Mobilisation during mechanical ventilation: A qualitative study exploring the practice of conscious patients, nurses and physiotherapists in intensive care unit.

AIM: To explore the practice of mobilisation of conscious and mechanically ventilated patients and the interaction between patients, nurses and physiotherapists. BACKGROUND: Long-term consequences of critical illness can be reduced by mobilisation starting in Intensive Care Units, but implementation in clinical practice is presently sparse. DESIGN: A qualitative study with a phenomenological-hermeneutic approach. METHODS: Participant observations in three Intensive Care Units involved twelve conscious mechanically ventilated patients, thirty-one nurses and four physiotherapists. Additionally seven semi-structured patient interviews, respectively at the ward and after discharge and two focus group interviews with healthcare professionals were conducted. The data analysis was inspired by Ricoeur's interpretation theory. The study adhered to the COREQ checklist. FINDINGS: Healthcare professionals performed a balance of support and guidance to promote mobilisation practice. The complexity of ICU mobilisation required a flexible mobility plan. Furthermore, interaction with feedback and humour was found to be 'a leverage' for patient's motivation to partake in mobilisation. The practice of mobilisation found patients striving to cope and healthcare professionals promoting a 'balanced standing by' and negotiating the flexible mobility plan to support mobilisation. CONCLUSION: The study revealed a need to clarify interprofessional communication to align expectations towards mobilisation of conscious and mechanically ventilated patients. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The study demonstrated the important role of healthcare professionals to perform a stepwise and 'balanced standing by' in adequately supporting and challenging the mobilisation of mechanically ventilated patients. Furthermore, a synergy can arise when nurses and physiotherapists use supplementary feedback and humour, and cooperate based on a flexible situation-specific mobility plan in intensive care.

Daily variation in physical activity during mechanical ventilation and stay in the intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Early mobilisation of mechanically ventilated patients during their stay at an intensive care unit (ICU) can improve physical recovery. Yet, an objective and specified description of physical activities while in the ICU is lacking. Therefore, our aim was to describe the objectively assessed type, quantity, and daily variation of physical activity among mechanically ventilated patients while in the ICU. METHOD: In an observational study in two mixed medical/surgical ICUs, we measured body posture in 39 patients on mechanical ventilation using a thigh- and chest-worn accelerometer while in the ICU. The accelerometer describes time spent lying, sitting, moving, in-bed cycling, standing and walking. Descriptive analysis of physical activity and daily variation was done using STATA. RESULTS: We found that mechanically ventilated patients spend 20/24 h lying in bed, 3 h sitting and only 1 h standing, moving, walking or bicycling while in the ICU. Intervals of non-lying time appeared from 9.00 to 12.00 and again from 18.00 to 21.30, with peaks at the hours of 9.00 and 18.00. CONCLUSION: ICU patients on mechanical ventilation were primarily sedentary. Physical activity of mechanically ventilated patients seems to be related to nurse- and/or physiotherapy-initiated activities. There is a need to create an awareness of improving clinical routines, towards active mobilisation throughout the day, for this vulnerable patient population during their stay in the ICU.

Postictal Encephalopathy After Status Epilepticus: Outcome and Risk Factors.

BACKGROUND: Postictal encephalopathy is well known after status epilepticus (SE), but its prognostic impact and triggers are unknown. Here, we aimed to establish risk factors for the development of postictal encephalopathy and to study its impact on survival after discharge. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study comprised adult patients diagnosed with first nonanoxic SE at Odense University Hospital between January 2008 and December 2017. Patients with ongoing SE at discharge or unknown treatment success were excluded. Postictal symptoms of encephalopathy were estimated retrospectively using the West Haven Criteria (WHC). WHC grade was determined for postictal day 1 to 14 or until the patient died or was discharged from the hospital. Cumulative postictal WHC during 14 days after SE-cessation was used to quantify postictal encephalopathy. Clinical characteristics, patient demographics, electroencephalographic and imaging features, and details on intensive care treatment were assessed from medical records. RESULTS: Of all eligible patients (n = 232), 198 (85.3%) had at least WHC grade 2 postictal encephalopathy that lasted for > 14 days in 24.5% of the surviving patients. WHC grade at discharge was strongly associated with poor long-term survival (p < 0.001). Postictal encephalopathy was not associated with nonconvulsive SE, postictal changes on magnetic resonance imaging, or distinct ictal patterns on electroencephalography. Although duration of SE and treatment in the intensive care unit showed an association with cumulative postictal WHC grade, they were not independently associated with the degree of encephalopathy when controlling for confounders. In a linear regression model, etiology, duration of sedation, age, and premorbid modified Rankin Scale were significant and consistent predictors for higher cumulative postictal WHC grade. Exploratory analyses showed an association of a cumulative midazolam dosage (mg/kg/h) with higher cumulative postictal WHC grade. DISCUSSION: In this cohort, postictal encephalopathy after SE was common and associated with poor long-term survival. Seizure characteristics were not independently associated with postictal encephalopathy; the underlying etiology, long (high-dose midazolam) sedation, high age, and poor premorbid condition were the major risk factors for its development.

Effect of Nonsedation on Cognitive Function in Survivors of Critical Illness.

OBJECTIVES: Critical illness can cause severe cognitive impairments. The objective of this trial was to assess the effect of nonsedation versus sedation with a daily wake-up call during mechanical ventilation on cognitive function in adult survivors of critical illness. DESIGN: Single-center substudy of the multicenter, randomized Non-sedation Versus Sedation With a Daily Wake-up Trial in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation trial. Three months after ICU-discharge participants were tested for cognitive function by a neuropsychologist. SETTING: Mixed 14-bed ICU in teaching hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 205 critically ill, orally intubated, and mechanically ventilated adults. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized within the first 24 hours from intubation to either nonsedation with sufficient analgesia or light sedation with a daily wake-up call during mechanical ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 118 patients survived to follow-up and 89 participated (75%). The participating survivors in the two groups did not differ regarding baseline data or premorbid cognitive impairments. Sedated patients had received more sedatives, whereas doses of morphine and antipsychotics were equal. The primary outcome was that no significant difference was found in the number of patients with mild/moderate cognitive impairments (six nonsedated patients vs four sedated patients) or severe cognitive impairments (16 nonsedated patients vs 17 sedated patients; p = 0.71). Secondary outcomes were cognitive test scores, and no differences were found between the scores in nonsedated and sedated patients. Hypothetical worst case scenarios where all patients, who had not participated in follow-up assessment, were assumed to have severe cognitive impairments were analyzed, but still no difference between the groups was found. We found more patients with delirium in the sedated group (96% vs 69% of patients; p = 0.002) and increased duration of delirium in sedated patients (median 5 vs 1 d; p < 0.001). Delirium subtypes were equally distributed between the groups, with hypoactive delirium most frequent (61%), followed by mixed delirium (39%). CONCLUSIONS: Nonsedation did not affect cognitive function 3 months after ICU-discharge.

Failure of non-sedation strategy in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients - a retrospective, post-hoc analysis of the NONSEDA trial.

PURPOSE: There is a growing awareness on minimizing sedation in ICUs. In the NONSEDA trial 700 critically ill patients were randomized to light sedation or non-sedation during mechanical ventilation. Approximately 40% of patients randomized to non-sedation needed sedation. The aim of this study is to obtain knowledge on patients, who experienced failure of non-sedation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is a retrospective post-hoc analysis of the NONSEDA trial. Patients, who were randomized to non-sedation are sub-divided into those who did not require sedation during mechanical ventilation ("non-sedation success"), and those who needed continuous sedation at least once ("non-sedation failure"). RESULTS: 348 patients were randomized to non-sedation, 199 experienced non-sedation success, whereas 149 experienced non-sedation failure. Patients in the two groups were comparable with regards to age, BMI, disease severity scores and admission diagnoses. Patients with non-sedation failure were more often male. Propofol was mainly used as rescue sedation. Patients with non-sedation failure had less days alive without sedation, coma, delirium, organ support, mechanical ventilation, ICU- and hospital admission. Mortality and long-term outcomes did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: Patients with non-sedation success had better in-hospital outcomes, but mortality and long-term outcomes were not affected by success or failure of non-sedation.

Effect of non-sedation on physical function in survivors of critical illness - A substudy of the NONSEDA randomized trial.

PURPOSE: Critical illness impairs physical function. The NONSEDA trial was a multicenter randomized trial, assessing non-sedation versus sedation during mechanical ventilation. The aim of this sub-study was to assess the effect of non-sedation on physical function. METHODS: All patients from one NONSEDA trial site were included. At ICU discharge and three months thereafter, survivors were assessed for physical function. RESULTS: 205 patients were included, 118 survived to follow-up, 116 participated (98%). PRIMARY OUTCOME: Three months after ICU-discharge, health-related quality of life (SF-36, physical component score) was similar (non-sedated 38.3 vs sedated 36.6, mean difference 1.7, 95% CI -1.7 to 5.1), as was function in activities of daily living (Barthel Index, non-sedated 19.5 vs sedated 18, median difference 1.5, 95% CI -0.2 to 3.2). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: Non-sedated patients had a better Barthel Index at ICU-discharge (median 9 vs 4, median difference 5, 95% CI 2.5 to 7.5). At three months post-ICU discharge, the two groups did not differ regarding handgrip strength, walking distance, muscle size or biomechanical data. CONCLUSION: Non-sedation did not lead to improved quality of life regarding physical function or better function in activities of everyday living. Non-sedated patients had a better physical recovery at ICU discharge. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.govNCT02034942, registered January 14., 2014.

Analgesia and sedation in patients with ARDS.

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is one of the most demanding conditions in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Management of analgesia and sedation in ARDS is particularly challenging. An expert panel was convened to produce a "state-of-the-art" article to support clinicians in the optimal management of analgesia/sedation in mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS, including those with COVID-19. Current ICU analgesia/sedation guidelines promote analgesia first and minimization of sedation, wakefulness, delirium prevention and early rehabilitation to facilitate ventilator and ICU liberation. However, these strategies cannot always be applied to patients with ARDS who sometimes require deep sedation and/or paralysis. Patients with severe ARDS may be under-represented in analgesia/sedation studies and currently recommended strategies may not be feasible. With lightened sedation, distress-related symptoms (e.g., pain and discomfort, anxiety, dyspnea) and patient-ventilator asynchrony should be systematically assessed and managed through interprofessional collaboration, prioritizing analgesia and anxiolysis. Adaptation of ventilator settings (e.g., use of a pressure-set mode, spontaneous breathing, sensitive inspiratory trigger) should be systematically considered before additional medications are administered. Managing the mechanical ventilator is of paramount importance to avoid the unnecessary use of deep sedation and/or paralysis. Therefore, applying an "ABCDEF-R" bundle (R = Respiratory-drive-control) may be beneficial in ARDS patients. Further studies are needed, especially regarding the use and long-term effects of fast-offset drugs (e.g., remifentanil, volatile anesthetics) and the electrophysiological assessment of analgesia/sedation (e.g., electroencephalogram devices, heart-rate variability, and video pupillometry). This review is particularly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic given drug shortages and limited ICU-bed capacity.

Non-sedation versus sedation with a daily wake-up trial in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation (NONSEDA Trial): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Through many years, the standard care has been to use continuous sedation of critically ill patients during mechanical ventilation. However, preliminary randomised clinical trials indicate that it is beneficial to reduce the sedation level. No randomised trial has been conducted comparing sedation with no sedation, a priori powered to have all-cause mortality as primary outcome.The objective is to assess the benefits and harms of non-sedation versus sedation with a daily wake-up trial in critically ill patients. METHODS/DESIGN: The non-sedation (NONSEDA) trial is an investigator-initiated, randomised, clinical, parallel-group, multinational trial designed to include 700 patients from at least six ICUs in Denmark, Norway and Sweden.Inclusion criteria are mechanically ventilated patients with expected duration of mechanical ventilation >24 hours.Exclusion criteria are non-intubated patients, patients with severe head trauma, coma at admission or status epilepticus, patients treated with therapeutic hypothermia, patients with PaO2/FiO2 < 9 where sedation might be necessary to ensure sufficient oxygenation or place the patient in prone position.Experimental intervention is non-sedation supplemented with pain management during mechanical ventilation.Control intervention is sedation with a daily wake-up trial.The primary outcome will be all cause mortality at 90 days after randomization. Secondary outcomes will be: days until death throughout the total observation period; coma- and delirium-free days; highest RIFLE score; days until discharge from the intensive care unit (within 28 days); days until the participant is without mechanical ventilation (within 28 days); and proportion of patients with a major cardiovascular outcome. Explorative outcomes will be: all cause mortality at 28 days after randomisation; days until discharge from the intensive care unit; days until the participant is without mechanical ventilation; days until discharge from the hospital; organ failure.Trial size: we will include 700 participants (2 × 350) in order to detect or reject 25% relative risk reduction in mortality with a type I error risk of 5% and a type II error risk of 20% (power at 80%). DISCUSSION: The trial investigates potential benefits of non-sedation. This might have large impact on the future treatment of mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. TRIAL REGISTER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT0196768, 09.01.2014.