A dual-center cohort study on the association between early deep sedation and clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: The COVID-SED study.

BACKGROUND: Mechanically ventilated patients have experienced greater periods of prolonged deep sedation during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Multiple studies from the pre-COVID era demonstrate that early deep sedation is associated with worse outcome. Despite this, there is a lack of data on sedation depth and its impact on outcome for mechanically ventilated patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to characterize the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) sedation practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to determine if early deep sedation was associated with worse clinical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Dual-center, retrospective cohort study conducted over 6 months (March-August, 2020), involving consecutive, mechanically ventilated adults. All sedation-related data during the first 48 h were collected. Deep sedation was defined as Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of - 3 to - 5 or Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale of 1-3. To examine impact of early sedation depth on hospital mortality (primary outcome), we used a multivariable logistic regression model. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days. RESULTS: 391 patients were studied, and 283 (72.4%) experienced early deep sedation. Deeply sedated patients received higher cumulative doses of fentanyl, propofol, midazolam, and ketamine when compared to light sedation. Deep sedation patients experienced fewer ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days, and greater mortality (30.4% versus 11.1%) when compared to light sedation (p < 0.01 for all). After adjusting for confounders, early deep sedation remained significantly associated with higher mortality (adjusted OR 3.44; 95% CI 1.65-7.17; p < 0.01). These results were stable in the subgroup of patients with COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: The management of sedation for mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU has changed during the COVID pandemic. Early deep sedation is common and independently associated with worse clinical outcomes. A protocol-driven approach to sedation, targeting light sedation as early as possible, should continue to remain the default approach.

The ED-AWARENESS Study: A Prospective, Observational Cohort Study of Awareness With Paralysis in Mechanically Ventilated Patients Admitted From the Emergency Department.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Awareness with paralysis is a devastating complication for patients receiving mechanical ventilation and risks long-term psychological morbidity. Data from the emergency department (ED) demonstrate a high rate of longer-acting neuromuscular blocking agent use, delayed analgosedation, and a lack of sedation depth monitoring. These practices are discordant with recommendations for preventing awareness with paralysis. Despite this, awareness with paralysis has not been rigorously studied in the ED population. Our objective is to assess the prevalence of awareness with paralysis in ED patients receiving mechanical ventilation. METHODS: This was a single-center, prospective, observational cohort study on 383 mechanically ventilated ED patients. After extubation, we assessed patients for awareness with paralysis by using the modified Brice questionnaire. Three expert reviewers independently adjudicated awareness with paralysis. We report the prevalence of awareness with paralysis (primary outcome); the secondary outcome was perceived threat, a mediator for development of posttraumatic stress disorder. RESULTS: The prevalence of awareness with paralysis was 2.6% (10/383). Exposure to rocuronium at any point in the ED was significantly different between patients who experienced awareness with paralysis (70%) versus the rest of the cohort (31.4%) (unadjusted odds ratio 5.1; 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 20.1). Patients experiencing awareness with paralysis had higher mean values on the threat perception scale, denoting a higher degree of perceived threat, compared with patients who did not experience awareness with paralysis (13.4 [SD 7.7] versus 8.5 [SD 6.2]; mean difference 4.9; 95% confidence interval 0.94 to 8.8). CONCLUSION: Awareness with paralysis occurs in a significant minority of ED patients who receive mechanical ventilation. Potential associations of awareness with paralysis with ED care and increased perceived threat warrant further evaluation.