Lisa Burry

Canadian survey of the use of sedatives, analgesics, and neuromuscular blocking agents in critically ill patients.

Objectives:To characterize the perceived utilization of sedative, analgesic, and neuromuscular blocking agents, the use of sedation scales, algorithms, and daily sedative interruption in mechanically ventilated adults, and to define clinical factors that influence these practices. Design:Cross-sectional mail survey. Participants:Canadian critical care practitioners. Measurements and Main Results:A total of 273 of 448 eligible physicians (60%) responded. Respondents were well distributed with regard to age, years of practice, specialist certification, size of intensive care unit and hospital, and location of practice. Twenty-nine percent responded that a protocol/care pathway/guideline for the use of sedatives or analgesics is currently in use in their intensive care unit. Daily interruption of continuous infusions of sedatives or analgesics is practiced by 40% of intensivists. A sedation scoring system is used by 49% of respondents. Of these, 67% use the Ramsay scale, 10% use the Sedation-Agitation Scale, 9% use the Glasgow Coma Scale, and 8% use the Motor Activity Assessment Scale. Only 3.7% of intensivists use a delirium scoring system in their intensive care units. Only 22% of respondents currently have a protocol for the use of neuromuscular blocking agents in their intensive care unit, and 84% of respondents use peripheral nerve stimulation for monitoring. In patients receiving neuromuscular blocking agents for >24 hrs, 63.7% of respondents discontinue the neuromuscular blocking agent daily. Intensivists working in university-affiliated hospitals are more likely to employ a sedation protocol and scale (p < .0001), as are intensivists working in larger intensive care units (≥15 beds, p < .01). Intensivists with anesthesiology training (and no formal critical care training) are more likely to use a protocol and sedation scale, and critical care–trained intensivists are more likely to use daily interruption. Younger physicians (<40 yrs) are more likely to practice daily interruption (p = .0092). Conclusions:There is significant variation in critical care sedation, analgesia, and neuromuscular blockade practice. Given the potential effect of practices regarding these medications on patient outcome, future research and educational efforts related to evidence-based protocols for the use of these agents in mechanically ventilated patients might be worthwhile.

A randomized trial of daily awakening in critically ill patients managed with a sedation protocol: a pilot trial.

Objective:Protocolized sedation (PS) and daily sedative interruption (DI) in critically ill patients have both been shown to shorten the durations of mechanical ventilation (MV) and intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Our objective was to determine the safety and feasibility of a randomized trial to determine whether adults managed with both PS + DI have a shorter duration of MV than patients managed with PS alone. Design:Prospective randomized, concealed, unblinded, multicenter, pilot trial. Setting:Three university-affiliated medical-surgical ICUs. Patients:Sixty-five adults anticipated to require MV >48 hrs and receiving sedative/analgesic infusions. Interventions:Patients were randomized to PS alone, or PS + DI. PS was implemented by bedside nurses; sedatives/analgesics were titrated to achieve Sedation Agitation Score (SAS) 3–4. The PS + DI group also had infusions interrupted daily until the patients awoke. Measurements and Main Results:Diagnosis, age [mean ± sd] (53 ± 18.3 vs. 62.1 ± 16.7 yrs) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (27.7 ± 8.4 vs. 26.6 ± 8.4) were similar in the PS and PS + DI groups, respectively. The median duration of MV in the PS and PS + DI groups was 8.0 vs. 10.5 days, and ICU stay was 10.0 vs. 13.0 days, respectively. The SAS was within target range (3–4) in 59% of 9,611 measurements, and within an acceptable range (2–5) in 86% of measurements. Self-assessed nursing and respiratory therapist workload was low in the majority of the cohort. Adverse events were similar in both groups. Patient recruitment was slower than projected (1.5 patients/mo). Conclusion:This pilot trial comparing PS vs. PS + DI confirmed the safety and acceptability of the sedation protocol and DI, and guided important modifications to the protocol, thus enhancing the feasibility of a future multicenter trial. This trial was not designed to detect small but significant differences in clinically important outcomes.

Prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes of delirium in mechanically ventilated adults.

Objective:Delirium is common during critical illness and associated with adverse outcomes. We compared characteristics and outcomes of delirious and nondelirious patients enrolled in a multicenter trial comparing protocolized sedation with protocolized sedation plus daily sedation interruption. Design:Randomized trial. Setting:Sixteen North American medical and surgical ICUs. Patients:Four hundred thirty critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults. Interventions:All patients had hourly titration of opioid and benzodiazepine infusions using a validated sedation scale. For patients in the interruption group, infusions were resumed, if indicated, at half of previous doses. Delirium screening occurred daily; positive screening was defined as an Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist score of 4 or more at any time. Measurements and Main Results:Delirium was diagnosed in 226 of 420 assessed patients (53.8%). Coma was identified in 32.7% of delirious compared with 22.7% of nondelirious patients (p = 0.03). The median time to onset of delirium was 3.5 days (interquartile range, 2–7), and the median duration of delirium was 2 days (interquartile range, 1–4). Delirious patients were more likely to be male (61.1% vs 46.6%; p = 0.005), have a surgical/trauma diagnosis (21.2% vs 11.0%; p = 0.030), and history of tobacco (31.5% vs 16.2%; p = 0.002) or alcohol use (34.6% vs 20.9%; p = 0.009). Patients with positive delirium screening had longer duration of ventilation (13 vs 7 d; p < 0.001), ICU stay (12 vs 8 d; p < 0.0001), and hospital stay (24 vs 15 d; p < 0.0001). Delirious patients were more likely to be physically restrained (86.3% vs 76.7%; p = 0.014) and undergo tracheostomy (34.6% vs 15.5%; p < 0.0001). Antecedent factors independently associated with delirium onset were restraint use (hazard ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.33–2.63; p = 0.0003), antipsychotic administration (hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.005–2.767; p = 0.047), and midazolam dose (hazard ratio, 0.998; 95% CI, 0.997–1.0; p = 0.049). There was no difference in delirium prevalence or duration between the interruption and control groups. Conclusion:In mechanically ventilated adults, delirium was common and associated with longer duration of ventilation and hospitalization. Physical restraint was most strongly associated with delirium.

Impact of Infectious Disease Consultation on Quality of Care, Mortality, and Length of Stay in Staphylococcus aureus Bacteremia: Results From a Large Multicenter Cohort Study

BACKGROUND We assessed the impact of infectious disease (ID) consultation on management and outcome in patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB). METHODS A retrospective cohort study examined consecutive SAB patients from 6 academic and community hospitals between 2007 and 2010. Quality measures of management including echocardiography, repeat blood culture, removal of infectious foci, and antibiotic therapy were compared between ID consultation (IDC) and no ID consultation (NIDC) groups. A competing risk model with propensity score adjustment was used to compare in-hospital mortality and time to discharge. RESULTS Of 847 SAB patients, 506 (60%) patients received an ID consultation and 341 (40%) patients did not. Echocardiography was done for 371 (73%) IDC and 191 (56%) NIDC patients (P < .0001) in hospital. Blood cultures were repeated within 2-4 days of bacteremia in 207 (41%) IDC and 107 (31%) NIDC patients (P = .0058). The infectious foci removal rate was not statistically different between the 2 groups. For empiric therapy, 474 (94%) IDC and 297 (87%) NIDC patients received appropriate antibiotics (P = .0013). For patients who finished the planned course of antibiotics, 285 of 422 (68%) IDC and 141 of 262 (54%) NIDC patients received the appropriate duration of antibiotic therapy (P = .0004). In hospital, 204 (24%) patients died: 104 of 506 (21%) IDC and 100 of 341 (29%) NIDC patients. Matched by propensity score, ID consultation had a subdistribution hazard ratio of 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI], .52-.99; P = .0451) for in-hospital mortality and 1.28 (95% CI, 1.06-1.56; P = .0109) for being discharged alive. CONCLUSIONS ID consultation is associated with better adherence to quality measures, reduced in-hospital mortality, and earlier discharge in patients with SAB.

Thrombocytopenia in Critically Ill Patients Receiving Thromboprophylaxis: Frequency, Risk Factors, and Outcomes

BACKGROUND Thrombocytopenia is the most common hemostatic disorder in critically ill patients. The objective of this study was to describe the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of thrombocytopenia in patients admitted to medical-surgical ICUs. METHODS Three thousand seven hundred forty-six patients in 67 centers were enrolled in a randomized trial in which unfractionated heparin was compared with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) for thromboprophylaxis. Patients who had baseline platelet counts < 75 × 10(9)/L or severe coagulopathy at screening were excluded. We analyzed the risk of developing mild (100-149 × 10(9)/L), moderate (50-99 × 10(9)/L), and severe (< 50 × 109/L) thrombocytopenia during an ICU stay. We also assessed independent and time-varying predictors of thrombocytopenia and the effect of thrombocytopenia on major bleeding, transfusions, and death. RESULTS The incidences of mild, moderate, and severe thrombocytopenia were 15.3%, 5.1%, and 1.6%, respectively. The predictors of each category of thrombocytopenia were APACHE (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) II score, use of inotropes or vasopressors, and renal replacement therapy. The risk of moderate thrombocytopenia was lower in patients who received LMWH thromboprophylaxis but higher in surgical patients and in patients who had liver disease. Each category of thrombocytopenia was associated with subsequent bleeding and transfusions. Moderate and severe thrombocytopenia were associated with increased ICU and hospital mortality. CONCLUSION A high severity of illness, prior surgery, use of inotropes or vasopressors, renal replacement therapy, and liver dysfunction are associated with a higher risk of thrombocytopenia developing in the ICU, whereas LMWH thromboprophylaxis is associated with a lower risk. Patients who develop thrombocytopenia in the ICU are more likely to bleed, receive transfusions, and die.

Critical Care Nurses’ Pain Assessment and Management Practices: A Survey in Canada

BACKGROUND Regular pain assessment can lead to decreased incidence of pain and shorter durations of mechanical ventilation and stays in the intensive care unit. OBJECTIVES To document knowledge and perceptions of pain assessment and management practices among Canadian intensive care unit nurses. METHODS A self-administered questionnaire was mailed to 3753 intensive care unit nurses identified through the 12 Canadian provincial/territorial nursing associations responsible for professional regulation. RESULTS A total of 842 nurses (24%) responded, and 802 surveys could be evaluated. Nurses were significantly less likely (P < .001) to use a pain assessment tool for patients unable to communicate (267 nurses, 33%) than for patients able to self-report (712 nurses, 89%). Significantly fewer respondents (P < .001) rated behavioral pain assessment tools as moderately to extremely important (595 nurses, 74%) compared with self-report tools (703 nurses, 88%). Routine (>50% of the time) discussion of pain scores during nursing handover was reported by 492 nurses (61%), and targeting of analgesia to a pain score or other assessment parameters by physicians by 333 nurses (42%). Few nurses (n = 235; 29%) were aware of professional society guidelines for pain assessment and management. Routine use of a behavioral pain tool was associated with awareness of published guidelines (odds ratio, 2.5; 95% CI, 1.7-3.7) and clinical availability of the tool (odds ratio, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.6-4.3). CONCLUSIONS A substantial proportion of intensive care unit nurses did not use pain assessment tools for patients unable to communicate and were unaware of pain management guidelines published by professional societies.

Why substitute decision makers provide or decline consent for ICU research studies: a questionnaire study

PurposeConsent for research participation in the intensive care unit (ICU) is often obtained from a substitute decision maker (SDM). In this study we explored SDMs’ reasons for declining or providing consent for research studies for critically ill adult family members.MethodsTwo questionnaires were developed, one directed at SDMs who agreed to have their relative participate in a research study (AGREE group), and another for SDMs who declined participation (DECLINE group). The questionnaires explored SDMs’ opinions about research in general, timing of research approach, the informed consent process, and reasons for agreeing or declining participation.ResultsNinety-six SDMs completed the questionnaire (68 AGREE, 27 DECLINE). There were no differences between AGREE and DECLINE groups with respect to SDM demographics, perceived severity of illness of the patient, or the research study approach. The most common reasons for providing consent were potential for research to help others (91%), research is important for medical progress (88%), and trust in the medical team (87%). The most common reasons for declining consent were SDM was too anxious to consider research (67%), fear that patient would receive experimental treatment (37%), and concern about risks of the study (33%).ConclusionsSDMs who agree to have a relative participate in an ICU research study are motivated by the potential benefit to the patient and altruism. SDMs who decline research participation, while not generally opposed to research, are fearful of study-related harm or discomfort for the patient, and are too anxious to consider a research study at that time.

An antimicrobial stewardship program improves antimicrobial treatment by culture site and the quality of antimicrobial prescribing in critically ill patients

IntroductionIncreasing antimicrobial costs, reduced development of novel antimicrobials, and growing antimicrobial resistance necessitate judicious use of available agents. Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) may improve antimicrobial use in intensive care units (ICUs). Our objective was to determine whether the introduction of an ASP in an ICU altered the decision to treat cultures from sterile sites compared with nonsterile sites (which may represent colonization or contamination). We also sought to determine whether ASP education improved documentation of antimicrobial use, including an explicit statement of antimicrobial regimen, indication, duration, and de-escalation.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients with positive bacterial cultures admitted to a 16-bed medical-surgical ICU over 2-month periods before and after ASP introduction (April through May 2008 and 2009, respectively). We evaluated the antimicrobial treatment of positive sterile- versus nonsterile-site cultures, specified a priori. We reviewed patient charts for clinician documentation of three specific details regarding antimicrobials: an explicit statement of antimicrobial regimen/indication, duration, and de-escalation. We also analyzed cost and defined daily doses (DDDs) (a World Health Organization (WHO) standardized metric of use) before and after ASP.ResultsPatient demographic data between the pre-ASP (n = 139) and post-ASP (n = 130) periods were similar. No difference was found in the percentage of positive cultures from sterile sites between the pre-ASP period and post-ASP period (44.9% versus 40.2%; P = 0.401). A significant increase was noted in the treatment of sterile-site cultures after ASP (64% versus 83%; P = 0.01) and a reduction in the treatment of nonsterile-site cultures (71% versus 46%; P = 0.0002). These differences were statistically significant when treatment decisions were analyzed both at an individual patient level and at an individual culture level. Increased explicit antimicrobial regimen documentation was observed after ASP (26% versus 71%; P < 0.0001). Also observed were increases in formally documented stop dates (53% versus 71%; P < 0.0001), regimen de-escalation (15% versus 23%; P = 0.026), and an overall reduction in cost and mean DDDs after ASP implementation.ConclusionsIntroduction of an ASP in the ICU was associated with improved microbiologically targeted therapy based on sterile or nonsterile cultures and improved documentation of antimicrobial use in the medical record.

Comparative effectiveness of cefazolin versus cloxacillin as definitive antibiotic therapy for MSSA bacteraemia: results from a large multicentre cohort study

OBJECTIVES We compared the effectiveness of cefazolin versus cloxacillin in the treatment of MSSA bacteraemia in terms of mortality and relapse. METHODS A retrospective cohort study examined consecutive patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteraemia from six academic and community hospitals between 2007 and 2010. Patients with MSSA bacteraemia who received cefazolin or cloxacillin as the predominant definitive antibiotic therapy were included in the study. Ninety-day mortality was compared between the two groups matched by propensity scores. RESULTS Of 354 patients included in the study, 105 (30%) received cefazolin and 249 (70%) received cloxacillin as the definitive antibiotic therapy. In 90 days, 96 (27%) patients died: 21/105 (20%) in the cefazolin group and 75/249 (30%) in the cloxacillin group. Within 90 days, 10 patients (3%) had a relapse of S. aureus infection: 6/105 (6%) in the cefazolin group and 4/249 (2%) in the cloxacillin group. All relapses in the cefazolin group were related to a deep-seated infection. Based on the estimated propensity score, 90 patients in the cefazolin group were matched with 90 patients in the cloxacillin group. In the propensity score-matched groups, cefazolin had an HR of 0.58 (95% CI 0.31-1.08, P = 0.0846) for 90 day mortality. CONCLUSIONS There was no significant clinical difference between cefazolin and cloxacillin in the treatment of MSSA bacteraemia with respect to mortality. Cefazolin was associated with non-significantly more relapses compared with cloxacillin, especially in deep-seated S. aureus infections.

Can 1 μg of Cosyntropin Be Used to Evaluate Adrenal Insufficiency in Critically Ill Patients

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the utility of cosyntropin 1 μg in assessing adrenal function in critically ill patients. DATA SOURCES: A computerized literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and the Cochrane Database (1966–August 2004) was undertaken for trials evaluating cosyntropin 1 μg using the following search terms: adrenocorticotropin-releasing hormone (ACTH), cosyntropin, adrenal insufficiency, cortisol, corticosteroids, glucocorticoids, sepsis, septic shock, diagnosis, critically ill, intensive care, and critical care. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS: Identifying patients with sepsis with relative adrenal insufficiency (AI) using cosyntropin testing may identify those likely to benefit from corticosteroids. The results of 5 heterogeneous studies in non—intensive care unit (ICU) patients suggest that both 1 μg and 250 μg of cosyntropin stimulate similar cortisol responses and that testing using both doses correlates well with results from insulin tolerance testing. Some data from non-ICU patients suggest that the 1-μg test may be more sensitive to detect AI; 3 heterogeneous studies in ICU patients confirmed the improved sensitivity of the 1-μg test. CONCLUSIONS: Use of cosyntropin 1 μg should detect AI in all patients who would have been diagnosed using 250 μg. Unfortunately, all of the clinical trials evaluating the role of corticosteroids in septic shock that used the cosyntropin stimulation test administered 250 μg. Extrapolation of the existing guidelines to treat patients with septic shock testing positive for relative AI using the 1-μg test may provide effective therapy to appropriate patients not diagnosed by the 250-μg testing or may introduce additional adverse effects in patients who should not receive corticosteroids. Large-scale, head-to-head comparison data of steroid effectiveness after 1- and 250-μg ACTH stimulation tests are needed to expand upon these promising results.