1,264
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evidence and consensus based guideline for the management of delirium, analgesia, and sedation in intensive care medicine. Revision 2015 (DAS-Guideline 2015) – short version Translated title: S3-Leitlinie Analgesie, Sedierung und Delirmanagement in der Intensivmedizin. Revision 2015 (DAS-Leitlinie 2015) – Kurzversion

      other
      DAS-Taskforce 2015, 1 , 1 , 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 5 , 7 , 5 , 9 , 6 , 3 , 5 , 2 , 11 , 12 , 3 , 3 , 13 , 5 , 3 , 3 , 8 , 3 , 5 , 14 , 12 , 13 , 5 , 15 , 3 , 16 , 15 , * , 3 , 1 , 3 , 3 , 3 , 3 , 17 , 3 , 5
      GMS German Medical Science
      German Medical Science GMS Publishing House
      guideline, evidence, analgesia, sedation, delirium, anxiety, stress, sleep, monitoring, treatment, intensive care, critical care, Germany

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In 2010, under the guidance of the DGAI (German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine) and DIVI (German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine), twelve German medical societies published the “Evidence- and Consensus-based Guidelines on the Management of Analgesia, Sedation and Delirium in Intensive Care”. Since then, several new studies and publications have considerably increased the body of evidence, including the new recommendations from the American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) in conjunction with Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) from 2013. For this update, a major restructuring and extension of the guidelines were needed in order to cover new aspects of treatment, such as sleep and anxiety management. The literature was systematically searched and evaluated using the criteria of the Oxford Center of Evidence Based Medicine. The body of evidence used to formulate these recommendations was reviewed and approved by representatives of 17 national societies. Three grades of recommendation were used as follows: Grade “A” (strong recommendation), Grade “B” (recommendation) and Grade “0” (open recommendation). The result is a comprehensive, interdisciplinary, evidence and consensus-based set of level 3 guidelines. This publication was designed for all ICU professionals, and takes into account all critically ill patient populations. It represents a guide to symptom-oriented prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of delirium, anxiety, stress, and protocol-based analgesia, sedation, and sleep-management in intensive care medicine.

          Zusammenfassung

          Die vorherige Version der S3-Leitlinie „Analgesie, Sedierung und Delirmanagement in der Intensivmedizin“ wurde 2010 unter der Federführung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin (DGAI) und der Deutschen Interdisziplinären Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin (DIVI) publiziert. Neue Evidenz aus Studien ebenso wie neue Leitlinien, u.a. die 2013 erschienene Leitlinie der U.S.-amerikanischen Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), des American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) und der American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP), gaben nicht nur Anlass zu einem Update der deutschen Empfehlungen von 2010. Für die Fortschreibung der S3-Leitlinie wurden eine Neuformulierung von klinisch relevanten Schlüsselfragen und die signifikante Erweiterung der Leitlinie um neue Facetten der Behandlung, wie zum Beispiel das Schlafmanagement, notwendig. Dazu wurde die systematisch gesuchte Literatur nach Kriterien des Oxford Centre of Evidence Based Medicine bewertet. Der enorme Evidenzkörper bildete die Grundlage für die Empfehlungen, die von Mandatsträgern aus 17 Fachgesellschaften konsentiert wurden. In den Empfehlungen wurden die Grade „A“ (starke Empfehlung), „B“ (Empfehlung) und „0“ (offene Empfehlung) gewählt. Als Ergebnis dieses Prozesses liegt nun die weltweit umfassendste, interdisziplinär erarbeitete evidenz- und konsensbasierte Stufe 3 Leitlinie vor. Die Leitlinie richtet sich an alle auf der Intensivstation tätigen Berufsgruppen, die Empfehlungen berücksichtigen alle intensivmedizinisch-behandelten Patientengruppen. Sie stellt einen Leitfaden zur symptomorientierten Prävention, Diagnostik und Therapie von Delir, Angst, Stress und der protokollbasierten Analgesie, Sedierung und dem Schlafmanagement in der Intensivmedizin für Erwachsene und Kinder dar.

          Related collections

          Most cited references247

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Efficacy and safety of a paired sedation and ventilator weaning protocol for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care (Awakening and Breathing Controlled trial): a randomised controlled trial.

          Approaches to removal of sedation and mechanical ventilation for critically ill patients vary widely. Our aim was to assess a protocol that paired spontaneous awakening trials (SATs)-ie, daily interruption of sedatives-with spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs). In four tertiary-care hospitals, we randomly assigned 336 mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care to management with a daily SAT followed by an SBT (intervention group; n=168) or with sedation per usual care plus a daily SBT (control group; n=168). The primary endpoint was time breathing without assistance. Data were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00097630. One patient in the intervention group did not begin their assigned treatment protocol because of withdrawal of consent and thus was excluded from analyses and lost to follow-up. Seven patients in the control group discontinued their assigned protocol, and two of these patients were lost to follow-up. Patients in the intervention group spent more days breathing without assistance during the 28-day study period than did those in the control group (14.7 days vs 11.6 days; mean difference 3.1 days, 95% CI 0.7 to 5.6; p=0.02) and were discharged from intensive care (median time in intensive care 9.1 days vs 12.9 days; p=0.01) and the hospital earlier (median time in the hospital 14.9 days vs 19.2 days; p=0.04). More patients in the intervention group self-extubated than in the control group (16 patients vs six patients; 6.0% difference, 95% CI 0.6% to 11.8%; p=0.03), but the number of patients who required reintubation after self-extubation was similar (five patients vs three patients; 1.2% difference, 95% CI -5.2% to 2.5%; p=0.47), as were total reintubation rates (13.8%vs 12.5%; 1.3% difference, 95% CI -8.6% to 6.1%; p=0.73). At any instant during the year after enrolment, patients in the intervention group were less likely to die than were patients in the control group (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92; p=0.01). For every seven patients treated with the intervention, one life was saved (number needed to treat was 7.4, 95% CI 4.2 to 35.5). Our results suggest that a wake up and breathe protocol that pairs daily spontaneous awakening trials (ie, interruption of sedatives) with daily spontaneous breathing trials results in better outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care than current standard approaches and should become routine practice.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam or propofol for sedation during prolonged mechanical ventilation: two randomized controlled trials.

            Long-term sedation with midazolam or propofol in intensive care units (ICUs) has serious adverse effects. Dexmedetomidine, an α(2)-agonist available for ICU sedation, may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and enhance patient comfort. To determine the efficacy of dexmedetomidine vs midazolam or propofol (preferred usual care) in maintaining sedation; reducing duration of mechanical ventilation; and improving patients' interaction with nursing care. Two phase 3 multicenter, randomized, double-blind trials carried out from 2007 to 2010. The MIDEX trial compared midazolam with dexmedetomidine in ICUs of 44 centers in 9 European countries; the PRODEX trial compared propofol with dexmedetomidine in 31 centers in 6 European countries and 2 centers in Russia. Included were adult ICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation who needed light to moderate sedation for more than 24 hours (midazolam, n = 251, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 249; propofol, n = 247, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 251). Sedation with dexmedetomidine, midazolam, or propofol; daily sedation stops; and spontaneous breathing trials. For each trial, we tested whether dexmedetomidine was noninferior to control with respect to proportion of time at target sedation level (measured by Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale) and superior to control with respect to duration of mechanical ventilation. Secondary end points were patients' ability to communicate pain (measured using a visual analogue scale [VAS]) and length of ICU stay. Time at target sedation was analyzed in per-protocol population (midazolam, n = 233, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 227; propofol, n = 214, vs dexmedetomidine, n = 223). Dexmedetomidine/midazolam ratio in time at target sedation was 1.07 (95% CI, 0.97-1.18) and dexmedetomidine/propofol, 1.00 (95% CI, 0.92-1.08). Median duration of mechanical ventilation appeared shorter with dexmedetomidine (123 hours [IQR, 67-337]) vs midazolam (164 hours [IQR, 92-380]; P = .03) but not with dexmedetomidine (97 hours [IQR, 45-257]) vs propofol (118 hours [IQR, 48-327]; P = .24). Patients' interaction (measured using VAS) was improved with dexmedetomidine (estimated score difference vs midazolam, 19.7 [95% CI, 15.2-24.2]; P < .001; and vs propofol, 11.2 [95% CI, 6.4-15.9]; P < .001). Length of ICU and hospital stay and mortality were similar. Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam patients had more hypotension (51/247 [20.6%] vs 29/250 [11.6%]; P = .007) and bradycardia (35/247 [14.2%] vs 13/250 [5.2%]; P < .001). Among ICU patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation, dexmedetomidine was not inferior to midazolam and propofol in maintaining light to moderate sedation. Dexmedetomidine reduced duration of mechanical ventilation compared with midazolam and improved patients' ability to communicate pain compared with midazolam and propofol. More adverse effects were associated with dexmedetomidine. clinicaltrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00481312, NCT00479661.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Incidence, risk factors and consequences of ICU delirium.

              Delirium in the critically ill is reported in 11-80% of patients. We estimated the incidence of delirium using a validated scale in a large cohort of ICU patients and determined the associated risk factors and outcomes. Prospective study in a 16-bed medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU). 820 consecutive patients admitted to ICU for more than 24 h. Tools used were: the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist for delirium, Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale for sedation, and Numerical Rating Scale for pain. Risk factors were evaluated with univariate and multivariate analysis, and factors influencing mortality were determined using Cox regression. Delirium occurred in 31.8% of 764 patients. Risk of delirium was independently associated with a history of hypertension (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.3-2.6), alcoholism (2.03, 1.2-3.2), and severity of illness (1.25, 1.03-1.07 per 5-point increment in APACHE II score) but not with age or corticosteroid use. Sedatives and analgesics increased the risk of delirium when used to induce coma (OR 3.2, 95% CI 1.5-6.8), and not otherwise. Delirium was linked to longer ICU stay (11.5+/-11.5 vs. 4.4+/-3.9 days), longer hospital stay (18.2+/-15.7 vs. 13.2+/-19.4 days), higher ICU mortality (19.7% vs. 10.3%), and higher hospital mortality (26.7% vs. 21.4%). Delirium is associated with a history of hypertension and alcoholism, higher APACHE II score, and with clinical effects of sedative and analgesic drugs.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ger Med Sci
                Ger Med Sci
                GMS Ger Med Sci
                GMS German Medical Science
                German Medical Science GMS Publishing House
                1612-3174
                16 November 2015
                12 November 2015
                2015
                : 13
                : Doc19
                Affiliations
                [1 ]German Society of Neurology (DGN)
                [2 ]German Society of Internal Medicine Intensive Care (DGIIN)
                [3 ]German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI)
                [4 ]German Society of Gynecology & Obstetrics (DGGG)
                [5 ]German Society of Neonatology and Pediatric Intensive Care (GNPI)
                [6 ]German Society of Geriatrics (DGG)
                [7 ]German Society for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (DGTHG)
                [8 ]German Sleep Society (DGSM)
                [9 ]German Society of Surgery (DGCH)
                [10 ]German Association for Physiotherapy (ZVK)
                [11 ]German Society of Neurosurgery (DGNC)
                [12 ]German Society of Midwifery Science (DGHWi)
                [13 ]German Society of Haematology and Oncology (DGHO)
                [14 ]German Pain Society (DGSS)
                [15 ]German Society for Specialised Nursing and Allied Health Professions (DGF)
                [16 ]German Association for Psychiatry, Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (DGPPN)
                [17 ]German Interdisciplinary Association for Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI)
                Author notes
                *To whom correspondence should be addressed: Claudia Spies, Department for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charité Campus Mitte and Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Augustenburger Platz 1, 13353 Berlin, Germany, Phone: 0049 (0)30 450551002, Fax: 0049 (0)30 450551909, E-mail: claudia.spies@ 123456charite.de
                Article
                000223 Doc19 urn:nbn:de:0183-0002238
                10.3205/000223
                4645746
                26609286
                576463ea-4bb3-4c31-93b7-4466232917bb
                Copyright © 2015 et al.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

                History
                : 25 September 2015
                Categories
                Article

                Medicine
                guideline,evidence,analgesia,sedation,delirium,anxiety,stress,sleep,monitoring,treatment,intensive care,critical care,germany

                Comments

                Comment on this article