Brian M Fuller1,2, Brian W Roberts2, Nicholas M Mohr3, Brett Faine4, Anne M Drewry1, Brian T Wessman1,2, Enyo Ablordeppey1,2, Ryan D Pappal5, Robert J Stephens2, Thomas Sewatsky3, Nicholas S Cho3, Yan Yan6,7, Marin H Kollef8, Christopher R Carpenter2, Michael S Avidan9. 1. Division of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO. 3. Department of Emergency Medicine, Cooper University Hospital, Camden, NJ. 4. Departments of Emergency Medicine and Pharmacy, Roy J. and Lucille A. Carver College of Medicine, University of Iowa College of Pharmacy, Iowa City, IA. 5. Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. 6. Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. 7. Division of Biostatistics, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO. 8. Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO. 9. Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Deep sedation in the emergency department (ED) is common, increases deep sedation in the ICU, and is negatively associated with outcome. Limiting ED deep sedation may, therefore, be a high-yield intervention to improve outcome. However, the feasibility of conducting an adequately powered ED-based clinical sedation trial is unknown. Our objectives were to assess trial feasibility in terms of: 1) recruitment, 2) protocol implementation and practice change, and 3) safety. Patient-centered clinical outcomes were assessed to better plan for a future large-scale clinical trial. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicenter ( n = 3), prospective before-after pilot and feasibility trial. SETTING: The ED and ICUs at three medical centers. PATIENTS: Consecutive, adult mechanically ventilation ED patients. INTERVENTIONS: An educational initiative aimed at reliable ED sedation depth documentation and reducing the proportion of deeply sedated patients (primary outcome). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sedation-related data in the ED and the first 48 ICU hours were recorded. Deep sedation was defined as a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of -3 to -5 or a Sedation-Agitation Scale of 1-3. One thousand three hundred fifty-six patients were screened; 415 comprised the final population. Lighter ED sedation was achieved in the intervention group, and the proportion of deeply sedated patients was reduced from 60.2% to 38.8% ( p < 0.01). There were no concerning trends in adverse events (i.e., inadvertent extubation, device removal, and awareness with paralysis). Mortality was 10.0% in the intervention group and 20.4% in the preintervention group ( p < 0.01). Compared with preintervention, the intervention group experienced more ventilator-free days [22.0 (9.0) vs 19.9 (10.6)] and ICU-free days [20.8 (8.7) vs 18.1 (10.4)], p < 0.05 for both. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot trial confirmed the feasibility of targeting the ED in order to improve sedation practices and reduce deep sedation. These findings justify an appropriately powered clinical trial regarding ED-based sedation to improve clinical outcomes.
OBJECTIVES: Deep sedation in the emergency department (ED) is common, increases deep sedation in the ICU, and is negatively associated with outcome. Limiting ED deep sedation may, therefore, be a high-yield intervention to improve outcome. However, the feasibility of conducting an adequately powered ED-based clinical sedation trial is unknown. Our objectives were to assess trial feasibility in terms of: 1) recruitment, 2) protocol implementation and practice change, and 3) safety. Patient-centered clinical outcomes were assessed to better plan for a future large-scale clinical trial. DESIGN: Pragmatic, multicenter ( n = 3), prospective before-after pilot and feasibility trial. SETTING: The ED and ICUs at three medical centers. PATIENTS: Consecutive, adult mechanically ventilation ED patients. INTERVENTIONS: An educational initiative aimed at reliable ED sedation depth documentation and reducing the proportion of deeply sedated patients (primary outcome). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sedation-related data in the ED and the first 48 ICU hours were recorded. Deep sedation was defined as a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of -3 to -5 or a Sedation-Agitation Scale of 1-3. One thousand three hundred fifty-six patients were screened; 415 comprised the final population. Lighter ED sedation was achieved in the intervention group, and the proportion of deeply sedated patients was reduced from 60.2% to 38.8% ( p < 0.01). There were no concerning trends in adverse events (i.e., inadvertent extubation, device removal, and awareness with paralysis). Mortality was 10.0% in the intervention group and 20.4% in the preintervention group ( p < 0.01). Compared with preintervention, the intervention group experienced more ventilator-free days [22.0 (9.0) vs 19.9 (10.6)] and ICU-free days [20.8 (8.7) vs 18.1 (10.4)], p < 0.05 for both. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot trial confirmed the feasibility of targeting the ED in order to improve sedation practices and reduce deep sedation. These findings justify an appropriately powered clinical trial regarding ED-based sedation to improve clinical outcomes.
Authors: E W Ely; S K Inouye; G R Bernard; S Gordon; J Francis; L May; B Truman; T Speroff; S Gautam; R Margolin; R P Hart; R Dittus Journal: JAMA Date: 2001-12-05 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: E Wesley Ely; Ayumi Shintani; Brenda Truman; Theodore Speroff; Sharon M Gordon; Frank E Harrell; Sharon K Inouye; Gordon R Bernard; Robert S Dittus Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-04-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Miriam M Treggiari; Jacques-André Romand; N David Yanez; Steven A Deem; Jack Goldberg; Leonard Hudson; Claudia-Paula Heidegger; Noel S Weiss Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Yahya Shehabi; Rinaldo Bellomo; Michael C Reade; Michael Bailey; Frances Bass; Belinda Howe; Colin McArthur; Lynne Murray; Ian M Seppelt; Steve Webb; Leonie Weisbrodt Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Felix Balzer; Björn Weiß; Oliver Kumpf; Sascha Treskatsch; Claudia Spies; Klaus-Dieter Wernecke; Alexander Krannich; Marc Kastrup Journal: Crit Care Date: 2015-04-28 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Sandra M Eldridge; Claire L Chan; Michael J Campbell; Christine M Bond; Sally Hopewell; Lehana Thabane; Gillian A Lancaster Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-10-24