Williams Teresa Ann, Martin Suzanne, Leslie Gavin, Thomas Linda, Leen Timothy, Tamaliunas Sheralee, Lee K Y, Dobb Geoffrey
Intensive Care Unit, Royal Perth Hospital, Perth, Western Australia.
Am J Crit Care. 2008 Jul;17(4):349-56.
Sedation and analgesia scales promote a less-distressing experience in the intensive care unit and minimize complications for patients receiving mechanical ventilation.
To evaluate outcomes before and after introduction of scales for sedation and analgesia in a general intensive care unit.
A before-and-after design was used to evaluate introduction of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and the Behavioral Pain Scale for patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Data were collected for 6 months before and 6 months after training in and introduction of the scales.
A total of 769 patients received mechanical ventilation for at least 6 hours (369 patients before and 400 patients after implementation). Age, scores on the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, and diagnostic groups were similar in the 2 groups, but the after group had more men than did the before group. Duration of mechanical ventilation did not change significantly after the scales were introduced (median, 24 vs 28 hours). For patients who received mechanical ventilation for 96 hours or longer (24%), mechanical ventilation lasted longer after implementation of the scales (P=.03). Length of stay in the intensive care unit was similar in the 2 groups (P= .18), but patients received sedatives for longer after implementation (P=.01). By logistic regression analysis, APACHE II score (P<.001) and diagnostic group (P<.001) were independent predictors of mechanical ventilation lasting 96 hours or longer.
Sedation and analgesia scales did not reduce duration of ventilation in an Australian intensive care unit.
镇静和镇痛评分有助于在重症监护病房提供痛苦较小的体验,并将接受机械通气患者的并发症降至最低。
评估在综合重症监护病房引入镇静和镇痛评分前后的结果。
采用前后对照设计评估里士满躁动-镇静量表和行为疼痛量表在接受机械通气患者中的应用。在培训和引入量表前6个月及引入后6个月收集数据。
共有769例患者接受了至少6小时的机械通气(实施前369例,实施后400例)。两组患者的年龄、急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统(APACHE)Ⅱ评分及诊断分组相似,但实施后组男性多于实施前组。引入量表后机械通气时间无显著变化(中位数,24小时对28小时)。对于接受机械通气96小时或更长时间的患者(24%),实施量表后机械通气时间更长(P = .03)。两组患者在重症监护病房的住院时间相似(P = .18),但实施后患者接受镇静药物的时间更长(P = .01)。通过逻辑回归分析,APACHEⅡ评分(P < .001)和诊断分组(P < .001)是机械通气持续96小时或更长时间的独立预测因素。
在澳大利亚的重症监护病房,镇静和镇痛评分并未缩短通气时间。