Dexmedetomidine or Propofol for Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Adults with Sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines currently recommend targeting light sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol for adults receiving mechanical ventilation. Differences exist between these sedatives in arousability, immunity, and inflammation. Whether they affect outcomes differentially in mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis undergoing light sedation is unknown. METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis to receive dexmedetomidine (0.2 to 1.5 µg per kilogram of body weight per hour) or propofol (5 to 50 µg per kilogram per minute), with doses adjusted by bedside nurses to achieve target sedation goals set by clinicians according to the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS, on which scores range from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]). The primary end point was days alive without delirium or coma during the 14-day intervention period. Secondary end points were ventilator-free days at 28 days, death at 90 days, and age-adjusted total score on the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status questionnaire (TICS-T; scores range from 0 to 100, with a mean of 50±10 and lower scores indicating worse cognition) at 6 months. RESULTS: Of 432 patients who underwent randomization, 422 were assigned to receive a trial drug and were included in the analyses - 214 patients received dexmedetomidine at a median dose of 0.27 µg per kilogram per hour, and 208 received propofol at a median dose of 10.21 µg per kilogram per minute. The median duration of receipt of the trial drugs was 3.0 days (interquartile range, 2.0 to 6.0), and the median RASS score was -2.0 (interquartile range, -3.0 to -1.0). We found no difference between dexmedetomidine and propofol in the number of days alive without delirium or coma (adjusted median, 10.7 vs. 10.8 days; odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.26), ventilator-free days (adjusted median, 23.7 vs. 24.0 days; odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.51), death at 90 days (38% vs. 39%; hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.52), or TICS-T score at 6 months (adjusted median score, 40.9 vs. 41.4; odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.33). Safety end points were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis who were being treated with recommended light-sedation approaches, outcomes in patients who received dexmedetomidine did not differ from outcomes in those who received propofol. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01739933.).

Clinical Impact of the Implementation Strategies Used to Apply the 2013 Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium or 2018 Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, Sleep Disruption Guideline Recommendations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To summarize the effectiveness of implementation strategies for ICU execution of recommendations from the 2013 Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium (PAD) or 2018 PAD, Immobility, Sleep Disruption (PADIS) guidelines. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from January 2012 to August 2023. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020175268). STUDY SELECTION: Articles were included if: 1) design was randomized or cohort, 2) adult population evaluated, 3) employed recommendations from greater than or equal to two PAD/PADIS domains, and 4) evaluated greater than or equal to 1 of the following outcome(s): short-term mortality, delirium occurrence, mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, or ICU length of stay (LOS). DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently reviewed articles for eligibility, number of PAD/PADIS domains, quality according to National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute assessment tools, implementation strategy use (including Assess, prevent, and manage pain; Both SAT and SBT; Choice of analgesia and sedation; Delirium: assess, prevent, and manage; Early mobility and exercise; Family engagement and empowerment [ABCDEF] bundle) by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) category, and clinical outcomes. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. DATA SYNTHESIS: Among the 25 of 243 (10.3%) full-text articles included ( n = 23,215 patients), risk of bias was high in 13 (52%). Most studies were cohort ( n = 22, 88%). A median of 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 4-7) EPOC strategies were used to implement recommendations from two (IQR 2-3) PAD/PADIS domains. Cohort and randomized studies were pooled separately. In the cohort studies, use of EPOC strategies was not associated with a change in mortality (risk ratio [RR] 1.01; 95% CI, 0.9-1.12), or delirium (RR 0.92; 95% CI, 0.82-1.03), but was associated with a reduction in MV duration (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.84 d; 95% CI, -1.25 to -0.43) and ICU LOS (WMD -0.77 d; 95% CI, -1.51 to 0.04). For randomized studies, EPOC strategy use was associated with reduced mortality and MV duration but not delirium or ICU LOS. CONCLUSIONS: Using multiple implementation strategies to adopt PAD/PADIS guideline recommendations may reduce mortality, duration of MV, and ICU LOS. Further prospective, controlled studies are needed to identify the most effective strategies to implement PAD/PADIS recommendations.

Causes, Consequences, and Treatments of Sleep and Circadian Disruption in the ICU: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

Background: Sleep and circadian disruption (SCD) is common and severe in the ICU. On the basis of rigorous evidence in non-ICU populations and emerging evidence in ICU populations, SCD is likely to have a profound negative impact on patient outcomes. Thus, it is urgent that we establish research priorities to advance understanding of ICU SCD. Methods: We convened a multidisciplinary group with relevant expertise to participate in an American Thoracic Society Workshop. Workshop objectives included identifying ICU SCD subtopics of interest, key knowledge gaps, and research priorities. Members attended remote sessions from March to November 2021. Recorded presentations were prepared and viewed by members before Workshop sessions. Workshop discussion focused on key gaps and related research priorities. The priorities listed herein were selected on the basis of rank as established by a series of anonymous surveys. Results: We identified the following research priorities: establish an ICU SCD definition, further develop rigorous and feasible ICU SCD measures, test associations between ICU SCD domains and outcomes, promote the inclusion of mechanistic and patient-centered outcomes within large clinical studies, leverage implementation science strategies to maximize intervention fidelity and sustainability, and collaborate among investigators to harmonize methods and promote multisite investigation. Conclusions: ICU SCD is a complex and compelling potential target for improving ICU outcomes. Given the influence on all other research priorities, further development of rigorous, feasible ICU SCD measurement is a key next step in advancing the field.

Critical Care Pharmacist Attitudes and Perceptions of Neuromuscular Blocker Infusions in ARDS.

BACKGROUND: Current critical care pharmacist (CCP) practices and perceptions related to neuromuscular infusion (NMBI) use for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) maybe different with the COVID-19 pandemic and the publication of 2020 NMBI practice guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate CCP practices and perceptions regarding NMBI use for patients with moderate-severe ARDS. METHODS: We developed, tested, and electronically administered a questionnaire (7 parent-, 42 sub-questions) to 409 American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP) Critical Care Practice and Research Network members in 12 geographically diverse states. The questionnaire focused on adults with moderate-severe ARDS (PaO2:FiO2<150) whose causes of dyssynchrony were addressed. Two reminders were sent at 10-day intervals. RESULTS: Respondents [131/409 (32%)] primarily worked in a medical intensive care unit (ICU) 102 (78%). Compared to COVID-negative(-) ARDS patients, COVID positive(+) ARDS patients were twice as likely to receive a NMBI (34 ± 18 vs.16 ± 17%; P < 0.01). Respondents somewhat/strongly agreed a NMBI should be reserved until after trials of deep sedation (112, 86%) or proning (92, 81%) and that NMBI reduced barotrauma (88, 67%), dyssynchrony (87, 66%), and plateau pressure (79, 60%). Few respondents somewhat/strongly agreed that a NMBI should be initiated at ARDS onset (23, 18%) or that NMBI reduced 90-day mortality (12, 10%). Only 2/14 potential NMBI risks [paralysis awareness (101, 82%) and prolonged muscle weakness (84, 68%)] were frequently reported to be of high/very high concern. Multiple NMBI titration targets were assessed as very/extremely important including arterial pH (109, 88%), dyssynchrony (107, 86%), and PaO2: FiO2 ratio (82, 66%). Train-of-four (55, 44%) and BIS monitoring (36, 29%) were deemed less important. Preferred NMBI discontinuation criteria included absence of dysschrony (84, 69%) and use ≥48 hour (72, 59%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Current critical care pharmacists believe NMBI for ARDS patients are best reserved until after trials of deep sedation or proning; unique considerations exist in COVID+ patients. Our results should be considered when ICU NMBI protocols are being developed and bedside decisions regarding NMBI use in ARDS are being formulated.

Pharmacophenotype identification of intensive care unit medications using unsupervised cluster analysis of the ICURx common data model.

BACKGROUND: Identifying patterns within ICU medication regimens may help artificial intelligence algorithms to better predict patient outcomes; however, machine learning methods incorporating medications require further development, including standardized terminology. The Common Data Model for Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Medications (CDM-ICURx) may provide important infrastructure to clinicians and researchers to support artificial intelligence analysis of medication-related outcomes and healthcare costs. Using an unsupervised cluster analysis approach in combination with this common data model, the objective of this evaluation was to identify novel patterns of medication clusters (termed 'pharmacophenotypes') correlated with ICU adverse events (e.g., fluid overload) and patient-centered outcomes (e.g., mortality). METHODS: This was a retrospective, observational cohort study of 991 critically ill adults. To identify pharmacophenotypes, unsupervised machine learning analysis with automated feature learning using restricted Boltzmann machine and hierarchical clustering was performed on the medication administration records of each patient during the first 24 h of their ICU stay. Hierarchical agglomerative clustering was applied to identify unique patient clusters. Distributions of medications across pharmacophenotypes were described, and differences among patient clusters were compared using signed rank tests and Fisher's exact tests, as appropriate. RESULTS: A total of 30,550 medication orders for the 991 patients were analyzed; five unique patient clusters and six unique pharmacophenotypes were identified. For patient outcomes, compared to patients in Clusters 1 and 3, patients in Cluster 5 had a significantly shorter duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay (p < 0.05); for medications, Cluster 5 had a higher distribution of Pharmacophenotype 1 and a smaller distribution of Pharmacophenotype 2, compared to Clusters 1 and 3. For outcomes, patients in Cluster 2, despite having the highest severity of illness and greatest medication regimen complexity, had the lowest overall mortality; for medications, Cluster 2 also had a comparably higher distribution of Pharmacophenotype 6. CONCLUSION: The results of this evaluation suggest that patterns among patient clusters and medication regimens may be observed using empiric methods of unsupervised machine learning in combination with a common data model. These results have potential because while phenotyping approaches have been used to classify heterogenous syndromes in critical illness to better define treatment response, the entire medication administration record has not been incorporated in those analyses. Applying knowledge of these patterns at the bedside requires further algorithm development and clinical application but may have the future potential to be leveraged in guiding medication-related decision making to improve treatment outcomes.

Efficacy of haloperidol to decrease the burden of delirium in adult critically ill patients: the EuRIDICE randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of haloperidol as treatment for ICU delirium and related symptoms remains controversial despite two recent large controlled trials evaluating its efficacy and safety. We sought to determine whether haloperidol when compared to placebo in critically ill adults with delirium reduces days with delirium and coma and improves delirium-related sequelae. METHODS: This multi-center double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial at eight mixed medical-surgical Dutch ICUs included critically ill adults with delirium (Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist ≥ 4 or a positive Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU) admitted between February 2018 and January 2020. Patients were randomized to intravenous haloperidol 2.5 mg or placebo every 8 h, titrated up to 5 mg every 8 h if delirium persisted until ICU discharge or up to 14 days. The primary outcome was ICU delirium- and coma-free days (DCFDs) within 14 days after randomization. Predefined secondary outcomes included the protocolized use of sedatives for agitation and related behaviors, patient-initiated extubation and invasive device removal, adverse drug associated events, mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, 28-day mortality, and long-term outcomes up to 1-year after randomization. RESULTS: The trial was terminated prematurely for primary endpoint futility on DSMB advice after enrolment of 132 (65 haloperidol; 67 placebo) patients [mean age 64 (15) years, APACHE IV score 73.1 (33.9), male 68%]. Haloperidol did not increase DCFDs (adjusted RR 0.98 [95% CI 0.73-1.31], p = 0.87). Patients treated with haloperidol (vs. placebo) were less likely to receive benzodiazepines (adjusted OR 0.41 [95% CI 0.18-0.89], p = 0.02). Effect measures of other secondary outcomes related to agitation (use of open label haloperidol [OR 0.43 (95% CI 0.12-1.56)] and other antipsychotics [OR 0.63 (95% CI 0.29-1.32)], self-extubation or invasive device removal [OR 0.70 (95% CI 0.22-2.18)]) appeared consistently more favorable with haloperidol, but the confidence interval also included harm. Adverse drug events were not different. Long-term secondary outcomes (e.g., ICU recall and quality of life) warrant further study. CONCLUSIONS: Haloperidol does not reduce delirium in critically ill delirious adults. However, it may reduce rescue medication requirements and agitation-related events in delirious ICU patients warranting further evaluation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (#NCT03628391), October 9, 2017.

Sleep-Promotion Bundle Development, Implementation, and Evaluation in Critically Ill Adults: Roles for Pharmacists.

OBJECTIVE: To review evidence for intensive care unit (ICU) sleep improvement bundle use, identify preferred sleep bundle components and implementation strategies, and highlight the role for pharmacists in developing and evaluating bundle efforts. DATA SOURCES: Multiple databases were searched from January 1, 1990, to September 1, 2021, using the MeSH terms sleep, intensive care or critical care, protocol or bundle to identify comparative studies evaluating ICU sleep bundle implementation. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Study screening, data extraction, and risk-of-bias evaluation were conducted in tandem. The ICU quality improvement literature and Institute for Healthcare Improvement bundle improvement guidance were also reviewed to identify recommended strategies for successful sleep bundle use. DATA SYNTHESIS: Nine studies (3 randomized, 1 quasi-experimental, 5 before-and-after) were identified. Bundle elements varied and were primarily focused on nonpharmacological interventions designed to be performed during either the day or night; only 2 studies included a medication-based strategy. Five studies were associated with reduced delirium; 2 studies were associated with improved total sleep time and 2 with improved patient-perceived sleep. Pharmacists were involved directly in 4 studies. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: Sleep improvement bundles are recommended for use in all critically ill adults; specific bundle elements and ICU team member roles should be individualized at the institution/ICU level. Pharmacists can help lead bundle development efforts and routinely deliver key elements. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacists can play an important role in the development and implementation of ICU sleep bundles. Further research regarding the relative benefit of individual bundle elements on relevant patient outcomes is needed.

Association Between Perioperative Medication Use and Postoperative Delirium and Cognition in Older Adults Undergoing Elective Noncardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative delirium is frequent in older adults and is associated with postoperative neurocognitive disorder (PND). Studies evaluating perioperative medication use and delirium have generally evaluated medications in aggregate and been poorly controlled; the association between perioperative medication use and PND remains unclear. We sought to evaluate the association between medication use and postoperative delirium and PND in older adults undergoing major elective surgery. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a prospective cohort study of adults ≥70 years without dementia undergoing major elective surgery. Patients were interviewed preoperatively to determine home medication use. Postoperatively, daily hospital use of 7 different medication classes listed in guidelines as risk factors for delirium was collected; administration before delirium was verified. While hospitalized, patients were assessed daily for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method and a validated chart review method. Cognition was evaluated preoperatively and 1 month after surgery using a neurocognitive battery. The association between prehospital medication use and postoperative delirium was assessed using a generalized linear model with a log link function, controlling for age, sex, type of surgery, Charlson comorbidity index, and baseline cognition. The association between daily postoperative medication use (when class exposure ≥5%) and time to delirium was assessed using time-varying Cox models adjusted for age, sex, surgery type, Charlson comorbidity index, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE)-II score, and baseline cognition. Mediation analysis was utilized to evaluate the association between medication use, delirium, and cognitive change from baseline to 1 month. RESULTS: Among 560 patients enrolled, 134 (24%) developed delirium during hospitalization. The multivariable analyses revealed no significant association between prehospital benzodiazepine (relative risk [RR], 1.44; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85-2.44), beta-blocker (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.94-2.05), NSAID (RR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.77-1.62), opioid (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.82-1.82), or statin (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.92-1.95) exposure and delirium. Postoperative hospital benzodiazepine use (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 3.23; 95% CI, 2.10-4.99) was associated with greater delirium. Neither postoperative hospital antipsychotic (aHR, 1.48; 95% CI, 0.74-2.94) nor opioid (aHR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.62-1.11) use before delirium was associated with delirium. Antipsychotic use (either presurgery or postsurgery) was associated with a 0.34 point (standard error, 0.16) decrease in general cognitive performance at 1 month through its effect on delirium (P = .03), despite no total effect being observed. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of benzodiazepines to older adults hospitalized after major surgery is associated with increased postoperative delirium. Association between inhospital, postoperative medication use and cognition at 1 month, independent of delirium, was not detected.

Opioid Use Increases the Risk of Delirium in Critically Ill Adults Independently of Pain.

Rationale: It is unclear whether opioid use increases the risk of ICU delirium. Prior studies have not accounted for confounding, including daily severity of illness, pain, and competing events that may preclude delirium detection.Objectives: To evaluate the association between ICU opioid exposure, opioid dose, and delirium occurrence.Methods: In consecutive adults admitted for more than 24 hours to the ICU, daily mental status was classified as awake without delirium, delirium, or unarousable. A first-order Markov model with multinomial logistic regression analysis considered four possible next-day outcomes (i.e., awake without delirium, delirium, unarousable, and ICU discharge or death) and 11 delirium-related covariables (baseline: admission type, age, sex, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV score, and Charlson comorbidity score; daily: ICU day, modified Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, ventilation use, benzodiazepine use, and severe pain). This model was used to quantify the association between opioid use, opioid dose, and delirium occurrence the next day.Measurements and Main Results: The 4,075 adults had 26,250 ICU days; an opioid was administered on 57.0% (n = 14,975), severe pain occurred on 7.0% (n = 1,829), and delirium occurred on 23.5% (n = 6,176). Severe pain was inversely associated with a transition to delirium (odds ratio [OR] 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.97). Any opioid administration in awake patients without delirium was associated with an increased risk for delirium the next day [OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.24-1.69]. Each daily 10-mg intravenous morphine-equivalent dose was associated with a 2.4% increased risk for delirium the next day.Conclusions: The receipt of an opioid in the ICU increases the odds of transitioning to delirium in a dose-dependent fashion.

A core outcome set for studies evaluating interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium for adults requiring an acute care hospital admission: an international key stakeholder informed consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Trials of interventions to prevent or treat delirium in adults in an acute hospital setting report heterogeneous outcomes. Our objective was to develop international consensus among key stakeholders for a core outcome set (COS) for future trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in adults with an acute care hospital admission and not admitted to an intensive care unit. METHODS: A rigorous COS development process was used including a systematic review, qualitative interviews, modified Delphi consensus process, and in-person consensus using nominal group technique (registration http://www.comet - initiative.org/studies/details/796 ). Participants in qualitative interviews were delirium survivors or family members. Participants in consensus methods comprised international representatives from three stakeholder groups: researchers, clinicians, and delirium survivors and family members. RESULTS: Item generation identified 8 delirium-specific outcomes and 71 other outcomes from 183 studies, and 30 outcomes from 18 qualitative interviews, including 2 that were not extracted from the systematic review. De-duplication of outcomes and formal consensus processes involving 110 experts including researchers (N = 32), clinicians (N = 63), and delirium survivors and family members (N = 15) resulted in a COS comprising 6 outcomes: delirium occurrence and reoccurrence, delirium severity, delirium duration, cognition, emotional distress, and health-related quality of life. Study limitations included exclusion of non-English studies and stakeholders and small representation of delirium survivors/family at the in-person consensus meeting. CONCLUSIONS: This COS, endorsed by the American and Australian Delirium Societies and European Delirium Association, is recommended for future clinical trials evaluating delirium prevention or treatment interventions in adults presenting to an acute care hospital and not admitted to an intensive care unit.

A Core Outcome Set for Research Evaluating Interventions to Prevent and/or Treat Delirium in Critically Ill Adults: An International Consensus Study (Del-COrS).

OBJECTIVES: Delirium in critically ill adults is highly prevalent and has multiple negative consequences. To-date, trials of interventions to prevent or treat delirium report heterogenous outcomes. To develop international consensus among key stakeholders for a core outcome set for future trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in critically ill adults. DESIGN: Core outcome set development, as recommended by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Handbook. Methods of generating items for the core outcome set included a systematic review and qualitative interviews with ICU survivors and family members. Consensus methods include a two-round web-based Delphi process and a face-to-face meeting using nominal group technique methods. SUBJECTS: International representatives from three stakeholder groups: 1) clinical researchers, 2) ICU interprofessional clinicians, and 3) ICU survivors and family members. SETTING: Telephone interviews, web-based surveys, and a face-to-face consensus meeting held at the 2019 European Delirium Association's annual meeting in Edinburgh, Scotland. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Qualitative interviews with 24 ICU survivors and family members identified 36 potential outcomes; six were additional to the 97 identified from the systematic review. After item reduction, 32 outcomes were presented in Delphi Round 1; 179 experts participated, 38 ICU survivors/family members (21%), 100 clinicians (56%), 41 researchers (23%). Three additional outcomes were added to Round 2; 134 Round 1 participants (75%) completed it. Upon conclusion of the consensus building processes, the final core outcome set comprised seven outcomes: delirium occurrence (including prevalence or incidence); delirium severity; time to delirium resolution; health-related quality of life; emotional distress (i.e., anxiety, depression, acute and posttraumatic stress); cognition (including memory); and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This core outcome set, endorsed by the American and Australian Delirium Societies and European Delirium Association, is recommended for future clinical trials evaluating delirium prevention or treatment interventions in critically ill adults.

Association Between Incident Delirium Treatment With Haloperidol and Mortality in Critically Ill Adults.

OBJECTIVES: Haloperidol is commonly administered in the ICU to reduce the burden of delirium and its related symptoms despite no clear evidence showing haloperidol helps to resolve delirium or improve survival. We evaluated the association between haloperidol, when used to treat incident ICU delirium and its symptoms, and mortality. DESIGN: Post hoc cohort analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, delirium prevention trial. SETTING: Fourteen Dutch ICUs between July 2013 and December 2016. PATIENTS: One-thousand four-hundred ninety-five critically ill adults free from delirium at ICU admission having an expected ICU stay greater than or equal to 2 days. INTERVENTIONS: Patients received preventive haloperidol or placebo for up to 28 days until delirium occurrence, death, or ICU discharge. If delirium occurred, treatment with open-label IV haloperidol 2 mg tid (up to 5 mg tid per delirium symptoms) was administered at clinician discretion. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients were evaluated tid for delirium and coma for 28 days. Time-varying Cox hazards models were constructed for 28-day and 90-day mortality, controlling for study-arm, delirium and coma days, age, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-II score, sepsis, mechanical ventilation, and ICU length of stay. Among the 1,495 patients, 542 (36%) developed delirium within 28 days (median [interquartile range] with delirium 4 d [2-7 d]). A total of 477 of 542 (88%) received treatment haloperidol (2.1 mg [1.0-3.8 mg] daily) for 6 days (3-11 d). Each milligram of treatment haloperidol administered daily was associated with decreased mortality at 28 days (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.91-0.95) and 90 days (hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.96-0.98). Treatment haloperidol administered later in the ICU course was less protective of death. Results were stable by prevention study-arm, predelirium haloperidol exposure, and haloperidol treatment protocol adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of incident delirium and its symptoms with haloperidol may be associated with a dose-dependent improvement in survival. Future randomized trials need to confirm these results.

Design of Clinical Trials Evaluating Sedation in Critically Ill Adults Undergoing Mechanical Ventilation: Recommendations From Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research (SCEPTER) Recommendation III.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of sedative medication use in critically ill adults undergoing mechanical ventilation differ considerably in their methodological approach. This heterogeneity impedes the ability to compare results across studies. The Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research Recommendations convened a meeting of multidisciplinary experts to develop recommendations for key methodologic elements of sedation trials in the ICU to help guide academic and industry clinical investigators. DESIGN: A 2-day in-person meeting was held in Washington, DC, on March 28-29, 2019, followed by a three-round, online modified Delphi consensus process. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-six participants from academia, industry, and the Food and Drug Administration with expertise in relevant content areas, including two former ICU patients attended the in-person meeting, and the majority completed an online follow-up survey and participated in the modified Delphi process. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The final recommendations were iteratively refined based on the survey results, participants' reactions to those results, summaries written by panel moderators, and a review of the meeting transcripts made from audio recordings. Fifteen recommendations were developed for study design and conduct, subject enrollment, outcomes, and measurement instruments. Consensus recommendations included obtaining input from ICU survivors and/or their families, ensuring adequate training for personnel using validated instruments for assessments of sedation, pain, and delirium in the ICU environment, and the need for methodological standardization. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations are intended to assist researchers in the design, conduct, selection of endpoints, and reporting of clinical trials involving sedative medications and/or sedation protocols for adult ICU patients who require mechanical ventilation. These recommendations should be viewed as a starting point to improve clinical trials and help reduce methodological heterogeneity in future clinical trials.

Impact of a Pharmacist-Led Intensive Care Unit Sleep Improvement Protocol on Sleep Duration and Quality.

BACKGROUND: Sleep improvement protocols are recommended for use in the intensive care unit (ICU) despite questions regarding which interventions to include, whether sleep quality or duration will improve, and the role of pharmacists in their development and implementation. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the impact of a pharmacist-led, ICU sleep improvement protocol on sleep duration and quality as evaluated by a commercially available activity tracker and patient perception. METHODS: Critical care pharmacists from a 40-bed, mixed ICU at a large community hospital led the development and implementation of an interprofessional sleep improvement protocol. It included daily pharmacist medication review to reduce use of medications known to disrupt sleep or increase delirium and guideline-based recommendations on both environmental and nonpharmacological sleep-focused interventions. Sleep duration and quality were compared before (December 2018 to December 2019) and after (January to June 2019) protocol implementation in non-mechanically ventilated adults using both objective (total nocturnal sleep time [TST] measured by an activity tracker (Fitbit Charge 2) and subjective (patient-perceived sleep quality using the Richards-Campbell Sleep Questionnaire [RCSQ]) measures. RESULTS: Groups before (n = 48) and after (n = 29) sleep protocol implementation were well matched. After protocol implementation, patients had a longer TST (389 ± 123 vs 310 ± 147 minutes; P = 0.02) and better RCSQ-perceived sleep quality (63 ± 18 vs 42 ± 24 mm; P = 0.0003) compared with before implementation. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: A sleep protocol that incorporated novel elements led to objective and subjective improvements in ICU sleep duration and quality. Application of this study may result in increased utilization of sleep protocols and pharmacist involvement.

Best Practices for Conducting Interprofessional Team Rounds to Facilitate Performance of the ICU Liberation (ABCDEF) Bundle.

OBJECTIVES: Daily ICU interprofessional team rounds, which incorporate the ICU Liberation ("A" for Assessment, Prevention, and Manage Pain; "B" for Both Spontaneous Awakening Trials and Spontaneous Breathing Trials; "C" for Choice of Analgesia and Sedation; "D" for Delirium Assess, Prevent, and Manage; "E" for Early Mobility and Exercise; "F" for Family Engagement and Empowerment [ABCDEF]) Bundle, support both the care coordination and regular provider communication necessary for Bundle execution. This article describes evidence-based practices for conducting effective interprofessional team rounds in the ICU to improve Bundle performance. DESIGN: Best practice synthesis. METHODS: The authors, each extensively involved in the Society of Critical Care Medicine's ICU Liberation Campaign, reviewed the pertinent literature to identify how ICU interprofessional team rounds can be optimized to increase ICU Liberation adherence. RESULTS: Daily ICU interprofessional team rounds that foster ICU Liberation Bundle use support both care coordination and regular provider communication within and between teams. Evidence-based best practices for conducting effective interprofessional team rounds in the ICU include the optimal structure for ICU interprofessional team rounds; the importance of conducting rounds at patients' bedside; essential participants in rounds; the inclusion of ICU patients and their families in rounds-based discussions; and incorporation of the Bundle into the Electronic Health Record. Interprofessional team rounds in the ICU ideally employ communication strategies to foster inclusive and supportive behaviors consistent with interprofessional collaboration in the ICU. Patient care discussions during interprofessional team rounds benefit from being patient-centered and goal-oriented. Documentation of ICU Liberation Bundle elements in the Electronic Health Record may help facilitate team communication and decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting high-quality interprofessional team rounds in the ICU is a key strategy to support ICU Liberation Bundle use.

A Systematic Review of Risk Factors for Sleep Disruption in Critically Ill Adults.

OBJECTIVES: Numerous risk factors for sleep disruption in critically ill adults have been described. We performed a systematic review of all risk factors associated with sleep disruption in the ICU setting. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies of any design published between 1990 and April 2018 that evaluated sleep in greater than or equal to 10 critically ill adults (> 18 yr old) and investigated greater than or equal to 1 potential risk factor for sleep disruption during ICU stay. We assessed study quality using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. DATA EXTRACTION: We abstracted all data independently and in duplicate. Potential ICU sleep disruption risk factors were categorized into three categories based on how data were reported: 1) patient-reported reasons for sleep disruption, 2) patient-reported ratings of potential factors affecting sleep quality, and 3) studies reporting a statistical or temporal association between potential risk factors and disrupted sleep. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 5,148 citations, we included 62 studies. Pain, discomfort, anxiety/fear, noise, light, and ICU care-related activities are the most common and widely studied patient-reported factors causing sleep disruption. Patients rated noise and light as the most sleep-disruptive factors. Higher number of comorbidities, poor home sleep quality, home sleep aid use, and delirium were factors associated with sleep disruption identified in available studies. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review summarizes all premorbid, illness-related, and ICU-related factors associated with sleep disruption in the ICU. These findings will inform sleep promotion efforts in the ICU and guide further research in this field.

Association between incident delirium and 28- and 90-day mortality in critically ill adults: a secondary analysis.

BACKGROUND: While delirium prevalence and duration are each associated with increased 30-day, 6-month, and 1-year mortality, the association between incident ICU delirium and mortality remains unclear. We evaluated the association between both incident ICU delirium and days spent with delirium in the 28 days after ICU admission and mortality within 28 and 90 days. METHODS: Secondary cohort analysis of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial conducted among 1495 delirium-free, critically ill adults in 14 Dutch ICUs with an expected ICU stay ≥2 days where all delirium assessments were completed. In the 28 days after ICU admission, patients were evaluated for delirium and coma 3x daily; each day was coded as a delirium day [≥1 positive Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU)], a coma day [no delirium and ≥ 1 Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) score ≤ - 4], or neither. Four Cox-regression models were constructed for 28-day mortality and 90-day mortality; each accounted for potential confounders (i.e., age, APACHE-II score, sepsis, use of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, and haloperidol dose) and: 1) delirium occurrence, 2) days spent with delirium, 3) days spent in coma, and 4) days spent with delirium and/or coma. RESULTS: Among the 1495 patients, 28 day mortality was 17% and 90 day mortality was 21%. Neither incident delirium (28 day mortality hazard ratio [HR] = 1.02, 95%CI = 0.75-1.39; 90 day mortality HR = 1.05, 95%CI = 0.79-1.38) nor days spent with delirium (28 day mortality HR = 1.00, 95%CI = 0.95-1.05; 90 day mortality HR = 1.02, 95%CI = 0.98-1.07) were significantly associated with mortality. However, both days spent with coma (28 day mortality HR = 1.05, 95%CI = 1.02-1.08; 90 day mortality HR = 1.05, 95%CI = 1.02-1.08) and days spent with delirium or coma (28 day mortality HR = 1.03, 95%CI = 1.00-1.05; 90 day mortality HR = 1.03, 95%CI = 1.01-1.06) were significantly associated with mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests neither incident delirium nor days spent with delirium are associated with short-term mortality after ICU admission. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier NCT01785290 Registered 7 February 2013.

Nursing homes underreport antipsychotic prescribing.

Objective: Determine the accuracy of nursing home self-reported antipsychotic prescribing before and after implementation of a Medicare campaign to reduce use.Methods: Quasi-experimental study comparing trends in self-reported antipsychotic prescribing relative to claims-based prescribing. Setting is a nationwide sample of 11,912 facilities, 2011-2013. Participants are long-stay nursing home residents (n = 586,281) with prescribing data in Medicare Minimum Data Set 3.0 and Medicare Part D claims database. Verified with a pharmacy dispensing database. Main outcomes are the discrepancies in quarterly prevalence of antipsychotic prescribing between nursing home self-reports and claims data and the characteristics of facilities and residents where discrepancies were identified.Results: Nursing homes underreport their antipsychotic prescribing levels, on average, by 1 percentage point per quarter relative to Medicare Part D claims (0.013, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.012-0.015; p<.001). After the Medicare campaign, the underreporting gap increased by another half a percentage point (0.004, 95% CI .003-.005; p = .012). Nursing home residents with dementia, Alzheimer's disease or bipolar disorders were at the highest risk for underreported antipsychotic prescribing before the campaign (Adjusted Odds ratio (AOR) 1.385, 95% CI: 1.330-1.444; AOR 1.234, 95% CI: 1.172-1.300; AOR 1.574, 95% CI: 1.444-1.716, respectively) and afterwards. After the launch of the Medicare campaign, underreported antipsychotic prescribing occurred most in for-profit nursing homes (AOR 1.088, 95% CI: 1.005-1.178) and facilities in the US South (AOR 1.262, 95% CI: 1.145-1.391). Agreement was high between claims and dispensing data (99.7%).Conclusion: Nursing homes did not identify up to 6,000 residents per calendar quarter as having received antipsychotics despite these prescriptions being paid by Medicare and dispensed by a pharmacy. Nursing home rates of antipsychotic prescribing from self-reported data may be biased.

Influence of sedation on delirium recognition in critically ill patients: A multinational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines advocate intensive care unit (ICU) patients be regularly assessed for delirium using either the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC). Single-centre studies, primarily with the CAM-ICU, suggest level of sedation may influence delirium screening results. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the association between level of sedation and delirium occurrence in critically ill patients assessed with either the CAM-ICU or the ICDSC. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a multinational, prospective cohort study performed in nine ICUs from seven countries. Consecutive ICU patients with a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) of -3 to 0 at the time of delirium assessment where a RASS ≤ 0 was secondary to a sedating medication. Patients were assessed with either the CAM-ICU or the ICDSC. Logistic regression analysis was used to account for factors with the potential to influence level of sedation or delirium occurrence. RESULTS: Among 1660 patients, 1203 patients underwent 5741 CAM-ICU assessments [9.6% were delirium positive; at RASS = 0 (3.3% were delirium positive), RASS = -1 (19.3%), RASS = -2 (35.1%); RASS = -3 (39.0%)]. The other 457 patients underwent 3210 ICDSC assessments [11.6% delirium positive; at RASS = 0 (4.9% were delirium positive), RASS = -1 (15.8%), RASS = -2 (26.6%); RASS = -3 (20.6%)]. A RASS of -3 was associated with more positive delirium evaluations (odds ratio: 2.31; 95% confidence interval: 1.34-3.98) in the CAM-ICU-assessed patients (vs. the ICDSC-assessed patients). At a RASS of 0, assessment with the CAM-ICU (vs. the ICDSC) was associated with fewer positive delirium evaluations (odds ratio: 0.58; 95% confidence interval: 0.43-0.78). At a RASS of -1 or -2, no association was found between the delirium assessment method used (i.e., CAM-ICU or ICDSC) and a positive delirium evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: The influence of level of sedation on a delirium assessment result depends on whether the CAM-ICU or ICDSC is used. Bedside ICU nurses should consider these results when evaluating their sedated patients for delirium. Future research is necessary to compare the CAM-ICU and the ICDSC simultaneously in sedated and nonsedated ICU patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT02518646.