Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34331208›Full record

Observational studyNeurocritical care2022

A One-Day Prospective National Observational Study on Sedation-Analgesia of Patients with Brain Injury in French Intensive Care Units: The SEDA-BIP-ICU (Sedation-Analgesia in Brain Injury Patient in ICU) Study.

Simon Poignant, Bernard Vigué, Patricia Balram, Mathieu Biais, Romain Carillon, Vincent Cottenceau, Claire Dahyot-Fizelier, Vincent Degos, Thomas Geeraerts, Patrick Jeanjean and 5 more

Abstract readObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Neurocritical care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

15 authors at 14 institutions in 1 country.

Simon PoignantAnesthesia and Intensive Care, Bretonneau University Hospital, Tours, France. simon.poignant@univ-tours.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5559-3312
Bernard ViguéAnesthesia and Intensive Care, Bicêtre University Hospital, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, University Paris Sud, Le Kremlin Bicêtre, France.
Patricia BalramAnesthesia and Intensive Care, Bretonneau University Hospital, Tours, France.
Mathieu BiaisAnesthesia Intensive Care Unit, Pellegrin University Hospital, Bordeaux, France.
Romain CarillonAnesthesia Intensive Care Unit, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Neurological Hospital Pierre-Wertheimer, Lyon, France.
Vincent CottenceauAnesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, University Hospital of Bordeaux, Bordeaux, France.
Claire Dahyot-FizelierAnesthesia and Intensive Care, University Hospital of Poitiers, Poitiers, France.
Vincent DegosAnesthesia and Intensive Care, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, Paris, France.
Thomas GeeraertsAnesthesia and Intensive Care, University Hospital of Toulouse, Hôpital Pierre-Paul Riquet, CHU Toulouse-Purpan, Toulouse, France.
Patrick JeanjeanAnesthesia and Intensive Care, Amiens University Hospital, Amiens, France.
Emmanuel VegaAnesthesia and Intensive Care, University Hospital Center, Lille, France University of Lille Nord de France, Lille, France.
Sigismond LasockiAnesthesia and Intensive Care, University Hospital of Angers, Angers, France.
Fabien EspitalierAnesthesia and Intensive Care, Bretonneau University Hospital, Tours, France.
Marc LaffonAnesthesia and Intensive Care, Bretonneau University Hospital, Tours, France.
ANARLF and AtlanRea Network for the SEDABIP ICU Study
Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Tours · FRHospices Civils de Lyon · FRAssistance Publique – Hôpitaux de Paris · FRCentre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de Brest · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Amiens-Picardie · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire d'Angers · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille · FRCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Toulouse · FRHôpital Pellegrin · FRSorbonne Université · FRUniversité de Bordeaux · FRUniversité de Poitiers · FRUniversité de Tours · FRUniversité Lille Nord de France · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSedation/analgesia is a daily challenge faced by intensivists managing patients with brain injury (BI) in intensive care units (ICUs). The optimization of sedation in patients with BI presents particular challenges. A choice must be made between the potential benefit of a rapid clinical evaluation and the potential exacerbation of intracranial hypertension in patients with impaired cerebral compliance. In the ICU, a pragmatic approach to the use of sedation/analgesia, including the optimal titration, management of multiple drugs, and use of any type of brain monitor, is needed. Our research question was as follows: the aim of the study is to identify what is the current daily practice regarding sedation/analgesia in the management of patients with BI in the ICU in France?

methodsThis study was composed of two parts. The first part was a descriptive survey of sedation practices and characteristics in 30 French ICUs and 27 academic hospitals specializing in care for patients with BI. This first step validates ICU participation in data collection regarding sedation-analgesia practices. The second part was a 1-day prospective cross-sectional snapshot of all characteristics and prescriptions of patients with BI.

resultsOn the study day, among the 246 patients with BI, 106 (43%) had a brain monitoring device and 74 patients (30%) were sedated. Thirty-nine of the sedated patients (53%) suffered from intracranial hypertension, 14 patients (19%) suffered from agitation and delirium, and 7 patients (9%) were sedated because of respiratory failure. Fourteen patients (19%) no longer had a formal indication for sedation. In 60% of the sedated patients, the sedatives were titrated by nurses based on sedation scales. The Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale was used in 80% of the patients, and the Behavioral Pain Scale was used in 92%. The common sedatives and opioids used were midazolam (58.1%), propofol (40.5%), and sufentanil (67.5%). The cerebral monitoring devices available in the participating ICUs were transcranial Doppler ultrasound (100%), intracranial and intraventricular pressure monitoring (93.3%), and brain tissue oxygenation (60%). Cerebral monitoring by one or more monitoring devices was performed in 62% of the sedated patients. This proportion increased to 74% in the subgroup of patients with intracranial hypertension, with multimodal cerebral monitoring in 43.6%. The doses of midazolam and sufentanil were lower in sedated patients managed based on a sedation/analgesia scale.

conclusionsMidazolam and sufentanil are frequently used, often in combination, in French ICUs instead of alternative drugs. In our study, cerebral monitoring was performed in more than 60% of the sedated patients, although that proportion is still insufficient. Future efforts should stress the use of multiple monitoring modes and adherence to the indications for sedation to improve care of patients with BI. Our study suggests that the use of sedation and analgesia scales by nurses involved in the management of patients with BI could decrease the dosages of midazolam and sufentanil administered. Updated guidelines are needed for the management of sedation/analgesia in patients with BI.

Indexed as

AnalgesiaBrain InjuriesCross-Sectional StudiesHumansHypnotics and SedativesIntensive Care UnitsPainProspective StudiesRespiration, ArtificialHypnotics and SedativesBrain injuryIntensive care unitSedation-analgesia

Identifiers

PMID34331208
OpenAlexW3184736188

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.