Date post: | 27-Nov-2014 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | santiaga-flores-almaraz |
View: | 104 times |
Download: | 0 times |
DOI 10.1378/chest.07-2026 2008;133;552-565Chest
Curtis N. Sessler and Kimberly Varney
*the ICUPatient-Focused Sedation and Analgesia in
http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/133/2/552.full.html
services can be found online on the World Wide Web at: The online version of this article, along with updated information and
ISSN:0012-3692)http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/site/misc/reprints.xhtml(
written permission of the copyright holder.this article or PDF may be reproduced or distributed without the priorDundee Road, Northbrook, IL 60062. All rights reserved. No part of Copyright2008by the American College of Chest Physicians, 3300Physicians. It has been published monthly since 1935.
is the official journal of the American College of ChestChest
© 2008 American College of Chest Physicians by guest on May 25, 2011chestjournal.chestpubs.orgDownloaded from
Patient-Focused Sedationand Analgesia in the ICU*Curtis N. Sessler, MD, FCCP; and Kimberly Varney, PharmD
Patient-focused sedation and analgesia in the ICU encompasses a strategy of comprehensivestructured management that matches initial evaluation, monitoring, medication selection, andthe use of protocols with patient characteristics and needs. This is best accomplished throughinterdisciplinary management by physicians, nurses, and pharmacists. An early consideration isthat of the potential predisposing and precipitating factors, as well as prior sedative or analgesicuse, factors that may influence pharmacologic and supportive therapy. Frequent monitoringwith validated tools improves communication among clinicians and plays an important role indetecting and treating pain and agitation while avoiding excessive or prolonged sedation.Patient-focused management encompasses selecting medications best suited to patient charac-teristics, including the presence of organ dysfunction that may influence drug metabolism orexcessive risk for side effects. The use of protocols to optimize drug therapy has emerged as a keycomponent of management, resulting in reductions in the duration of sedation, mechanicalventilation, and ICU length of stay demonstrated with strategies to titrate medications to specifictargets, daily interruption of sedation, intermittent rather than continuous therapy, and analgesia-based therapy. While much attention is paid to the initiation and maintenance of therapy, greateremphasis must be placed on careful de-escalation of therapy in order to avoid analgesic orsedative withdrawal. Finally, more work is needed to explore the relationship of critical illnessand sedation management with long-term psychological outcomes.
(CHEST 2008; 133:552–565)
Key words: analgesia; delirium; medications; protocols; sedation
Abbreviations: ATICE � Adaptation to the Intensive Care Environment; BIS � bispectral index; DIS � daily interruptionof sedation; EMG � electromyography; ICDSC � Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist; LOS � length of stay;MSAT � Minnesota Sedation Assessment Tool; MV � mechanical ventilation; NMB � neuromuscular blockade;PTSD � posttraumatic stress disorder; RASS � Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale; RCT � randomized controlled trial;SCCM � Society of Critical Care Medicine
C ritically ill patients, particularly those who arereceiving mechanical ventilation (MV), often have
pain, anxiety, dyspnea, and other forms of distress.1Core principles of ICU care are to provide comfort,to improve tolerance of the harsh ICU environment,and to provide relief from distress. This is oftenaccomplished through identifying and correctingpredisposing and precipitating factors, applying non-pharmacologic measures to enhance comfort, andadministering sedative and analgesic medications, asdepicted in a conceptual framework in Figure 1.2Patients report that the greatest stressors they en-counter include pain, sleep deprivation, and thepresence of tubes in the nose and mouth, factors thatare exceedingly common in the ICU setting.1,3,4
Accordingly, it is not surprising that the majority of
ICU patients require IV sedative and analgesic med-ications.5 It is important to recognize that theseunderlying conditions, including delirium and delu-sional memories, as well as therapeutic interventionsmay influence the likelihood of patients having long-term psychological effects.6
Interdisciplinary Management
It is noteworthy that effective sedation manage-ment is best accomplished through intradisciplinaryplanning and practice. By combining nurses’ bedsideexperience, skills, and continuous management ofsedation,7 pharmacists’ knowledge of medications,their interactions and proper role in critically illpatients,8 and physicians’ integration of sedation
CHEST Postgraduate Education CornerCONTEMPORARY REVIEWS IN CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
552 Postgraduate Education Corner
© 2008 American College of Chest Physicians by guest on May 25, 2011chestjournal.chestpubs.orgDownloaded from
issues into medical management,2,9 a comprehensiveplan can be implemented on a consistent basis. Anoverview of the principles of the management ofsedation and analgesia is displayed in Table 1. Effec-tive management is patient focused, encompassingmedication selection to avoid adverse effects orprolonged effects from the parent drug or its activemetabolite(s), and titrating sedative and analgesicmedications to specific targets for effectiveness (ie,tolerance of ICU environment, pain and anxietycontrol, patient/ventilator synchrony) while avoidingexcessive or unnecessarily prolonged sedation thatmight lead to longer ICU length of stay and theaccompanying complications of chronic critical illness.
Initial Evaluation and Management
An important starting place is to consider thepossible predisposing and precipitating factors forvarious forms of distress, plus issues that influencemanagement, as depicted in Figure 1. Underlyingmedical conditions such as chronic pain or arthritis,acute illness or injury, history of alcohol or substanceabuse, and psychiatric illness can influence medicationselection. Other issues such as postoperative factors,ICU interventions such as MV, medications, and sim-ple maneuvers like turning and suctioning, as well assleep deprivation related to excessive noise and light,can all can play a role.2 Recognition and managementof these factors are crucial. Medication reconciliation(ie, continuing a patient’s chronic home medicationregimen) is frequently forgotten in hospitalized pa-tients. Antidepressants, anxiolytics, and antipsychoticsare medications of particular concern if not restarted.Severe withdrawal or rebound of chronic symptomscan occur if these medications are withheld for toolong, and can lead to serious comorbid issues. Forexample, patients who appear delirious or severelyagitated in the ICU may become overmedicated withsedative drugs because their home medications havebeen temporarily discontinued. Recognition and man-agement of all of these factors early in their ICU stayare crucial to optimal management of sedation.
*From the Virginia Commonwealth University Health System,Medical College of Virginia Hospitals, Richmond, VA.Dr Sessler is the Orhan Muren Professor of Medicine, VirginiaCommonwealth University Health System.Dr. Sessler discloses receiving honoraria as a consultant fromHospira, Inc.Dr. Varney has no actual or potential conflicts of interest to disclose.Manauscript received August 10, 2007; revision accepted Octo-ber 31, 2007.Reproduction of this article is prohibited without written permissionfrom the American College of Chest Physicians (www.chestjournal.org/misc/reprints.shtml).Correspondence to: Curtis N. Sessler, MD, FCCP, Division ofPulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Box 980050, VirginiaCommonwealth University Health System, Richmond, VA 23298;e-mail: [email protected]: 10.1378/chest.07-2026
Figure 1. Conceptual framework for the interactions among underlying and causative factors, thesensations of pain, anxiety, and delirium, pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions, and thestate of a patient along the continuum from deep sedation to overt agitation. Reproduced withpermission from Sessler et al.2
www.chestjournal.org CHEST / 133 / 2 / FEBRUARY, 2008 553
© 2008 American College of Chest Physicians by guest on May 25, 2011chestjournal.chestpubs.orgDownloaded from
Delirium, an acute reversible disorder of attentionand cognition, is a common occurrence among crit-ically ill patients, and may be a marker for worseoutcomes, including increased incidence of posttrau-matic stress disorder (PTSD) and increased long-term mortality.10,11 While classical hyperactive de-lirium is easily recognized by manifestations ofintermittent agitation, hallucinations, and disrup-tive behavior, a hypoactive form appears to be morecommon in the ICU setting.12 A wide variety ofmedical conditions (including CNS disorders, infec-tions, hypoxia, pain, withdrawal syndromes, electro-lyte and metabolic disorders, and various organdysfunctions) as well as a long list of medications canprecipitate delirium.2,11,13,14 There is emerging evi-
dence that many cases of hypoactive or mixed delir-ium in the ICU are related to the sedative effects ofanxiolytic and analgesic drugs, particularly loraz-epam, that ICU caregivers administer15; thus, strat-egies that emphasize using the lowest effective sed-ative drug dose may help avoid delirium.
Patient-focused sedation incorporates the conceptthat need for sedation and analgesia differs amongpatients and varies over time for individual patients.For example, patients who receive unusual forms ofventilatory support such as high-frequency oscillatoryventilation or prone positioning may require deepsedation, or even neuromuscular blockade (NMB), toachieve ventilator synchrony.16–18 Patients who arereceiving NMB require adequate sedation and anal-gesia, and periodic cessation of the NMB agent toassess adequacy of sedation and analgesia.19 In con-trast, low tidal volume ventilation per se does notrequire increased sedative drug therapy in compari-son to conventional ventilation for the ARDS.20–22
Converting the artificial airway from an endotrachealtube to a tracheostomy tube has been associated withuse of less sedative and analgesic medication andcorrespondingly fewer hours of deep sedation.23 Alco-hol and substance abuse is associated with greatersedative drug requirements.24 Importantly, require-ments for sedation are dynamic, generally decliningas illness improves, and thus must be reassessedfrequently.
Evaluation of Pain, Sedation, Agitation,and Delirium
Bedside evaluation of the level of consciousness orarousability, cognitive function, presence and inten-sity of pain, and presence and intensity of agitationis an integral component of daily patient care.2,9,25
The detection and quantification of pain or agitationis useful to prompt the initiation or escalation oftherapy as well as the reevaluation for reversiblecauses.26 The routine determination of the level ofconsciousness, which often incorporates the domainsof arousal and cognition, helps guide sedative drugdosing and avoidance of excessively deep sedation.Thus, utilization of tools—sedation scales and painevaluation instruments—is important for patient-focused therapy, typically by establishing a targetlevel of sedation to which medications are titrated toachieve, and to minimize pain.
Pain Evaluation
Evaluation of pain is relatively straightforward forpatients who are alert enough to “self-report” byspeaking, nodding, or pointing in response to ques-tions about severity of pain. This is often performed
Table 1—Key Concepts for Management of Sedationand Analgesia
1. Develop an interdisciplinary, structured approach for managingsedation and analgesia in the ICU
2. Perform patient assessment and optimize the ICU environmentA. Identify predisposing and precipitating factors; manage
treatable factorsB. Identify outpatient medications (medication reconciliation),
particularly psychiatric and pain medications; restartmedications as appropriate
C. Optimize patient comfort and tolerance of the ICUenvironment
D. Optimize MV settings for patient/ventilator synchrony3. Regularly perform and document structured patient evaluation
and monitoringA. Establish and communicate treatment goalsB. Assess presence and severity of pain, as well as response to
therapyC. Assess level of sedation using a validated sedation scale, as
well as response to therapyD. Assess presence and severity of agitation using a validated
agitation scaleE. Identify delirium, and consider regular assessment of
delirium, using a validated delirium assessment instrument4. Implement a structured patient-focused management strategy
A. Select analgesic and sedative drugs based upon patientneeds, drug allergies, organ dysfunction (particularly renal orhepatic dysfunction), need for rapid onset and/or offset ofaction, anticipated duration of therapy, and prior response totherapy
B. Focus first on analgesia, then sedationC. Titrate analgesic and sedative drugs to a defined target,
using the lowest effective doseD. Implement a structured strategy to avoid accumulation of
medications/metabolites: utilize scheduled interruption, orintermittent dosing of analgesic and sedative drugs
E. Evaluate and manage severe agitation, including search forcausative factors, and perform rapid tranquilization
F. Identify delirium, correct precipitating factors, and treat withhaloperidol or other neuroleptic drugs
G. Avoid potential adverse effects of analgesic and sedativedrugs; quickly identify and manage adverse effects thatoccur
5. Recognize and take steps to ameliorate analgesic and sedativedrug withdrawal during de-escalation of therapy
554 Postgraduate Education Corner
© 2008 American College of Chest Physicians by guest on May 25, 2011chestjournal.chestpubs.orgDownloaded from
using an instrument such as a 10-cm visual analogscale, or a scale with extremes of measurement an-chored by numerical (0 to 10), descriptive (“no pain” to“worst pain ever”), or diagrammatic (smiling face tocrying face) variables, the patient indicating theirlevel of pain.27 Asking about pain should be per-formed frequently, particularly prior to administer-ing sedatives or when these agents are stoppedtemporarily. Assessment of pain is less reliable andless valid when inferred through observation ofpatient behaviors, although recent instruments suchas the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool28 showpromise. The components of Critical Care Pain Obser-vation Tool and other similar tools29–31 are based onrecognition of common behaviors, such as facialgrimacing, restless body movement, rigid limbs, andpatient/ventilator asynchrony observed during pain-ful procedures and validated against self-report.32,33
While hypertension, tachycardia, and tachypnea arealso commonly observed during painful stimuli, theirlack of specificity for pain34 has dampened enthusi-asm for routine use. These symptoms may be moretelling if combined with a positive history of chronicor acute pain, or use of chronic pain medications.
Sedation Evaluation
The level of sedation is assessed in many ICUsusing a sedation scale; however, surveys indicate theyare used by fewer than one half of practitioners,35
ICUs,36 and consecutive patients receiving MV.37
Useful features of a sedation scale include rigorousmultidisciplinary development; ease of administra-tion, recall, and interpretation; well-defined discretecriteria for each level; sufficiency sedation levels foreffective drug titration; assessment of agitation; dem-onstration of interrater reliability for relevant patientpopulations; and evidence of validity.25 Although anumber of sedation scales have been developed forICU use, the following sedation scales satisfy manyof these characteristics and have been tested forinterrater reliability in multiple patient populations atmultiple hospitals and validated against numerous mea-sures: the Ramsay Sedation Scale,38 the Sedation Agi-tation Scale,39 the Motor Activity Assessment Scale,40
the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS),41
the Adaptation to the Intensive Care Environment(ATICE) instrument,42 and the Minnesota SedationAssessment Tool (MSAT).43 A common approach totesting level of consciousness is to observe thepatient to see if they are awake, and if not, then tostimulate the patient using auditory stimulation(speaking to the patient), followed by more intensive(physical) stimulation if there is no response toauditory stimuli. The patient’s response to increasinglevels of stimulation is noted and a score assigned, as
with the Ramsay Sedation Scale, RASS, ATICE, andMSAT. In some scales, cognition—as the ability tofollow a command (ie, RASS, ATICE)—and sustain-ability (ie, RASS) are included in the testing.41,42
Additionally, agitation is identified and graded inseverity in Sedation Agitation Scale, Motor ActivityAssessment Scale, RASS, and ATICE.39–42 Finally,widespread integration into ICU practice has beendocumented for RASS, MSAT, and ATICE.41,44–47
Implementation of sedation evaluation with a scaleis an integral component of many treatment algo-rithms, and has been documented to result inmore precise dosing, reduced sedative and analgesicdrug use, shorter duration of MV, and reduced needfor vasopressor therapy,48 as well as reduced inci-dence of oversedation.49
Objective Measurement of Brain Activity
Objective assessment of brain activity can beperformed using EEG signals processed by propri-etary algorithms such as with the bispectral index(BIS),50 patient state index,51 cerebral state index,52
and Narcotrend index53 systems to yield a singlenumerical value from 0 (complete EEG suppression)to 100 (awake). These monitors offer advantages ofusing objective physiologic parameters, a simplifiednumerical display, and near-continuous measure-ment, yet are rarely utilized in the clinical ICUsetting today.50 Factors such as electromyography(EMG) or electrical current-related artifact, whichare less problematic in the operating room setting,increase variability of BIS in the critically ill patient.In fact, the administration of a NMB agent tosedated ICU patients led to remarkable decreases inBIS, averaging 24 U and 35 U in two studies,54,55
demonstrating the potential importance of EMGinterference. While EMG artifact may account inpart for the wide variability in correlation (r2 � 0.21to 0.93) between BIS and level of sedation as judgedby various sedation scales,50 the use of newer algo-rithms designed to reduce EMG influence may noteliminate BIS variability.56 Experts recommend us-ing BIS for selected cases, such as monitoring thelevel of consciousness of patients treated with NMBagents and for deep (pentobarbital-induced) coma57;however, routine use must await studies that dem-onstrate added value from better outcomes and/orcost savings. Additional approaches to brain moni-toring in the ICU include response entropy and stateentropy,58 and auditory-evoked potentials.59,60
Delirium Evaluation
Delirium is associated with worse outcomes10,11
and has been frequently found in ICU patients whenusing some10,61,62 but not all assessment tools11,63–65
www.chestjournal.org CHEST / 133 / 2 / FEBRUARY, 2008 555
© 2008 American College of Chest Physicians by guest on May 25, 2011chestjournal.chestpubs.orgDownloaded from
and depending on the patient population. Detectionof delirium in the critically ill patient has beenchallenging because inability to speak and often towrite impairs testing, yet tools for use in ICUpatients have been developed.66 Many validatedtools are interventional, such as the Confusion As-sessment Method for the ICU,61 or the CognitiveTest for Delirium67 (or its abbreviated version),68 inwhich a rater directly tests state of consciousness,comprehension, memory, attention, and vigilance.Other validated instruments use observation with achecklist of behaviors such as level of consciousness,inattention, disorientation, hallucinations, agitation,inappropriate mood, sleep-wake cycle disturbance,and symptom fluctuation as in the Intensive CareDelirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC)63 or theNursing Rating Scale for ICU Delirium.67 The Con-fusion Assessment Method for the ICU and ICDSCare more recently developed and have been exten-sively validated. The ICDSC also allows identifica-tion of “subsyndromal” delirium that may progress toovert delirium.69 Although routine screening for thepresence of delirium is recommended in the 2002Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) guide-lines for sedative and analgesic therapy,9 surveysindicate that delirium testing of ICU patients with avalidated tool is rarely performed.35,70
Other components of sedation-related monitoring ofthe ICU patient include detection and quantification ofconditions that influence sedation management deci-sions, including agitation,39–42 patient movement asa surrogate for agitation,43,71,72 and patient/ventilatorasynchrony.73,74 Future approaches will likely inte-grate multiple measurements in order to optimizepatient comfort and tolerance of the ICU setting.
Managing Sedation and Analgesia
Pharmacologic therapy is required in the majorityof ICU patients, particularly those who are receivingMV.5 Medications are often administered by contin-uous infusion for ease of use and to provide a smoothcourse; however, continuous infusion has been linkedto prolonged sedation and longer length of ICUstay.75 Accordingly, intermittent therapy or provisionof schedule daily interruption of sedation (DIS) isoften employed to avoid excessive and prolongedeffects.76–78 Often, multiple medications are admin-istered in order to treat both pain and anxiety, or toprovide synergy, thus allowing reduced dosing ofmedications.5,79,80 Several studies suggest that focus-ing first on providing analgesia rather than initiallyon anxiolysis may provide more effective79 andshorter duration of MV.81 In most cases, IV admin-istration is desirable since absorption from the GI
tract or following subcutaneous or IM injection isless reliable, and precise titration to the target effectis more accurate. However, administration of trans-dermal or enteral medications may have a role insome patients, particularly those who require longer-term sedation and analgesia management, resultingin elimination or reduction in IV dosages.82 Mea-sures must be taken to avoid long-term sedative oropioid medication dependence after ICU discharge;explicit plans for cessation or scheduled tapering ofthese drugs are necessary as the patient leaves theICU, particularly for patients with a history of alco-hol or substance dependency.
Medications for Sedation and Analgesia
The two major classes of medications used topromote comfort and tolerance of the ICU environ-ment are the sedative-hypnotic agents and opioidanalgesics, which provide anxiolysis, sedation, amne-sia, and analgesia to the patient. General consider-ations for medication selection include effectiveness;factors related to duration, onset, and offset of effect;presence of active metabolites; adverse effects; costsrelated to drug acquisition as well as to duration ofsedation; and any recent history of opioid or benzo-diazepine use. Characteristics of commonly used IVadministered sedative and analgesic drugs are dis-played in Table 2.
Sedative Medications
The benzodiazepines, midazolam and lorazepam, arecommonly administered by continuous infusion or in-termittent injection in the North American ICUs,35,83
whereas lorazepam is rarely used and midazolamenjoys widespread use in Europe.37,84 Lorazepamgiven by intermittent boluses or continuous IV infu-sion was recommended in the 2002 SCCM consen-sus guidelines as the preferred sedative drug for ICUpatients who require prolonged therapy, whereasmidazolam was recommended only for short-term(� 48 h) sedation because of concerns for unpredict-able awakening observed after prolonged infusion.9Some of the delayed emergence with midazolammay be attributable to accumulation of the parentcompound in hepatic failure, or an active metabo-lite, �-hydroxymidazolam, which is cleared by thekidney and may lead to prolonged sedation in pa-tients with renal insufficiency.85,86 In a series ofconsecutive patients with prolonged sedation aftercessation of midazolam infusion, many patients hadelevated serum levels of �-hydroxymidazolam (allpatients had serum creatinine � 1.5 mg/dL), ordetectable levels of midazolam many hours afterinfusion discontinuation.86 There are relative few
556 Postgraduate Education Corner
© 2008 American College of Chest Physicians by guest on May 25, 2011chestjournal.chestpubs.orgDownloaded from
Tab
le2—
IVSe
dati
vean
dO
pioi
dA
nalg
esic
Med
icat
ions
Use
din
Adu
ltIC
UP
atie
nts*
Dru
g/C
lass
Elim
inat
ion
Ons
et/D
urat
ion
Dos
ing
(IV
)C
once
ntra
tion
Adv
anta
ges
Dis
adva
ntag
esR
elat
ive
Dai
lyC
ost†
Lor
azep
am/
benz
odia
zepi
neH
epat
icco
njug
atio
nto
inac
tive
met
abol
ite5–
20m
in/6
–8h;
upto
24–7
2h
inel
derl
y/ci
rrho
sis/
ESR
D
LD
:2–4
mg
IVpu
shM
D:2
–6m
gIV
q4h-
q6h;
infu
sion
:1–
10m
g/h;
star
tlo
win
elde
rly
100
mg/
100
mL
D5W
only
Inex
pens
ive,
long
erha
lf-lif
ePr
opyl
ene
glyc
olto
xici
tyat
high
dose
s(a
nion
gap
met
abol
icac
idos
is,r
enal
insu
ffic
ienc
y)
$$
Mid
azol
am/
benz
odia
zepi
neC
ytoc
hrom
eP4
503A
4;ac
tive
met
abol
iteex
cret
edre
nally
5–10
min
/1–4
h(lo
nger
inE
SRD
/C
HF
/live
rfa
ilure
)
LD
:2–5
mg
IVpu
shM
D;1
–20
mg/
h;st
art
low
inel
derl
y10
0m
g/10
0m
LN
Sor
D5W
Shor
ter
actin
gif
pres
erve
dor
gan
func
tio
n;fa
ston
set
Man
ydr
ugin
tera
ctio
ns,m
ayin
crea
sem
idaz
olam
leve
ls,
activ
em
etab
olite
accu
mul
ates
inre
nalf
ailu
re
$$$
Prop
ofol
Con
juga
tion
30–5
0s/
appr
oxim
atel
y3–
10m
in(d
ose
depe
nden
t)
MD
:5–1
50�
g/kg
/min
Prem
ixed
(10
mg/
mL
)Sh
ort
actin
g2
BP,
incr
ease
seru
mtr
igly
ceri
de,p
ancr
eatit
is,
prop
ofol
infu
sion
synd
rom
e,zi
ncde
plet
ion
$$$$
Dex
med
etom
idin
eH
epat
icC
ytoc
hrom
eP4
50an
dgl
ucur
onid
atio
n
Imm
edia
te/
appr
oxim
atel
y6
min
(long
erin
liver
failu
re)
LD
:0.5
–1�
g/kg
over
10m
in;
MD
:0.2
–0.7
�g/
kg/h
for
24h
100
�g/
50m
LN
Son
lyV
ery
shor
tdu
ratio
n;ha
sso
me
anal
gesi
cpr
oper
ties
2B
P,2
HR
;not
appr
oved
for
use
�24
h,so
me
stud
ies
use
long
er
$$$$
$
Mor
phin
esu
lfate
/opi
oid
anal
gesi
c
Con
juga
tion;
activ
em
etab
olite
excr
eted
rena
lly
5–10
min
/2–4
hL
D:2
–4m
gIV
push
MD
:2–3
0m
g/h
for
vent
ilate
dpa
tient
s10
0m
g/10
0m
LN
Sor
D5W
Red
uces
tach
ypne
a2
BP,
resp
irat
ory
depr
essi
on,
accu
mul
atio
nin
hepa
tic/r
enal
failu
re
$
Fen
tany
l/opi
oid
anal
gesi
cC
ytoc
hrom
eP4
503A
41–
2m
in/2
–4h
(long
erin
liver
failu
re)
LD
:25–
50�
gIV
push
MD
:0.
7–10
�g/
kg/h
for
vent
ilate
dpa
tient
s
1.25
or2.
5m
g/25
0m
LN
Sor
D5W
Les
shy
pote
nsio
nth
anm
orph
ine
3A4
inhi
bito
rsm
ayin
crea
sefe
ntan
yl;f
ever
will
incr
ease
patc
hfe
ntan
ylle
vels
by30
%
$$
Hyd
rom
orph
one/
opio
idan
alge
sic
Hep
atic
5–10
min
/2–4
hL
D:0
.2–0
.6m
gIV
push
MD
:0.
5–3
mg/
h10
0m
g/10
0m
LN
Sor
D5W
May
wor
kif
patie
nts
are
tole
rant
tom
orph
ine/
fent
anyl
Res
pira
tory
depr
essi
on,c
autio
nin
nonv
entil
ated
patie
nt;
high
lyad
dict
ive
$
Alfe
ntan
il/op
ioid
anal
gesi
cH
epat
ic;a
ctiv
em
etab
olite
sex
cret
edre
nally
1m
in/3
0–60
min
(dos
ede
pend
ent)
LD
:50–
75�
g/kg
slow
lyov
er3–
5m
in;M
D:0
.5–3
�g/
kg/
min
(usu
al1–
1.5
�g/
kg/m
in)
10m
g/25
0m
LN
Sor
D5W
Ver
ysh
ort-
actin
gag
ent
2H
R,2
BP,1
ICP;
3A4
inhi
bito
rsm
ayin
crea
sele
vels
ofal
fent
anil
$$
Rem
ifent
anil/
opio
idan
alge
sic
Tis
sue
este
rase
s1–
3m
in/1
0–20
min
LD
:1�
g/kg
over
1m
inM
D:
0.6–
15�
g/kg
/hfo
rM
V(u
nlab
eled
use)
;use
idea
lbo
dyw
eigh
tif
�30
%ov
erid
ealb
ody
wei
ght
5m
g/25
0m
LN
Sor
D5W
No
accu
mul
atio
nin
hepa
ticor
rena
lfa
ilure
2H
R,2
BP,1
ICP
$$$
Sufe
ntan
il/op
ioid
anal
gesi
cH
epat
ic1–
3m
in/d
ose-
depe
nden
tdu
ratio
n
LD
:1–2
�g/
kgsl
owly
over
3–5
min
;MD
:8–5
0�
gas
need
ed25
0�
g/25
0m
LD
5W;v
aria
ble
stab
ility
inN
S
2H
R,2
BP,1
ICP
$
*ESR
D�
end-
stag
ere
nal
dise
ase;
LD
�lo
adin
gdo
se;
MD
�m
aint
enan
cedo
se;
D5W
�5%
dext
rose
inw
ater
;C
HF
�co
nges
tive
hear
tfa
ilure
;N
S�
norm
alsa
line
solu
tion;2
BP
�hy
pote
nsio
n;2
HR
�br
adyc
ardi
a;1
ICP
�in
crea
sed
intr
acra
nial
pres
sure
.†D
olla
rsi
gns
repr
esen
tor
bitr
ary
scal
eof
med
icat
ion
cost
s,ra
ngin
gfr
om$
�ve
rylo
wco
st,t
o$$
$$$
�ve
ryhi
ghco
st.
www.chestjournal.org CHEST / 133 / 2 / FEBRUARY, 2008 557
© 2008 American College of Chest Physicians by guest on May 25, 2011chestjournal.chestpubs.orgDownloaded from
randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which loraz-epam and midazolam are compared for long-term(� 72 h) infusion. No significant difference in timeto awakening was noted in two studies,87,88 whereasBarr and coworkers89 found significantly shorteremergence time and time to extubation for midazo-lam vs lorazepam infusion in a double-blinded RCTof postoperative patients without significant renal,hepatic, or neurologic impairment. Additionally, pro-longed high-dose administration of lorazepam canresult in accumulation of the vehicle, propyleneglycol, resulting in worsening renal function, meta-bolic acidosis, and altered mental status.90 Toxicity istypically observed after prolonged (� 7 d), high-dose(average of 14 mg/h), continuous lorazepam infusion,and can be recognized by measuring an increasedosmolal gap.90 Lorazepam infusion was identified asan independent risk factor for transition to deliriumamong ICU patients receiving MV15; however, ex-amination of the odds ratios for other sedative andopioid analgesics agents used less frequently in thestudy suggests it may occur with other agents. Inlight of drug accumulation with continuous infusion,and concerns for propylene glycol toxicity, long-termhigh-dose lorazepam should be used with caution.Midazolam may be a better alternative if hepatic andrenal function is normal.
Despite consensus recommendations that admin-istration of propofol be limited to � 24 to 48 h,9 itremains widely used worldwide.5,35,83,84 Propofol in-fusion has been compared to midazolam infusion forsedation in the ICU in many RCTs. Walder andcolleagues91 demonstrated more effective sedation(higher percentage of time) and shorter weaningtime for short-term (� 36 h) infusion but higheradverse event rates with propofol compared to mi-dazolam in a systematic review of 27 RCTs. Durationof MV was similar for propofol and midazolaminfusions, however, when DIS was routinely usedwith both drugs.77 In contrast, duration of MV wassignificantly shorter with propofol infusion and DIScompared to intermittent lorazepam in a recentRCT.78 Propofol infusion has been linked to a num-ber of adverse effects,92 including hypertriglyceride-mia,93 dose-dependent hypotension,94 and thepropofol infusion syndrome, a rare clinical syndromeof rhabdomyolysis, metabolic acidosis, renal failure,and cardiac failure after high doses of propofol.95
Dexmedetomidine is a selective �2-adrenergic re-ceptor agonist with a short half-life of approximately2.3 h, and has sedative, analgesic, anxiolytic, andsympatholytic effects without depressing respiratorydrive. Dexmedetomidine currently has limited ap-proval by the US Food and Drug Administration forsedation in postoperative patients of � 24 h dura-tion, although other ICU settings are being investi-
gated. In small studies of short-term use in thepostoperative or trauma patients, dexmedetomidinehas been shown to decrease opiate use, and tofacilitate extubation in patients who have failedprevious ventilator weaning attempts due to severeagitation.96 Case reports have also documented suc-cess in preventing alcohol withdrawal in patients inthe perioperative period.97 Drug-related adverse ef-fects are primarily cardiovascular including hypoten-sion and bradycardia,98 particularly when loadingdoses are used. Tolerance to the drug has been seenand there are concerns for a rebound effect whenused beyond 24 to 48 h. Most studies find thathigher-than-recommended doses are needed for ef-ficacy but that a ceiling dose effect is reported at adose approximately 1.5 �g/kg/h.99 Dystonia hasbeen reported and may be due to its effect onacetylcholine release.99 Acquisition cost is higherthan for other sedative agents, although one ret-rospective outcomes study100 of � 10,000 cardiacsurgery patients suggests favorable clinical andeconomic outcomes when dexmedetomidine isadded to midazolam and propofol for sedation.Publication of additional research will help toclarify new roles for this drug.
Opioid Analgesic Medications
A variety of opioids used by IV administration inadults are available for use in ICUs throughout theworld; many of these are compared in Table 2.Surveys and prospective surveillance studies35–37,83,84
indicate widespread use of fentanyl and morphinesulfate, although sufentanil enjoys considerable usein Europe.37,84 The 2002 SCCM guidelines recom-mend the use of fentanyl, hydromorphone, or mor-phine if an IV opioid analgesic is required.9 Opioidsfunction through stimulation of receptors, principallyvia the �1 and �2 opioid receptors. All opioidsproduce a dose-dependent respiratory depression;other common side effects include muscle rigidity,hypotension, delayed GI transit, nausea, pruritus,and urinary retention.27 There are important differ-ence in regards to lipid solubility, volume of distri-bution, and metabolism that are reflected in datadisplayed in Table 2. Particularly noteworthy is thatmorphine is metabolized to several active metabo-lites, including morphine-6-glucuronide that is moreactive than the parent compound, and accumulatesin renal failure potentially resulting in prolongedsedation and respiratory depression.101 Morphineshould be avoided in patients who have renal insuf-ficiency. Fentanyl has a rapid onset of action as aresult of high lipophilicity and a short duration ofaction from redistribution.27 Elimination is delayed,
558 Postgraduate Education Corner
© 2008 American College of Chest Physicians by guest on May 25, 2011chestjournal.chestpubs.orgDownloaded from
however, with prolonged administration as a result ofits large volume of distribution.
Often analgesic medications are added to a seda-tive infusion, so-called “co-sedation” or “analgoseda-tion,” with reduced doses of both agents and in somecases more effective therapy.79 European studiesdemonstrate shorter duration of MV with an analgesic-based vs sedative-based protocol.81 Remifentanil, adrug that has organ-independent metabolism, wassuccessfully used in this trial81; however, other clin-ical trials demonstrate similar results between remifen-tanil and fentanyl, except for a greater incidence of painduring drug de-escalation with remifentanil.102
Antipsychotic Agents
Therapy with antipsychotic agents such as haloper-idol may be necessary for effective management ofdelirium and agitation. For treatment of acute agita-tion, the butyrophenone haloperidol can be admin-istered in escalating doses from 1 mg to as much as20 mg by IV injection, often in combinations with abenzodiazepine, until calmness is achieved.103 Halo-peridol has been associated with extrapyramidal ef-fects, and cardiac conduction abnormalities, specifi-cally prolonged QTc-associated torsades de pointesarrhythmia.104 These tend to be dose-related adverseeffects. A baseline ECG should be documented andperiodically repeated with continued use of the drug.In addition to maintaining normal magnesium, po-tassium, and calcium levels, it is important to consultwith a pharmacist regarding drug interactions thatcould potentiate cardiac arrhythmias (ie, amiodaroneand other antiarrhythmics, antifungal azoles, quino-lones, macrolides, etc.). Haloperidol may be admin-istered as a scheduled medication for managementof delirium. Interestingly, in a retrospective study,use of haloperidol in ICU patients receiving MV wasassociated with a lower mortality rate in a dose-response fashion than nonuse, although the explana-tion(s) for this is not clear.105 While there is interestin examining newer antipsychotic agents for manage-ment of delirium, only olanzapine has been directlycompared to haloperidol thus far. Olanzapine wasfound to be of similar efficacy to haloperidol incontrolling delirium, but with fewer extrapyramidalside effects in a small prospective trial.106
Protocols and Algorithms To ImproveSedation Management
Structured approaches to the management of se-dation and analgesia have been demonstrated inprospective studies26,47,76–79,81,107–109 to reduce sideeffects of medications, decrease unnecessary testing,reduce the duration of MV and the frequency of
tracheostomy, shorten the ICU and hospital lengthof stay, decrease the likelihood of having ICU-relatedmedical complications, and reduce costs of hospitaliza-tion. A variety of strategies have been employed,including using medications with a shorter half-life,titrating medications to end-points identified bysedation scales, mandating temporary cessation ofsedative drug infusion, use of intermittent sedativetherapy, and employing algorithms that proactivelyidentify pain, agitation, and/or patient/ventilatorasynchrony. Several studies that tested strategiesusing a prospective controlled study design deservefurther comment (Table 3).
Following demonstration that continuous infu-sion of sedatives and analgesics was associatedwith prolonged ventilator time and with longerICU and hospital LOS,75 Brook and colleagues76
conducted a single-center RCT comparing a nursing-implemented algorithm with conventional practice.This algorithm emphasized the following: (1) earlydetection of pain, (2) use of intermittent therapywith fentanyl or lorazepam, reserving continuousinfusions for patients who had inadequate responseto intermittent therapy, and (3) de-escalation ofcontinuous infusions to intermittent therapy. Theydemonstrated shorter duration of MV, shorter ICUand hospital LOS, and lower rates of tracheostomy.
Daily Interruption of Sedation
Kress and colleagues77 tested a strategy of DIScompared to usual practice in an RCT, also compar-ing midazolam to propofol infusions in a 2 � 2factorial design. All DIS patients had sedative andanalgesic (morphine sulfate) infusions discontinuedeach morning until the patient was able to followthree or more of four simple commands or becameagitated. Infusions were restarted at one half theoriginal rate. They demonstrated significant reduc-tions in duration of MV and shorter ICU LOS, aswell as fewer diagnostic studies for unexplainedaltered mental status. There was no difference in anyoutcomes between the midazolam and propofolgroups, although DIS resulted in significantly lowerdaily doses of midazolam and morphine but notpropofol. This observation implies that more rapidextubation and ICU discharge may be related to acombination of reduced drug accumulation, andadditional opportunities for initiating weaning fromMV.110 This strategy has also been linked to areduction in ICU complications, largely as a result ofa shorter ICU LOS.111
In a two-center RCT, Carson et al78 comparedpropofol infusion vs intermittent therapy with loraz-epam; both groups received DIS and morphinesulfate for analgesia. The continuous infusion propo-
www.chestjournal.org CHEST / 133 / 2 / FEBRUARY, 2008 559
© 2008 American College of Chest Physicians by guest on May 25, 2011chestjournal.chestpubs.orgDownloaded from
Tab
le3—
Pro
spec
tive
Tri
als
ofSe
dati
onP
roto
cols
inA
dult
ICU
Pat
ient
s*
Sour
cePa
tient
san
dSe
ttin
gSt
udy
Des
ign
Key
Com
pone
nts
ofPr
otoc
olM
ajor
Fin
ding
sC
omm
ents
Bro
oket
al76
321
MV
med
ical
ICU
patie
nts,
US
univ
ersi
tyho
spita
l
RC
T:p
roto
col-d
irec
ted
seda
tion
vsno
n-pr
otoc
ol–d
irec
ted
seda
tion
(con
trol
)
Nur
sing
-dir
ecte
dpr
otoc
olth
atem
phas
izes
usin
gin
term
itten
tth
erap
y;fe
ntan
yl,l
oraz
epam
Prot
ocol
grou
pha
dsh
orte
rdu
ratio
nof
MV
(56
hvs
117
h,p
�0.
008)
;sho
rter
ICU
LO
S(5
.7d
vs7.
5d,p
�0.
013)
;sh
orte
rho
spita
lLO
S(1
4.0
dvs
19.9
d,p
�0.
003)
;lo
wer
trac
heos
tom
yra
te(6
.2%
vs13
.2%
,p�
0.03
8)K
ress
etal
7712
8M
Vm
edic
alIC
Upa
tient
s;U
Sun
iver
sity
hosp
ital
RC
T:i
nter
vent
ion
vsco
ntro
lIn
terv
entio
ngr
oup
rece
ived
DIS
Inte
rven
tion
grou
pha
dsh
orte
rdu
ratio
nof
MV
(4.9
dvs
7.3
d,p
�0.
004)
;sho
rter
ICU
LO
S(6
.4d
vs9.
9d,
p�
0.02
);an
dfe
wer
diag
nost
icte
sts
for
chan
ges
inm
enta
lsta
tus
(9%
vs27
%,p
�0.
02)
2�
2fa
ctor
iald
esig
n;pa
tient
sal
sora
ndom
ized
tore
ceiv
em
idaz
olam
orpr
opof
olM
acL
aren
etal
107
158
MV
patie
nts
inm
edic
al-s
urgi
cal-
neur
olog
icC
anad
ian
ICU
Pros
pect
ive
two-
phas
est
udy:
empi
ric
befo
re/
prot
ocol
afte
r
Evi
denc
e-ba
sed
seda
tion
and
anal
gesi
apr
otoc
olPr
otoc
olgr
oup
had
less
“dis
com
fort
”(1
1%vs
220.
4%,
p�
0.00
1);l
ess
pain
(5.9
%vs
9.6%
,p�
0.05
);lo
wer
hour
lyse
datio
nco
st(C
anad
ian
$5.6
8vs
Can
adia
n$7
.69,
p�
0.01
);tr
end
for
long
erse
datio
ndu
ratio
n(1
22.7
hvs
88.0
h,p
�0.
1);t
rend
for
long
erdu
ratio
nof
MV
(61.
6h
vs39
.1h,
p�
0.13
)
Prot
ocol
adhe
renc
e�
83.7
%
Mas
cia
etal
108
158
MV
med
ical
and
surg
ical
ICU
patie
nts,
US
tert
iary
care
univ
ersi
tyho
spita
l
Pros
pect
ive
two-
phas
est
udy:
base
line
befo
re/
guid
elin
esaf
ter
Gui
delin
esba
sed
upon
“rat
iona
lcos
t-ef
fect
ive
use
ofdr
ugs”
Gui
delin
egr
oup
had
low
erdi
rect
drug
cost
s;sh
orte
rdu
ratio
nof
MV
(167
hvs
317
h)†;
shor
ter
ICU
LO
S(9
.2.d
vs19
.1d)
†;sh
orte
rho
spita
lLO
S(1
9.1
dvs
34.3
d)†
Bra
tteb
oet
al10
928
5M
Vsu
rgic
alIC
Upa
tient
s,N
orw
egia
nun
iver
sity
hosp
ital
Pros
pect
ive
two-
phas
est
udy:
base
line
befo
re/
guid
elin
eaf
ter
Smal
l-sca
lera
pid-
cycl
eim
prov
emen
tm
odel
;pr
otoc
ol,s
edat
ion
scal
e
Prot
ocol
grou
pha
dsh
orte
rdu
ratio
nof
MV
(5.3
dvs
7.4
d)†;
tren
dfo
rsh
orte
rIC
UL
OS
(8.3
dvs
9.3
d)†
De
Jong
heet
al47
102
MV
med
ical
ICU
patie
nts,
Fre
nch
univ
ersi
ty-a
ffili
ated
hosp
ital
Pros
pect
ive
two-
phas
est
udy:
cont
rolb
efor
e/al
gori
thm
afte
r
Alg
orith
m:r
egul
aras
sess
men
tof
cons
ciou
snes
san
dto
lera
nce
toIC
Uen
viro
nmen
tw
ithgo
alof
tole
ranc
ean
dhi
ghL
OC
Alg
orith
mgr
oup
had
shor
ter
time
toar
ousa
l(2
dvs
4d,
p�
0.00
6);s
hort
erdu
ratio
nof
MV
(4.4
dvs
10.3
d,p
�0.
014)
Bre
enet
al81
105
MV
med
ical
-su
rgic
alIC
Upa
tient
s,10
Eur
opea
nco
untr
ies
15-c
ente
rR
CT
:ana
lges
ic(r
emife
ntan
ilba
sed)
orse
dativ
e(m
idaz
olam
base
d)
Titr
atio
nof
anal
gesi
c(r
emife
ntan
il,fe
ntan
yl,
orm
orph
ine)
and
seda
tive
(mid
azol
am)
drug
sto
targ
ets
Ana
lges
ic-b
ased
grou
pha
dsh
orte
rtim
efr
omw
eani
ngto
extu
batio
n(0
.9h
vs27
.5h,
p�
0.00
1);s
hort
erdu
ratio
nof
MV
(94
hvs
147.
5h,
p�
0.03
3)
Car
son
etal
7813
2M
V,s
edat
edm
edic
alIC
Upa
tient
s,tw
oU
Sun
iver
sity
hosp
itals
RC
T:l
oraz
epam
byin
term
itten
tbo
lus,
orpr
opof
olby
cont
inuo
usin
fusi
on
Dai
lyin
terr
uptio
nof
seda
tion
was
perf
orm
edin
both
grou
ps
Con
tinuo
usin
fusi
onpr
opof
olgr
oup
had
shor
ter
dura
tion
ofM
V(5
.8d
vs8.
4d,
p�
0.04
);tr
end
for
mor
eve
ntila
tor-
free
surv
ival
(18.
5d
vs10
.2d,
p�
0.06
)
(Con
tinu
ed)
560 Postgraduate Education Corner
© 2008 American College of Chest Physicians by guest on May 25, 2011chestjournal.chestpubs.orgDownloaded from
fol with DIS group had significantly shorter durationof MV. Thus, DIS is emerging as a useful techniqueto shorten duration of MV, and this “sedation vaca-tion” has been widely embraced.112
Questions arose regarding the neuropsychiatricimpact of repeated abrupt awakening on critically illpatients,113 yet subsequent research has demon-strated that patients randomized to DIS have fewersymptoms of PTSD compared to control subjects.114
Interruption of sedation is associated with a surge incirculating catecholamines; however, patients withcoronary artery disease subjected to DIS had noincrease in cardiac ischemia when taken off seda-tion.115 These studies are encouraging for the safetyof widespread use of DIS, although caution for selectedpatients, such as those with hypertensive crisis or statusasthmaticus, who might have significant consequencesfrom the resulting stress response or patient/ventila-tor asynchrony, should be exercised.110 Finally, thereare theoretical concerns with regards to the use ofDIS in patients who have a history of alcohol abusebecause precipitation of withdrawal could occur ifthe patient is not otherwise receiving medicationsthat protect for alcohol withdrawal.
Other protocol-based approaches to sedation man-agement have been demonstrated in a sequentialstudy design with comparison to an earlier controlperiod, to reduce duration of MV,47,81,108,109 improvethe quality of sedation,107 reduce patient/ventilatorasynchrony,79 and reduce drug costs,79 although oneprotocol that increased use of lorazepam was associ-ated with a trend for longer ventilator duration.107
Common themes for effective protocols includetargeting pain, agitation, and intolerance of the ICUenvironment,26,47 and focusing more on analgesictherapy than sedation.79,81
Sedative and Analgesic Drug Withdrawal
Development of signs and symptoms of acuteopioid and sedative drug withdrawal syndrome canfollow long-term administration of these medicationsin ICU patients. This phenomenon has been partic-ularly well studied in critically ill children.116–118
Cammarano et al119 reported that one third of adulttrauma patients who received � 1 week of ICU hospi-talization had clear evidence of acute withdrawal oncedrugs were discontinued. Longer duration and higherdoses of opioids, benzodiazepines, and propofol wereassociated with withdrawal, as was less haloperidoladministration. Recently, withdrawal was detected in13.2% of ICU patients and linked to delirium in theICU.6 Research suggests that CNS and sympatheticnervous system markers for withdrawal can peakwith 6 h of cessation of sedative (midazolam, propo-
Tab
le3—
Con
tinu
ed
Sour
cePa
tient
san
dSe
ttin
gSt
udy
Des
ign
Key
Com
pone
nts
ofPr
otoc
olM
ajor
Fin
ding
sC
omm
ents
Cha
nque
set
al26
230
MV
med
ical
-su
rgic
alIC
Upa
tient
s,F
renc
hun
iver
sity
hosp
ital
Pros
pect
ive
two
phas
est
udy:
cont
rolb
efor
e/pr
otoc
olaf
ter
Prot
ocol
emph
asis
onsy
stem
atic
eval
uatio
nof
pain
and
agita
tion
Prot
ocol
grou
pha
dlo
wer
inci
denc
eof
pain
(42%
vs63
%,
p�
0.00
2);l
ower
inci
denc
eof
agita
tion
(12%
vs29
%,
p�
0.00
2);s
hort
erdu
ratio
nof
MV
(65
hvs
120
h,p
�0.
05);
few
erno
soco
mia
linf
ectio
ns(8
%vs
17%
,p
�0.
05)
Ric
hman
etal
7930
MV
med
ical
ICU
patie
nts,
US
univ
ersi
tyho
spita
l
RC
T:s
edat
ion
with
benz
odia
zepi
ne,o
rco
-se
datio
nw
ithbe
nzod
iaze
pine
plus
opia
te
Nur
se-im
plem
ente
dpr
otoc
ol;m
idaz
olam
,fe
ntan
yl
Co-
seda
tion
grou
pha
dfe
wer
hour
with
“off
-ta
rget
”se
datio
n(4
.2h
vs9.
1h,
p�
0.00
2);f
ewer
epis
odes
ofpa
tient
/ven
tilat
oras
ynch
rony
(0.4
/hvs
1.0/
h,p
�0.
05)
Smal
lsam
ple
size
;tr
end
for
mor
eile
usw
ithco
-sed
atio
n;du
ratio
nof
MV
not
repo
rted
*LO
C�
leve
lof
cons
ciou
snes
s.†I
ndic
ates
pva
lues
not
repo
rted
.
www.chestjournal.org CHEST / 133 / 2 / FEBRUARY, 2008 561
© 2008 American College of Chest Physicians by guest on May 25, 2011chestjournal.chestpubs.orgDownloaded from
fol) and opioid (sufentanil) drug infusion,120 havingpotential implications for interruption of sedation insusceptible patients. Importantly, clinicians mustmaintain a high index of suspicion for sedative andanalgesic drug withdrawal as a patient recovers fromcritical illness because many of the symptoms, suchas restlessness, insomnia, delirium, nausea, hyper-tension, tachycardia, diaphoresis, and fever, are non-specific and may be easily overlooked. Strategies forgradual weaning of sedative and analgesic agentsand/or substitution with orally or subcutaneouslyadministered drugs in high-risk patients may beuseful.117,118,121
Sedative and Analgesic Therapy and Long-term Psychological Outcomes
The impact of sedative and analgesic medicationson neuropsychological health after recovery fromcritical illness is a complex issue because of manyconfounding factors, such as interruption of seda-tion, withdrawal from these agents or other sub-stances, critical illness and organ dysfunction, preex-isting neuropsychological disorders, physical restraintand immobilization, pain, delirium, memory forma-tion, and amnesia. Nevertheless, the influence ofsedation on subsequent recall of real or imaginedevents as well as the development of PTSD anddepression is an important, yet underrecognizedissue. Nelson and colleagues122 observed a positiveassociation between duration of sedation and depres-sion-related and PTSD-related symptoms 6 to 41months after acute lung injury. No difference inPTSD was noted, however, between high and lowsedative drug doses.122 Samuelson and coworkers123
found that patients who had no recall for ICU eventswere more likely to have had heavy sedation withfewer periods of wakefulness. Patients who subse-quently had delusional memories had longer ICULOS, received higher doses of sedative drugs, andhad more periods of being alert or agitated.123
Interestingly, DIS was associated with less frequentPTSD and a trend for better psychosocial adjustmentto illness when tested months later.114 These DISpatients had shorter duration of MV and sedation,yet had more episodes of being alert or agitated, thancontrol patients. Some experts124 postulate that re-call for factual events, rather than internally gener-ated images such as hallucinations and nightmares,may be protective for developing subsequent PTSD.In recent work,6 these authors found associationsbetween prolonged sedation but also physical re-straint with little or no sedation and development ofPTSD. Although further research is needed, clini-cians should be aware that sedative and analgesia
drugs may play a role in subsequent psychologicalimpairment in the ICU setting. Further, they shouldbe alert for signs of emotional trauma and thepossible need for psychological interventions duringrecovery from critical illness.
Summary and Conclusions
The majority of critically ill patients receive seda-tive and/or analgesic medications to combat pain andanxiety and to improve tolerance of the ICU envi-ronment. Patient-focused care related to these issuesincludes assessment of predisposing and precipitat-ing factors, frequent monitoring, careful medicationselection, and use of strategies to precisely targettherapy to defined end points and avoid sedation thatis excessive or prolonged.
References1 Desbiens NA, Wu AW. Pain and suffering in seriously ill
hospitalized patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 2000; 48:S183–S1862 Sessler CN, Grap MJ, Brophy GM. Multidisciplinary man-
agement of sedation and analgesia in critical care. SeminRespir Crit Care Med 2001; 22:211–225
3 Novaes MA, Knobel E, Bork AM, et al. Stressors in ICU:perception of the patient, relatives and health care team.Intensive Care Med 1999; 25:1421–1426
4 Cooper AB, Thornley KS, Young GB, et al. Sleep in criticallyill patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Chest 2000;117:809–818
5 Arroliga A, Frutos-Vivar F, Hall J, et al. Use of sedatives andneuromuscular blockers in a cohort of patients receivingmechanical ventilation. Chest 2005; 128:496–506
6 Jones C, Backman C, Capuzzo M, et al. Precipitants ofpost-traumatic stress disorder following intensive care: ahypothesis generating study of diversity in care. IntensiveCare Med 2007; 33:978–985
7 Magarey JM. Sedation of adult critically ill ventilated pa-tients in intensive care units: a national survey. Aust CritCare 1997; 10:90–93
8 Leape LL, Cullen DJ, Clapp MD, et al. Pharmacist partic-ipation on physician rounds and adverse drug events in theintensive care unit. JAMA 1999; 282:267–270
9 Jacobi J, Fraser GL, Coursin DB, et al. Clinical practiceguidelines for the sustained use of sedatives and analgesicsin the critically ill adult. Crit Care Med 2002; 30:119–141
10 Ely EW, Shintani A, Truman B, et al. Delirium as a predictorof mortality in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensivecare unit. JAMA 2004; 291:1753–1762
11 Ouimet S, Kavanagh BP, Gottfried SB, et al. Incidence, riskfactors and consequences of ICU delirium. Intensive CareMed 2007; 33:66–73
12 Peterson JF, Pun BT, Dittus RS, et al. Delirium and itsmotoric subtypes: a study of 614 critically ill patients. J AmGeriatr Soc 2006; 54:479–484
13 Pandharipande P, Jackson J, Ely EW. Delirium: acutecognitive dysfunction in the critically ill. Curr Opin CritCare 2005; 11:360–368
14 Vaurio LE, Sands LP, Wang Y, et al. Postoperative delirium:the importance of pain and pain management. Anesth Analg2006; 102:1267–1273
562 Postgraduate Education Corner
© 2008 American College of Chest Physicians by guest on May 25, 2011chestjournal.chestpubs.orgDownloaded from
15 Pandharipande P, Shintani A, Peterson J, et al. Loraz-epam is an independent risk factor for transitioning todelirium in intensive care unit patients. Anesthesiology2006; 104:21–26
16 Mehta S, Granton J, MacDonald RJ, et al. High-frequencyoscillatory ventilation in adults: the Toronto experience.Chest 2004; 126:518–527
17 Sessler CN. Sedation, analgesia, and neuromuscular block-ade for high-frequency oscillatory ventilation. Crit CareMed 2005; 33:S209–S216
18 Gattinoni L, Tognoni G, Pesenti A, et al. Effect of pronepositioning on the survival of patients with acute respiratoryfailure. N Engl J Med 2001; 345:568–573
19 Murray MJ, Cowen J, DeBlock H, et al. Clinical practiceguidelines for sustained neuromuscular blockade in theadult critically ill patient. Crit Care Med 2002; 30:142–156
20 Kahn JM, Andersson L, Karir V, et al. Low tidal volumeventilation does not increase sedation use in patients withacute lung injury. Crit Care Med 2005; 33:766–771
21 Cheng IW, Eisner MD, Thompson BT, et al. Acute effectsof tidal volume strategy on hemodynamics, fluid balance,and sedation in acute lung injury. Crit Care Med 2005;33:63–70
22 Wolthuis EK, Veelo DP, Choi G, et al. Mechanical ventila-tion with lower tidal volumes does not influence the pre-scription of opioids or sedatives. Crit Care 2007; 11:R77
23 Nieszkowska A, Combes A, Luyt CE, et al. Impact oftracheotomy on sedative administration, sedation level, andcomfort of mechanically ventilated intensive care unit pa-tients. Crit Care Med 2005; 33:2527–2533
24 de Wit M, Wan SY, Gill S, et al. Prevalence and impact ofalcohol and other drug use disorders on sedation andmechanical ventilation: a retrospective study. BMC Anes-thesiol 2007; 7:3
25 Sessler CN. Sedation scales in the ICU. Chest 2004; 126:1727–1730
26 Chanques G, Jaber S, Barbotte E, et al. Impact of systematicevaluation of pain and agitation in an intensive care unit. CritCare Med 2006; 34:1691–1699
27 Sanders KD, McArdle P, Lang JD Jr. Pain in the intensivecare unit: recognition, measurement, management. SeminRespir Crit Care Med 2001; 22:127–136
28 Gelinas C, Fillion L, Puntillo KA, et al. Validation of thecritical-care pain observation tool in adult patients. Am JCrit Care 2006; 15:420–427
29 Payen JF, Bru O, Bosson JL, et al. Assessing pain in criticallyill sedated patients by using a behavioral pain scale. CritCare Med 2001; 29:2258–2263
30 Blenkharn A, Faughnan S, Morgan A. Developing a painassessment tool for use by nurses in an adult intensive careunit. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2002; 18:332–341
31 Mateo OM, Krenzischek DA. A pilot study to assess therelationship between behavioral manifestations and self-report of pain in postanesthesia care unit patients. J PostAnesth Nurs 1992; 7:15–21
32 Puntillo KA, White C, Morris AB, et al. Patients’ perceptionsand responses to procedural pain: results from ThunderProject II. Am J Crit Care2001; 10:238–251
33 Puntillo KA, Morris AB, Thompson CL, et al. Pain behaviorsobserved during six common procedures: results from Thun-der Project II. Crit Care Med 2004; 32:421–427
34 Gelinas C, Johnston C. Pain assessment in the critically illventilated adult: validation of the Critical-Care Pain Obser-vation Tool and physiologic indicators. Clin J Pain 2007;23:497–505
35 Mehta S, Burry L, Fischer S, et al. Canadian survey of theuse of sedatives, analgesics, and neuromuscular blocking
agents in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 2006; 34:374–380
36 Botha J, Le Blanc V. The state of sedation in the nation:results of an Australian survey. Crit Care Resusc 2005;7:92–96
37 Payen JF, Chanques G, Mantz J, et al. Current practices insedation and analgesia for mechanically ventilated criticallyill patients: a prospective multicenter patient-based study.Anesthesiology 2007; 106:687–695
38 Ramsay MA, Savege TM, Simpson BR, et al. Controlledsedation with alphaxalone-alphadolone. BMJ 1974; 2:656–659
39 Riker RR, Picard JT, Fraser GL. Prospective evaluation ofthe Sedation-Agitation Scale for adult critically ill patients.Crit Care Med 1999; 27:1325–1329
40 Devlin JW, Boleski G, Mlynarek M, et al. Motor ActivityAssessment Scale: a valid and reliable sedation scale for usewith mechanically ventilated patients in an adult surgicalintensive care unit. Crit Care Med 1999; 27:1271–1275
41 Sessler CN, Gosnell MS, Grap MJ, et al. The RichmondAgitation-Sedation Scale: validity and reliability in adultintensive care unit patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med2002; 166:1338–1344
42 De Jonghe B, Cook D, Griffith L, et al. Adaptation to theIntensive Care Environment (ATICE): development andvalidation of a new sedation assessment instrument. CritCare Med 2003; 31:2344–2354
43 Weinert C, McFarland L. The state of intubated ICUpatients: development of a two-dimensional sedation ratingscale for critically ill adults. Chest 2004; 126:1883–1890
44 Ely EW, Truman B, Shintani A, et al. Monitoring sedationstatus over time in ICU patients: reliability and validity ofthe Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS). JAMA2003; 289:2983–2991
45 Pun BT, Gordon SM, Peterson JF, et al. Large-scale imple-mentation of sedation and delirium monitoring in the inten-sive care unit: a report from two medical centers. Crit CareMed 2005; 33:1199–1205
46 Weinert CR, Calvin AD. Epidemiology of sedation andsedation adequacy for mechanically ventilated patients in amedical and surgical intensive care unit. Crit Care Med2007; 35:393–401
47 De Jonghe B, Bastuji-Garin S, Fangio P, et al. Sedationalgorithm in critically ill patients without acute brain injury.Crit Care Med 2005; 33:120–127
48 Botha JA, Mudholkar P. The effect of a sedation scale onventilation hours, sedative, analgesic and inotropic use in anintensive care unit. Crit Care Resusc 2004; 6:253–257
49 Costa J, Cabre L, Molina R, et al. Cost of ICU sedation:comparison of empirical and controlled sedation methods.Clin Intensive Care 1994; 5:17–21
50 LeBlanc JM, Dasta JF, Kane-Gill SL. Role of the bispectralindex in sedation monitoring in the ICU. Ann Pharmacother2006; 40:490–500
51 Schneider G, Heglmeier S, Schneider J, et al. Patient StateIndex (PSI) measures depth of sedation in intensive carepatients. Intensive Care Med 2004; 30:213–216
52 Cortinez LI, Delfino AE, Fuentes R, et al. Performance ofthe cerebral state index during increasing levels of propofolanesthesia: a comparison with the bispectral index. AnesthAnalg 2007; 104:605–610
53 Kreuer S, Wilhelm W, Grundmann U, et al. Narcotrendindex versus bispectral index as electroencephalogram mea-sures of anesthetic drug effect during propofol anesthesia.Anesth Analg 2004; 98:692–697
54 Vivien B, Di Maria S, Ouattara A, et al. Overestimation ofBispectral Index in sedated intensive care unit patients
www.chestjournal.org CHEST / 133 / 2 / FEBRUARY, 2008 563
© 2008 American College of Chest Physicians by guest on May 25, 2011chestjournal.chestpubs.orgDownloaded from
revealed by administration of muscle relaxant. Anesthesiol-ogy 2003; 99:9–17
55 Dasta JF, Kane SL, Gerlach AT, et al. Bispectral Index inthe intensive care setting [letter]. Crit Care Med 2003;31:998
56 Tonner PH, Wei C, Bein B, et al. Comparison of twobispectral index algorithms in monitoring sedation in post-operative intensive care patients. Crit Care Med 2005;33:580–584
57 Riker RR, Fraser GL. Monitoring sedation, agitation, anal-gesia, neuromuscular blockade, and delirium in adult ICUpatients. Semin Respir Crit Care Med 2001; 22:189–198
58 Takamatsu I, Ozaki M, Kazama T. Entropy indices vs thebispectral index for estimating nociception during sevoflu-rane anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2006; 96:620–626
59 Anderson RE, Barr G, Jakobsson JG. Correlation beweenAAI-index and the BIS-index during propofol hypnosis: aclinical study. J Clin Monit Comput 2002; 17:325–329
60 Watson BD, Kane-Gill SL. Sedation assessment in criticallyill adults: 2001–2004 update. Ann Pharmacother 2004;38:1898–1906
61 Ely EW, Inouye SK, Bernard GR, et al. Delirium in mechan-ically ventilated patients: validity and reliability of the confusionassessment method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU).JAMA 2001; 286:2703–2710
62 Ely EW, Gautam S, Margolin R, et al. The impact ofdelirium in the intensive care unit on hospital length of stay.Intensive Care Med 2001; 27:1892–1900
63 Bergeron N, Dubois MJ, Dumont M, et al. Intensive CareDelirium Screening Checklist: evaluation of a new screeningtool. Intensive Care Med 2001; 27:859–864
64 Aldemir M, Ozen S, Kara IH, et al. Predisposing factors fordelirium in the surgical intensive care unit. Crit Care 2001;5:265–270
65 van der Mast RC, van den Broek WW, Fekkes D, et al.Delirium after cardiac surgery: the possible role of trypto-phan in relation to the other neutral aminoacids. Adv ExpMed Biol 1996; 398:93–96
66 Devlin JW, Fong JJ, Fraser GL, et al. Delirium assessmentin the critically ill. Intensive Care Med 2007; 33:929–940
67 Hart RP, Levenson JL, Sessler CN, et al. Validation of acognitive test for delirium in medical ICU patients. Psycho-somatics 1996; 37:533–546
68 Hart RP, Best AM, Sessler CN, et al. Abbreviated cognitivetest for delirium. J Psychosom Res 1997; 43:417–423
69 Ouimet S, Riker R, Bergeon N, et al. Subsyndromal delir-ium in the ICU: evidence for a disease spectrum. IntensiveCare Med 2007; 33:1007–1013
70 Ely EW, Stephens RK, Jackson JC, et al. Current opinionsregarding the importance, diagnosis, and management ofdelirium in the intensive care unit: a survey of 912 health-care professionals. Crit Care Med 2004; 32:106–112
71 Grap MJ, Borchers CT, Munro CL, et al. Actigraphy in thecritically ill: correlation with activity, agitation, and sedation.Am J Crit Care 2005; 14:52–60
72 Chase JG, Agogue F, Starfinger C, et al. Quantifyingagitation in sedated ICU patients using digital imaging.Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2004; 76:131–141
73 Nilsestuen JO, Hargett KD. Using ventilator graphics toidentify patient-ventilator asynchrony. Respir Care 2005;50:202–234
74 Thille AW, Rodriguez P, Cabello B, et al. Patient-ventilatorasynchrony during assisted mechanical ventilation. IntensiveCare Med 2006; 32:1515–1522
75 Kollef MH, Levy NT, Ahrens TS, et al. The use of contin-uous i.v. sedation is associated with prolongation of mechan-ical ventilation. Chest 1998; 114:541–548
76 Brook AD, Ahrens TS, Schaiff R, et al. Effect of a nursing-implemented sedation protocol on the duration of mechan-ical ventilation. Crit Care Med 1999; 27:2609–2615
77 Kress JP, Pohlman AS, O’Connor MF, et al. Daily interrup-tion of sedative infusions in critically ill patients undergoingmechanical ventilation. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:1471–1477
78 Carson SS, Kress JP, Rodgers JE, et al. A randomized trial ofintermittent lorazepam versus propofol with daily interrup-tion in mechanically ventilated patients. Crit Care Med2006; 34:1326–1332
79 Richman PS, Baram D, Varela M, et al. Sedation duringmechanical ventilation: a trial of benzodiazepine and opiatein combination. Crit Care Med 2006; 34:1395–1401
80 Carrasco G, Cabre L, Sobrepere G, et al. Synergisticsedation with propofol and midazolam in intensive carepatients after coronary artery bypass grafting. Crit Care Med1998; 26:844–851
81 Breen D, Karabinis A, Malbrain M, et al. Decreased dura-tion of mechanical ventilation when comparing analgesia-based sedation using remifentanil with standard hypnotic-based sedation for up to 10 days in intensive care unitpatients: a randomised trial. Crit Care 2005; 9:R200–210
82 Cigada M, Pezzi A, Di Mauro P, et al. Sedation in thecritically ill ventilated patient: possible role of enteral drugs.Intensive Care Med 2005; 31:482–486
83 Rhoney DH, Murry KR. National survey of the use ofsedating drugs, neuromuscular blocking agents, and reversalagents in the intensive care unit. J Intensive Care Med 2003;18:139–145
84 Soliman HM, Melot C, Vincent JL. Sedative and analgesicpractice in the intensive care unit: the results of a Europeansurvey. Br J Anaesth 2001; 87:186–192
85 Bauer TM, Ritz R, Haberthur C, et al. Prolonged sedationdue to accumulation of conjugated metabolites of midazo-lam. Lancet 1995; 346:145–147
86 McKenzie CA, McKinnon W, Naughton DP, et al. Differ-entiating midazolam over-sedation from neurological dam-age in the intensive care unit. Crit Care 2005; 9:R32–36
87 Swart EL, van Schijndel RJ, van Loenen AC, et al. Contin-uous infusion of lorazepam versus medazolam in patients inthe intensive care unit: sedation with lorazepam is easier tomanage and is more cost-effective. Crit Care Med 1999;27:1461–1465
88 Pohlman AS, Simpson KP, Hall JB. Continuous intravenousinfusions of lorazepam versus midazolam for sedation duringmechanical ventilatory support: a prospective, randomizedstudy. Crit Care Med 1994; 22:1241–1247
89 Barr J, Zomorodi K, Bertaccini EJ, et al. A double-blind,randomized comparison of i.v. lorazepam versus midazolamfor sedation of ICU patients via a pharmacologic model.Anesthesiology 2001; 95:286–298
90 Yaucher NE, Fish JT, Smith HW, et al. Propylene glycol-associated renal toxicity from lorazepam infusion. Pharma-cotherapy 2003; 23:1094–1099
91 Walder B, Elia N, Henzi I, et al. A lack of evidence ofsuperiority of propofol versus midazolam for sedation in me-chanically ventilated critically ill patients: a qualitative andquantitative systematic review. Anesth Analg 2001; 92:975–983
92 Marik PE. Propofol: therapeutic indications and side-effects.Curr Pharm Des 2004; 10:3639–3649
93 Barrientos-Vega R, Mar Sanchez-Soria M, Morales-GarciaC, et al. Prolonged sedation of critically ill patients withmidazolam or propofol: impact on weaning and costs. CritCare Med 1997; 25:33–40
94 Nimmo GR, Mackenzie SJ, Grant IS. Haemodynamic andoxygen transport effects of propofol infusion in critically illadults. Anaesthesia 1994; 49:485–489
564 Postgraduate Education Corner
© 2008 American College of Chest Physicians by guest on May 25, 2011chestjournal.chestpubs.orgDownloaded from
95 Vasile B, Rasulo F, Candiani A, et al. The pathophysiology ofpropofol infusion syndrome: a simple name for a complexsyndrome. Intensive Care Med 2003; 29:1417–1425
96 Siobal MS, Kallet RH, Kivett VA, et al. Use of dexmedeto-midine to facilitate extubation in surgical intensive-care-unitpatients who failed previous weaning attempts followingprolonged mechanical ventilation: a pilot study. Respir Care2006; 51:492–496
97 Bamgbade OA. Dexmedetomidine for peri-operative seda-tion and analgesia in alcohol addiction. Anaesthesia 2006;61:299–300
98 MacLaren R, Forrest LK, Kiser TH. Adjunctive dexmedeto-midine therapy in the intensive care unit: a retrospectiveassessment of impact on sedative and analgesic require-ments, levels of sedation and analgesia, and ventilatory andhemodynamic parameters. Pharmacotherapy 2007; 27:351–359
99 Venn M, Newman J, Grounds M. A phase II study toevaluate the efficacy of dexmedetomidine for sedation in themedical intensive care unit. Intensive Care Med 2003;29:201–207
100 Dasta JF, Jacobi J, Sesti AM, et al. Addition of dexmedeto-midine to standard sedation regimens after cardiac surgery:an outcomes analysis. Pharmacotherapy 2006; 26:798–805
101 Barr J, Donner A. Optimal intravenous dosing strategies forsedatives and analgesics in the intensive care unit. Crit CareClin 1995; 11:827–847
102 Muellejans B, Lopez A, Cross MH, et al. Remifentanilversus fentanyl for analgesia based sedation to providepatient comfort in the intensive care unit: a randomized,double-blind controlled trial. Crit Care 2004; 8:R1–R11
103 Fish DN. Treatment of delirium in the critically ill patient.Clin Pharm 1991; 10:456–466
104 Sharma ND, Rosman HS, Padhi ID, et al. Torsades depointes associated with intravenous haloperidol in criticallyill patients. Am J Cardiol 1998; 81:238–240
105 Milbrandt EB, Kersten A, Kong L, et al. Haloperidol use isassociated with lower hospital mortality in mechanicallyventilated patients. Crit Care Med 2005; 33:226–229; dis-cussion 263–225
106 Skrobik YK, Bergeron N, Dumont M, et al. Olanzapine vshaloperidol: treating delirium in a critical care setting.Intensive Care Med 2004; 30:444–449
107 MacLaren R, Plamondon JM, Ramsay KB, et al. A prospec-tive evaluation of empiric versus protocol-based sedationand analgesia. Pharmacotherapy 2000; 20:662–672
108 Mascia MF, Koch M, Medicis JJ. Pharmacoeconomic impactof rational use guidelines on the provision of analgesia,sedation, and neuromuscular blockade in critical care. CritCare Med 2000; 28:2300–2306
109 Brattebo G, Hofoss D, Flaatten H, et al. Effect of a scoringsystem and protocol for sedation on duration of patients’
need for ventilator support in a surgical intensive care unit.Qual Saf Health Care 2004; 13:203–205
110 Sessler CN. Wake up and breathe. Crit Care Med 2004;32:1413–1414
111 Schweickert WD, Gehlbach BK, Pohlman AS, et al. Dailyinterruption of sedative infusions and complications of crit-ical illness in mechanically ventilated patients. Crit CareMed 2004; 32:1272–1276
112 Resar R, Pronovost P, Haraden C, et al. Using a bundleapproach to improve ventilator care processes and reduceventilator-associated pneumonia. Jt Comm J Qual PatientSaf 2005; 31:243–248
113 Heffner JE. A wake-up call in the intensive care unit. N EnglJ Med 2000; 342:1520–1522
114 Kress JP, Gehlbach B, Lacy M, et al. The long-termpsychological effects of daily sedative interruption on criti-cally ill patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2003; 168:1457–1461
115 Kress JP, Vinayak AG, Levitt J, et al. Daily sedative inter-ruption in mechanically ventilated patients at risk for coro-nary artery disease. Crit Care Med 2007; 35:365–371
116 Fonsmark L, Rasmussen YH, Carl P. Occurrence of with-drawal in critically ill sedated children. Crit Care Med 1999;27:196–199
117 Tobias JD. Tolerance, withdrawal, and physical dependencyafter long-term sedation and analgesia of children in thepediatric intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2000; 28:2122–2132
118 Berens RJ, Meyer MT, Mikhailov TA, et al. A prospectiveevaluation of opioid weaning in opioid-dependent pediatriccritical care patients. Anesth Analg 2006; 102:1045–1050
119 Cammarano WB, Pittet JF, Weitz S, et al. Acute withdrawalsyndrome related to the administration of analgesic andsedative medications in adult intensive care unit patients.Crit Care Med 1998; 26:676–684
120 Korak-Leiter M, Likar R, Oher M, et al. Withdrawalfollowing sufentanil/propofol and sufentanil/midazolam se-dation in surgical ICU patients: correlation with centralnervous parameters and endogenous opioids. Intensive CareMed 2005; 31:380–387
121 Tobias JD. Subcutaneous administration of fentanyl andmidazolam to prevent withdrawal after prolonged sedationin children. Crit Care Med 1999; 27:2262–2265
122 Nelson BJ, Weinert CR, Bury CL, et al. Intensive care unitdrug use and subsequent quality of life in acute lung injurypatients. Crit Care Med 2000; 28:3626–3630
123 Samuelson K, Lundberg D, Fridlund B. Memory in relationto depth of sedation in adult mechanically ventilated inten-sive care patients. Intensive Care Med 2006; 32:660–667
124 Jones C, Griffiths RD, Humphris G, et al. Memory, delu-sions, and the development of acute posttraumatic stressdisorder-related symptoms after intensive care. Crit CareMed 2001; 29:573–580
www.chestjournal.org CHEST / 133 / 2 / FEBRUARY, 2008 565
© 2008 American College of Chest Physicians by guest on May 25, 2011chestjournal.chestpubs.orgDownloaded from
DOI 10.1378/chest.07-2026 2008;133; 552-565Chest
Curtis N. Sessler and Kimberly Varney*Patient-Focused Sedation and Analgesia in the ICU
May 25, 2011This information is current as of
http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/133/2/552.full.htmlUpdated Information and services can be found at:
Updated Information & Services
http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/133/2/552.full.html#ref-list-1This article cites 124 articles, 28 of which can be accessed free at:
References
http://chestjournal.chestpubs.org/content/133/2/552.full.html#related-urlsThis article has been cited by 10 HighWire-hosted articles:
Cited Bys
http://www.chestpubs.org/site/misc/reprints.xhtmlfound online at: Information about reproducing this article in parts (figures, tables) or in its entirety can bePermissions & Licensing
http://www.chestpubs.org/site/misc/reprints.xhtmlInformation about ordering reprints can be found online:
Reprints
"Services" link to the right of the online article.Receive free e-mail alerts when new articles cite this article. To sign up, select the
Citation Alerts
PowerPoint slide format. See any online figure for directions. articles can be downloaded for teaching purposes inCHESTFigures that appear in Images in PowerPoint format
© 2008 American College of Chest Physicians by guest on May 25, 2011chestjournal.chestpubs.orgDownloaded from