Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
25
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Implementing pain, agitation, delirium, and sleep deprivation protocol in critically ill patients: A pilot study on pharmacological interventions

      research-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

          Critically ill patients frequently experience pain, agitation, delirium, and sleep deprivation, which have been linked to increased mortality and unfavorable clinical outcomes. To address these challenges, the Pain, Agitation, Delirium, and Sleep Deprivation (PADS) protocol was developed, aiming to mitigate mortality and improve clinical outcomes. This study focuses on assessing the protocol's impact using a robust before‐and‐after study design in the medical and surgical intensive care units (ICUs) at Ramathibodi Hospital. Using an observational approach, this study compares clinical outcomes before and after implementing the PADS protocol in the ICUs. Two patient cohorts were identified: the “before” group, comprising 254 patients with retrospective data collected between May 2018 and September 2019, and the “after” group, consisting of 255 patients for whom prospective data was collected from May to September 2020. Analysis reveals improvements in the after group. Specifically, there was a significant increase in 14‐day ICU‐free days (9.95 days vs. 10.40 days, p value = 0.014), a decrease in delirium incidence (18.1% vs. 16.1%, p value < 0.001), and a significant reduction in benzodiazepine usage (38.6% vs. 24.6%, p value = 0.001) within the after group. This study emphasizes the protocol's potential to improve patient care and highlights its significance in the ICU context.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

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

          Weaning from mechanical ventilation.

          Weaning covers the entire process of liberating the patient from mechanical support and from the endotracheal tube. Many controversial questions remain concerning the best methods for conducting this process. An International Consensus Conference was held in April 2005 to provide recommendations regarding the management of this process. An 11-member international jury answered five pre-defined questions. 1) What is known about the epidemiology of weaning problems? 2) What is the pathophysiology of weaning failure? 3) What is the usual process of initial weaning from the ventilator? 4) Is there a role for different ventilator modes in more difficult weaning? 5) How should patients with prolonged weaning failure be managed? The main recommendations were as follows. 1) Patients should be categorised into three groups based on the difficulty and duration of the weaning process. 2) Weaning should be considered as early as possible. 3) A spontaneous breathing trial is the major diagnostic test to determine whether patients can be successfully extubated. 4) The initial trial should last 30 min and consist of either T-tube breathing or low levels of pressure support. 5) Pressure support or assist-control ventilation modes should be favoured in patients failing an initial trial/trials. 6) Noninvasive ventilation techniques should be considered in selected patients to shorten the duration of intubation but should not be routinely used as a tool for extubation failure.
            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: found
              Is Open Access

              Outcome of delirium in critically ill patients: systematic review and meta-analysis

              Objectives To determine the relation between delirium in critically ill patients and their outcomes in the short term (in the intensive care unit and in hospital) and after discharge from hospital. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies. Data sources PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and PsychINFO, with no language restrictions, up to 1 January 2015. Eligibility criteria for selection studies Reports were eligible for inclusion if they were prospective observational cohorts or clinical trials of adults in intensive care units who were assessed with a validated delirium screening or rating system, and if the association was measured between delirium and at least one of four clinical endpoints (death during admission, length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and any outcome after hospital discharge). Studies were excluded if they primarily enrolled patients with a neurological disorder or patients admitted to intensive care after cardiac surgery or organ/tissue transplantation, or centered on sedation management or alcohol or substance withdrawal. Data were extracted on characteristics of studies, populations sampled, identification of delirium, and outcomes. Random effects models and meta-regression analyses were used to pool data from individual studies. Results Delirium was identified in 5280 of 16 595 (31.8%) critically ill patients reported in 42 studies. When compared with control patients without delirium, patients with delirium had significantly higher mortality during admission (risk ratio 2.19, 94% confidence interval 1.78 to 2.70; P<0.001) as well as longer durations of mechanical ventilation and lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and in hospital (standard mean differences 1.79 (95% confidence interval 0.31 to 3.27; P<0.001), 1.38 (0.99 to 1.77; P<0.001), and 0.97 (0.61 to 1.33; P<0.001), respectively). Available studies indicated an association between delirium and cognitive impairment after discharge. Conclusions Nearly a third of patients admitted to an intensive care unit develop delirium, and these patients are at increased risk of dying during admission, longer stays in hospital, and cognitive impairment after discharge.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                pitchaya.dil@mahidol.ac.th
                Journal
                Clin Transl Sci
                Clin Transl Sci
                10.1111/(ISSN)1752-8062
                CTS
                Clinical and Translational Science
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1752-8054
                1752-8062
                29 February 2024
                March 2024
                : 17
                : 3 ( doiID: 10.1111/cts.v17.3 )
                : e13739
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Department of Anesthesiology, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University Bangkok Thailand
                [ 2 ] Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy Chiangmai University Chiang Mai Thailand
                [ 3 ] Department of Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy Mahidol University Bangkok Thailand
                [ 4 ] Pharmacy Unit King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital Bangkok Thailand
                [ 5 ] Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Pharmacy Mahidol University Bangkok Thailand
                [ 6 ] Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ramathibodi Hospital, Mahidol University Bangkok Thailand
                [ 7 ] Piyavate Hospital Bangkok Thailand
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Pitchaya Dilokpattanamongkol, Faculty of Pharmacy, Mahidol University, 447 Sri‐Ayuthaya Road, Rajathevi, Bangkok 10400, Thailand.

                Email: pitchaya.dil@ 123456mahidol.ac.th

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8179-5711
                https://orcid.org/0009-0009-9158-5449
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5227-6621
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1039-6999
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8334-2492
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1754-0962
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4973-7199
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7122-9951
                Article
                CTS13739 CTS-2023-0451
                10.1111/cts.13739
                10903435
                38421247
                8f8c4f45-e332-4c42-8238-762e850fb61c
                © 2024 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

                History
                : 08 January 2024
                : 14 November 2023
                : 16 January 2024
                Page count
                Figures: 2, Tables: 4, Pages: 10, Words: 4181
                Categories
                Article
                Articles
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                March 2024
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:6.3.8 mode:remove_FC converted:29.02.2024

                Medicine
                Medicine

                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 content611

                Most referenced authors480