scholarly journals Safety and efficacy of non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol sedation during esophagogastroduodenoscopy in the intensive care unit

2019 ◽  
Vol 07 (04) ◽  
pp. E625-E629
Author(s):  
Janaki Patel ◽  
John Fang ◽  
Linda Taylor ◽  
Douglas Adler ◽  
Andrew Gawron

Abstract Background and study aims Propofol sedation is an increasingly popular method of sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. The safety and efficacy of the non-anesthesiologist administration of propofol (NAAP) sedation has been demonstrated in the ambulatory setting. However, NAAP sedation in intensive care unit (ICU) patients has not been reported. The purpose of this study is to determine safety and efficacy of NAAP sedation in an ICU population. Methods We retrospectively reviewed esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGD) performed with NAAP sedation in our intensive care units from June 2014 to September 2016. All EGDs were performed for evaluation of gastrointestinal bleeding. The primary end point of this study was to analyze the incidence of sedation-related adverse events (AEs). The secondary end points included successful completion of procedure and any endoscopic interventions performed. Results Two of 161 procedures (1.2 %) had sedation-related AEs requiring procedure termination. One hundred forty-six of 161 procedures (90.7 %) were successfully completed. Incomplete procedures were due to excess heme, retained food or obstructive lesions (13/161, 8.1 %). Endoscopic intervention was performed successfully in 17/24 cases (70.8 %) that had endoscopically treated lesions identified. One hundred six of 161 patients (66 %) were American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification III or IV. Conclusion Our retrospective analysis demonstrated that EGDs can be successfully completed in ICU patients using NAAP sedation. When procedures cannot be completed, it is rarely due to sedation-related AEs. NAAP sedation further allows adequate examination and successful treatment of high-risk lesions. NAAP sedation appears safe and effective for endoscopic procedures in the ICU setting.

Author(s):  
Iskra I. Ivanova ◽  
Lynn D. Martin

This chapter on sedation and analgesia provides essential information on how to achieve and monitor the comfort of patients safely in the pediatric intensive care unit. Included is succinct information about dosing, pharmacodynamics, and pharmacokinetics of benzodiazepines, opiates, and other sedatives (propofol, etomidate, ketamine, dexmedetomidine, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents), as well as the antagonists naloxone and flumazenil. Information is also provided about the use and dosage of both depolarizing and nondepolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents (muscle relaxants) and American Society of Anesthesiologists guidelines for fasting (i.e., nothing by mouth) times before elective endotracheal intubation. The chapter also includes key information regarding the recognition and treatment of malignant hyperthermia.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie-Susanne Stecher ◽  
Sofia Anton ◽  
Alessia Fraccaroli ◽  
Jeremias Götschke ◽  
Hans Joachim Stemmler ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Point-of-care lung ultrasound (LU) is an established tool in the first assessment of patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Purpose of this study was to evaluate the value of lung ultrasound in COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) patients in predicting clinical course and outcome. Methods We analyzed lung ultrasound score (LUS) of all COVID-19 patients admitted from March 2020 to December 2020 to the Internal Intensive Care Unit, Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU) of Munich. LU was performed according to a standardized protocol at ICU admission and in case of clinical deterioration with the need for intubation. A normal lung scores 0 points, the worst LUS has 24 points. Patients were stratified in a low (0–12 points) and a high (13–24 points) lung ultrasound score group. Results The study included 42 patients, 69% of them male. The most common comorbidities were hypertension (81%) and obesity (57%). The values of pH (7.42 ± 0.09 vs 7.35 ± 0.1; p = 0.047) and paO2 (107 [80–130] vs 80 [66–93] mmHg; p = 0.034) were significantly reduced in patients of the high LUS group. Furthermore, the duration of ventilation (12.5 [8.3–25] vs 36.5 [9.8–70] days; p = 0.029) was significantly prolonged in this group. Patchy subpleural thickening (n = 38; 90.5%) and subpleural consolidations (n = 23; 54.8%) were present in most patients. Pleural effusion was rare (n = 4; 9.5%). The median total LUS was 11.9 ± 3.9 points. In case of clinical deterioration with the need for intubation, LUS worsened significantly compared to baseline LU. Twelve patients died during the ICU stay (29%). There was no difference in survival in both LUS groups (75% vs 66.7%, p = 0.559). Conclusions LU can be a useful monitoring tool to predict clinical course but not outcome of COVID-19 ICU patients and can early recognize possible deteriorations.


2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tessa L. Steel ◽  
Shewit P. Giovanni ◽  
Sarah C. Katsandres ◽  
Shawn M. Cohen ◽  
Kevin B. Stephenson ◽  
...  

Abstract Background The Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol-Revised (CIWA-Ar) is commonly used in hospitals to titrate medications for alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS), but may be difficult to apply to intensive care unit (ICU) patients who are too sick or otherwise unable to communicate. Objectives To evaluate the frequency of CIWA-Ar monitoring among ICU patients with AWS and variation in CIWA-Ar monitoring across patient demographic and clinical characteristics. Methods The study included all adults admitted to an ICU in 2017 after treatment for AWS in the Emergency Department of an academic hospital that standardly uses the CIWA-Ar to assess AWS severity and response to treatment. Demographic and clinical data, including Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) assessments (an alternative measure of agitation/sedation), were obtained via chart review. Associations between patient characteristics and CIWA-Ar monitoring were tested using logistic regression. Results After treatment for AWS, only 56% (n = 54/97) of ICU patients were evaluated using the CIWA-Ar; 94% of patients had a documented RASS assessment (n = 91/97). Patients were significantly less likely to receive CIWA-Ar monitoring if they were intubated or identified as Black. Conclusions CIWA-Ar monitoring was used inconsistently in ICU patients with AWS and completed less often in those who were intubated or identified as Black. These hypothesis-generating findings raise questions about the utility of the CIWA-Ar in ICU settings. Future studies should assess alternative measures for titrating AWS medications in the ICU that do not require verbal responses from patients and further explore the association of race with AWS monitoring.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document