Daily Interruption of Sedative Infusions in Critically Ill Patients Undergoing Mechanical Ventilation

2000 ◽  
Vol 342 (20) ◽  
pp. 1471-1477 ◽  
Author(s):  
John P. Kress ◽  
Anne S. Pohlman ◽  
Michael F. O'Connor ◽  
Jesse B. Hall
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Daily Interruption

A Protocol of No Sedation for Critically Ill Patients Receiving Mechanical Ventilation

2018 ◽  
pp. 33-38
Author(s):  
Ulrich Schmidt ◽  
Zeb McMillan
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Clinical Case ◽  
Daily Interruption ◽  
Study Intervention ◽  
Landmark Study

This chapter provides a summary of the landmark study known as a protocol of no sedation for critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a randomized trial. Can duration of mechanical ventilation be reduced with a protocol of no sedation versus daily interruption of sedation? Starting with that question, it describes the basics of the study, including funding, study location, who was studied, how many patients, study design, study intervention, follow-up, endpoints, results, and criticism and limitations. The chapter briefly reviews other relevant studies and information, discusses implications, and concludes with a relevant clinical case. Understanding that not all patients receiving mechanical ventilation require sedation is an important first step to determining the best regimen.

Daily Interruption of Sedative Infusions in Critically Ill Patients Undergoing Mechanical Ventilation

2018 ◽  
pp. 15-20
Author(s):  
David Stahl
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Mechanically Ventilated ◽  
Daily Interruption ◽  
Relevant Context ◽  
Study Intervention ◽  
Daily Sedation Interruption

This chapter provides a summary of a landmark study in critical care medicine. Does the daily interruption of continuous sedative infusions in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation decrease the duration of mechanical ventilation and the duration of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU)? This chapter describes the study designed to answer that question including funding, study location, patient population, study design, study intervention, follow-up, endpoints, results, and criticism and limitations. The chapter briefly reviews other relevant context and studies, discusses implications, and concludes with a relevant clinical case. This was the first randomized-controlled trial to demonstrate that daily sedation interruption for mechanically ventilated medical ICU patients is safe and may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and length of stay in the ICU.

scholarly journals Effect of timing of intubation on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of non-randomized cohort studies

Critical Care ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eleni Papoutsi ◽  
Vassilis G. Giannakoulis ◽  
Eleni Xourgia ◽  
Christina Routsi ◽  
Anastasia Kotanidou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mortality And Morbidity ◽  
Icu Admission ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Detectable Difference

Abstract Background Although several international guidelines recommend early over late intubation of patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), this issue is still controversial. We aimed to investigate the effect (if any) of timing of intubation on clinical outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 by carrying out a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods PubMed and Scopus were systematically searched, while references and preprint servers were explored, for relevant articles up to December 26, 2020, to identify studies which reported on mortality and/or morbidity of patients with COVID-19 undergoing early versus late intubation. “Early” was defined as intubation within 24 h from intensive care unit (ICU) admission, while “late” as intubation at any time after 24 h of ICU admission. All-cause mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation (MV) were the primary outcomes of the meta-analysis. Pooled risk ratio (RR), pooled mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model. The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020222147). Results A total of 12 studies, involving 8944 critically ill patients with COVID-19, were included. There was no statistically detectable difference on all-cause mortality between patients undergoing early versus late intubation (3981 deaths; 45.4% versus 39.1%; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.99–1.15, p = 0.08). This was also the case for duration of MV (1892 patients; MD − 0.58 days, 95% CI − 3.06 to 1.89 days, p = 0.65). In a sensitivity analysis using an alternate definition of early/late intubation, intubation without versus with a prior trial of high-flow nasal cannula or noninvasive mechanical ventilation was still not associated with a statistically detectable difference on all-cause mortality (1128 deaths; 48.9% versus 42.5%; RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.99–1.25, p = 0.08). Conclusions The synthesized evidence suggests that timing of intubation may have no effect on mortality and morbidity of critically ill patients with COVID-19. These results might justify a wait-and-see approach, which may lead to fewer intubations. Relevant guidelines may therefore need to be updated.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of anaesthesia ventilator use for mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aurélie GOUEL-CHERON ◽  
Yoann ELMALEH ◽  
Camille COUFFIGNAL ◽  
Elie KANTOR ◽  
Simon MESLIN ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document