Leana Mahmoud1, Andrew R Zullo2,3, Bradford B Thompson4,5, Linda C Wendell6,7. 1. a Clinical Pharmacist Specialist, Neurocritical Care, Department of Pharmacy , Lifespan Corporation - Rhode Island Hospital , Providence , RI , USA. 2. b Clinical Pharmacist Specialist - Healthcare Analytics , Lifespan Corporation - Rhode Island Hospital , Providence , RI , USA. 3. c Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice , Brown University School of Public Health , Providence , RI , USA. 4. d Director, Division of Neurocritical Care, Departments of Neurology and Neurosurgery , Rhode Island Hospital , Providence , RI , USA. 5. e Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery , Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University , Providence , RI , USA. 6. f Neurologist, Division of Neurocritical Care, Departments of Neurology and Neurosurgery , Rhode Island Hospital , Providence , RI , USA. 7. g Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery, Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University , Providence , RI , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Providing analgesia and sedation while allowing for neurological assessment is important in the neurocritical care unit (NCCU), yet data are limited about the effects of protocolised analgesia and sedation. We developed an analgesia-based sedation protocol and evaluated its effect on medication utilisation and costs in the NCCU. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who are mechanically ventilated and admitted to a 12-bed NCCU over four years. To compare outcomes, we used gamma and negative binomial regression models, and interrupted time-series sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 1197 patients: 576 pre-protocol and 621 post-protocol. The protocol resulted in an increase in fentanyl use [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 2.8, (95% confidence limits (CLs) 1.9, 4.2)] and a decrease in propofol use (IRR = 0.8, CLs 0.6, 1.0). There was a decrease in fentanyl (cost ratio = 0.8, CLs 0.5, 1.1) and propofol costs (cost ratio = 0.6, CLs 0.5, 0.8). The sensitivity analyses results were similar. There was no effect on healthcare utilisation, healthcare costs, and in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: Protocolised analgesia and sedation increased analgesia use, decreased sedative use, and reduced medication-associated costs in the NCCU. Our results suggest that similar NCCUs should consider use of population-specific protocols to manage analgesia and sedation.
OBJECTIVES: Providing analgesia and sedation while allowing for neurological assessment is important in the neurocritical care unit (NCCU), yet data are limited about the effects of protocolised analgesia and sedation. We developed an analgesia-based sedation protocol and evaluated its effect on medication utilisation and costs in the NCCU. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who are mechanically ventilated and admitted to a 12-bed NCCU over four years. To compare outcomes, we used gamma and negative binomial regression models, and interrupted time-series sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: The study cohort consisted of 1197 patients: 576 pre-protocol and 621 post-protocol. The protocol resulted in an increase in fentanyl use [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 2.8, (95% confidence limits (CLs) 1.9, 4.2)] and a decrease in propofol use (IRR = 0.8, CLs 0.6, 1.0). There was a decrease in fentanyl (cost ratio = 0.8, CLs 0.5, 1.1) and propofol costs (cost ratio = 0.6, CLs 0.5, 0.8). The sensitivity analyses results were similar. There was no effect on healthcare utilisation, healthcare costs, and in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: Protocolised analgesia and sedation increased analgesia use, decreased sedative use, and reduced medication-associated costs in the NCCU. Our results suggest that similar NCCUs should consider use of population-specific protocols to manage analgesia and sedation.
Entities:
Keywords:
Analgesia; clinical protocols; critical care; drug costs; hypnotics and sedatives; intensive care units
Authors: Craig R Ramsay; Lloyd Matowe; Roberto Grilli; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Ruth E Thomas Journal: Int J Technol Assess Health Care Date: 2003 Impact factor: 2.188
Authors: Pedro Kurtz; Vincent Fitts; Zeynep Sumer; Hillary Jalon; Joseph Cooke; Vladimir Kvetan; Stephan A Mayer Journal: Neurocrit Care Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.210
Authors: Alejandro Arroliga; Fernando Frutos-Vivar; Jesse Hall; Andres Esteban; Carlos Apezteguía; Luis Soto; Antonio Anzueto Journal: Chest Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Juliana Barr; Gilles L Fraser; Kathleen Puntillo; E Wesley Ely; Céline Gélinas; Joseph F Dasta; Judy E Davidson; John W Devlin; John P Kress; Aaron M Joffe; Douglas B Coursin; Daniel L Herr; Avery Tung; Bryce R H Robinson; Dorrie K Fontaine; Michael A Ramsay; Richard R Riker; Curtis N Sessler; Brenda Pun; Yoanna Skrobik; Roman Jaeschke Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Susana Arias-Rivera; Maria del Mar Sánchez-Sánchez; Rosa Santos-Díaz; Juana Gallardo-Murillo; Raquel Sánchez-Izquierdo; Fernando Frutos-Vivar; Niall D Ferguson; Andrés Esteban Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2008-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Andrew R Zullo; Uvette Lou; Sarah E Cabral; Justin Huynh; Christine M Berard-Collins Journal: J Oncol Pharm Pract Date: 2018-08-19 Impact factor: 1.809