Mehta Sangeeta, Burry Lisa, Martinez-Motta J Carlos, Stewart Thomas E, Hallett David, McDonald Ellen, Clarke France, Macdonald Rod, Granton John, Matte Andrea, Wong Cindy, Suri Amit, Cook Deborah J
Inter Departmental Division of Critical Care Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital, University Health Network, and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Crit Care Med. 2008 Jul;36(7):2092-9. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31817bff85.
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.
Prospective randomized, concealed, unblinded, multicenter, pilot trial.
Three university-affiliated medical-surgical ICUs.
Sixty-five adults anticipated to require MV >48 hrs and receiving sedative/analgesic infusions.
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.
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).
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.
已证实,对重症患者采用程序化镇静(PS)和每日镇静中断(DI)均能缩短机械通气(MV)时间和重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间。我们的目的是确定一项随机试验的安全性和可行性,以判定接受PS + DI治疗的成年患者的MV时间是否短于仅接受PS治疗的患者。
前瞻性随机、隐蔽、非盲、多中心试点试验。
三家大学附属医院的外科重症监护病房。
65名预计需要MV超过48小时且正在接受镇静/镇痛输注的成年患者。
患者被随机分为仅接受PS组或PS + DI组。PS由床边护士实施;调整镇静剂/镇痛药剂量以使镇静躁动评分(SAS)达到3 - 4分。PS + DI组还每天中断输注直至患者苏醒。
PS组和PS + DI组的诊断、年龄[均值±标准差](分别为53±18.3岁和62.1±16.7岁)以及急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统II(分别为27.7±8.4和26.6±8.4)相似。PS组和PS + DI组的MV中位持续时间分别为8.0天和10.5天,ICU住院时间分别为10.0天和13.0天。在9611次测量中,59%的测量结果显示SAS在目标范围内(3 - 4),86%的测量结果显示在可接受范围内(2 - 5)。队列中的大多数患者自我评估的护士和呼吸治疗师工作量较低。两组的不良事件相似。患者招募速度比预期慢(每月1.5名患者)。
这项比较PS与PS + DI的试点试验证实了镇静方案和DI的安全性及可接受性,并指导了对该方案的重要修改,从而提高了未来多中心试验的可行性。本试验并非旨在检测临床重要结局方面微小但显著的差异。