Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 6 de 6
Crit Care ; 26(1): 179, 2022 06 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1951304


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.

COVID-19 , Deep Sedation , Adult , Cohort Studies , Deep Sedation/methods , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Intensive Care Units , Pandemics , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Retrospective Studies
Crit Care Med ; 50(6): 924-934, 2022 06 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1874016


OBJECTIVES: To test the hypothesis that forced-air warming of critically ill afebrile sepsis patients improves immune function compared to standard temperature management. DESIGN: Single-center, prospective, open-label, randomized controlled trial. SETTING: One thousand two hundred-bed academic medical center. PATIENTS: Eligible patients were mechanically ventilated septic adults with: 1) a diagnosis of sepsis within 48 hours of enrollment; 2) anticipated need for mechanical ventilation of greater than 48 hours; and 3) a maximum temperature less than 38.3°C within the 24 hours prior to enrollment. Primary exclusion criteria included: immunologic diseases, immune-suppressing medications, and any existing condition sensitive to therapeutic hyperthermia (e.g., brain injury). The primary outcome was monocyte human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DR expression, with secondary outcomes of CD3/CD28-induced interferon gamma (IFN-γ) production, mortality, and 28-day hospital-free days. INTERVENTIONS: External warming using a forced-air warming blanket for 48 hours, with a goal temperature 1.5°C above the lowest temperature documented in the previous 24 hours. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We enrolled 56 participants in the study. No differences were observed between the groups in HLA-DR expression (692 vs 2,002; p = 0.396) or IFN-γ production (31 vs 69; p = 0.678). Participants allocated to external warming had lower 28-day mortality (18% vs 43%; absolute risk reduction, 25%; 95% CI, 2-48%) and more 28-day hospital-free days (difference, 2.6 d; 95% CI, 0-11.6). CONCLUSIONS: Participants randomized to external forced-air warming did not have a difference in HLA-DR expression or IFN-γ production. In this pilot study, however, 28-day mortality was lower in the intervention group. Future research should seek to better elucidate the impact of temperature modulation on immune and nonimmune organ failure pathways in sepsis.

COVID-19 , Hyperthermia, Induced , Sepsis , Adult , Critical Illness/therapy , HLA-DR Antigens , Humans , Pilot Projects , Prospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2 , Sepsis/therapy
Semin Respir Crit Care Med ; 43(1): 1-2, 2022 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1697708

Sepsis , Humans , Risk Factors
Ann Emerg Med ; 77(5): 532-544, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1038930


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.

Awareness , Paralysis/psychology , Respiration, Artificial/psychology , Adult , Aged , Anesthesia, General/adverse effects , Anesthesia, General/psychology , Case-Control Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects , Surveys and Questionnaires