Sedation Intensity in the First 48 Hours of Mechanical Ventilation and 180-Day Mortality: A Multinational Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: In the absence of a universal definition of light or deep sedation, the level of sedation that conveys favorable outcomes is unknown. We quantified the relationship between escalating intensity of sedation in the first 48 hours of mechanical ventilation and 180-day survival, time to extubation, and delirium. DESIGN: Harmonized data from prospective multicenter international longitudinal cohort studies SETTING:: Diverse mix of ICUs. PATIENTS: Critically ill patients expected to be ventilated for longer than 24 hours. INTERVENTIONS: Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale and pain were assessed every 4 hours. Delirium and mobilization were assessed daily using the Confusion Assessment Method of ICU and a standardized mobility assessment, respectively. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sedation intensity was assessed using a Sedation Index, calculated as the sum of negative Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale measurements divided by the total number of assessments. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazard models to adjust for relevant covariates. We performed subgroup and sensitivity analysis accounting for immortal time bias using the same variables within 120 and 168 hours. The main outcome was 180-day survival. We assessed 703 patients in 42 ICUs with a mean (SD) Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 22.2 (8.5) with 180-day mortality of 32.3% (227). The median (interquartile range) ventilation time was 4.54 days (2.47-8.43 d). Delirium occurred in 273 (38.8%) of patients. Sedation intensity, in an escalating dose-dependent relationship, independently predicted increased risk of death (hazard ratio [95% CI], 1.29 [1.15-1.46]; p < 0.001, delirium hazard ratio [95% CI], 1.25 [1.10-1.43]), p value equals to 0.001 and reduced chance of early extubation hazard ratio (95% CI) 0.80 (0.73-0.87), p value of less than 0.001. Agitation level independently predicted subsequent delirium hazard ratio [95% CI], of 1.25 (1.04-1.49), p value equals to 0.02. Delirium or mobilization episodes within 168 hours, adjusted for sedation intensity, were not associated with survival. CONCLUSIONS: Sedation intensity independently, in an ascending relationship, predicted increased risk of death, delirium, and delayed time to extubation. These observations suggest that keeping sedation level equivalent to a Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale 0 is a clinically desirable goal.

Predictors and outcomes of withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in intensive care units in Singapore: a multicentre observational study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines on limitation of life-sustaining treatments (LST) in the intensive care unit (ICU), in the form of withholding or withdrawal of LST, state that there is no ethical difference between the two. Such statements are not uniformly accepted worldwide, and there are few studies on LST limitation in Asia. This study aimed to evaluate the predictors and outcomes of withholding and withdrawal of LST in Singapore, focusing on the similarities and differences between the two approaches. METHODS: This was a multicentre observational study of patients admitted to 21 adult ICUs across 9 public hospitals in Singapore over an average of three months per year from 2014 to 2019. The primary outcome measures were withholding and withdrawal of LST (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, invasive mechanical ventilation, and vasopressors/inotropes). The secondary outcome measure was hospital mortality. Multivariable generalised mixed model analysis was used to identify independent predictors for withdrawal and withholding of LST and if LST limitation predicts hospital mortality. RESULTS: There were 8907 patients and 9723 admissions. Of the former, 80.8% had no limitation of LST, 13.0% had LST withheld, and 6.2% had LST withdrawn. Common independent predictors for withholding and withdrawal were increasing age, absence of chronic kidney dialysis, greater dependence in activities of daily living, cardiopulmonary resuscitation before ICU admission, higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, and higher level of care in the first 24 h of ICU admission. Additional predictors for withholding included being of Chinese race, the religions of Hinduism and Islam, malignancy, and chronic liver failure. The additional predictor for withdrawal was lower hospital paying class (with greater government subsidy for hospital bills). Hospital mortality in patients without LST limitation, with LST withholding, and with LST withdrawal was 10.6%, 82.1%, and 91.8%, respectively (p < 0.001). Withholding (odds ratio 13.822, 95% confidence interval 9.987-19.132) and withdrawal (odds ratio 38.319, 95% confidence interval 24.351-60.298) were both found to be independent predictors of hospital mortality on multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in the independent predictors of withholding and withdrawal of LST exist. Even after accounting for baseline characteristics, both withholding and withdrawal of LST independently predict hospital mortality. Later mortality in patients who had LST withdrawn compared to withholding suggests that the decision to withdraw may be at the point when medical futility is recognised.

Integrating Palliative Care Into a Neurosurgical Intensive Care Unit (NS-ICU): A Quality Improvement (QI) Project.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a pilot quality improvement (QI) project with the aim of improving accessibility of palliative care to critically ill neurosurgical patients. METHODS: The QI project was conducted in the neurosurgical intensive care unit (NS-ICU). Prior to the QI project, referral rates to palliative care were low. The ICU-Palliative Care collaborative comprising of the palliative and intensive care team led the QI project from 2013 to 2015. The interventions included engaging key stake-holders, establishing formal screening and referral criteria, standardizing workflows and having combined meetings with interdisciplinary teams in ICU to discuss patients' care plans. The Palliative care team would review patients for symptom optimization, attend joint family conferences with the ICU team and support patients and families post-ICU care. We also collected data in the post-QI period from 2016 to 2018 to review the sustainability of the interventions. RESULTS: Interventions from our QI project and the ICU-Palliative Care collaborative resulted in a significant increase in the number of referrals from 9 in 2012 to 44 in 2014 and 47 the year later. The collaboration was beneficial in facilitating transfers out of ICU with more deaths outside ICU on comfort-directed care (96%) than patients not referred (75.7%, p < 0.05). Significantly more patients had a Do-Not-Resuscitation (DNR) order upon transfer out of ICU (89.7%) compared to patients not referred (74.2.%, p < 0.001), and had fewer investigations in the last 48 hours of life (p < 0.001). Per-day ICU cost was decreased for referred patients (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Multi-faceted QI interventions increased referral rates to palliative care. Referred patients had fewer investigations at the end-of-life and per-day ICU costs.

Singapore SPICE: sedation practices in intensive care evaluation in Singapore - a prospective cohort study of the public healthcare system.

INTRODUCTION: A study was conducted to describe the sedation practices of intensive care units (ICUs) in Singapore in terms of drug use, sedation depth and the incidence of delirium in both early (< 48 hours) and late (> 48 hours) periods of ICU admission. METHODS: A prospective multicentre cohort study was conducted on patients who were expected to be sedated and ventilated for over 24 hours in seven ICUs (surgical ICU, n = 4; medical ICU, n = 3) of four major public hospitals in Singapore. Patients were followed up to 28 days or until ICU discharge, with four-hourly sedation monitoring and daily delirium assessment by trained nurses. The Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) and Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) were used. RESULTS: We enrolled 198 patients over a five-month period. The mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score was 25.3 ± 9.2, and 90.9% were emergency hospital admissions. Patients were followed up for 1,417 ICU patient days, of which 396 days were in the early period and 1,021 days were in the late period. 7,354 RASS assessments were performed. Propofol and fentanyl were the sedative agents of choice in the early and late periods, respectively. Patients were mostly in the light sedation range, especially in the late period. At least one episode of delirium was seen in 23.7% of patients. CONCLUSION: Sedation practices in Singapore ICUs are characterised by light sedation depth and low incidence of delirium, possibly due to the drugs used.

Management plan to reduce risks in perioperative care of patients with obstructive sleep apnoea averts the need for presurgical polysomnography.

INTRODUCTION: Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA) is associated with increased perioperative morbidity and mortality. Patients at risk of OSA as determined by pre-anaesthesia screening based on the American Society of Anesthesiologists checklist were divided into 2 groups for comparison: (i) those who proceeded to elective surgery under a risk management protocol without undergoing formal polysomnography preoperatively and; (ii) those who underwent polysomnography and any subsequent OSA treatment as required before elective surgery. We hypothesised that it is clinically safe and acceptable for patients identified on screening as OSA at-risk to proceed for elective surgery without delay for polysomnography, with no increase in postoperative complications if managed on a perioperative risk reduction protocol. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of patients presenting to the preanaesthesia clinic over an 18-month period and identified to be OSA at-risk on screening checklist was conducted (n = 463). The incidence of postoperative complications for each category of OSA severity (mild-moderate and severe) in the 2 study groups was compared. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of cardiac (3.3% vs 2.3%), respiratory (14.3% vs 12.5%), and neurologic complications (0.6% vs 0%) between the screening-only and polysomnography-confirmed OSA groups respectively (P >0.05). There was good agreement of the OSA risk that is identified by screening checklist with OSA severity as determined on formal polysomnography (kappa coefficient = 0.953). CONCLUSION: Previously undiagnosed OSA is common in the presurgical population. In our study, there was no significant increase in postoperative complications in patients managed on the OSA risk management protocol. With this protocol, it is clinically safe to proceed with elective surgery without delay for formal polysomnography confirmation.