ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To explore the interdisciplinary team members' beliefs and attitudes about sedation when caring for mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: A 17-bed cardiothoracic ICU at a tertiary care academic hospital in Colorado. SUBJECTS: All nurses, physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), respiratory therapists, physical therapists (PTs), and occupational therapists (OTs) who work in the cardiothoracic ICU. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We modified a validated survey instrument to evaluate perspectives on sedation across members of the interdisciplinary ICU team. Survey responses were collected anonymously from 111 members (81% response rate). Respondents were predominantly female (70 [63%]). Most respondents across disciplines (94%) believed that their sedation practice made a difference in patients' outcomes. More nurses (48%), APPs (62%), and respiratory therapists (50%) believed that sedation could help alleviate the psychologic stress that patients experience on the ventilator than physicians (19%) and PTs/OTs (0%) (p = 0.008). The proportion of respondents who preferred to be sedated if they were mechanically ventilated themselves varied widely by discipline: respiratory therapists (88%), nurses (83%), APPs (54%), PTs/OTs (38%), and physicians (19%) (p < 0.001). In our exploratory analysis, listeners of an educational podcast had beliefs and attitudes more aligned with best evidence-based practices than nonlisteners. CONCLUSIONS: We discovered significant interdisciplinary differences in the beliefs and attitudes regarding sedation use in the ICU. Since all ICU team members are involved in managing mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU, aligning the mental models of sedation may be essential to enhance interprofessional collaboration and promote sedation best practices.
ABSTRACT
Hypotension affects approximately 40% of critically ill patients undergoing emergency intubation and is associated with an increased risk of death. The objective of this study was to examine the association between prophylactic vasopressor administration and the incidence of peri-intubation hypotension and other clinical outcomes. DESIGN: A secondary analysis of two multicenter randomized clinical trials. The clinical effect of prophylactic vasopressor administration was estimated using a one-to-one propensity-matched cohort of patients with and without prophylactic vasopressors. SETTING: Seven emergency departments and 17 ICUs across the United States. PATIENTS: One thousand seven hundred ninety-eight critically ill patients who underwent emergency intubation at the study sites between February 1, 2019, and May 24, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was peri-intubation hypotension defined as a systolic blood pressure less than 90 mm Hg occurring between induction and 2 minutes after tracheal intubation. A total of 187 patients (10%) received prophylactic vasopressors prior to intubation. Compared with patients who did not receive prophylactic vasopressors, those who did were older, had higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores, were more likely to have a diagnosis of sepsis, had lower pre-induction systolic blood pressures, and were more likely to be on continuous vasopressor infusions prior to intubation. In our propensity-matched cohort, prophylactic vasopressor administration was not associated with reduced risk of peri-intubation hypotension (41% vs 32%; p = 0.08) or change in systolic blood pressure from baseline (-12 vs -11 mm Hg; p = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: The administration of prophylactic vasopressors was not associated with a lower incidence of peri-intubation hypotension in our propensity-matched analysis. To address potential residual confounding, randomized clinical trials should examine the effect of prophylactic vasopressor administration on peri-intubation outcomes.