184
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comfort and patient-centred care without excessive sedation: the eCASH concept

      review-article

      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

          We propose an integrated and adaptable approach to improve patient care and clinical outcomes through analgesia and light sedation, initiated early during an episode of critical illness and as a priority of care. This strategy, which may be regarded as an evolution of the Pain, Agitation and Delirium guidelines, is conveyed in the mnemonic eCASH—early Comfort using Analgesia, minimal Sedatives and maximal Humane care. eCASH aims to establish optimal patient comfort with minimal sedation as the default presumption for intensive care unit (ICU) patients in the absence of recognised medical requirements for deeper sedation. Effective pain relief is the first priority for implementation of eCASH: we advocate flexible multimodal analgesia designed to minimise use of opioids. Sedation is secondary to pain relief and where possible should be based on agents that can be titrated to a prespecified target level that is subject to regular review and adjustment; routine use of benzodiazepines should be minimised. From the outset, the objective of sedation strategy is to eliminate the use of sedatives at the earliest medically justifiable opportunity. Effective analgesia and minimal sedation contribute to the larger aims of eCASH by facilitating promotion of sleep, early mobilization strategies and improved communication of patients with staff and relatives, all of which may be expected to assist rehabilitation and avoid isolation, confusion and possible long-term psychological complications of an ICU stay. eCASH represents a new paradigm for patient-centred care in the ICU. Some organizational challenges to the implementation of eCASH are identified.

          Related collections

          Most cited references73

          • 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

            Clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit.

            To revise the "Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Sustained Use of Sedatives and Analgesics in the Critically Ill Adult" published in Critical Care Medicine in 2002. The American College of Critical Care Medicine assembled a 20-person, multidisciplinary, multi-institutional task force with expertise in guideline development, pain, agitation and sedation, delirium management, and associated outcomes in adult critically ill patients. The task force, divided into four subcommittees, collaborated over 6 yr in person, via teleconferences, and via electronic communication. Subcommittees were responsible for developing relevant clinical questions, using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation method (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org) to review, evaluate, and summarize the literature, and to develop clinical statements (descriptive) and recommendations (actionable). With the help of a professional librarian and Refworks database software, they developed a Web-based electronic database of over 19,000 references extracted from eight clinical search engines, related to pain and analgesia, agitation and sedation, delirium, and related clinical outcomes in adult ICU patients. The group also used psychometric analyses to evaluate and compare pain, agitation/sedation, and delirium assessment tools. All task force members were allowed to review the literature supporting each statement and recommendation and provided feedback to the subcommittees. Group consensus was achieved for all statements and recommendations using the nominal group technique and the modified Delphi method, with anonymous voting by all task force members using E-Survey (http://www.esurvey.com). All voting was completed in December 2010. Relevant studies published after this date and prior to publication of these guidelines were referenced in the text. The quality of evidence for each statement and recommendation was ranked as high (A), moderate (B), or low/very low (C). The strength of recommendations was ranked as strong (1) or weak (2), and either in favor of (+) or against (-) an intervention. A strong recommendation (either for or against) indicated that the intervention's desirable effects either clearly outweighed its undesirable effects (risks, burdens, and costs) or it did not. For all strong recommendations, the phrase "We recommend …" is used throughout. A weak recommendation, either for or against an intervention, indicated that the trade-off between desirable and undesirable effects was less clear. For all weak recommendations, the phrase "We suggest …" is used throughout. In the absence of sufficient evidence, or when group consensus could not be achieved, no recommendation (0) was made. Consensus based on expert opinion was not used as a substitute for a lack of evidence. A consistent method for addressing potential conflict of interest was followed if task force members were coauthors of related research. The development of this guideline was independent of any industry funding. These guidelines provide a roadmap for developing integrated, evidence-based, and patient-centered protocols for preventing and treating pain, agitation, and delirium in critically ill patients.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Early physical and occupational therapy in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a randomised controlled trial

              Background Long-term complications of critical illness include intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired weakness and neuropsychiatric disease. Immobilisation secondary to sedation might potentiate these problems. We assessed the efficacy of combining daily interruption of sedation with physical and occupational therapy on functional outcomes in patients receiving mechanical ventilation in intensive care. Methods Sedated adults (≥18 years of age) in the ICU who had been on mechanical ventilation for less than 72 h, were expected to continue for at least 24 h, and who met criteria for baseline functional independence were eligible for enrolment in this randomised controlled trial at two university hospitals. We randomly assigned 104 patients by computer-generated, permuted block randomisation to early exercise and mobilisation (physical and occupational therapy) during periods of daily interruption of sedation (intervention; n=49) or to daily interruption of sedation with therapy as ordered by the primary care team (control; n=55). The primary endpoint—the number of patients returning to independent functional status at hospital discharge—was defined as the ability to perform six activities of daily living and the ability to walk independently. Therapists who undertook patient assessments were blinded to treatment assignment. Secondary endpoints included duration of delirium and ventilator-free days during the first 28 days of hospital stay. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT00322010. Findings All 104 patients were included in the analysis. Return to independent functional status at hospital discharge occurred in 29 (59%) patients in the intervention group compared with 19 (35%) patients in the control group (p=0·02; odds ratio 2·7 [95% CI 1·2–6·1]). Patients in the intervention group had shorter duration of delirium (median 2·0 days, IQR 0·0–6·0 vs 4·0 days, 2·0–8·0; p=0·02), and more ventilator-free days (23·5 days, 7·4–25·6 vs 21·1 days, 0·0–23·8; p=0·05) during the 28-day follow-up period than did controls. There was one serious adverse event in 498 therapy sessions (desaturation less than 80%). Discontinuation of therapy as a result of patient instability occurred in 19 (4%) of all sessions, most commonly for perceived patient-ventilator asynchrony. Interpretation A strategy for whole-body rehabilitation—consisting of interruption of sedation and physical and occupational therapy in the earliest days of critical illness—was safe and well tolerated, and resulted in better functional outcomes at hospital discharge, a shorter duration of delirium, and more ventilator-free days compared with standard care. Funding None.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +32 2 555 3380 , jlvincen@ulb.ac.be
                Journal
                Intensive Care Med
                Intensive Care Med
                Intensive Care Medicine
                Springer Berlin Heidelberg (Berlin/Heidelberg )
                0342-4642
                1432-1238
                13 April 2016
                13 April 2016
                2016
                : 42
                : 962-971
                Affiliations
                [ ]Department of Intensive Care, Erasme University Hospital, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Route de Lennik 808, 1070 Brussels, Belgium
                [ ]Program of Critical Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash Medical Centre, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800 Australia
                [ ]Anaesthetics, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Centre for Inflammation Research and School of Clinical Sciences, Edinburgh University, Edinburgh, UK
                [ ]Department of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN USA
                [ ]Department of Intensive Care Medicine, St George’s Hospital, London, UK
                [ ]Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Gelre Hospitals, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands
                [ ]Département d’Anesthésie Réanimation Chirurgicale, Hôpital Bichat-Claude Bernard, Université Paris-Diderot, Hôpitaux Universitaires Paris Nord Val de Seine, Paris, France
                [ ]Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, Odense University Hospital, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
                [ ]Department of Pediatric ICU, Intensive Care and Anesthesia, Catholic University of Rome, Rome, Italy
                [ ]Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Otto Wagner Hospital, Vienna, Austria
                [ ]Department of Anesthesiology and Surgical-Trauma Intensive Care, University Hospital Clinic Valencia, Valencia, Spain
                [ ]Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, European Hospital Georges Pompidou, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France
                [ ]Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
                [ ]Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Berne University Hospital and University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland
                Article
                4297
                10.1007/s00134-016-4297-4
                4846689
                27075762
                83ef0388-1ed8-469e-ba63-762c91ac3e3f
                © The Author(s) 2016

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                : 21 December 2015
                : 26 February 2016
                Funding
                Funded by: Orion Pharma
                Categories
                Review
                Custom metadata
                © Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg and ESICM 2016

                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                icu,pain,analgesia,sedation,ecash
                Emergency medicine & Trauma
                icu, pain, analgesia, sedation, ecash

                Comments

                Comment on this article