Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
Mais filtros

Base de dados
Ano de publicação
Tipo de documento
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Life (Basel) ; 12(12)2022 Dec 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36556396

RESUMO

Excessive sedation is associated with poor outcome in critically ill acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients. Whether this prognostic effect varies among ARDS patients with and without COVID-19 has yet to be determined. We compared the prognostic value of excessive sedation­in terms of delirium, length of stay in intensive care unit (ICU-LOS) and ICU mortality­between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 critically ill ARDS patients. This was a second analysis of prospectively collected data in four European academic centers pertaining to 101 adult critically ill ARDS patients with and without COVID-19 disease. Depth of sedation (DOS) and delirium were monitored through processed electroencephalogram (EEG) and the Confusion Assessment Method for ICU (CAM-ICU). Our main exposure was excessive sedation and how it relates to the presence of delirium, ICU-LOS and ICU mortality. The criterion for excessive sedation was met in 73 (72.3%) patients; of these, 15 (82.2%) and 58 (69.1%) were in non-COVID-19 and COVID-19 ARDS groups, respectively. The criteria of delirium were met in 44 patients (60.3%). Moreover, excessive sedation was present in 38 (86.4%) patients with delirium (p < 0.001). ICU death was ascertained in 41 out of 101 (41.0%) patients; of these, 37 (90.2%) had excessive sedation (p < 0.001). The distribution of ICU-LOS among excessive-sedated and non-sedated patients was 22 (16−27) vs. 14 (10.5−19.5) days (p < 0.001), respectively. In a multivariable framework, excessive sedation was independently associated with the development of delirium (p = 0.001), increased ICU mortality (p = 0.009) and longer ICU-LOS (p = 0.000), but only in COVID-19 ARDS patients. Independent of age and gender, excessive sedation might represent a risk factor for delirium in COVID-19 ARDS patients. Similarly, excessive sedation shows to be an independent predictor of ICU-LOS and ICU mortality. The use of continuous EEG-based depth of sedation (DOS) monitoring and delirium assessment in critically ill COVID-19 patients is warranted.

2.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 9: 930262, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35935791

RESUMO

Purpose: Limb intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired weakness (ICUAW) and ICU acquired diaphragm weakness (DW) occur frequently in mechanically ventilated (MV) patients; their coexistence in cooperative and uncooperative patients is unknown. This study was designed to (1) describe the co-occurrence of the two conditions (2) evaluate the impact of ICUAW and DW on the ventilator-free days (VFDs) at 28 days and weaning success, and (3) assess the correlation between maximal inspiratory pressure (MIP) and thickening fraction (TFdi) in patients with DW. Methods: This prospective pilot study was conducted in a single-center on 73 critically ill MV patients. Muscle weakness was defined as a Medical Research Council score < 48 in cooperative patients or a bilateral mean simplified peroneal nerve test < 5.26 mV in uncooperative patients. Diaphragm dysfunction was defined as MIP < 30 cm H2O or as a TFdi < 29%. Weaning success was defined according to weaning according to a new definition (WIND). Results: Fifty-seven patients (78%) had ICUAW and 59 (81%) had DW. The coexistence of the two conditions occurred in 48 patients (65%), without association (χ2 = 1.06, p = 0.304). In the adjusted analysis, ICUAW was independently related to VFDs at 28-days (estimate difference 6 days, p = 0.016), and WIND (OR of 3.62 for having WIND different than short weaning), whereas DW was not. The linear mixed model showed a significant but weak correlation between MIP and TFdi (p < 0.001). Conclusion: This pilot study is the first to explore the coexistence of ICUAW and DW in both cooperative and uncooperative patients; a lack of association was found between DW and ICUAW when considering both cooperative and uncooperative patients. We found a strong correlation between ICUAW but not DW with the VFDs at 28 days and weaning success. A future larger study is warranted in order to confirm our results, and should also investigate the use of transdiaphragmatic twitch pressure measurement during bilateral anterior magnetic phrenic nerve stimulation for the diagnosis of DW.

3.
Front Med (Lausanne) ; 9: 901343, 2022.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35814788

RESUMO

The clinical approach to sedation in critically ill patients has changed dramatically over the last two decades, moving to a regimen of light or non-sedation associated with adequate analgesia to guarantee the patient's comfort, active interaction with the environment and family, and early mobilization and assessment of delirium. Although deep sedation (DS) may still be necessary for certain clinical scenarios, it should be limited to strict indications, such as mechanically ventilated patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), status epilepticus, intracranial hypertension, or those requiring target temperature management. DS, if not indicated, is associated with prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay, and increased mortality. Therefore, continuous monitoring of the level of sedation, especially when associated with the raw EEG data, is important to avoid unnecessary oversedation and to convert a DS strategy to light sedation as soon as possible. The approach to the management of critically ill patients is multidimensional, so targeted sedation should be considered in the context of the ABCDEF bundle, a holistic patient approach. Sedation may interfere with early mobilization and family engagement and may have an impact on delirium assessment and risk. If adequately applied, the ABCDEF bundle allows for a patient-centered, multidimensional, and multi-professional ICU care model to be achieved, with a positive impact on appropriate sedation and patient comfort, along with other important determinants of long-term patient outcomes.

SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA