BACKGROUND: Excessive sedation is associated with adverse patient outcomes during critical illness, and a validated monitoring technology could improve care. We developed a novel method, the responsiveness index (RI) of the frontal EMG. We compared RI data with Ramsay clinical sedation assessments in general and cardiac intensive care unit (ICU) patients. METHODS: We developed the algorithm by iterative analysis of detailed observational data in 30 medical-surgical ICU patients and described its performance in this cohort and 15 patients recovering from scheduled cardiac surgery. Continuous EMG data were collected via frontal electrodes and RI data compared with modified Ramsay sedation state assessments recorded regularly by a blinded trained observer. RI performance was compared with Entropy™ across Ramsay categories to assess validity. RESULTS: RI correlated well with the Ramsay category, especially for the cardiac surgery cohort (general ICU patients ρ=0.55; cardiac surgery patients ρ=0.85, both P<0.0001). Discrimination across all Ramsay categories was reasonable in the general ICU patient cohort [P(K)=0.74 (sem 0.02)] and excellent in the cardiac surgery cohort [P(K)=0.92 (0.02)]. Discrimination between 'lighter' vs 'deeper' (Ramsay 1-3 vs 4-6) was good for general ICU patients [P(K)=0.80 (0.02)] and excellent for cardiac surgery patients [P(K)=0.96 (0.02)]. Performance was significantly better than Entropy™. Examination of individual cases suggested good face validity. CONCLUSIONS: RI of the frontal EMG has promise as a continuous sedation state monitor in critically ill patients. Further investigation to determine its utility in ICU decision-making is warranted.
BACKGROUND: Excessive sedation is associated with adverse patient outcomes during critical illness, and a validated monitoring technology could improve care. We developed a novel method, the responsiveness index (RI) of the frontal EMG. We compared RI data with Ramsay clinical sedation assessments in general and cardiac intensive care unit (ICU) patients. METHODS: We developed the algorithm by iterative analysis of detailed observational data in 30 medical-surgical ICU patients and described its performance in this cohort and 15 patients recovering from scheduled cardiac surgery. Continuous EMG data were collected via frontal electrodes and RI data compared with modified Ramsay sedation state assessments recorded regularly by a blinded trained observer. RI performance was compared with Entropy™ across Ramsay categories to assess validity. RESULTS: RI correlated well with the Ramsay category, especially for the cardiac surgery cohort (general ICU patients ρ=0.55; cardiac surgery patients ρ=0.85, both P<0.0001). Discrimination across all Ramsay categories was reasonable in the general ICU patient cohort [P(K)=0.74 (sem 0.02)] and excellent in the cardiac surgery cohort [P(K)=0.92 (0.02)]. Discrimination between 'lighter' vs 'deeper' (Ramsay 1-3 vs 4-6) was good for general ICU patients [P(K)=0.80 (0.02)] and excellent for cardiac surgery patients [P(K)=0.96 (0.02)]. Performance was significantly better than Entropy™. Examination of individual cases suggested good face validity. CONCLUSIONS: RI of the frontal EMG has promise as a continuous sedation state monitor in critically ill patients. Further investigation to determine its utility in ICU decision-making is warranted.
Authors: Markus Kaila; Kirsty Everingham; Petteri Lapinlampi; Petra Peltola; Mika O K Särkelä; Kimmo Uutela; Timothy S Walsh Journal: Crit Care Date: 2015-09-11 Impact factor: 9.097