Strategies for the Prevention and Treatment of Iatrogenic Withdrawal from Opioids and Benzodiazepines in Critically Ill Neonates, Children and Adults: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients are at high risk of iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome (IWS), due to exposure to high doses or prolonged periods of opioids and benzodiazepines. PURPOSE: To examine pharmacological management strategies designed to prevent and/or treat IWS from opioids and/or benzodiazepines in critically ill neonates, children and adults. METHODS: We included non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSI) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs), reporting on interventions to prevent or manage IWS in critically ill neonatal, paediatric and adult patients. Database searching included: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane databases, TRIP, CMA Infobase and NICE evidence. Additional grey literature was examined. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Data collected included: population, definition of opioid, benzodiazepine or mixed IWS, its assessment and management (drug or strategy, route of administration, dosage and titration), previous drug exposures and outcomes measures. Methodological quality assessment was performed by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs and the ROBINS-I tool for NRSI. A qualitative synthesis of the results is provided. For the subset of studies evaluating multifaceted protocolised care, we meta-analysed results for 4 outcomes and examined the quality of evidence using GRADE post hoc. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were eligible, including 10 NRSI and 3 RCTs; 11 of these included neonatal and paediatric patients exclusively. Eight studies evaluated multifaceted protocolised interventions, while 5 evaluated individual components of IWS management (e.g. clonidine or methadone at varying dosages, routes of administration and duration of tapering). IWS was measured using an appropriate tool in 6 studies. Ten studies reported upon occurrence of IWS, showing significant reductions (n = 4) or no differences (n = 6). Interventions failed to impact duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, and adverse effects. Impact on opioid and/or benzodiazepine total doses and duration showed no differences in 4 studies, while 3 showed opioid and benzodiazepine cumulative doses were significantly reduced by 20-35% and 32-66%, and treatment durations by 1.5-11 and 19 days, respectively. Variable effects on intervention drug exposures were found. Weaning durations were reduced by 6-12 days (n = 4) for opioids and/or methadone and by 13 days (n = 1) for benzodiazepines. In contrast, two studies using interventions centred on transition to enteral routes or longer tapering durations found significant increases in intervention drug exposures. Interventions had overall non-significant effects on additional drug requirements (except for one study). Included studies were at high risk of bias, relating to selection, detection and reporting bias. CONCLUSION: Interventions for IWS management fail to impact duration of mechanical ventilation or ICU length of stay, while effect on occurrence of IWS and drug exposures is inconsistent. Heterogeneity in the interventions used and methodological issues, including inappropriate and/or subjective identification of IWS and bias due to study design, limited the conclusions.

Do computerized clinical decision support systems improve the prescribing of oral anticoagulants? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Serious adverse drug reactions have been associated with the underuse or the misuse of oral anticoagulant therapy. We systematically reviewed the impact of computerized clinical decision support systems (CDSS) on the prescribing of oral anticoagulants and we described CDSS features associated with success or failure. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, CENTRAL, CINHAL, and PsycINFO for studies that compared CDSS for the initiation or monitoring of oral anticoagulants with routine care. Two reviewers performed study selection, data collection, and risk-of-bias assessment. Disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. Potentially important CDSS features, identified from previous literature, were evaluated. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were included in our qualitative synthesis. Most trials were performed in primary care (n = 7) or hospitals (n = 6) and included atrial fibrillation (AF) patients (n = 9). Recommendations mainly focused on anticoagulation underuse (n = 11) and warfarin-drug interactions (n = 5). Most CDSS were integrated in electronic records or prescribing and provided support automatically at the time and location of decision-making. Significant improvements in practitioner performance were found in 9 out of 16 studies, while clinical outcomes were poorly reported. CDSS features seemed slightly more common in studies that demonstrated improvement. CONCLUSIONS: CDSS might positively impact the use of oral anticoagulants in AF patients at high risk of stroke. The scope of CDSS should now evolve to assist prescribers in selecting the most appropriate and tailored medication. Efforts should nevertheless be made to improve the relevance of notifications and to address implementation outcomes.

Current practices and barriers impairing physicians' and nurses' adherence to analgo-sedation recommendations in the intensive care unit--a national survey.

INTRODUCTION: Appropriate management of analgo-sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU) is associated with improved patient outcomes. Our objectives were: a) to describe utilization of analgo-sedation regimens and strategies (assessment using scales, protocolized analgo-sedation and daily sedation interruption (DSI)) and b) to describe and compare perceptions challenging utilization of these strategies, amongst physicians and nurses. METHODS: In the 101 adult ICUs in Belgium, we surveyed all physicians and a sample of seven nurses per ICU. A multidisciplinary team designed a survey tool based on a previous qualitative study and a literature review. The latter was available in paper (for nurses essentially) and web based (for physicians). Topics addressed included: practices, perceptions regarding recommended strategies and demographics. Pre-testing involved respondents' debriefings and test re-test reliability. Four reminders were sent. RESULTS: Response rate was 60% (898/1,491 participants) representing 94% (95/101) of all hospitals. Protocols were available to 31% of respondents. Validated scales to monitor pain in patients unable to self-report and to monitor sedation were available to 11% and 75% of respondents, respectively. Frequency of use of sedation scales varied (never to hourly). More physicians than nurses agreed with statements reporting benefits of sedation scales, including: increased autonomy for nurses (82% versus 68%, P < 0.001), enhancement of their role (84% versus 66%, P < 0.001), aid in monitoring administration of sedatives (83% versus 68%, P < 0.001), and cost control (54% versus 29%, P < 0.001). DSI was used in less than 25% of patients for 75% of respondents. More nurses than physicians indicated DSI is contra-indicated in hemodynamic instability (66% versus 53%, P < 0.001) and complicated weaning from mechanical ventilation (47% versus 29%, P < 0.001). Conversely, more physicians than nurses indicated contra-indications including: seizures (56% versus 40%, P < 0.001) and refractory intracranial hypertension (90% versus 83%, P < 0.001). More nurses than physicians agreed with statements reporting DSI impairs patient comfort (60% versus 37%, P < 0.001) and increases complications such as self-extubation (82% versus 69%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Current analgo-sedation practices leave room for improvement. Physicians and nurses meet different challenges in using appropriate analgo-sedation strategies. Implementational interventions must be tailored according to profession.

Predictors of physical restraint use in Canadian intensive care units.

INTRODUCTION: Physical restraint (PR) use in the intensive care unit (ICU) has been associated with higher rates of self-extubation and prolonged ICU length of stay. Our objectives were to describe patterns and predictors of PR use. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of a prospective observational study of analgosedation, antipsychotic, neuromuscular blocker, and PR practices in 51 Canadian ICUs. Data were collected prospectively for all mechanically ventilated adults admitted during a two-week period. We tested for patient, treatment, and hospital characteristics that were associated with PR use and number of days of use, using logistic and Poisson regression respectively. RESULTS: PR was used on 374 out of 711 (53%) patients, for a mean number of 4.1 (standard deviation (SD) 4.0) days. Treatment characteristics associated with PR were higher daily benzodiazepine dose (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.11), higher daily opioid dose (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.06), antipsychotic drugs (OR 3.09, 95% CI 1.74 to 5.48), agitation (Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) >4) (OR 3.73, 95% CI 1.50 to 9.29), and sedation administration method (continuous and bolus versus bolus only) (OR 3.09, 95% CI 1.74 to 5.48). Hospital characteristics associated with PR indicated patients were less likely to be restrained in ICUs from university-affiliated hospitals (OR 0.32, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.61). Mainly treatment characteristics were associated with more days of PR, including: higher daily benzodiazepine dose (incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.07, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.13), daily sedation interruption (IRR 3.44, 95% CI 1.48 to 8.10), antipsychotic drugs (IRR 15.67, 95% CI 6.62 to 37.12), SAS <3 (IRR 2.62, 95% CI 1.08 to 6.35), and any adverse event including accidental device removal (IRR 8.27, 95% CI 2.07 to 33.08). Patient characteristics (age, gender, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, admission category, prior substance abuse, prior psychotropic medication, pre-existing psychiatric condition or dementia) were not associated with PR use or number of days used. CONCLUSIONS: PR was used in half of the patients in these 51 ICUs. Treatment characteristics predominantly predicted PR use, as opposed to patient or hospital/ICU characteristics. Use of sedative, analgesic, and antipsychotic drugs, agitation, heavy sedation, and occurrence of an adverse event predicted PR use or number of days used.

What stops us from following sedation recommendations in intensive care units? A multicentric qualitative study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to explore health care professionals' (HCPs) perceptions regarding sedation recommendations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a qualitative study, using face-to-face semistructured interviews. Health care professionals from 4 Belgian hospitals were purposively sampled. We focused on recommendations involving strategies such as protocolized sedation, sedation scales, daily sedation interruption (DSI), and providing analgesia before sedation. Knowledge, perceived barriers, expected outcomes, and responsibilities were discussed for each recommendation. Two researchers independently performed content analysis, classifying quotes according to an interdisciplinary framework and creating new categories for emerging themes. RESULTS: Data saturation was reached after 21 HCPs (physicians, nurses, and physiotherapists) were interviewed. Quotes were related to HCPs, guidelines or the system. Barriers were diverse according to the type of HCP or level of experience. Task characteristics impairing implementation of protocolized sedation included lack of means communicating goals or tasks to all HCPs providing care, ambiguous responsibilities, and unclear methodology on how to execute the recommendation. Fear of adverse events and lack of clarity regarding contraindications impair implementation of DSI. CONCLUSION: Barriers impairing implementation of sedation recommendations vary according to the type of HCP and the choice of strategy targeting light sedation (protocolized sedation vs DSI). Improvement strategies must target HCPs separately and tailored to specific recommendation choices.