GE Healthcare, Pollards Wood, Nightingales Lane, Chalfont St, Giles, Bucks, UK.
Crit Care. 2010;14(2):R59. doi: 10.1186/cc8956. Epub 2010 Apr 9.
Patients in intensive care units (ICUs) often receive sedation for prolonged periods. In order to better understand the impact of sub-optimal sedation practice on outcomes, we performed a systematic review, including observational studies and controlled trials which were conducted in sedated patients in the ICU and which compared the impact of changes in or different protocols for sedation management on economic and patient safety outcomes.
We searched Medline, Embase and CINAHL online literature databases from 1988 to 15th May 2008 and hand searched conferences. English-language studies set in the ICU, in sedated adult humans on mechanical ventilation, which reported the impact of sedation practice on cost and resource use and patient safety outcomes, were included. All abstracts were reviewed twice by two independent reviewers, with all conflicts resolved by a third reviewer, to check that they met the review inclusion criteria. Full-text papers of all included studies were retrieved and again reviewed twice against inclusion criteria. Data were doubly extracted from studies. Study aims, design, population, and outcomes including duration of mechanical ventilation, length of stay in ICU and hospital, costs and rates of mortality and adverse events were extracted. Due to heterogeneity between study designs and outcomes reported, no quantitative data synthesis such as meta-analysis was possible.
Included studies varied in design, patient population and aim, with the majority being before-after studies. Overall, studies showed that improvements in sedation practice, such as the introduction of guidelines and protocols, or daily interruption of sedation, were associated with improvements in outcomes including ICU and hospital length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and costs. Mortality and the incidence of nosocomial infections were also reduced.
Systematic interventions to improve sedation practice and maintain patients at an optimal sedation level in the ICU may improve patient outcomes and optimize resource usage.
重症监护病房(ICU)的患者经常需要长时间接受镇静治疗。为了更好地了解不适当的镇静实践对结果的影响,我们进行了系统评价,包括在 ICU 接受镇静治疗的患者中进行的观察性研究和对照试验,比较了镇静管理中改变或不同方案对经济和患者安全结果的影响。
我们检索了 Medline、Embase 和 CINAHL 在线文献数据库,检索时间为 1988 年至 2008 年 5 月 15 日,并手检了会议文献。纳入的研究为 ICU 中设定的英语研究,对象为接受机械通气的镇静成年患者,报告了镇静实践对成本和资源利用以及患者安全结果的影响。所有摘要均由两位独立评审员进行了两次评审,所有冲突均由第三位评审员解决,以确保它们符合审查纳入标准。检索了所有纳入研究的全文论文,并再次根据纳入标准进行了两次评审。从研究中提取了双倍的数据。研究目的、设计、人群和结果,包括机械通气时间、ICU 和医院住院时间、成本以及死亡率和不良事件的发生率。由于研究设计和报告的结果存在异质性,因此无法进行定量数据综合(如荟萃分析)。
纳入的研究在设计、患者人群和目的方面存在差异,其中大多数为前后研究。总体而言,研究表明,改善镇静实践,如引入指南和方案或每日中断镇静,与改善结果相关,包括 ICU 和医院住院时间、机械通气时间和成本的缩短。死亡率和医院感染发生率也降低了。
系统地干预以改善镇静实践并使 ICU 中的患者保持最佳镇静水平可能会改善患者的结果并优化资源利用。