Purpose Preliminary reports suggest that critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection requiring mechanical ventilation may have markedly increased sedation needs compared with non–mechanically ventilated patients. We conducted a study to examine sedative use for this patient population within multiple intensive care units (ICUs) of a large academic medical center. Methods A retrospective, single-center cohort study of sedation practices for critically ill patients with COVID-19 during the first 10 days of mechanical ventilation was conducted in 8 ICUs at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. The study population was a sequential cohort of 86 critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Data characterizing the sedative medications, doses, drug combinations, and duration of administration were collected daily and compared to published recommendations for sedation of critically ill patients without COVID-19. The associations between drug doses, number of drugs administered, baseline patient characteristics, and inflammatory markers were investigated. Results Among the study cohort, propofol and hydromorphone were the most common initial drug combination, with these medications being used on a given day in up to 100% and 88% of patients, respectively. The doses of sedative and analgesic infusions increased for patients over the first 10 days, reaching or exceeding the upper limits of published dosage guidelines for propofol (48% of patients), dexmedetomidine (29%), midazolam (7.7%), ketamine (32%), and hydromorphone (38%). The number of sedative and analgesic agents simultaneously administered increased over time for each patient, with more than 50% of patients requiring 3 or more agents by day 2. Compared with patients requiring 3 or fewer agents, as a group patients requiring more than 3 agents were of younger age, had an increased body mass index, increased serum ferritin and lactate dehydrogenase concentrations, had a lower PaO2:FIO2 (ratio of arterial partial pressure of oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen), and were more likely to receive neuromuscular blockade. Conclusion Our study confirmed the clinical impression of elevated sedative use in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 relative to guideline-recommended sedation practices in other critically ill populations.

We retrospectively characterized scheduled, newly initiated, nocturnal neuroactive medication use, and related clinician documentation, in a cohort of consecutive adults admitted greater than or equal to 24 hours to seven different medical/surgical ICUs at two academic centers who had not received a scheduled nocturnal neuroactive medication prior to admission, over a 5-month period (April 1, 2017, to August 31, 2017). A total of 207 different newly initiated, scheduled nocturnal neuroactive medication orders were written (melatonin agonist 101 [48.8%], antipsychotic 80 [38.6%], antidepressant 17 [8.2%], benzodiazepine 9 [4.3%]) in 189 (9.7%) of the 1,955 patients. Among the 1,553 nights, the 189 patients spent in the ICU, a scheduled nocturnal neuroactive medication was administered on 1,103 (71%), an “as needed” nocturnal neuroactive medication was solely administered on 183 (11.8%), delirium occurred on 736 (47.4%), and nurses were twice as likely as physicians (28.8% vs 11.4%; p < 0.0001) to document a note about sleep quality. Among the 69.8% of patients discharged to the floor, and the 64.5% from the hospital, the scheduled nocturnal neuroactive medication was continued in 85.6% and 87.3%, respectively. Scheduled nocturnal neuroactive medication initiation is common, often continued beyond hospital discharge, and poorly documented.

No abstract

Purpose Critically ill patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) have high rates of line thrombosis. Our objective was to examine the safety and efficacy of a low dose heparinized saline (LDHS) arterial line (a-line) patency protocol in this population. Materials and Methods In this observational cohort study, patients ≥18 years with COVID-19 admitted to an ICU at one institution from March 20–May 25, 2020 were divided into two cohorts. Pre-LDHS patients had an episode of a-line thrombosis between March 20–April 19. Post-LDHS patients had an episode of a-line thrombosis between April 20–May 25 and received an LDHS solution (10 units/h) through their a-line pressure bag. Results Forty-one patients (pre-LDHS) and 30 patients (post-LDHS) were identified. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups, including age (61 versus 54 years; p = 0.24), median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score (6 versus 7; p = 0.67) and systemic anticoagulation (47% versus 32%; p = 0.32). Median duration of a-line patency was significantly longer in post-LDHS versus pre-LDHS patients (8.5 versus 2.9 days; p < 0.001). The incidence of bleeding complications was similar between cohorts (13% vs. 10%; p = 0.71). Conclusions A LDHS protocol was associated with a clinically significant improvement in a-line patency duration in COVID-19 patients, without increased bleeding risk.