Clark Jeffrey R, Batra Ayush, Tessier Robert A, Greathouse Kasey, Dickson Dan, Ammar Abeer, Hamm Brandon, Rosenthal Lisa J, Lombardo Theresa, Koralnik Igor J, Skolarus Lesli E, Schroedl Clara J, Budinger G R Scott, Wunderink Richard G, Dematte Jane E, Ungvari Zoltan, Liotta Eric M
Northwestern University-Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA.
Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Geroscience. 2025 Feb;47(1):189-203. doi: 10.1007/s11357-024-01336-4. Epub 2024 Sep 7.
The COVID-19 pandemic posed unprecedented challenges to healthcare systems worldwide, particularly in managing critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation early in the pandemic. Surging patient volumes strained hospital resources and complicated the implementation of standard-of-care intensive care unit (ICU) practices, including sedation management. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of an evidence-based ICU sedation bundle during the early COVID-19 pandemic. The bundle was designed by a multi-disciplinary collaborative to reinforce best clinical practices related to ICU sedation. The bundle was implemented prospectively with retrospective analysis of electronic medical record data. The setting was the ICUs of a single-center tertiary hospital. The patients were the ICU patients requiring mechanical ventilation for confirmed COVID-19 between March and June 2020. A learning health collaborative developed a sedation bundle encouraging goal-directed sedation and use of adjunctive strategies to avoid excessive sedative administration. Implementation strategies included structured in-service training, audit and feedback, and continuous improvement. Sedative utilization and clinical outcomes were compared between patients admitted before and after the sedation bundle implementation. Quasi-experimental interrupted time-series analyses of pre and post intervention sedative utilization, hospital length of stay, and number of days free of delirium, coma, or death in 21 days (as a quantitative measure of encephalopathy burden). The analysis used the time duration between start of the COVID-19 wave and ICU admission to identify a "breakpoint" indicating a change in observed trends. A total of 183 patients (age 59.0 ± 15.9 years) were included, with 83 (45%) admitted before the intervention began. Benzodiazepine utilization increased for patients admitted after the bundle implementation, while agents intended to reduce benzodiazepine use showed no greater utilization. No "breakpoint" was identified to suggest the bundle impacted any endpoint measure. However, increasing time between COVID-19 wave start and ICU admission was associated with fewer delirium, coma, and death-free days (β = - 0.044 [95% CI - 0.085, - 0.003] days/wave day); more days of benzodiazepine infusion (β = 0.056 [95% CI 0.025, 0.088] days/wave day); and a higher maximum benzodiazepine infusion rate (β = 0.079 [95% CI 0.037, 0.120] mg/h/wave day). The evidence-based practice bundle did not significantly alter sedation utilization patterns during the first COVID-19 wave. Sedation practices deteriorated and encephalopathy burden increased over time, highlighting that strategies to reinforce clinical practices may be hindered under conditions of extreme healthcare system strain.
新冠疫情给全球医疗系统带来了前所未有的挑战,尤其是在疫情初期管理需要机械通气的重症患者方面。激增的患者数量使医院资源紧张,也让包括镇静管理在内的重症监护病房(ICU)标准护理措施的实施变得复杂。本研究的目的是评估在新冠疫情初期基于证据的ICU镇静集束化方案的影响。该集束化方案由多学科协作设计,以强化与ICU镇静相关的最佳临床实践。该集束化方案是前瞻性实施的,并对电子病历数据进行回顾性分析。研究地点为一家单中心三级医院的ICU。患者为2020年3月至6月期间因确诊新冠而需要机械通气的ICU患者。一个学习型健康协作组织制定了一个镇静集束化方案,鼓励目标导向性镇静并使用辅助策略以避免过度使用镇静剂。实施策略包括结构化在职培训、审核与反馈以及持续改进。比较了镇静集束化方案实施前后入院患者的镇静剂使用情况和临床结局。对干预前后的镇静剂使用情况、住院时间以及21天内无谵妄、昏迷或死亡天数进行准实验性中断时间序列分析(作为脑病负担的定量指标)。分析使用了新冠疫情浪潮开始至ICU入院之间的时间跨度来确定一个“断点”,以表明观察到的趋势发生变化。共纳入183例患者(年龄59.0±15.9岁),其中83例(45%)在干预开始前入院。集束化方案实施后入院的患者苯二氮䓬类药物使用增加,而旨在减少苯二氮䓬类药物使用的药物使用量并未增加。未发现“断点”表明集束化方案对任何终点指标有影响。然而,新冠疫情浪潮开始至ICU入院时间间隔增加与无谵妄、昏迷和死亡天数减少相关(β=-0.044[95%CI-0.085,-0.003]天/浪潮日);苯二氮䓬类药物输注天数增加(β=0.056[95%CI0.025,0.088]天/浪潮日);以及苯二氮䓬类药物最大输注速率更高(β=0.079[95%CI0.037,0.120]mg/h/浪潮日)。基于证据的实践集束化方案在新冠疫情的第一波期间并未显著改变镇静剂使用模式。随着时间推移,镇静实践恶化,脑病负担增加,这突出表明在医疗系统极度紧张的情况下,强化临床实践的策略可能会受到阻碍。