Pain assessment and analgesic management in patients admitted to intensive care: an Australian and New Zealand point prevalence study.

Objective: To describe pain assessment and analgesic management practices in patients in intensive care units (ICUs) in Australia and New Zealand. Design, setting and participants: Prospective, observational, multicentre, single-day point prevalence study conducted in Australian and New Zealand ICUs. Observational data were recorded for all adult patients admitted to an ICU without a neurological, neurosurgical or postoperative cardiac diagnosis. Demographic characteristics and data on pain assessment and analgesic management for a 24-hour period were collected. Main outcome measures: Types of pain assessment tools used and frequency of their use, use of opioid analgesia, use of adjuvant analgesia, and differences in pain assessment and analgesic management between postoperative and non-operative patients. Results: From the 499 patients enrolled from 45 ICUs, pain assessment was performed at least every 4 hours in 56% of patients (277/499), most commonly with a numerical rating scale. Overall, 286 patients (57%) received an opioid on the study day. Of the 181 mechanically ventilated patients, 135 (75%) received an intravenous opioid, with the predominant opioid infusion being fentanyl. The median dose of opioid infusion for ventilated patients was 140 mg oral morphine equivalents. Of the 318 non-ventilated patients, 41 (13%) received patient-controlled analgesia and 76 (24%) received an oral opioid, with the predominant opioid being oxycodone. Paracetamol was administered to 63 ventilated patients (35%) and 164 non-ventilated patients (52%), while 2% of all patients (11/499) received a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug. Ketamine infusion and regional analgesia were used in 15 patients (3%) and 17 patients (3%), respectively. Antineuropathic agents (predominantly gabapentinoids) were used in 53 patients (11%). Conclusions: Although a majority of ICU patients were frequently assessed for pain with a validated pain assessment tool, cumulative daily doses of opioids were high, and the use of multimodal adjuvant analgesia was low. Our data on current pain assessment and analgesic management practices may inform further research in this area.

The prevalence of perceptions of mismatch between treatment intensity and achievable goals of care in the intensive care unit: a cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: To describe the prevalence of perceptions of patients receiving a mismatch in treatment intensity, as perceived by intensive care unit (ICU) healthcare providers, and to assess the congruence of perceptions between providers. METHODS: In this cross-sectional, observational study conducted in 21 ICUs in Australia and New Zealand, patient prevalence data was linked to an ICU staff survey to describe the extent to which patient treatment intensity was matched to the perceived prognosis and patient wishes. RESULTS: Of the 307 study patients, 62 (20.2%) were reported to be receiving a mismatch in treatment intensity by at least one ICU healthcare professional. For reported mismatch, there was consensus amongst staff members for 52/62 (84%) of patients. Patients were significantly more likely to receive mismatched treatments if they were more severely unwell (APACHE II score > 20 vs. ≤ 20), odds ratio OR 2.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.63-3.37, p < 0.0001, if they were an emergency admission (OR 3.05, CI 1.18-7.89, p = 0.0212) or if they had an advance care directive (OR 3.68, 95% CI 1.66-8.16, p = 0.0013). CONCLUSIONS: Being more severely unwell, being an emergency admission or having an advance care directive made patients more likely to be perceived as having a mismatch between the intensity of treatments provided and either the achievable goals of care, expected prognosis or patient's wishes.

Economic evaluation of the prophylaxis for thromboembolism in critical care trial (E-PROTECT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of critical illness with important clinical consequences. The Prophylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial (PROTECT) is a multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of the two most common pharmocoprevention strategies, unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin, in medical-surgical patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). E-PROTECT is a prospective and concurrent economic evaluation of the PROTECT trial. METHODS/DESIGN: The primary objective of E-PROTECT is to identify and quantify the total (direct and indirect, variable and fixed) costs associated with the management of critically ill patients participating in the PROTECT trial, and, to combine costs and outcome results to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of LMWH versus UFH, from the acute healthcare system perspective, over a data-rich time horizon of ICU admission and hospital admission. We derive baseline characteristics and probabilities of in-ICU and in-hospital events from all enrolled patients. Total costs are derived from centers, proportional to the numbers of patients enrolled in each country. Direct costs include medication, physician and other personnel costs, diagnostic radiology and laboratory testing, operative and non-operative procedures, costs associated with bleeding, transfusions and treatment-related complications. Indirect costs include ICU and hospital ward overhead costs. Outcomes are the ratio of incremental costs per incremental effects of LMWH versus UFH during hospitalization; incremental cost to prevent a thrombosis at any site (primary outcome); incremental cost to prevent a pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, major bleeding event or episode of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (secondary outcomes) and incremental cost per life-year gained (tertiary outcome). Pre-specified subgroups and sensitivity analyses will be performed and confidence intervals for the estimates of incremental cost-effectiveness will be obtained using bootstrapping. DISCUSSION: This economic evaluation employs a prospective costing methodology concurrent with a randomized controlled blinded clinical trial, with a pre-specified analytic plan, outcome measures, subgroup and sensitivity analyses. This economic evaluation has received only peer-reviewed funding and funders will not play a role in the generation, analysis or decision to submit the manuscripts for publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00182143 . Date of registration: 10 September 2005.

Cost-effectiveness of dalteparin vs unfractionated heparin for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients.

IMPORTANCE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of acute illness, and its prevention is a ubiquitous aspect of inpatient care. A multicenter blinded, randomized trial compared the effectiveness of the most common pharmocoprevention strategies, unfractionated heparin (UFH) and the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin, finding no difference in the primary end point of leg deep-vein thrombosis but a reduced rate of pulmonary embolus and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia among critically ill medical-surgical patients who received dalteparin. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the comparative cost-effectiveness of LMWH vs UFH for prophylaxis against VTE in critically ill patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective economic evaluation concurrent with the Prophylaxis for Thromboembolism in Critical Care Randomized Trial (May 2006 to June 2010). The economic evaluation adopted a health care payer perspective and in-hospital time horizon; derived baseline characteristics and probabilities of intensive care unit and in-hospital events; and measured costs among 2344 patients in 23 centers in 5 countries and applied these costs to measured resource use and effects of all enrolled patients. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Costs, effects, incremental cost-effectiveness of LMWH vs UFH during the period of hospitalization, and sensitivity analyses across cost ranges. RESULTS: Hospital costs per patient were $39,508 (interquartile range [IQR], $24,676 to $71,431) for 1862 patients who received LMWH compared with $40,805 (IQR, $24,393 to $76,139) for 1862 patients who received UFH (incremental cost, -$1297 [IQR, -$4398 to $1404]; P = .41). In 78% of simulations, a strategy using LMWH was most effective and least costly. In sensitivity analyses, a strategy using LMWH remained least costly unless the drug acquisition cost of dalteparin increased from $8 to $179 per dose and was consistent among higher- and lower-spending health care systems. There was no threshold at which lowering the acquisition cost of UFH favored prophylaxis with UFH. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: From a health care payer perspective, the use of the LMWH dalteparin for VTE prophylaxis among critically ill medical-surgical patients was more effective and had similar or lower costs than the use of UFH. These findings were driven by lower rates of pulmonary embolus and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and corresponding lower overall use of resources with LMWH.

Patient comfort in the intensive care unit: a multicentre, binational point prevalence study of analgesia, sedation and delirium management.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the prevalence of assessment and management practices for analgesia, sedation and delirium in patients in Australian and New Zealand intensive care units. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed survey items from a modified Delphi panel and included them in a binational, point prevalence study. We used a standard case report form to capture retrospective patient data on management of analgesia, sedation and delirium at the end of a 4-hour period on the study day. Other data were collected during independent assessment of patient status and medication requirements. RESULTS: Data were collected on 569 patients in 41 ICUs. Pain assessment was documented in the 4 hours before study observation in 46% of patients. Of 319 assessable patients, 16% had moderate pain and 6% had severe pain. Routine sedation assessment using a scale was recorded in 63% of intubated and ventilated patients. When assessed, 38% were alert and calm, or drowsy and rousable, 22% were lightly to moderately sedated, 31% were deeply sedated (66% of these had a documented indication), and 9% were agitated or restless. Sedatives were titrated to a target level in 42% of patients. Routine assessment of delirium occurred in 3%, and at study assessment 9% had delirium. Wrist or arm restraints were used for 7% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: Only two-thirds of sedated patients had their sedation levels formally assessed, half had pain assessed and very few had formal assessment of delirium. Our description of current practices, and other observational data, may help in planning further research in this area.

Temperature management of non-elective intensive care patients without neurological abnormalities: a point prevalence study of practice in Australia and New Zealand.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of pharmacological and physical cooling in non-elective general intensive care unit patients without neurological abnormalities in Australia and New Zealand, and to establish the indications for antipyretics, the prevalence of fever, and the methods of temperature measurement. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A point prevalence study conducted on two days in 2010, in 38 ICUs in Australia and New Zealand, examining non-elective (emergency) patients admitted with sepsis and other inflammatory abnormalities but without neurological abnormalities. RESULTS: Of 506 general ICU patients surveyed on the study days, 311 had sepsis or other inflammatory abnormalities and no neurological abnormalities. These patients had a mean peak temperature of 37.3°C (SD, 0.8°C). In 100 patients (32.2%), the peak temperature was above 38°C. Paracetamol was the most common antipyretic used (152/311; 48.9%) and was administered for pain in 92/152 patients (60.5%), for pain and fever in 26/152 patients (17.1%), and for fever alone in 14/152 patients (9.2%). Patients who received paracetamol for fever had a mean peak recorded temperature of 38.3°C (SD, 0.8°C). Temperature measurements were mainly non-core (251/ 311; 81%) with axillary (116/311; 37%) and tympanic (110/ 311; 35%) measurements the most common. CONCLUSION: Pharmacological antipyretics are used regularly for pain management rather than fever management, with paracetamol the most common antipyretic therapy. The use of NSAIDS and physical cooling is rare. Non-core temperature measurements were common.

Temperature management in patients with acute neurological lesions: an Australian and New Zealand point prevalence study.

BACKGROUND: Given the scientific uncertainty of the efficacy and safety of normothermia (36.0°C to 37.5°C) on disability and death after acute neurological lesions, we sought to understand how temperature is managed in usual clinical care for this patient population in Australia and New Zealand. OBJECTIVE: To describe temperature management in patients with acute neurological lesions. DESIGN: Prospective, observational, multicentre, single-day point-prevalence study. PARTICIPANTS, SETTING AND METHODS: Observational data of usual practice were recorded for all patients with an intensive care admission diagnosis of acute neurological lesions and who were present in 33 intensive care units at 10:00 on the study day. Data were collected prospectively for the ensuing 24-hour period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Achieved temperature, interventions used to modify temperature and target temperature. RESULTS: There were 106 patients with acute neurological lesions (61% with either stroke or traumatic brain injury) with a mean APACHE (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) II score of 19.3 ± 7.4, age of 53.5 ± 19.0 years and median time from intensive care admission to data capture of 3 days (interquartile range, 1-9). A target temperature was specified in 24% of patients. Although paracetamol was commonly used (56%), it was infrequently used at the maximum licensed dose and there was no use recorded of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors. Physical cooling was used in 25% of patients and core temperature was measured in 32%. Measured temperature often exceeded 37.0°C (62% of readings), 37.5°C (43%) and 38.0°C (22%). CONCLUSIONS: Temperature readings above 37.5°C are common. Further cohort studies are required to validate these preliminary, exploratory findings.