International Analgesia and Sedation Weaning and Withdrawal Practices in Critically Ill Adults: The Adult Iatrogenic Withdrawal Study in the ICU.

OBJECTIVES: Iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome (IWS) associated with opioid and sedative use for medical purposes has a reported high prevalence and associated morbidity. This study aimed to determine the prevalence, utilization, and characteristics of opioid and sedative weaning and IWS policies/protocols in the adult ICU population. DESIGN: International, multicenter, observational, point prevalence study. SETTING: Adult ICUs. PATIENTS: All patients aged 18 years and older in the ICU on the date of data collection who received parenteral opioids or sedatives in the previous 24 hours. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: ICUs selected 1 day for data collection between June 1 and September 30, 2021. Patient demographic data, opioid and sedative medication use, and weaning and IWS assessment data were collected for the previous 24 hours. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients weaned from opioids and sedatives using an institutional policy/protocol on the data collection day. There were 2,402 patients in 229 ICUs from 11 countries screened for opioid and sedative use; 1,506 (63%) patients received parenteral opioids, and/or sedatives in the previous 24 hours. There were 90 (39%) ICUs with a weaning policy/protocol which was used in 176 (12%) patients, and 23 (10%) ICUs with an IWS policy/protocol which was used in 9 (0.6%) patients. The weaning policy/protocol for 47 (52%) ICUs did not define when to initiate weaning, and the policy/protocol for 24 (27%) ICUs did not specify the degree of weaning. A weaning policy/protocol was used in 34% (176/521) and IWS policy/protocol in 9% (9/97) of patients admitted to an ICU with such a policy/protocol. Among 485 patients eligible for weaning policy/protocol utilization based on duration of opioid/sedative use initiation criterion within individual ICU policies/protocols 176 (36%) had it used, and among 54 patients on opioids and/or sedatives ≥ 72 hours, 9 (17%) had an IWS policy/protocol used by the data collection day. CONCLUSIONS: This international observational study found that a small proportion of ICUs use policies/protocols for opioid and sedative weaning or IWS, and even when these policies/protocols are in place, they are implemented in a small percentage of patients.

Design of Clinical Trials Evaluating Sedation in Critically Ill Adults Undergoing Mechanical Ventilation: Recommendations From Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research (SCEPTER) Recommendation III.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of sedative medication use in critically ill adults undergoing mechanical ventilation differ considerably in their methodological approach. This heterogeneity impedes the ability to compare results across studies. The Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research Recommendations convened a meeting of multidisciplinary experts to develop recommendations for key methodologic elements of sedation trials in the ICU to help guide academic and industry clinical investigators. DESIGN: A 2-day in-person meeting was held in Washington, DC, on March 28-29, 2019, followed by a three-round, online modified Delphi consensus process. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-six participants from academia, industry, and the Food and Drug Administration with expertise in relevant content areas, including two former ICU patients attended the in-person meeting, and the majority completed an online follow-up survey and participated in the modified Delphi process. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The final recommendations were iteratively refined based on the survey results, participants' reactions to those results, summaries written by panel moderators, and a review of the meeting transcripts made from audio recordings. Fifteen recommendations were developed for study design and conduct, subject enrollment, outcomes, and measurement instruments. Consensus recommendations included obtaining input from ICU survivors and/or their families, ensuring adequate training for personnel using validated instruments for assessments of sedation, pain, and delirium in the ICU environment, and the need for methodological standardization. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations are intended to assist researchers in the design, conduct, selection of endpoints, and reporting of clinical trials involving sedative medications and/or sedation protocols for adult ICU patients who require mechanical ventilation. These recommendations should be viewed as a starting point to improve clinical trials and help reduce methodological heterogeneity in future clinical trials.

Dexmedetomidine for Facilitating Mechanical Ventilation Extubation in Difficult-to-Wean ICU Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Agitation and delirium are common in mechanically ventilated adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients and may contribute to delayed extubation times. Difficult-to-wean ICU patients have been associated with an increased risk of longer ICU length of stays and mortality. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to evaluate the evidence of dexmedetomidine facilitating successful mechanical ventilation extubation in difficult-to-wean ICU patients and clinical outcomes. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Global Health, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Clinical Trial Registries, and the Health Technology Assessment Database from inception to December 5, 2019. Randomized controlled trials evaluating dexmedetomidine with the intended purpose to facilitate mechanical ventilation liberation in adult ICU patients (≥18 years) experiencing extubation failure were included. The primary outcome of time to extubation was evaluated using the weighted mean difference (WMD), with a random effects model. Secondary analyses included hospital and ICU length of stay, in-hospital mortality, hypotension, and bradycardia. RESULTS: A total of 6 trials (n = 306 patients) were included. Dexmedetomidine significantly reduced the time to extubation (WMD: -11.61 hours, 95% CI: -16.5 to -6.7, P = .005) and ICU length of stay (WMD: -3.04 days; 95% CI: -4.66 to -1.43). Hypotension risk was increased with dexmedetomidine (risk ratio [RR]: 1.62, 95% CI: 1.05-2.51), but there was no difference in bradycardia risk (RR: 3.98, 95% CI: 0.70-22.78). No differences were observed in mortality rates (RR: 1.30, 95% CI: 0.45-3.75) or hospital length of stay (WMD: -2.67 days; 95% CI: -7.73 to 2.39). CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine was associated with a significant reduction in the time to extubation and shorter ICU stay in difficult-to-wean ICU patients. Although hypotension risk was increased with dexmedetomidine, no differences in other clinical outcomes were observed.

Variation in Sedation and Neuromuscular Blockade Regimens on Outcome After Cardiac Arrest.

OBJECTIVES: Sedation and neuromuscular blockade protocols in patients undergoing targeted temperature management after cardiac arrest address patient discomfort and manage shivering. These protocols vary widely between centers and may affect outcomes. DESIGN: Consecutive patients admitted to 20 centers after resuscitation from cardiac arrest were prospectively entered into the International Cardiac Arrest Registry between 2006 and 2016. Additional data about each center's sedation and shivering management practice were obtained via survey. Sedation and shivering practices were categorized as escalating doses of sedation and minimal or no neuromuscular blockade (sedation and shivering practice 1), sedation with continuous or scheduled neuromuscular blockade (sedation and shivering practice 2), or sedation with as-needed neuromuscular blockade (sedation and shivering practice 3). Good outcome was defined as Cerebral Performance Category score of 1 or 2. A logistic regression hierarchical model was created with two levels (patient-level data with standard confounders at level 1 and hospitals at level 2) and sedation and shivering practices as a fixed effect at the hospital level. The primary outcome was dichotomized Cerebral Performance Category at 6 months. SETTING: Cardiac arrest receiving centers in Europe and the United states from 2006 to 2016 PATIENTS:: Four-thousand two-hundred sixty-seven cardiac arrest patients 18 years old or older enrolled in the International Cardiac Arrest Registry. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The mean age was 62 ± 15 years, 36% were female, 77% out-of-hospital arrests, and mean ischemic time was 24 (± 18) minutes. Adjusted odds ratio (for age, return of spontaneous circulation, location of arrest, witnessed, initial rhythm, bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, defibrillation, medical history, country, and size of hospital) was 1.13 (0.74-1.73; p = 0.56) and 1.45 (1.00-2.13; p = 0.046) for sedation and shivering practice 2 and sedation and shivering practice 3, respectively, referenced to sedation and shivering practice 1. CONCLUSION: Cardiac arrest patients treated at centers using as-needed neuromuscular blockade had increased odds of good outcomes compared with centers using escalating sedation doses and avoidance of neuromuscular blockade, after adjusting for potential confounders. These findings should be further investigated in prospective studies.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU.

OBJECTIVE: To update and expand the 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the ICU. DESIGN: Thirty-two international experts, four methodologists, and four critical illness survivors met virtually at least monthly. All section groups gathered face-to-face at annual Society of Critical Care Medicine congresses; virtual connections included those unable to attend. A formal conflict of interest policy was developed a priori and enforced throughout the process. Teleconferences and electronic discussions among subgroups and whole panel were part of the guidelines' development. A general content review was completed face-to-face by all panel members in January 2017. METHODS: Content experts, methodologists, and ICU survivors were represented in each of the five sections of the guidelines: Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption). Each section created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome, and nonactionable, descriptive questions based on perceived clinical relevance. The guideline group then voted their ranking, and patients prioritized their importance. For each Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question, sections searched the best available evidence, determined its quality, and formulated recommendations as "strong," "conditional," or "good" practice statements based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation principles. In addition, evidence gaps and clinical caveats were explicitly identified. RESULTS: The Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) panel issued 37 recommendations (three strong and 34 conditional), two good practice statements, and 32 ungraded, nonactionable statements. Three questions from the patient-centered prioritized question list remained without recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial agreement among a large, interdisciplinary cohort of international experts regarding evidence supporting recommendations, and the remaining literature gaps in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. Highlighting this evidence and the research needs will improve Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) management and provide the foundation for improved outcomes and science in this vulnerable population.

An Official American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline: Liberation from Mechanical Ventilation in Critically Ill Adults. Rehabilitation Protocols, Ventilator Liberation Protocols, and Cuff Leak Tests.

BACKGROUND: Interventions that lead to earlier liberation from mechanical ventilation can improve patient outcomes. This guideline, a collaborative effort between the American Thoracic Society and the American College of Chest Physicians, provides evidence-based recommendations to optimize liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults. METHODS: Two methodologists performed evidence syntheses to summarize available evidence relevant to key questions about liberation from mechanical ventilation. The methodologists appraised the certainty in the evidence (i.e., the quality of evidence) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and summarized the results in evidence profiles. The guideline panel then formulated recommendations after considering the balance of desirable consequences (benefits) versus undesirable consequences (burdens, adverse effects, and costs), the certainty in the evidence, and the feasibility and acceptability of various interventions. Recommendations were rated as strong or conditional. RESULTS: The guideline panel made four conditional recommendations related to rehabilitation protocols, ventilator liberation protocols, and cuff leak tests. The recommendations were for acutely hospitalized adults mechanically ventilated for more than 24 hours to receive protocolized rehabilitation directed toward early mobilization, be managed with a ventilator liberation protocol, be assessed with a cuff leak test if they meet extubation criteria but are deemed high risk for postextubation stridor, and be administered systemic steroids for at least 4 hours before extubation if they fail the cuff leak test. CONCLUSIONS: The American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians recommendations are intended to support healthcare professionals in their decisions related to liberating critically ill adults from mechanical ventilation.

Official Executive Summary of an American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline: Liberation from Mechanical Ventilation in Critically Ill Adults.

BACKGROUND: This clinical practice guideline addresses six questions related to liberation from mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults. It is the result of a collaborative effort between the American Thoracic Society and the American College of Chest Physicians. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel posed six clinical questions in a Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes format. A comprehensive literature search and evidence synthesis was performed for each question, which included appraising the certainty in the evidence (i.e., the quality of evidence) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. The Evidence-to-Decision framework was applied to each question, requiring the panel to evaluate and weigh the importance of the problem, the confidence in the evidence, the certainty about how much the public values the main outcomes, the magnitude and balance of desirable and undesirable outcomes, the resources and costs associated with the intervention, the impact on health disparities, and the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention. RESULTS: Evidence-based recommendations were formulated and graded initially by subcommittees and then modified after full-panel discussions. The recommendations were confirmed by confidential electronic voting; approval required that at least 80% of the panel members agree with the recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: The panel provides recommendations regarding liberation from mechanical ventilation. The details regarding the evidence and rationale for each recommendation are presented in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine and Chest.

Cefepime-induced neurotoxicity: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Cefepime is a widely used antibiotic with neurotoxicity attributed to its ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and exhibit concentration-dependent ϒ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) antagonism. Neurotoxic symptoms include depressed consciousness, encephalopathy, aphasia, myoclonus, seizures, and coma. Data suggest that up to 15% of ICU patients treated with cefepime may experience these adverse effects. Risk factors include renal dysfunction, excessive dosing, preexisting brain injury, and elevated serum cefepime concentrations. We aimed to characterize the clinical course of cefepime neurotoxicity and response to interventions. METHODS: A librarian-assisted search identified publications describing cefepime-associated neurotoxicity from January 1980 to February 2016 using the CINAHL and MEDLINE databases. Search terms included cefepime, neurotoxicity, encephalopathy, seizures, delirium, coma, non-convulsive status epilepticus, myoclonus, confusion, aphasia, agitation, and death. Two reviewers independently assessed identified articles for eligibility and used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) for data reporting. RESULTS: Of the 123 citations identified, 37 (representing 135 patient cases) were included. Patients had a median age of 69 years, commonly had renal dysfunction (80%) and required intensive care (81% of patients with a reported location). All patients exhibited altered mental status, with reduced consciousness (47%), myoclonus (42%), and confusion (42%) being the most common symptoms. All 98 patients (73% of cohort) with electroencephalography had abnormalities, including non-convulsive status epilepticus (25%), myoclonic status epilepticus (7%), triphasic waves (40%), and focal sharp waves (39%). As per Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved dosing guidance, 48% of patients were overdosed; however, 26% experienced neurotoxicity despite appropriate dosing. Median cefepime serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) concentrations were 45 mg/L (n = 21) and 13 mg/L (n = 4), respectively. Symptom improvement occurred in 89% of patients, and 87% survived to hospital discharge. The median delay from starting the drug to symptom onset was 4 days, and resolution occurred a median of 2 days after the intervention, which included cefepime discontinuation, antiepileptic administration, or hemodialysis. CONCLUSIONS: Cefepime-induced neurotoxicity is challenging to recognize in the critically ill due to widely varying symptoms that are common in ICU patients. This adverse reaction can occur despite appropriate dosing, usually resolves with drug interruption, but may require additional interventions such as antiepileptic drug administration or dialysis.

Moderate-dose sedation and analgesia during targeted temperature management after cardiac arrest.

BACKGROUND: Sedation and analgesia regimens during targeted temperature management (TTM), after cardiac arrest varies widely, are poorly described in the literature and may have a negative impact on outcome. Since implementing TTM in 2005, we have used moderate-dose sedation and describe our experience with this approach. METHODS: In this retrospective review, we included patients treated with TTM for cardiac arrest at our institution for 2008-2012. Patients received TTM if they did not follow verbal commands following cardiac arrest, regardless of place of arrest or rhythm. Utstein-compatible data were prospectively entered into the International Cardiac Arrest Registry, supplemented by review of nursing, pharmacy, and physical therapy records. We report analgesic and sedative medications and doses during the 24 h of active TTM at 33 °C, resource utilization, and important clinical events. RESULTS: 166 patients treated with TTM after in- and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest with complete data were included. Overall survival was 42 %, median time to following commands was 3 h after rewarming (-6, 14), time to spontaneous breathing trial was 19 h (5-35), time to extubation was 28 h (9-60), and 59 % of survivors were discharged directly home at 13 (10-20) days. The incidence of seizure was 6 %, septic shock 4 %, and pneumonia 32 %. Four survivors required tracheostomy at 8, 8, 12, and 16 days. CONCLUSIONS: A moderate-dose sedation and analgesia regimen was well tolerated and effective during therapeutic hypothermia after cardiac arrest and is an effective alternative to very deep sedation. We recommend more complete description of sedation and analgesia protocols in future studies, including expanded outcome reporting to include variables affected by sedation therapy. Further study is required to define which sedation approach for TTM may be best.

Randomized ICU trials do not demonstrate an association between interventions that reduce delirium duration and short-term mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We reviewed randomized trials of adult ICU patients of interventions hypothesized to reduce delirium burden to determine whether interventions that are more effective at reducing delirium duration are associated with a reduction in short-term mortality. DATA SOURCES: We searched CINHAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane databases from 2001 to 2012. STUDY SELECTION: Citations were screened for randomized trials that enrolled critically ill adults, evaluated delirium at least daily, compared a drug or nondrug intervention hypothesized to reduce delirium burden with standard care (or control), and reported delirium duration and/or short-term mortality (≤ 45 d). DATA EXTRACTION: In duplicate, we abstracted trial characteristics and results and evaluated quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We performed random effects model meta-analyses and meta-regressions. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 17 trials enrolling 2,849 patients which evaluated a pharmacologic intervention (n = 13) (dexmedetomidine [n = 6], an antipsychotic [n = 4], rivastigmine [n = 2], and clonidine [n = 1]), a multimodal intervention (n = 2) (spontaneous awakening [n = 2]), or a nonpharmacologic intervention (n = 2) (early mobilization [n = 1] and increased perfusion [n = 1]). Overall, average delirium duration was lower in the intervention groups (difference = -0.64 d; 95% CI, -1.15 to -0.13; p = 0.01) being reduced by more than or equal to 3 days in three studies, 0.1 to less than 3 days in six studies, 0 day in seven studies, and less than 0 day in one study. Across interventions, for 13 studies where short-term mortality was reported, short-term mortality was not reduced (risk ratio = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.76-1.06; p = 0.19). Across 13 studies that reported mortality, meta-regression revealed that delirium duration was not associated with reduced short-term mortality (p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: A review of current evidence fails to support that ICU interventions that reduce delirium duration reduce short-term mortality. Larger controlled studies are needed to establish this relationship.

Single-dose etomidate is not associated with increased mortality in ICU patients with sepsis: analysis of a large electronic ICU database.

OBJECTIVE: Retrospective analyses of several trials suggest etomidate may be unsafe for intubation in patients with sepsis. We evaluated the association of etomidate and mortality in a large cohort of septic patients to determine if single-dose etomidate was associated with increased in-hospital mortality. DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort study at the Philips eICU Research Institute ICU clinical database. INTERVENTIONS: None. PATIENTS: Among 741,036 patients monitored from 2008 through 2010, we identified 2,014 adults intubated in the ICU 4-96 hrs after admission, having clinical criteria consistent with sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock. In all, 1,102 patients received etomidate and 912 received other induction agents for intubation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality, but we also evaluated demographic and clinical factors, severity of illness, ICU mortality, ICU length of stay, hospital length of stay, ventilator days, and vasopressor days. Competing risk Cox proportional hazard regression models were used for primary outcomes. Demographics and illness severity were similar between the groups. Hospital mortality was similar between the groups (37.2% vs. 37.8%, p = 0.77), as were ICU mortality (30.1% vs. 30.2%, p = 0.99), ICU length of stay (8.7 days vs. 8.9 days, p = 0.66), and hospital length of stay (15.2 vs. 14.6 days, p = 0.31). More patients in the etomidate group received steroids before and after intubation (52.9% vs. 44.5%, p < 0.001), but vasopressor use and duration of mechanical ventilation were similar. No regression model showed an independent association of etomidate with mortality, shock, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU or hospital length of stay, or vasopressor use. A hospital mortality model limited to only patients with septic shock (n = 650) also showed no association of etomidate and hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: In a mixed-diagnosis group of critically ill patients with sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock, single-dose etomidate administration for intubation in the ICU was not associated with higher mortality or other adverse clinical outcomes.

Benzodiazepine versus nonbenzodiazepine-based sedation for mechanically ventilated, critically ill adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Use of dexmedetomidine or propofol rather than a benzodiazepine sedation strategy may improve ICU outcomes. We reviewed randomized trials comparing a benzodiazepine and nonbenzodiazepine regimen in mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients to determine if differences exist between these sedation strategies with respect to ICU length of stay, time on the ventilator, delirium prevalence, and short-term mortality. METHODS: We searched CINAHL, MEDLINE, the Cochrane databases, and the American College of Critical Care Medicine's Pain, Agitation, Delirium Management Guidelines' literature database from 1996 to 2013. Citations were screened for randomized trials that enrolled critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults comparing an IV benzodiazepine-based to a nonbenzodiazepine-based sedative regimen and reported duration of ICU length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, delirium prevalence, and/or short-term mortality. Trial characteristics and results were abstracted in duplicate and independently, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool was used for quality assessment. We performed random effects model meta-analyses where possible. RESULTS: We included six trials enrolling 1,235 patients: midazolam versus dexmedetomidine (n = 3), lorazepam versus dexmedetomidine (n = 1), midazolam versus propofol (n = 1), and lorazepam versus propofol (n = 1). Compared to a benzodiazepine sedative strategy, a nonbenzodiazepine sedative strategy was associated with a shorter ICU length of stay (n = 6 studies; difference = 1.62 d; 95% CI, 0.68-2.55; I = 0%; p = 0.0007) and duration of mechanical ventilation (n = 4 studies; difference = 1.9 d; 95% CI, 1.70-2.09; I2 = 0%; p < 0.00001) but a similar prevalence of delirium (n = 2; risk ratio = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.61-1.11; I2 = 84%; p = 0.19) and short-term mortality rate (n = 4; risk ratio = 0.98; 95% CI, 0.76-1.27; I2 = 30%; p = 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Current controlled data suggest that use of a dexmedetomidine- or propofol-based sedation regimen rather than a benzodiazepine-based sedation regimen in critically ill adults may reduce ICU length of stay and duration of mechanical ventilation. Larger controlled studies are needed to further define the impact of nonbenzodiazepine sedative regimens on delirium and short-term mortality.

Clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: To revise the "Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Sustained Use of Sedatives and Analgesics in the Critically Ill Adult" published in Critical Care Medicine in 2002. METHODS: The American College of Critical Care Medicine assembled a 20-person, multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task force with expertise in guideline development, pain, agitation and sedation, delirium management, and associated outcomes in adult critically ill patients. The task force, divided into four subcommittees, collaborated over 6 yr in person, via teleconferences, and via electronic communication. Subcommittees were responsible for developing relevant clinical questions, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org) to review, evaluate, and summarize the literature, and to develop clinical statements (descriptive) and recommendations (actionable). With the help of a professional librarian and Refworks database software, they developed a Web-based electronic database of over 19,000 references extracted from eight clinical search engines, related to pain and analgesia, agitation and sedation, delirium, and related clinical outcomes in adult ICU patients. The group also used psychometric analyses to evaluate and compare pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium assessment tools. All task force members were allowed to review the literature supporting each statement and recommendation and provided feedback to the subcommittees. Group consensus was achieved for all statements and recommendations using the nominal group technique and the modified Delphi method, with anonymous voting by all task force members using E-Survey (http://www.esurvey.com). All voting was completed in December 2010. Relevant studies published after this date and prior to publication of these guidelines were referenced in the text. The quality of evidence for each statement and recommendation was ranked as high (A), moderate (B), or low/very low (C). The strength of recommendations was ranked as strong (1) or weak (2), and either in favor of (+) or against (-) an intervention. A strong recommendation (either for or against) indicated that the intervention's desirable effects either clearly outweighed its undesirable effects (risks, burdens, and costs) or it did not. For all strong recommendations, the phrase "We recommend …" is used throughout. A weak recommendation, either for or against an intervention, indicated that the trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects was less clear. For all weak recommendations, the phrase "We suggest …" is used throughout. In the absence of sufficient evidence, or when group consensus could not be achieved, no recommendation (0) was made. Consensus based on expert opinion was not used as a substitute for a lack of evidence. A consistent method for addressing potential conflict of interest was followed if task force members were coauthors of related research. The development of this guideline was independent of any industry funding. CONCLUSION: These guidelines provide a roadmap for developing integrated, evidence-based, and patient-centered protocols for preventing and treating pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients.

Pharmacological management of sedation and delirium in mechanically ventilated ICU patients: remaining evidence gaps and controversies.

Although pharmacotherapy remains the mainstay for the prevention and treatment of pain, anxiety, and delirium (PAD) in the intensive care unit (ICU), many of the PAD-related medications currently used may lead to unintended consequences, particularly when these agents are administered at excessive doses for prolonged periods. The method by which these medications are administered and titrated is increasingly being recognized as potentially affecting patient outcomes as much as the drug itself. Drugs once thought to have a pharmacologically desirable profile in reducing PAD have been shown to have either little benefit, the potential for significant risk associated with any benefit, or in some cases, the potential to worsen patient outcome. The recently published American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) Pain, Agitation, and Delirium Clinical Practice Guidelines provide 12 medication-related recommendations surrounding the prevention and treatment of PAD. This paper (1) provides the ICU bedside clinician with more background on the most important, and in some cases most contentious and challenging areas, of sedation and delirium pharmacotherapy in the critical care setting; (2) provides an update on the most recent evidence surrounding the prevention and treatment of agitation and delirium in ICU; and (3) highlights areas that require further investigation and provide practical strategies by which to apply current evidence in this area to daily ICU practice.

Derivation and Validation of a New Equation for Estimating Free Valproate Concentration in Critically Ill Adult Patients.

IMPORTANCE: Protein binding of valproate varies among ICU patients, altering the biologically active free valproate concentration (VPAC). Free VPAC is measured at few laboratories and is often discordant with total VPAC. Existing equations to predict free VPAC are either not validated or are inaccurate in ICU patients. OBJECTIVES: We designed this study to derive and validate a novel equation to predict free VPAC using data from ICU patients and to compare its performance to published equations. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Two academic medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: Patients older than 18 years old with concomitant free and total VPACs measured in the ICU were included in the derivation cohort if admitted from 2014 to 2018, and the validation cohort if admitted from 2019 to 2022. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Multivariable linear regression was used to derive an equation to predict free VPAC. Modified Bland-Altman plots and the rate of therapeutic concordance between the measured and predicted free VPAC were compared. RESULTS: Demographics, median free and total VPACs, and valproate free fractions were similar among 115 patients in the derivation cohort and 147 patients in the validation cohort. The Bland-Altman plots showed the new equation performed better (bias, 0.3 [95% limits of agreement, -13.6 to 14.2]) than the Nasreddine (-9.2 [-26.5 to 8.2]), Kodama (-9.7 [-30.0 to 10.7]), Conde Giner (-7.9 [-24.9 to 9.1]), and Parent (-9.9 [-30.7 to 11.0]) equations, and similar to Doré (-2.0 [-16.0 to 11.9]). The Doré and new equations had the highest therapeutic concordance rate (73%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: For patients at risk of altered protein binding such as ICU patients, existing equations to predict free VPAC are discordant with measured free VPAC. A new equation had low bias but was imprecise. External validation should be performed to improve its precision and generalizability. Until then, monitoring free valproate is recommended during critical illness.