Kayir Selcuk, Ulusoy Hulya, Dogan Guvenc
Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Hitit University Erol Olcok Training and Research Hospital.
Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Karadeniz Technical University.
Cureus. 2018 Jan 13;10(1):e2062. doi: 10.7759/cureus.2062.
Background/aims Sedation is one of the most important components of intensive care unit (ICU) in patients who are mechanically ventilated at intensive care conditions. As a result of sedation and analgesia in the intensive care unit, the patient is to be awakened a comfortable and easy process. The aim of the study is to demonstrate the effects of day-time sedation interruptions in intensive care patients. Material and methods We made a retrospective review of 100 patients who were monitored, mechanically ventilated and treated at our intensive care unit between January 2008 and January 2013. Patients were divided into two groups, including Group P (continuous infusion of sedative agent) and Group D (daily sedation interruptions - daily recovery). Demographics, mechanical ventilation time, stay at intensive care unit, hospitalization period, time of first weaning, success of weaning, ventilator-related pneumonia (VRP), total doses of drugs, re-intubation frequency, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores and mortality rates of patients were compared. Ramsay Sedation Score (RSS) was used to evaluate the level of sedation. Considering that ideal sedation level is "3" with RSS, RSS < 3 is considered as mild sedation, while RSS > 3 is considered as deep sedation. Results There was no difference between demographics of patients. Mechanical ventilation period was significantly longer in Group P than Group D (p < 0.001). When stay at ICU unit was considered, ICU stay was significantly longer in Group P than Group D (p < 0.001). No statistically significant difference was found between two groups with respect to hospitalization period. In inter-group comparison, time to start first weaning was significantly late in Group P than Group D (p < 0.05). There was no difference between groups in terms of frequency of success of weaning and mortality rate (p > 0.05). In inter-group comparison the frequency of reintubation viewed in Group D was significantly less than in Group P (p < 0.05). Considering development of VRP, it was significantly more common in Group P in comparison with Group D (p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference was found between groups in terms of doses of sedative agents (p > 0.05). Considering doses of opioid analgesics, the total dose of fentanyl was significantly higher in Group P than Group D (p = 0.04), while no difference was found for doses of morphine (p > 0.05). Again, no statistical difference was found in doses of muscle relaxant agents (p > 0.05). Conclusion It was observed that the sedation technique with daily interruption is superior to continuous infusion of sedatives. Accordingly, we believe that daily weaning will make positive contributions to patients who are mechanically ventilated at intensive care unit.
背景/目的 在重症监护条件下接受机械通气的患者中,镇静是重症监护病房(ICU)最重要的组成部分之一。由于在重症监护病房进行镇静和镇痛,患者苏醒应是一个舒适且轻松的过程。本研究的目的是证明日间镇静中断对重症监护患者的影响。
材料与方法 我们对2008年1月至2013年1月在我们重症监护病房接受监测、机械通气和治疗的100例患者进行了回顾性研究。患者分为两组,包括P组(持续输注镇静剂)和D组(每日镇静中断 - 每日恢复)。比较了患者的人口统计学数据、机械通气时间、在重症监护病房的停留时间、住院时间、首次脱机时间、脱机成功率、呼吸机相关性肺炎(VRP)、药物总剂量、重新插管频率、急性生理与慢性健康状况评分系统II(APACHE II)、序贯器官衰竭评估(SOFA)评分以及患者的死亡率。采用Ramsay镇静评分(RSS)评估镇静水平。考虑到理想的镇静水平在RSS中为“3”,RSS < 3被视为轻度镇静,而RSS > 3被视为深度镇静。
结果 患者的人口统计学数据之间无差异。P组的机械通气时间明显长于D组(p < 0.001)。考虑在ICU的停留时间时,P组在ICU的停留时间明显长于D组(p < 0.001)。两组在住院时间方面未发现统计学上的显著差异。在组间比较中,P组开始首次脱机的时间明显晚于D组(p < 0.05)。两组在脱机成功率和死亡率方面无差异(p > 0.05)。在组间比较中,D组的重新插管频率明显低于P组(p < 0.05)。考虑VRP的发生情况,与D组相比,P组中VRP明显更常见(p < 0.05)。两组在镇静剂剂量方面未发现统计学上的显著差异(p > 0.05)。考虑阿片类镇痛药的剂量,P组中芬太尼的总剂量明显高于D组(p = 0.04),而吗啡剂量方面未发现差异(p > 0.05)。同样,在肌肉松弛剂剂量方面未发现统计学差异(p > 0.05)。
结论 观察到每日中断的镇静技术优于持续输注镇静剂。因此,我们认为每日脱机将对在重症监护病房接受机械通气的患者产生积极影响。