Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
36
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Emergence agitation: current knowledge and unresolved questions

      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

          Emergence agitation (EA), also referred to as emergence delirium, can have clinically significant consequences. The mechanism of EA remains unclear. The proposed risk factors of EA include age, male sex, type of surgery, emergency operation, use of inhalational anesthetics with low blood–gas partition coefficients, long duration of surgery, anticholinergics, premedication with benzodiazepines, voiding urgency, postoperative pain, and the presence of invasive devices. If preoperative or intraoperative objective monitoring could predict the occurrence of agitation during emergence, this would help to reduce its adverse consequences. Several tools are available for assessing EA. However, there are no standardized clinical research practice guidelines and its incidence varies considerably with the assessment tool or definition used. Total intravenous anesthesia, propofol, μ-opioid agonists, N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists, nefopam, α 2-adrenoreceptor agonists, regional analgesia, multimodal analgesia, parent-present induction, and preoperative education for surgery may help in preventing of EA. However, it is difficult to identify patients at high risk and apply preventive measures in various clinical situations.The risk factors and outcomes of preventive strategies vary with the methodologies of studies and patients assessed.This review discusses important outcomes of research on EA and directions for future research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references142

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

          The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale: validity and reliability in adult intensive care unit patients.

          Sedative medications are widely used in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Structured assessment of sedation and agitation is useful to titrate sedative medications and to evaluate agitated behavior, yet existing sedation scales have limitations. We measured inter-rater reliability and validity of a new 10-level (+4 "combative" to -5 "unarousable") scale, the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS), in two phases. In phase 1, we demonstrated excellent (r = 0.956, lower 90% confidence limit = 0.948; kappa = 0.73, 95% confidence interval = 0.71, 0.75) inter-rater reliability among five investigators (two physicians, two nurses, and one pharmacist) in adult ICU patient encounters (n = 192). Robust inter-rater reliability (r = 0.922-0.983) (kappa = 0.64-0.82) was demonstrated for patients from medical, surgical, cardiac surgery, coronary, and neuroscience ICUs, patients with and without mechanical ventilation, and patients with and without sedative medications. In validity testing, RASS correlated highly (r = 0.93) with a visual analog scale anchored by "combative" and "unresponsive," including all patient subgroups (r = 0.84-0.98). In the second phase, after implementation of RASS in our medical ICU, inter-rater reliability between a nurse educator and 27 RASS-trained bedside nurses in 101 patient encounters was high (r = 0.964, lower 90% confidence limit = 0.950; kappa = 0.80, 95% confidence interval = 0.69, 0.90) and very good for all subgroups (r = 0.773-0.970, kappa = 0.66-0.89). Correlations between RASS and the Ramsay sedation scale (r = -0.78) and the Sedation Agitation Scale (r = 0.78) confirmed validity. Our nurses described RASS as logical, easy to administer, and readily recalled. RASS has high reliability and validity in medical and surgical, ventilated and nonventilated, and sedated and nonsedated adult ICU patients.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Delirium in Hospitalized Older Adults

            A 75-year-old man is admitted for scheduled major abdominal surgery. He is functionally independent, with mild forgetfulness. His intraoperative course is uneventful, but on postoperative day 2, severe confusion and agitation develop. What is going on? How would you manage this patient’s care? Could his condition have been prevented?
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Monitoring sedation status over time in ICU patients: reliability and validity of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS).

              Goal-directed delivery of sedative and analgesic medications is recommended as standard care in intensive care units (ICUs) because of the impact these medications have on ventilator weaning and ICU length of stay, but few of the available sedation scales have been appropriately tested for reliability and validity. To test the reliability and validity of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS). Prospective cohort study. Adult medical and coronary ICUs of a university-based medical center. Thirty-eight medical ICU patients enrolled for reliability testing (46% receiving mechanical ventilation) from July 21, 1999, to September 7, 1999, and an independent cohort of 275 patients receiving mechanical ventilation were enrolled for validity testing from February 1, 2000, to May 3, 2001. Interrater reliability of the RASS, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), and Ramsay Scale (RS); validity of the RASS correlated with reference standard ratings, assessments of content of consciousness, GCS scores, doses of sedatives and analgesics, and bispectral electroencephalography. In 290-paired observations by nurses, results of both the RASS and RS demonstrated excellent interrater reliability (weighted kappa, 0.91 and 0.94, respectively), which were both superior to the GCS (weighted kappa, 0.64; P<.001 for both comparisons). Criterion validity was tested in 411-paired observations in the first 96 patients of the validation cohort, in whom the RASS showed significant differences between levels of consciousness (P<.001 for all) and correctly identified fluctuations within patients over time (P<.001). In addition, 5 methods were used to test the construct validity of the RASS, including correlation with an attention screening examination (r = 0.78, P<.001), GCS scores (r = 0.91, P<.001), quantity of different psychoactive medication dosages 8 hours prior to assessment (eg, lorazepam: r = - 0.31, P<.001), successful extubation (P =.07), and bispectral electroencephalography (r = 0.63, P<.001). Face validity was demonstrated via a survey of 26 critical care nurses, which the results showed that 92% agreed or strongly agreed with the RASS scoring scheme, and 81% agreed or strongly agreed that the instrument provided a consensus for goal-directed delivery of medications. The RASS demonstrated excellent interrater reliability and criterion, construct, and face validity. This is the first sedation scale to be validated for its ability to detect changes in sedation status over consecutive days of ICU care, against constructs of level of consciousness and delirium, and correlated with the administered dose of sedative and analgesic medications.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Korean J Anesthesiol
                Korean J Anesthesiol
                KJA
                Korean Journal of Anesthesiology
                Korean Society of Anesthesiologists
                2005-6419
                2005-7563
                December 2020
                25 March 2020
                : 73
                : 6
                : 471-485
                Affiliations
                Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Konyang University Hospital, Konyang University College of Medicine, Daejeon, Korea
                Author notes
                Corresponding author: Tae-Yun Sung, M.D., Ph.D. Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Konyang University Hospital, Konyang University College of Medicine, 158 Gwangeodong-ro, Seo-gu, Daejeon 35365, Korea Tel: +82-42-600-9316 Fax: +82-42-545-2132 E-mail: unt1231@ 123456naver.com
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7894-8510
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0714-1477
                Article
                kja-20097
                10.4097/kja.20097
                7714637
                32209961
                27b1e2ce-fa78-46ec-a3bf-978553c47490
                Copyright © The Korean Society of Anesthesiologists, 2020

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 2 March 2020
                : 18 March 2020
                : 23 March 2020
                Categories
                Review Article

                Anesthesiology & Pain management
                anesthesia,emergence agitation,emergence delirium,incidence,practice guideline,risk

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content176

                Cited by55

                Most referenced authors1,311