Impact of sedation levels on outcomes in neurocritical care patients with intracranial hemorrhage: a retrospective cohort study.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Neurosurgical Review Pub Date : 2025-04-03 DOI:10.1007/s10143-025-03507-z
Hyo Jeong Kim, Yoohyun Kwon, Jinhoo Seok, Haewon Roh, Joonho Byun, Wonki Yoon, Jong Hyun Kim, Taek-Hyun Kwon, Hyunjun Jo
{"title":"Impact of sedation levels on outcomes in neurocritical care patients with intracranial hemorrhage: a retrospective cohort study.","authors":"Hyo Jeong Kim, Yoohyun Kwon, Jinhoo Seok, Haewon Roh, Joonho Byun, Wonki Yoon, Jong Hyun Kim, Taek-Hyun Kwon, Hyunjun Jo","doi":"10.1007/s10143-025-03507-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Sedation in neurointensive care is essential for managing patients with acute brain injuries. While sedation is commonly employed to alleviate stress responses and enhance patient comfort, the relationship between sedation practices and clinical outcomes remains unclear. This retrospective cohort study analyzed electronic medical records of patients with intracranial hemorrhage admitted to a tertiary care neurosurgical center from January 2020 to December 2023. Patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) ≥ 13, early mortality, or prior treatment elsewhere were excluded. Sedation depth was assessed using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale. Outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, Glasgow coma scale at discharge, modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at three months, and infection rates. Among 562 patients screened, 138 met inclusion criteria, with 73 (52.9%) receiving sedation. No significant differences were observed in ICU stay, discharge GCS, or mRS between sedation and non-sedation groups, nor between light and deep sedation. The sedation group had longer mechanical ventilation (15 ± 12 days vs. 7.03 ± 12.83 days; p < 0.05) but similar rates of hospital acquired pneumonia (68.49% vs. 50.77%; p = 0.44). Sedation depth and the decision to sedate did not significantly impact key clinical outcomes. Individualized sedation strategies should prioritize patient comfort and clinical needs without assuming deeper sedation adversely affects recovery.</p>","PeriodicalId":19184,"journal":{"name":"Neurosurgical Review","volume":"48 1","pages":"351"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurosurgical Review","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10143-025-03507-z","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Sedation in neurointensive care is essential for managing patients with acute brain injuries. While sedation is commonly employed to alleviate stress responses and enhance patient comfort, the relationship between sedation practices and clinical outcomes remains unclear. This retrospective cohort study analyzed electronic medical records of patients with intracranial hemorrhage admitted to a tertiary care neurosurgical center from January 2020 to December 2023. Patients with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) ≥ 13, early mortality, or prior treatment elsewhere were excluded. Sedation depth was assessed using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale. Outcomes included intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, Glasgow coma scale at discharge, modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at three months, and infection rates. Among 562 patients screened, 138 met inclusion criteria, with 73 (52.9%) receiving sedation. No significant differences were observed in ICU stay, discharge GCS, or mRS between sedation and non-sedation groups, nor between light and deep sedation. The sedation group had longer mechanical ventilation (15 ± 12 days vs. 7.03 ± 12.83 days; p < 0.05) but similar rates of hospital acquired pneumonia (68.49% vs. 50.77%; p = 0.44). Sedation depth and the decision to sedate did not significantly impact key clinical outcomes. Individualized sedation strategies should prioritize patient comfort and clinical needs without assuming deeper sedation adversely affects recovery.

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
镇静水平对颅内出血神经重症患者预后的影响:一项回顾性队列研究。
镇静在神经重症监护是必要的管理患者急性脑损伤。虽然镇静通常用于缓解应激反应和提高患者舒适度,镇静实践与临床结果之间的关系尚不清楚。本回顾性队列研究分析了2020年1月至2023年12月在三级护理神经外科中心入院的颅内出血患者的电子病历。格拉斯哥昏迷评分(GCS)≥13、早期死亡或在其他地方接受过治疗的患者被排除在外。使用Richmond激动-镇静量表评估镇静深度。结果包括重症监护病房(ICU)的住院时间、出院时的格拉斯哥昏迷评分、3个月时的改良Rankin评分和感染率。562例患者中,138例符合纳入标准,其中73例(52.9%)接受镇静治疗。镇静组与非镇静组ICU住院时间、出院GCS、mRS无显著差异,轻度镇静组与深度镇静组无显著差异。镇静组机械通气时间较长(15±12天vs. 7.03±12.83天);p
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
Neurosurgical Review
Neurosurgical Review 医学-临床神经学
CiteScore
5.60
自引率
7.10%
发文量
191
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The goal of Neurosurgical Review is to provide a forum for comprehensive reviews on current issues in neurosurgery. Each issue contains up to three reviews, reflecting all important aspects of one topic (a disease or a surgical approach). Comments by a panel of experts within the same issue complete the topic. By providing comprehensive coverage of one topic per issue, Neurosurgical Review combines the topicality of professional journals with the indepth treatment of a monograph. Original papers of high quality are also welcome.
期刊最新文献
Microsurgical clipping versus endovascular therapy for distal anterior cerebral artery aneurysms: A meta-analysis of double-armed comparative studies. Prevalence of os odontoideum: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression with implications for vertebral artery and osseous anomalies. Comparison of two novel options for resuspension of inverted U-shaped nasopharyngeal flap following endonasal access to cranio-vertebral junction: Pilot cadaveric analysis and illustrative case report. Barriers to care in epilepsy surgery clinics in Latin America: a systematic review of social-economic impact. Brain arteriovenous malformations (bAVMs) during pregnancy: An Italian survey and literature review.
×
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