Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 87
Filter
1.
J Neurosci Nurs ; 54(1): 30-34, 2022 Feb 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1621702

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The Bispectral (BIS) monitor is a validated, noninvasive monitor placed over the forehead to titrate sedation in patients under general anesthesia in the operating room. In the neurocritical care unit, there is limited room on the forehead because of incisions, injuries, and other monitoring devices. This is a pilot study to determine whether a BIS nasal montage correlates to the standard frontal-temporal data in this patient population. METHODS: This prospective nonandomized pilot study enrolled 10 critically ill, intubated, and sedated adult patients admitted to the neurocritical care unit. Each patient had a BIS monitor placed over the standard frontal-temporal location and over the alternative nasal dorsum with simultaneous data collected for 24 hours. RESULTS: In the frontal-temporal location, the mean (SD) BIS score was 50.9 (15.0), average minimum BIS score was 47.0 (15.0), and average maximum BIS score was 58.4 (16.7). In the nasal dorsum location, the mean BIS score was 54.8 (21.6), average minimum BIS score was 52.8 (20.9), and average maximum BIS score was 58.0 (22.2). Baseline nonparametric tests showed nonsignificant P values for all variables except for Signal Quality Index. Generalized linear model analysis demonstrated significant differences between the 2 monitor locations (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: The results of this pilot study do not support using a BIS nasal montage as an alternative for patients in the neurocritical care unit.


Subject(s)
Consciousness Monitors , Electroencephalography , Adult , Conscious Sedation , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives , Intensive Care Units , Pilot Projects , Prospective Studies
2.
J Nippon Med Sch ; 88(6): 533-539, 2021 Dec 29.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1613284

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may require continuous administration of analgesics, sedatives, and muscle relaxants. Nafamostat has recently been reported as a therapeutic agent for COVID-19. However, there is a lack of information on the compatibility of nafamostat with the aforementioned drug classes. This study evaluated the physical compatibility of nafamostat with these drug classes. METHODS: Nafamostat was combined with 1-3 target drugs (fentanyl, morphine, midazolam, dexmedetomidine, and rocuronium). Fifteen physical compatibility tests were conducted. Nafamostat was dissolved in 5% glucose solution; the final concentration was 10 mg/mL. All other medications were diluted in 0.9% sodium chloride to obtain clinically relevant concentrations. The power of hydrogen (pH) of all medications was measured during each test. Compatibility tests were conducted with 4 test solutions in which nafamostat and the target drugs were compounded at equal volume ratios (1:1, 1:1:1, or 1:1:1:1). Visual appearance, turbidity, and pH were evaluated immediately after mixing and at 1 and 3 hours. Physical incompatibilities were defined as gross precipitation, cloudiness, appearance of the Tyndall effect, or a turbidity change of ≥0.5 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) based on nafamostat. RESULTS: The mean pH of nafamostat was 3.13 ± 0.03. The combination of nafamostat, fentanyl, and dexmedetomidine had the highest pH (3.39 ± 0.01; 3 hours after mixing). All drugs were compatible with nafamostat until 3 hours after admixture, with a mean turbidity value of ≤0.03 NTU. CONCLUSIONS: Infusions combining nafamostat with the tested sedatives, analgesics, and muscle relaxants could be safely administered.


Subject(s)
Analgesics/therapeutic use , Benzamidines/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , Drug Incompatibility , Fentanyl/therapeutic use , Guanidines/therapeutic use , Muscle Relaxants, Central/therapeutic use , Dexmedetomidine/therapeutic use , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome
3.
Pol J Vet Sci ; 23(1): 127-132, 2020 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1575092

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Effective and safe anesthesia for rodents has long been a leading concern among biomedical researchers. Intraperitoneal injection constitutes an alternative to inhalant anesthesia. PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to identify a safe, reliable, and effective anesthesia and postoperative analgesia protocol for laboratory rats exposed to painful procedures. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-seven female Wistar rats in an ongoing study that required surgery were randomized into groups for three different intraperitoneal anesthesia protocols and three different analgesia regimens. The anesthesia groups were (1) medetomidine + ketamine (MK), (2) ketamine + xylacine (KX), and (3) fentanyl + medetomidine (FM). Three analgesia groups were equally distributed among the anesthesia groups: (1) local mepivacaine + oral ibuprofen (MI), (2) oral tramadol + oral ibuprofen (TI), and (3) local tramadol + oral tramadol + + oral ibuprofen (TTI). A core was assigned to measure anesthesia (0-3) and analgesia (0-2) effectiveness; the lower the score, the more effective the treatment. RESULTS: The mean MK score was 0.44 versus 2.00 for FM and 2.33 for KX. Mean score for analgesia on the first postoperative day was TTI (4.66) TI (9.13), and MI (10.14). Mean score 48 hours after surgery was TTI (3.4), TI (6.71), and MI (9.5). These differences were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: MK was shown to be a reliable, safe, and effective method of anesthesia. The TTI analgesia regimen is strongly recommended in light of these results.


Subject(s)
Fentanyl/pharmacology , Ketamine/pharmacology , Medetomidine/pharmacology , Xylazine/pharmacology , Adjuvants, Anesthesia/administration & dosage , Adjuvants, Anesthesia/pharmacology , Anesthetics, Dissociative/administration & dosage , Anesthetics, Dissociative/pharmacology , Animals , Drug Therapy, Combination , Female , Fentanyl/administration & dosage , Hypnotics and Sedatives/administration & dosage , Hypnotics and Sedatives/pharmacology , Ketamine/administration & dosage , Medetomidine/administration & dosage , Random Allocation , Rats , Rats, Wistar , Xylazine/administration & dosage
6.
Respir Med ; 189: 106667, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1487955

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Deep sedation is sometimes needed in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Ketamine is a sedative that has been shown to have analgesic and sedating properties without having a detrimental impact on hemodynamics. This pharmacological profile makes ketamine an attractive sedative, potentially reducing the necessity for other sedatives and vasopressors, but there are no studies evaluating its effect on these medications in patients requiring deep sedation for acute respiratory distress syndrome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective, observational study in a single center, quaternary care hospital in southeast Texas. We looked at adults with COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation from March 2020 to September 2020. RESULTS: We found that patients had less propofol requirements at 72 h after ketamine initiation when compared to 24 h (median 34.2 vs 54.7 mg/kg, p = 0.003). Norepinephrine equivalents were also significantly lower at 48 h than 24 h after ketamine initiation (median 38 vs 62.8 mcg/kg, p = 0.028). There was an increase in hydromorphone infusion rates at all three time points after ketamine was introduced. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of patients with COVID-19 ARDS who required mechanical ventilation receiving ketamine we found propofol sparing effects and vasopressor requirements were reduced, while opioid infusions were not.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Deep Sedation , Hypnotics and Sedatives/administration & dosage , Ketamine/administration & dosage , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/epidemiology , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Analgesics, Opioid/therapeutic use , COVID-19/therapy , Drug Utilization/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Hydromorphone/therapeutic use , Male , Middle Aged , Norepinephrine/therapeutic use , Propofol/therapeutic use , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Retrospective Studies , Texas/epidemiology
7.
JAMA Netw Open ; 4(10): e2131012, 2021 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1482078

ABSTRACT

Importance: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and associated mitigation measures have disrupted access to psychiatric medications, particularly for women. Objective: To assess the sex differences in trends in the prescribing of benzodiazepines, Z-hypnotics and serotonergic (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs] and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors [SNRIs]), which are commonly prescribed for anxiety, insomnia, and depression. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study used data from Clinformatics Data Mart, one of the largest commercial health insurance databases in the US. Enrollees 18 years or older were required to have complete enrollment in a given month during our study period, January 1, 2018, to March 31, 2021, to be included for that month. Main Outcomes and Measures: Prescription of a benzodiazepine, Z-hypnotic, or SSRI or SNRI. For each month, the percentage of patients with benzodiazepine, Z-hypnotic, or SSRI or SNRI prescriptions by sex was calculated. Results: The records of 17 255 033 adults (mean [SD] age, 51.7 [19.5] years; 51.3% female) were examined in 2018, 17 340 731 adults (mean [SD] age, 52.5 [19.7] years; 51.6% female) in 2019, 16 916 910 adults (mean [SD] age, 53.7 [19.8] years; 51.9% female) in 2020, and 15 135 998 adults (mean [SD] age, 56.2 [19.8] years; 52.5% female) in 2021. Compared with men, women had a higher rate of prescriptions for all 3 drugs classes and had larger changes in prescription rates over time. Benzodiazepine prescribing decreased from January 2018 (women: 5.61%; 95% CI, 5.60%-5.63%; men: 3.03%; 95% CI, 3.02%-3.04%) to March 2021 (women: 4.91%; 95% CI, 4.90%-4.93%; men: 2.66%; 95% CI, 2.65%-2.67%), except for a slight increase in April 2020 among women. Z-hypnotic prescribing increased from January 2020 for women (1.39%; 95% CI, 1.38%-1.40%) and February 2020 for men (0.97%; 95% CI, 0.96%-0.98%) to October 2020 (women: 1.46%; 95% CI, 1.46%-1.47%; men: 1.00%; 95% CI, 0.99%-1.01%). Prescribing of SSRIs and SNRIs increased from January 2018 (women: 12.77%; 95% CI; 12.75%-12.80%; men: 5.56%; 95% CI, 5.44%-5.58%) to April 2020 for men (6.73%; 95% CI, 6.71%-6.75%) and October 2020 for women (15.18%; 95% CI, 15.16%-15.21%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic onset was an increase in Z-hypnotic as well as SSRI and SNRI prescriptions in both men and women along with an increase in benzodiazepine prescriptions in women, findings that suggest a substantial mental health impact of COVID-19-associated mitigation measures.


Subject(s)
Benzodiazepines/therapeutic use , COVID-19/psychology , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Serotonin Uptake Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Serotonin and Noradrenaline Reuptake Inhibitors/therapeutic use , Adult , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , Databases, Factual , Female , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Sex Distribution
8.
J Epidemiol Community Health ; 76(4): 335-340, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1463027

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on the population's mental health. However, its impact on the consumption of anxiolytics, sedatives, hypnotics and antidepressants remains to be evaluated. Hence, this article aims to assess the prescription trends of these drugs in Portugal, from January 2018 to March 2021, while critically examining whether the COVID-19 pandemic had an impact on these prescription trends or not. METHODS: A nationwide interrupted time-series analysis of the prescription data of anxiolytics, sedatives, hypnotics and antidepressants in outpatient setting of the public health sector was conducted. The data encompassed the defined daily dose per month, age range and sex and were analysed following a segmented regression approach. RESULTS: The pandemic preceded an immediate reduction in the prescription of anxiolytics, sedatives and hypnotics for children and adolescents. However, an increasing trend throughout the pandemic has been noted in the prescription of these drugs, especially among adults aged 65 years or above. A drop in antidepressant prescription was observed as an immediate effect of the pandemic among male and female adolescents and elderly women. From March 2020 to March 2021, a decreasing prescription trend has been noted among men. CONCLUSIONS: When analysing specific genders and age ranges, differences can be noted, in terms of both immediate impact and prescribing trends throughout 1 year of the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact of the pandemic on mental health and its association with the consumption trends of psychoactive drugs, and with the access to mental health treatments, should be further assessed.


Subject(s)
Anti-Anxiety Agents , COVID-19 , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Anti-Anxiety Agents/therapeutic use , Antidepressive Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/drug therapy , COVID-19/epidemiology , Child , Drug Prescriptions , Female , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Male , Outpatients , Pandemics , Portugal/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2
9.
Crit Care Med ; 49(10): 1684-1693, 2021 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1452742

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Hypnotics and Sedatives/pharmacokinetics , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Congresses as Topic , Consensus , Delphi Technique , District of Columbia , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/pharmacology , Respiration, Artificial/instrumentation , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Time Factors
10.
Am J Health Syst Pharm ; 79(Suppl 1): S21-S26, 2022 02 18.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1447573

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To evaluate potential differences in days on mechanical ventilation for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) based on route of administration of analgesic and sedative medications: intravenous (IV) alone vs IV + enteral (EN). SUMMARY: This institutional review board-approved study evaluated ventilation time and fentanyl or midazolam requirements with or without concurrent EN hydromorphone and lorazepam. Patients were included in the study if they were 18 to 89 years old and were admitted to the intensive care unit with a positive severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 reverse transcription and polymerase chain reaction or antigen test and respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 72 hours. In total, 100 patients were evaluated, 60 in the IV-only group and 40 in the IV + EN group. There was not a significant difference in ventilation time between the groups (mean [SD], 19.6 [12.8] days for IV + EN vs 15.6 [11.2] days for IV only; P = 0.104). However, fentanyl (2,064 [847] µg vs 2,443 [779] µg; P < 0.001) and midazolam (137 [72] mg vs 158 [70] mg; P = 0.004) requirements on day 3 were significantly higher in the IV-only group, and the increase in fentanyl requirements from day 1 to day 3 was greater in the IV-only group than in the IV + EN group (378 [625] µg vs 34 [971] µg; P = 0.033). CONCLUSION: Addition of EN analgesic and sedative medications to those administered by the IV route did not change the duration of mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19, but the combination may reduce IV opioid requirements, decreasing the impact of IV medication shortages.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Analgesics , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives , Intensive Care Units , Middle Aged , Respiration, Artificial , SARS-CoV-2 , Young Adult
11.
Int J Obstet Anesth ; 48: 103212, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1401518

ABSTRACT

COVID-19 in pregnancy increases the risk of caesarean section. We present two cases of late gestation pregnant women with severe COVID-19. Both were successfully treated with mechanical ventilation without termination of pregnancy and, following recovery from COVID-19, had vaginal deliveries at term. These two cases demonstrate the possibility of treating pregnant women with severe COVID-19 with mechanical ventilation in the late second and early third trimesters without them having a pre-term delivery. With a multidisciplinary approach, such management could avoid the maternal risks of surgery during a severe infection and, at the same time, enable term birth with a lower risk of neonatal complications.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Live Birth , Positive-Pressure Respiration/methods , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/therapy , Adult , Analgesics/therapeutic use , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , COVID-19/physiopathology , Female , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Neuromuscular Nondepolarizing Agents/therapeutic use , Pregnancy , Pregnancy Complications, Infectious/physiopathology , Pregnancy Outcome , SARS-CoV-2 , Treatment Outcome , Young Adult
16.
Medicina (Kaunas) ; 57(9)2021 Aug 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1374457

ABSTRACT

Background and Objectives: Descriptions of end-of-life in COVID-19 are limited to small cross-sectional studies. We aimed to assess end-of-life care in inpatients with COVID-19 at Alicante General University Hospital (ALC) and compare differences according to palliative and non-palliative sedation. Material and Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study in inpatients included in the ALC COVID-19 Registry (PCR-RT or antigen-confirmed cases) who died during conventional admission from 1 March to 15 December 2020. We evaluated differences among deceased cases according to administration of palliative sedation. Results: Of 747 patients evaluated, 101 died (13.5%). Sixty-eight (67.3%) died in acute medical wards, and 30 (44.1%) received palliative sedation. The median age of patients with palliative sedation was 85 years; 44% were women, and 30% of cases were nosocomial. Patients with nosocomial acquisition received more palliative sedation than those infected in the community (81.8% [9/11] vs 36.8% [21/57], p = 0.006), and patients admitted with an altered mental state received it less (20% [6/23] vs. 53.3% [24/45], p = 0.032). The median time from admission to starting palliative sedation was 8.5 days (interquartile range [IQR] 3.0-14.5). The main symptoms leading to palliative sedation were dyspnea at rest (90%), pain (60%), and delirium/agitation (36.7%). The median time from palliative sedation to death was 21.8 h (IQR 10.4-41.1). Morphine was used in all palliative sedation perfusions: the main regimen was morphine + hyoscine butyl bromide + midazolam (43.3%). Conclusions: End-of-life palliative sedation in patients with COVID-19 was initiated quite late. Clinicians should anticipate the need for palliative sedation in these patients and recognize the breathlessness, pain, and agitation/delirium that foreshadow death.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Terminal Care , Aged, 80 and over , Cross-Sectional Studies , Female , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
17.
J ECT ; 37(1): 71-73, 2021 03 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1352357

ABSTRACT

ABSTRACT: We describe the case of a patient, hospitalized in a California community medical ICU for over a month, with severe neuroleptic malignant syndrome (NMS), unresponsive to medical management, but responsive to electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). We discuss the medical, logistical, and legal challenges in providing ECT in this setting. We also describe a previously unpublished use of dexmedetomidine, which aided in the safe and rapid reduction of benzodiazepines and permitted a successful ECT course. The rapid delivery and efficacy of ECT were essential because of the burgeoning coronavirus pandemic. The patient's treatment required exemplary efforts by providers across multiple disciplines, ongoing medicolegal consultation with the county mental health medical director, as well as consultation with expert members of the International Society for ECT and Neurostimulation. We conclude with a discussion of the unique challenges of providing emergency ECT to patients in California, including during a serious pandemic, when courts are closed. This case illustrates the importance of cultivating and maintaining high-quality ECT expertise in community hospitals and keeping ECT services available even during pandemics. Also, this case demonstrates that ECT is not "merely an elective procedure" but a vital, life-saving treatment, even during the era of COVID-19. To our knowledge, this is the first such published case of emergency ECT performed in California.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Dexmedetomidine/therapeutic use , Electroconvulsive Therapy , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome/therapy , California/epidemiology , Combined Modality Therapy , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
18.
Acta Anaesthesiol Scand ; 65(10): 1447-1456, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1348115

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Dexmedetomidine has been suggested to be a promising sedative for patients with Covid-19 infection (CV19). However, use of dexmedetomidine is limited by its heart rate (HR) and arterial blood pressure lowering effects. Moreover, CV19 is associated with cardiac manifestations including bradyarrythmias. The hemodynamic effects of dexmedetomidine have not been previously studied in CV19 patients. We evaluated the effects of dexmedetomidine on hemodynamic and respiratory parameters of CV19 patients. METHODS: In this single center study, all CV19 patients receiving dexmedetomidine for sedation during a one year period were included. Our primary outcomes included changes in HR, mean arterial pressure (MAP), respiratory rate (RR), partial oxygen pressure of arterial blood/fraction of inspired oxygen-ratio (PF-ratio), and Richmond Agitation and Sedation Score (RASS) during dexmedetomidine administration. RESULTS: We identified 39 patients with a mean (SD) age of 58.3 (12.7) years. After initiation of dexmedetomidine, HR decreased by 16.9 (3.3) beats/min (95% CI 9.5-22.4; p < 0.001). During the 12-hour follow-up period, HR decrease was significant at 2 to 12 h. Incident bradycardia (<45/min) was reported in 12 (30.8%) patients and it was associated with lower plasma C-reactive protein, Pro-calcitonin, and troponin T levels. There was no change in MAP compared to baseline. Dexmedetomidine administration was associated with improvement of PF-ratio (p < 0.001) and with decrease of RASS (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine is an effective sedative for CV19 patients and may improve their oxygenation. However, dexmedetomidine administration is associated with marked decline in HR and with a high incidence of bradycardia in patients with CV19.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Dexmedetomidine , Critical Illness , Dexmedetomidine/pharmacology , Hemodynamics , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/pharmacology , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
19.
ASAIO J ; 67(8): 856-861, 2021 08 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1337296

ABSTRACT

Hemoadsorption with CytoSorb has been used as an adjunct in the treatment of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related respiratory failure. It remains unknown if CytoSorb hemoadsorption will alter sedative and analgesic dosing in critically ill patients on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO). We conducted a retrospective review of patients with severe COVID-19 requiring VV-ECMO for respiratory support. Patients who were enrolled in a clinical study of CytoSorb were compared with patients on VV-ECMO alone. Data were collected for the 72-hour CytoSorb therapy and an additional 72 hours post-CytoSorb, or a corresponding control time period. Sedative and analgesic doses were totaled for each day and converted to midazolam or fentanyl equivalents, respectively. The primary endpoint, change in sedative and analgesic requirements over time, were compared using a two-way mixed analysis of variance. Of the 30 patients cannulated for VV-ECMO for COVID-19, 4 were excluded, leaving 8 patients in the CytoSorb arm and 18 in the Control. There was no effect of CytoSorb therapy on midazolam equivalents over the 72-hour therapy (p = 0.71) or the 72 hours post-CytoSorb (p = 0.11). In contrast, there was a significant effect of CytoSorb therapy on fentanyl equivalents over the first 72 hours (p = 0.01), but this was not consistent over the 72-hours post-CytoSorb (p = 0.23). CytoSorb therapy led to significant increases in analgesic requirements without impacting sedative requirements. Further research is needed to define the relevance of CytoSorb hemoadsorption on critical care pharmacotherapy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/adverse effects , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives , Retrospective Studies , SARS-CoV-2
20.
Pediatr Blood Cancer ; 68(11): e29272, 2021 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1333028

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Sedation for lumbar punctures (LPs) in pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) patients has been the standard for decades to reduce pain and anxiety. Recent studies on the potential long-term neurocognitive effects of cumulative propofol exposure have raised concerns about this practice. The recent pandemic introduced additional burdens to patients, with the requirement of a negative COVID-19 test prior to each sedated procedure. PROCEDURE: These factors prompted a quality improvement intervention at our institution where we aimed to reduce postinduction sedated LPs by 50%. Our intervention included patient and family education, followed by a simulation of the procedure for selected patients. Those converted to unsedated LPs were queried for their preference. Comparative cost, clinical time, and LP success rates were collected for sedated and unsedated LPs. RESULTS: Following the intervention, the percentage of LPs performed with sedation dropped from 100% to 48%. All LPs were successful using both techniques. Most patients who experienced the unsedated LP technique, and their guardians, strongly preferred this approach. Unsedated LPs significantly reduced clinical time (169 vs. 83 minutes) for families, decreased expenditures ($5736 reduction per procedure), and improved institutional opportunity cost due to a decrease in last-minute cancelations. CONCLUSION: We have shown that it is feasible to significantly reduce the use of sedation for LPs in patients with ALL, which has the potential to improve health and patient experience at a lower cost.


Subject(s)
Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Pain Management , Precursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-Lymphoma/diagnosis , Spinal Puncture , Adolescent , Adult , COVID-19/diagnosis , Child , Female , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/adverse effects , Male , Pain Management/adverse effects , Pain Management/methods , Propofol/adverse effects , Propofol/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Spinal Puncture/methods , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL