SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.25 issue3Urine assessment in the critically ill: a matter of both quantity and qualityThe implementation of an analgesia-based sedation protocol reduced deep sedation and proved to be safe and feasible in patients on mechanical ventilation author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Related links

Share


Revista Brasileira de Terapia Intensiva

Print version ISSN 0103-507X

Rev. bras. ter. intensiva vol.25 no.3 São Paulo July/Sept. 2013

https://doi.org/10.5935/0103-507X.20130033 

EDITORIAL

Implementing sedation protocols: closing the evidence-practice gap

Cássia Righy Shinotsuka1  2 

1Instituto D'Or de Pesquisa e Ensino - Rio de Janeiro (RJ), Brazil

2Instituto Estadual do Cérebro Paulo Niemeyer - Rio de Janeiro (RJ), Brazil


Sedation and analgesia are frequently used in the critical care unit. Pain has already been described as the "fifth vital sign," and most people describe experiencing pain as a source of great stress during an intensive care unit (ICU) stay.( 1 , 2 ) Sedation can be used to ease discomfort, to facilitate adaptation to mechanical ventilation, and to prevent self-harm.( 3 ) However, despite its humanitarian intentions, over-sedation is associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation, increased delirium rates, longer ICU lengths of stay (LOS), and increased mortality.( 4 , 5 )

In recent decades, many studies have addressed the risks of over-sedation.( 6 ) Kress et al. were the first to demonstrate that a protocol of daily awakening led to a reduced duration of mechanical ventilation and of ICU LOS.( 7 ) Subsequently, Girard et al. performed a trial comparing daily awakening plus spontaneous breathing trials with standard sedation practices plus spontaneous breathing trials and showed that the intervention group had an improved 1-year mortality, with an impressive NNT of 7.( 8 ) More recently, a "no-sedation, analgesia-based" trial also showed more ventilator-free days and reduced ICU and hospital LOS.( 9 )

Despite all the impressive evidence available, there is a wide variation among sedation surveys worldwide. Self-reported adherence to daily interruption of sedation varies from 14% in Malaysia( 10 ) to 78% in the UK.( 11 ) In North America, Patel et al. showed that only 44% of the respondents performed sedation interruption on more than half of the ICU days, and 29% did not have a written sedation protocol.( 12 ) The use of a sedation protocol also varies among countries, ranging from 33% in Denmark( 13 ) to 80% in the UK.( 14 ) In Brazil, a recent survey showed that only 52.7% of the respondents use a sedation protocol, and 68.3% of physicians do not practice sedation interruption at all.( 15 )

Why there is such a wide evidence-practice gap? There are many possible explanations, such as the lack of personnel or equipment support, concern about risk of patient-initiated device removal, and fear of patient discomfort and increase in workload.( 16 ) In this context, the trial presented in this edition of the journal by Bugedo et al. clarifies much.( 17 ) The authors performed a nationwide, multicenter study in 13 ICUs evaluating an analgesia-based, goal-directed, nurse-driven sedation protocol. They showed that after an educational effort, the proportion of patients in deep sedation or coma could be reduced from 55.2% to 44% with no increase in agitation events. This paper shows us that the implementation of sedation protocols is feasible, although it requires a persistent educational effort and the participation of all of the staff working in the ICU.

REFERÊNCIAS

1. Ballard KS. Identification of environmental stressors for patients in a surgical intensive care unit. Issues Ment Health Nurs. 1981;3(1-2):89-108. [ Links ]

2. Rotondi AJ, Chelluri L, Sirio C, Mendelsohn A, Schulz R, Belle S, et al. Patients' recollections of stressful experiences while receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2002;30(4):746-52. [ Links ]

3. Mehta S, McCullagh I, Burry L. Current sedation practices: lessons learned from international surveys. Anesthesiol Clin. 2011;29(4):607-24. [ Links ]

4. Kollef MH, Levy NT, Ahrens TS, Schaiff R, Prentice D, Sherman G. The use of continuous i.v. sedation is associated with prolongation of mechanical ventilation. Chest. 1998;114(2):541-8. [ Links ]

5. Salluh JI, Soares M, Teles JM, Ceraso D, Raimondi N, Nava VS, Blasquez P, Ugarte S, Ibanez-Guzman C, Centeno JV, Laca M, Grecco G, Jimenez E, Árias-Rivera S, Duenas C, Rocha MG; Delirium Epidemiology in Critical Care Study Group. Delirium epidemiology in critical care (DECCA): an international study. Crit Care. 2010;14(6):R210. [ Links ]

6. Shinotsuka CR, Salluh JI. Percepções e práticas sobre delirium, sedação e analgesia em pacientes críticos: uma revisão narrativa. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2013;25(2):155-61. [ Links ]

7. Kress JP, Pohlman AS, O'Connor MF, Hall JB. Daily interruption of sedative infusions in critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(20):1471-7. [ Links ]

8. Girard TD, Kress JP, Fuchs BD, Thomason JW, Schweickert WD, Pun BT, et al. 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 trial. Lancet. 2008;371(9607):126-34. [ Links ]

9. Strøm T, Martinussen T, Toft P. A protocol of no sedation for critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a randomised trial. Lancet. 2010;375(9713):475-80. [ Links ]

10. Ahmad N, Tan CC, Balan S. The current practice of sedation and analgesia in intensive care units in Malaysian public hospitals. Med J Malaysia. 2007;62(2):122-6. [ Links ]

11. Reschreiter H, Maiden M, Kapila A. Sedation practice in the intensive care unit: a UK national survey. Crit Care. 2008;12(6):R152. [ Links ]

12. Patel RP, Gambrell M, Speroff T, Scott TA, Pun BT, Okahashi J, et al. Delirium and sedation in the intensive care unit: survey of behaviors and attitudes of 1384 healthcare professionals. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(3):825-32. [ Links ]

13. Egerod I, Christensen BV, Johansen L. Trends in sedation practices in Danish intensive care units in 2003: a national survey. Intensive Care [ Links ]

14. Murdoch S, Cohen A. Intensive care sedation: a review of current British practice. Intensive Care Med. 2000;26(7):922-8. [ Links ]

15. Salluh JI, Dal-Pizzol F, Mello PV, Friedman G, Silva E, Teles JM, Lobo SM, Bozza FA, Soares M; Brazilian Research in Intensive Care Network. Delirium recognition and sedation practices in critically ill patients: a survey on the attitudes of 1015 Brazilian critical care physicians. J Crit Care. 2009;24(4):556-62. [ Links ]

16. Tanios MA, de Wit M, Epstein SK, Devlin JW. Perceived barriers to the use of sedation protocols and daily sedation interruption: a multidisciplinary survey. J Crit Care. 2009;24(1):66-73. [ Links ]

17. Bugedo G, Tobar E, Aguirre M, Gonzalez H, Godoy J, Lira MT, et al. Implantação de um protocolo de redução de sedação profunda baseado em analgesia comprovadamente seguro e factível em pacientes submetidos a ventilação mecânica. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva. 2013;25(3):188-196. [ Links ]

Corresponding author: Cássia Righy Shinotsuka Rua Diniz Cordeiro, 30 - Botafogo Zip code: 22281-100 - Rio de Janeiro (RJ), Brazil E-mail: cassiarighy@gmail.com

Conflicts of interest: Former speaker from Hospira.

Creative Commons License This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.