Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28733841›Full record

ArticleWiener klinische Wochenschrift2018

Analgosedation of adult patients with elevated intracranial pressure : Survey of current clinical practice in Austria.

Guenther Herzer, Claudia Mirth, Udo M Illievich, Wolfgang G Voelckel, Helmut Trimmel

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Wiener klinische Wochenschrift, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 32% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Guenther HerzerDepartment of Anesthesia, Emergency Medicine and Intensive Care; Karl Landsteiner Institute for Emergency Medicine, Medical Simulation and Patient Safety, General Hospital Wiener Neustadt, Corvinusring 3-5, 2700, Wiener Neustadt, Austria.
Claudia MirthClinical Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, University Hospital, St. Pölten, Austria.
Udo M IllievichDepartment of Neuroanesthesia and Intensive Care, Kepler University Hospital, Linz, Austria.
Wolfgang G VoelckelDepartment of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, AUVA Trauma Hospital, Salzburg, Austria.
Helmut TrimmelDepartment of Anesthesia, Emergency Medicine and Intensive Care; Karl Landsteiner Institute for Emergency Medicine, Medical Simulation and Patient Safety, General Hospital Wiener Neustadt, Corvinusring 3-5, 2700, Wiener Neustadt, Austria. helmut.trimmel@wienerneustadt.lknoe.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7327-0699
Fachhochschule Wiener Neustadt · ATKepler Universitätsklinikum · ATUniversitätsklinikum St. Pölten · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnalgesia and sedation are key items in intensive care. Recently published S3 guidelines specifically address treatment of patients with elevated intracranial pressure.

methodsThe Austrian Society of Anesthesiology, Resuscitation and Intensive Care Medicine carried out an online survey of neurointensive care units in Austria in order to evaluate the current state of practice in the areas of analgosedation and delirium management in this high-risk patient group.

resultsThe response rate was 88%. Induction of anesthesia in patients with elevated intracranial pressure is carried out with propofol/fentanyl/rocuronium in >80% of the intensive care units (ICU), 60% use midazolam, 33.3% use esketamine, 13.3% use barbiturates and 6.7% use etomidate. For maintenance of analgosedation up to 72 h, propofol is used by 80% of the ICUs, followed by remifentanil (46.7%), sufentanil (40%) and fentanyl (6.7%). For long-term sedation, 86.7% of ICUs use midazolam, 73.3% sufentanil and 73.3% esketamine. For sedation periods longer than 7 days, 21.4% of ICUs use propofol. Reasons for discontinuing propofol are signs of rhabdomyolysis (92.9%), green urine, elevated liver enzymes (71.4% each) and elevated triglycerides (57.1%). Muscle relaxants are only used during invasive procedures. Inducing a barbiturate coma is rated as a last resort by 53.3% of respondents. The monitoring methods used are bispectral index (BIS™, 61.5% of ICUs), somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEP, 53.8%), processed electroencephalography (EEG, 38.5%), intraparenchymal partial pressure of oxygen (pO

conclusionWe found good general compliance with the recommendations of the current S3 guidelines. Room for improvement exists in monitoring and the use of scores to detect delirium.

Indexed as

Hypnotics and SedativesIntracranial HypertensionAdultAustriaHumansIntensive Care UnitsRespiration, ArtificialSurveys and QuestionnairesHypnotics and SedativesClinical practiceDelirium managementNeurointensive medicineScoresSedation

Identifiers

PMID28733841
OpenAlexW2737086126

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.