Propofol for the promotion of sleep in adults in the intensive care unit

This Cochrane Systematic Review by Lewis and colleagues was published on 8th January 2018.
Background:  People in the intensive care unit (ICU) experience sleep deprivation caused by environmental disruption, such as high noise levels and 24‐hour lightcochrane-57-1ing, as well as increased patient care activities and invasive monitoring as part of their care. Sleep deprivation affects physical and psychological health, and people perceive the quality of their sleep to be poor whilst in the ICU. Propofol is an anaesthetic agent which can be used in the ICU to maintain patient sedation and some studies suggest it may be a suitable agent to replicate normal sleep.
Objectives:  To assess whether the quantity and quality of sleep may be improved by administration of propofol to adults in the ICU and to assess whether propofol given for sleep promotion improves both physical and psychological patient outcomes.
Search methods:  We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 10), MEDLINE (1946 to October 2017), Embase (1974 to October 2017), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1937 to October 2017) and PsycINFO (1806 to October 2017). We searched clinical trials registers for ongoing studies, and conducted backward and forward citation searching of relevant articles.
Selection criteria:  We included randomized and quasi‐randomized controlled trials with adults, over the age of 16 years, admitted to the ICU with any diagnoses, given propofol versus a comparator to promote overnight sleep. We included participants who were and were not mechanically ventilated. We included studies that compared the use of propofol, given at an appropriate clinical dose with the intention of promoting night‐time sleep, against: no agent; propofol at a different rate or dose; or another agent, administered specifically to promote sleep. We included only studies in which propofol was given during ‘normal’ sleeping hours (i.e. between 10 pm and 7 am) to promote a sleep‐like state with a diurnal rhythm.
Data collection and analysis:  Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and synthesized findings.
Main results:  We included four studies with 149 randomized participants. We identified two studies awaiting classification for which we were unable to assess eligibility and one ongoing study.
Participants differed in severity of illness as assessed by APACHE II scores in three studies and further differences existed between comparisons and methods. One study compared propofol versus no agent, one study compared different doses of propofol and two studies compared propofol versus a benzodiazepine (flunitrazepam, one study; midazolam, one study). All studies reported randomization and allocation concealment inadequately. We judged all studies to have high risk of performance bias from personnel who were unblinded. We noted that some study authors had blinded study outcome assessors and participants for relevant outcomes.  It was not appropriate to combine data owing to high levels of methodological heterogeneity.
One study comparing propofol with no agent (13 participants) measured quantity and quality of sleep using polysomnography; study authors reported no evidence of a difference in duration of sleep or sleep efficiency, and reported disruption to usual REM (rapid eye movement sleep) with propofol.
One study comparing different doses of propofol (30 participants) measured quantity and quality of sleep by personnel using the Ramsay Sedation Scale; study authors reported that more participants who were given a higher dose of propofol had a successful diurnal rhythm, and achieved a greater sedation rhythmicity.
Two studies comparing propofol with a different agent (106 participants) measured quantity and quality of sleep using the Pittsburgh Sleep Diary and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; one study reported fewer awakenings of reduced duration with propofol, and similar total sleep time between groups, and one study reported no evidence of a difference in sleep quality. One study comparing propofol with another agent (66 participants) measured quantity and quality of sleep with the Bispectral Index and reported longer time in deep sleep, with fewer arousals. One study comparing propofol with another agent (40 participants) reported higher levels of anxiety and depression in both groups, and no evidence of a difference when participants were given propofol.
No studies reported adverse events.
We used the GRADE approach to downgrade the certainty of the evidence for each outcome to very low. We identified sparse data with few participants, and methodological differences in study designs and comparative agents introduced inconsistency, and we noted that measurement tools were imprecise or not valid for purpose.
Authors’ conclusions:  We found insufficient evidence to determine whether administration of propofol would improve the quality and quantity of sleep in adults in the ICU. We noted differences in study designs, methodology, comparative agents and illness severity amongst study participants. We did not pool data and we used the GRADE approach to downgrade the certainty of our evidence to very low.

The full text of the review can be found via this link.


Permissive or Trophic Enteral Nutrition and Full Enteral Nutrition Had Similar Effects on Clinical Outcomes in Intensive Care: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials

This article by Silva et al was published in Nutrition in Clinical Practice in January 2018.
The aim of this study was to systematically review the effect of permissive underfeeding/trophic feeding on the clinical outcomes of critically ill patients. A systematic review of randomized clinical trials to evaluate the mortality, length of stay, and mechanical ventilation duration in patients randomized to either hypocaloric or full-energy enteral nutrition was performed. Data sources included PubMed and Scopus and the reference lists of the articles retrieved. Two independent reviewers participated in all phases of this systematic review as proposed by the Cochrane Handbook, and the review was reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A total of 7 randomized clinical trials that included a total of 1,717 patients were reviewed. Intensive care unit length of stay and mechanical ventilation duration were not statistically different between the intervention and control groups in all randomized clinical trials, and mortality rate was also not different between the groups. In conclusion, hypocaloric enteral nutrition had no significantly different effects on morbidity and mortality in critically ill patients when compared with full-energy nutrition. It is still necessary to determine the safety of this intervention in this group of patients, the optimal amount of energy provided, and the duration of this therapy.
Library members can order the full text of individual articles such as this one via the Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust Library and Knowledge Service using the article requests online via this link.

The Effect of ICU Out-of-Hours Admission on Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This article by Galloway and others was published in the November 2017 issue of “Critical Care Medicine”

Objectives:  Organizational factors are associated with outcome of critically ill patients and may vary by time of day and day of week. We aimed to identify the association between out-of-hours admission to critical care and mortality.
Data Sources:  MEDLINE (via Ovid) and EMBASE (via Ovid).
Study Selection:  We performed a systematic search of the literature for studies on out-of-hours adult general ICU admission on patient mortality.
Data Extraction:  Meta-analyses were performed and Forest plots drawn using RevMan software. Data are presented as odds ratios ([95% CIs], p values).
Data Synthesis:  A total of 16 studies with 902,551 patients were included in the analysis with a crude mortality of 18.2%. Fourteen studies with 717,331 patients reported mortality rates by time of admission and 11 studies with 835,032 patients by day of admission. Admission to ICU at night was not associated with an increased odds of mortality compared with admissions during the day (odds ratio, 1.04 [0.98-1.11]; p = 0.18). However, admissions during the weekend were associated with an increased odds of death compared with ICU admissions during weekdays (1.05 [1.01-1.09]; p = 0.006). Increased mortality associated with weekend ICU admissions compared with weekday ICU admissions was limited to North American countries (1.08 [1.03-1.12]; p = 0.0004). The absence of a routine overnight on-site intensivist was associated with increased mortality among weekend ICU admissions compared with weekday ICU admissions (1.11 [1.00-1.22]; p = 0.04) and night time admissions compared with daytime ICU admissions (1.11 [1.00-1.23]; p = 0.05).
Conclusions: Adjusted risk of death for ICU admission was greater over the weekends compared with weekdays. The absence of a dedicated intensivist on-site overnight may be associated with increased mortality for acute admissions. These results need to be interpreted in context of the organization of local healthcare resources before changes to healthcare policy are implemented.
The article is available on the internet to those who have a personal subscription via this link to the full text.  Library members can order individual articles via the Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust Library and Knowledge Service using the article requests online via this link.

Outcomes of Patient- and Family-Centered Care Interventions in the ICU: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This paper was published in Critical Care Medicine October 2017 by Goldfarb et al.
Objective:  To determine whether patient- and family-centered care interventions in the ICU improve outcomes.
Data Sources:  We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library databases from inception until December 1, 2016.
Study Selection:  We included articles involving patient- and family-centered care interventions and quantitative, patient- and family-important outcomes in adult ICUs.
Data Extraction:  We extracted the author, year of publication, study design, population, setting, primary domain investigated, intervention, and outcomes.
Data Synthesis:  There were 46 studies (35 observational pre/post, 11 randomized) included in the analysis. Seventy-eight percent of studies (n = 36) reported one or more positive outcome measures, whereas 22% of studies (n = 10) reported no significant changes in outcome measures. Random-effects meta-analysis of the highest quality randomized studies showed no significant difference in mortality (n = 5 studies; odds ratio = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.95-1.21; p = 0.27; I = 0%), but there was a mean decrease in ICU length of stay by 1.21 days (n = 3 studies; 95% CI, -2.25 to -0.16; p = 0.02; I = 26%). Improvements in ICU costs, family satisfaction, patient experience, medical goal achievement, and patient and family mental health outcomes were also observed with intervention; however, reported outcomes were heterogeneous precluding formal meta-analysis.
Conclusions:  Patient- and family-centered care-focused interventions resulted in decreased ICU length of stay but not mortality. A wide range of interventions were also associated with improvements in many patient- and family-important outcomes. Additional high-quality interventional studies are needed to further evaluate the effectiveness of patient- and family-centered care in the intensive care setting.
The full text of this article will usually be only available via the internet to those who have a personal subscription though some articles may be available freely without a password.  Library members can order individual articles via the Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust Library and Knowledge Service using the article requests online via this link.

The impact of the advanced practice nursing role on quality of care, clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and cost in the emergency and critical care settings: a systematic review.

This article was published in the September issue of Human Resources for Health and written by Woo and colleagues.

Background:  The prevalence of chronic illness and multimorbidity rises with population aging, thereby increasing the acuity of care. Consequently, the demand for emergency and critical care services has increased. However, the forecasted requirements for physicians have shown a continued shortage. Among efforts underway to search for innovations to strengthen the workforce, there is a heightened interest to have nurses in advanced practice participate in patient care at a great extent. Therefore, it is of interest to evaluate the impact of increasing the autonomy of nurses assuming advanced practice roles in emergency and critical care settings on patient outcomes.

Objectives:  The objectives of this study are to present, critically appraise, and synthesize the best available evidence on the impact of advanced practice nursing on quality of care, clinical outcomes, patient satisfaction, and cost in emergency and critical care settings.

Methods:  A comprehensive and systematic search of nine electronic databases and a hand-search of two key journals from 2006 to 2016 were conducted to identify studies evaluating the impact of advanced practice nursing in the emergency and critical care settings. Two authors were involved selecting the studies based on the inclusion criteria. Out of the original search yield of 12,061 studies, 15 studies were chosen for appraisal of methodological quality by two independent authors and subsequently included for analysis. Data was extracted using standardized tools.

Results:  Narrative synthesis was undertaken to summarize and report the findings. This review demonstrates that the involvement of nurses in advanced practice in emergency and critical care improves the length of stay, time to consultation/treatment, mortality, patient satisfaction, and cost savings.

Conclusions:  Capitalizing on nurses in advanced practice to increase patients’ access to emergency and critical care is appealing. This review suggests that the implementation of advanced practice nursing roles in the emergency and critical care settings improves patient outcomes. The transformation of healthcare delivery through effective utilization of the workforce may alleviate the impending rise in demand for health services. Nevertheless, it is necessary to first prepare a receptive context to effect sustainable change.

The full text of this article is available via the following link.  If you are having any problems please contact the Library and Knowledge Service.

Prevention of central venous line associated bloodstream infections in adult intensive care units

Despite the potential benefits central venous lines can have for patients, there is a high risk of bloodstream infection associated with these catheters | Intensive and Critical Care Nursing


Aim: Identify and critique the best available evidence regarding interventions to prevent central venous line associated bloodstream infections in adult intensive care unit patients other than anti-microbial catheters.

Methods: A systematic review of studies published from January 2007 to February 2016 was undertaken. A systematic search of seven databases was carried out: MEDLINE; CINAHL Plus; EMBASE; PubMed; Cochrane Library; Scopus and Google Scholar. Studies were critically appraised by three independent reviewers prior to inclusion.

Results: Nineteen studies were included. A range of interventions were found to be used for the prevention or reduction of central venous line associated bloodstream infections. These interventions included dressings, closed infusion systems, aseptic skin preparation, central venous line bundles, quality improvement initiatives, education, an extra staff in the Intensive Care Unit and the participation in the ‘On the CUSP: Stop Blood Stream Infections’ national programme.

Conclusions: Central venous line associated bloodstream infections can be reduced by a range of interventions including closed infusion systems, aseptic technique during insertion and management of the central venous line, early removal of central venous lines and appropriate site selection.

Full reference: Velasquez Reyes, D.C. et al. (2017) Prevention of central venous line associated bloodstream infections in adult intensive care units: A systematic review. Intensive and Critical Care Nursing. Published online: 26 June 2017

An Official American Thoracic Society Systematic Review: The Effect of Night time Intensivist Staffing on Mortality and Length of Stay among Intensive Care Unit Patients

This systematic review by Kerlin et al was published in the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine in 2017.  The fullajrccm-2016-194-issue-6-cover
text of the article is available to subscribers to this journal via this link
.  The Library and Knowledge Service can obtain the full text of the article for registered members by requesting it via the library website document request form.

Background:  Studies of night time intensivist staffing have yielded mixed results.

Goals:  To review the association of night time intensivist staffing with outcomes of intensive care unit (ICU) patients.

Methods:  We searched five databases (2000–2016) for studies comparing in-hospital night time intensivist staffing with other night time staffing models in adult ICUs and reporting mortality or length of stay. We abstracted data on staffing models, outcomes, and study characteristics and assessed study quality, using standardized tools. Meta-analyses used random effects models.

Results:  Eighteen studies met inclusion criteria: one randomized controlled trial and 17 observational studies. Overall methodologic quality was high. Studies included academic hospitals (n = 10), community hospitals (n = 2), or both (n = 6). Baseline clinician staffing included residents (n = 9), fellows (n = 4), and nurse practitioners or physician assistants (n = 2). Studies included both general and specialty ICUs and were geographically diverse. Meta-analysis (one randomized controlled trial; three nonrandomized studies with exposure limited to night time intensivist staffing with adjusted estimates of effect) demonstrated no association with mortality (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.75–1.29). Secondary analyses including studies without risk adjustment, with a composite exposure of organizational factors, stratified by intensity of daytime staffing and by ICU type, yielded similar results. Minimal or no differences were observed in ICU and hospital length of stay and several other secondary outcomes.

Conclusions:  Notwithstanding limitations of the predominantly observational evidence, our systematic review and meta-analysis suggests night time intensivist staffing is not associated with reduced ICU patient mortality. Other outcomes and alternative staffing models should be evaluated to further guide staffing decisions.