Critical care : the official journal of the Critical Care Forum
-
Management of analgesia and sedation in the intensive care unit requires evaluation and monitoring of key parameters in order to detect and quantify pain and agitation, and to quantify sedation. The routine use of subjective scales for pain, agitation, and sedation promotes more effective management, including patient-focused titration of medications to specific end-points. The need for frequent measurement reflects the dynamic nature of pain, agitation, and sedation, which change constantly in critically ill patients. ⋯ Many of the sedation-agitation scales have been extensively tested for inter-rater reliability and validated against a variety of parameters. Objective measurement of indicators of consciousness and brain function, such as with processed electroencephalography signals, holds considerable promise, but has not achieved widespread implementation. Further clarification of the roles of these tools, particularly within the context of patient safety, is needed, as is further technology development to eliminate artifacts and investigation to demonstrate added value.
-
Severely burned patients suffering from inhalation injury have a significantly increased risk for mortality compared with burned patients without inhalation injury. Severe burn is associated with a distinct serum cytokine profile and alterations in cytokines that contribute to morbidity and mortality. The aim of the present study was therefore to determine whether severely burned pediatric patients with concomitant inhalation injury who had a fatal outcome exhibited a different serum cytokine profile compared with burn patients with inhalation injury who survived. Early identification followed by appropriate management of these high-risk patients may lead to improved clinical outcome. ⋯ Early alterations in serum levels of IL-6, IL-7 and IL-10 may constitute useful predictive markers for identifying patients those who have sustained a burn with concomitant inhalation injury and who have high mortality.
-
Studies of hospital performance highlight the problem of 'failure to rescue' in acutely ill patients. This is a deficiency strongly associated with serious adverse events, cardiac arrest, or death. Rapid response systems (RRSs) and their efferent arm, the medical emergency team (MET), provide early specialist critical care to patients affected by the 'MET syndrome': unequivocal physiological instability or significant hospital staff concern for patients in a non-critical care environment. ⋯ Instead, as in the case of cardiac arrest and trauma teams, change in practice may be slow and progressive, even in the absence of level I evidence. It appears likely that the accumulation of evidence from different settings and situations, though methodologically imperfect, will increase the rationale and logic of RRS. A conclusive randomised controlled trial is unlikely to occur.
-
Achieving adequate but not excessive sedation in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients is a complex process. Analgesics and sedatives employed in this context are extremely potent, and drug requirements and metabolism are unpredictable. Clinicians must have heightened awareness of the potential for enduring effects and are encouraged to employ strategies that maximize benefit while minimizing risk. ⋯ Alternatively, daily interruption of continuous sedative infusions (the second category) may be employed to focus care providers on the goal of achieving a period of awakening in the earliest phases of critical illness possible. Newer literature has focused on the safety of this strategy and its comparison with intermittent drug administration. Ongoing investigations are evaluating the broad applicability of these types of protocols, and currently one may only speculate on whether one strategy is superior to another.
-
The objectives of this study were to systematically identify and summarize quality indicators of tight glycaemic control in critically ill patients, and to inspect the applicability of their definitions. ⋯ An unambiguous indicator reference subset is necessary. The result of this systematic review can be used as a starting point from which to develop a standard list of well defined indicators that are associated with clinical outcomes or that concur with clinicians' subjective views on the quality of the regulatory process.