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.

Adjuvant Analgesic Use in the Critically Ill: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

This systematic review and meta-analysis addresses the efficacy and safety of nonopioid adjunctive analgesics for patients in the ICU. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL Plus, and Web of Science. STUDY SELECTION: Two independent reviewers screened citations. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials comparing efficacy and safety of an adjuvant-plus-opioid regimen to opioids alone in adult ICU patients. DATA EXTRACTION: We conducted duplicate screening of citations and data abstraction. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 10,949 initial citations, we identified 34 eligible trials. These trials examined acetaminophen, carbamazepine, clonidine, dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, ketamine, magnesium sulfate, nefopam, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (including diclofenac, indomethacin, and ketoprofen), pregabalin, and tramadol as adjunctive analgesics. Use of any adjuvant in addition to an opioid as compared to an opioid alone led to reductions in patient-reported pain scores at 24 hours (standard mean difference, -0.88; 95% CI, -1.29 to -0.47; low certainty) and decreased opioid consumption (in oral morphine equivalents over 24 hr; mean difference, 25.89 mg less; 95% CI, 19.97-31.81 mg less; low certainty). In terms of individual medications, reductions in opioid use were demonstrated with acetaminophen (mean difference, 36.17 mg less; 95% CI, 7.86-64.47 mg less; low certainty), carbamazepine (mean difference, 54.69 mg less; 95% CI, 40.39-to 68.99 mg less; moderate certainty), dexmedetomidine (mean difference, 10.21 mg less; 95% CI, 1.06-19.37 mg less; low certainty), ketamine (mean difference, 36.81 mg less; 95% CI, 27.32-46.30 mg less; low certainty), nefopam (mean difference, 70.89 mg less; 95% CI, 64.46-77.32 mg less; low certainty), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (mean difference, 11.07 mg less; 95% CI, 2.7-19.44 mg less; low certainty), and tramadol (mean difference, 22.14 mg less; 95% CI, 6.67-37.61 mg less; moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should consider using adjunct agents to limit opioid exposure and improve pain scores in critically ill patients.

The study protocol for a randomized, controlled trial of acupuncture versus a sham procedure versus standard care alone for the treatment of delirium in acutely hospitalized older adults with a medical illness.

BACKGROUND: Many hospitalized older adults experience delirium, but treatment options are limited. Acupuncture has been shown to improve cognitive function and reduce agitation in dementia. We hypothesize that acupuncture, when compared with a sham intervention, will reduce the duration and severity of delirium, normalize delirium biomarkers, and improve clinical outcomes related to delirium in acutely hospitalized older adults with a medical illness. METHODS: This three-arm, prospective, randomized, clinical trial will evaluate adults aged over 65 years who are acutely hospitalized to an internal-medicine ward and diagnosed with delirium or subsyndromal delirium. The 288 patients (96 in each of three groups) will be randomly allocated to receive either daily true acupuncture with usual care, a daily sham procedure with usual care, or usual care only in a 1:1:1 distribution for up to one week or until the patient is delirium-free for over 48 h. Other delirium and clinical interventions will remain unchanged. Delirium will be diagnosed using DSM-5 criteria and its severity will be assessed using the long Confusion Assessment Method Severity (CAM-S) tool. OUTCOMES: The primary study outcome will be the daily CAM-S score over 7 days between the three groups. Secondary outcomes will include time to first resolution of the delirium (over 7 days), the proportion of days spent delirium-free, daily antipsychotic use, daily pain scores, sleep quality, morning serum cortisol and T3 levels, and midnight urinary cortisol/creatinine ratio, all determined twice a week, and delirium-related complications. Hospital mortality, duration of hospital stay and functional status at discharge will also be compared between the three groups. Adverse events potentially related to acupuncture will be evaluated daily. The cost-effectiveness of acupuncture will be estimated. CONCLUSION: This novel randomized study will evaluate both the specific and the non-specific effects of acupuncture on delirium, and related outcomes, and its safety. Potential mechanism(s) of action for acupuncture in reducing delirium will be explored and healthcare-related costs estimated. Positive study results may prove pivotal in facilitating a multimodal, non-pharmacologic, integrative approach to delirium treatment among older, medical inpatients.