Pain management is complex and has many origins. A consistent approach to pain assessment and management is paramount, particularly given the unique features inherent to critically ill adults. In this population, whose reference standard measure of pain is the patient’s self-report, the inability to communicate clearly does not negate a patient’s pain experience or the need for appropriate pain management (5). Severe pain negatively affects critically ill adults (6) beyond its unpleasant experience dimension. Implementation of assessment-driven and standardized pain management protocols improves ICU outcomes and clinical practice (5 , 6). Carefully titrated analgesic dosing is important in balancing the benefits versus risks of opioid exposure (7–10).
Protocol-Based Pain Assessment and Management
Should we use a protocol-based (analgesia/analgosedation) pain assessment and management programs in the care of adult ICU patients when compared with usual care?
Good practice statement.
Management of pain for adult ICU patients should be guided by routine pain assessment and pain should be treated before a sedative agent is considered.
We suggest using an assessment-driven, protocol-based, stepwise approach for pain and sedation management in critically ill adults (conditional recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
For this recommendation, analgosedation is defined as either analgesia-first sedation (i.e., an analgesic [usually an opioid] is used before a sedative to reach the sedative goal) or analgesia-based sedation (i.e., an analgesic [usually an opioid] is used instead of a sedative to reach the sedative goal). The implementation of this recommendation infers that institutions should have an assessment-driven protocol that mandates regular pain and sedation assessment using validated tools, provides clear guidance on medication choice and dosing, and makes treating pain a priority over providing sedatives.
Our pooled analysis suggests that protocol-based (analgesia/analgosedation) pain and sedation assessment and management programs compared with usual therapy reduce sedative requirements, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay (LOS), and pain intensity (5 , 11–31). Panel members issued a conditional recommendation because the benefits of a protocol-based approach were not observed across all critical outcomes.
Pharmacologic Adjuvants to Opioid Therapy.
Opioids remain a mainstay for pain management in most ICU settings; however, their side effects preoccupy clinicians because important safety concerns, such as sedation, delirium, respiratory depression, ileus, and immunosuppression, may increase ICU LOS and worsen post-ICU patient outcome. The panel generally supports the use of multimodal pharmacotherapy as a component of an analgesia-first approach to spare/minimize opioid and sedative use and optimize analgesia and rehabilitation (32), as described below.
Should acetaminophen be used as an adjunct to an opioid (vs an opioid alone) for pain management in critically ill adults?
We suggest using acetaminophen as an adjunct to an opioid to decrease pain intensity and opioid consumption for pain management in critically ill adults (conditional recommendation, very low quality of evidence).
When compared with placebo in the perioperative period, use of IV acetaminophen 1 g every 6 hours was associated with reduced pain intensity and opioid consumption 24 hours after surgery (33 , 34). The risk for IV acetaminophen-associated hypotension may preclude its use in some patients (35). Given these findings, the panel suggests using acetaminophen (IV, oral, or rectal) to decrease pain intensity and opioid consumption when treating pain in critically ill patients, particularly in patients at higher risk for opioid-associated safety concerns.
Should nefopam be used either as an adjunct or a replacement for an opioid (vs an opioid alone) for pain management in critically ill adults?
We suggest using nefopam (if feasible) either as an adjunct or replacement for an opioid to reduce opioid use and their safety concerns when treating pain in critically ill adults (conditional recommendation, very low quality of evidence).
Nefopam is a nonopioid analgesic; a 20-mg dose has an analgesic effect comparable to 6 mg of IV morphine (36). Nefopam has potential safety advantages over opioids and other nonopioid analgesics (e.g., cyclooxygenase 1 selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) because it has no detrimental effects on hemostasis, gastric mucosal integrity, renal function, vigilance, ventilatory drive, and intestinal motility. However, nefopam use can be associated with tachycardia, glaucoma, seizure, and delirium. Although not available in the United States or Canada, nefopam is a low-cost drug that is used in nearly 30 countries. In cardiac surgery patients, nefopam’s analgesic effect resembles IV fentanyl when delivered as patient-controlled analgesia, with less nausea (37).
Should ketamine be used as an adjunct to an opioid (vs an opioid alone) for pain management in critically ill adults?
We suggest using low-dose ketamine (1–2 µg/kg/hr) as an adjunct to opioid therapy when seeking to reduce opioid consumption in postsurgical adults admitted to the ICU (conditional recommendation, very low quality of evidence).
IV ketamine, although shown to reduce opioid requirements among abdominal surgery patients admitted to the ICU, was not shown to improve patients’ self-reported pain intensity (38). Reduced opioid consumption is only a surrogate for better patient-centered outcomes. The frequency of side effects (i.e., nausea, delirium, hallucinations, hypoventilation, pruritus, and sedation) was similar between the ketamine and control groups. Although indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in non-ICU patients supports a role for ketamine as an analgesic adjuvant to opioid therapy, evidence evaluating its role in the ICU for this indication currently remains limited.
Neuropathic pain medications
Should a neuropathic pain medication (e.g., gabapentin, carbamazepine, and pregabalin) be used as an adjunct to an opioid (vs an opioid alone) for pain management in critically ill adults?
We recommend using a neuropathic pain medication (e.g., gabapentin, carbamazepine, and pregabalin) with opioids for neuropathic pain management in critically ill adults (strong recommendation, moderate quality of evidence).
We suggest using a neuropathic pain medication (e.g., gabapentin, carbamazepine, and pregabalin) with opioids for pain management in ICU adults after cardiovascular surgery (conditional recommendation, low quality of evidence).
Neuropathic pain medications as an adjuvant to opioid therapy have been evaluated in critically ill adults with Guillain-Barré syndrome or who have recently undergone cardiac surgery (39–42). Across both populations, their use significantly reduced opioid consumption within 24 hours of their initiation. Among cardiac surgery patients, neuropathic pain medication use did not affect time to extubation or ICU LOS (41 , 42). Panel members estimated that neuropathic agents had negligible costs and were widely available although the possible sedative and cognitive effects of these agents could preclude their use in some patients. These drugs require the ability for patients to swallow or have enteral access.
Sedatives are frequently administered to critically ill patients to relieve anxiety and prevent agitation-related harm (2). These medications may predispose patients to increased morbidity (43–46). In addition to the healthcare provider determining the specific indication for the sedative use, the patient’s current and subsequent sedation status should be continuously assessed using valid and reliable scales (47–49). The 2013 guidelines (2) suggested targeting light levels of sedation or using daily awakening trials (44 , 50–52), and minimizing benzodiazepines (53), to improve short-term outcomes (e.g., duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU LOS). In addition, sedation delivery paradigms and specific sedative medications can have an important effect on post-ICU outcomes including 90-day mortality, physical functioning, and neurocognitive and psychologic outcomes.
Does light sedation (vs deep sedation), regardless of the sedative agent(s) used, significantly affect outcomes in critically ill mechanically ventilated adults?
We suggest using light sedation (vs deep sedation) in critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults (conditional recommendation, low quality of evidence).
The 2013 guidelines’ ungraded statement associated maintaining a light level of sedation with shortened time to extubation and ICU LOS (2). Although the previous guideline defined light sedation as a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) scale score of greater than or equal to –2 and eye opening of at least 10 seconds (50), this level of sedation is probably deeper than that required for mechanically ventilated patient management in an ICU. No universally accepted definition of light sedation exists. For studies that used scales, such as the RASS (48), a RASS score of –2 to +1 (or its equivalent using other scales) was defined as light sedation in the studies evaluated by this panel.
The outcomes evaluated differ from the short-term outcomes assessed in the 2013 guidelines (2) in their consideration of post-ICU discharge measurements. Light sedation was associated with a shorter time to extubation (51 , 54 , 55) and a reduced tracheostomy rate (50). Light sedation was not associated with a reduction in 90-day mortality (44 , 50 , 53), delirium prevalence (44 , 54), posttraumatic stress disorder incidence (31 , 50), or self-extubation (44 , 50 , 53 , 55). No RCTs evaluated the impact of light versus deep sedation on cognitive or physical functioning.
Choice of Sedative.
Sedation indication, goal, clinical pharmacology, and acquisition cost are important determinants in choosing a sedative agent. The 2013 guidelines suggest (conditionally) that nonbenzodiazepine sedatives (either propofol or dexmedetomidine) are preferable to benzodiazepine sedatives (either midazolam or lorazepam) in critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults because of improved short-term outcomes, such as ICU LOS, duration of mechanical ventilation, and delirium (2). For the 2018 guidelines (1), we considered both short- and long-term outcomes as critical in our evaluation.
Should propofol, when compared with a benzodiazepine, be used for sedation in critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults?
Should dexmedetomidine, when compared with a benzodiazepine, be used for sedation in critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults?
Should dexmedetomidine, when compared with propofol, be used for sedation in critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults?
We suggest using either propofol or dexmedetomidine over benzodiazepines for sedation in critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults (conditional recommendation, low quality of evidence).
We evaluated the effect of propofol versus a benzodiazepine, dexmedetomidine versus a benzodiazepine, and propofol versus dexmedetomidine in three separate analyses for the outcomes deemed critical. In most studies, benzodiazepines were administered as continuous infusions and not intermittent boluses. We combined studies using midazolam and lorazepam. A shortened time to light sedation of at least 4 hours and time to extubation of at least 8–12 hours (one nursing shift) were deemed clinically significant.
Compared with a benzodiazepine, propofol use was associated with a shorter time to light sedation in seven RCTs (56–62) and a shorter time to extubation in nine RCTs (56 , 57 , 61, 67). Only one RCT assessed delirium and found no difference (61). No data were available for other critical outcomes. Although propofol was associated with a higher risk of self-extubation, the CI for this outcome was wide and it remains unclear if harm resulted (i.e., need for reintubation).
Dexmedetomidine, when compared with a benzodiazepine infusion (one study used intermittent boluses), was associated with a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation in five RCTs (53 , 67–70) and ICU of stay in three RCTs (53 , 68 , 71). Delirium prevalence was evaluated in four RCTs (53 , 68 , 69 , 71); the Midazolam versus Dexmedetomidine (MIDEX) (69) trial data could not be pooled as delirium was assessed only once, 48 hours after sedation discontinuation. Dexmedetomidine was associated with a significant reduction in delirium in the three remaining pooled RCTs that evaluated delirium bid throughout the ICU stay (53, 68, 71). The Safety and Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine Compared With Midazolam (53) and Maximizing Efficacy of Targeted Sedation and Reducing Neurological Dysfunction (MENDS) (68) studies both demonstrated a greater incidence of bradycardia in the dexmedetomidine group; neither study found that intervention was required for the bradycardia.
We evaluated three RCTs comparing dexmedetomidine and propofol; none of the three demonstrated any difference in time to extubation (67, 69, 72). No data were available for other critical outcomes. A single RCT, the Propofol versus Dexmedetomidine (PRODEX) study, showed that delirium incidence was decreased with dexmedetomidine at the single time point of 48 hours after sedation cessation (69). Patients could communicate more effectively if sedated with dexmedetomidine when compared with propofol (69). No differences were reported in bradycardia or hypotension between patients sedated with propofol versus dexmedetomidine (69).
Economic considerations surrounding sedative choice were not assessed as both propofol and dexmedetomidine acquisition costs are now lower than when they were initially studied. Incorporating both propofol and dexmedetomidine into practice was considered likely acceptable and feasible, whereas recognizing dexmedetomidine may not be the preferred unique sedative when deep sedation (with or without neuromuscular blockade) is required. Panel members judged that the desirable and undesirable consequences of propofol (vs dexmedetomidine) were balanced; therefore, they issued a conditional recommendation to use either agent for sedation of critically ill adults.
Delirium is common in critically ill adults. Delirium is a clinical diagnosis; most studies detect its presence using screening tools such as the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (73 , 74). Delirium can be disturbing for affected patients and relatives and is associated with worse cognitive outcome, increased ICU and hospital LOS, and greater costs (75).
Multicomponent Nonpharmacologic Prevention and Treatment
Should a multicomponent, nonpharmacologic strategy (vs no such strategy) be used to reduce delirium in critically ill adults?
We suggest using a multicomponent, nonpharmacologic intervention that is focused on (but not limited to) reducing modifiable risk factors for delirium, improving cognition, and optimizing sleep, mobility, hearing, and vision in critically ill adults (conditional recommendation, low quality of evidence).
These multicomponent interventions include (but are not limited to) strategies to reduce or shorten delirium (e.g., reorientation, cognitive stimulation, use of clocks), improve sleep (e.g., minimizing light and noise), improve wakefulness (i.e., reduced sedation), reduce immobility (e.g., early rehabilitation/mobilization), and reduce hearing and/or visual impairment (e.g., enable use of devices such as hearing aids or eye glasses).
The multicomponent intervention studies, many of which were not randomized, evaluated a bundle of interventions. Overall, the use of such strategies significantly reduced delirium (76, 80). Further, ICU duration of delirium in patients who developed it (79), ICU LOS (76), and hospital mortality all decreased (77). Another multiple intervention approach, the Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management, and Early exercise/mobility (ABCDE) bundle, was significantly associated with less delirium in a before-after study (81). When a revised and expanded ABCDEF bundle (which included a focus on “A,” assessment and treatment of pain, and “F,” family engagement) was evaluated in a larger, multicenter, before-after, cohort study, and where delirium was also assessed using the CAM-ICU, an adjusted analysis showed that improvements in bundle compliance were significantly associated with reduced mortality and more ICU days without coma or delirium (82). Adverse effects were not reported in the nonpharmacologic interventions studies.
Should a pharmacologic agent (vs no use of this agent) be used to “treat” delirium in all critically ill adults with delirium?
We suggest not routinely using haloperidol, an atypical antipsychotic, or a 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase reductase inhibitor (i.e., a statin) to treat delirium (conditional recommendation, low quality of evidence).
A total of six RCTs, haloperidol (n = 2) (83 , 84), atypical antipsychotics (quetiapine [n = 1] , ziprasidone [n = 1] , and olanzapine [n = 1] ), a statin (rosuvastatin) (n = 1) (87), informed this question. This evidence suggests that the use of the typical antipsychotic, haloperidol, an atypical antipsychotic, or a statin was not associated with a shorter duration of delirium, mechanical ventilation or ICU LOS, or decreased mortality.
Although this recommendation discourages the “routine” use of antipsychotic agents in the treatment of delirium, the short-term use of haloperidol or an atypical antipsychotic in patients may be warranted, despite a lack of evidence, for those patients who experience significant distress secondary to the symptoms of a delirium, such as hallucination and/or delusion-associated fearfulness or who are delirious and have agitation that may be physically harmful to themselves or others (88). However, all antipsychotic agents should be discontinued immediately following the resolution of the patient’s distressful symptoms.
We suggest using dexmedetomidine for delirium in mechanically ventilated adults where agitation is precluding weaning/extubation (conditional recommendation, low quality of evidence).
A single randomized trial evaluated dexmedetomidine’s role as a treatment for agitation precluding ventilator liberation (89). It screened 21,500 intubated patients from 15 ICUs to enroll the 71 study patients and was terminated early because the allocated funding (from dexmedetomidine’s manufacturer) was expended (89). Although dexmedetomidine (vs placebo) was associated with a small, but statistically significant, increase in ventilator-free hours within 7 days of randomization, its use did not affect either ICU or hospital LOS, or patients’ disposition location at hospital discharge.
Immobility (Rehabilitation and Mobility)
Survivors of critical illness frequently experience many long-term sequelae, including ICU-acquired muscle weakness (ICUAW). ICUAW can occur in 25–50% of critically ill patients (90) and is associated with impairments in patients’ long-term survival, physical functioning, and quality of life (91–93). One important risk factor for ICUAW is bed rest (91 , 94). The safety, feasibility, and benefits of rehabilitation and mobilization delivered in the ICU setting have been evaluated as potential means to mitigate ICUAW and impaired physical functioning. As highlighted in the 2013 guidelines (2), rehabilitation/mobilization may be beneficial as a delirium management strategy. Furthermore, important associations exist between analgesic and sedation practices, and pain and sedation status with whether patients participate in rehabilitation/mobilization in the ICU (95).
For critically ill adults, is rehabilitation or mobilization (performed either in-bed or out-of-bed) beneficial in improving patient, family, or health system outcomes compared with usual care, a different rehabilitation/mobilization intervention, placebo, or sham intervention?
We suggest performing rehabilitation or mobilization in critically ill adults (conditional recommendation, low quality of evidence).
Rehabilitation is a “set of interventions designed to optimize functioning and reduce disability in individuals with a health condition.” Mobilization is a type of intervention within rehabilitation that facilitates the movement of patients and expends energy with a goal of improving patient outcomes. This recommendation supports performing rehabilitation/mobilization interventions over usual care or similar interventions with a reduced duration, reduced frequency, or later onset. The implementation of this recommendation will be influenced by feasibility-related issues, particularly related to variability in the availability of appropriate staffing and resources to perform rehabilitation/mobilization interventions across ICUs.
We identified a total of 16 RCTs (96–111) that met our eligibility criteria and reported on five critical outcomes. Rehabilitation/mobilization significantly improved muscle strength at ICU discharge (99–101 , 103 , 105 , 111) and significantly reduced duration of mechanical ventilation (96–100 , 102 , 104, 107). A moderate, but not significant, improvement in health-related quality of life measured using the short form 36 instrument within 2 months of discharge was observed across four RCTs (103 , 107–109).
Rehabilitation/mobilization had no effect on hospital mortality (96 , 98–109 , 112) or short-term physical functioning measures (96 , 102 , 105 , 107 , 110). The incidence of adverse events for patients was very low based on five trials and eight observational studies. Three additional outcomes (cognitive function, mental health, and timing of return to work and related economic outcomes) could not be evaluated due to insufficient data.
Rehabilitation/mobilization was assessed as feasible, acceptable to key stakeholders, and likely to be cost-effective based on preliminary data. In addition, indirect evidence (112), along with a discussion with panel members (including an ICU patient representative), suggests that patients value rehabilitation/mobilization benefits (113). Given the small benefit of rehabilitation/mobilization interventions (performed either in-bed or out-of-bed) and the low overall quality of evidence, panel members agreed that the desirable consequences for patients probably outweigh the undesirable consequences.
Poor sleep is a common complaint and a source of distress for many critically ill patients (114 , 115). Sleep disruption in the ICU can be severe and is characterized by sleep fragmentation, abnormal circadian rhythms, increased light sleep (stage N1), and decreased slow-wave (stage N3) and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep (116). The interplay of medications, critical illness, delirium, cerebral perfusion, and sleep is complex, but it is important and is an increasing focus of research. In addition to emotional distress, sleep deprivation has been hypothesized to contribute to ICU delirium (117), prolonged duration of mechanical ventilation (116), deranged immune function (118), and neurocognitive dysfunction.
Should a sleep-promoting medication (i.e., melatonin, dexmedetomidine, or propofol) (vs no use of a medication) be used to improve sleep in critically ill adults?
We make no recommendation regarding the use of melatonin to improve sleep in critically ill adults (no recommendation, very low quality of evidence).
Three small, placebo-controlled, randomized trials (n = 60) evaluating the night-time administration of melatonin were reviewed (119–121). Two of the studies (120 , 121) reported a small improvement in sleep quality, but the panel determined that the data were insufficient to warrant a recommendation. The manufacture of melatonin in the United States is not Food and Drug Administration regulated; concerns as to the quality and consistency of the product have prevented many hospitals from adding it to their formulary. Melatonin is, however, associated with relatively few adverse effects (e.g., mild sedation and headache) and inexpensive.
We make no recommendation regarding the use of dexmedetomidine at night to improve sleep (no recommendation, low quality of evidence).
Two randomized trials (n = 74) compared dexmedetomidine to placebo in critically ill mechanically ventilated (122) and in critically ill, nonmechanically ventilated patients not requiring a continuous sedative infusion (123). Dexmedetomidine (vs placebo) increased stage 2 sleep and decreased stage 1 sleep in both studies; however, neither demonstrated a decrease in sleep fragmentation or an increase in deep or REM sleep. A third, observational trial, not included in our analysis, corroborated these findings with regard to sleep architecture and noted preserved day-night cycling when dexmedetomidine was administered overnight in mechanically ventilated ICU patients (124). If a sedative infusion is indicated for a hemodynamically stable critically ill adult overnight, dexmedetomidine may be a reasonable option because of its potential to improve sleep architecture.
We suggest not using propofol to improve sleep in critically ill adults (conditional recommendation, low quality of evidence).
Two RCTs compared propofol to benzodiazepines (125 , 126), and one compared propofol to placebo (127). No demonstrable improvement in sleep occurred with propofol compared with placebo. Further, propofol was associated with REM suppression, hemodynamic side effects, and respiratory depression, sometimes necessitating mechanical ventilation. Although we recommend against using propofol for the sole purpose of improving sleep in the critically ill, this recommendation does not intend to address its use in patients requiring procedural or continuous sedation.
Should a sleep-promoting protocol be used to improve sleep in critically ill adults?
We suggest using a sleep-promoting, multicomponent protocol in critically ill adults (conditional recommendation, very low quality of evidence).
The sleep-promoting protocols eligible for inclusion varied in their components: all included offering earplugs and eyeshades to patients (128–131) and two included use of relaxing music (128 , 130). Among the two compromising a more complex combination of interventions (128 , 131), one specified a pharmacologic guideline that discouraged the use of sedating medications known to alter sleep and/or precipitate delirium and introduced interventions in stages over a 5-month period (128). In all studies, protocols were applied to all ICU patients and did not target a subset of patients known to have poor sleep quality.
One small RCT in open-heart surgery patients demonstrated that earplugs, eyeshades, and relaxing music improved self-reported sleep quality (129). Of the three observational before-and-after studies, one found an improvement in sleep in a mixed ICU population (131), whereas the other two did not (128 , 130). Pooled analysis of the three studies demonstrated an overall reduction in the prevalence of delirium with a sleep-promoting protocol. Which of the interventions, or combinations of interventions, are effective in improving sleep and reducing delirium cannot be discerned from the above studies.
Under the auspices of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, this executive summary aims to provide the most clinically meaningful and novel aspects, by section, of the PADIS guidelines that clinicians, stakeholders, and decision makers should consider using when improving care for critically ill adults. The recommendation rationales, fueled by rigorous data evaluation, debate, and discussion, circled back to the bedside experience—and the perspective of what was best for patient—held by the panelists and patients involved in producing the guidelines. We believe that the 2018 PADIS guideline (1) will foster the delivery of excellent care regarding pain, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption and stimulate the completion of pragmatic, patient-centered research across each of these important critical care domains.
1. Devlin JW, Skrobik Y, Gelinas C, et al; Clinical Practice Guidelines
for the Prevention and Management of Pain
, Immobility, and Sleep
Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU. Crit Care Med 2018; 46:e825–e873.
2. Barr J, Fraser GL, Puntillo K, et al; American College of Critical Care Medicine: Clinical practice guidelines
for the management of pain
, agitation, and delirium
in adult patients in the intensive care
unit. Crit Care Med 2013; 41:263–306.
3. Balas MC, Weinhouse GL, Denehy L, et al; Interpreting and Implementing the 2018 Pain
, Immobility, and Sleep
Disruption Clinical Practice Guideline. Crit Care Med 2018; 46:1464–1470.
4. Devlin JW, Skrobik Y, Rochwerg B, et al; Methodological Innovation in Creating Clinical Practice Guidelines
: Insights From the 2018 Society of Critical Care Medicine Pain
, Immobility, and Sleep
Disruption Guideline Effort. Crit Care Med 2018; 46:1457–1463.
5. Skrobik Y, Ahern S, Leblanc M, et al. Protocolized intensive care
unit management of analgesia, sedation
, and delirium
improves analgesia and subsyndromal delirium
rates. Anesth Analg 2010; 111:451–463.
6. Vervest AC, Schimmel GH. Taxonomy of pain
of the IASP. Pain
7. de Jong A, Molinari N, de Lattre S, et al. Decreasing severe pain
and serious adverse events while moving intensive care
unit patients: A prospective interventional study (the NURSE-DO project). Crit Care 2013; 17:R74.
8. Georgiou E, Hadjibalassi M, Lambrinou E, et al. The impact of pain
assessment on critically ill patients’ outcomes: A systematic review. Biomed Res Int 2015; 2015:503830.
9. Puntillo KA, Naidu R. Chronic pain
disorders after critical illness and ICU-acquired opioid dependence: Two clinical conundra. Curr Opin Crit Care 2016; 22:506–512.
10. Macintyre PE, Huxtable CA, Flint SL, et al. Costs and consequences: A review of discharge opioid prescribing for ongoing management of acute pain
. Anaesth Intensive Care
11. Payen JF, Bosson JL, Chanques G, et al; DOLOREA Investigators: Pain
assessment is associated with decreased duration of mechanical ventilation in the intensive care
unit: A post hoc analysis of the DOLOREA study. Anesthesiology 2009; 111:1308–1316.
12. Brook AD, Ahrens TS, Schaiff R, et al. Effect of a nursing-implemented sedation
protocol on the duration of mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med 1999; 27:2609–2615.
13. Quenot JP, Ladoire S, Devoucoux F, et al. Effect of a nurse-implemented sedation
protocol on the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Crit Care Med 2007; 35:2031–2036.
14. Robinson BR, Mueller EW, Henson K, et al. An analgesia-delirium
protocol for critically ill trauma patients reduces ventilator days and hospital length of stay. J Trauma 2008; 65:517–526.
15. Chanques G, Jaber S, Barbotte E, et al. Impact of systematic evaluation of pain
and agitation in an intensive care
unit. Crit Care Med 2006; 34:1691–1699.
16. Berger MM, Davadant M, Marin C, et al. Impact of a pain
protocol including hypnosis in major burns. Burns 2010; 36:639–646.
17. Aday AW, Dell’orfano H, Hirning BA, et al. Evaluation of a clinical pathway for sedation
and analgesia of mechanically ventilated patients in a cardiac intensive care
unit (CICU): The Brigham and Women’s Hospital Levine CICU sedation
pathways. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 2013; 2:299–305.
18. Awissi DK, Bégin C, Moisan J, et al. I-SAVE study: Impact of sedation
, analgesia, and delirium
protocols evaluated in the intensive care
unit: An economic evaluation. Ann Pharmacother 2012; 46:21–28.
19. Diby M, Romand JA, Frick S, et al. Reducing pain
in patients undergoing cardiac surgery after implementation of a quality improvement postoperative pain
treatment program. J Crit Care 2008; 23:359–371.
20. Egerod I, Jensen MB, Herling SF, et al. Effect of an analgo-sedation
protocol for neurointensive patients: A two-phase interventional non-randomized pilot study. Crit Care 2010; 14:R71.
21. Erdek MA, Pronovost PJ. Improving assessment and treatment of pain
in the critically ill. Int J Qual Health Care 2004; 16:59–64.
22. Faust AC, Rajan P, Sheperd LA, et al. Impact of an analgesia-based sedation
protocol on mechanically ventilated patients in a medical intensive care
unit. Anesth Analg 2016; 123:903–909.
23. MacLaren R, Plamondon JM, Ramsay KB, et al. A prospective evaluation of empiric versus protocol-based sedation
and analgesia. Pharmacotherapy 2000; 20:662–672.
24. Park G, Lane M, Rogers S, et al. A comparison of hypnotic and analgesic based sedation
in a general intensive care
unit. Br J Anaesth 2007; 98:76–82.
25. Tedders KM, McNorton KN, Edwin SB. Efficacy and safety of analgosedation with fentanyl compared with traditional sedation
with propofol. Pharmacotherapy 2014; 34:643–647.
26. van Gulik L, Ahlers SJ, Brkić Z, et al. Improved analgesia after the realisation of a pain
management programme in ICU patients after cardiac surgery. Eur J Anaesthesiol 2010; 27:900–905.
27. van Valen R, van Vuuren H, van Domburg RT, et al. Pain
management after cardiac surgery: Experience with a nurse-driven pain
protocol. Eur J Cardiovasc Nurs 2012; 11:62–69.
28. Breen D, Karabinis A, Malbrain M, et al. Decreased duration of mechanical ventilation when comparing analgesia-based sedation
using remifentanil with standard hypnotic-based sedation
for up to 10 days in intensive care
unit patients: A randomised trial [ISRCTN47583497]. Crit Care 2005; 9:R200–R210.
29. Karabinis A, Mandragos K, Stergiopoulos S, et al. Safety and efficacy of analgesia-based sedation
with remifentanil versus standard hypnotic-based regimens in intensive care
unit patients with brain injuries: A randomised, controlled trial [ISRCTN50308308]. Crit Care 2004; 8:R268–R280.
30. Rozendaal FW, Spronk PE, Snellen FF, et al; UltiSAFE Investigators: Remifentanil-propofol analgo-sedation
shortens duration of ventilation and length of ICU stay compared to a conventional regimen: A centre randomised, cross-over, open-label study in the Netherlands. Intensive Care
Med 2009; 35:291–298.
31. Strøm T, Martinussen T, Toft P. A protocol of no sedation
for critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation: A randomised trial. Lancet 2010; 375:475–480.
32. White PF, Kehlet H, Neal JM, et al; Fast-Track Surgery Study Group: The role of the anesthesiologist in fast-track surgery: From multimodal analgesia to perioperative medical care. Anesth Analg 2007; 104:1380–1396.
33. Cattabriga I, Pacini D, Lamazza G, et al. Intravenous paracetamol as adjunctive treatment for postoperative pain
after cardiac surgery: A double blind randomized controlled trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2007; 32:527–531.
34. Memis D, Inal MT, Kavalci G, et al. Intravenous paracetamol reduced the use of opioids, extubation time, and opioid-related adverse effects after major surgery in intensive care
unit. J Crit Care 2010; 25:458–462.
35. Cantais A, Schnell D, Vincent F, et al. Acetaminophen-induced changes in systemic blood pressure in critically ill patients: Results of a multicenter cohort study. Crit Care Med 2016; 44:2192–2198.
36. Beloeil H, Delage N, Nègre I, et al. The median effective dose of nefopam and morphine administered intravenously for postoperative pain
after minor surgery: A prospective randomized double-blinded isobolographic study of their analgesic action. Anesth Analg 2004; 98:395–400.
37. Kim K, Kim WJ, Choi DK, et al. The analgesic efficacy and safety of nefopam in patient-controlled analgesia after cardiac surgery: A randomized, double-blind, prospective study. J Int Med Res 2014; 42:684–692.
38. Guillou N, Tanguy M, Seguin P, et al. The effects of small-dose ketamine on morphine consumption in surgical intensive care
unit patients after major abdominal surgery. Anesth Analg 2003; 97:843–847.
39. Pandey CK, Bose N, Garg G, et al. Gabapentin for the treatment of pain
in Guillain-Barré syndrome: A double-blinded, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Anesth Analg 2002; 95:1719–1723.
40. Pandey CK, Raza M, Tripathi M, et al. The comparative evaluation of gabapentin and carbamazepine for pain
management in Guillain-Barré syndrome patients in the intensive care
unit. Anesth Analg 2005; 101:220–225.
41. Pesonen A, Suojaranta-Ylinen R, Hammarén E, et al. Pregabalin has an opioid-sparing effect in elderly patients after cardiac surgery: A randomized placebo-controlled trial. Br J Anaesth 2011; 106:873–881.
42. Joshi SS, Jagadeesh AM. Efficacy of perioperative pregabalin in acute and chronic post-operative pain
after off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: A randomized, double-blind placebo controlled trial. Ann Card Anaesth 2013; 16:180–185.
43. Ouimet S, Kavanagh BP, Gottfried SB, et al. Incidence, risk factors and consequences of ICU delirium
. Intensive Care
Med 2007; 33:66–73.
44. Shehabi Y, Bellomo R, Reade MC, et al; Sedation
Practice in Intensive Care
Evaluation (SPICE) Study Investigators; ANZICS Clinical Trials Group: Early intensive care sedation
predicts long-term mortality in ventilated critically ill patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2012; 186:724–731.
45. Pandharipande P, Shintani A, Peterson J, et al. Lorazepam is an independent risk factor for transitioning to delirium
in intensive care
unit patients. Anesthesiology 2006; 104:21–26.
46. Zaal IJ, Devlin JW, Hazelbag M, et al. Benzodiazepine-associated delirium
in critically ill adults. Intensive Care
Med 2015; 41:2130–2137.
47. Brattebø G, Hofoss D, Flaatten H, et al. Effect of a scoring system and protocol for sedation
on duration of patients’ need for ventilator support in a surgical intensive care
unit. BMJ 2002; 324:1386–1389.
48. Sessler CN, Gosnell MS, Grap MJ, et al. The Richmond Agitation-Sedation
Scale: Validity and reliability in adult intensive care
unit patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2002; 166:1338–1344.
49. Riker RR, Fraser GL, Simmons LE, et al. Validating the Sedation
-Agitation Scale with the bispectral index and Visual Analog Scale in adult ICU patients after cardiac surgery. Intensive Care
Med 2001; 27:853–858.
50. Kress JP, Pohlman AS, O’Connor MF, et al. Daily interruption of sedative infusions in critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. N Engl J Med 2000; 342:1471–1477.
51. Treggiari MM, Romand JA, Yanez ND, et al. Randomized trial of light versus deep sedation
on mental health after critical illness. Crit Care Med 2009; 37:2527–2534.
52. Girard TD, Kress JP, Fuchs BD, et al. Efficacy and safety of a paired sedation
and ventilator weaning protocol for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care
(Awakening and Breathing Controlled trial): A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2008; 371:126–134.
53. Riker RR, Shehabi Y, Bokesch PM, et al; SEDCOM (Safety and Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine Compared With Midazolam) Study Group: Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam for sedation
of critically ill patients: A randomized trial. JAMA 2009; 301:489–499.
54. Shehabi Y, Bellomo R, Reade MC, et al; Sedation
Practice in Intensive Care
Evaluation Study Investigators; Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care
Society Clinical Trials Group: Early goal-directed sedation
versus standard sedation
in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: A pilot study. Crit Care Med 2013; 41:1983–1991.
55. Bugedo G, Tobar E, Aguirre M, et al. The implementation of an analgesia-based sedation
protocol reduced deep sedation
and proved to be safe and feasible in patients on mechanical ventilation. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva 2013; 25:188–196.
56. Carrasco G, Molina R, Costa J, et al. Propofol vs midazolam in short-, medium-, and long-term sedation
of critically ill patients. A cost-benefit analysis. Chest 1993; 103:557–564.
57. Chamorro C, de Latorre FJ, Montero A, et al. Comparative study of propofol versus midazolam in the sedation
of critically ill patients: Results of a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial. Crit Care Med 1996; 24:932–939.
58. Weinbroum AA, Halpern P, Rudick V, et al. Midazolam versus propofol for long-term sedation
in the ICU: A randomized prospective comparison. Intensive Care
Med 1997; 23:1258–1263.
59. Sanchez-Izquierdo-Riera JA, Caballero-Cubedo RE, Perez-Vela JL, et al. Propofol versus midazolam: Safety and efficacy for sedating the severe trauma patient. Anesth Analg 1998; 86:1219–1224.
60. Sandiumenge Camps A, Sanchez-Izquierdo Riera JA, Toral Vazquez D, et al. Midazolam and 2% propofol in long-term sedation
of traumatized critically ill patients: Efficacy and safety comparison. Crit Care Med 2000; 28:3612–3619.
61. Mesnil M, Capdevila X, Bringuier S, et al. Long-term sedation
in intensive care
unit: A randomized comparison between inhaled sevoflurane and intravenous propofol or midazolam. Intensive Care
Med 2011; 37:933–941.
62. Zhou Y, Jin X, Kang Y, et al. Midazolam and propofol used alone or sequentially for long-term sedation
in critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients: A prospective, randomized study. Crit Care 2014; 18:R122.
63. Boeke A, Lauwers J, Schurink G. A pilot study to compare the use of propofol and midazolam for long-term sedation
. J Drug Dev 1989; 2:71–72.
64. Barrientos-Vega R, Mar Sánchez-Soria M, Morales-García C, et al. Prolonged sedation
of critically ill patients with midazolam or propofol: Impact on weaning and costs. Crit Care Med 1997; 25:33–40.
65. Costa J, Cabré L, Molina R, et al. Cost of ICU sedation
: Comparison of empirical and controlled sedation
methods. Clin Intensive Care
66. Hall RI, Sandham D, Cardinal P, et al; Study Investigators: Propofol vs midazolam for ICU sedation
: A Canadian multicenter randomized trial. Chest 2001; 119:1151–1159.
67. Srivastava VK, Agrawal S, Kumar S, et al. Comparison of dexmedetomidine, propofol and midazolam for short-term sedation
in postoperatively mechanically ventilated neurosurgical patients. J Clin Diagn Res 2014; 8:GC04–GC07.
68. Pandharipande PP, Pun BT, Herr DL, et al. Effect of sedation
with dexmedetomidine vs lorazepam on acute brain dysfunction in mechanically ventilated patients: The MENDS randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2007; 298:2644–2653.
69. Jakob SM, Ruokonen E, Grounds RM, et al; Dexmedetomidine for Long-Term Sedation
Investigators: Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam or propofol for sedation
during prolonged mechanical ventilation: Two randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2012; 307:1151–1160.
70. MacLaren R, Preslaski CR, Mueller SW, et al. A randomized, double-blind pilot study of dexmedetomidine versus midazolam for intensive care
: Patient recall of their experiences and short-term psychological outcomes. J Intensive Care
Med 2015; 30:167–175.
71. Xu JB, Wang YZ, Shi QS. A combined protocol for dexmedetomidine used in prolonged sedation
in intensive care
unit. Mod Med J Chin 2012; 14:20–22.
72. Herr DL, Sum-Ping ST, England M. ICU sedation
after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: Dexmedetomidine-based versus propofol-based sedation
regimens. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 2003; 17:576–584.
73. Ely EW, Margolin R, Francis J, et al. Evaluation of delirium
in critically ill patients: Validation of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care
Unit (CAM-ICU). Crit Care Med 2001; 29:1370–1379.
74. Bergeron N, Dubois MJ, Dumont M, et al. Intensive Care Delirium
Screening Checklist: Evaluation of a new screening tool. Intensive Care
Med 2001; 27:859–864.
75. Slooter AJ, Van De Leur RR, Zaal IJ. Delirium
in critically ill patients. Handb Clin Neurol 2017; 141:449–466.
76. Foster J, Kelly M. A pilot study to test the feasibility of a nonpharmacologic intervention for the prevention of delirium
in the medical intensive care
unit. Clin Nurse Spec 2013; 27:231–238.
77. Moon KJ, Lee SM. The effects of a tailored intensive care
prevention protocol: A randomized controlled trial. Int J Nurs Stud 2015; 52:1423–1432.
78. Colombo R, Corona A, Praga F, et al. A reorientation strategy for reducing delirium
in the critically ill. Results of an interventional study. Minerva Anestesiol 2012; 78:1026–1033.
79. Hanison J, Conway D. A multifaceted approach to prevention of delirium
on intensive care
. BMJ Qual Improv Rep 2015; 11:4.
80. Rivosecchi RM, Kane-Gill SL, Svec S, et al. The implementation of a nonpharmacologic protocol to prevent intensive care delirium
. J Crit Care 2016; 31:206–211.
81. Balas MC, Burke WJ, Gannon D, et al. Implementing the awakening and breathing coordination, delirium
monitoring/management, and early exercise/mobility bundle into everyday care: Opportunities, challenges, and lessons learned for implementing the ICU Pain
, Agitation, and Delirium Guidelines
. Crit Care Med 2013; 41:S116–S127.
82. Barnes-Daly MA, Phillips G, Ely EW. Improving hospital survival and reducing brain dysfunction at seven California community hospitals: Implementing PAD guidelines
via the ABCDEF bundle in 6,064 patients. Crit Care Med 2017; 45:171–178.
83. Girard TD, Pandharipande PP, Carson SS, et al; MIND Trial Investigators: Feasibility, efficacy, and safety of antipsychotics for intensive care
: The MIND randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Crit Care Med 2010; 38:428–437.
84. Page VJ, Ely EW, Gates S, et al. Effect of intravenous haloperidol on the duration of delirium
and coma in critically ill patients (Hope-ICU): A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med 2013; 1:515–523.
85. Devlin JW, Roberts RJ, Fong JJ, et al. Efficacy and safety of quetiapine in critically ill patients with delirium
: A prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study. Crit Care Med 2010; 38:419–427.
86. Skrobik YK, Bergeron N, Dumont M, et al. Olanzapine vs haloperidol: Treating delirium
in a critical care setting. Intensive Care
Med 2004; 30:444–449.
87. Needham DM, Colantuoni E, Dinglas VD, et al. Rosuvastatin versus placebo for delirium
in intensive care
and subsequent cognitive impairment in patients with sepsis-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: An ancillary study to a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med 2016; 4:203–212.
88. Devlin JW, Smithburger P, Kane JM, et al. Intended and unintended consequences of constraining clinician prescribing: The case of antipsychotics. Crit Care Med 2016; 44:1805–1807.
89. Reade MC, Eastwood GM, Bellomo R, et al; DahLIA Investigators; Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care
Society Clinical Trials Group: Effect of dexmedetomidine added to standard care on ventilator-free time in patients with agitated delirium
: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2016; 315:1460–1468.
90. Denehy L, Lanphere J, Needham DM. Ten reasons why ICU patients should be mobilized early. Intensive Care
Med 2017; 43:86–90.
91. Fan E, Dowdy DW, Colantuoni E, et al. Physical complications in acute lung injury survivors: A two-year longitudinal prospective study. Crit Care Med 2014; 42:849–859.
92. Hermans G, Van Mechelen H, Clerckx B, et al. Acute outcomes and 1-year mortality of intensive care
unit-acquired weakness. A cohort study and propensity-matched analysis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2014; 190:410–420.
93. Dinglas VD, Aronson Friedman L, Colantuoni E, et al. Muscle weakness and 5-year survival in acute respiratory distress syndrome survivors. Crit Care Med 2017; 45:446–453.
94. Needham DM, Wozniak AW, Hough CL, et al; National Institutes of Health NHLBI ARDS Network: Risk factors for physical impairment after acute lung injury in a national, multicenter study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2014; 189:1214–1224.
95. Kamdar BB, Combs MP, Colantuoni E, et al. The association of sleep
, and sedation
status with daily participation in physical therapy in the ICU. Crit Care 2016; 19:261.
96. Brummel NE, Girard TD, Ely EW, et al. Feasibility and safety of early combined cognitive and physical therapy for critically ill medical and surgical patients: The Activity and Cognitive Therapy in ICU (ACT-ICU) trial. Intensive Care
Med 2014; 40:370–379.
97. Patman S, Sanderson D, Blackmore M. Physiotherapy following cardiac surgery: Is it necessary during the intubation period? Aust J Physiother 2001; 47:7–16.
98. Morris PE, Goad A, Thompson C, et al. Early intensive care
unit mobility therapy in the treatment of acute respiratory failure. Crit Care Med 2008; 36:2238–2243.
99. Schweickert WD, Pohlman MC, Pohlman AS, et al. Early physical and occupational therapy in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009; 373:1874–1882.
100. Routsi C, Gerovasili V, Vasileiadis I, et al. Electrical muscle stimulation prevents critical illness polyneuromyopathy: A randomized parallel intervention trial. Crit Care 2010; 14:R74.
101. Dantas CM, Silva PF, Siqueira FH, et al. Influence of early mobilization
on respiratory and peripheral muscle strength in critically ill patients. Rev Bras Ter Intensiva 2012; 24:173–178.
102. Denehy L, Skinner EH, Edbrooke L, et al. Exercise rehabilitation for patients with critical illness: A randomized controlled trial with 12 months of follow-up. Crit Care 2013; 17:R156.
103. Ali MS, Talwar D, Jain SK. The effect of a short-term pulmonary rehabilitation on exercise capacity and quality of life in patients hospitalised with acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Indian J Chest Dis Allied Sci 2014; 56:13–19.
104. Dong ZH, Yu BX, Sun YB, et al. Effects of early rehabilitation therapy on patients with mechanical ventilation. World J Emerg Med 2014; 5:48–52.
105. Kayambu G, Boots R, Paratz J. Early physical rehabilitation in intensive care
patients with sepsis syndromes: A pilot randomised controlled trial. Intensive Care
Med 2015; 41:865–874.
106. Kho ME, Truong AD, Zanni JM, et al. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation in mechanically ventilated patients: A randomized, sham-controlled pilot trial with blinded outcome assessment. J Crit Care 2015; 30:32–39.
107. Moss M, Nordon-Craft A, Malone D, et al. A randomized trial of an intensive physical therapy program for patients with acute respiratory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2016; 193:1101–1110.
108. Morris PE, Berry MJ, Files DC, et al. Standardized rehabilitation and hospital length of stay among patients with acute respiratory failure: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2016; 315:2694–2702.
109. Burtin C, Clerckx B, Robbeets C, et al. Early exercise in critically ill patients enhances short-term functional recovery. Crit Care Med 2009; 37:2499–2505.
110. Yosef-Brauner O, Adi N, Ben Shahar T, et al. Effect of physical therapy on muscle strength, respiratory muscles and functional parameters in patients with intensive care
unit-acquired weakness. Clin Respir J 2015; 9:1–6.
111. Hodgson CL, Bailey M, Bellomo R, et al; Trial of Early Activity and Mobilization
Study Investigators: A binational multicenter pilot feasibility randomized controlled trial of early goal-directed mobilization
in the ICU. Crit Care Med 2016; 44:1145–1152.
112. Burns KE, Jacob SK, Aguirre V, et al. Stakeholder engagement in trial design: Survey of visitors to critically ill patients regarding preferences for outcomes and treatment options during weaning from mechanical ventilation. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2016; 13:1962–1968.
113. Eakin MN, Patel Y, Mendez-Tellez P, et al. Patients’ outcomes after acute respiratory failure: A qualitative study with the PROMIS framework. Am J Crit Care 2017; 26:456–465.
114. Simini B. Patients’ perceptions of intensive care
. Lancet 1999; 354:571–572.
115. Helton MC, Gordon SH, Nunnery SL. The correlation between sleep
deprivation and the intensive care
unit syndrome. Heart Lung 1980; 9:464–468.
116. White DP, Douglas NJ, Pickett CK, et al. Sleep
deprivation and the control of ventilation. Am Rev Respir Dis 1983; 128:984–986.
117. Trompeo AC, Vidi Y, Locane MD, et al. Sleep
disturbances in the critically ill patients: Role of delirium
and sedative agents. Minerva Anestesiol 2011; 77:604–612.
118. Benca RM, Quintas J. Sleep
and host defenses: A review. Sleep
119. Bourne RS, Mills GH, Minelli C. Melatonin therapy to improve nocturnal sleep
in critically ill patients: Encouraging results from a small randomised controlled trial. Crit Care 2008; 12:R52.
120. Shilo L, Dagan Y, Smorjik Y, et al. Effect of melatonin on sleep
quality of COPD intensive care
patients: A pilot study. Chronobiol Int 2000; 17:71–76.
121. Ibrahim MG, Bellomo R, Hart GK, et al. A double-blind placebo-controlled randomised pilot study of nocturnal melatonin in tracheostomised patients. Crit Care Resusc 2006; 8:187–191.
122. Alexopoulou C, Kondili E, Diamantaki E, et al. Effects of dexmedetomidine on sleep
quality in critically ill patients: A pilot study. Anesthesiology 2014; 121:801–807.
123. Wu XH, Cui F, Zhang C, et al. Low-dose dexmedetomidine improves sleep
quality pattern in elderly patients after noncardiac surgery in the intensive care
unit: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Anesthesiology 2016; 125:979–991.
124. Oto J, Yamamoto K, Koike S, et al. Sleep
quality of mechanically ventilated patients sedated with dexmedetomidine. Intensive Care
Med 2012; 38:1982–1989.
125. Kondili E, Alexopoulou C, Xirouchaki N, et al. Effects of propofol on sleep
quality in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: A physiological study. Intensive Care
Med 2012; 38:1640–1646.
126. Treggiari-Venzi M, Borgeat A, Fuchs-Buder T, et al. Overnight sedation
with midazolam or propofol in the ICU: Effects on sleep
quality, anxiety and depression. Intensive Care
Med 1996; 22:1186–1190.
127. Engelmann C, Wallenborn J, Olthoff D, et al. Propofol versus flunitrazepam for inducing and maintaining sleep
in postoperative ICU patients. Indian J Crit Care Med 2014; 18:212–219.
128. Kamdar BB, King LM, Collop NA, et al. The effect of a quality improvement intervention on perceived sleep
quality and cognition in a medical ICU. Crit Care Med 2013; 41:800–809.
129. Hu RF, Jiang XY, Zeng YM, et al. Effects of earplugs and eye masks on nocturnal sleep
, melatonin and cortisol in a simulated intensive care
unit environment. Crit Care 2010; 14:R66.
130. Li SY, Wang TJ, Vivienne Wu SF, et al. Efficacy of controlling night-time noise and activities to improve patients’ sleep
quality in a surgical intensive care
unit. J Clin Nurs 2011; 20:396–407.
131. Patel J, Baldwin J, Bunting P, et al. The effect of a multicomponent multidisciplinary bundle of interventions on sleep
in medical and surgical intensive care
patients. Anaesthesia 2014; 69:540–549.
132. Muller L, Chanques G, Bourgaux C, et al. Impact of the use of propofol remifentanil goal-directed sedation
adapted by nurses on the time to extubation in mechanically ventilated ICU patients: The experience of a French ICU. Ann Fr Anesth Reanim 2008; 27:481.e1–481.e8.
133. Rotondi AJ, Chelluri L, Sirio C, et al. Patients’ recollections of stressful experiences while receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation in an intensive care
unit. Crit Care Med 2002; 30:746–752.
Keywords:Copyright © by 2018 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
delirium; guidelines; intensive care; mobilization; pain; sedation; sleep