and chronic brain dysfunction requires implementation of a core model of care that combines evidence-based practices: awakening and breathing, coordination with target-based sedation, delirium monitoring, and exercise/early mobility (ABCDE). Restoration introduces strategies of ongoing screening and treatment for intensive care unit survivors at high risk of ongoing brain dysfunction. This practical system applying many evidence-based concepts incorporates personalized medicine, systems-based practice, and continuing research and development toward improving acute and chronic cognitive outcomes.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Eduard E Vasilevskis, Jul 29, 2015
1 Follower
 · 
147 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To describe the reliability and sustainability of delirium and sedation measurements of bedside intensive care unit (ICU) nurses. Prospective cohort study. A tertiary care academic medical center. Five hundred ten ICU patients from 2007 to 2010; 627 bedside nurses. Bedside nurses and well-trained reference-rater research nurses independently measured delirium and sedation levels in routine care. Bedside nurses were instructed to use the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) every 12 hours to measure delirium and the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) every 4 hours to measure sedation. CAM-ICU and RASS assessment agreement were computed using weighted kappa statistics across the entire population and subgroups (e.g., ICU type). Sensitivity and specificity of bedside nurse identification of delirium were calculated to understand sources of discordance. Six thousand one hundred ninety-eight CAM-ICU and 6,880 RASS measurement pairs obtained on 3,846 patient-days. For CAM-ICU measurements, agreement between bedside and research nurses was substantial (weighted kappa = 0.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.66-0.70) and stable over 3 years of data collection. RASS measures also demonstrated substantial agreement (weighted kappa = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.64-0.68), which was stable across all years of data collection. The sensitivity of delirium nurse assessments was 0.81 (95% CI = 0.78-0.83), and the specificity was 0.81 (95% CI = 0.78-0.85). Bedside nurse measurements of delirium and sedation are sustainable and reliable sources of information. These measures can be used for clinical decision-making, quality improvement, and quality measurement activities.
    Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 11/2011; 59 Suppl 2:S249-55. DOI:10.1111/j.1532-5415.2011.03673.x · 4.22 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The transition from hospital to home is complicated for older adults who experience a serious or life-threatening illness. The specific aims of this prospective, observational cohort study were to determine the number of older adults who experience a change in their functional ability and residence after an intensive care unit (ICU) stay and to explore risk factors for functional decline and new institutionalization at hospital discharge. We found high rates of unrecognized preexisting cognitive impairment, delirium, complications, functional decline, and new institutionalization in this sample (N = 43). A number of variables were associated with functional decline or new institutionalization, including narcotic agent use (p = 0.03), ICU complications (p = 0.05), comorbidities (p = 0.01), depression (p = 0.05), and severity of illness (p = 0.05). We identified device self-removal, admission type, and ICU delirium as also potentially associated with these outcomes (p ≤ 0.25). There are a number of important and potentially modifiable factors that influence an older adult's ability to recover after a critical illness.
    Journal of Gerontological Nursing 11/2011; 37(12):14-25; quiz 26-7. DOI:10.3928/00989134-20111102-01 · 0.62 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A protocol of no sedation has been shown to reduce the time patients receive mechanical ventilation and to reduce intensive care and total hospital length of stay. The long-term psychological effects of this strategy have not yet been described. The purpose of the study was to test whether a strategy of no sedation alters long-term psychological outcome compared with a standard strategy with sedation. During intensive care stay, 140 patients requiring mechanical ventilation were randomized to either no sedation or sedation with daily interruption of sedation. This study was done as a single-blinded cohort study. After discharge, patients were interviewed by a neuropsychologist assessing quality of life, depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder. Two years after randomization, 38 patients were eligible for interview, and 26 patients were interviewed (13 from each group). No difference was found with respect to quality of life (Medical Outcome Study, 36-item short-form health survey). Both mental and physical components were nonsignificant. The Beck depression index was low in both groups (one patient in intervention group versus three patients in the control group were depressed, p = 0.32). Evaluated with the Impact of Events Scale, both groups had low stress scores (one in the intervention group versus two in the control group had scores greater than 32; p = 0.50). State anxiety scores were also low (28 in the control group versus 30 in the intervention group, p = 0.58). Our data suggest that a protocol of no sedation applied to critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation does not increase the risk of long-term psychological sequelae after intensive care compared with standard treatment with sedation.
    Critical care (London, England) 12/2011; 15(6):R293. DOI:10.1186/cc10586
Show more