RESUMEN
Lighter sedation targets over the past decade have resulted in improved outcomes for critically ill populations. Although guidelines exist for the general ICU population, these recommendations often exclude the burn population. The purpose of this study is to assess the impact of the initial continuous sedative on coma- and delirium-free days in critically ill patients with burns. This retrospective cohort study evaluated adult patients admitted to a burn intensive care unit at an academic medical center between January 2010 and September 2019. Patients were enrolled into 3 groups based on the depth of initial continuous sedation received (deep, light, or analgosedation). Intubated patients were randomly assessed for inclusion from the National V6 Burn Registry. Patients were included if they received a continuous sedative infusion for at least 48 h. A total of 107 patients were included in the study with 36, 41, and 30 patients receiving deep, light, and analgosedation, respectively. The primary outcome of coma- and delirium-free days was significantly different between sedation types with the most days free in analgosedation and the fewest in deep sedation (8 versus 3 days; P = 0.024). The composite primary outcome was divided into secondary outcomes of coma-free days and delirium-free days, with coma-free days being different (P = 0.00008). Other secondary outcomes of length of stay in the intensive care unit and hospital, time on mechanical ventilation, and survival to discharge were not statistically significant; however, a trend toward higher mortality in deep sedation was noted.
Asunto(s)
Quemaduras , Delirio , Adulto , Humanos , Hipnóticos y Sedantes/uso terapéutico , Coma/etiología , Coma/terapia , Estudios Retrospectivos , Enfermedad Crítica , Delirio/tratamiento farmacológico , Delirio/etiología , Delirio/epidemiología , Quemaduras/complicaciones , Quemaduras/terapia , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Respiración Artificial , Tiempo de InternaciónRESUMEN
Background: Patients with neurologic injuries often receive neuromuscular blocking agents to facilitate airway management. The urgent nature of intubation may result in paralytic administration prior to neurologic examination, delaying clinical assessment, prognostication, and surgical interventions. Objective: In October 2018, an institutional guideline was implemented to extend institutional sugammadex use to include patients with uncertain neurologic examinations with recent rocuronium administration. The guideline allowed for a dose range of 2 mg/kg to 16 mg/kg. The objective of this continuous quality improvement project was to describe the use of sugammadex after implementation of an institutional guideline. Methods: Patient records between October 2018 and March 2020 were reviewed for guideline adherence and outcomes. Information assessed included patient weight, injury mechanism, the dosage and timing of rocuronium and sugammadex administration, and neurologic examination findings. Descriptive statistics were used to assess outcomes. Results: During the study period, eleven patients received sugammadex to facilitate neurologic examinations. The most common dose of sugammadex was 4 mg/kg with a mean total dose of 498.4 ± 333.5 mg. The mean time between rocuronium and sugammadex administration was 73.9 ± 41 minutes. Most patients (72.7%) had definitive changes in neurologic examination after sugammadex administration. Five patients had neurosurgical interventions offered and performed, with 1 of the patients surviving. Conclusions: This case series suggests that sugammadex is useful for reversing rocuronium induced paralysis to facilitate neurologic examination needed to determine management strategies for patients with a neurologic injury.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Trauma patients are at high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and bleeding. The purpose of this study was to characterize percentage of VTE chemoprophylaxis given to trauma patients with and without a VTE. STUDY DESIGN: This retrospective case-control study evaluated trauma patients admitted to a Level I trauma center. Adult patients were included when hospitalized at least 2 days and had a head abbreviated injury score of 1 or less. Non-VTE patients were matched by decade of life and injury severity score (ISS). The primary outcome was percentage of VTE chemoprophylaxis received over the first 14 days of admission. Descriptive statistics, chi-squared test, Student's t-test, and Cox proportional hazard were used for analysis. RESULTS: A total of 44 VTE patients were included with 125 matched non-VTE patients. Baseline demographics included age in years (50.7 ± 19.6 vs 49.6 ± 19.4), ISS (18.9 ± 11.3 vs 19 ± 11.6), and lower extremity fracture (54.5% vs 40%), for VTE and non-VTE groups, respectively. The primary outcome of VTE chemoprophylaxis doses given was significantly lower for VTE patients than non-VTE patients (49.3% vs 59.3%, p = 0.0069). Significant predictors of VTE were percentage of VTE chemoprophylaxis doses given (p < 0.0001) and weight (p = 0.0042) based on regression analysis. Notably, there was a 7% decrease in the hazard for VTE for every 1% increase in VTE chemoprophylaxis given. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who developed VTE were more likely to have delays and disruptions in VTE chemoprophylaxis, even after controlling for age, sex, ISS, lower extremity fractures, and number of operations.