Evaluating the Effectiveness of Nurse-Led Early Comfort Using Analgesia, Minimal Sedatives, and Maximal Humane Care Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Patients.

IF 1.8 4区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
British journal of hospital medicine Pub Date : 2025-05-23 Epub Date: 2025-05-19 DOI:10.12968/hmed.2024.0987
Hongyu Hui, Xu Fang, Lei Ju, Lingling Tang, Hui Zhang, Miao Wang, Jia Jiang
{"title":"Evaluating the Effectiveness of Nurse-Led Early Comfort Using Analgesia, Minimal Sedatives, and Maximal Humane Care Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Patients.","authors":"Hongyu Hui, Xu Fang, Lei Ju, Lingling Tang, Hui Zhang, Miao Wang, Jia Jiang","doi":"10.12968/hmed.2024.0987","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Aims/Background</b> Early Comfort using Analgesia, minimal Sedatives, and maximal Human care (eCASH) is a patient-centered sedation strategy aimed at reducing the use of sedative drugs and improving patient comfort. Therefore, this study evaluated the effectiveness of a nurse-led eCASH sedation strategy in mechanically ventilated patients. <b>Methods</b> This retrospective cohort study included 149 patients who received mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University between May 2020 and May 2024. Patients were divided into two groups: the observation group (eCASH sedation group, n = 70), which received nurse-led eCASH sedation, and the control group (traditional sedation group, n = 79), which underwent physician-led traditional sedation strategies. Baseline characteristics, analgesic and sedative use, analgesia and sedation outcomes, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay, length of hospital stay, and incidence of delirium were compared between the two groups. <b>Results</b> The observation group received a significantly higher dose of fentanyl within the first 24 hours of mechanical ventilation compared to the control group (<i>p</i> = 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in fentanyl use at 48 and 72 hours between the two groups (<i>p</i> > 0.05). Dexmedetomidine use in the observation group was significantly lower than in the control group at 24, 48, and 72 hours (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Moreover, no significant difference was observed in the use of propofol between the two groups (<i>p</i> > 0.05). The observation group had a significantly higher analgesia success rate within 72 hours (<i>p</i> = 0.027), although the sedation success rate was not significantly different (<i>p</i> > 0.05). Both groups showed significant improvement over time in Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) and Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) scores (<i>p</i> < 0.001), with the observation group demonstrating a significantly faster improvement in analgesia effectiveness compared to the control group (<i>p</i> = 0.015). The duration of mechanical ventilation was significantly shorter in the observation group (<i>p</i> = 0.011), while the incidence of delirium was lower but not statistically significant (<i>p</i> = 0.519). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences in ICU stay duration and length of hospital stay between the two groups (<i>p</i> > 0.05). <b>Conclusion</b> The nurse-led eCASH sedation strategy significantly reduces analgesic use, shortens mechanical ventilation duration, and improves analgesia outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients. The effectiveness of sedation and incidence of delirium within the eCASH were comparable to those of traditional sedation.</p>","PeriodicalId":9256,"journal":{"name":"British journal of hospital medicine","volume":"86 5","pages":"1-14"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of hospital medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12968/hmed.2024.0987","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/5/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aims/Background Early Comfort using Analgesia, minimal Sedatives, and maximal Human care (eCASH) is a patient-centered sedation strategy aimed at reducing the use of sedative drugs and improving patient comfort. Therefore, this study evaluated the effectiveness of a nurse-led eCASH sedation strategy in mechanically ventilated patients. Methods This retrospective cohort study included 149 patients who received mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University between May 2020 and May 2024. Patients were divided into two groups: the observation group (eCASH sedation group, n = 70), which received nurse-led eCASH sedation, and the control group (traditional sedation group, n = 79), which underwent physician-led traditional sedation strategies. Baseline characteristics, analgesic and sedative use, analgesia and sedation outcomes, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU stay, length of hospital stay, and incidence of delirium were compared between the two groups. Results The observation group received a significantly higher dose of fentanyl within the first 24 hours of mechanical ventilation compared to the control group (p = 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in fentanyl use at 48 and 72 hours between the two groups (p > 0.05). Dexmedetomidine use in the observation group was significantly lower than in the control group at 24, 48, and 72 hours (p < 0.05). Moreover, no significant difference was observed in the use of propofol between the two groups (p > 0.05). The observation group had a significantly higher analgesia success rate within 72 hours (p = 0.027), although the sedation success rate was not significantly different (p > 0.05). Both groups showed significant improvement over time in Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) and Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) scores (p < 0.001), with the observation group demonstrating a significantly faster improvement in analgesia effectiveness compared to the control group (p = 0.015). The duration of mechanical ventilation was significantly shorter in the observation group (p = 0.011), while the incidence of delirium was lower but not statistically significant (p = 0.519). Additionally, there were no statistically significant differences in ICU stay duration and length of hospital stay between the two groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion The nurse-led eCASH sedation strategy significantly reduces analgesic use, shortens mechanical ventilation duration, and improves analgesia outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients. The effectiveness of sedation and incidence of delirium within the eCASH were comparable to those of traditional sedation.

评估护士引导的机械通气患者早期镇痛、最小剂量镇静剂和最大剂量人道护理镇静的效果。
目的/背景使用镇痛、最小剂量镇静剂和最大限度人工护理的早期舒适(eCASH)是一种以患者为中心的镇静策略,旨在减少镇静药物的使用并改善患者的舒适度。因此,本研究评估了护士主导的eCASH镇静策略在机械通气患者中的有效性。方法回顾性队列研究纳入2020年5月至2024年5月在哈尔滨医科大学第二附属医院重症监护病房(ICU)接受机械通气的患者149例。将患者分为两组:观察组(eCASH镇静组,n = 70)采用护士主导的eCASH镇静;对照组(传统镇静组,n = 79)采用医生主导的传统镇静策略。比较两组患者的基线特征、镇痛和镇静使用情况、镇痛和镇静结果、机械通气时间、ICU住院时间、住院时间和谵妄发生率。结果观察组患者在机械通气后24小时内芬太尼剂量明显高于对照组(p = 0.001)。然而,两组在48和72小时时芬太尼的使用差异无统计学意义(p < 0.05)。观察组患者在24、48、72 h的右美托咪定使用量显著低于对照组(p < 0.05)。两组患者异丙酚的使用差异无统计学意义(p < 0.05)。观察组72h内镇痛成功率显著高于对照组(p = 0.027),镇静成功率差异无统计学意义(p < 0.05)。两组患者的Richmond激动镇静量表(RASS)和危重护理疼痛观察工具(CPOT)评分随时间的推移均有显著改善(p < 0.001),观察组患者镇痛效果的改善明显快于对照组(p = 0.015)。观察组患者机械通气时间明显缩短(p = 0.011),谵妄发生率明显降低,但无统计学意义(p = 0.519)。两组患者ICU住院时间、住院时间比较,差异无统计学意义(p < 0.05)。结论护士主导的eCASH镇静策略显著减少了机械通气患者的镇痛使用,缩短了机械通气时间,改善了机械通气患者的镇痛效果。在eCASH中,镇静的有效性和谵妄的发生率与传统镇静相当。
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
British journal of hospital medicine
British journal of hospital medicine 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
176
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: British Journal of Hospital Medicine was established in 1966, and is still true to its origins: a monthly, peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary review journal for hospital doctors and doctors in training. The journal publishes an authoritative mix of clinical reviews, education and training updates, quality improvement projects and case reports, and book reviews from recognized leaders in the profession. The Core Training for Doctors section provides clinical information in an easily accessible format for doctors in training. British Journal of Hospital Medicine is an invaluable resource for hospital doctors at all stages of their career. The journal is indexed on Medline, CINAHL, the Sociedad Iberoamericana de Información Científica and Scopus.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信