Evidence and consensus-based German guidelines for the management of analgesia, sedation and delirium in intensive care--short version.

Targeted monitoring of analgesia, sedation and delirium, as well as their appropriate management in critically ill patients is a standard of care in intensive care medicine. With the undisputed advantages of goal-oriented therapy established, there was a need to develop our own guidelines on analgesia and sedation in intensive care in Germany and these were published as 2(nd) Generation Guidelines in 2005. Through the dissemination of these guidelines in 2006, use of monitoring was shown to have improved from 8 to 51% and the use of protocol-based approaches increased to 46% (from 21%). Between 2006-2009, the existing guidelines from the DGAI (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin) and DIVI (Deutsche Interdisziplinäre Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin) were developed into 3(rd) Generation Guidelines for the securing and optimization of quality of analgesia, sedation and delirium management in the intensive care unit (ICU). In collaboration with another 10 professional societies, the literature has been reviewed using the criteria of the Oxford Center of Evidence Based Medicine. Using data from 671 reference works, text, diagrams and recommendations were drawn up. In the recommendations, Grade "A" (very strong recommendation), Grade "B" (strong recommendation) and Grade "0" (open recommendation) were agreed. As a result of this process we now have an interdisciplinary and consensus-based set of 3(rd) Generation Guidelines that take into account all critically illness patient populations. The use of protocols for analgesia, sedation and treatment of delirium are repeatedly demonstrated. These guidelines offer treatment recommendations for the ICU team. The implementation of scores and protocols into routine ICU practice is necessary for their success.

Technical performance and reflection capacity of the anaesthetic conserving device--a bench study with isoflurane and sevoflurane.

OBJECTIVE: The anaesthetic conserving device (AnaConDa), Sedana Medical, Sundbyberg, Sweden) facilitates administration of isoflurane or sevoflurane by liquid infusion. An anaesthetic reflector inside the device conserves exhaled anaesthetic and re-supplies it during inspiration. In this bench study, we examined the influence of infusion rates and ventilatory settings on the resulting anaesthetic concentrations on patient (C(pat)) and ventilator side of the reflector (C(loss)) to describe its technical performance. METHODS: A Puritan Bennett 840 ICU ventilator (Pleasanton, US), AnaConDa, and a test lung (3 l-chloroprene-bag) were assembled. Infusion rates (IR, 0.2-50 ml h(-1)), respiratory rates (RR, 5-40 breaths min(-1)), and tidal volumes (V(T), 0.3, 0.5, and 1.0 l) were varied. C(pat) was measured via a thin catheter in the middle of the 3 l-bag in steady state (online data storage and averaging over >10 min). C(loss) was calculated from IR (to yield the volume of vapour per unit of time), and expired minute volume (in which the vapour is diluted) on the assumption that, in the steady state, input by liquid infusion equals output through the reflector. RESULTS: At lower concentrations (C(pat) < 1 vol%) the ratio C(loss)/C(pat) was constant (R(C) = 0.096 +/- 0.012) for all combinations of IR, RR and V(T), both for isoflurane and sevoflurane. The device could efficiently reflect up to 10 ml vapour per breath (e.g. 2 vol% in 0.5 l). When exceeding this capacity, surplus vapour "spilled over" and R(C) markedly increased indicating decreased performance. CONCLUSIONS: The triple product minute volume times R(C) times C(pat) describes anaesthetic losses through the reflector. It can easily be calculated as long as the 10 ml reflection capacity is not exceeded and thus R(C) is constant. Increased minute ventilation necessitates increasing the IR to keep C(pat) constant. When using large V(T) and high C(pat) "spill over" occurs. This effect offers some protection against an inadvertent overdose.

[Guideline: "Treatment of acute perioperative and posttraumatic pain". Updating from the S2- to the S3-level: a preliminary report]. / Leitlinie "Behandlung akuter perioperativer und posttraumatischer Schmerzen". Aktualisierung und Anhebung von S2- auf S3-Niveau: ein Vorbericht.

The German guidelines for the treatment of acute perioperative and posttraumatic pain from 1999 have been revised during the last three years and will be published at the end of 2006 as a guideline on S3-level. 20 medical societies evaluate with the instruments of the centre of evidence based medicine of Oxford (CEBM) the available randomised controlled trials, systematic reviews and existing guidelines and consent in final Delphi rounds the detailed recommendations (grades A - C). Comprehensive information of the patients (pain level, therapeutic possibilities), measurement and documentation of pain, interdisciplinary management of therapy and complete consideration of all operative, pain therapeutic, medicinal, psychologic, physiotherapeutical and physical procedures are central aims of the actual guideline.

Prevention of postherpetic neuralgia with varicella-zoster hyperimmune globulin.

Recovery after an acute attack of herpes zoster is followed by postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) in 9-14% of all patients. Depending on the patient's age, the severity of the acute attack of herpes zoster and the dermatome involved, the incidence of PHN may be as high as 65%. The purpose of our study was to ascertain the incidence of PHN after a prophylactic intravenous injection of varicella-zoster hyperimmune globulin (VZV-IG) (Varitect Biotest Pharma). For this double-blind placebo-controlled randomised investigation we defined PHN as pain confined to the dermatome previously affected by herpes zoster, and we required a pain intensity of at least 15% points on a visual analogue scale (VAS) for this dermatome. The inclusion criteria were the dermatological diagnosis of herpes zoster together with age over 50 years. On Day 1, 20 patients received a single intravenous infusion of VZV-IG in a dose of 2mL/kg body weight, 20 patients (control group) received a single infusion of human albumin 5% in a dose of 2mL/kg body weight. All patients received acyclovir intravenously in a dose of 15mg/kg body weight per 24h for 5 days. The patients were followed up for a total of 42 days. The incidence of PHN at Day 42 was selected as the main outcome criterion for assessing the efficacy of prophylaxis. On reaching a significant difference between the groups (t test; alpha<0.05) in favour of the active treatment group, prophylaxis of PHN by VZV-IG was assessed as effective. Pain was assessed on a VAS and a NAS. As auxiliary outcome criteria, we used the McGill Pain-Rating Questionnaire in its German version, the revised multidimensional pain scale (RMSS) and the Freiburg symptom list (FBL). All results were assessed by the t test (alpha<0.05). The frequency of PHN in the placebo group was 70% (14/20), in the active treatment group it was 35% (7/20) at Day 42. The results of the McGill test showed the variability of the perception of pain in the placebo group significantly greater. No significant group differences were found in the FBL. Being tested with the RMSS, the patients of the placebo group assessed their pains as significantly "more obstinate" (p=0.047). The results can be summed up by saying that VZV-IG not only reduces the incidence of PHN, but also that in certain respects the patients' assessments of their pain experience were different. In our study we found a 50% reduction in PHN incidence However, the outcome time point of our trial was so close to the acute phase of the zoster illness that spontaneous remissions of PHN still have to be taken into account. Despite the widely varied approaches to the problem, reliably effective therapy, let alone 100% prevention of PHN, is still not feasible.