Formato Vancouver:
Frade Mera MJ, Regueiro Díaz N, Díaz Castellano L, Torres Valverde L, Alonso Pérez L, Landívar Redondo MM et al. Un primer paso hacia una analgosedación más segura: evaluación sistemática de objetivos y grado de analgesia y sedación en el paciente crítico con ventilación mecánica. Enferm Intensiva. 2016 Oct-Dec;27(4):155-167.

PMID: 26803376

Contiene 86 referencias

Introduction: Safe analgesia and sedation strategies are necessary in order to avoid under or over sedation, as well as improving the comfort and safety of critical care patients.
Objectives: To compare and contrast a multidisciplinary protocol of systematic evaluation and management of analgesia and sedation in a group of critical care patients on mechanical ventilation with the usual procedures.
Materials and methods: A cohort study with contemporary series was conducted in a tertiary care medical-surgical ICU February to November during 2013 and 2014. The inclusion criteria were mechanical ventilation ≥ 24h and use of sedation by continuous infusion. Sedation was monitored using the Richmond agitation-sedation scale or bispectral index, and analgesia were measured using the numeric rating scale, or behavioural indicators of pain scale. The study variables included; mechanical ventilation time, weaning time, ventilation support time, artificial airway time, continuous sedative infusion time, daily dose and frequency of analgesic and sedative drug use, hospital stay, and ICU and hospital mortality, Richmond agitation-sedation scale, bispectral index, numeric rating scale, and behavioural indicators of pain scale measurements. Kruskal Wallis and Chi2, and a significance of p<.05 were used.
Results: The study included 153 admissions, 75 pre-intervention and 78 post-intervention, with a mean age of 55.7±13 years old, and 67% men. Both groups showed similarities in age, reason for admission, and APACHE. There were non-significant decreases in mechanical ventilation time 4 (1.4-9.2) and 3.2 (1.4-8.1) days, respectively; p= 0.7, continuous sedative infusion time 6 (3-11) and 5 (3-11) days; p= 0.9, length of hospital stay 29 (18-52); 25 (14-41) days; p= 0.1, ICU mortality (8 vs. 5%; p= 0.4), and hospital mortality (10.6 vs. 9.4%: p= 0.8). Daily doses of midazolam and remifentanil decreased 347 (227-479) mg/day; 261 (159-358) mg/day; p= 0.02 and 2175 (1427-3285) mcg/day; 1500 (715-2740) mcg/day; p= 0.02, respectively. There were increases in the use of remifentanil (32% vs. 51%; p= 0.01), dexmedetomidine (0 vs.6%; p= 0.02), dexketoprofen (60 vs. 76%; p= 0.03), and haloperidol (15 vs.28%; p= 0.04). The use of morphine decreased (71 vs. 54%; p= 0.03). There was an increase in the number of measurements and Richmond agitation-sedation scale scores 6 (3-17); 21 (9-39); p< 0.0001, behavioural indicators of pain scale 6 (3-18); 19(8-33); p< 0.001 and numeric rating scale 4 (2-6); 8 (6-17); p< 0.0001.
Conclusions: The implementation of a multidisciplinary protocol of systematic evaluation of analgesia and sedation management achieved an improvement in monitoring and adequacy of dose to patient needs, leading to improved outcomes.