Early Goal-Directed Sedation Versus Standard Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Critically Ill Patients
- 1 August 2013
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) in Critical Care Medicine
- Vol. 41 (8), 1983-1991
- https://doi.org/10.1097/ccm.0b013e31828a437d
Abstract
To assess the feasibility and safety of delivering early goal-directed sedation compared with standard sedation. Pilot prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. Six ICUs. Critically ill adults mechanically ventilated for greater than 24 hours. Patients randomized to early goal-directed sedation received a dexmedetomidine-based algorithm targeted to light sedation (Richmond Agitation Sedation Score of –2 to 1). Patients randomized to standard sedation received propofol and/or midazolam-based sedation as clinically appropriate. The main feasibility outcomes were time to randomization and proportion of Richmond Agitation Sedation Score assessments in the first 48 hours in the light and deep sedation range. Safety outcomes were delirium-free days, vasopressor and physical restraints use, and device removal. Randomization occurred within a median (interquartile range) of 1.1 hours (0.46–1.9) after intubation or ICU admission for out of ICU intubation. Patients in the early goal-directed sedation (n = 21) mean (SD) Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was 20.2 (6.2) versus 18.6 (8.8; p = 0.53) in the standard sedation (n = 16). A significantly higher proportion of patients was lightly sedated on days 1, 2, and 3 (12/19 [63.2%], 19/21 [90.5%], and 18/20 [90%] vs 2/14 [14.3%], 8/15 [53.3%], and 9/15 [60%]; p = 0.005, 0.011, 0.036) and more Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale assessments between (–2 and 1), in the first 48 hours (203/307 [66%] versus (74/197 [38%]; p = 0.01) in the early goal-directed sedation versus standard sedation, respectively. Early goal-directed sedation patients received midazolam on 6 of 173 (3.5%) versus 4 of 114 (3.5%) standard sedation patient-days when dexmedetomidine was given. Propofol was given to 16 of 21 (76%) of early goal-directed sedation versus 16 of 16 (100%) of standard sedation patients (p = 0.04). Early goal-directed sedation patients had 101 of 175 (58%) versus 54 of 114 (47%; p = 0.27) delirium-free days and required significantly less physical restraints 1 (5%) versus 5 (31%; p = 0.03) than standard sedation patients. There were no differences in vasopressor use and self-extubation. Delivery of early goal-directed sedation was feasible, appeared safe, achieved early light sedation, minimized benzodiazepines and propofol, and decreased the need for physical restraints. The findings of this pilot study justify further investigation of early goal-directed sedation.Keywords
This publication has 29 references indexed in Scilit:
- Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the Intensive Care UnitCritical Care Medicine, 2013
- Early Intensive Care Sedation Predicts Long-Term Mortality in Ventilated Critically Ill PatientsAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2012
- Dexmedetomidine vs Midazolam or Propofol for Sedation During Prolonged Mechanical VentilationJAMA, 2012
- Weighing the Costs and Benefits of a SedativeJAMA, 2012
- Sedation and Analgesia in the Mechanically Ventilated PatientAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 2012
- Walk a Mile in Whose Shoes?Anesthesia & Analgesia, 2010
- A systematic review of the impact of sedation practice in the ICU on resource use, costs and patient safetyCritical Care, 2010
- Dexmedetomidine vs Midazolam for Sedation of Critically Ill PatientsA Randomized TrialJAMA, 2009
- Efficacy and safety of a paired sedation and ventilator weaning protocol for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care (Awakening and Breathing Controlled trial): a randomised controlled trialThe Lancet, 2008
- Sedation of critically ill patients during mechanical ventilation. A comparison of propofol and midazolam.American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, 1996