OBJECTIVE: To assess whether monitoring sedation status using bispectral index (BIS) as an adjunct to clinical evaluation was associated with a reduction in the total amount of sedative drug used in a 12 h period. DESIGN: Prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Tertiary care neurocritical care unit. PATIENTS: Sixty-seven mechanically ventilated adult patients receiving continuous intravenous sedation withpropofol. INTERVENTIONS: Sedation monitoring using clinical assessment with the Ramsay scale (Ramsay-alone group) or clinical assessment plus BIS monitoring (BIS-augmentation group). Subjects were randomized to Ramsay-alone (n = 35), or BIS-augmentation (n = 32). Nurses adjusted the dose of propofol to a Ramsay of 4, or a Ramsay of 4 and BIS between 60 and 70. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients in the BIS-augmentation group received significantly less propofol by volume (93.5 ml vs. 157.8 ml, respectively; P < .015), and had lower infusion rates (14.6 vs. 27.9 mcg/kg/min; P = .003). There is a lower risk of propofol infusion exceeding manufacturer's recommended dosing guides in the BIS-augmentation group versus the Ramsay-alone group (0 vs. 23%, P = .0052). The BIS-augmentation group woke up much quicker than those in the Ramsay-alone group (1.2 vs. 7.5 min; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: BIS-augmented sedation monitoring resulted in a marked reduction in the total dose of sedative used to achieve the same level of clinical sedation resulting in shortened time to wake up without any measurable adverse effects. Physiologic sedation assessment tools may provide a useful means of improving the care of sedated critically ill patients.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To assess whether monitoring sedation status using bispectral index (BIS) as an adjunct to clinical evaluation was associated with a reduction in the total amount of sedative drug used in a 12 h period. DESIGN: Prospective randomized controlled clinical trial. SETTING: Tertiary care neurocritical care unit. PATIENTS: Sixty-seven mechanically ventilated adult patients receiving continuous intravenous sedation with propofol. INTERVENTIONS: Sedation monitoring using clinical assessment with the Ramsay scale (Ramsay-alone group) or clinical assessment plus BIS monitoring (BIS-augmentation group). Subjects were randomized to Ramsay-alone (n = 35), or BIS-augmentation (n = 32). Nurses adjusted the dose of propofol to a Ramsay of 4, or a Ramsay of 4 and BIS between 60 and 70. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Patients in the BIS-augmentation group received significantly less propofol by volume (93.5 ml vs. 157.8 ml, respectively; P < .015), and had lower infusion rates (14.6 vs. 27.9 mcg/kg/min; P = .003). There is a lower risk of propofol infusion exceeding manufacturer's recommended dosing guides in the BIS-augmentation group versus the Ramsay-alone group (0 vs. 23%, P = .0052). The BIS-augmentation group woke up much quicker than those in the Ramsay-alone group (1.2 vs. 7.5 min; P < .0001). CONCLUSIONS: BIS-augmented sedation monitoring resulted in a marked reduction in the total dose of sedative used to achieve the same level of clinical sedation resulting in shortened time to wake up without any measurable adverse effects. Physiologic sedation assessment tools may provide a useful means of improving the care of sedated critically illpatients.
Authors: Christopher J Chisholm; Joseph Zurica; Dmitry Mironov; Robert R Sciacca; Eugene Ornstein; Eric J Heyer Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: Michael S Avidan; Lini Zhang; Beth A Burnside; Kevin J Finkel; Adam C Searleman; Jacqueline A Selvidge; Leif Saager; Michelle S Turner; Srikar Rao; Michael Bottros; Charles Hantler; Eric Jacobsohn; Alex S Evers Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-03-13 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michel T Torbey; Julian Bösel; Denise H Rhoney; Fred Rincon; Dimitre Staykov; Arun P Amar; Panayiotis N Varelas; Eric Jüttler; DaiWai Olson; Hagen B Huttner; Klaus Zweckberger; Kevin N Sheth; Christian Dohmen; Ansgar M Brambrink; Stephan A Mayer; Osama O Zaidat; Werner Hacke; Stefan Schwab Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2015-02 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Frank A Rasulo; Philip Hopkins; Francisco A Lobo; Pierre Pandin; Basil Matta; Carla Carozzi; Stefano Romagnoli; Anthony Absalom; Rafael Badenes; Thomas Bleck; Anselmo Caricato; Jan Claassen; André Denault; Cristina Honorato; Saba Motta; Geert Meyfroidt; Finn Michael Radtke; Zaccaria Ricci; Chiara Robba; Fabio S Taccone; Paul Vespa; Ida Nardiello; Massimo Lamperti Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2022-07-27 Impact factor: 3.532
Authors: Morgan Le Guen; Ngai Liu; Eric Bourgeois; Thierry Chazot; Daniel I Sessler; Jean-Jacques Rouby; Marc Fischler Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2012-12-06 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Rajesh M Shetty; Antonio Bellini; Dhuleep S Wijayatilake; Mark A Hamilton; Rajesh Jain; Sunil Karanth; ArunKumar Namachivayam Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-02-21