The Task Force developed a single strong recommendation: we recommend scheduled eye care that includes lubricating drops or gel and eyelid closure for patients receiving continuous infusions of neuromuscular-blocking agents. The Task Force developed 10 weak recommendations. 1) We suggest that a neuromuscular-blocking agent be administered by continuous intravenous infusion early in the course of acute respiratory distress syndrome for patients with a PaO2/FIO2 less than 150. 2) We suggest against the routine administration of an neuromuscular-blocking agents to mechanically ventilated patients with status asthmaticus. 3) We suggest a trial of a neuromuscular-blocking agents in life-threatening situations associated with profound hypoxemia, respiratory acidosis, or hemodynamic compromise. 4) We suggest that neuromuscular-blocking agents may be used to manage overt shivering in therapeutic hypothermia. 5) We suggest that peripheral nerve stimulation with train-of-four monitoring may be a useful tool for monitoring the depth of neuromuscular blockade but only if it is incorporated into a more inclusive assessment of the patient that includes clinical assessment. 6) We suggest against the use of peripheral nerve stimulation with train of four alone for monitoring the depth of neuromuscular blockade in patients receiving continuous infusion of neuromuscular-blocking agents. 7) We suggest that patients receiving a continuous infusion of neuromuscular-blocking agent receive a structured physiotherapy regimen. 8) We suggest that clinicians target a blood glucose level of less than 180 mg/dL in patients receiving neuromuscular-blocking agents. 9) We suggest that clinicians not use actual body weight and instead use a consistent weight (ideal body weight or adjusted body weight) when calculating neuromuscular-blocking agents doses for obese patients. 10) We suggest that neuromuscular-blocking agents be discontinued at the end of life or when life support is withdrawn. In situations in which evidence was lacking or insufficient and the study results were equivocal or optimal clinical practice varies, the Task Force made no recommendations for nine of the topics. 1) We make no recommendation as to whether neuromuscular blockade is beneficial or harmful when used in patients with acute brain injury and raised intracranial pressure. 2) We make no recommendation on the routine use of neuromuscular-blocking agents for patients undergoing therapeutic hypothermia following cardiac arrest. 3) We make no recommendation on the use of peripheral nerve stimulation to monitor degree of block in patients undergoing therapeutic hypothermia. 4) We make no recommendation on the use of neuromuscular blockade to improve the accuracy of intravascular-volume assessment in mechanically ventilated patients. 5) We make no recommendation concerning the use of electroencephalogram-derived parameters as a measure of sedation during continuous administration of neuromuscular-blocking agents. 6) We make no recommendation regarding nutritional requireme...
The evaluation and initial management of patients with acute kidney injury (AKI) should include: (1) an assessment of the contributing causes of the kidney injury, (2) an assessment of the clinical course including comorbidities, (3) a careful assessment of volume status, and (4) the institution of appropriate therapeutic measures designed to reverse or prevent worsening of functional or structural kidney abnormalities. The initial assessment of patients with AKI classically includes the differentiation between prerenal, renal, and postrenal causes. The differentiation between so-called "prerenal" and "renal" causes is more difficult, especially because renal hypoperfusion may coexist with any stage of AKI. Using a modified Delphi approach, the multidisciplinary international working group, generated a set of testable research questions. Key questions included the following: Is there a difference in prognosis between volume-responsive and volume-unresponsive AKI? Are there biomarkers whose patterns (dynamic changes) predict the severity and recovery of AKI (maximal stage of AKI, need for RRT, renal recovery, mortality) and guide therapy? What is the best biomarker to assess prospectively whether AKI is volume responsive? What is the best biomarker to assess the optimal volume status in AKI patients? In evaluating the current literature and ongoing studies, it was thought that the answers to the questions posed herein would improve the understanding of AKI, and ultimately patient outcomes.
Dexmedetomidine-induced sedation decreased cerebral blood flow (CBF) by congruent with 33%, which could be due to direct alpha(2)-receptor cerebral smooth muscle vasoconstriction or to compensatory CBF changes caused by dexmedetomidine-induced decreases in the cerebral metabolic rate.
The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status classification system celebrates its 80th anniversary in 2021. Its simplicity represents its greatest strength as well as a limitation in a world of comprehensive multisystem tools. It was developed for statistical purposes and not as a surgical risk predictor. However, since it correlates well with multiple outcomes, it is widely used—appropriately or not—for risk prediction and many other purposes. It is timely to review the history and development of the system. The authors describe the controversies surrounding the ASA Physical Status classification, including the problems of interrater reliability and its limitations as a risk predictor. Last, the authors reflect on the current status and potential future of the ASA Physical Status system.
The selection and administration of neuromuscular blocking (NMB) drugs in intensive care unit (ICU) patients remain controversial. We compared the dose-response and recovery pharmacodynamics of a new intermediate-acting NMB drug, cisatracurium besylate, to the intermediate-acting NMB drug, vecuronium (VEC), in a prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter study in critically ill adults. After informed consent, 58 mechanically ventilated ICU patients from five medical centers were randomized to receive either cisatracurium or VEC. Fifty-four of the 58 patients received NMB drugs before entering this study but demonstrated at least partial recovery (> or = one twitch) in the train-of-four (TOF) response before initiation of the NMB study drug. NMB drug infusion was titrated by peripheral nerve stimulation to maintain at least one twitch in the TOF response. NMB drugs were infused for 1-5 days. After discontinuation of NMB drug infusion, recovery of neuromuscular transmission was monitored with an accelerometer. NMB drug infusion for 28 cisatracurium patients averaged 2.6 +/- 0.2 (mean +/- SEM) micrograms.kg-1.min-1 with a mean duration of 80 +/- 7 h. After discontinuing cisatracurium administration, recovery to 70% TOF ratio averaged 68 +/- 13 min. The mean infusion rate for 30 VEC patients was 0.9 +/- 0.1 micrograms.kg-1.min-1 with a mean duration of 66 +/- 12 h. Neuromuscular recovery after VEC averaged 387 +/- 163 min, which was significantly longer (P = 0.02) than that after cisatracurium. Prolonged recovery of neuromuscular function after discontinuation of NMB drug infusion (identified by the primary investigator at each medical center) was reported in two cisatracurium patients and 13 VEC patients (P = 0.002), and occurred despite the routine use of neuromuscular twitch monitoring. Seven VEC and one cisatracurium patients died during the infusion of study drug or within 48 h after discontinuation of the NMB drug infusion. In summary, we found recovery of neuromuscular function after discontinuation of NMB drug infusion in ICU patients is significantly faster with cisatracurium than with VEC. In addition, routine neuromuscular monitoring was not sufficient to eliminate prolonged recovery and myopathy in ICU patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.