Comparing BIS Monitoring vs. Clinical Assessment for Deep Sedation in the ICU: Effects on Delirium Reduction and Sedative Drug Doses - A randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Sedative overdoses pose a delirium risk among Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients, with potential mitigation through the use of a processed EEG monitor (BIS) to guide depth of sedation. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can BIS-guided deep sedation (RASS -4, -5) reduce sedative dosage and increase delirium-free and coma-free (DFCF) days? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted in a tertiary mixed ICU, enrolling patients requiring deep sedation for >8 hours. Patients were randomly assigned to either the Clinical Assessment (CA) or BIS groups (BIS range of 40-60). Both groups utilized a BIS sensor, while the CA group's screen remained covered. After deep sedation, BIS sensors were removed, and delirium was assessed twice daily by researchers blinded to the randomization. The primary outcome was the number of DFCF days within 14 days after deep sedation. Additionally, we compared doses of sedative drugs and BIS values during deep sedation. RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients were included in the study. We found no significant difference in DFCF (p=0.1) between CA and BIS arms, but propofol doses were significantly lower in the BIS group (CA group 1.77 mg/kg/hr [95% CI 1.60, 1.93] vs. BIS group 1.44 mg/kg/hr [95% CI 1.04, 1.83]; p=0.03). During deep sedation, the CA group spent 46% of the total hours (95% CI 35, 57%) with BIS values below 40, whereas the BIS group spent 32% (95% CI 25, 40%), (p=0.03). Subgroup analysis focusing on patients sedated for more than 24 hours revealed an increase in DFCF in the BIS group (CA group median of 1 day [IQR 0, 9] vs. BIS group 8 days [IQR 0, 13]; p=0.04). INTERPRETATION: BIS-guided deep sedation did not improve DFCF days but reduced sedative drug use. In patients requiring sedation for more than 24 hours, it showed an improvement in DFCF days.

Incidence of venous thromboembolic disease and risk of bleeding in critically ill patients with hematologic malignancies: A retrospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Our objectives were to describe the use of thromboprophylaxis and the incidence of VTE/bleeding in critically ill patients with hematologic malignancies (HM). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study (2014-2022). SETTING: Medic-Surgical Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in a tertiary care academic center. PATIENTS: Adult patients admitted to ICU with a concomitant diagnosis of a hematological malignancy. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN VARIABLES OF INTEREST: We analyzed demographic data, use of thromboprophylaxis and secondary outcomes that included incidence of VTE (venous thromboembolism), bleeding, mortality, severity scores and organ support. We applied a multivariable logistic regression model to examine the risk of thrombosis in the ICU. RESULTS: We included 862 ICU admissions (813 unique patients). Thromboprophylaxis was given during 65% of admissions (LMWH 14%, UFH 8%, and SCDs 43%); in 21% it was contraindicated due to thrombocytopenia; 14% of cases lacked documentation on prophylaxis. There were 38 unique incident cases of VTE (27 DVT, 11 PE), constituting 4.4% of ICU episodes. Most of VTE cases happened in patients with various degrees of thrombocytopenia. In the multivariable analysis, SOFA score on the first ICU day was independently associated (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76-0.96) with the risk of VTE. Bleeding occurred in 7.2% (minor) and 14.4% (major) of episodes; most frequent sites being CNS, abdomen/GI and pulmonary. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of critically ill patients with HM, there was considerable variability in the utilization of DVT prophylaxis, with predominant use of SCDs. The incidence of VTE was 4.4% and major bleeding 14%. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05396157. Venous Thromboembolism in Hematologic Malignancy and Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Patients: a Retrospective Study (https://clinicaltrials.gov/).

Venous thromboembolism in critically ill adult patients with hematologic malignancy: a population-based cohort study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding among hospitalized patients with hematologic malignancy, assessing its association with critical illness and other baseline characteristics. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study of hospitalized adults with a new diagnosis of hematologic malignancy in Ontario, Canada, between 2006 and 2017. The primary outcome was VTE (pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis). Secondary outcomes were major bleeding and in-hospital mortality. We compared the incidence of VTE between intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU patients and described the association of other baseline characteristics and VTE. RESULTS: Among 76,803 eligible patients (mean age 67 years [standard deviation, SD, 15]), 20,524 had at least one ICU admission. The incidence of VTE was 3.7% in ICU patients compared to 1.2% in non-ICU patients (odds ratio [OR] 3.08; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.77-3.42). The incidence of major bleeding was 7.6% and 2.4% (OR 3.33; 95% CI 3.09-3.58), respectively. The association of critical illness and VTE remained significant after adjusting for potential confounders (OR 2.92; 95% CI 2.62-3.25). We observed a higher incidence of VTE among specific subtypes of hematologic malignancy and patients with prior VTE (OR 6.64; 95% CI 5.42-8.14). Admission more than 1 year after diagnosis of hematologic malignancy (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.56-0.74) and platelet count ≤ 50 × 109/L at the time of hospitalization (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.48-0.84) were associated with a lower incidence of VTE. CONCLUSION: Among patients with hematologic malignancy, critical illness and certain baseline characteristics were associated with a higher incidence of VTE.

International Analgesia and Sedation Weaning and Withdrawal Practices in Critically Ill Adults: The Adult Iatrogenic Withdrawal Study in the ICU.

OBJECTIVES: Iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome (IWS) associated with opioid and sedative use for medical purposes has a reported high prevalence and associated morbidity. This study aimed to determine the prevalence, utilization, and characteristics of opioid and sedative weaning and IWS policies/protocols in the adult ICU population. DESIGN: International, multicenter, observational, point prevalence study. SETTING: Adult ICUs. PATIENTS: All patients aged 18 years and older in the ICU on the date of data collection who received parenteral opioids or sedatives in the previous 24 hours. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: ICUs selected 1 day for data collection between June 1 and September 30, 2021. Patient demographic data, opioid and sedative medication use, and weaning and IWS assessment data were collected for the previous 24 hours. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients weaned from opioids and sedatives using an institutional policy/protocol on the data collection day. There were 2,402 patients in 229 ICUs from 11 countries screened for opioid and sedative use; 1,506 (63%) patients received parenteral opioids, and/or sedatives in the previous 24 hours. There were 90 (39%) ICUs with a weaning policy/protocol which was used in 176 (12%) patients, and 23 (10%) ICUs with an IWS policy/protocol which was used in 9 (0.6%) patients. The weaning policy/protocol for 47 (52%) ICUs did not define when to initiate weaning, and the policy/protocol for 24 (27%) ICUs did not specify the degree of weaning. A weaning policy/protocol was used in 34% (176/521) and IWS policy/protocol in 9% (9/97) of patients admitted to an ICU with such a policy/protocol. Among 485 patients eligible for weaning policy/protocol utilization based on duration of opioid/sedative use initiation criterion within individual ICU policies/protocols 176 (36%) had it used, and among 54 patients on opioids and/or sedatives ≥ 72 hours, 9 (17%) had an IWS policy/protocol used by the data collection day. CONCLUSIONS: This international observational study found that a small proportion of ICUs use policies/protocols for opioid and sedative weaning or IWS, and even when these policies/protocols are in place, they are implemented in a small percentage of patients.