Thuong M
Service de réanimation médicale, centre hospitalier de Saint-Denis, 2, rue du Docteur-Delafontaine, 93205 Saint-Denis, France.
Ann Fr Anesth Reanim. 2008 Jul-Aug;27(7-8):581-95. doi: 10.1016/j.annfar.2008.04.011. Epub 2008 Jul 7.
Sedative and analgesic treatment administered to critically ill patients need to be regularly assessed to ensure that predefinite goals are well achieved as the risk of complications of oversedation is minimized. In most of the cases, which are lightly sedation patients, the goal to reach is a calm, cooperative and painless patient, adapted to the ventilator. Recently, eight new bedside scoring systems to monitor sedation have been developed and mainly tested for reliability and validity. The choice of a sedation scale measuring level of consciousness, could be made between the Ramsay sedation scale, the Richmond Agitation Sedation scale (RASS) and the Adaptation to The Intensive Care Environment scale-ATICE. The Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) is a behavioral pain scale. Two of them have been tested with strong evidence of their clinimetric properties: ATICE, RASS. The nurses'preference for a convenient tool could be defined by the level of reliability, the level of clarity, the variety of sedation and agitation states represented user friendliness and speed. In fine, the choice between a simple scale easy to use and a well-defined and complex scale has to be discussed and determined in each unit. Actually, randomized controlled studies are needed to assess the potential superiority of one scale compared with others scales, including evaluation of the reliability and the compliance to the scale. The usefulness of the BIS in ICU for patients lightly sedated is limited, mainly because of EMG artefact, when subjective scales are more appropriated in this situation. On the other hand, subjective scales are insensitive to detect oversedation in patients requiring deep sedation. The contribution of the BIS in deeply sedation patients, patients under neuromuscular blockade or barbiturates has to be proved. Pharmacoeconomics studies are lacking.
需要定期评估给予重症患者的镇静和镇痛治疗,以确保既定目标得以很好实现,同时将过度镇静并发症的风险降至最低。在大多数情况下,即轻度镇静患者,要达到的目标是使患者平静、配合且无痛,能适应呼吸机。最近,已开发出八种新的用于监测镇静的床边评分系统,并主要对其可靠性和有效性进行了测试。在测量意识水平的镇静量表中,可以在 Ramsay 镇静量表、里士满躁动镇静量表(RASS)和重症监护环境适应量表(ATICE)之间进行选择。行为疼痛量表(BPS)是一种行为疼痛量表。其中两种已通过其临床测量特性的有力证据进行了测试:ATICE 和 RASS。护士对便捷工具的偏好可由可靠性水平、清晰度水平、所代表的镇静和躁动状态的多样性、用户友好性和速度来确定。总之,每个科室都必须讨论并确定在易于使用的简单量表和定义明确的复杂量表之间如何选择。实际上,需要进行随机对照研究来评估一种量表相对于其他量表的潜在优势,包括对可靠性和量表依从性的评估。在 ICU 中,对于轻度镇静患者,脑电双频指数(BIS)的作用有限,主要是因为存在肌电伪迹,而在这种情况下主观量表更合适。另一方面,主观量表对于检测需要深度镇静的患者的过度镇静不敏感。BIS 在深度镇静患者、接受神经肌肉阻滞剂或巴比妥类药物治疗的患者中的作用还有待证实。目前缺乏药物经济学研究。