ArticleCritical care explorations2020
A Quality Improvement Evaluation of a Primary As-Needed Light Sedation Protocol in Mechanically Ventilated Adults.
Article in Critical care explorations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesFirst, to implement successfully a light-sedation protocol, favoring initial as-needed (prioritizing as-needed) boluses over continuous infusion sedation, and second, to evaluate if this protocol was associated with differences in patient-level sedative requirements, clinical outcomes, and unit-level longitudinal changes in pharmacy charges for sedative medications.
designRetrospective review comparing patients who received the prioritizing as-needed sedation protocol to similar patients eligible for the prioritizing as-needed protocol but treated initially with continuous infusion sedation.
settingThirty-two bed medical ICUs in a large academic medical center. PATIENTS: A total of 254 mechanical ventilated patients with a target Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale goal of 3 or 4 were evaluated over a 2-year period. Of the evaluable patients, 114 received the prioritizing as-needed sedation protocol and 140 received a primary continuous infusion approach.
interventionsA multidisciplinary leadership team created and implemented a light-sedation protocol, focusing on avoiding initiation of continuous sedative infusions and prioritizing prioritizing as-needed sedation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsOverall, 42% of patients in the prioritizing as-needed group never received continuous infusion sedation. Compared with the continuous infusion sedation group, patients treated with the prioritizing as-needed protocol received significantly less opioid, propofol, and benzodiazepine. Patients in the prioritizing as-needed group experienced less delirium, shorter duration of mechanical ventilation, and shorter ICU length of stay. Adverse events were similar between the two groups. At the unit level, protocol implementation was associated with reductions in the use of continuous infusion sedative medications.
conclusionsImplementation and use of a prioritizing as-needed protocol targeting light sedation appear to be safe and effective. These single-ICU retrospective findings require wider, prospective validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.