Frade-Mera M J, Regueiro-Díaz N, Díaz-Castellano L, Torres-Valverde L, Alonso-Pérez L, Landívar-Redondo M M, Muñoz-Pasín R, Terceros-Almanza L J, Temprano-Vázquez S, Sánchez-Izquierdo-Riera J Á
UCI Polivalente, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, España.
UCI Polivalente, Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, España.
Enferm Intensiva. 2016 Oct-Dec;27(4):155-167. doi: 10.1016/j.enfi.2015.10.002. Epub 2016 Jan 21.
Safe analgesia and sedation strategies are necessary in order to avoid under or over sedation, as well as improving the comfort and safety of critical care patients.
To compare and contrast a multidisciplinary protocol of systematic evaluation and management of analgesia and sedation in a group of critical care patients on mechanical ventilation with the usual procedures.
A cohort study with contemporary series was conducted in a tertiary care medical-surgical ICU February to November during 2013 and 2014. The inclusion criteria were mechanical ventilation ≥ 24h and use of sedation by continuous infusion. Sedation was monitored using the Richmond agitation-sedation scale or bispectral index, and analgesia were measured using the numeric rating scale, or behavioural indicators of pain scale. The study variables included; mechanical ventilation time, weaning time, ventilation support time, artificial airway time, continuous sedative infusion time, daily dose and frequency of analgesic and sedative drug use, hospital stay, and ICU and hospital mortality, Richmond agitation-sedation scale, bispectral index, numeric rating scale, and behavioural indicators of pain scale measurements. Kruskal Wallis and Chi, and a significance of p<.05 were used.
The study included 153 admissions, 75 pre-intervention and 78 post-intervention, with a mean age of 55.7±13 years old, and 67% men. Both groups showed similarities in age, reason for admission, and APACHE. There were non-significant decreases in mechanical ventilation time 4 (1.4-9.2) and 3.2 (1.4-8.1) days, respectively; p= 0.7, continuous sedative infusion time 6 (3-11) and 5 (3-11) days; p= 0.9, length of hospital stay 29 (18-52); 25 (14-41) days; p= 0.1, ICU mortality (8 vs. 5%; p= 0.4), and hospital mortality (10.6 vs. 9.4%: p= 0.8). Daily doses of midazolam and remifentanil decreased 347 (227-479) mg/day; 261 (159-358) mg/day; p= 0.02 and 2175 (1427-3285) mcg/day; 1500 (715-2740) mcg/day; p= 0.02, respectively. There were increases in the use of remifentanil (32% vs. 51%; p= 0.01), dexmedetomidine (0 vs.6%; p= 0.02), dexketoprofen (60 vs. 76%; p= 0.03), and haloperidol (15 vs.28%; p= 0.04). The use of morphine decreased (71 vs. 54%; p= 0.03). There was an increase in the number of measurements and Richmond agitation-sedation scale scores 6 (3-17); 21 (9-39); p< 0.0001, behavioural indicators of pain scale 6 (3-18); 19(8-33); p< 0.001 and numeric rating scale 4 (2-6); 8 (6-17); p< 0.0001.
The implementation of a multidisciplinary protocol of systematic evaluation of analgesia and sedation management achieved an improvement in monitoring and adequacy of dose to patient needs, leading to improved outcomes.
安全的镇痛和镇静策略对于避免镇静不足或过度以及提高重症监护患者的舒适度和安全性至关重要。
比较和对比一组接受机械通气的重症监护患者中多学科镇痛和镇静系统评估与管理方案与常规程序。
于2013年2月至11月以及2014年2月至11月在一家三级医疗外科重症监护病房进行了一项当代系列队列研究。纳入标准为机械通气≥24小时且采用持续输注镇静。使用里士满躁动-镇静量表或脑电双频指数监测镇静情况,使用数字评分量表或疼痛行为指标量表测量镇痛情况。研究变量包括:机械通气时间、撤机时间、通气支持时间、人工气道留置时间、持续镇静输注时间、镇痛和镇静药物的每日剂量及使用频率、住院时间、重症监护病房及医院死亡率、里士满躁动-镇静量表、脑电双频指数、数字评分量表以及疼痛行为指标量表测量值。采用Kruskal Wallis检验和卡方检验,p<0.05具有统计学意义。
该研究纳入153例患者,75例干预前患者和78例干预后患者,平均年龄55.7±13岁,男性占67%。两组在年龄、入院原因和急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统(APACHE)方面相似。机械通气时间分别有非显著下降,干预前为4(1.4 - 9.2)天,干预后为3.2(1.4 - 8.1)天;p = 0.7;持续镇静输注时间分别为6(3 - 11)天和5(3 - 11)天;p = 0.9;住院时间分别为29(18 - 52)天和25(14 - 41)天;p = 0.1;重症监护病房死亡率(8%对5%;p = 0.4)以及医院死亡率(10.6%对9.4%:p = 0.8)。咪达唑仑和瑞芬太尼的每日剂量分别下降,干预前为347(227 - 479)mg/天,干预后为261(159 - 358)mg/天;p = 0.02;干预前为2175(1427 - 3285)μg/天,干预后为1500(715 - 2740)μg/天;p = 0.02。瑞芬太尼的使用增加(32%对51%;p = 0.01),右美托咪定(0对6%;p = 0.02),右酮洛芬(60对76%;p = 0.03)以及氟哌啶醇(15对28%;p =