Brenda T. Pun

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the Intensive Care Unit

Objective:To revise the “Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Sustained Use of Sedatives and Analgesics in the Critically Ill Adult” published in Critical Care Medicine in 2002. Methods:The American College of Critical Care Medicine assembled a 20-person, multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task force with expertise in guideline development, pain, agitation and sedation, delirium management, and associated outcomes in adult critically ill patients. The task force, divided into four subcommittees, collaborated over 6 yr in person, via teleconferences, and via electronic communication. Subcommittees were responsible for developing relevant clinical questions, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org) to review, evaluate, and summarize the literature, and to develop clinical statements (descriptive) and recommendations (actionable). With the help of a professional librarian and Refworks® database software, they developed a Web-based electronic database of over 19,000 references extracted from eight clinical search engines, related to pain and analgesia, agitation and sedation, delirium, and related clinical outcomes in adult ICU patients. The group also used psychometric analyses to evaluate and compare pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium assessment tools. All task force members were allowed to review the literature supporting each statement and recommendation and provided feedback to the subcommittees. Group consensus was achieved for all statements and recommendations using the nominal group technique and the modified Delphi method, with anonymous voting by all task force members using E-Survey (http://www.esurvey.com). All voting was completed in December 2010. Relevant studies published after this date and prior to publication of these guidelines were referenced in the text. The quality of evidence for each statement and recommendation was ranked as high (A), moderate (B), or low/very low (C). The strength of recommendations was ranked as strong (1) or weak (2), and either in favor of (+) or against (–) an intervention. A strong recommendation (either for or against) indicated that the intervention’s desirable effects either clearly outweighed its undesirable effects (risks, burdens, and costs) or it did not. For all strong recommendations, the phrase “We recommend …” is used throughout. A weak recommendation, either for or against an intervention, indicated that the trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects was less clear. For all weak recommendations, the phrase “We suggest …” is used throughout. In the absence of sufficient evidence, or when group consensus could not be achieved, no recommendation (0) was made. Consensus based on expert opinion was not used as a substitute for a lack of evidence. A consistent method for addressing potential conflict of interest was followed if task force members were coauthors of related research. The development of this guideline was independent of any industry funding. Conclusion:These guidelines provide a roadmap for developing integrated, evidence-based, and patient-centered protocols for preventing and treating pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients.

Efficacy and safety of a paired sedation and ventilator weaning protocol for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care (Awakening and Breathing Controlled trial): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Approaches to removal of sedation and mechanical ventilation for critically ill patients vary widely. Our aim was to assess a protocol that paired spontaneous awakening trials (SATs)-ie, daily interruption of sedatives-with spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs). METHODS In four tertiary-care hospitals, we randomly assigned 336 mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care to management with a daily SAT followed by an SBT (intervention group; n=168) or with sedation per usual care plus a daily SBT (control group; n=168). The primary endpoint was time breathing without assistance. Data were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00097630. FINDINGS One patient in the intervention group did not begin their assigned treatment protocol because of withdrawal of consent and thus was excluded from analyses and lost to follow-up. Seven patients in the control group discontinued their assigned protocol, and two of these patients were lost to follow-up. Patients in the intervention group spent more days breathing without assistance during the 28-day study period than did those in the control group (14.7 days vs 11.6 days; mean difference 3.1 days, 95% CI 0.7 to 5.6; p=0.02) and were discharged from intensive care (median time in intensive care 9.1 days vs 12.9 days; p=0.01) and the hospital earlier (median time in the hospital 14.9 days vs 19.2 days; p=0.04). More patients in the intervention group self-extubated than in the control group (16 patients vs six patients; 6.0% difference, 95% CI 0.6% to 11.8%; p=0.03), but the number of patients who required reintubation after self-extubation was similar (five patients vs three patients; 1.2% difference, 95% CI -5.2% to 2.5%; p=0.47), as were total reintubation rates (13.8%vs 12.5%; 1.3% difference, 95% CI -8.6% to 6.1%; p=0.73). At any instant during the year after enrolment, patients in the intervention group were less likely to die than were patients in the control group (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92; p=0.01). For every seven patients treated with the intervention, one life was saved (number needed to treat was 7.4, 95% CI 4.2 to 35.5). INTERPRETATION Our results suggest that a wake up and breathe protocol that pairs daily spontaneous awakening trials (ie, interruption of sedatives) with daily spontaneous breathing trials results in better outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care than current standard approaches and should become routine practice.

Lorazepam Is an Independent Risk Factor for Transitioning to Delirium in Intensive Care Unit Patients

Background:Delirium has recently been shown as a predictor of death, increased cost, and longer duration of stay in ventilated patients. Sedative and analgesic medications relieve anxiety and pain but may contribute to patients’ transitioning into delirium. Methods:In this cohort study, the authors designed a priori an investigation to determine whether sedative and analgesic medications independently increased the probability of daily transition to delirium. Markov regression modeling (adjusting for 11 covariates) was used in the evaluation of 198 mechanically ventilated patients to determine the probability of daily transition to delirium as a function of sedative and analgesic dose administration during the previous 24 h. Results:Lorazepam was an independent risk factor for daily transition to delirium (odds ratio, 1.2 [95% confidence interval, 1.1–1.4]; P = 0.003), whereas fentanyl, morphine, and propofol were associated with higher but not statistically significant odds ratios. Increasing age and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores were also independent predictors of transitioning to delirium (multivariable P values < 0.05). Conclusions:Lorazepam administration is an important and potentially modifiable risk factor for transitioning into delirium even after adjusting for relevant covariates.

Delirium as a predictor of long-term cognitive impairment in survivors of critical illness

Objective:To test the hypothesis that duration of delirium in the intensive care unit is an independent predictor of long-term cognitive impairment after critical illness requiring mechanical ventilation. Design:Prospective cohort study. Setting:Medical intensive care unit in a large community hospital in the United States. Patients:Mechanically ventilated medical intensive care unit patients who were assessed daily for delirium while in the intensive care unit and who underwent comprehensive cognitive assessments 3 and 12 mos after discharge. Measurements and Main Results:Of 126 eligible patients, 99 survived ≥3 months after critical illness; long-term cognitive outcomes were obtained for 77 (78%) patients. Median age was 61 yrs, 51% were admitted with sepsis/acute respiratory distress syndrome, and median duration of delirium was 2 days. At 3-mo and 12-mo follow-up, 79% and 71% of survivors had cognitive impairment, respectively (with 62% and 36% being severely impaired). After adjusting for age, education, preexisting cognitive function, severity of illness, severe sepsis, and exposure to sedative medications in the intensive care unit, increasing duration of delirium was an independent predictor of worse cognitive performance—determined by averaging age-adjusted and education-adjusted T-scores from nine tests measuring seven domains of cognition—at 3-mo (p = .02) and 12-mo follow-up (p = .03). Duration of mechanical ventilation, alternatively, was not associated with long-term cognitive impairment (p = .20 and .58). Conclusions:In this study of mechanically ventilated medical intensive care unit patients, duration of delirium (which is potentially modifiable) was independently associated with long-term cognitive impairment, a common public health problem among intensive care unit survivors. (Crit Care Med 2010; 38:1513–1520

Intensive care unit delirium is an independent predictor of longer hospital stay: a prospective analysis of 261 non-ventilated patients

IntroductionDelirium occurs in most ventilated patients and is independently associated with more deaths, longer stay, and higher cost. Guidelines recommend monitoring of delirium in all intensive care unit (ICU) patients, though few data exist in non-ventilated patients. The study objective was to determine the relationship between delirium and outcomes among non-ventilated ICU patients.MethodA prospective cohort investigation of 261 consecutively admitted medical ICU patients not requiring invasive mechanical ventilation during hospitalization at a tertiary-care, university-based hospital between February 2002 and January 2003. ICU nursing staff assessed delirium and level of consciousness at least twice per day using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS). Cox regression with time-varying covariates was used to determine the independent relationship between delirium and clinical outcomes.ResultsOf 261 patients, 125 (48%) experienced at least one episode of delirium. Patients who experienced delirium were older (mean ± SD: 56 ± 18 versus 49 ± 17 years; p = 0.002) and more severely ill as measured by Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scores (median 15, interquartile range (IQR) 10–21 versus 11, IQR 6–16; p < 0.001) compared to their non-delirious counterparts. Patients who experienced delirium had a 29% greater risk of remaining in the ICU on any given day (compared to patients who never developed delirium) even after adjusting for age, gender, race, Charlson co-morbidity score, APACHE II score, and coma (hazard ratio (HR) 1.29; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98–1.69, p = 0.07). Similarly, patients who experienced delirium had a 41% greater risk of remaining in the hospital after adjusting for the same covariates (HR 1.41; 95% CI 1.05–1.89, p = 0.023). Hospital mortality was higher among patients who developed delirium (24/125, 19%) versus patients who never developed delirium (8/135, 6%), p = 0.002; however, time to in-hospital death was not significant the adjusted (HR 1.27; 95% CI 0.55–2.98, p = 0.58).ConclusionDelirium occurred in nearly half of the non-ventilated ICU patients in this cohort. Even after adjustment for relevant covariates, delirium was found to be an independent predictor of longer hospital stay.

Delirium and Its Motoric Subtypes: A Study of 614 Critically Ill Patients

OBJECTIVES: To describe the motoric subtypes of delirium in critically ill patients and compare patients aged 65 and older with a younger cohort.

Prevalence and risk factors for development of delirium in surgical and trauma intensive care unit patients.

BACKGROUND Although known to be an independent predictor of poor outcomes in medical intensive care unit (ICU) patients, limited data exist regarding the prevalence of and risk factors for delirium among surgical (SICU) and trauma ICU (TICU) patients. The purpose of this study was to analyze the prevalence of and risk factors for delirium in surgical and trauma ICU patients. METHODS SICU and TICU patients requiring mechanical ventilation (MV) >24 hours were prospectively evaluated for delirium using the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) and the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU). Those with baseline dementia, intracranial injury, or ischemic/hemorrhagic strokes that would confound the evaluation of delirium were excluded. Markov models were used to analyze predictors for daily transition to delirium. RESULTS One hundred patients (46 SICU and 54 TICU) were enrolled. Prevalence of delirium was 73% in the SICU and 67% in the TICU. Multivariable analyses identified midazolam [OR 2.75 (CI 1.43-5.26, p = 0.002)] exposure as the strongest independent risk factor for transitioning to delirium. Opiate exposure showed an inconsistent message such that fentanyl was a risk factor for delirium in the SICU (p = 0.007) but not in the TICU (p = 0.936), whereas morphine exposure was associated with a lower risk of delirium (SICU, p = 0.069; TICU p = 0.024). CONCLUSION Approximately 7 of 10 SICU and TICU patients experience delirium. In keeping with other recent data on benzodiazepines, exposure to midazolam is an independent and potentially modifiable risk factor for the transitioning to delirium.

Feasibility, efficacy, and safety of antipsychotics for intensive care unit delirium: The MIND randomized, placebo-controlled trial

Objective: To demonstrate the feasibility of a placebo-controlled trial of antipsychotics for delirium in the intensive care unit and to test the hypothesis that antipsychotics would improve days alive without delirium or coma. Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Setting: Six tertiary care medical centers in the US. Patients: One hundred one mechanically ventilated medical and surgical intensive care unit patients. Intervention: Patients were randomly assigned to receive haloperidol or ziprasidone or placebo every 6 hrs for up to 14 days. Twice each day, frequency of study drug administration was adjusted according to delirium status, level of sedation, and side effects. Measurements and Main Outcomes: The primary end point was the number of days patients were alive without delirium or coma. During the 21-day study period, patients in the haloperidol group spent a similar number days alive without delirium or coma (median [interquartile range], 14.0 [6.0–18.0] days) as did patients in the ziprasidone (15.0 [9.1–18.0] days) and placebo groups (12.5 [1.2–17.2] days; p = 0.66). No differences were found in secondary clinical outcomes, including ventilator-free days (p = .25), hospital length of stay (p = .68), and mortality (p = .81). Ten (29%) patients in the haloperidol group reported symptoms consistent with akathisia, compared with six (20%) patients in the ziprasidone group and seven (19%) patients in the placebo group (p = .60), and a global measure of extrapyramidal symptoms was similar between treatment groups (p = .46). Conclusions: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of antipsychotics for delirium in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients is feasible. Treatment with antipsychotics in this limited pilot trial did not improve the number of days alive without delirium or coma, nor did it increase adverse outcomes. Thus, a large trial is needed to determine whether use of antipsychotics for intensive care unit delirium is appropriate. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00096863.

Delirium and sedation in the intensive care unit: survey of behaviors and attitudes of 1384 healthcare professionals.

Objective:A 2001 survey found that most healthcare professionals considered intensive care unit (ICU) delirium as a serious problem, but only 16% used a validated delirium screening tool. Our objective was to assess beliefs and practices regarding ICU delirium and sedation management. Design and Setting:Between October 2006 and May 2007, a survey was distributed to ICU practitioners in 41 North American hospitals, seven international critical care meetings and courses, and the American Thoracic Society e-mail database. Study Participants:A convenience sample of 1384 healthcare professionals including 970 physicians, 322 nurses, 23 respiratory care practitioners, 26 pharmacists, 18 nurse practitioners and physicians’ assistants, and 25 others. Results:A majority [59% (766 of 1300)] estimated that more than one in four adult mechanically ventilated patients experience delirium. More than half [59% (774 of 1302)] screen for delirium, with 33% of those respondents (258 of 774) using a specific screening tool. A majority of respondents use a sedation protocol, but 29% (396 of 1355) still do not. A majority (76%, 990 of 1309) has a written policy on spontaneous awakening trials (SATs), but the minority of respondents (44%, 446 of 1019) practice spontaneous awakening trials on more than half of ICU days. Conclusions:Delirium is considered a serious problem by a majority of healthcare professionals, and the percent of practitioners using a specific screening tool has increased since the last published survey data. Although most respondents have adopted specific sedation protocols and have an approved approach to stopping sedation daily, few report even modest compliance with daily cessation of sedation.

Risk factors for post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms following critical illness requiring mechanical ventilation: a prospective cohort study

IntroductionPost-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been identified in a significant portion of intensive care unit (ICU) survivors. We sought to identify factors associated with PTSD symptoms in patients following critical illness requiring mechanical ventilation.MethodsForty-three patients who were mechanically ventilated in the medical and coronary ICUs of a university-based medical center were prospectively followed during their ICU admission for delirium with the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU. Additionally, demographic data were obtained and severity of illness was measured with the APACHE II (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II) score. Six months after discharge, patients were screened for PTSD symptoms by means of the Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome 10-Questions Inventory (PTSS-10). Multiple linear regression was used to assess the association of potential risk factors with PTSS-10 scores.ResultsAt follow-up, six (14%) patients had high levels of PTSD symptoms. On multivariable analysis, women had higher PTSS-10 scores than men by a margin of 7.36 points (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.62 to 13.11; p = 0.02). Also, high levels of PTSD symptoms were less likely to occur in older patients, with symptoms declining after age 50 (p = 0.04). Finally, although causation cannot be assumed, the total dose of lorazepam received during the ICU stay was associated with PTSD symptoms; for every 10-mg increase in cumulative lorazepam dose, PTSS-10 score increased by 0.39 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.61; p = 0.04). No significant relationship was noted between severity of illness and PTSD symptoms or duration of delirium and PTSD symptoms.ConclusionHigh levels of PTSD symptoms occurred in 14% of patients six months following critical illness necessitating mechanical ventilation, and these symptoms were most likely to occur in female patients and those receiving high doses of lorazepam. High levels of PTSD symptoms were less likely to occur in older patients.