A Retrospective, Single-Center Assessment of Changes in Pain, Agitation, and Delirium Management Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

IF 2.7 Q4 Medicine Critical care explorations Pub Date : 2025-01-15 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1097/CCE.0000000000001202
Rachel L Winner, Lydia R Ware, Kevin M Dube, Mary P Kovacevic, Kenneth E Lupi, Paul M Szumita, Jeremy R DeGrado
{"title":"A Retrospective, Single-Center Assessment of Changes in Pain, Agitation, and Delirium Management Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.","authors":"Rachel L Winner, Lydia R Ware, Kevin M Dube, Mary P Kovacevic, Kenneth E Lupi, Paul M Szumita, Jeremy R DeGrado","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000001202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Recent studies have found an association between COVID-19 infection and deeper sedation in mechanically ventilated patients, raising concerns about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD) management practices overall.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to assess differences in PAD management in patients without COVID-19 infection in pre- and peri-COVID-19 pandemic timeframes.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This was a single-center, retrospective, pre-/post-cohort analysis of mechanically ventilated adult patients without COVID-19 infection admitted to an ICU in Boston, MA. The \"pre\" and \"post\" groups enrolled patients in 2019 and 2021, respectively. All PAD data during the first 7 days of mechanical ventilation (MV) were collected.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The primary outcome was ventilator-free days (VFDs) during the first 28 days. A multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to assess VFD while controlling for confounders. Secondary outcomes included depth of sedation, total dose of sedatives, and in-hospital mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 339 patients included in the final analysis. There was no difference in VFD between the pre- and post-groups (22.2 vs. 22.6 d; p = 0.92); this was confirmed by multivariable linear regression (p = 0.91). Patients in the post-group experienced significantly deeper levels of sedation compared with the pre-group (58% vs. 53%; p < 0.01) within the first 48 hours of MV. The median number of Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale assessments per 24-hour period was greater in the pre-group (13 vs. 12 assessments; p = 0.02) within the first 48 hours of MV. There were no significant differences in total cumulative dose of sedatives or in-hospital mortality between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>This study suggests that PAD practices, including depth of sedation and frequency of assessment, differed between pre- and post-COVID-19 groups in patients without COVID-19. Outcomes including VFD, mortality, and hospital length of stay were not affected. Further studies are needed to understand the broader impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on PAD management practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":93957,"journal":{"name":"Critical care explorations","volume":"7 1","pages":"e1202"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11737495/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical care explorations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000001202","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Recent studies have found an association between COVID-19 infection and deeper sedation in mechanically ventilated patients, raising concerns about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD) management practices overall.

Objectives: This study aimed to assess differences in PAD management in patients without COVID-19 infection in pre- and peri-COVID-19 pandemic timeframes.

Design, setting, and participants: This was a single-center, retrospective, pre-/post-cohort analysis of mechanically ventilated adult patients without COVID-19 infection admitted to an ICU in Boston, MA. The "pre" and "post" groups enrolled patients in 2019 and 2021, respectively. All PAD data during the first 7 days of mechanical ventilation (MV) were collected.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was ventilator-free days (VFDs) during the first 28 days. A multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to assess VFD while controlling for confounders. Secondary outcomes included depth of sedation, total dose of sedatives, and in-hospital mortality.

Results: There were 339 patients included in the final analysis. There was no difference in VFD between the pre- and post-groups (22.2 vs. 22.6 d; p = 0.92); this was confirmed by multivariable linear regression (p = 0.91). Patients in the post-group experienced significantly deeper levels of sedation compared with the pre-group (58% vs. 53%; p < 0.01) within the first 48 hours of MV. The median number of Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale assessments per 24-hour period was greater in the pre-group (13 vs. 12 assessments; p = 0.02) within the first 48 hours of MV. There were no significant differences in total cumulative dose of sedatives or in-hospital mortality between the two groups.

Conclusions and relevance: This study suggests that PAD practices, including depth of sedation and frequency of assessment, differed between pre- and post-COVID-19 groups in patients without COVID-19. Outcomes including VFD, mortality, and hospital length of stay were not affected. Further studies are needed to understand the broader impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on PAD management practices.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

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
在COVID-19大流行之前和期间疼痛、躁动和谵妄管理变化的回顾性单中心评估
重要性:最近的研究发现,COVID-19 感染与机械通气患者的深度镇静之间存在关联,这引起了人们对 COVID-19 大流行对疼痛、躁动和谵妄 (PAD) 管理方法的整体影响的关注:本研究旨在评估未感染 COVID-19 的患者在 COVID-19 流行前和流行期间的 PAD 管理差异:这是一项单中心、回顾性、前后队列分析,对象是马萨诸塞州波士顿市一家重症监护室收治的未感染 COVID-19 的机械通气成人患者。前 "组和 "后 "组分别于 2019 年和 2021 年收治患者。收集了机械通气(MV)前 7 天的所有 PAD 数据:主要结果是前 28 天内无呼吸机天数(VFDs)。在控制混杂因素的同时,进行多变量线性回归分析以评估无呼吸机天数。次要结果包括镇静深度、镇静剂总剂量和院内死亡率:最终分析共纳入 339 名患者。前组和后组的VFD没有差异(22.2 d vs. 22.6 d; p = 0.92);多变量线性回归证实了这一点(p = 0.91)。在中风后 48 小时内,后组患者的镇静程度明显高于前组(58% 对 53%;p < 0.01)。在 MV 的最初 48 小时内,前组患者每 24 小时接受里士满躁动镇静量表评估的中位数更多(13 次对 12 次;p = 0.02)。两组在镇静剂累积总剂量或院内死亡率方面无明显差异:本研究表明,在没有 COVID-19 的患者中,COVID-19 前后两组的 PAD 操作(包括镇静深度和评估频率)有所不同。VFD、死亡率和住院时间等结果未受影响。要了解 COVID-19 大流行对 PAD 管理方法的广泛影响,还需要进一步的研究。
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
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Medication Effects on Heart Rate Variability in Critical Illness: The Overlooked Confounder. Feasibility of Calculating and Maintaining Near-Infrared Spectroscopy-Guided Personalized Mean Arterial Pressure Targets in Adults With Critical Illness: A Pilot Clinical Study. The Utility of Automated, Data-Driven Clinical Support in Telemedicine for Critical Illness: A Survey-Based Study. A Framework and Method for Measuring the Implementation of Data Science in Critical Care. Immediate Postoperative Evolution of Cerebral Doppler and Saturation Parameters After Cardiopulmonary Bypass in Infants With Congenital Heart Disease: A Prospective Cohort Study.
×
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:604180095
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