Intensive Care, Erasmus MC, Sophia Children's Hospital, Dr. Molewaterplein 60, 3015 GJ, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Intensive Care Med. 2013 Sep;39(9):1524-34. doi: 10.1007/s00134-013-2971-3. Epub 2013 Jun 19.
Sedatives administered to critically ill children should be titrated to effect, because both under- and oversedation may have negative effects. We conducted a systematic review to examine reported incidences of under-, optimal, and oversedation in critically ill children receiving intensive care.
A systematic literature search using predefined criteria was performed in PubMed and Embase to identify all articles evaluating level of sedation in PICU patients receiving continuous sedation. Two authors independently recorded: study objective, study design, sample size, age range, details of study intervention (if applicable), sedatives used, length of sedation, sedation scale used, and incidences of optimal, under-, and oversedation as defined in the studies.
Twenty-five studies were included. Two studies evaluated sedation level as primary study outcome; the other 23 as secondary outcomes. Together, these studies investigated 1,163 children; age range, 0-18 years. Across studies, children received many different sedative agents and sedation level was assessed with 12 different sedation scales. Optimal sedation was ascertained in 57.6 % of the observations, under sedation in 10.6 %, and oversedation in 31.8 %.
This study suggests that sedation in the PICU is often suboptimal and seldom systematically evaluated. Oversedation is more common than undersedation. As oversedation may lead to longer hospitalization, tolerance, and withdrawal, preventing oversedation in pediatric intensive care deserves greater attention.
为危重症儿童使用的镇静剂应滴定至有效剂量,因为镇静不足和镇静过度都可能产生负面影响。我们进行了一项系统评价,以检查接受重症监护的危重症儿童镇静不足、镇静恰当和镇静过度的报告发生率。
使用预定义标准,在 PubMed 和 Embase 中进行系统文献检索,以确定所有评估 ICU 患儿接受持续镇静时镇静水平的文章。两位作者独立记录:研究目的、研究设计、样本量、年龄范围、研究干预措施的详细信息(如适用)、使用的镇静剂、镇静持续时间、使用的镇静量表以及研究中定义的镇静恰当、镇静不足和镇静过度的发生率。
共纳入 25 项研究。有 2 项研究将镇静水平作为主要研究结局进行评估;其他 23 项研究作为次要结局进行评估。这些研究共纳入 1163 例患儿;年龄范围为 0-18 岁。在所有研究中,患儿使用了许多不同的镇静剂,使用 12 种不同的镇静量表评估镇静水平。在观察到的病例中,57.6%为镇静恰当,10.6%为镇静不足,31.8%为镇静过度。
本研究表明,PICU 中的镇静往往不够恰当,且很少进行系统评估。镇静过度比镇静不足更为常见。由于镇静过度可能导致住院时间延长、耐受和戒断,因此在儿科重症监护中预防镇静过度应受到更多关注。