Early sedation and clinical outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients: a prospective multicenter cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Sedation overuse is frequent and possibly associated with poor outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, the association of early oversedation with clinical outcomes has not been thoroughly evaluated. The aim of this study was to assess the association of early sedation strategies with outcomes of critically ill adult patients under mechanical ventilation (MV). METHODS: A secondary analysis of a multicenter prospective cohort conducted in 45 Brazilian ICUs, including adult patients requiring ventilatory support and sedation in the first 48 hours of ICU admissions, was performed. Sedation depth was evaluated after 48 hours of MV. Multivariate analysis was used to identify variables associated with hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 322 patients were evaluated. Overall, ICU and hospital mortality rates were 30.4% and 38.8%, respectively. Deep sedation was observed in 113 patients (35.1%). Longer duration of ventilatory support was observed (7 (4 to 10) versus 5 (3 to 9) days, P = 0.041) and more tracheostomies were performed in the deep sedation group (38.9% versus 22%, P = 0.001) despite similar PaO2/FiO2 ratios and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) severity. In a multivariate analysis, age (Odds Ratio (OR) 1.02; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.03), Charlson Comorbidity Index >2 (OR 2.06; 95% CI, 1.44 to 2.94), Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 (SAPS 3) score (OR 1.02; CI 95%, 1.00 to 1.04), severe ARDS (OR 1.44; CI 95%, 1.09 to 1.91) and deep sedation (OR 2.36; CI 95%, 1.31 to 4.25) were independently associated with increased hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Early deep sedation is associated with adverse outcomes and constitutes an independent predictor of hospital mortality in mechanically ventilated patients.

Perceptions and practices regarding light sedation in mechanically ventilated patients: a survey on the attitudes of Brazilian critical care physicians. / Percepções e práticas sobre sedação superficial em pacientes sob ventilação mecânica: um inquérito sobre as atitudes de médicos intensivistas brasileiros.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the knowledge and perceived attitudes toward pharmacologic interventions for light sedation in mechanically ventilated patients and to understand the current gaps comparing current practice with the recommendations of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the Intensive Care Unit. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional cohort study based on the application of an electronic questionnaire focused on sedation practices. RESULTS: A total of 303 critical care physicians provided responses to the survey. Most respondents reported routine use of a structured sedation scale (281; 92.6%). Almost half of the respondents reported performing daily interruptions of sedation (147; 48.4%), and the same percentage of participants (48.0%) agreed that patients are often over sedated. During the COVID-19 pandemic, participants reported that patients had a higher chance of receiving midazolam compared to before the pandemic (178; 58.8% versus 106; 34.0%; p = 0.05), and heavy sedation was more common during the COVID-19 pandemic (241; 79.4% versus 148; 49.0%; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: This survey provides valuable data on the perceived attitudes of Brazilian intensive care physicians regarding sedation. Although daily interruption of sedation was a well-known concept and sedation scales were often used by the respondents, insufficient effort was put into frequent monitoring, use of protocols and systematic implementation of sedation strategies. Despite the perception of the benefits linked with light sedation, there is a need to identify improvement targets to propose educational strategies to improve current practices.

OBJETIVO: Caracterizar o conhecimento e as atitudes percebidas em relação às intervenções farmacológicas para sedação superficial em pacientes sob ventilação mecânica e entender as lacunas atuais, comparando a prática atual com as recomendações das Diretrizes de Prática Clínica para a Prevenção e Tratamento da Dor, Agitação/Sedação, Delirium, Imobilidade e Interrupção do Sono em Pacientes Adultos na Unidade de Terapia Intensiva. MÉTODOS: Trata-se de estudo de coorte transversal baseado na aplicação de um questionário eletrônico centrado nas práticas de sedação. RESULTADOS: Responderam ao inquérito 303 médicos intensivistas. A maioria dos entrevistados relatou uso de rotina de uma escala de sedação estruturada (281; 92,6%). Quase metade dos entrevistados relatou realizar interrupções diárias da sedação (147; 48,4%), e a mesma percentagem de participantes (48,0%) concordou com a afirmação de que os pacientes costumam ser sedados em excesso. Durante a pandemia da COVID-19, os participantes relataram que os pacientes tinham maior chance de receber midazolam do que antes da pandemia (178; 58,8% versus 106; 34,0%; p = 0,05); além disso, a sedação profunda foi mais comum durante a pandemia da COVID-19 (241; 79,4% versus 148; 49,0%; p = 0,01). CONCLUSÃO: Este inquérito fornece dados valiosos sobre as atitudes percebidas dos médicos intensivistas brasileiros em relação à sedação. Embora a interrupção diária da sedação fosse um conceito bem conhecido e as escalas de sedação fossem frequentemente utilizadas pelos entrevistados, foi colocado esforço insuficiente no monitoramento frequente, no uso de protocolos e na implementação sistemática de estratégias de sedação. Apesar da percepção dos benefícios associados à sedação superficial, há necessidade de identificar metas de melhoria para se proporem estratégias educacionais que melhorem as práticas atuais.

Percepções e práticas sobre sedação superficial em pacientes sob ventilação mecânica: um inquérito sobre as atitudes de médicos intensivistas brasileiros / Perceptions and practices regarding light sedation in mechanically ventilated patients: a survey on the attitudes of Brazilian critical care physicians

RESUMO Objetivo: Caracterizar o conhecimento e as atitudes percebidas em relação às intervenções farmacológicas para sedação superficial em pacientes sob ventilação mecânica e entender as lacunas atuais, comparando a prática atual com as recomendações das Diretrizes de Prática Clínica para a Prevenção e Tratamento da Dor, Agitação/Sedação, Delirium, Imobilidade e Interrupção do Sono em Pacientes Adultos na Unidade de Terapia Intensiva. Métodos: Trata-se de estudo de coorte transversal baseado na aplicação de um questionário eletrônico centrado nas práticas de sedação. Resultados: Responderam ao inquérito 303 médicos intensivistas. A maioria dos entrevistados relatou uso de rotina de uma escala de sedação estruturada (281; 92,6%). Quase metade dos entrevistados relatou realizar interrupções diárias da sedação (147; 48,4%), e a mesma percentagem de participantes (48,0%) concordou com a afirmação de que os pacientes costumam ser sedados em excesso. Durante a pandemia da COVID-19, os participantes relataram que os pacientes tinham maior chance de receber midazolam do que antes da pandemia (178; 58,8% versus 106; 34,0%; p = 0,05); além disso, a sedação profunda foi mais comum durante a pandemia da COVID-19 (241; 79,4% versus 148; 49,0%; p = 0,01). Conclusão: Este inquérito fornece dados valiosos sobre as atitudes percebidas dos médicos intensivistas brasileiros em relação à sedação. Embora a interrupção diária da sedação fosse um conceito bem conhecido e as escalas de sedação fossem frequentemente utilizadas pelos entrevistados, foi colocado esforço insuficiente no monitoramento frequente, no uso de protocolos e na implementação sistemática de estratégias de sedação. Apesar da percepção dos benefícios associados à sedação superficial, há necessidade de identificar metas de melhoria para se proporem estratégias educacionais que melhorem as práticas atuais.

ABSTRACT Objective: To characterize the knowledge and perceived attitudes toward pharmacologic interventions for light sedation in mechanically ventilated patients and to understand the current gaps comparing current practice with the recommendations of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the Intensive Care Unit. Methods: This was a cross-sectional cohort study based on the application of an electronic questionnaire focused on sedation practices. Results: A total of 303 critical care physicians provided responses to the survey. Most respondents reported routine use of a structured sedation scale (281; 92.6%). Almost half of the respondents reported performing daily interruptions of sedation (147; 48.4%), and the same percentage of participants (48.0%) agreed that patients are often over sedated. During the COVID-19 pandemic, participants reported that patients had a higher chance of receiving midazolam compared to before the pandemic (178; 58.8% versus 106; 34.0%; p = 0.05), and heavy sedation was more common during the COVID-19 pandemic (241; 79.4% versus 148; 49.0%; p = 0.01). Conclusion: This survey provides valuable data on the perceived attitudes of Brazilian intensive care physicians regarding sedation. Although daily interruption of sedation was a well-known concept and sedation scales were often used by the respondents, insufficient effort was put into frequent monitoring, use of protocols and systematic implementation of sedation strategies. Despite the perception of the benefits linked with light sedation, there is a need to identify improvement targets to propose educational strategies to improve current practices.

Quality in intensive care units: proposal of an assessment instrument.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing need for standardized instruments for quality assessment that are able to reflect the actual conditions of the intensive care practices, especially in low and middle-income countries. The aim of this article is to describe the preparation of an instrument for quality assessment of adult intensive care services adapted to the actual conditions of intensive care in a middle-income country and comprising indicators validated in the literature. METHODS: The study consisted of five steps: (1) a literature survey; (2) a discussion with specialists by consensus method; (3) a pilot field test; (4) a description of indicators; and (5) an elaboration of the final version of the instrument. Each generated indicator was attributed a score ("out of standard" = 0; "below standard" = 1; "standard" = 2) that allowed calculation of the total score for each service assessed. RESULTS: A total of 62 indicators were constructed, distributed as follows: 38 structure indicators (physical structure: 4; human resources: 14; continued education and training: 2; protocols and routines: 12; material resources: 6); 17 process indicators (safety: 7; work: 10); and seven outcome indicators. The maximum possible total score was 124. CONCLUSIONS: Possible future applications of the instrument for the assessment of intensive care units that was constructed in the present study include benchmarking, multicenter studies, self-assessment of intensive care units, and evaluation of changes resulting from interventions.

Delirium in intensive care unit patients under noninvasive ventilation: a multinational survey.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a multinational survey of intensive care unit professionals to determine the practices on delirium assessment and management, in addition to their perceptions and attitudes toward the evaluation and impact of delirium in patients requiring noninvasive ventilation. METHODS: An electronic questionnaire was created to evaluate the profiles of the respondents and their related intensive care units, the systematic delirium assessment and management and the respondents' perceptions and attitudes regarding delirium in patients requiring noninvasive ventilation. The questionnaire was distributed to the cooperative network for research of the Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira (AMIB-Net) mailing list and to researchers in different centers in Latin America and Europe. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-six questionnaires were available for analysis; the majority of the questionnaires were from Brazil (61.9%), followed by Turkey (8.7%) and Italy (4.8%). Approximately 61% of the respondents reported no delirium assessment in the intensive care unit, and 31% evaluated delirium in patients under noninvasive ventilation. The Confusion Assessment Method for the intensive care unit was the most reported validated diagnostic tool (66.9%). Concerning the indication of noninvasive ventilation in patients already presenting with delirium, 16.3% of respondents never allow the use of noninvasive ventilation in this clinical context. CONCLUSION: This survey provides data that strongly reemphasizes poor efforts toward delirium assessment and management in the intensive care unit setting, especially regarding patients requiring noninvasive ventilation.

Delirium em pacientes na unidade de terapia intensiva submetidos à ventilação não invasiva: um inquérito multinacional / Delirium in intensive care unit patients under noninvasive ventilation: a multinational survey

RESUMO Objetivos: Conduzir um inquérito multinacional com profissionais de unidades de terapia intensiva para determinar as práticas relacionadas à avaliação e ao manejo do delirium, bem como as percepções e as atitudes relacionadas à avaliação e ao impacto do delirium em pacientes submetidos à ventilação não invasiva. Métodos: Foi elaborado um questionário eletrônico para avaliar o perfil dos respondedores e das unidades de terapia intensiva a eles relacionadas; a realização de avaliação sistemática e a forma de manejo do delirium; e as percepções e condutas dos profissionais com relação à presença de delirium em pacientes submetidos à ventilação não invasiva. O questionário foi distribuído por meio da mala direta de correio eletrônico da rede de cooperação em pesquisa clínica da Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira (AMIB-Net) e para pesquisadores em diferentes centros da América Latina e Europa. Resultados: Foram analisados 436 questionários que, em sua maioria, eram provenientes do Brasil (61,9%), seguidos por Turquia (8,7%) e Itália (4,8%). Aproximadamente 61% dos respondedores relataram não proceder à avaliação de delirium na unidade de terapia intensiva, enquanto 31% a realizavam em pacientes submetidos à ventilação não invasiva. Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit foi a ferramenta diagnóstica validada mais frequentemente citada (66,9%). Com relação à indicação de ventilação não invasiva para pacientes em delirium, 16,3% dos respondedores nunca permitiam o uso de ventilação não invasiva neste contexto clínico. Conclusão: Este inquérito fornece dados que enfatizam a escassez de esforços direcionados à avaliação e ao manejo do delirium no ambiente da terapia intensiva, em especial nos pacientes submetidos à ventilação não invasiva.

ABSTRACT Objective: To conduct a multinational survey of intensive care unit professionals to determine the practices on delirium assessment and management, in addition to their perceptions and attitudes toward the evaluation and impact of delirium in patients requiring noninvasive ventilation. Methods: An electronic questionnaire was created to evaluate the profiles of the respondents and their related intensive care units, the systematic delirium assessment and management and the respondents' perceptions and attitudes regarding delirium in patients requiring noninvasive ventilation. The questionnaire was distributed to the cooperative network for research of the Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira (AMIB-Net) mailing list and to researchers in different centers in Latin America and Europe. Results: Four hundred thirty-six questionnaires were available for analysis; the majority of the questionnaires were from Brazil (61.9%), followed by Turkey (8.7%) and Italy (4.8%). Approximately 61% of the respondents reported no delirium assessment in the intensive care unit, and 31% evaluated delirium in patients under noninvasive ventilation. The Confusion Assessment Method for the intensive care unit was the most reported validated diagnostic tool (66.9%). Concerning the indication of noninvasive ventilation in patients already presenting with delirium, 16.3% of respondents never allow the use of noninvasive ventilation in this clinical context. Conclusion: This survey provides data that strongly reemphasizes poor efforts toward delirium assessment and management in the intensive care unit setting, especially regarding patients requiring noninvasive ventilation.