The effect of education regarding treatment guidelines for schizophrenia and major depressive disorders on psychiatrists' hypnotic medication prescribing behavior: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: To examine whether the "Effectiveness of Guideline for Dissemination and Education in psychiatric treatment (EGIUDE)" project affects the rate of prescriptions of hypnotic medication and the type of hypnotic medications prescribed among psychiatrists, for schizophrenia and major depressive disorder in Japan. METHODS: The EGUIDE project is a nationwide prospective study of evidence-based clinical guidelines for schizophrenia and major depressive disorder in Japan. From 2016 to 2021, clinical and prescribing data from patients discharged from hospitals participating in the EGUIDE project were used to examine hypnotic medication prescriptions The prescribing rate of hypnotics and the prescribing rate of each type of hypnotic (benzodiazepine receptor agonist, nonbenzodiazepine receptor agonist, melatonin receptor agonist, and orexin receptor antagonist) were compared among patients who had been prescribed medication by psychiatrists participating in the EGUIDE project and patients who had been prescribed medication by nonparticipating psychiatrists. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to examine the effect of the EGUIDE project on the prescription of hypnotic medications. RESULTS: A total of 12,161 patients with schizophrenia and 6,167 patients with major depressive disorder were included. Psychiatrists participating in the EGUIDE project significantly reduced the rate of prescribing hypnotic medication and benzodiazepine receptor agonists for both schizophrenia (P < 0.001) and major depressive disorder (P < 0.001) patients. CONCLUSION: This is the first study to investigate the educational effects of guidelines for the treatment of psychiatric disorders on psychiatrists in terms of prescribing hypnotic medications to patients. The EGUIDE project may play an important role in reducing hypnotic medication prescription rates, particularly with respect to benzodiazepine receptor agonists. The results suggest that the EGUIDE project may result in improved therapeutic behavior.

Global trend of nondrug and nonsedativehypnotic treatment forinsomnia: a bibliometric study.

OBJECTIVE: To present a bibliometric analysis of global scientific publications on the nondrug and nonsedative hypnotic treatment of insomnia with regard to influential institutions, publications, countries, research hotspots, trends, and frontiers. METHODS: A literature review was conducted by searching the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases to identify all publications related to the nondrug and nonsedative hypnotic treatment of insomnia from 2000 to 2021. Eligible publications were reviewed, including annual publication increments, citation analyses, international collaborations, and keyword analyses. The data were analysed using CiteSpace (vers5.8.R3, 6.1.R2 and 6.1.6, College of Computing and Informatics, Philadelphia, PA, USA) and virtualized by knowledge maps. RESULTS：In total, 9832 publications were included in this analysis. The results from the WoSCC showed that the United States of America (Count = 2268, 40.33%), Stanford University (Count = 141, 2.51%), and the United States Department of Health and Human Services were the leading country, institute, and funding agency regarding the number of publications, respectively. 'Cognitive-behavioural therapy" was the most popular research topic generated from the cocited reference. The most frequently co-occurring keywords were insomnia, cognitive behavioural therapy, disorder, depression, quality of life, Meta-analysis, older adult, sleep, prevalence and efficacy, while keywords including clinical practice guideline, guideline, and Tai Chi remained popular after 2021. Circadian rhythm was the strongest research frontier for 2000-2021. In China, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine (Count = 69, 4.79%) was the most productive institute in this field. The most frequently co-occurring keywords from Chinese literature were sleep disorder, sleep quality, acupuncture and moxibustion, Parkinson's disease, transcranial magnetic stimulation, health education, music therapy, chronic insomnia, quality of life, and nonmotor symptoms. Traditional Chinese medicine was the strongest research frontier for 2019-2021. CONCLUSION: This bibliometric study provides an exhaustive mapping encompassing pertinent institute, publications, influential articles, researchers and topics of the global trend of nondrug and nonsedative hypnotic treatment for insomnia. The results show that the research trend has shifted from primary studies on the efficacy and safety of nondrug and nonsedative hypnotic treatment for insomnia to comorbidity studies. Clinical practice guidelines will potentially become the research frontier for this field post-2021. The findings are important for researchers, clinicians, journal editors, and policy-makers working in the field of nondrug and nonsedative hypnotic treatment for insomnia to understand the strengths and potentials in the current studies and guide future clinical practice, research, and science policy.

Reducing the risks when using benzodiazepines to treat insomnia: A public health approach.

Benzodiazepines are widely used but can cause considerable harm, including sedation, addiction, falls, fractures, and cognitive impairment, especially with long-term use and in elderly patients. The authors propose a public health approach to reduce the potential for harm when using benzodiazepines to treat insomnia. Primary prevention involves judicious patient selection and patient education. Secondary prevention requires keeping the duration of use as short as possible according to guidelines. Tertiary prevention, for patients who have been taking a benzodiazepine for a long time, uses shared decision-making to introduce a gradual and carefully monitored taper.

Barriers, facilitators and needs to deprescribe benzodiazepines and other sedatives in older adults: a mixed methods study of primary care provider perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Benzodiazepines and other sedative hypnotic drugs (BSHs) are frequently prescribed for sleep problems, but cause substantial adverse effects, particularly in older adults. Improving knowledge on barriers, facilitators and needs of primary care providers (PCPs) to BSH deprescribing could help reduce BSH use and thus negative effects. METHODS: We conducted a mixed methods study (February-May 2023) including a survey, semi-structured interviews and focus groups with PCPs in Switzerland. We assessed barriers, facilitators and needs of PCPs to BSH deprescribing. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively, qualitative data deductively and inductively using the Theoretical Domain Framework (TDF). Quantitative and qualitative data were integrated using meta-interferences. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 126 PCPs (53% female) and 16 PCPs participated to a focus group or individual interview. The main barriers to BSH deprescribing included patient and PCP lack of knowledge on BSH effects and side effects, lack of PCP education on treatment of sleep problems and BSH deprescribing, patient lack of motivation, PCP lack of time, limited access to cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia and absence of public dialogue on BSHs. Facilitators included informing on side effects to motivate patients to discontinue BSHs and start of deprescribing during a hospitalization. Main PCP needs were practical recommendations for pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatment of sleep problems and deprescribing schemes. Patient brochures were wished by 69% of PCPs. PCPs suggested the brochures to contain explanations about risks and benefits of BSHs, sleep hygiene and sleep physiology, alternative treatments, discontinuation process and tapering schemes. CONCLUSION: The barriers and facilitators as well as PCP needs and opinions on patient material we identified can be used to develop PCP training and material on BSH deprescribing, which could help reduce the inappropriate use of BSHs for sleep problems.

Insomnia.

Sleep significantly impacts health. Insomnia, characterized by difficulty with sleep onset, maintenance, and subsequent daytime symptoms, is increasingly prevalent and increases the risk of other medical comorbidities. The pathophysiology involves hyperarousal during non-REM sleep and altered sleep homeostasis. The 3P model explains the development and persistence of insomnia. Assessment is primarily clinical and based on appropriate history while distinguishing from other sleep disorders. "Somnomics" suggests a personalized approach to management. Cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia is the first-line treatment in addition to other nonpharmacological strategies. Medications are a secondary option with weak supporting evidence.

Effect of Dexmedetomidine Combined with Remifentanil on Emergence Agitation During Awakening from Sevoflurane Anesthesia for Pediatric Liver Surgery.

BACKGROUND We aimed to assess the effect of dexmedetomidine (Dex) combined with remifentanil on emergence agitation (EA) during awakening from sevoflurane anesthesia for pediatric liver surgery. MATERIAL AND METHODS Sixty children who underwent liver surgery in our hospital were prospectively selected and randomly allocated into group A (placebo+remifentanil+sevoflurane) or group B (Dex+remifentanil+sevoflurane). Mean arterial pressure (MAP) and heart rate (HR) at different time points, agitation score during awakening, behavioral status, pain level, and the incidence of postoperative adverse effects were compared in both groups. RESULTS Children in group B had lower HR and MAP levels immediately after tracheal extubation and 5 min after tracheal extubation than those in group A. The Aono's scores, PAED agitation scores, and CHIPP scores at 15 min and 30 min of admission to the PACU were lower in group B than in group A. The incidence of agitation during postoperative anesthesia awakening was lower in group B in contrast to group A. There was no significant difference in postoperative adverse reactions between group A and group B. CONCLUSIONS In pediatric liver surgery, the use of Dex+remifentanil+sevoflurane anesthesia can reduce the incidence of EA during the awakening period, stabilize hemodynamic levels, and relieve postoperative pain, and has fewer postoperative adverse effects, which warrants clinical application.

Management of physical and psychological trauma resulting from motor vehicle crashes in Australian general practice: a mixed-methods approach.

BACKGROUND: In Australia, motor vehicle crashes (MVC)-related health data are available from insurance claims and hospitals but not from primary care settings. This study aimed to identify the frequency of MVC-related consultations in Australian general practices, explore the pharmacological management of health conditions related to those crashes, and investigate general practitioners' (GPs) perceived barriers and enablers in managing these patients. METHODS: Mixed-methods study. The quantitative component explored annual MVC-related consultation rates over seven years, the frequency of chronic pain, depression, anxiety or sleep issues after MVC, and management with opioids, antidepressants, anxiolytics or sedatives in a sample of 1,438,864 patients aged 16 + years attending 402 Australian general practices (MedicineInsight). Subsequently, we used content analysis of 81 GPs' qualitative responses to an online survey that included some of our quantitative findings to explore their experiences and attitudes to managing patients after MVC. RESULTS: MVC-related consultation rates remained stable between 2012 and 2018 at around 9.0 per 10,000 consultations. In 2017/2018 compared to their peers, those experiencing a MVC had a higher frequency of chronic pain (48% vs. 26%), depression/anxiety (20% vs. 13%) and sleep issues (7% vs. 4%). In general, medications were prescribed more after MVC. Opioid prescribing was much higher among patients after MVC than their peers, whether they consulted for chronic pain (23.8% 95%CI 21.6;26.0 vs. 15.2%, 95%CI 14.5;15.8 in 2017/2018, respectively) or not (15.8%, 95%CI 13.9;17.6 vs. 6.7%, 95% CI 6.4;7.0 in 2017/2018). Qualitative analyses identified a lack of guidelines, local referral pathways and decision frameworks as critical barriers for GPs to manage patients after MVC. GPs also expressed interest in having better access to management tools for specific MVC-related consequences (e.g., whiplash/seatbelt injuries, acute/chronic pain management, mental health issues). CONCLUSION: Chronic pain, mental health issues and the prescription of opioids were more frequent among patients experiencing MVC. This reinforces the relevance of appropriate management to limit the physical and psychological impact of MVC. GPs identified a lack of available resources (e.g. education, checklists and management support tools) for managing MVC-related consequences, and the need for local referral pathways and specific guidelines to escalate treatments.

Association between regulator inspection and ratings on primary care prescribing: an observational study in England 2014 to 2019.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare regulators in many countries undertake inspections of healthcare providers and publish inspection outcomes with the intention of improving quality of care. Comprehensive inspections of general practices in England by the Care Quality Commission began for the first time in 2014. It is assumed that inspection and rating will raise standards and improve care, but the presence and extent of any improvements is unknown. We aim to determine if practice inspection ratings are associated with past performance on prescribing indicators and if prescribing behaviour changes following inspection. METHODS: Longitudinal study using a dataset of 6771 general practices in England. Practice inspection date and score was linked with monthly practice-level data on prescribing indicators relating to antibiotics, hypnotics and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The sample covers practices receiving their first inspection between September 2014 and December 2018. Regression analysis and the differential timing of inspections is used to identify the impact on prescribing. RESULTS: Better-rated practices had better prescribing in the period before inspections began. In the six months following inspections, no overall change in prescribing was observed. However, the differences between the best and worse rated practices were reduced but not fully. The same is also true when taking a longer-term view. There is little evidence that practices responded in anticipation of inspection or reacted differently once the ratings were made public. CONCLUSION: While some of the observed historic variation in prescribing behaviour has been lessened by the process of inspection and ratings, we find this change is small and appears to come from both improvements among lower-rated practices and deteriorations among higher-rated practices. While inspection and rating no doubt had other impacts, these prescribing indicators were largely unchanged.

Characterising incident opioid use among incident users of prescription sedative hypnotics: A national cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate co-prescribing of sedatives hypnotics and opioids. DESIGN: Retrospective study evaluating the association of patient characteristics and comorbidities with coprescribing. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Using the national Merative MarketScan Database between 2005 and 2018, we identified patients who received an incident sedative prescription with or without subsequent, incident opioid prescriptions within a year of the sedative prescription in the USA. OUTCOME MEASURES: Coprescription of sedative-hypnotics and opioids. RESULTS: A total of 2 632 622 patients (mean (SD) age, 43.2 (12.34) years; 1 297 356 (62.5%) female) received incident prescriptions for sedatives over the course of the study period. The largest proportion of sedative prescribing included benzodiazepines (71.1%); however, z-drugs (19.9%) and barbiturates (9%) were also common. About 557 845 (21.2%) patients with incident sedatives also received incident opioid prescriptions. About 59.2% of these coprescribed patients received opioids coprescription on the same day. Multivariate logistic regression findings showed that individuals with a comorbidity index score of 1, 2 or ≥3 (aOR 1.19 (95% CI 1.17 to 1.21), 1.17 (95% C 1.14 to 1.19) and 1.25 (95% C 1.2 to 1.31)) and substance use disorder (1.21 (95% C 1.19 to 1.23)) were more likely to be coprescribed opioids and sedatives. The likelihood of receiving both opioid and sedative prescriptions was lower for female patients (aOR 0.93; 95% CI 0.92 to 0.94), and those receiving a barbiturate (aOR 0.3; 95% CI 0.29 to 0.31) or z-drugs (aOR 0.67; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.68) prescriptions at the index date. CONCLUSIONS: Coprescription of sedatives with opioids was associated with the presence of comorbidities and substance use disorder, gender and types of sedatives prescribed at the index date. Additionally, more than half of the coprescribing occurred on the same day which warrants further evaluation of current prescribing and dispensing best practice guidelines.

Dexmedetomidine for analgesia and sedation in newborn infants receiving mechanical ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine is a selective alpha-2 agonist with minimal impact on the haemodynamic profile. It is thought to be safer than morphine or stronger opioids, which are drugs currently used for analgesia and sedation in newborn infants. Dexmedetomidine is increasingly being used in children and infants despite not being licenced for analgesia in this group. OBJECTIVES: To determine the overall effectiveness and safety of dexmedetomidine for sedation and analgesia in newborn infants receiving mechanical ventilation compared with other non-opioids, opioids, or placebo. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and two trial registries in September 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of dexmedetomidine compared with other non-opioids, opioids, or placebo for sedation and analgesia in neonates (aged under four weeks) requiring mechanical ventilation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were level of sedation and level of analgesia. Our secondary outcomes included days on mechanical ventilation, number of infants requiring additional medication for sedation or analgesia (or both), hypotension, neonatal mortality, and neurodevelopmental outcomes. We planned to use GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no eligible studies for inclusion. We identified four ongoing studies, two of which appear to be eligible for inclusion; they will compare dexmedetomidine with fentanyl in newborn infants requiring surgery. We listed the other two studies as awaiting classification pending assessment of full reports. One study will compare dexmedetomidine with morphine in asphyxiated newborns undergoing hypothermia, and the other (mixed population, age up to three years) will evaluate dexmedetomidine versus ketamine plus dexmedetomidine for echocardiography. The planned sample size of the four studies ranges from 40 to 200 neonates. Data from these studies may provide some evidence for dexmedetomidine efficacy and safety. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite the increasing use of dexmedetomidine, there is insufficient evidence supporting its routine use for analgesia and sedation in newborn infants on mechanical ventilation. Furthermore, data on dexmedetomidine safety are scarce, and there are no data available on its long-term effects. Future studies should address the efficacy, safety, and long-term effects of dexmedetomidine as a single drug therapy for sedation and analgesia in newborn infants.

The Effect of Temperament on Outcomes of Opioid and Non-Opioid Pediatric Dental Sedation.

Purpose: To assess oral sedation success using midazolam and hydroxyzine with and without meperidine, and to assess the relationship between child temperament and sedation outcomes. Methods: This study recruited children between the ages of 36 and 95 months who were randomly assigned to receive dental treatment with an oral sedation regimen of midazolam (0.5 mg/kg) and hydroxyzine (1.0 mg/kg) with or without meperidine (1.5 mg/kg). Data were collected from the treatment log and electronic health records. Parents completed the Child Behavior Questionnaire Short Form (CBQ-SF) to assess temperament. Results: The study included 37 participants. The overall treatment success rate was 54 percent. There were no significant differences in sedation outcome with age, sex, insurance status, sedation regimen, isolation method or duration of procedure. Children with high pre-operative Frankl behavioral ratings were more likely to have a successful sedation outcome (P <0.01). Children who displayed high soothability experienced higher rates of success (P =0.04), which was more pronounced in the non-opioid group (P <0.01). Conclusion: The study showed low rates of success for a relatively small sample size. There was no difference in sedation success between the opioid group and non-opioid group. However, pre-procedure behavior and temperament characteristic of sooth- ability may warrant more exploration as predictors of sedation success.

Alpha 2 agonists for sedation to produce better outcomes from critical illness (A2B trial): protocol for a mixed-methods process evaluation of a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: An association between deep sedation and adverse short-term outcomes has been demonstrated although this evidence has been inconsistent. The A2B (alpha-2 agonists for sedation in critical care) sedation trial is designed to determine whether the alpha-2 agonists clonidine and dexmedetomidine, compared with usual care, are clinically and cost-effective. The A2B intervention is a complex intervention conducted in 39 intensive care units (ICUs) in the UK. Multicentre organisational factors, variable cultures, perceptions and practices and the involvement of multiple members of the healthcare team add to the complexity of the A2B trial. From our pretrial contextual exploration it was apparent that routine practices such as type and frequency of pain, agitation and delirium assessment, as well as the common sedative agents used, varied widely across the UK. Anticipated challenges in implementing A2B focused on the impact of usual practice, perceptions of risk, ICU culture, structure and the presence of equipoise. Given this complexity, a process evaluation has been embedded in the A2B trial to uncover factors that could impact successful delivery and explore their impact on intervention delivery and interpretation of outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a mixed-methods process evaluation guided by the A2B intervention logic model. It includes two phases of data collection conducted during and at the end of trial. Data will be collected using a combination of questionnaires, stakeholder interviews and routinely collected trial data. A framework approach will be used to analyse qualitative data with synthesis of data within and across the phases. The nature of the relationship between delivery of the A2B intervention and the trial primary and secondary outcomes will be explored. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: All elements of the A2B trial, including the process evaluation, are approved by Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (Ref. 18/SS/0085). Dissemination will be via publications, presentations and media engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03653832.

Palliative sedation - revised recommendations.

Palliative sedation is defined as the monitored use of medications intended to induce a state of decreased or absent awareness (unconsciousness) to relieve the burden of otherwise intractable suffering in a manner ethically acceptable to the patient, their family, and healthcare providers. In Switzerland, the prevalence of continuous deep sedation until death increased from 4.7% in 2001 to 17.5% of all deceased in 2013, depending on the research method used and on regional variations. Yet, these numbers may be overestimated due to a lack of understanding of the term "continuous deep sedation" by for example respondents of the questionnaire-based study. Inadequately trained and inexperienced healthcare professionals may incorrectly or inappropriately perform palliative sedation due to uncertainties regarding its definitions and practice. Therefore, the expert members of the Bigorio group and the authors of this manuscript believe that national recommendations should be published and made available to healthcare professionals to provide practical, terminological, and ethical guidance. The Bigorio group is the working group of the Swiss Palliative Care Society whose task is to publish clinical recommendations at a national level in Switzerland. These recommendations aim to provide guidance on the most critical questions and issues related to palliative sedation. The Swiss Society of Palliative Care (palliative.ch) mandated a writing board comprising four clinical experts (three physicians and one ethicist) and two national academic experts to revise the 2005 Bigorio guidelines. A first draft was created based on a narrative literature review, which was internally reviewed by five academic institutions (Lausanne, Geneva, Bern, Zürich, and Basel) and the heads of all working groups of the Swiss Society of Palliative Care before finalising the guidelines. The following themes are discussed regarding palliative sedation: (a) definitions and clinical aspects, (b) the decision-making process, (c) communication with patients and families, (d) patient monitoring, (e) pharmacological approaches, and (f) ethical and controversial issues. Palliative sedation must be practised with clinical and ethical accuracy and competence to avoid harm and ethically questionable use. Specialist palliative care teams should be consulted before initiating palliative sedation to avoid overlooking other potential treatment options for the patient's symptoms and suffering.

Utilization of antidepressants, anxiolytics, and hypnotics during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been concerns over the mental health impact of COVID-19. This is a review of the utilization of antidepressants, anxiolytics, and hypnotics since the COVID-19 pandemic was declared on March the 11th 2020. A number of reports so far have been based on large prescription databases for administrative use at the national or regional level, but mainly in high-income countries. We found studies reporting increased prescription rates of antidepressants, anxiolytics, and hypnotics during March 2020, which has been interpreted as hoarding of such medications. In the following months, most studies of antidepressant prescription rates did not display a clear pattern of change compared with prepandemic trends. In later phases of the pandemic small increases in utilization of antidepressants, with higher than predicted prescription rates, have been the most consistent finding, especially in youth. In most high-income countries, there were increasing trends in utilization of antidepressants also before 2020, which needs to be considered when estimating utilization during the pandemic, whereas for anxiolytics and hypnotics, the prepandemic patterns of prescriptions were more varying. Overall, after March 2020 we could not find any distinct changes in the utilization of anxiolytics and hypnotics during the COVID-19 pandemic. Most studies did not contain information about the prevalence of indicated psychiatric disorders in the studied populations. More studies are needed about the long-term effects of COVID-19, particularly regarding utilization of antidepressants. Research relating antidepressant utilization with the prevalence of major depression and anxiety disorders would promote a better understanding of how well antidepressant prescription rates reflect the needs of the population.

"Should We Phenobarb-it-All?" A Phenobarbital-Based Protocol for Non-Intensive Care Unit Trauma Patients at High Risk of or Experiencing Alcohol Withdrawal.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol use is frequent in trauma patients and alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) is associated with significant morbidity. Benzodiazepines are commonly used for AWS, but may cause neurologic and respiratory adverse events (AEs). The objective was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of a phenobarbital-based protocol for the treatment of AWS in non-intensive care unit (ICU) trauma patients. METHODS: Adult non-ICU trauma patients at high risk of or experiencing AWS PRE and POST implementation of a phenobarbital-based protocol were included. Outcomes were AWS-related complications (AWS-RC), benzodiazepine use, adjunctive medication use, hospital length of stay (HLOS), and medication-related AEs. Subgroup analyses were performed on patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), rib fractures, and at high risk of severe AWS. RESULTS: Overall, 110 patients were included (51 PRE, 59 POST). AWS-RC developed in 17 PRE patients compared to 10 POST patients (33% vs 17%; P = .05). PRE patients were more likely to receive benzodiazepines (88% vs 42%, P < .0001) and higher total dose (11 vs 4 mg lorazepam equivalent; P = .001). No difference noted in HLOS (8 vs 8 days, P = .27), adjunctive medication use (49% vs 54%, P = .60), or AEs (57% vs 39%, P = .06). There was no difference in AWS-RC in the TBI subgroup (P = .19), less AEs in the rib fracture POST subgroup (P = .04), and less AWS-RC in the high risk of severe AWS POST subgroup (P = .03). DISCUSSION: A phenobarbital-based protocol in trauma patients is effective in preventing AWS-RC and decreasing benzodiazepine use without increasing AEs.

Volatile versus propofol sedation after cardiac valve surgery: a single-center prospective randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimal intensive care of patients undergoing valve surgery is a complex balancing act between sedation for monitoring and timely postoperative awakening. It remains unclear, if these requirements can be fulfilled by volatile sedations in intensive care medicine in an efficient manner. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the time to extubation and secondary the workload required. METHODS: We conducted a prospective randomized single-center trial at a tertiary university hospital to evaluate the postoperative management of open valve surgery patients. The study was randomized with regard to the use of volatile sedation compared to propofol sedation. Sedation was discontinued 60 min after admission for critical postoperative monitoring. RESULTS: We observed a significantly earlier extubation (91 ± 39 min vs. 167 ± 77 min; p < 0.001), eye-opening (86 ± 28 min vs. 151 ± 71 min; p < 0.001) and command compliance (93 ± 38 min vs. 164 ± 75 min; p < 0.001) using volatile sedation, which in turn was associated with a significantly increased workload of a median of 9:56 min (± 4:16 min) set-up time. We did not observe any differences in complications. Cardiopulmonary bypass time did not differ between the groups 101 (IQR 81; 113) versus 112 (IQR 79; 136) minutes p = 0.36. CONCLUSIONS: Using volatile sedation is associated with few minutes additional workload in assembling and enables a significantly accelerated evaluation of vulnerable patient groups. Volatile sedation has considerable advantages and emerges as a safe sedation technique in our vulnerable study population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials registration (NCT04958668) was completed on 1 July 2021.

Optimizing patient outcomes: a comprehensive evaluation of protocolized sedation in intensive care settings: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Amidst the routine utilization of protocolized sedation in ventilated ICU patients, existing management guidelines exhibit a lack of unanimous recommendations for its widespread adoption. This study endeavors to comprehensively assess the effectiveness and safety of protocolized sedation in critically ill ventilated patients. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to systematically review and conduct a meta-analysis of clinical trials comparing protocolized sedation with standard management in critically ill ventilated patients. Key outcomes under scrutiny include ICU and hospital mortality, ventilation days, duration of ICU stay, and incidents of self-extubation. The evaluation incorporates the Risk of Bias 2 (RoB2) tool to assess the quality of included studies. Data analysis utilizes a random-effects model for relative risk (RR) and mean differences. Subgroup analysis categorizes sedation protocols into algorithmic or daily interruption, addressing potential heterogeneity. Additionally, a GRADE evaluation is performed to ascertain the overall certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: From an initial pool of 1504 records, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria. Protocolized sedation demonstrated a reduced RR for mortality (RR: 0.80, 95% CI 0.68-0.93, p < 0.01, I2 = 0%) and a decrease in ventilation days (mean difference: - 1.12, 95% CI - 2.11 to - 0.14, p = 0.03, I2 = 84%). Furthermore, there was a notable reduction in ICU stay (mean difference: - 2.24, 95% CI - 3.59 to - 0.89, p < 0.01, I2 = 81%). However, incidents of self-extubation did not exhibit a significant difference (RR: 1.20, 95% CI 0.49-2.94, p = 0.69, I2 = 35%). Subgroup analyses effectively eliminated heterogeneity (I2 = 0%), and the GRADE evaluation yielded moderate results for mortality, ventilation days, and ICU duration. CONCLUSION: Protocolized sedation, whether implemented algorithmically or through daily interruption, emerges as a safe and effective approach when compared to standard management in ventilated ICU patients. The findings from this study contribute valuable insights to inform evidence-based practices in sedation management for this critical patient population.

The effect of dexmedetomidine on the postoperative recovery of patients with severe traumatic brain injury undergoing craniotomy treatment: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) has been a worldwide problem for neurosurgeons. Patients with severe TBI may undergo craniotomy. These patients often require sedation after craniotomy. Dexmedetomidine (DEX) has been used in patients receiving anesthesia and in intensive care units. Not much is known about the postoperative effect of DEX in patients with severe TBIs undergoing craniotomy. The purpose of this study was to explore the effects of postoperative DEX administration on severe TBI patients who underwent craniotomy. METHODS: Patients who underwent craniectomy for severe TBI at our hospital between January 2019 and February 2022 were included in this study. The patients were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) after surgery to receive sedative medication. The patients were then divided into DEX and control groups. We analyzed the sedation, hemodynamics, and other conditions of the patients (hypoxemia, duration of ventilation during endotracheal intubation, whether tracheotomy was performed, and the duration in the ICU) during their ICU stay. Other conditions, such as delirium after the patients were transferred to the general ward, were also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 122 patients were included in this study. Among them, 53 patients received DEX, and the remaining 69 did not. The incidence of delirium in the general ward in the DEX group was significantly lower than that in the control group (P < 0.05). The incidence of bradycardia in the control group was significantly lower than that in the DEX group (P < 0.05). Other data from the DEX group and the control group (hypotension, hypoxemia, etc.) were not significantly different (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The use of DEX in the ICU can effectively reduce the incidence of delirium in patients who return to the general ward after craniotomy. DEX had no adverse effect on the prognosis of patients other than causing bradycardia.