scholarly journals Processed Electroencephalogram-Based Monitoring to Guide Sedation in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and International Expert Panel-Based Consensus Recommendations

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank A Rasulo ◽  
Philip Hopkins ◽  
Francisco Almeida Lobo ◽  
Pierre Pandin ◽  
Basil Matta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Delphi Round ◽  
Processed Eeg ◽  
Grade Of Recommendation ◽  
Excessive Sedation

Abstract BackgroundThe literature related to the use of processed EEG (pEEG) for depth of sedation (DOS) monitoring is increasing, however it is unclear how to use this type of monitoring for critical care patients within the intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsWe performed a systematic review of the literature according to the Grade of Recommendation assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The modified Delphi method was utilised by a team of experts to produce statements and recommendations derived from study questions. Three separate online rounds discussing 89 statements categorized into four domains were formulated. The panelists rated the appropriateness of each statement and were able to suggest modifications or addition of statements. An analysis of anonymised ratings of the statements by part of the panel followed each Delphi round and previously validated criteria were used to define appropriateness and consensus.ResultsLevel of evidence regarding the four domains was very low. Fourteen panelists participated in the Delphi rounds and consensus was reached for 28 out of 89 statements, from which the reccomendations were created. The main findings were that DOS monitoring should be performed in critically ill patients whenever clinical evaluation is not possible, it should be performed by continuous pEEG techniques and the resulting data depicted with graphical tools to facilitate detection of excessive sedation, a potential cause of burst-suppression, and finally, structured training is suggested to achieve a basic pEEG competency.ConclusionsAlthough evidence on using DOS monitors in ICU is scarce and further research is required in order to better define the benefits of using pEEG, the results of this consensus highlight the general agreement that critically-ill patients would benefit from this type of neuromonitoring.

scholarly journals Excessive sedation as a risk factor for delirium: a comparison between two cohorts of critically-ill patients with and without COVID-19

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank A Rasulo ◽  
Stefano Calza ◽  
Simone Piva ◽  
Mattia Marchesi ◽  
Gian Piero Nocivelli ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factor ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Confusion Assessment Method ◽  
Assessment Method ◽  
Adjusted Analysis ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation Duration ◽  
Continuous Eeg ◽  
Processed Eeg ◽  
Excessive Sedation

Abstract Background: Excessive sedation has been associated with poor outcome in critically-ill patients with acute respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). The on-going pandemic has seen many critically-ill COVID-19 with ARDS, yet the incidence of excessive sedation and its association to delirium in these patients has to date not been assessed. We aimed at comparing the incidence and outcome of excessive sedation and delirium in two cohorts of critically-ill patients. Methods: This was an international, dual center retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data from two cohorts of critically ill patients, with and without COVID-19 disease, pertaining to two different hospital settings. Depth of sedation was monitored through processed EEG and delirium through the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU(CAM-ICU). The main outcomes were the incidence of excessive sedation and delirium between the two cohorts, and secondary outcomes were length of ICU and hospital stay and mechanical ventilation duration.Results: Fifty-seven non-COVID-19 and 21 COVID-19 patients were included, 38(49%) of whom had ARDS. Twenty-seven(47.3%) non-COVID-19 and 11(52.3%) COVID-19 patients fulfilled the criteria for excessive sedation. Excessively sedated patients were older(p=0.034) and had delirium more frequently(p<0.001). There was a trend in excessive sedation in ARDS patients, while there was no correlation between excessive sedation and COVID-19 diagnosis. COVID-19 with ARDS was related to delirium at the limit of significance. On adjusted analysis excessive sedation was independently related to delirium(p=0.008). Patients with delirium had longer MV duration, ICU-LOS and H-LOS. In the adjusted analysis, delirium was an independent predictor of ICU-LOS(p=0.005) and MV duration(p=0.039). SAPS II was higher in the non-COVID-19 patients when compared to COVID-19 patients. Despite this, COVID-19 patients remained ventilated for a longer period of time, had a longer ICU and H-LOS. Conclusion: Besides age, excessive sedation might represent an important risk factor for delirium in COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 critically ill patients, which may lead to an increased ICU-LOS, H-LOS and MV duration. The use of continuous EEG-based monitoring for quantification of sedation depth, along with frequent delirium assessment in critically-ill COVID-19 patients is warranted along with larger prospective trials aimed at verifying weather the use of EEG-based monitoring leads to improved outcome.

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 Oral care and nosocomial pneumonia: a systematic review

2015 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 290-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Carolina Nunes Vilela ◽  
Gustavo Zanna Ferreira ◽  
Paulo Sérgio da Silva Santos ◽  
Nathalie Pepe Medeiros de Rezende
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intensive Care ◽  
Intensive Care Units ◽  
Nosocomial Pneumonia ◽  
Oral Hygiene ◽  
Oral Care ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Grade Of Recommendation ◽  
Minimal Bias

To perform a systematic review of the literature on the control of oral biofilms and the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia, in addition to assessing and classifying studies as to the grade of recommendation and level of evidence. The review was based on PubMed, LILACS, and Scopus databases, from January 1st, 2000 until December 31st, 2012. Studies evaluating oral hygiene care related to nosocomial infections in patients hospitalized in intensive care units were selected according to the inclusion criteria. Full published articles available in English, Spanish, or Portuguese, which approached chemical or mechanical oral hygiene techniques in preventing pneumonia, interventions performed, and their results were included. After analysis, the articles were classified according to level of evidence and grade of recommendation according to the criteria of the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. A total of 297 abstracts were found, 14 of which were full articles that met our criteria. Most articles included a study group with chlorhexidine users and a control group with placebo users for oral hygiene in the prevention of pneumonia. All articles were classified as B in the level of evidence, and 12 articles were classified as 2B and two articles as 2C in grade of recommendation. It was observed that the control of oral biofilm reduces the incidence of nosocomial pneumonia, but the fact that most articles had an intermediate grade of recommendation makes clear the need to conduct randomized controlled trials with minimal bias to establish future guidelines for oral hygiene in intensive care units.

scholarly journals The laboratory findings and different COVID-19 severities: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Erfan Kazemi ◽  
Reihane Soldoozi Nejat ◽  
Fatemeh Ashkan ◽  
Hossein Sheibani
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Platelet Count ◽  
Critically Ill ◽  
Critically Ill Patients ◽  
Lymphocyte Count ◽  
Leukocyte Count ◽  
Mean Value ◽  
The Other ◽  
Invasive Ventilation ◽  
Laboratory Findings

Abstract Background Abnormal laboratory findings are common in patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The aim of this systematic review was to investigate the effect of the level of some laboratory factors (C-reactive protein (CRP), creatinine, leukocyte count, hemoglobin, and platelet count) on the severity and outcome of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar. We collected the articles published before May 26, 2020. We gathered the laboratory factors in groups of patients with COVID-19, and studied the relation between level of these factors with severity and outcome of the disease. Results Mean CRP level, creatinine, hemoglobin, and the leukocytes count in the critically ill patients were significantly higher than those of the other groups (non-critical patients); mean CRP = 54.81 mg/l, mean creatinine = 86.82 μmol/l, mean hemoglobin = 144.05 g/l, and mean leukocyte count = 7.41 × 109. The lymphocyte count was higher in patients with mild/moderate disease (mean: 1.32 × 109) and in the invasive ventilation group (mean value of 0.72 × 109), but it was considerably lower than those of the other two groups. The results showed that the platelet count was higher in critically ill patients (mean value of 205.96 × 109). However, the amount was lower in the invasive ventilation group compared with the other groups (mean level = 185.67 × 109). Conclusion With increasing disease severity, the leukocyte count and the level of CRP increase significantly and the lymphocyte count decreases. There seems to be a significant relation between platelet level, hemoglobin, and creatinine level with severity of the disease. However, more studies are required to confirm this.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document