Sobresedación Zero como herramienta de confort, seguridad y gestión en la unidades de cuidados intensivos / Oversedation Zero as a tool for comfort, safety and intensive care unit management

La sedación es necesaria en el tratamiento de los pacientes críticos, tanto para aliviar el sufrimiento como para curar a los pacientes con enfermedades que precisan el ingreso en unidades de cuidados intensivos. Esta sedación debe ser la adecuada a las necesidades del paciente en cada momento de su evolución clínica, ni por debajo (infrasedación) ni por encima (sobresedación). Una sedación adecuada influye en la comodidad, la seguridad, la supervivencia, la calidad de vida posterior, la rotación de camas de las unidades de críticos y los costes. La infrasedación se detecta y corrige rápidamente. Sin embargo, la sobresedación es silente y difícil de prevenir sin unas pautas de actuación, una concienciación colectiva y un trabajo en equipo. El proyecto «Sobresedación Zero» del Grupo de Trabajo de Sedación, Analgesia y Delirium de la Sociedad Española de Medicina Intensiva, Crítica y Unidades Coronarias pretende ser una herramienta docente, práctica y de concienciación colectiva de comodidad, seguridad y gestión para maximizar el resultado clínico y minimizar los efectos perjudiciales de la sedación excesiva. Se basa en un paquete de medidas que se incluye monitorizar el dolor, la analgesia, la agitación, la sedación, el delirium y el bloqueo neuromuscular, mantener a los pacientes sin dolor, realizar una sedación dinámica según objetivos clínicos, consensuar el protocolo multidisciplinar a seguir y evitar la sedación profunda no indicada clínicamente

Sedation is necessary in the management of critically ill patients, both to alleviate suffering and to cure patients with diseases that require admission to the intensive care unit. Such sedation should be appropriate to the patient needs at each timepoint during clinical evolution, and neither too low (undersedation) nor too high (oversedation). Adequate sedation influences patient comfort, safety, survival, subsequent quality of life, bed rotation of critical care units and costs. Undersedation is detected and quickly corrected. In contrast, oversedation is silent and difficult to prevent in the absence of management guidelines, collective awareness and teamwork. The Zero Oversedation Project of the Sedation, Analgesia and Delirium Working Group of the Spanish Society of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine and Coronary Units aims to offer a practical teaching and collective awareness tool for ensuring patient comfort, safety and management with a view to optimizing the clinical outcomes and minimizing the deleterious effects of excessive sedation. The tool is based on a package of measures that include monitoring pain, analgesia, agitation, sedation, delirium and neuromuscular block, keeping patients pain-free, performing dynamic sedation according to clinical objectives, agreeing upon the multidisciplinary protocol to be followed, and avoiding deep sedation where not clinically indicated

Oversedation Zero as a tool for comfort, safety and intensive care unit management. / Sobresedación Zero como herramienta de confort, seguridad y gestión en la unidades de cuidados intensivos.

Sedation is necessary in the management of critically ill patients, both to alleviate suffering and to cure patients with diseases that require admission to the intensive care unit. Such sedation should be appropriate to the patient needs at each timepoint during clinical evolution, and neither too low (undersedation) nor too high (oversedation). Adequate sedation influences patient comfort, safety, survival, subsequent quality of life, bed rotation of critical care units and costs. Undersedation is detected and quickly corrected. In contrast, oversedation is silent and difficult to prevent in the absence of management guidelines, collective awareness and teamwork. The Zero Oversedation Project of the Sedation, Analgesia and Delirium Working Group of the Spanish Society of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine and Coronary Units aims to offer a practical teaching and collective awareness tool for ensuring patient comfort, safety and management with a view to optimizing the clinical outcomes and minimizing the deleterious effects of excessive sedation. The tool is based on a package of measures that include monitoring pain, analgesia, agitation, sedation, delirium and neuromuscular block, keeping patients pain-free, performing dynamic sedation according to clinical objectives, agreeing upon the multidisciplinary protocol to be followed, and avoiding deep sedation where not clinically indicated.

Prácticas de analgosedación y delirium en Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos españolas: Encuesta 2013-2014 / Management of analgesia, sedation and delirium in Spanish Intensive Care Units: A national two-part survey

Objetivo: Conocer la práctica clínica real de las UCI españolas en relación con la analgosedación y delirium, y valorar cómo se ajusta a las recomendaciones actuales. Diseño: Estudio transversal descriptivo elaborado mediante encuesta nacional sobre prácticas de analgosedación y delirium de los pacientes ingresados en UCI los días 16 de noviembre de 2013 y 16 de octubre de 2014. Se envió un cuestionario a través de Internet con el aval de la SEMICYUC. Ámbito: UCI tanto públicas como privadas de todo el territorio nacional. Resultados: Se incluyeron un total de 166 UCI y a 1.567 pacientes. El 61,4% de las UCI contaban con un protocolo de sedación. El 75% de las UCI monitorizaban la sedación y agitación, con RASS como la escala empleada con mayor frecuencia. El dolor se monitorizaba en algo más de la mitad de las UCI, pero las escalas conductuales eran de muy baja implantación. El delirium también presentaba un bajo nivel diagnóstico. Entre los pacientes en ventilación mecánica el midazolam continuaba siendo un sedante de muy amplio uso. Conclusiones: Esta encuesta es la primera realizada en España sobre analgosedación y delirium y nos muestra una fotografía sobre estas prácticas, señala algunos aspectos como los relacionados con la monitorización y usos de escalas, junto con el manejo del delirium, en los que los resultados del estudio animan a desarrollar proyectos docentes que acerquen la práctica clínica real a las recomendaciones nacionales e internacionales

Objective: To know the real clinical practice of Spanish ICUs in relation to analgesia, sedation and delirium, with a view to assessing adherence to current recommendations. Design: A descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out based on a national survey on analgesia, sedation and delirium practices in patients admitted to intensive care on 16 November, 2013 and 16 October, 2014. An on-line questionnaire was sent with the endorsement of the SEMICYUC. Setting: Spanish ICUs in public and private hospitals. Results: A total of 166 ICUs participated, with the inclusion of 1567 patients. The results showed that 61.4% of the ICUs had a sedation protocol, and 75% regularly monitored sedation and agitation - the RASS being the most frequently used scale. Pain was monitored in about half of the ICUs, but the behavioral scales were very little used. Delirium monitoring was implemented in few ICUs. Among the patients on mechanical ventilation, midazolam remained a very commonly used agent. Conclusions: This survey is the first conducted in Spain on the practices of analgesia, sedation and delirium. We identified specific targets for quality improvement, particularly concerning the management of sedation and the assessment of delirium

Management of analgesia, sedation and delirium in Spanish Intensive Care Units: A national two-part survey. / Prácticas de analgosedación y delirium en Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos españolas: Encuesta 2013-2014.

OBJECTIVE: To know the real clinical practice of Spanish ICUs in relation to analgesia, sedation and delirium, with a view to assessing adherence to current recommendations. DESIGN: A descriptive cross-sectional study was carried out based on a national survey on analgesia, sedation and delirium practices in patients admitted to intensive care on 16 November, 2013 and 16 October, 2014. An on-line questionnaire was sent with the endorsement of the SEMICYUC. SETTING: Spanish ICUs in public and private hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 166 ICUs participated, with the inclusion of 1567 patients. The results showed that 61.4% of the ICUs had a sedation protocol, and 75% regularly monitored sedation and agitation - the RASS being the most frequently used scale. Pain was monitored in about half of the ICUs, but the behavioral scales were very little used. Delirium monitoring was implemented in few ICUs. Among the patients on mechanical ventilation, midazolam remained a very commonly used agent. CONCLUSIONS: This survey is the first conducted in Spain on the practices of analgesia, sedation and delirium. We identified specific targets for quality improvement, particularly concerning the management of sedation and the assessment of delirium.

Prevalencia de contraindicaciones a succinilcolina en unidades de cuidados intensivos / Contraindications to succinylcholine in the intensive care unit. A prevalence study

Objetivo Conocer la prevalencia de contraindicaciones a succinilcolina en pacientes ingresados en unidades de cuidados intensivos (UCI). Diseño Estudio observacional, describiendo la frecuencia de contraindicaciones a succinilcolina por estancias. Análisis univariante de asociación de contraindicaciones con variables poblacionales. Ámbito UCI polivalente de hospital de tercer nivel. Pacientes Pacientes adultos críticos polivalentes. Se analizan en 30 días consecutivos todas las estancias. Intervenciones Ninguna. Variables descriptivas de la población: edad, sexo, APACHE, SOFA, patología, días de ingreso, ventilación mecánica, depuración extrarrenal. Contraindicaciones: hiperpotasemia, encamamiento, rabdomiólisis, traumatismo muscular, quemadura, perfusión de bloqueante neuromuscular, fracaso renal agudo, insuficiencia renal crónica, hipertensión intraocular, hipertensión endocraneal, estatinas crónicas, antecedente de hipertermia maligna, enfermedad neuromuscular, sección medular, bradicardia < 50 lpm, alergia al fármaco, déficit de pseudocolinesterasa. Resultados Ingresan 102 pacientes de 60±16 años, 56,9% varones, que generan 657 estancias. Patologías principales: cirugía cardiaca programada (33%), fallo respiratorio (22%) y sepsis (14%). Documentamos 466 estancias (70,9%) con alguna contraindicación, destacando encamamiento (140), bloqueante neuromuscular (101), fracaso renal agudo (126), estatinas (167), enfermedad neuromuscular (159) y bradicardia (76). Encontramos 74 estancias (11,3%) con alto riesgo de complicación (EARC) al asociarse factor de hiperkalemia con factor de disregulación de receptor. Se asocian a EARC: edad avanzada, hospitalización prolongada, estancia en UCI prolongada, APACHE-II superior, SOFA superior y estar en ventilación mecánica o depuración extrarrenal. Conclusiones Dada la elevada prevalencia de contraindicaciones a succinilcolina observada desaconsejamos su uso en pacientes ingresados en UCI (AU)

Objective To determine the prevalence of contraindications to succinylcholine in patients admitted to the ICU. Design An observational study was carried out, describing the frequency of succinylcholine contraindication by stays, and associating the contraindications to population variables. Setting The adult general ICU of a reference hospital. Patients Clinical-surgical critically ill patients. Thirty consecutive days were analyzed. Interventions None. Variables Population variables: age, sex, APACHE II and SOFA scores, illness, days of hospitalization, mechanical ventilation and renal replacement therapy. Contraindications: hyperkalemia, bedridden patients, rhabdomyolysis, muscle trauma, burns, infusion of neuromuscular blocking agents, acute renal failure, chronic renal failure, intraocular hypertension, intracranial hypertension, statin use, malignant hyperthermia, neuromuscular disease, spinal cord sectioning, bradycardia < 50 bpm, succinylcholine allergy, and pseudo-cholinesterase deficiency. Results A total of 102 patients were admitted, aged 60±16 years (56.9% males), with the generation of 657 stays. Main diseases: elective heart surgery (33%), respiratory failure (22%) and sepsis (14%). We documented 466 stays (70.9%) with contraindications, particularly bedridden patients (n=140), neuromuscular blocking agents (n=101), acute renal failure (n=126), statin use (n=167), neuromuscular disease (n=159) and bradycardia (n=76). We recorded 74 stays (11.3%) at high risk of complications, secondary to hyperkalemic risk associated to receptor dysregulation. A high risk of complications was associated to advanced age, prolonged hospitalization, prolonged length of stay in the ICU, higher APACHE II and SOFA scores, mechanical ventilation and renal replacement therapy. Conclusion Given the high prevalence of contraindications to succinylcholine observed, we discourage its use in patients admitted to the ICU (AU)

[Contraindications to succinylcholine in the intensive care unit. A prevalence study]. / Prevalencia de contraindicaciones a succinilcolina en unidades de cuidados intensivos.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of contraindications to succinylcholine in patients admitted to the ICU. DESIGN: An observational study was carried out, describing the frequency of succinylcholine contraindication by stays, and associating the contraindications to population variables. SETTING: The adult general ICU of a reference hospital. PATIENTS: Clinical-surgical critically ill patients. Thirty consecutive days were analyzed. INTERVENTIONS: None. VARIABLES: Population variables: age, sex, APACHE II and SOFA scores, illness, days of hospitalization, mechanical ventilation and renal replacement therapy. CONTRAINDICATIONS: hyperkalemia, bedridden patients, rhabdomyolysis, muscle trauma, burns, infusion of neuromuscular blocking agents, acute renal failure, chronic renal failure, intraocular hypertension, intracranial hypertension, statin use, malignant hyperthermia, neuromuscular disease, spinal cord sectioning, bradycardia < 50 bpm, succinylcholine allergy, and pseudo-cholinesterase deficiency. RESULTS: A total of 102 patients were admitted, aged 60 ± 16 years (56.9% males), with the generation of 657 stays. Main diseases: elective heart surgery (33%), respiratory failure (22%) and sepsis (14%). We documented 466 stays (70.9%) with contraindications, particularly bedridden patients (n=140), neuromuscular blocking agents (n=101), acute renal failure (n=126), statin use (n=167), neuromuscular disease (n=159) and bradycardia (n=76). We recorded 74 stays (11.3%) at high risk of complications, secondary to hyperkalemic risk associated to receptor dysregulation. A high risk of complications was associated to advanced age, prolonged hospitalization, prolonged length of stay in the ICU, higher APACHE II and SOFA scores, mechanical ventilation and renal replacement therapy. CONCLUSION: Given the high prevalence of contraindications to succinylcholine observed, we discourage its use in patients admitted to the ICU.

Sedación en procedimientos endoscópicos por intensivistas / Sedation in endoscopic procedures performed by intensivists

No disponible

Guía de práctica clínica basada en la evidencia para el manejo de la sedoanalgesia en el paciente adulto críticamente enfermo / Clinical practice guidelines for evidence-based management of sedoanalgesia in critically ill adult patients

Introducción: El óptimo manejo de la sedación, analgesia y delirium ofrece al paciente crítico comodidad y seguridad, facilita el buen desarrollo de medidas de soporte y manejo integral y disminuye complicaciones, impactando en un mejor desenlace. Objetivo: Actualizar la Guía de práctica clínica basada en la evidencia para el manejo de la sedoanalgesia en el paciente adulto críticamente enfermo publicada en Medicina Intensiva en el 2007 y dar recomendaciones para el manejo de la sedación, analgesia y delirium. Metodología: Se reunió un grupo de 21 intensivistas procedentes de 9 países de la Federación Panamericana e Ibérica de Sociedades de Medicina Crítica y Terapia Intensiva, 3 de ellos además especialistas en epidemiología clínica y metodología para elaboración de guías. Se acogió la propuesta del Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group para emitir el grado de recomendación y evaluar la calidad de la evidencia. La fuerza de las recomendaciones fue calificada como 1=fuerte, o 2=débil, y la calidad de la evidencia como A=alta, B=moderada, o C=baja. Expertos en búsqueda de literatura apoyaron con esta estrategia de búsqueda: MEDLINE a través de PUBMED, bases de datos de la biblioteca Cochrane a través de The Cochrane Library y la base de datos Literatura Latinoamericana y del Caribe en Ciencias de la Salud. Los miembros asignados a las 11 secciones de la guía, basándose en la revisión de la literatura, presentaron las recomendaciones, sustentadas y discutidas en sesiones plenarias, aprobando aquellas que superaron el 80% del consenso. La elaboración de las guías contó con el soporte de la Asociación Colombiana de Medicina Crítica y Cuidado Intensivo. Resultados: Para la elaboración de la guía fueron finalmente seleccionadas 467 referencias, observándose un importante aumento en el número y calidad de los estudios, permitiendo realizar 64 fuertes recomendaciones con evidencia alta y moderada, contrastando con las 28 de la edición anterior. Conclusiones: Esta guía contiene recomendaciones y sugerencias basadas en la mejor evidencia para el manejo de la sedación, analgesia y delirium del paciente crítico, incluyendo un paquete de medidas (bundle). Se destacan: evaluación del dolor y la agitación/sedación mediante escalas; usar inicialmente opioides para el control de la analgesia, adicionando técnicas multimodales para disminuir consumo de opioides; promover el menor nivel de sedación necesario, evitando la sobresedación; en caso de requerir medicamentos sedantes, escoger el más apropiado, evitando el uso rutinario de benzodiazepinas; por último, identificar factores de riesgo para delirium, prevenirlo, diagnosticarlo y manejarlo, con el medicamento más conveniente, ya sea haloperidol, antipsicóticos atípicos o dexmedetomidina, evitando el uso de benzodiazepinas y disminuyendo el uso de opioides

Introduction: Optimal management of sedation, analgesia and delirium offers comfort and security for the critical care patient, allows support measures to be applied more easily and enables an integral approach of medical care, at the same time that lowers the incidence of complications, wich translates in better patient outcomes. Objective: To update the Guía de práctica clínica basada en la evidencia para el manejo de la sedoanalgesia en el paciente adulto críticamente enfermo published in Medicina Intensiva in 2007, and give recommendations for the management of sedation, analgesia, and delirium. Methodology: A group of 21 intensivists from 9 countries of the Federación Panamericana e Ibérica de Sociedades de Medicina Crítica y Terapia Intensiva, 3 of them also specialists in clinical epidemiology and methodology, gathered for the development of guidelines. Assessment of evidence quality and recommendations were made based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Strength of recommendations was classified as 1=strong, or 2=weak, and quality of evidence as A=high, B=moderate, or C=low. Two authors searched the following databases: MEDLINE through PUBMED, The Cochrane Library and Literatura Latinoamericana y del Caribe en Ciencias de la Salud and retrieved pertinent information. Members assigned to the 11 sections of the guidelines, based on the literature review, formulated the recommendations, that were discussed in plenary sessions. Only those recommendations that achieved more than 80% of consensus were approved for the final document. The Colombian Association of Critical Medicine and Intensive Care (AMCI) supported the elaboration of this guidelines. Results: Four hundred sixty-seven articles were included for review. An increase in number and quality of publications was observed. This allowed to generate 64 strong recommendations with high and moderate quality of evidence in contrast to the 28 recommendations of the previous edition. Conclusions: This Guidelines contains recommendations and suggestions based on the best evidence available for the management of sedation, analgesia and delirium of the critically ill patient, including a bundle of strategies that serves this purpose. We highlight the assessment of pain and agitation/sedation through validated scales, the use of opioids initially to apropiate analgesic control, associated with multimodal strategies in order to reduce opioide consumption; to promote the lowest level of sedation necessary avoiding over-sedation. Also, in case of the need of sedatives, choose the most appropiate for the patient needs, avoiding the use of benzodiazepines and identify risk factors for delirium, in order to prevent its occurrence, diagnose delirium and treat it with the most suitable pharmacological agent, whether it is haloperidol, atypical antipsychotics or dexmedetomidine, once again, avoiding the use of benzodiazepines and decreasing the use of opioids

Clinical practice guidelines for evidence-based management of sedoanalgesia in critically ill adult patients.

INTRODUCTION: Optimal management of sedation, analgesia and delirium offers comfort and security for the critical care patient, allows support measures to be applied more easily and enables an integral approach of medical care, at the same time that lowers the incidence of complications, wich translates in better patient outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To update the Guía de práctica clínica basada en la evidencia para el manejo de la sedoanalgesia en el paciente adulto críticamente enfermo published in Medicina Intensiva in 2007, and give recommendations for the management of sedation, analgesia, and delirium. METHODOLOGY: A group of 21 intensivists from 9 countries of the Federación Panamericana e Ibérica de Sociedades de Medicina Crítica y Terapia Intensiva, 3 of them also specialists in clinical epidemiology and methodology, gathered for the development of guidelines. Assessment of evidence quality and recommendations were made based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Strength of recommendations was classified as 1=strong, or 2=weak, and quality of evidence as A=high, B=moderate, or C=low. Two authors searched the following databases: MEDLINE through PUBMED, The Cochrane Library and Literatura Latinoamericana y del Caribe en Ciencias de la Salud and retrieved pertinent information. Members assigned to the 11 sections of the guidelines, based on the literature review, formulated the recommendations, that were discussed in plenary sessions. Only those recommendations that achieved more than 80% of consensus were approved for the final document. The Colombian Association of Critical Medicine and Intensive Care (AMCI) supported the elaboration of this guidelines. RESULTS: Four hundred sixty-seven articles were included for review. An increase in number and quality of publications was observed. This allowed to generate 64 strong recommendations with high and moderate quality of evidence in contrast to the 28 recommendations of the previous edition. CONCLUSIONS: This Guidelines contains recommendations and suggestions based on the best evidence available for the management of sedation, analgesia and delirium of the critically ill patient, including a bundle of strategies that serves this purpose. We highlight the assessment of pain and agitation/sedation through validated scales, the use of opioids initially to apropiate analgesic control, associated with multimodal strategies in order to reduce opioide consumption; to promote the lowest level of sedation necessary avoiding over-sedation. Also, in case of the need of sedatives, choose the most appropiate for the patient needs, avoiding the use of benzodiazepines and identify risk factors for delirium, in order to prevent its occurrence, diagnose delirium and treat it with the most suitable pharmacological agent, whether it is haloperidol, atypical antipsychotics or dexmedetomidine, once again, avoiding the use of benzodiazepines and decreasing the use of opioids.

Interrupción diaria de la sedación; ¿siempre es un indicador de calidad? / Daily interruption of sedation: always a quality indicator?

La SEMICYUC ha publicado recientemente una nueva revisión de los Indicadores de Calidad en el Enfermo Crítico, entre los cuales se cita la Interrupción diaria de la Sedación. Dada la controversia que esta práctica conlleva, se revisan los estudios realizados y se proponen unas recomendaciones para su implementación (AU)

The Spanish Society of Critical Care Medicine (SEMICYUC) has recently published an updated version of Quality Indicators in Critical Care. Daily sedative interruption is included among them. As this practice is controversial, research studies are revised and guidelines for its implementation are proposed (AU)

[Daily interruption of sedation: always a quality indicator?]. / Interrupción diaria de la sedación; ¿siempre es un indicador de calidad?

The Spanish Society of Critical Care Medicine (SEMICYUC) has recently published an updated version of Quality Indicators in Critical Care. Daily sedative interruption is included among them. As this practice is controversial, research studies are revised and guidelines for its implementation are proposed.

Estudio aleatorizado sobre la posición de electrodos en la cardioversión eléctrica electiva de la fibrilación auricular / Electrode position in elective electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. A randomized study

Objetivo: Este estudio pretende averiguar cuál de las 2 posiciones de electrodos, anteroposterior (A-P) izquierda o anteroapical (A-A), se muestra más eficaz en la cardioversión eléctrica (CVE) de la fibrilación auricular (FA). Diseño: Ensayo clínico con asignación aleatorizada. Ámbito: UCI de un hospital de segundo nivel. Pacientes y métodos: Pacientes ambulatorios en FA remitidos a la UCI para CVE mediante choques bifásicos. Se comienza con la posición correspondiente según números aleatorizados y se administran hasta 3 choques (150-200-200J), y se cambia a la posición alternativa de no haberse conseguido el ritmo sinusal (RS) (hasta 2 choques más de 200J). Se analizan y se comparan ambas posiciones asignadas, y se determina cuál consigue restaurar el RS con menor número de choques y menor energía aplicada. Resultados: Se incluyen 46 pacientes en el grupo A-A y 45 pacientes en el grupo A-P, y se consigue RS en el 92% de los casos, si bien los pacientes del grupo A-A precisaron significativamente menor número de choques y menor energía: 1 frente a 2 choques (p=0,003) y 150 frente a 350J (p=0,017). Solamente un paciente de los 5 en los que falló la posición A-A se revirtió a RS con la posición A-P, mientras que 10 de los 13 pacientes no revertidos con electrodos A-P lo fueron al cambiar a posición A-A (p=0,038). Conclusiones: La posición A-A se muestra más eficaz en la CVE electiva de la FA, y se recomienda como de primera elección (AU)

Aim: To compare the effectiveness of left anteroposterior (A-P) and apex-anterior (A-A) electrode position in the electrical cardioversion (ECV) of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Design: Randomized clinical trial. Location: ICU of a second-level hospital. Patients and methods: Ambulatory AF patients admitted to ICU for ECV with biphasic shocks. Up to a maximum of 3 shocks (150-200-200J) are given in the electrode position determined by random numbers, and if sinus rhythm (SR) is not restored, electrode position is changed and 2 additional 200J shocks are allowed. Both electrode positions are analyzed and compared to determine which one allows restoration of SR with the lowest number of shocks and least energy. Results: Forty-six patients were included in the A-A group, and 45 in the A-P group. Sinus rhythm was restored in 92% of cases, although patients in the A-A group needed a lower number of shocks and less energy: 1 versus 2 shocks (p=0,003) and 150 versus 350J (p=0.017). Only one out of 5 patients in whom the A-A position had failed was reverted to RS with the A-P position, whereas 10 out of 13 patients in which A-P position had failed were reverted in the A-A position (p=0.038). Conclusions: The A-A position is more effective in the elective electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation, so we recommend this position as the first choice (AU)

[Electrode position in elective electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation. A randomized study]. / Estudio aleatorizado sobre la posición de electrodos en la cardioversión eléctrica electiva de la fibrilación auricular.

AIM: To compare the effectiveness of left anteroposterior (A-P) and apex-anterior (A-A) electrode position in the electrical cardioversion (ECV) of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial. LOCATION: ICU of a second-level hospital. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Ambulatory AF patients admitted to ICU for ECV with biphasic shocks. Up to a maximum of 3 shocks (150-200-200 J) are given in the electrode position determined by random numbers, and if sinus rhythm (SR) is not restored, electrode position is changed and 2 additional 200 J shocks are allowed. Both electrode positions are analyzed and compared to determine which one allows restoration of SR with the lowest number of shocks and least energy. RESULTS: Forty-six patients were included in the A-A group, and 45 in the A-P group. Sinus rhythm was restored in 92% of cases, although patients in the A-A group needed a lower number of shocks and less energy: 1 versus 2 shocks (p=0,003) and 150 versus 350 J (p=0.017). Only one out of 5 patients in whom the A-A position had failed was reverted to RS with the A-P position, whereas 10 out of 13 patients in which A-P position had failed were reverted in the A-A position (p=0.038). CONCLUSIONS: The A-A position is more effective in the elective electrical cardioversion of atrial fibrillation, so we recommend this position as the first choice.

[Variations in health-related quality of life in critical patients]. / Variaciones en la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud en los pacientes críticos.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the changes in the health-related quality of life (hRQOL) six months after discharge from the ICU and the conditions associated to them. DESIGN: A prospective cohort study. SETTING: 14 beds medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU). PATIENTS: A total of 247 patients admitted to our ICU for more than 24 hours with a follow-up of 6 months were study. Those admitted with acute coronary syndrome or for monitoring purposes were excluded. INTERVENTION: A quality of life survey was conducted using the score developed by the PAEEC group (project of the epidemiological analysis of critical illness) to assess hRQOL before ICU admission and 6 months after discharge. RESULTS: The hRQOL deteriorated, going from a median value of 3 to 6 (p < 0.001). The multivariate analysis showed less deterioration of hRQOL in patients with chronic health conditions registered on the APAChE-II score (regression coefficient [RC] = -1.4; 95% CI, -2.5 to -0.2; p < 0.02) and in those with a hRQOL > or = 10 points (RC = -4,4; 95% CI, -5.9 to -2.8; p < 0.001). There was more deterioration in polytraumatized patients (RC = 1.9; 95% CI, 0.6-3.3; p = 0.01) or with renal failure (RC = 3.9; 95% CI, 1.9-5.9; p < 0.001) or in those with a stay duration longer than 10 days (RC = 1.9; 95% CI, 0.6-3.2; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients experience deterioration of hRQOL. Patients with chronic diseases or with worst previous hRQOL who survive 6 months experience less deterioration of hRQOL than those who are polytraumatized or have renal failure or a longer ICU stay.

Variaciones en la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud en los pacientes críticos / Variations in health-related quality of life in critical patients

Objetivo. Analizar las variaciones de la calidad de vida relacionada con la salud (CVRS) a los 6 meses del alta de la unidad de medicina intensiva (UMI)y los factores que se asocian a estas variaciones. Diseño. Estudio prospectivo de cohortes. Ámbito. UMI médico-quirúrgica de 14 camas. Pacientes. Fueron 247 pacientes ingresados en UMI más de 24 h, con un seguimiento de 6 meses. Se excluyó a los pacientes con síndrome coronario agudo y los que ingresaban solamente para seguimiento. Intervención. Se realizó una encuesta de CVRS desarrollada por el grupo Proyecto para el Análisis Epidemiológico del Enfermo Crítico sobre su estado previo y a los 6 meses del alta de la UMI. Resultados. La CVRS se deteriora pasando de una mediana de 3 puntos a 6 (p < 0,001). El análisis multivariable muestra menor deterioro en la CVRS en pacientes con antecedentes registrados por el APAChE II (coeficiente de regresión [CR] = -1,4; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%, -2,5 a -0,2; p = 0,02) o una CVRS ≥ 10 puntos (CR = -4,4; IC del 95%, -5,9 a -2,8; p < 0,001) y mayor deterioro en pacientes politraumatizados (CR = 1,9; IC del 95%, 0,6-3,3; p < 0,01), con insuficiencia renal (CR = 3,9; IC del 95%, 1,9-5,9; p < 0,001) o estancia en UMI > 10 días (CR = 1,9; IC del 95%, 0,6-3,2; p = 0,004). Conclusiones. La mayoría de los pacientes muestran un deterioro de la CVRS. Los pacientes con enfermedades crónicas o con peor CVRS previa que han sobrevivido a los 6 meses muestran menor deterioro que los politraumatizados o con insuficiencia renal o estancias prolongadas en UMI (AU)

Objective. To determine the changes in the health-related quality of life (hRQOL) six months after discharge from the ICU and the conditions associated to them. Design. A prospective cohort study. Setting. 14 beds medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU). Patients. A total of 247 patients admitted to our ICU for more than 24 hours with a follow-up of 6 months were study. Those admitted with acute coronary syndrome or for monitoring purposes were excluded. Intervention. A quality of life survey was conducted using the score developed by the PAEEC group (project of the epidemiological analysis of critical illness) to assess hRQOL before ICU admission and 6 months after discharge. Results. The hRQOL deteriorated, going from a median value of 3 to 6 (p < 0.001). The multivariate analysis showed less deterioration of hRQOL in patients with chronic health conditions registered on the APAChE-II score (regression coefficient [RC] = -1.4; 95% CI, -2.5 to -0.2; p < 0.02) and in those with a hRQOL ≥ 10 points (RC = -4,4; 95% CI, -5.9 to -2.8; p < 0.001). There was more deterioration in polytraumatized patients (RC = 1.9; 95% CI, 0.6-3.3; p = 0.01) or with renal failure (RC = 3.9; 95% CI, 1.9-5.9; p < 0.001) or in those with a stay duration longer than 10 days (RC = 1.9; 95% CI, 0.6-3.2; p < 0.001). Conclusions. Most patients experience deterioration of hRQOL. Patients with chronic diseases or with worst previous hRQOL who survive 6 months experience less deterioration of hRQOL than those who are polytraumatized or have renal failure or a longer ICU stay (AU)

[Sedation in special procedures and situations]. / Sedación en procedimientos y situaciones especiales.

Numerous diagnostic techniques require sedation and analgesia in order to be performed in a safe and comfortable way for the patient. Several of the most notable points of interest for the critical care specialist are the electrical cardioversion, the placing of implantable cardiac stimulation devices, the endoscopic techniques and the performing of bedside surgical procedures. In this current revision, the SEMICYUC Task Force for Sedation and Analgesia describes recommendations and best practices for administering sedation and analgesia in these situations.

Sedación en procedimientos y situaciones especiales / Sedation in special procedures and situations

Numerosas técnicas diagnósticas y terapéuticas precisan sedoanalgesia para poder ser realizadas de una forma segura y confortable para el paciente. Especial interés para el intensivista tienen la cardioversión eléctrica, la colocación de dispositivos implantables de estimulación cardiaca, las técnicas endoscópicas o la realización de procedimientos quirúrgicos a pie de cama. En la presente revisión el Grupo de Trabajo de Analgesia y Sedación de la SEMICYUC ofrece recomendaciones para administrar analgesia y sedación en esas situaciones (AU)

Numerous diagnostic techniques require sedation and analgesia in order to be performed in a safe and comfortable way for the patient. Several of the most notable points of interest for the critical care specialist are the electrical cardioversion, the placing of implantable cardiac stimulation devices, the endoscopic techniques and the performing of bedside surgical procedures. In this current revision, the SEMICYUC Task Force for Sedation and Analgesia describes recommendations and best practices for administering sedation and analgesia in these situations (AU)

[Limitation of therapeutic effort after ICU admission. Analysis of related factors]. / Limitación del esfuerzo terapéutico tras el ingreso en una Unidad de Medicina Intensiva. Análisis de factores asociados.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the limitation of therapeutic effort (LTE) in our Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and the variables associated with that decision. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with a follow up of one year after discharge. SETTING: ICU of a second level hospital. PATIENTS: Four hundred and nine patients admitted during a two-year period. MAIN VARIABLES: APACHE II, NEMS, SOFA, quality of life (PAEEC) and mortality. RESULTS: LTE was performed in 49 (12%) patients. This decision was made by general agreement among the care team in 88% of cases and with the family in 73.5%. It was made on day 8 (4-20) with a SOFA score of 9 (4-13). Mortality in the LTE group was 69.4% in ICU, 92% in hospital, and 96% at 6 and 12 months. A logistic regression model showed that the variables associated with LTE were the following: NEMS score >or=30.7 (OR 12; 95% CI 3.7-39, p < 0.001), NEMS 26.6-30.6 (OR 8; 95% CI 2.5-25.6, p = 0.001), APACHE II > 30 (OR 7.6; 95% CI 2-29, p = 0.003), quality of life >or= 7 (OR 4.2; 95% CI 1.1-15, p = 0.03), age >or= 80 (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.4-9.5, p = 0.007) and medical patient condition (OR 3.5; 95% CI 1.5-8, p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: LTE is a common practice and is usually performed among the care team and the patient's surrogates. The main variables associated with LSC are those related to the severity of illness, previous quality of life, medical disease and patient's age.

Limitación del esfuerzo terapéutico tras el ingreso en una Unidad de Medicina Intensiva. Análisis de factores asociados / Limitation of therapeutic effort after ICU admission. Analysis of related factors

Objetivo. Analizar la limitación del esfuerzo terapéutico (LET) en una Unidad de Medicina Intensiva (UMI) y las variables consideradas en la toma de decisiones. Diseño. Estudio de cohortes prospectivo con seguimiento durante un año tras el alta. Ámbito. UMI de un Hospital de Nivel II. Pacientes. Cuatrocientos nueve pacientes ingresados durante un período de dos años. Variables de interés. APACHE II, Nine Equivalents of Nursing Manpower Use Score (NEMS), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score (SOFA), calidad de vida (PAEEC) y mortalidad. Resultados. Se realizó LET en 49 (12%) pacientes. Hubo consenso del equipo asistencial en el 88% de los casos y en el 73,5% con la familia. La decisión se tomó el día 8 (4-20) de estancia y con un SOFA de 9 (4-13) puntos. Entre los pacientes con LET la mortalidad en la UMI fue del 69,4%, la hospitalaria del 92% y a 6 y 12 meses del 96%. Un modelo de regresión logística mostró que las variables asociadas a la decisión de LET fueron las siguientes: NEMS ≥ 30,7 (odds ratio [OR] 12; intervalo de confianza [IC] 95% 3,7-39, p 30 (OR 7,6; IC 95% 2-29, p = 0,003), la calidad de vida previa ≥ 7 (OR 4,2; IC 95% 1,1-15, p = 0,03), edad ≥ 80 años (OR 3,7; IC 95% 1,4-9,5, p = 0,007), paciente médico (OR 3,5; IC 95% 1,5-8, p = 0,003). Conclusiones. La LET es una práctica frecuente y que se realiza generalmente con acuerdo del equipo asistencial y los representantes del paciente. Las variables asociadas a la decisión de LET son las relacionadas con la gravedad, la calidad de vida previa, la patología médica y la edad del paciente

Objective. To analyze the limitation of therapeutic effort (LTE) in our Intensive Care Unit (ICU) and the variables associated with that decision. Design. Prospective cohort study with a follow up of one year after discharge. Setting. ICU of a second level hospital. Patients. Four hundred and nine patients admitted during a two-year period. Main variables. APACHE II, NEMS, SOFA, quality of life (PAEEC) and mortality. Results. LTE was performed in 49 (12%) patients. This decision was made by general agreement among the care team in 88% of cases and with the family in 73.5%. It was made on day 8 (4-20) with a SOFA score of 9 (4-13). Mortality in the LTE group was 69.4% in ICU, 92% in hospital, and 96% at 6 and 12 months. A logistic regression model showed that the variables associated with LTE were the following: NEMS score ≥30.7 (OR 12; 95% CI 3.7-39, p 30 (OR 7.6; 95% CI 2-29, p = 0.003), quality of life ≥ 7 (OR 4.2; 95% CI 1.1-15, p = 0.03), age ≥ 80 (OR 3.7, 95% CI 1.4-9.5, p = 0.007) and medical patient condition (OR 3.5; 95% CI 1.5-8, p = 0.003). Conclusions. LTE is a common practice and is usually performed among the care team and the patient's surrogates. The main variables associated with LSC are those related to the severity of illness, previous quality of life, medical disease and patient's age