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.
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.