Assessment and management of analgesic and sedation in critically ill patients from ICU in Guizhou Province.
10.3760/cma.j.cn121430-20240723-00624
- Author:
Ya WEI
1
;
Qianfu ZHANG
;
Hongying BI
;
Dehua HE
;
Jianyu FU
;
Yan TANG
;
Xu LIU
Author Information
1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, the Affiliated Hospital of Guizhou Medical University, Guiyang 550004, China. Corresponding author: Liu Xu, Email: 262347762@qq.com.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Humans;
Critical Illness;
Intensive Care Units;
Analgesics/therapeutic use*;
Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use*;
Retrospective Studies;
China;
Pain Measurement;
Pain Management;
Female;
Male;
Critical Care;
Middle Aged
- From:
Chinese Critical Care Medicine
2025;37(9):861-865
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:To investigate the current status of early pain and agitation management in critically ill patients in Guizhou Province.
METHODS:A retrospective study was performed using data collected from a quality control activity conducted between April and June 2021 in non-provincial public hospitals with general intensive care unit (ICU) in Guizhou Province. Hospital-level data included hospital name and grade, ICU staffing, and number of ICU beds. Patient-level data included characteristics of patients treated in the general ICU on the day of the survey (e.g., age, sex, primary diagnosis), as well as pain and agitation assessments and the types of analgesic and sedative medications administered within 24 hours of ICU admission.
RESULTS:A total of 947 critically ill ICU patients from 145 hospitals were included, among which 104 were secondary-level hospitals and 41 were tertiary-level hospitals. Within 24 hours of ICU admission, 312 (32.9%) critically ill patients received pain assessments, and 277 (29.3%) received agitation assessments. Among the pain assessment tools, the critical care pain observation tool (CPOT) was used in 44.2% (138/312) of critically ill ICU patients, with a significantly higher usage rate in tertiary hospitals compared to secondary hospitals [52.3% (69/132) vs. 38.3% (69/180), P < 0.05]. The Richmond agitation-sedation scale (RASS) was used in 93.8% (260/277) of critically ill ICU patients for agitation assessment, with no significant difference between hospital levels. Among the 947 critically ill patients, 592 (62.5%) received intravenous analgesics within 24 hours, with remifentanil being the most commonly used [42.9% (254/592)]; 510 (53.9%) received intravenous sedatives, with midazolam being the most frequently used [60.8% (310/510)]. Mechanical ventilation data were available for 932 critically ill patients, of whom 579 (62.1%) received mechanical ventilation and 353 (37.9%) did not. Compared with non-ventilated patients, ventilated patients had significantly higher rates of analgesic and sedative use [analgesics: 77.9% (451/579) vs. 38.8% (137/353); sedatives: 71.8% (416/579) vs. 25.8% (91/353); both P < 0.05]. In terms of analgesic selection, ventilated patients were more likely to receive strong opioids than non-ventilated patients [85.8% (95/137) vs. 69.3% (387/451), P < 0.05]. For sedatives, ventilated patients preferred midazolam [66.6% (277/416)], whereas non-ventilated patients more often received dexmedetomidine [45.1 (41/91)]. Blood pressure within 24 hours of ICU admission were available for 822 critically ill patients, of whom 245 (29.8%) had hypotension and 577 (70.2%) did not. Compared with non-hypotensive patients, hypotensive patients had significantly higher rates of analgesic and sedative use [analgesics: 74.7% (183/245) vs. 59.8% (345/577); sedatives: 65.7% (161/245) vs. 51.3% (296/577); both P < 0.05], but there was no significant difference in the choice of analgesic or sedative agents between the two groups.
CONCLUSIONS:The proportion of critically ill ICU patients in Guizhou Province who received standardized pain and agitation assessments was relatively low. The most commonly used assessment tools were CPOT and RASS, while remifentanil and midazolam were the most frequently used analgesic and sedative agents, respectively. Secondary-level hospitals had a lower rate of using standardized pain assessment tools compared to tertiary-level hospitals. Mechanical ventilation and hypotension were associated with the use of analgesic and sedative medications.
