A Retrospective, Single-Center Assessment of Changes in Pain, Agitation, and Delirium Management Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Q4 Medicine
Critical care explorations Pub Date : 2025-01-15 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1097/CCE.0000000000001202
Rachel L Winner, Lydia R Ware, Kevin M Dube, Mary P Kovacevic, Kenneth E Lupi, Paul M Szumita, Jeremy R DeGrado
{"title":"A Retrospective, Single-Center Assessment of Changes in Pain, Agitation, and Delirium Management Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.","authors":"Rachel L Winner, Lydia R Ware, Kevin M Dube, Mary P Kovacevic, Kenneth E Lupi, Paul M Szumita, Jeremy R DeGrado","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000001202","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Recent studies have found an association between COVID-19 infection and deeper sedation in mechanically ventilated patients, raising concerns about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD) management practices overall.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study aimed to assess differences in PAD management in patients without COVID-19 infection in pre- and peri-COVID-19 pandemic timeframes.</p><p><strong>Design, setting, and participants: </strong>This was a single-center, retrospective, pre-/post-cohort analysis of mechanically ventilated adult patients without COVID-19 infection admitted to an ICU in Boston, MA. The \"pre\" and \"post\" groups enrolled patients in 2019 and 2021, respectively. All PAD data during the first 7 days of mechanical ventilation (MV) were collected.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes and measures: </strong>The primary outcome was ventilator-free days (VFDs) during the first 28 days. A multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to assess VFD while controlling for confounders. Secondary outcomes included depth of sedation, total dose of sedatives, and in-hospital mortality.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There were 339 patients included in the final analysis. There was no difference in VFD between the pre- and post-groups (22.2 vs. 22.6 d; p = 0.92); this was confirmed by multivariable linear regression (p = 0.91). Patients in the post-group experienced significantly deeper levels of sedation compared with the pre-group (58% vs. 53%; p < 0.01) within the first 48 hours of MV. The median number of Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale assessments per 24-hour period was greater in the pre-group (13 vs. 12 assessments; p = 0.02) within the first 48 hours of MV. There were no significant differences in total cumulative dose of sedatives or in-hospital mortality between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>This study suggests that PAD practices, including depth of sedation and frequency of assessment, differed between pre- and post-COVID-19 groups in patients without COVID-19. Outcomes including VFD, mortality, and hospital length of stay were not affected. Further studies are needed to understand the broader impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on PAD management practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":93957,"journal":{"name":"Critical care explorations","volume":"7 1","pages":"e1202"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11737495/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical care explorations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000001202","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Importance: Recent studies have found an association between COVID-19 infection and deeper sedation in mechanically ventilated patients, raising concerns about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD) management practices overall.

Objectives: This study aimed to assess differences in PAD management in patients without COVID-19 infection in pre- and peri-COVID-19 pandemic timeframes.

Design, setting, and participants: This was a single-center, retrospective, pre-/post-cohort analysis of mechanically ventilated adult patients without COVID-19 infection admitted to an ICU in Boston, MA. The "pre" and "post" groups enrolled patients in 2019 and 2021, respectively. All PAD data during the first 7 days of mechanical ventilation (MV) were collected.

Main outcomes and measures: The primary outcome was ventilator-free days (VFDs) during the first 28 days. A multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to assess VFD while controlling for confounders. Secondary outcomes included depth of sedation, total dose of sedatives, and in-hospital mortality.

Results: There were 339 patients included in the final analysis. There was no difference in VFD between the pre- and post-groups (22.2 vs. 22.6 d; p = 0.92); this was confirmed by multivariable linear regression (p = 0.91). Patients in the post-group experienced significantly deeper levels of sedation compared with the pre-group (58% vs. 53%; p < 0.01) within the first 48 hours of MV. The median number of Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale assessments per 24-hour period was greater in the pre-group (13 vs. 12 assessments; p = 0.02) within the first 48 hours of MV. There were no significant differences in total cumulative dose of sedatives or in-hospital mortality between the two groups.

Conclusions and relevance: This study suggests that PAD practices, including depth of sedation and frequency of assessment, differed between pre- and post-COVID-19 groups in patients without COVID-19. Outcomes including VFD, mortality, and hospital length of stay were not affected. Further studies are needed to understand the broader impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on PAD management practices.

在COVID-19大流行之前和期间疼痛、躁动和谵妄管理变化的回顾性单中心评估
重要性:最近的研究发现,COVID-19 感染与机械通气患者的深度镇静之间存在关联,这引起了人们对 COVID-19 大流行对疼痛、躁动和谵妄 (PAD) 管理方法的整体影响的关注:本研究旨在评估未感染 COVID-19 的患者在 COVID-19 流行前和流行期间的 PAD 管理差异:这是一项单中心、回顾性、前后队列分析,对象是马萨诸塞州波士顿市一家重症监护室收治的未感染 COVID-19 的机械通气成人患者。前 "组和 "后 "组分别于 2019 年和 2021 年收治患者。收集了机械通气(MV)前 7 天的所有 PAD 数据:主要结果是前 28 天内无呼吸机天数(VFDs)。在控制混杂因素的同时,进行多变量线性回归分析以评估无呼吸机天数。次要结果包括镇静深度、镇静剂总剂量和院内死亡率:最终分析共纳入 339 名患者。前组和后组的VFD没有差异(22.2 d vs. 22.6 d; p = 0.92);多变量线性回归证实了这一点(p = 0.91)。在中风后 48 小时内,后组患者的镇静程度明显高于前组(58% 对 53%;p < 0.01)。在 MV 的最初 48 小时内,前组患者每 24 小时接受里士满躁动镇静量表评估的中位数更多(13 次对 12 次;p = 0.02)。两组在镇静剂累积总剂量或院内死亡率方面无明显差异:本研究表明,在没有 COVID-19 的患者中,COVID-19 前后两组的 PAD 操作(包括镇静深度和评估频率)有所不同。VFD、死亡率和住院时间等结果未受影响。要了解 COVID-19 大流行对 PAD 管理方法的广泛影响,还需要进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信