A dual-center cohort study on the association between early deep sedation and clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: The COVID-SED study.
COVID
Deep sedation
Emergency department
Mechanical ventilation
Journal
Critical care (London, England)
ISSN: 1466-609X
Titre abrégé: Crit Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9801902
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 06 2022
15 06 2022
Historique:
received:
23
02
2022
accepted:
25
05
2022
entrez:
15
6
2022
pubmed:
16
6
2022
medline:
18
6
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Mechanically ventilated patients have experienced greater periods of prolonged deep sedation during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Multiple studies from the pre-COVID era demonstrate that early deep sedation is associated with worse outcome. Despite this, there is a lack of data on sedation depth and its impact on outcome for mechanically ventilated patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to characterize the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) sedation practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to determine if early deep sedation was associated with worse clinical outcomes. Dual-center, retrospective cohort study conducted over 6 months (March-August, 2020), involving consecutive, mechanically ventilated adults. All sedation-related data during the first 48 h were collected. Deep sedation was defined as Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of - 3 to - 5 or Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale of 1-3. To examine impact of early sedation depth on hospital mortality (primary outcome), we used a multivariable logistic regression model. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days. 391 patients were studied, and 283 (72.4%) experienced early deep sedation. Deeply sedated patients received higher cumulative doses of fentanyl, propofol, midazolam, and ketamine when compared to light sedation. Deep sedation patients experienced fewer ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days, and greater mortality (30.4% versus 11.1%) when compared to light sedation (p < 0.01 for all). After adjusting for confounders, early deep sedation remained significantly associated with higher mortality (adjusted OR 3.44; 95% CI 1.65-7.17; p < 0.01). These results were stable in the subgroup of patients with COVID-19. The management of sedation for mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU has changed during the COVID pandemic. Early deep sedation is common and independently associated with worse clinical outcomes. A protocol-driven approach to sedation, targeting light sedation as early as possible, should continue to remain the default approach.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Mechanically ventilated patients have experienced greater periods of prolonged deep sedation during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Multiple studies from the pre-COVID era demonstrate that early deep sedation is associated with worse outcome. Despite this, there is a lack of data on sedation depth and its impact on outcome for mechanically ventilated patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to characterize the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) sedation practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to determine if early deep sedation was associated with worse clinical outcomes.
STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
Dual-center, retrospective cohort study conducted over 6 months (March-August, 2020), involving consecutive, mechanically ventilated adults. All sedation-related data during the first 48 h were collected. Deep sedation was defined as Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of - 3 to - 5 or Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale of 1-3. To examine impact of early sedation depth on hospital mortality (primary outcome), we used a multivariable logistic regression model. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days.
RESULTS
391 patients were studied, and 283 (72.4%) experienced early deep sedation. Deeply sedated patients received higher cumulative doses of fentanyl, propofol, midazolam, and ketamine when compared to light sedation. Deep sedation patients experienced fewer ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days, and greater mortality (30.4% versus 11.1%) when compared to light sedation (p < 0.01 for all). After adjusting for confounders, early deep sedation remained significantly associated with higher mortality (adjusted OR 3.44; 95% CI 1.65-7.17; p < 0.01). These results were stable in the subgroup of patients with COVID-19.
CONCLUSIONS
The management of sedation for mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU has changed during the COVID pandemic. Early deep sedation is common and independently associated with worse clinical outcomes. A protocol-driven approach to sedation, targeting light sedation as early as possible, should continue to remain the default approach.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35705989
doi: 10.1186/s13054-022-04042-9
pii: 10.1186/s13054-022-04042-9
pmc: PMC9198202
doi:
Substances chimiques
Hypnotics and Sedatives
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
179Subventions
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : R34HL150404
Pays : United States
Commentaires et corrections
Type : UpdateOf
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Intensive Care Med. 2021 Dec;47(12):1440-1449
pubmed: 34518905
Crit Care Med. 2007 Sep;35(9):2031-6
pubmed: 17855817
Crit Care Med. 2019 Jan;47(1):1-2
pubmed: 30557240
PLoS One. 2021 Jul 27;16(7):e0253778
pubmed: 34314422
Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2021 Oct 25;78(21):1952-1961
pubmed: 33993212
Crit Care Med. 1998 Nov;26(11):1793-800
pubmed: 9824069
Chest. 2015 Aug;148(2):365-374
pubmed: 25742126
Crit Care. 2014 Jul 21;18(4):R156
pubmed: 25047960
Chest. 1998 Aug;114(2):541-8
pubmed: 9726743
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
N Engl J Med. 2006 Dec 28;355(26):2725-32
pubmed: 17192537
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014 Jun 15;189(12):1469-78
pubmed: 24786714
N Engl J Med. 2000 May 4;342(18):1301-8
pubmed: 10793162
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1996 Mar;153(3):1012-8
pubmed: 8630539
Crit Care Explor. 2020 Nov 25;2(12):e0290
pubmed: 33251519
N Engl J Med. 2006 Jun 15;354(24):2564-75
pubmed: 16714767
Ann Emerg Med. 2017 Sep;70(3):406-418.e4
pubmed: 28259481
Crit Care Med. 2021 Sep 1;49(9):1579-1582
pubmed: 34034302
Chest. 2017 Nov;152(5):963-971
pubmed: 28645462
Ann Emerg Med. 2021 May;77(5):532-544
pubmed: 33485698
Crit Care Med. 2019 Nov;47(11):1539-1548
pubmed: 31393323
Crit Care Med. 2018 Mar;46(3):490-491
pubmed: 29474335
Lancet Respir Med. 2021 Mar;9(3):239-250
pubmed: 33428871
Crit Care Med. 2021 Sep 1;49(9):1524-1534
pubmed: 33861551
Intensive Care Med. 2020 Dec;46(12):2342-2356
pubmed: 33170331
Ann Intern Med. 2007 Oct 16;147(8):573-7
pubmed: 17938396
Ethn Dis. 2021 Jul 15;31(3):389-398
pubmed: 34295125
Crit Care Med. 2017 Apr;45(4):645-652
pubmed: 28157140
JAMA. 2012 Nov 21;308(19):1985-92
pubmed: 23180503
Crit Care Med. 2018 Jun;46(6):850-859
pubmed: 29498938
Crit Care Explor. 2021 Mar 12;3(3):e0353
pubmed: 33786432
Radiology. 2020 Nov;297(2):E242-E251
pubmed: 32544034
Intensive Care Med. 2013 May;39(5):910-8
pubmed: 23344834
Ann Pharmacother. 2022 Feb;56(2):117-123
pubmed: 34075807
N Engl J Med. 2014 Jan 30;370(5):444-54
pubmed: 24476433
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Oct 15;202(8):1173-1178
pubmed: 32755309
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012 Oct 15;186(8):724-31
pubmed: 22859526
J Biomed Inform. 2019 Jul;95:103208
pubmed: 31078660
N Engl J Med. 2000 May 18;342(20):1471-7
pubmed: 10816184
Crit Care Med. 2008 Aug;36(8):2238-43
pubmed: 18596631
Intensive Care Med. 1996 Jul;22(7):707-10
pubmed: 8844239
Crit Care Med. 2018 Mar;46(3):471-479
pubmed: 29227367
Lancet. 2008 Jan 12;371(9607):126-34
pubmed: 18191684