Optimizing patient outcomes: a comprehensive evaluation of protocolized sedation in intensive care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Amidst the routine utilization of protocolized sedation in ventilated ICU patients, existing management guidelines exhibit a lack of unanimous recommendations for its widespread adoption. This study endeavors to comprehensively assess the effectiveness and safety of protocolized sedation in critically ill ventilated patients. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to systematically review and conduct a meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing protocolized sedation with standard management in critically ill ventilated patients. Key outcomes under scrutiny include ICU and hospital mortality, ventilation days, duration of ICU stay, and incidents of self-extubation. The evaluation incorporates the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool to assess the quality of included studies. Data analysis utilizes a random-effects model for relative risk (RR) and mean differences. Subgroup analysis categorizes sedation protocols into algorithmic or daily interruption, addressing potential heterogeneity. Additionally, a GRADE evaluation is performed to ascertain the overall certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: From an initial pool of 1504 records, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. Protocolized sedation demonstrated a reduced RR for mortality (RR: 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.93, p < 0.01, I2 = 0%) and a decrease in ventilation days (mean difference: - 1.12, 95% CI - 2.11 to - 0.14, p = 0.03, I2 = 84%). Furthermore, there was a notable reduction in ICU stay (mean difference: - 2.24, 95% CI - 3.59 to - 0.89, p < 0.01, I2 = 81%). However, incidents of self-extubation did not exhibit a significant difference (RR: 1.20, 95% CI 0.49-2.94, p = 0.69, I2 = 35%). Subgroup analyses effectively eliminated heterogeneity (I2 = 0%), and the GRADE evaluation yielded moderate results for mortality, ventilation days, and ICU duration. CONCLUSION: Protocolized sedation, whether implemented algorithmically or through daily interruption, emerges as a safe and effective approach when compared to standard management in ventilated ICU patients. The findings from this study contribute valuable insights to inform evidence-based practices in sedation management for this critical patient population.

Protocolized Sedation Utilizing COMFORT-B Scale versus Non-protocol-directed Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Children - An Open-label, Randomized Controlled Trial.

This study aimed to determine the effect of protocolized sedation using the COMFORT-B scale on the duration of mechanical ventilation (DMV). Eighty children with anticipated Duration of mechanical ventilation (DMV) >24 h admitted to the Pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) were randomized into one group that received protocolized sedation (PS) using the COMFORT behavioural (COMFORT-B) scale, and another group that received non-protocolized sedation (NPS). The primary outcome was the impact on the DMV. The DMV was significantly lower in PS (PS: 3.5 [3-7] vs. NPS group: 8.5 [4.25-13.75] d; p = 0.008). The cumulative dose and duration of fentanyl in the PS group was significantly lower (median [IQR]; 120 [62.88-279.12] vs. 320.4 [110.88-851.52] µg/kg; p = 0.007 and 4 [2.25-7.75] vs. 8 [4-17.5] d; p = 0.009, respectively). The authors found a decrease in DMV and sedation related adverse events (SRAE) like ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP), accidental extubation, post-extubation stridor and dose and duration of sedative agents with PS.

Daily sedation interruption and mechanical ventilation weaning: a literature review.

Daily sedation interruption (DSI) is a method used since the beginning of the millennium to streamline sedation in critically ill patients under mechanical ventilation and improve clinical outcomes. The purpose was to assess whether there is a correlation between DSI and weaning from mechanical ventilation. We designed a literature review via searching PubMed, UpToDate and Google Scholar for relevant key terms from inception until March 2019. Literature retrieved included nine randomized controlled trials. When compared to usual practice, it is superior in terms of duration of mechanical ventilation, stay in the intensive care unit, hospitalization, adverse effect occurrence and total cost of therapy. Comparison with other sedation protocols produces conflicting results. DSI, and protocolized sedation in general, are safe methods to perform to facilitate earlier weaning and improved clinical outcomes. Future research should focus on minimizing bias by conducting double-blinded studies and studying different patient subgroups.