OBJECTIVE: Children admitted to pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) often receive sedatives to facilitate mechanical ventilation. However, despite their widespread use, data supporting appropriate dosing, safety, and optimal regimens for sedation during mechanical ventilation are lacking. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of published data regarding efficacy of sedation to facilitate mechanical ventilation in PICU patients. Our primary objective was to identify and evaluate the quality of evidence supporting sedatives used in PICUs for this purpose. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Registry of Clinical Trials from 1966 to June 2008 to identify published articles evaluating sedation regimens to facilitate mechanical ventilation in PICU patients. STUDY SELECTION: We included only those studies of intubated PICU or pediatric cardiac intensive care unit patients receiving pharmacologic agents to facilitate mechanical ventilation that reported quality of sedation as an outcome. DATA EXTRACTION: We analyzed studies separately for study type and by agents being studied. Studies were appraised using criteria of particular importance for reviews evaluating sedatives. DATA SYNTHESIS: Our search strategy yielded 39 studies, including 3 randomized trials, 15 cohort studies, and 21 cases series or reports. The 39 studies evaluated a total of 39 different sedation regimens, with 21 different scoring systems, in a total of 901 PICU/cardiac intensive care unit patients ranging in age from 3 days to 19 years old. Most of the studies were small (<30 patients), and only four studies compared one or more agents to another. Few studies thoroughly evaluated drug safety, and only one study met all quality criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the widespread use of sedatives to facilitate mechanical ventilation in the PICU, we found that high-quality evidence to guide clinical practice is still limited. Pediatric randomized, controlled trials with reproducible methods and assessment of drug safety are needed.
OBJECTIVE:Children admitted to pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) often receive sedatives to facilitate mechanical ventilation. However, despite their widespread use, data supporting appropriate dosing, safety, and optimal regimens for sedation during mechanical ventilation are lacking. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of published data regarding efficacy of sedation to facilitate mechanical ventilation in PICU patients. Our primary objective was to identify and evaluate the quality of evidence supporting sedatives used in PICUs for this purpose. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Registry of Clinical Trials from 1966 to June 2008 to identify published articles evaluating sedation regimens to facilitate mechanical ventilation in PICU patients. STUDY SELECTION: We included only those studies of intubated PICU or pediatric cardiac intensive care unit patients receiving pharmacologic agents to facilitate mechanical ventilation that reported quality of sedation as an outcome. DATA EXTRACTION: We analyzed studies separately for study type and by agents being studied. Studies were appraised using criteria of particular importance for reviews evaluating sedatives. DATA SYNTHESIS: Our search strategy yielded 39 studies, including 3 randomized trials, 15 cohort studies, and 21 cases series or reports. The 39 studies evaluated a total of 39 different sedation regimens, with 21 different scoring systems, in a total of 901 PICU/cardiac intensive care unit patients ranging in age from 3 days to 19 years old. Most of the studies were small (<30 patients), and only four studies compared one or more agents to another. Few studies thoroughly evaluated drug safety, and only one study met all quality criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the widespread use of sedatives to facilitate mechanical ventilation in the PICU, we found that high-quality evidence to guide clinical practice is still limited. Pediatric randomized, controlled trials with reproducible methods and assessment of drug safety are needed.
Authors: Athena F Zuppa; Daniela J Conrado; Nicole R Zane; Martha A Q Curley; Jonathan Bradfield; Hakon Hakonarson; Madeleine S Gastonguay; Ganesh Moorthy; Janice Prodell; Marc R Gastonguay Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Martha A Q Curley; David Wypij; R Scott Watson; Mary Jo C Grant; Lisa A Asaro; Ira M Cheifetz; Brenda L Dodson; Linda S Franck; Rainer G Gedeit; Derek C Angus; Michael A Matthay Journal: JAMA Date: 2015-01-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Nienke J Vet; Erwin Ista; Saskia N de Wildt; Monique van Dijk; Dick Tibboel; Matthijs de Hoog Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2013-06-19 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Ralf Baron; Andreas Binder; Rolf Biniek; Stephan Braune; Hartmut Buerkle; Peter Dall; Sueha Demirakca; Rahel Eckardt; Verena Eggers; Ingolf Eichler; Ingo Fietze; Stephan Freys; Andreas Fründ; Lars Garten; Bernhard Gohrbandt; Irene Harth; Wolfgang Hartl; Hans-Jürgen Heppner; Johannes Horter; Ralf Huth; Uwe Janssens; Christine Jungk; Kristin Maria Kaeuper; Paul Kessler; Stefan Kleinschmidt; Matthias Kochanek; Matthias Kumpf; Andreas Meiser; Anika Mueller; Maritta Orth; Christian Putensen; Bernd Roth; Michael Schaefer; Rainhild Schaefers; Peter Schellongowski; Monika Schindler; Reinhard Schmitt; Jens Scholz; Stefan Schroeder; Gerhard Schwarzmann; Claudia Spies; Robert Stingele; Peter Tonner; Uwe Trieschmann; Michael Tryba; Frank Wappler; Christian Waydhas; Bjoern Weiss; Guido Weisshaar Journal: Ger Med Sci Date: 2015-11-12