Assessing and Managing Sedation in the Intensive Care and the Perioperative Settings Assessing and Managing Sedation SEDATION Curriculum Learning Objectives • Manage adult patients who need sedation and analgesia while receiving ventilator support according to current standards and guidelines • Use validated scales for sedation, pain, agitation and delirium in the management of these critically ill patients • Assess recent clinical findings in sedation and analgesia management and incorporate them into the management of patients in the acute care, procedural, and surgical sedation settings Predisposing and Causative Conditions Acute Medical or Surgical Illness Mechanical Ventilation Invasive, Medical, & Nursing Interventions Medications Underlying Medical Conditions Hospital Acquired Illness ICU Environmental Influences Anxiety Pain Delirium Management of predisposing & causative conditions Interventions Calm Alert Dangerous Agitation, vent Pain, agitation dyssynchrony anxiety Free of pain and anxiety Agitation Sedative, analgesic, antipsychotic, medications Lightly sedated Deeply Unresponsive sedated Spectrum of Distress/Comfort/Sedation Sessler CN, Varney K. Chest. 2008;133(2):552-565. Need for Sedation and Analgesia • Prevent pain and anxiety • Decrease oxygen consumption • Decrease the stress response • Patient-ventilator synchrony • Avoid adverse neurocognitive sequelae – Depression, PTSD Rotondi AJ, et al. Crit Care Med. 2002;30:746-752. Weinert C. Curr Opin in Crit Care. 2005;11:376-380. Kress JP, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1996;153:1012-1018. Potential Drawbacks of Sedative and Analgesic Therapy • Oversedation: – Failure to initiate spontaneous breathing trials (SBT) leads to increased duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) – Longer duration of ICU stay • Impede assessment of neurologic function • Increase risk for delirium • Numerous agent-specific adverse events Kollef MH, et al. Chest. 1998;114:541-548. Pandharipande PP, et al. Anesthesiology. 2006;104:21-26. American College of Critical Care Medicine Clinical practice guidelines for the sustained use of sedatives and analgesics in the critically ill adult • Guideline focus – Prolonged sedation and analgesia – Patients older than 12 years – Patients during mechanical ventilation • Assessment and treatment recommendations – – – – Analgesia Sedation Delirium Sleep • Update expected in 2012 Jacobi J, et al. Crit Care Med. 2002;30:119-141. Identifying and Treating Pain FACES Pain Scale 0–10 Wong DL, et al. Wong’s Essentials of Pediatric Nursing. 6th ed. St. Louis, MO: Mosby, Inc; 2001. p.1301. Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) 3-12 Item Facial expression Upper limbs Compliance with ventilation Description Score Relaxed 1 Partially tightened (eg, brow lowering) 2 Fully tightened (eg, eyelid closing) 3 Grimacing 4 No movement 1 Partially bent 2 Fully bent with finger flexion 3 Permanently retracted 4 Tolerating movement 1 Coughing but tolerating ventilation for most of the time 2 Fighting ventilator 3 Unable to control ventilation 4 Payen JF, et al. Crit Care Med. 2001;29(12):2258-2263. BPS Validation Sedated Mechanically Ventilated Patients Is BPS Sensitive to Pain? Is BPS Reproducible? Weighted = 0.74, P < 0.01 □ Not painful n = 104 BPS ▲ Retested painful n = 31 Re-Exposed to Pain ● Painful n = 134 Exposed to Pain * P < 0.05 vs rest period †P < 0.05 vs not painful Payen JF, et al. Crit Care Med. 2001;29:2258–2263. Critical Care Pain Observation Tool 0-8 Gélinas C, et al. Am J Crit Care. 2006;15:420-427. Critical Care Pain Observation Tool Sensitivity/Specificity DURING Painful Procedure Gélinas C, et al. Am J Crit Care. 2006;15:420-427. Correlating Pain Assessment with Analgesic Administration in the ICU • Pain scoring used in 21% of surveyed ICUs in 20062 Assessed 100 Patients (%) • Fewer patients assessed for pain, more treated with analgesics in ICUs without analgesia protocols compared with ICUs with protocols1 Treated * 92 87 80 60 60 40 * 25 20 0 Protocol No Protocol * P < 0.01 vs ICUs using a protocol 1. Payen JF, et al. Anesthesiol. 2007;106:687-695. 2. Martin J, et al. Crit Care. 2007;11:R124. Assessing Pain Reduces Sedative/Hypnotic Use What proportion of MV ICU patients received sedative or hypnotic medication? Day 2 Pain Assessment? P-value No (n = 631) Yes (n = 513) Any sedative 86% 75% < 0.01 Midazolam 65% 57% < 0.01 Propofol 21% 17% 0.06 Other 6% 4% 0.03 Payen JF, et al. Anesthesiology. 2009;111;1308-1316. Assessing Pain Improves Some Outcomes Outcome Day 2 Pain Assessment? Unadj. OR P-value Adjusted OR P-value No Yes ICU Mortality 22% 19% 0.91 0.69 1.06 0.71 ICU LOS 18 d 13 d 1.70 < 0.01 1.43 0.04 MV duration 11 d 8d 1.87 < 0.01 1.40 0.05 Vent-acquired pneumonia 24% 16% 0.61 < 0.01 0.75 0.21 Thromboembolic events, gastroduodenal hemorrhage, and CVC colonization were less than 10%, and not changed by pain assessment. Payen JF, et al. Anesthesiology. 2009;111:1308-1316. Maintaining Patients at the Desired Sedation Goal Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) Score State Behaviors 7 Dangerous Agitation Pulling at ET tube, climbing over bedrail, striking at staff, thrashing side-to-side 6 Very Agitated 5 Agitated 4 Calm and Cooperative 3 Sedated 2 Very Sedated Arouses to physical stimuli but does not communicate or follow commands 1 Unarousable Minimal or no response to noxious stimuli, does not communicate or follow commands Does not calm despite frequent verbal reminding, requires physical restraints Anxious or mildly agitated, attempting to sit up, calms down to verbal instructions Calm, awakens easily, follows commands Difficult to arouse, awakens to verbal stimuli or gentle shaking but drifts off Riker RR, et al. Crit Care Med. 1999;27:1325-1329. Brandl K, et al. Pharmacotherapy. 2001;21:431-436. Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) Score State +4 Combative +3 Very agitated +2 Agitated +1 Restless 0 Alert and calm -1 Drowsy eye contact > 10 sec -2 Light sedation eye contact < 10 sec -3 Moderate sedation -4 Deep sedation -5 Unarousable Verbal Stimulus no eye contact physical stimulation Physical Stimulus no response even with physical Ely EW, et al. JAMA. 2003;289:2983-2991. Sessler CN, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2002;166(10):1338-1344. Sedation Scale Reliability r2 0.83 Kappa 0.92 0.93 SAS Riker, 1999 Brandl, 2001 RASS Sessler, 2002 Ely, 2003 0.80 0.91 Ramsay Riker, 1999 Ely, 2003 Olson, 2007 0.88 0.94 0.28 MAAS Devlin, 1999 Hogg, 2001 0.83 0.81 MSAT Weinert, 2004 0.72-0.85 Correlating Sedation Assessment with Sedative Administration in the ICU • 1381 ICU patients included in an observational study of sedation and analgesia practices1 • Use of sedation protocols and scores increased between 2002 and 20062 Patients (%) • Fewer patients assessed, more treated with sedatives in ICUs without sedation protocols compared with ICUs with protocols1 Assessed 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Treated * 76 68 56 * 31 Protocol No Protocol * P < 0.01 vs ICUs using a protocol 1. Payen JF, et al. Anesthesiol. 2007;106:687-695. 2. Martin J, et al. Crit Care. 2007;11:R124. The Importance of Preventing and Identifying Delirium Cardinal Symptoms of Delirium and Coma Morandi A, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2008;34:1907-1915. ICU Delirium • Develops in ~2/3 of critically ill patients • Hypoactive or mixed forms most common • Increased risk – Benzodiazepines – Extended ventilation – Immobility • Associated with weakness • Undiagnosed in up to 72% of cases Vasilevskis EE, et al. Chest. 2010;138(5):1224-1233. Patient Factors Increased age Alcohol use Male gender Living alone Smoking Renal disease Predisposing Disease Less Modifiable Cardiac disease Cognitive impairment (eg, dementia) Pulmonary disease Acute Illness DELIRIUM Environment Admission via ED or through transfer Isolation No clock No daylight No visitors Noise Use of physical restraints More Modifiable Van Rompaey B, et al. Crit Care. 2009;13:R77. Inouye SK, et al. JAMA.1996;275:852-857. Skrobik Y. Crit Care Clin. 2009;25:585-591. Length of stay Fever Medicine service Lack of nutrition Hypotension Sepsis Metabolic disorders Tubes/catheters Medications: - Anticholinergics - Corticosteroids - Benzodiazepines Sequelae of Delirium During the ICU/Hospital Stay After Hospital Discharge • Increased mortality • Longer intubation time • Average 10 additional days in hospital • Higher costs of care • Increased mortality • Development of dementia • Long-term cognitive impairment • Requirement for care in chronic care facility • Decreased functional status at 6 months Bruno JJ, Warren ML. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am. 2010;22(2):161-178. Shehabi Y, et al. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(12):2311-2318. Rockwood K, et al. Age Ageing. 1999;28(6):551-556. Jackson JC, et al. Neuropsychol Rev. 2004;14:87-98. Nelson JE, et al. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:1993-1999. Delirium Duration and Mortality Kaplan-Meier Survival Curve P < 0.001 Each day of delirium in the ICU increases the hazard of mortality by 10% Pisani MA. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2009;180:1092-1097. Confusion Assessment Method (CAM-ICU) 1. Acute onset of mental status changes or a fluctuating course and 2. Inattention and 3. Altered level of consciousness or = Delirium Ely EW, et al. Crit Care Med. 2001;29:1370-1379. Ely EW, et al. JAMA. 2001;286:2703-2710. 4. Disorganized thinking Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist 1. Altered level of consciousness 2. Inattention 3. Disorientation 4. Hallucinations 5. Psychomotor agitation or retardation 6. Inappropriate speech 7. Sleep/wake cycle disturbances 8. Symptom fluctuation Score 1 point for each component present during shift • Score of 1-3 = Subsyndromal Delirium • Score of ≥ 4 = Delirium Bergeron N, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2001;27:859-864. Ouimet S, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33:1007-1013. Subsyndromal Delirium and Clinical Outcomes No delirium (ND) Subsyndromal (SD) Clinical (CD) P value* ICU Mortality 2.4% 10.6% 15.9% P < 0.001 ICU LOS 2.5 d 5.2 d 10.8 d Hospital LOS Severity of illness (APACHE II) 31.7 d 12.9 40.9 d 16.7 P < 0.001 36.4 d ND vs. SD, P = 0.002 ND vs. CD, P < 0.001 SD vs. CD, P = 0.137 18.6 ND vs. SD, P < 0.001 ND vs. CD, P < 0.001 SD vs. CD, P < 0.016 *Pairwise comparison Ouimet S, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2007;33:1007-1013. What to THINK When Delirium Is Present • Toxic Situations – CHF, shock, dehydration – Deliriogenic meds (Tight Titration) – New organ failure, eg, liver, kidney • Hypoxemia; also, consider giving Haloperidol or other antipsychotics? • Infection/sepsis (nosocomial), Immobilization • Nonpharmacologic interventions – Hearing aids, glasses, reorient, sleep protocols, music, noise control, ambulation • K+ or Electrolyte problems See Skrobik Y. Crit Care Clin. 2009;25:585-591. ICU Sedation: The Balancing Act Patient Comfort and Ventilatory Optimization Oversedation Undersedation • Patient recall • Device removal • Ineffectual mechanical ventilation • Initiation of neuromuscular blockade • Myocardial or cerebral ischemia • Decreased family satisfaction w/ care Jacobi J, et al. Crit Care Med. 2002;30:119-141. G O A L • Prolonged mechanical ventilation • Increase length of stay • Increased risk of complications - Ventilator-associated pneumonia • Increased diagnostic testing • Inability to evaluate for delirium Consequence of Improper Sedation • 30.6% 15.4% • Continuous sedation carries the risks associated with oversedation and may increase the duration of mechanical ventilation (MV)1 MV patients accrue significantly more cost during their ICU stay than non-MV patients2 – $31,574 versus $12,931, P < 0.001 • 54.0% Sedation should be titrated to achieve a cooperative patient and daily wake-up, a JC requirement1,2 Undersedated3 Oversedated On Target 1. Kress JP, et al. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1471-1477. 2. Dasta JF, et al. Crit Care Med. 2005;33:1266-1271. 3. Kaplan LJ, Bailey H. Crit Care. 2000;4(suppl 1):P190. Opioids Clinical Effects Adverse Effects • Respiratory depression • Analgesia • Sedation • Hypotension • Bradycardia • Constipation • Tolerance Fentanyl • Withdrawal symptoms • Hormonal changes Morphine Remifentanil Benyamin R, et al. Pain Physician. 2008;11(2 Suppl):S105-120. Opioid Mechanisms Neurotransmitters ACh Acetylcholine Glu Glutamate NE Norepinephrine Brown EN, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(27):2638-2650. Analgosedation • Analgesic first (A-1), supplement with sedative • Acknowledges that discomfort may cause agitation • Remifentanil-based regimen – Reduces propofol use – Reduces median MV time – Improves sedation-agitation scores • Not appropriate for drug or alcohol withdrawal Park G, et al. Br J Anaesth. 2007;98:76-82. Rozendaal FW, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35:291-298. Analgosedation • 140 critically ill adult patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in single center • Randomized, open label trial – Both groups received bolus morphine (2.5 or 5 mg) – Group 1: No sedation (n = 70 patients)- morphine prn – Group 2: Sedation (20 mg/mL propofol for 48 h, 1 mg/mL midazolam thereafter) with daily interruption until awake (n = 70, control group) • Endpoints – Primary • Number of days without mechanical ventilation in a 28-day period – Other • Length of stay in ICU (admission to 28 days) • Length of stay in hospital (admission to 90 days) Strøm T, et al. Lancet. 2010;375:475-480. Analgosedation Intervention Morphine prn at 2.5 or 5 mg for comfort Physician consult if patient seemed uncomfortable Haloperidol prn for delirium If still uncomfortable, propofol infusion for 6 hours Transitioned back to prn morphine Strøm T, et al. Lancet. 2010;375:475-480. Analgosedation Results • Patients receiving no sedation had – – – – More days without ventilation (13.8 vs 9.6 days, P = 0.02) Shorter stay in ICU (HR 1.86, P = 0.03) Shorter stay in hospital (HR 3.57, P = 0.004) More agitated delirium (N = 11, 20% vs N = 4, 7%, P = 0.04) • No differences found in – Accidental extubations – Need for CT or MRI – Ventilator-associated pneumonia Strøm T, et al. Lancet. 2010;375:475-480. Options for Sedation: Recent Clinical Results Characteristics of an Ideal Sedative • Rapid onset of action allows rapid recovery after discontinuation • Effective at providing adequate sedation with predictable dose response • Easy to administer • Lack of drug accumulation • Few adverse effects • Minimal adverse interactions with other drugs • Cost-effective • Promotes natural sleep 1. Ostermann ME, et al. JAMA. 2000;283:1451-1459. 2. Jacobi J, et al. Crit Care Med. 2002;30:119-141. 3. Dasta JF, et al. Pharmacother. 2006;26:798-805. 4. Nelson LE, et al. Anesthesiol. 2003;98:428-436. Consider Patient Comorbidities When Choosing a Sedation Regimen • • • • • • • Chronic pain Organ dysfunction CV instability Substance withdrawal Respiratory insufficiency Obesity Obstructive sleep apnea GABA Agonist Benzodiazepine Midazolam Clinical Effects • Sedation, anxiolysis, and amnesia • Rapid onset of action (IV) Adverse Effects • May accumulate with hepatic and/or renal failure • Anterograde amnesia • Long recovery time • Synergy with opioids • Respiratory depression • Delirium Olkkola KT, Ahonen J. Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2008;(182):335-360. Riker RR, et al; SEDCOM Study Group. JAMA. 2009;301(5):489-499. Midazolam Pharmacodynamics: It’s About Time • Highly lipid soluble • α-OH midazolam metabolite • CYP3A4 activity decreased in critical illness • Substantial CYP3A4 variability Time to Endpoint (h) 60 50 40 Extubation Alertness Recovery 30 20 10 0 <1 1-7 >7 Sedation Time (days) Carrasco G, et al. Chest. 1993;103:557-564. Bauer TM, et al. Lancet. 1995;346:145-147. GABA Agonist Benzodiazepine Lorazepam Clinical Effects Sedation, anxiolysis, and amnesia Commonly used for longterm sedation Adverse Effects Metabolic acidosis (propylene glycol vehicle toxicity) Retrograde and anterograde amnesia Delirium Olkkola KT, Ahonen J. Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2008;(182):335-360. Wilson KC, et al. Chest. 2005;128(3):1674-1681. Transitioning to Delirium Only OR (95% CI) P Value Lorazepam 1.2 (1.1-1.4) 0.003 Midazolam 1.7 (0.9-3.2) 0.09 Fentanyl 1.2 (1.0-1.5) 0.09 Morphine 1.1 (0.9-1.2) 0.24 Propofol 1.2 (0.9-1.7) 0.18 Medication Delirium Risk Risk of Delirium With Benzodiazepines Lorazepam Dose, mg Pandharipande P, et al. J Trauma. 2008;65:34-41. Pandharipande P, et al. Anesthesiol. 2006:104:21-26. GABA Agonist Propofol Clinical Effects • • • • • • • • Sedation Hypnosis Anxiolysis Muscle relaxation Mild bronchodilation Decreased ICP Decreased cerebral metabolic rate Antiemetic Adverse Effects • • • • • • • • • Pain on injection Respiratory depression Hypotension Decreased myocardial contractility Increased serum triglycerides Tolerance Propofol infusion syndrome Prolonged effect with high adiposity Seizures (rare) Ellett ML. Gastroenterol Nurs. 2010;33(4):284-925. Lundström S, et al. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2010;40(3):466-470. Central Mechanisms of Propofol Monoaminergic pathways Cholinergic pathways Lateral hypothalamus neurons Brown EN, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(27):2638-2650. Neurotransmitters ACh Acetylcholine DA Dopamine GABA γ-Aminobutyric acid GAL Galanin Glu Glutamate His Histamine NE Norepinephrine 5HT Serotonin Propofol Has Greater Sedation Efficacy Than Continuous Midazolam Efficacy of Sedation* n = 18 trials * Avg adequate sedation time avg total sedation time Walder B, et al. Anesth Analg. 2001;92:975-983. Duration of Adequate Sedation n = 15 trials Continuous Midazolam Has Longer Weaning Time From MV Than Propofol Data from 8 RCT Walder B, et al. Anesth Analg. 2001;92:975-983. Scheduled Intermittent Lorazepam vs Propofol with Daily Interruption in MICU Patients Lorazepam n = 64 Propofol n = 68 P value Ventilator days 8.4 5.8 0.04 ICU LOS 10.4 8.3 0.20 APACHE II 22.9 20.7 0.05 Daily sedation dose 11.5 mg 24.4 mcg/kg/min _ Morphine dose (mg/day) 10.7 31.6 0.001 Use of haloperidol 12% 9% 0.80 Carson SS, et al. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:1326-1332. a2 Agonist Clonidine Clinical Effects • • • • • Antihypertensive Analgesia Sedation Decrease sympathetic activity Decreased shivering Adverse Effects • • • • Bradycardia Dry mouth Hypotension Sedation Kamibayashi T, et al. Anesthesiol. 2000;93:1345-1349. Bergendahl H, et al. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2005;18(6):608-613. Hossmann V, et al. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1980;28(2):167-176. Physiology of a2 Adrenoceptors a2A Anxiolysis a2A a2C X ? a2B a2A a2B X a2A ? a2B Adapted from Kamibayashi T, Maze M. Anesthesiology. 2000;93:1346-1349. a2 Agonist Dexmedetomidine Clinical Effects • • • • • • • Antihypertensive Sedation Analgesia Decreased shivering Anxiolysis Patient arousability Potentiate effects of opioids, sedatives, and anesthetics • Decrease sympathetic activity Kamibayashi T, et al. Anesthesiol. 2000;93:1345-1349. Bhana N, et al. Drugs. 2000;59(2):263-268. Adverse Effects • • • • • • Hypotension Hypertension Nausea Bradycardia Dry mouth Peripheral vasoconstriction at high doses Central Mechanisms of Dexmedetomidine Neurotransmitters ACh DA GABA GAL Glu His NE 5HT Brown EN, et al. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(27):2638-2650. Acetylcholine Dopamine γ-Aminobutyric acid Galanin Glutamate Histamine Norepinephrine Serotonin Maximizing Efficacy of Targeted Sedation and Reducing Neurological Dysfunction (MENDS) • Double-blind RCT of dexmedetomidine vs lorazepam • 103 patients (2 centers) – 70% MICU, 30% SICU patients (requiring mechanical ventilation > 24 hours) – Primary outcome: Days alive without delirium or coma • Intervention – Dexmedetomidine 0.15–1.5 mcg/kg/hr – Lorazepam infusion 1–10 mg/hr – Titrated to sedation goal (using RASS) established by ICU team • No daily interruption Pandharipande PP, et al. JAMA. 2007;298:2644-2653. MENDS: Dexmedetomidine vs Lorazepam P = 0.086 P < 0.001 6 Differences in 28-day mortality and delirium-free days were not significant 2 Dexmedetomidine n = 52 0 Delirium/Coma-Free Days Dexmedetomidine resulted in more days alive without delirium or coma (P = 0.01) and a lower prevalence of coma (P < 0.001) than lorazepam Dexmedetomidine resulted in more time spent within sedation goals than lorazepam (P = 0.04) 4 Days 8 10 12 P = 0.011 Delirium-Free Days Coma-Free Days Pandharipande PP, et al. JAMA. 2007;298:2644-2653. Lorazepam n = 51 MENDS Delirium: All Patients Pandharipande PP, et al. Crit Care. 2010;14:R38. MENDS: Survival in Septic ICU Patients Pandharipande PP, et al. Crit Care. 2010;14:R38. MENDS Trial: Safety Profile Outcome Lorazepam (n = 50) Dexmedetomidine (n = 51) P-Value Lowest SBP 97 (88,102) 96 (88,105) 0.58 20% 25% 0.51 0 (0,3) 0 (0,2) 0.72 Sinus bradycardia (< 60/min) 4% 17% 0.03 Heart rate < 40 2% 2% 0.99 Self-extubations (reintubations) 2 (2) 4 (3) 0.41 Ever hypotensive (SBP < 80) Days on vasoactive meds Pandharipande PP, et al. JAMA. 2007;298:2644-2653. SEDCOM: Dexmedetomidine vs Midazolam • Double-blind, randomized, multicenter trial comparing long-term (> 24 hr) dexmedetomidine (dex, n = 244) with midazolam (mz, n = 122) • Sedatives (dex 0.2-1.4 μg/kg/hr or mz 0.02-0.1 mg/kg/hr) titrated for light sedation (RASS -2 to +1), administered up to 30 days • All patients underwent daily arousal assessments and drug titration Q 4 hours Outcome PMidazolam Dexmedetomidine Value (n = 122) (n = 244) Time in target sedation range, % (primary EP) 75.1 77.3 0.18 Duration of sedation, days 4.1 3.5 0.01 Time to extubation, days 5.6 3.7 0.01 93 (76.6%) 132 (54%) 0.001 1.7 2.5 0.002 60 (49%) 153 (63%) 0.02 Delirium prevalence Delirium-free days Patients receiving open-label midazolam Riker RR, et al. JAMA. 2009;301:489-499. Reduced Delirium Prevalence with Dexmedetomidine vs Midazolam SEDCOM Patients With Delirium, % 100 Dexmedetomidine versus Midazolam, P < 0.001 80 Midazolam 60 Dexmedetomidine 40 20 0 Baseline 1 2 3 4 5 6 57 92 42 60 44 34 Treatment Day Sample Size 118 229 109 206 Riker RR, et al. JAMA. 2009;301:489-499. 92 175 77 134 SEDCOM Trial: Safety Outcomes Outcome Midazolam (n = 122) Dexmedetomidine P(n = 244) Value Bradycardia Bradycardia needing treatment 18.9% 0.8% 42.2% 4.9% 0.001 0.07 Tachycardia 44.3% 25.4% 0.001 Hypertension requiring intervention 29.5% 18.9% 0.02 Hyperglycemia 42.6% 56.6% 0.02 Infections 19.7% 10.2% 0.02 Riker RR, et al. JAMA. 2009;301:489-499. Comparison of Clinical Effects Benzodiazepines Propofol Sedation X Alleviate anxiety1,2 X X Opioids a2 Agonists Haloperidol X X X X Analgesic properties1-4 X X Promote arousability during sedation2-4 Facilitate ventilation during weaning2-4 X X Control delirium1-4 1. Blanchard AR. Postgrad Med. 2002;111:59-74. 2. Kamibayashi T, et al. Anesthesiol. 2000;95:1345-1349. 3. Maze M, et al. Anesthetic Pharmacology: Physiologic Principles and Clinical Practice. Churchill Livingstone; 2004. 4. Maze M, et al. Crit Care Clin. 2001;17:881-897. X X X Comparison of Adverse Effects Benzodiazepines Propofol Opioids Prolonged weaning 1 X X X* Respiratory depression 1 X X X Hypotension 1-3 X X X Constipation 1 Deliriogenic Haloperidol X X X X X X X Tachycardia 1 Bradycardia 1 a2 Agonists X morphine X fentanyl *Excluding remifentanil 1. Harvey MA. Am J Crit Care. 1996;5:7-18. 2. Aantaa R, et al. Drugs of the Future. 1993;18:49-56. 3. Maze M, et al. Crit Care Clin. 2001;17:881-897. Costs of Drug Therapy • • • • • • • • Acquisition Waste disposal Preparation Distribution Administration (Nursing time) Toxicity cost (ADRs) Monitoring (Time, lab, and diagnostic tests) Downstream issues (infections, adverse events, ICU stay, ventilator time, etc) Dasta JF, Kane-Gill S. Crit Care Clin. 2009;25:571-583. Drug Acquisition Cost (70 kg patient, per day) • • • • Lorazepam 3 mg/hr: Midazolam 5 mg/hr Propofol 30 mcg/kg/min: Dexmedetomidine 0.5 mcg/kg/hr: Tufts Medical Center 2009 Pricing $35 $42 $150 $274 Propofol Is More Cost-Effective Than Lorazepam Propofol less expensive Ratio of propofol to lorazepam MV days 2 ` Average duration of MV Cost of ICU day 0.5 Lorazepam more effective Low High $1,825 $9,488 75% 5% Cost of hospital ward day $1,892 $631 Probability of propofol intolerance 20% 0%c Probability of lorazepam intolerance 20% 0% Hospital mortality Crossover group from propofol Lorazepam Physician costs High Cost of propofol $11.37 Daily propofol dose, mg 4,347 Cost of lorazepam -$30 -$25 Low $60.77 949 $0.81 $7.82 Daily lorazepam dose, mg -$35 Midazolam 23 4 -$20 -$15 -$10 -$5 $0 $5 Cost Difference Between Lorazepam and Propofol ($ Thousands) Cox CE, et al. Crit Care Med. 2008;36:706-714. $10 $15 $20 $25 $30 $35 MENDS Trial: Cost of Care Component Lorazepam Dexmedetomidine P-value Pharmacy 20.6 (10,42) 27.4 (16,46) 0.15 2.9 (2,6) 3.5 (2,7) 0.35 59.5 (36,83) 61.4 (37,108) 0.32 Respiratory ICU cost $ – Costs represented in thousands, US dollars (Median, IQR) Pandharipande PP, et al. JAMA. 2007;298:2644-2653. SEDCOM Cost of Care DEX MID • Median drug costs • Dex $1,166 • Midazolam $60 60,000 50,149 50,000 40,365 Dollars 40,000 • Total ICU patient savings with 40,501 Dex: $9679 36,571 • Reduced ICU stay • Reduced MV 30,000 20,000 10,885 10,000 P < 0.01 P < 0.05 7,022 P < 0.01 0 Total ICU cost Dasta JF, et al. Crit Care Med. 2010;38:497-503. ICU component Mechanical ventilation component Strategies to Reduce the Duration of Mechanical Ventilation in Patients Receiving Continuous Sedation Nurse-Driven Sedation Protocol • • RCT of RN-driven protocol vs non-protocol sedation care in 321 MICU patients requiring mechanical ventilation The protocol: – – – – – Assess pain first Correct other etiologies for agitation Use a sedation score to titrate sedatives Use intermittent sedation first Actively down-titrated sedation even when patient was at “goal” Brook AD, et al Crit Care Med. 1999;27:2609-2615. Pharmacist-Driven Sedation Protocol Median Days of Mechanical Ventilation • 156 MICU patients prescribed continuous sedation • Protocol encouraged 25% down-titration when patients more sedated than goal • Before/after design evaluating impact of pharmacist promoting protocol on at least a daily basis 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 P < 0.001 6.9 5.2 Pharmacist-Led Marshall J, et al. Crit Care Med. 2008;36:427-433. Control Daily Sedation Interruption Decreases Duration of Mechanical Ventilation • Hold sedation infusion until patient awake and then restart at 50% of the prior dose • “Awake” defined as 3 of the following 4: – Open eyes in response to voice – Use eyes to follow investigator on request – Squeeze hand on request – Stick out tongue on request • Fewer diagnostic tests to assess changes in mental status • No increase in rate of agitated-related complications or episodes of patient-initiated device removal • No increase in PTSD or cardiac ischemia Kress JP, et al. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1471-1477. ABC Trial: Objectives To determine the efficacy and safety of a protocol linking: spontaneous awakening trials (SATs) & spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs) – – – – – Ventilator-free days Duration of mechanical ventilation ICU and hospital length of stay Duration of coma and delirium Long-term neuropsychological outcomes Girard TD, et al. Lancet. 2008;371:126-134. ABC Trial: Main Outcomes SBT SAT+SBT P-value† 12 15 0.02 Successful extubation 7.0 5 0.05 ICU discharge 13 9 0.02 Hospital discharge 19 15 0.04 97 (58%) 74 (44%) 0.01 Coma 3.0 2.0 0.002 Delirium 2.0 2.0 0.50 Outcome* Ventilator-free days Time-to-Event, days Death at 1 year, n (%) Days of brain dysfunction *Median, except as noted †SBT compared with SAT+SBT Girard TD, et al. Lancet. 2008;371:126-134. ABC Trial: 1 Year Follow-Up Girard TD, et al. Lancet. 2008;371:126-134. Despite Proven Benefits of Spontaneous Awakening/Daily Interruption Trials, They Are Not Standard of Practice at Most Institutions Canada – 40% get SATs (273 physicians in 2005)1 US – 40% get SATs (2004-05)2 Germany – 34% get SATs (214 ICUs in 2006)3 France – 40–50% deeply sedated with 90% on continuous infusion of sedative/opiate4 1. Mehta S, et al. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:374-380. 2. Devlin J. Crit Care Med. 2006;34:556-557. 3. Martin J, et al. Crit Care. 2007;11:R124. 4. Payen JF, et al. Anesthesiology. 2007;106:687-695. Barriers to Daily Sedation Interruption (Survey of 904 SCCM members) Increased device removal Poor nursing acceptance Compromises patient comfort Leads to respiratory compromise Difficult to coordinate with nurse No benefit #1 Barrier Leads to cardiac ischemia #2 Barrier #3 Barrier Leads to PTSD 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Number of respondents (%) Clinicians preferring propofol were more likely use daily interruption than those preferring benzodiazepines (55% vs 40% , P < 0.0001) Tanios MA, et al. J Crit Care. 2009;24:66-73. Early Mobilization Trial Design • 104 sedated patients with daily interruption – – Early exercise and mobilization (PT & OT; intervention; n = 49) PT & OT as ordered by the primary care team (control; n = 55) • Primary endpoint: Number of patients returning to independent functional status at hospital discharge – – Ability to perform 6 activities of daily living Ability to walk independently • Assessors blinded to treatment assignment • Secondary endpoints – – Duration of delirium during first 28 days of hospital stay Ventilator-free days during first 28 days of hospital stay Schweickert WD, et al. Lancet. 2009;373:1874-1882. Early Mobilization Protocol: Result Return to independent functional status at discharge – 59% in intervention group – 35% in control group (P = 0.02) Schweickert WD, et al. Lancet. 2009;373:1874-1882. Animation = Less Delirium Control (n = 55) P-Value 2 4 0.03 Time in ICU with Delirium 33% 57% 0.02 Time in Hosp. with Delirium 28% 41% 0.01 Variable Intervention (n = 49) ICU/Hosp Delirium (days) Schweickert WD, et al. Lancet. 2009;373:1874-1882. Procedural Sedation Major Applications • Surgical – CV surgery – Neurosurgery – Bariatric surgery • Endoscopic – Bronchoscopy – Fiberoptic intubation – Colonoscopy Standardized Monitoring • Hemodynamic – ECG – Blood pressure • Respiration – Oxygenation (SpO2 by pulse oximetry, supplemental oxygen) – Ventilation (end tidal CO2, EtCO2) • Temperature (risk of hypothermia) • Higher risk at remote locations – Inadequate oxygenation/ventilation – Oversedation – Inadequate monitoring Eichhorn V, et al. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2010;23(4):494-499. Factors Jeopardizing Safety • Risk of major blood loss • Extended duration of surgery (> 6 h) • Critically ill patients (evaluate and document prior to procedure) • Need for specialized expertise or equipment (cardiopulmonary bypass, thoracic or intracranial surgery) • Supply and support functions or resources are limited • Inadequate postprocedural care • Physical plant is inappropriate or fails to meet regulatory standards Eichhorn V, et al. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2010;23(4):494-499. Sedation/Analgesia for Traumatic Brain Injury Goal: reduce ICP by decreasing pain, agitation Agent Advantages Considerations Propofol • Short acting • Reduces cerebral metabolism, O2 consumption • Improves ICP after 3d • Propofol infusion syndrome Barbiturates • Reduce ICP • Neuroprotection • Interfere with neuro exam • Hypotension, reduced CBF • OCs not improved with severe TBI Saiki RL. Crit Care Nurs Clin North Am. 2009;21:549-559. Fentanyl vs Dexmedetomidine in Bariatric Surgery • 20 morbidly obese patients • Roux-en-Y gastric bypass surgery • All received midazolam, desflurane to maintain BIS at 45–50, and intraoperative analgesics – Fentanyl (n = 10) 0.5 µg/kg bolus, 0.5 µg/kg/h – Dexmedetomidine (n = 10) 0.5 µg/kg bolus, 0.4 µg/kg/h • Dexmedetomidine associated with – Lower desflurane requirement for BIS maintenance – Decreased surgical BP and HR – Lower postoperative pain and morphine use (up to 2 h) Feld JM, et al. J Clin Anesthesia. 2006;18:24-28. Dexmedetomidine in Bariatric Surgery • • • • 80 morbidly obese patients Gastric banding or bypass surgery Prospective dose ranging study Medication – – – – – Celecoxib Midazolam Propofol Desflurane Dexmedetomidine 400 mg 20 µg/kg 1.25 mg/kg 4% 0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.8 µg/kg/h Tufanogullari B, et al. Anesth Analg. 2008;106:1741-1748. po IV IV inspired IV Dexmedetomidine in Bariatric Surgery: Results • More dex 0.8 patients required rescue phenylephrine for hypotension than control pts (50% vs 20%, P < 0.05) • All dex groups – – – – Required less desflurane (19%–22%) Had lower MAP for 45’ post-op Required less fentanyl after awakening (36%–42%) Had less emetic symptoms post-op • No clinical difference – – – – Emergence from anesthesia Post-op self-administered morphine and pain scores Length of stay in post-anesthesia care unit Length of stay in hospital Tufanogullari B, et al. Anesth Analg. 2008;106:1741-1748. Sedation for Endoscopy • Desirable qualities – Permits complete diagnostic exam – Safe – Diminishes memory of the procedure – Permits rapid discharge after procedure Runza M. Minerva Anestesiol. 2009;75:673-674. • Risk factors – – – – – – – Depth of sedation ASA status Medical conditions Pregnancy Difficult airway mgt Extreme age Rapid discharge time Propofol vs Combined Sedation in Flexible Bronchoscopy • Randomized non-inferiority trial • 200 diverse patients received propofol or midazolam/hydrocodone • 1o endpoints – Mean lowest SaO2 – Readiness for discharge at 1h • Result – No difference in mean lowest SaO2 – Propofol group had • Higher readiness for discharge score (P = 0.035) • Less tachycardia • Higher cough scores • Conclusion: Propofol is a viable alternative to midazolam/ hydrocodone for FB Stolz D, et al. Eur Respir J. 2009;34:1024-1030. Fiberoptic Intubation Agent Class Example Advantages Considerations GABA agonist Benzodiazepine Midazolam • Quick onset • Injection not painful • Short duration • Not analgesic • Airway reflexes persist GABA agonist Benzodiazepine Propofol • Quick onset • Respiratory depression • Unconsciousness • Decreased bp, cardiac output • Increased HR Opioid Fentanyl Remifentanil • Analgesic • Cough suppressive • Respiratory depression a2 Agonist Dexmedetomidine • Pt easily arousable • Anxiolytic • Analgesic • No respir. depression • Transient hypertension • Hypotension • Bradycardia Summary courtesy of Pratik Pandharipande, MD. Prevention and Treatment of Delirium in the ICU Before Considering a Pharmacologic Treatment for Delirium… • Have the underlying causes of delirium been identified and reversed/treated? • Have non-pharmacologic treatment strategies been optimized? • Does your patient have delirium? – Hyperactive – Hypoactive – Mixed hyperactive-hypoactive Inouye SK, et al. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:669-676. Dopamine Antagonist Haloperidol Clinical Effects • Hypnotic agent with antipsychotic properties1 – For treatment of delirium in critically ill adults1 • Does not cause respiratory depression1 Adverse Effects • Dysphoria2 • Adverse CV effects include QT interval prolongation • Extrapyramidal symptoms, neuroleptic malignant syndrome (rare)1 • Metabolism altered by drug-drug interactions2 1. Harvey MA. Am J Crit Care. 1996;5:7-16. 2. Crippen DW. Crit Care Clin. 1990;6:369-392. Use of Haloperidol Is an Independent Predictor for Prolonged Delirium Pisani MA, et al. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:177-183. Potential Advantages of Atypical Antipsychotics vs Conventional Antipsychotics • Decreased extrapyramidal effects • Little effect on the QTc interval (with the exception of ziprasidone) • Less hypotension/fewer orthostatic effects • Less likely to cause neuroleptic malignant syndrome • Unlikely to cause laryngeal dystonia • Lower mortality when used in the elderly to treat agitation related to dementia Tran PV, et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 1997;58:205-211. Lee PE, et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53:1374-1379. Wang PS, et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2235-2341. Use of Atypical Antipsychotic Therapy Is Increasing 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Ely EW, et al. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:106-112. Patel RP, et al. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:825-832. 2001 2007 Antipsychotic Therapy Rule Out Dementia • Elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis treated with conventional or atypical antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk of death • Antipsychotic drugs are not approved for the treatment of dementiarelated psychosis. Furthermore, there is no approved drug for the treatment of dementia-related psychosis • Physicians who prescribe antipsychotics to elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis should discuss this risk of increased mortality with their patients, patients’ families, and caregivers http://www.canhr.org/ToxicGuide/Media/Articles/FDA%20Alert%20on%20Antipsychotics.pdf Drug Specificity: Comparative Receptor Binding Profiles Quetiapine Olanzapine D1D2 D1 5HT2A D2 5HT1A 5HT2A M A1 H1 A1 A2 A2 H1 Ziprasidone A1 5HT1A Risperidone A2 H1 D2 D1 Haloperidol D1 D2 D1 A1 A1 5HT1A 5HT1A 5HT2A 5HT2A 5HT2A Adapted from Gareri P, et al. Clin Drug Invest. 2003;23:287-322. D2 Rationale-based Pharmacotherapy Important Principles Receptors Effects of Receptor Blockade H1 Sedation, weight gain, postural dizziness D2 EPS, prolactin elevation, antipsychotic 5-HT2C Satiety blockade 5-HT2A Anti-EPS? α1-adrenergic Hypotension M1 Deficits in memory and cognition, dry mouth, constipation, tachycardia, blurred vision Adapted from Weiden P, et al. J Clin Psychiatry. 2007;68:5-46. Modifying the Incidence of Delirium (MIND) Trial • Design: Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial • Setting: 6 tertiary medical centers • Intervention: – Haloperidol (5 mg) vs ziprasidone (40 mg) vs placebo – Max 14 days – Dose interval increased if CAM-ICU negative – Could give IM if NPO up to max 8 doses – Oversedation: ↓dose frequency when RASS ≥ 2 levels above target (after holding sedation therapy) – If delirium reoccurred after d/c of study drug then restarted at last effective dose (and weaned again as per above) • Primary outcome: – Number of days patient alive without delirium or coma during the 21-day study period • Delirium = + CAM-ICU • Coma = RASS (-4) [ie, responsive to physical but not verbal stimulation] or RASS (-5) [ie, not responsive to either] Girard TD, et al. Crit Care Med. 2010;38:428-437. MIND Trial Results Outcome Haloperidol, n = 35 Ziprasidone, n = 30 Placebo, n = 36 P-value Delirium/coma-free days 14.0 15.0 12.5 0.66 Delirium days 4 4 4 0.93 23 (77) 21 (58) 0.28 Delirium resolution on study drug, n(%) 24 (69) Coma days 2 2 2 0.90 % of days accurately sedated 70 64 71 0.91 Ventilator-free days 7.8 12.0 12.5 0.25 Length of stay, days ICU Hospital 21-day mortality, n (%) 11.7 13.8 9.6 13.5 7.3 15.4 0.70 0.68 4 (11) 4 (13) 6 (17) 0.81 0 0 0 0.56 Average extrapyramidal symptoms score Girard TD, et al. Crit Care Med. 2010;38:428-437. Quetiapine for Delirium Study Design • Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial • 3 academic medical centers • Intervention – Quetiapine 50 mg PO/NGT twice daily titrated to a maximum of 200 mg twice daily) vs placebo – PRN IV haloperidol protocolized and encouraged in each group – Oversedation: hold study drug when SAS ≤ 2 (after holding sedation therapy) • Primary outcome – Time to first resolution of delirium (ie, first 12-hour period when ICDSC ≤ 3) Devlin JW, et al. Crit Care Med. 2010;38:419-427. 258 patients with delirium (ICDSC ≥ 4) tolerating enteral nutrition 222 patients excluded 36 subjects randomized Quetiapine 50 mg NG bid (n = 18) Placebo 50 mg NG bid (n = 18) As-needed haloperidol, usual sedation and analgesia therapy at physician’s discretion Dose Titration Increase quetiapine or placebo dose by 50 mg every 12 hours daily if the subject received ≥ 1 dose of as needed haloperidol in prior 24 hours. (Maximum dose = 200 mg every 12 hours) Discontinuation of study drug 1. No signs of delirium 2. 10 days of therapy had elapsed 3. ICU discharge prior to 10 days of therapy 4. Serious adverse event potentially attributable to the study drug Devlin JW, et al. Crit Care Med. 2010;38:419-427. Proportion of Patients with Delirium Patients with First Resolution of Delirium Log-Rank P = 0.001 Placebo Quetiapine Day During Study Drug Administration Quetiapine added to as-needed haloperidol results in faster delirium resolution, less agitation, and a greater rate of transfer to home or rehabilitation. Devlin JW, et al. Crit Care Med. 2010;38:419-427. The Interaction Between Sedation, Critical Illness and Sleep in the ICU Sleep Abnormalities in the ICU % time in light sleep increased (NREM stages 1 and 2) % time in deep sleep decreased [slow wave sleep (SWS) and REM sleep) Sleep fragmentation increased Friese R. Crit Care Med. 2008;36:697-705. Weinhouse GL, Watson PL. Crit Care Clin. 2009;25:539-549. Effect of Common Sedatives and Analgesics on Sleep There is little evidence that administration of sedatives in the ICU achieves the restorative function of normal sleep • Benzodiazepines ↑ Stage 2 NREM ↓ Slow wave sleep (SWS) and REM • Propofol ↑ Total sleep time without enhancing REM ↓ SWS • Analgesics – Abnormal sleep architecture • Dexmedetomidine ↑ SWS Weinhouse GL, et al. Sleep. 2006;29:707-716. Nelson LE, et al. Anesthesiology. 2003;98:428-436. Strategies to Boost Sleep Quality in the ICU • • • • Optimize environmental strategies Avoid benzodiazepines Consider dexmedetomidine Zolpidem and zopiclone are GABA receptor agonists but do not decrease SWS like the benzodiazepines • Sedating antidepressants (eg, trazodone) or antipsychotics may offer an option in non-intubated patients • Melatonin may improve sleep of COPD patients in medical ICU (1 small RCT) • Don’t disturb sleeping patients at night Weinhouse GL, Watson PL. Crit Care Clinics. 2009;25:539-549. Faulhaber J, et al. Psychopharmacology. 1997;130:285-291. Shilo L, et al. Chronobiol Int. 2000;17:71-76. American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) Guidelines • Clinical practice guidelines for the sustained use of sedatives and analgesics in the critically ill adult • Pertains to patients older than 12 years during M V • Areas of focus – Assessment for pain, delirium – Physiological monitoring – Pharmacologic tools • Most recommendations grade B or C Jacobi J, et al. Crit Care Med. 2002;30:119-141. Conclusions • Oversedation in the ICU is common; associated with negative sequelae • Monitor and treat pain and delirium prior to administering sedation therapy • Analgosedation has been shown to improve outcomes; consider sedation only if necessary • Titrate all sedative medications using a validated assessment tool to keep patients comfortable and arousable if possible • Monitor for adverse events Conclusions • ICU sedation should use protocols that include a downtitration and/or daily interruption strategy coupled with a spontaneous breathing trial • Multiple sedatives are available • Propofol and dexmedetomidine will liberate patients from mechanical ventilation faster than benzodiazepine therapy (even when administered intermittently) and are associated with less delirium • Use of benzodiazepines should be minimized Conclusions • Cost of care calculations should consider the overall costs, not just drug acquisition costs • Early mobility in ICU patients decreases delirium and improves functional outcomes at discharge • Consider non-pharmacological management of delirium and reduce exposure to risk factors • Typical and atypical antipsychotic medications may be used to treat delirium if non-pharmacological interventions are not adequate