Sedation and analgesia practices of pediatric intensivists in Saudi Arabia

M. Bakhsh, Mohamed M. Humoodi, Abdullah A. Alzahrani, S. Osman, R. Babakr, Nada Townsi, Maha Azzam
{"title":"Sedation and analgesia practices of pediatric intensivists in Saudi Arabia","authors":"M. Bakhsh, Mohamed M. Humoodi, Abdullah A. Alzahrani, S. Osman, R. Babakr, Nada Townsi, Maha Azzam","doi":"10.4103/sccj.sccj_25_22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Sedation practices in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) vary significantly worldwide. This study aimed to explore the current sedation and analgesia practices among paediatric intensivists in Saudi Arabia. Methods: This web-based survey was conducted among pediatric intensive care physicians in Saudi Arabia. The survey investigated the participating PICUs, physicians' demographic data, and sedation/analgesia practices. Results: Of the 160 physicians included, the response rate was 67% (n = 108). Of the 100 participants who provided location information, 51% (n = 51) were from the central region of Saudi Arabia. Approximately two-thirds of the participants were consultants, and 48.1% had >10 years of experience. Most respondents practised in general PICUs and routinely assessed sedation and analgesia levels. The COMFORT-Behavior and Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability scales were popular (42.6%). More than half of the respondents (52/98) did not practice daily sedation interruption. Furthermore, 78.3% of the respondents assessed patients for withdrawal, whereas only 25% used delirium screening scores. Infusions were preferred over interrupted doses to provide comfort for mechanically ventilated patients. The first-choice infusions were midazolam for sedation and fentanyl for analgesia. Dexmedetomidine was preferred when a third agent was required. Sedation protocols were used by 41.2% of the respondents and were mainly physician-led (75.2%). Various nonpharmacological measures were used to provide patient comfort, and parents often participated in their application. Conclusions: The practice of sedation varies significantly between pediatric intensivists, and formal assessment for delirium is infrequently done in PICUs in Saudi Arabia.","PeriodicalId":345799,"journal":{"name":"Saudi Critical Care Journal","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Saudi Critical Care Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/sccj.sccj_25_22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Sedation practices in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) vary significantly worldwide. This study aimed to explore the current sedation and analgesia practices among paediatric intensivists in Saudi Arabia. Methods: This web-based survey was conducted among pediatric intensive care physicians in Saudi Arabia. The survey investigated the participating PICUs, physicians' demographic data, and sedation/analgesia practices. Results: Of the 160 physicians included, the response rate was 67% (n = 108). Of the 100 participants who provided location information, 51% (n = 51) were from the central region of Saudi Arabia. Approximately two-thirds of the participants were consultants, and 48.1% had >10 years of experience. Most respondents practised in general PICUs and routinely assessed sedation and analgesia levels. The COMFORT-Behavior and Face, Legs, Activity, Cry, and Consolability scales were popular (42.6%). More than half of the respondents (52/98) did not practice daily sedation interruption. Furthermore, 78.3% of the respondents assessed patients for withdrawal, whereas only 25% used delirium screening scores. Infusions were preferred over interrupted doses to provide comfort for mechanically ventilated patients. The first-choice infusions were midazolam for sedation and fentanyl for analgesia. Dexmedetomidine was preferred when a third agent was required. Sedation protocols were used by 41.2% of the respondents and were mainly physician-led (75.2%). Various nonpharmacological measures were used to provide patient comfort, and parents often participated in their application. Conclusions: The practice of sedation varies significantly between pediatric intensivists, and formal assessment for delirium is infrequently done in PICUs in Saudi Arabia.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
镇静和镇痛的做法儿科重症医师在沙特阿拉伯
背景:世界各地儿童重症监护病房(picu)的镇静实践差异很大。本研究旨在探讨当前镇静和镇痛的做法中儿科重症医师在沙特阿拉伯。方法:这项基于网络的调查在沙特阿拉伯的儿科重症监护医生中进行。该调查调查了参与的picu、医生的人口统计数据和镇静/镇痛做法。结果:纳入的160名医生中,有效率为67% (n = 108)。在提供位置信息的100名参与者中,51% (n = 51)来自沙特阿拉伯中部地区。大约三分之二的参与者是顾问,48.1%的人有>10年的经验。大多数应答者在一般picu中进行实践,并常规评估镇静和镇痛水平。舒适行为和面部、腿部、活动、哭泣和安慰量表受欢迎(42.6%)。超过一半的受访者(52/98)没有每天进行镇静中断。此外,78.3%的受访者评估了患者的戒断行为,而只有25%的受访者使用了谵妄筛查评分。输液优于中断剂量,为机械通气患者提供舒适。首选输液为镇静用咪达唑仑,镇痛用芬太尼。当需要第三种药物时,首选右美托咪定。41.2%的受访者使用镇静方案,主要由医生主导(75.2%)。使用各种非药物措施来提供患者舒适,家长经常参与他们的应用。结论:不同儿科重症医师使用镇静的做法差异很大,在沙特阿拉伯的picu中很少对谵妄进行正式评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Erratum: Antibiotic Treatment Duration for Bloodstream Infections in Critically Ill Patients: A National Survey of Kuwaiti Infectious Diseases and Critical Care Specialists Characteristics and outcomes of adolescents requiring admission to the intensive care unit: A retrospective cohort study Antibiotic treatment duration for bloodstream infections in critically ill patients: A national survey of Kuwaiti infectious diseases and critical care specialists Use of critical care ultrasound in Saudi Arabia: Questionnaire analysis Effects of different regimens of sedation on mechanically ventilated patients
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1