4.5 Article

Delirium recognition and sedation practices in critically ill patients: A survey on the attitudes of 1015 Brazilian critical care physicians

期刊

JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE
卷 24, 期 4, 页码 556-562

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO-ELSEVIER INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2009.04.004

关键词

Delirium; Sedation; Mechanical ventilation; Critically ill patients; Acute brain dysfunction

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The aim of the study was to characterize the practices of Brazilian ICU physicians toward sedation and delirium. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among a convenience sample of critical care physicians between April and June 2008. Results: One thousand fifteen critical care physicians responded. Sedation scoring systems were used by 893 (88.3%) of the respondents. The Ramsay and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale were used by 81.9% and 6.8% of the respondents, respectively. Most respondents did not discuss sedation targets (62.8%) or practice daily sedative interruption (68.3%) in most patients. More than half of the respondents (52.7%) used a sedation protocol, and the most used sedatives were midazolam (97.8%), fentanyl (91.5%), and propofol (55%). A significant rate of the respondents (42.7%) estimated that more than 25% of patients under mechanical ventilation have delirium, but 53.5% occasionally assessed patients for delirium. Thirteen percent used specific delirium scales, with the Confusion Assessment Method for intensive care unit (ICU) being the most applied. Delirium was often treated with haloperidol (88.1%); however, atypical antipsychotics (36.3%) and benzodiazepines (42.3%) were also used. Conclusions: Despite the recent advances in knowledge of sedation and delirium, most of them are still not translated into clinical practice. Significant variation in practice is observed among ICU physicians and represents a potential target for future research and educational interventions. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据