A One-Day Prospective National Observational Study on Sedation-Analgesia of Patients with Brain Injury in French Intensive Care Units: The SEDA-BIP-ICU (Sedation-Analgesia in Brain Injury Patient in ICU) Study.

BACKGROUND: Sedation/analgesia is a daily challenge faced by intensivists managing patients with brain injury (BI) in intensive care units (ICUs). The optimization of sedation in patients with BI presents particular challenges. A choice must be made between the potential benefit of a rapid clinical evaluation and the potential exacerbation of intracranial hypertension in patients with impaired cerebral compliance. In the ICU, a pragmatic approach to the use of sedation/analgesia, including the optimal titration, management of multiple drugs, and use of any type of brain monitor, is needed. Our research question was as follows: the aim of the study is to identify what is the current daily practice regarding sedation/analgesia in the management of patients with BI in the ICU in France? METHODS: This study was composed of two parts. The first part was a descriptive survey of sedation practices and characteristics in 30 French ICUs and 27 academic hospitals specializing in care for patients with BI. This first step validates ICU participation in data collection regarding sedation-analgesia practices. The second part was a 1-day prospective cross-sectional snapshot of all characteristics and prescriptions of patients with BI. RESULTS: On the study day, among the 246 patients with BI, 106 (43%) had a brain monitoring device and 74 patients (30%) were sedated. Thirty-nine of the sedated patients (53%) suffered from intracranial hypertension, 14 patients (19%) suffered from agitation and delirium, and 7 patients (9%) were sedated because of respiratory failure. Fourteen patients (19%) no longer had a formal indication for sedation. In 60% of the sedated patients, the sedatives were titrated by nurses based on sedation scales. The Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale was used in 80% of the patients, and the Behavioral Pain Scale was used in 92%. The common sedatives and opioids used were midazolam (58.1%), propofol (40.5%), and sufentanil (67.5%). The cerebral monitoring devices available in the participating ICUs were transcranial Doppler ultrasound (100%), intracranial and intraventricular pressure monitoring (93.3%), and brain tissue oxygenation (60%). Cerebral monitoring by one or more monitoring devices was performed in 62% of the sedated patients. This proportion increased to 74% in the subgroup of patients with intracranial hypertension, with multimodal cerebral monitoring in 43.6%. The doses of midazolam and sufentanil were lower in sedated patients managed based on a sedation/analgesia scale. CONCLUSIONS: Midazolam and sufentanil are frequently used, often in combination, in French ICUs instead of alternative drugs. In our study, cerebral monitoring was performed in more than 60% of the sedated patients, although that proportion is still insufficient. Future efforts should stress the use of multiple monitoring modes and adherence to the indications for sedation to improve care of patients with BI. Our study suggests that the use of sedation and analgesia scales by nurses involved in the management of patients with BI could decrease the dosages of midazolam and sufentanil administered. Updated guidelines are needed for the management of sedation/analgesia in patients with BI.

Effect of the use of an endotracheal tube and stylet versus an endotracheal tube alone on first-attempt intubation success: a multicentre, randomised clinical trial in 999 patients.

PURPOSE: The effect of the routine use of a stylet during tracheal intubation on first-attempt intubation success is unclear. We hypothesised that the first-attempt intubation success rate would be higher with tracheal tube + stylet than with tracheal tube alone. METHODS: In this multicentre randomised controlled trial, conducted in 32 intensive care units, we randomly assigned patients to tracheal tube + stylet or tracheal tube alone (i.e. without stylet). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with first-attempt intubation success. The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients with complications related to tracheal intubation. Serious adverse events, i.e., traumatic injuries related to tracheal intubation, were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 999 patients were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis: 501 (50%) to tracheal tube + stylet and 498 (50%) to tracheal tube alone. First-attempt intubation success occurred in 392 patients (78.2%) in the tracheal tube + stylet group and in 356 (71.5%) in the tracheal tube alone group (absolute risk difference, 6.7; 95%CI 1.4-12.1; relative risk, 1.10; 95%CI 1.02-1.18; P = 0.01). A total of 194 patients (38.7%) in the tracheal tube + stylet group had complications related to tracheal intubation, as compared with 200 patients (40.2%) in the tracheal tube alone group (absolute risk difference, - 1.5; 95%CI - 7.5 to 4.6; relative risk, 0.96; 95%CI 0.83-1.12; P = 0.64). The incidence of serious adverse events was 4.0% and 3.6%, respectively (absolute risk difference, 0.4; 95%CI, - 2.0 to 2.8; relative risk, 1.10; 95%CI 0.59-2.06. P = 0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, using a stylet improves first-attempt intubation success.

Chest trauma: First 48hours management.

Chest trauma remains an issue for health services for both severe and apparently mild trauma management. Severe chest trauma is associated with high mortality and is considered liable for 25% of mortality in multiple traumas. Moreover, mild trauma is also associated with significant morbidity especially in patients with preexisting conditions. Thus, whatever the severity, a fast-acting strategy must be organized. At this time, there are no guidelines available from scientific societies. These expert recommendations aim to establish guidelines for chest trauma management in both prehospital an in hospital settings, for the first 48hours. The "Société française d'anesthésie réanimation" and the "Société française de médecine d'urgence" worked together on the 7 following questions: (1) criteria defining severity and for appropriate hospital referral; (2) diagnosis strategy in both pre- and in-hospital settings; (3) indications and guidelines for ventilatory support; (4) management of analgesia; (5) indications and guidelines for chest tube placement; (6) surgical and endovascular repair indications in blunt chest trauma; (7) definition, medical and surgical specificity of penetrating chest trauma. For each question, prespecified "crucial" (and sometimes also "important") outcomes were identified by the panel of experts because it mattered for patients. We rated evidence across studies for these specific clinical outcomes. After a systematic Grade® approach, we defined 60 recommendations. Each recommendation has been evaluated by all the experts according to the DELPHI method.