Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Department of Pharmacy, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2021 Oct 25;78(21):1952-1961. doi: 10.1093/ajhp/zxab202.
Preliminary reports suggest that critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection requiring mechanical ventilation may have markedly increased sedation needs compared with critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients without COVID-19. We conducted a study to examine sedative use for this patient population within multiple intensive care units (ICUs) of a large academic medical center.
A retrospective, single-center cohort study of sedation practices for critically ill patients with COVID-19 during the first 10 days of mechanical ventilation was conducted in 8 ICUs at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. The study population was a sequential cohort of 86 critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Data characterizing the sedative medications, doses, drug combinations, and duration of administration were collected daily and compared to published recommendations for sedation of critically ill patients without COVID-19. The associations between drug doses, number of drugs administered, baseline patient characteristics, and inflammatory markers were investigated.
Among the study cohort, propofol and hydromorphone were the most common initial drug combination, with these medications being used on a given day in up to 100% and 88% of patients, respectively. The doses of sedative and analgesic infusions increased for patients over the first 10 days, reaching or exceeding the upper limits of published dosage guidelines for propofol (48% of patients), dexmedetomidine (29%), midazolam (7.7%), ketamine (32%), and hydromorphone (38%). The number of sedative and analgesic agents simultaneously administered increased over time for each patient, with more than 50% of patients requiring 3 or more agents by day 2. Compared with patients requiring 3 or fewer agents, patients requiring more than 3 agents were of younger age, had an increased body mass index, had increased serum ferritin and lactate dehydrogenase concentrations, had a lower Pao2:Fio2 (ratio of arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen), and were more likely to receive neuromuscular blockade.
Our study confirmed the clinical impression of elevated sedative use in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 relative to guideline-recommended sedation practices in other critically ill populations.
初步报告表明,与患有 COVID-19 的非机械通气重症患者相比,2019 年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)感染并需要机械通气的重症患者可能需要明显增加镇静剂的使用量。我们进行了一项研究,以检查大型学术医疗中心的多个重症监护病房(ICU)中此类患者人群的镇静剂使用情况。
对马萨诸塞州波士顿市麻省总医院 8 个 ICU 中 COVID-19 机械通气后最初 10 天的重症患者镇静治疗进行了回顾性、单中心队列研究。研究人群为 86 名患有 COVID-19 的危重、机械通气患者的连续队列。每天收集描述镇静药物、剂量、药物组合和给药时间的特征数据,并与无 COVID-19 的重症患者镇静推荐进行比较。研究了药物剂量、使用药物种类、患者基线特征和炎症标志物之间的关系。
在所研究的队列中,丙泊酚和氢吗啡酮是最常见的初始药物组合,分别有高达 100%和 88%的患者在特定日使用这两种药物。在最初的 10 天内,镇静和镇痛输注的剂量增加,超过了丙泊酚(48%的患者)、右美托咪定(29%)、咪达唑仑(7.7%)、氯胺酮(32%)和氢吗啡酮(38%)的公布剂量指南上限。每个患者同时使用的镇静和镇痛药物数量随时间增加,超过 50%的患者在第 2 天需要 3 种或更多药物。与使用 3 种或更少药物的患者相比,需要使用 3 种以上药物的患者年龄更小、体重指数更高、血清铁蛋白和乳酸脱氢酶浓度更高、动脉血氧分压与吸入氧分数之比(Pao2:Fio2)更低,并且更有可能接受神经肌肉阻滞剂治疗。
我们的研究证实了与其他重症患者群体的指南推荐镇静治疗相比,COVID-19 重症、机械通气患者镇静剂使用量增加的临床印象。