Skip to main content
Download PDF
  • Research Article
  • Open access
  • Published:

Sedation, sleep-promotion, and non-verbal and verbal communication techniques in critically ill intubated or tracheostomized patients: results of a survey

BMC Anesthesiology volume 22, Article number: 384 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The aim of this survey was to describe, on a patient basis, the current practice of sedation, pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic measures to promote sleep and facilitation of communication in critically ill patients oro-tracheally intubated or tracheostomized.

Methods

Cross-sectional online-survey evaluating sedation, sleep management and communication in oro-tracheally intubated (IP) or tracheostomized (TP) patients in intensive care units on a single point.

Results

Eighty-one intensive care units including 447 patients (IP: n = 320, TP: n = 127) participated. A score of ≤ -2 on the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) was prevalent in 58.2% (IP 70.7% vs. TP 26.8%). RASS -1/0 was present in 32.2% (IP 25.9% vs. TP 55.1%) of subjects. Propofol and alpha-2-agonist were the predominant sedatives used while benzodiazepines were applied in only 12.1% of patients. For sleep management, ear plugs and sleeping masks were rarely used (< 7%). In half of the participating intensive care units a technique for phonation was used in the tracheostomized patients.

Conclusions

The overall rate of moderate and deep sedation appears high, particularly in oro-tracheally intubated patients. There is no uniform sleep management and ear plugs and sleeping masks are only rarely applied. The application of phonation techniques in tracheostomized patients during assisted breathing is low. More efforts should be directed towards improved guideline implementation. The enhancement of sleep promotion and communication techniques in non-verbal critically ill patients may be a focus of future guideline development.

Peer Review reports

Background

The management of sedation appears to be associated with duration of ventilation, morbidity, and length of stay of mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) [1,2,3]. National and international guidelines [4, 5] assist medical teams in optimizing sedation protocols and bedside management. The general strategy is to reduce the amount of sedative medication as soon as possible, achieving light sedation, by using regular sedation breaks or straight forward protocols reducing the rate of delirium and the length of invasive ventilation [4, 5]. However, it has been shown previously, that the guideline recommendations are often not consistently implemented [6,7,8,9,10,11,12]. Therefore, sedation management has been one of the main topics for quality improvement programs in the ICU. Sedation management is one of the 10 national quality indicators in Germany [13, 14] and the consistent use of a weaning protocol including sedation management is relevant for reimbursement in the German DRG-system [15]. Only few indications for deep sedation in mechanically ventilated patients remain, such as increased intracranial pressure, status epilepticus, severe ARDS, acute shock and a few others [4]. The ideal state of consciousness is thought to be in the range from -1 to 0 on the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) or equivalent [4, 5, 16]. Some patients awake on mechanical ventilation might suffer from sleep deprivation and psychological strain, intensified by the inability to communicate verbally with an artificial airway in place [17, 18]. Many previous surveys have investigated the concepts and organization of sedation management in ICUs on an institutional level [6, 8, 12, 19,20,21,22,23], but only few have focused on individual patient management [3, 7, 24].

The aim of this survey was to describe, on a patient basis, (a) the present practice of sedation, (b) pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic measures to promote sleep and (c) facilitation of communication in critically ill patients with artificial airways in German ICUs. A secondary objective was to specify potential differences between oro-tracheally intubated and tracheostomized patients.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional electronic survey following the CROSS-checklist [25]. The research questions were strictly focused on sedation, sleep promotion and communication of intubated or tracheostomized patients treated in the intensive care unit.

Questionnaire

The survey questions were developed by members of the section “Quality in Intensive Care Medicine” of the German Interdisciplinary Association of Critical Care and Emergency Medicine (DIVI) and reviewed by other specialists. The group consisted of intensivists, intensive care psychologists, public health specialists and specialists in the development of electronic survey forms. The questions were built on a review of the current literature and guidelines, including the most recent update of the German S3-guideline “Analgesia, Sedation and Management of Delirium in Intensive Care” [4, 5]. The survey questions were programmed with the commercial software “Umfrage Online” in German language (https://www.umfrageonline.com). The survey was then tested in two rounds of pilot trials in 5 ICUs and further adapted for clarity, consistency and face validity and then approved by the executive committee of the DIVI. The survey included 23 questions and required about 15 to 30 min to complete. The items consisted mostly of closed questions (single and multiple-choice questions) and a few open questions. The translation of the survey questions into English can be found in the electronic supplement 1).

Survey

The survey was designed to collect single-point data. The status of every intubated or tracheostomized Patient in the ICU on the morning of the index day or, in some questions, referring to the preceding 12 or 24 h was assessed. The survey was conducted from February 7, 2022 to March 31, 2022. The index day could be freely chosen within this period. All questions had to be answered to complete the survey.

The survey was sent to all German intensive care units included in the society’s (DIVI) database. Overall, 1281 hospitals and their ICUs were contacted. These included medical, surgical, specialized as well as mixed medical and surgical ICUs. There was only one recipient per ICU so that multiple answers from one ICU were avoided.

Data collection and analysis

The raw data were downloaded and exported to an excel file (Microsoft® Excel for Mac, version 2019). Statistical analysis was performed with the Chi-square test. Significance was assumed with a p < 0.01.

The survey was completely anonymous with respect both to patients and to participating physicians / intensive care units. Therefore, no ethical approval was required. Consent of the participants was assumed by completing the survey.

Results

Eighty-one intensive care units responded with complete data sets including 447 oro-tracheally intubated or tracheostomized patients, averaging 5.5 patients per ICU. There were 320 oro-tracheally intubated and 127 tracheostomized patients. 62 of the 81 ICUs reported treating tracheostomized critically ill patients on the index day. The distribution of the level of sedation / agitation is shown in Fig. 1. The group with RASS -1/0 (awake and calm) included 32.2% of patients. However, the total of patients with RASS ≤ -2 (sum of patients with moderate (RASS -2/-3) and deep (RASS -4/-5) sedation was prevalent in 58.2% of patients. Depth of sedation differed significantly between intubated and tracheostomized patients. About 55% of the tracheostomized patients were in the awake group (RASS-1/0), compared to 25.9% of the intubated patients. The rate of moderate or deep sedation was 70.7% vs. 26.8% for the intubated and tracheostomized patients, respectively.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Distribution of the level of the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) on the morning of the index day (percent within group, number of patients). * p < 0.001

Full size image

Delirium (according to CAM-ICU or Nu-DESC ≥ 2 points or to other validated delirium scores) within the preceding 12 h was present in 19.9% (n = 89) of patients, being similar in the intubated and tracheostomized group (19.7% vs. 20.5%).

In tracheostomized patients the use of sedatives was significantly lower compared to the intubated group (Fig. 2). More than half of the tracheostomized subjects (56.7%) did not receive any sedatives, while only 13.4% of the intubated patients were sedative-free. Similarly, the type of sedative used differed considerably between the two groups (Table 1). In intubated patients propofol was the most widely used sedative, whereas dexmedetomidine and clonidine predominated in the tracheostomized subjects. Volatile sedatives were only used in a minority of about 5% of patients.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Use of sedative medication (percent within group IP and TP, number of patients). * p < 0.001

Full size image
Table 1 Type of sedative drug used. Number of patients with percentage in parentheses
Full size table

A wide variety of medications was used to promote sleep (Table 2). In general, more sleeping medication was administered in tracheostomized patients. Non-pharmacological interventions promoting sleeping, such as ear plugs or sleeping masks were only rarely used in both groups.

Table 2 Pharmacologicala and non-pharmacological support of sleeping
Full size table

With respect to the type, frequency, and ability to communicate significant differences between intubated and tracheostomized patients were observed. While communication via winking/nodding and the use of a letter board/writing was possible in 38.1% (n = 113) and 8.1% (n = 26) in the intubated group, respectively, tracheostomized patients communicated via winking/nodding in 70.1% (n = 89) and used a letter board/writing in 26.8% (n = 34) of cases.

In the presence of a tracheostomy tube phonation and verbal communication is potentially possible. This was the case in 37.8% of patients on the index day. However, phonation was administered in only the half of ICUs (33 of 62). When phonation was used, it was employed by nurses in 100% of subjects, by physicians (in 93.9%), by therapists (in 75.8%) and less often by family members (in 63.6%).

Finally, the participating ICUs were asked how they try to allow for phonation in general (Table 3). Speaking with a standard tracheal cannula during spontaneous breathing with a deflated cuff and a speaking valve was by far the technique used most, as compared to the use of fenestrated tracheal tubes. Speaking during assisted breathing was achieved in only a quarter of the participating ICUs. An electrolarynx and other techniques were used rarely.

Table 3 Type of phonation procedure in tracheostomized patients in the ICU in general
Full size table

Discussion

In our survey more than 58% of all patients with an artificial airway and more than 70% of the subgroup of patients with an oro-tracheal tube were kept in moderate or deep sedation (RASS ≤ -2) in our survey. This is in a similar range as the 74% of mechanically ventilated patients with a RASS of < -2 in a European study [10]. In another recent study patients with assisted breathing were reported to be deeply sedated (RASS ≤ -3) on more than 75% of all days throughout their ICU-stay [3]. Two Spanish studies [21, 24] reported 22.6% of their patients to be in deep (RASS ≤ -4) and 41.3% in moderate or deep (RASS ≤ -2) sedation, which is somewhat less than our overall rate of deep (27.1%) and moderate or deep sedation (58.2%), respectively. Correspondingly 45.7% of their patients were reported to be in the RASS range of -1 to 0 [21]. However, they have included intubated as well as non-intubated subjects, so more awake and less sedated patients would be expected, compared to the group of patients with artificial airway. Although many guidelines advocate light sedation [4, 5], the real-life fraction of deep or moderately deep sedated patients is still considerably high throughout many European and non-European intensive care units. Interestingly, a recent meta-analysis and systematic review showed an improvement on intensive care mortality and reduction in the duration of ventilation only in cohort studies, but not in randomized controlled trials [26]. At the same time, they reported of no difference in adverse events (delirium, self-extubation, re-intubation) [26]. However, some studies indicate that lighter sedation may result in more stressful memories [27] and up to 42.6% of mechanically ventilated patients would have desired more sedation [18]. On the other hand deep sedation does not protect patients from feelings of anxiety, but hinders their ability to communicate [28].

Not surprisingly, the fraction of awake patients was significantly higher and the rate of deep sedation lower, in tracheostomized patients. This has been reported before [29].

Although tracheostomy itself is not recommended as a means for reducing sedation, in a randomized trial significantly less intravenous sedation and less periods of deep sedation were observed in the early tracheostomy group [30]. Tracheostomy tubes appear to be better tolerated and may result in a different sedation practice, but for specific patients with respiratory insufficiency it has been shown that tracheostomy per se did not lead to a higher RASS level [31].

Only 13.4% of oro-tracheally intubated patients but 56.7% of the tracheostomized subjects did not receive any continuous intravenous sedatives. In our study propofol was by far the predominate sedative agent used (41.8%) while benzodiazepines were only applied in a small minority. This finding is in conflict with the results of most other studies where benzodiazepines were the sedatives used most often [3] or applied with the same frequency as propofol [6, 21, 22]. In the past, benzodiazepines have been the first choice for sedation, also in German ICUs, for sedation requirements of longer than 24 h [11]. However, a trend towards a reduced use of midazolam has been observed in the years thereafter [32]. Our data indicate that this development has continued, and benzodiazepines are no longer widely used. It may be assumed that the strong recommendations of major guidelines during the last decade [4, 5, 33, 34] that advised against the use of benzodiazepines due to an increased risk of developing delirium are now commonly accepted and are implemented in the daily practice. Future efforts should concentrate on adopting new concepts and methods to establish lighter sedation goals in daily practice [35].

Alpha-2-agonists were broadly used in our survey in a similar range as has been reported in other studies (10.1% to 65.1%) [6, 22]. They were the predominant sedatives used in our group of tracheostomized patients. It is of note that dexmedetomidine and clonidine were used with similar frequencies, while in the international literature only dexmedetomidine appears to be applied, although little data on the comparative effects of both drugs are available [36].

Volatile sedatives were rarely used in our survey, maybe because the approval of the European authorities for long-term sedation in critically ill patients has been given only recently. In a survey of French ICUs 21% of ICU directors declared that they routinely use volatile sedatives [37]. However, there was no indication of how often volatile sedatives were applied.

While sleep deprivation is a common problem in ICU patients [38], recent guidelines give no clear recommendations which specific methods (apart from implementing a noise and light reduction concept) or agents should be used [4, 5]. This lack of clear guidance is reflected by the large variety of sleeping drugs used in our patients without any clear favorite in the oro-tracheally intubated patients. In the tracheostomized subjects, melatonin and neuroleptic agents were preferred each in about 20% of patients. Other investigators have reported a very variable use of sleep medication in 13% to 58% of ICU-patients [12, 22, 39].

Benzodiazepines appear to be the preferred agent [12], but also dexmedetomidine and propofol are used [22]. In contrast, benzodiazepines (and propofol) were used very rarely in our study.

With more intubated or tracheostomized patients being more awake the requirement for communication increases. However, 61.9% of the intubated patients were not even able to communicate by winking or nodding. In one study 53.9% of mechanically ventilated patients met basic communication criteria [40]. The medical staff reported difficulty in communicating with patients during 35% of ICU days [41]. Mechanically ventilated patients reported “being afraid”, “feeling supervised”, “failing to communicate”, and “experiencing difficulties in breathing” with a frequency of 66.6% [42]. Being dependent on health professionals, without being able to communicate and not being understood, causes experiences of misunderstanding, loss of control, dependency, anxiety, fear, and loneliness. [43, 44]. The inability to communicate was significantly associated with a loss of control and helplessness and impacted negatively on satisfaction with care [45]. One typical quotation of a patient was "not being able to talk was horrid".

Augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) can improve patient satisfaction [46]. Simple means of communication such as winking/nodding were regularly used in intubated patients whereas the use of a letter board or writing was possible in less than 10% of patients. These techniques allowed for communication twice or three times as often in tracheostomized patients. We are not aware of other studies reporting the frequency of such basic communication.

In tracheostomized patients, several techniques allow for speaking with the tracheostomy tube in place. On the index day phonation was practiced in more than one third of tracheostomized patients, but in only half of the ICUs that cared for such patients. In general, the predominantly used phonation procedures included the use of cuff deflation and a speaking valve with either a standard cannula or a fenestrated tracheostomy tube in patients breathing spontaneously without mechanical assistance. Far less ICUs applied these techniques to patients with assisted breathing. It has been shown, however, that cuff deflation during mechanical ventilation results in a significantly earlier phonation than cuff deflation only during self-ventilation (7 vs. 18 days) [47]. A recently described technique of vocalizing by administering air flow through the subglottic suctioning port [48] was used in two ICUs.

Our study has several limitations. The low number of participating ICUs (n = 81) and the low response rate may preclude conclusions representative for all ICUs. However, no selection bias on the side of the authors is present. The cause for the low response rate is not clear but may be due to a high workload on the side of the potential participants, particularly in the wake of the COVID pandemic. Also, the relatively high workload of filling out all questions for each patient and then aggregating the data for the input into the survey form may have limited the participation rate. On the other hand, we believe that the data from those who put in the effort are quite reliable. They may even be more reliable compared to surveys that ask about concepts and practices in a general way, when some bias toward answers that reflect an eligible opinion may be present. It cannot be ruled out that the low response rate might reflect an exclusion of more complex patients who needed higher efforts in clinical treatment or a low response by ICU with high volume of complex patients. However, the number of 5.5 intubated or tracheostomized patients per ICU included in our study appears to be well in the range of ventilated patients in German ICUs on average (electronic supplement 2), so that a major bias appears not to be very likely.

Intubated and tracheostomized patients are usually not comparable in terms of timing and thus of relative need for sedation, of adaptation to ventilation, or of communication skills. Therefore, we reported the results separately for both groups. As this is a survey, no power analysis or estimation of relative sample size was performed.

We cannot connect sedative use neither to patient-specific characteristics such as age, diagnoses (such as the fraction of unstable patients with shock, ARDS, acute severe neurologic disorders) or RASS-groups nor to the type of ICU (medical, surgical, mixed). Furthermore, we did not gather information about pain management which may interact with sedation requirements. However, our aim was to describe the present practice of sedation, sleep promotion and communication of intubated and tracheostomized patients in the ICU. A detailed analysis of the actual sedation management in different patient groups and an exploration of possible causes for the deeper than expected sedation would require another study with a much more extensive data acquisition. Despite these limitations our study provides insights into the present actual sedation management of many ICUs and adds new information about the practice of sleep management and applied communication with oro-tracheally intubated and tracheostomized patients.

Conclusions

Our study shows that the number of oro-tracheally intubated patients with a RASS ≤ -2 is high. Only a quarter of those patients achieve an awake and calm state as targeted by current guidelines. In contrast, the majority of tracheostomized patients is in a RASS-range of -1/0 receiving significantly less sedatives. Benzodiazepines are only rarely used in German ICUs. There is no predominant concept of sleep management and non-pharmacologic interventions (ear plugs, sleeping masks) are rarely used. Although techniques that allow phonation in tracheostomized patients are well known, the application rate appears relatively low, particularly in patients with assisted breathing. Future studies are needed to understand whether recent new guidelines and the still rising interest in sedation management and communication techniques will change the behavior in patients receiving ventilator support.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

AAC:

Augmentative and Alternative Communication

ARDS:

Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome

CROSS:

Checklist for Reporting Of Survey Studies

DIVI:

German Interdisciplinary Association of Critical Care and Emergency Medicine

DRG:

Diagnosis-Related Group

ICU:

Intensive Care Unit

RASS:

Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale

References

  1. Kollef MH, Levy NT, Ahrens TS, Schaiff R, Prentice D, Sherman G. The use of continuous i.v. sedation is associated with prolongation of mechanical ventilation. Chest. 1998;114:541–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Kress JP, Pohlman AS, O’Connor MF, Hall JB. Daily interruption of sedative infusions in critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. N Engl J Med. 2000;342:1471–7.

  3. Aragon RE, Proano A, Mongilardi N, de Ferrari A, Herrera P, Roldan R, et al. Sedation practices and clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients in a prospective multicenter cohort. Crit Care. 2019;23:130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Deutsche Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, Deutsche Interdisziplinäre Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin. S3-Leitlinie Analgesie, Sedierung und Delirmanagement in der Intensivmedizin. 2021. https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/001-012l_S3_Analgesie-Sedierung-Delirmanagement-in-der-Intensivmedizin-DAS_2021-08.pdf. Accessed 4 Apr 2022.

  5. Devlin JW, Skrobik Y, Gelinas C, Needham DM, Slooter AJC, Pandharipande PP, et al. Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2018;46:e825–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Borkowska M, Labeau S, Schepens T, Vandijck D, Van de Vyver K, Christiaens D, et al. Nurses’ Sedation Practices During Weaning of Adults From Mechanical Ventilation in an Intensive Care Unit. Am J Crit Care. 2018;27:32–42.

  7. Chen K, Yang YL, Li HL, Xiao D, Wang Y, Zhang L, et al. A gap existed between physicians’ perceptions and performance of pain, agitation-sedation and delirium assessments in Chinese intensive care units. BMC Anesthesiol. 2021;21:61.

  8. Kotfis K, Zegan-Baranska M, Zukowski M, Kusza K, Kaczmarczyk M, Ely EW. Multicenter assessment of sedation and delirium practices in the intensive care units in Poland - is this common practice in Eastern Europe? BMC Anesthesiol. 2017;17:120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Lavrentieva A, Depetris N, Rodini I. Analgesia, sedation and arousal status in burn patients: the gap between recommendations and current practices. Ann Burns Fire Disasters. 2017;30:135–42.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Luetz A, Balzer F, Radtke FM, Jones C, Citerio G, Walder B, et al. Delirium, sedation and analgesia in the intensive care unit: a multinational, two-part survey among intensivists. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e110935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Martin J, Parsch A, Franck M, Wernecke KD, Fischer M, Spies C. Practice of sedation and analgesia in German intensive care units: results of a national survey. Crit Care. 2005;9:R117–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Morandi A, Piva S, Ely EW, Myatra SN, Salluh JIF, Amare D, et al. Worldwide Survey of the “Assessing Pain, Both Spontaneous Awakening and Breathing Trials, Choice of Drugs, Delirium Monitoring/Management, Early Exercise/Mobility, and Family Empowerment” (ABCDEF) Bundle. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:e1111–22.

  13. Kumpf O. Quality indicators in intensive care medicine : Background and practical use. Med Klin Intensivmed Notfmed. 2021;116:17–28.

  14. Kumpf O, Braun J, Brinkmann A, Bause H, Bellgardt M, Bloos F, et al. Quality indicators in intensive care medicine for Germany – third edition 2017. Ger Med Sci. 2017;15:1–29.

    Google Scholar 

  15. DIMDI. OPS 8–718: OPS Regelwerk und Kodierrichtlinien 2022. 2022. https://www.icd-code.de/ops/code/8-718.html. Accessed 19 Feb 2022.

  16. Devlin JW, Pandharipande PP. Light Sedation Is the Goal: Making the Evidence Heavier. Crit Care Med. 2018;46:1003–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Marco D, von Borell F, Ramelet AS, Sperotto F, Pokorna P, Brenner S, et al. Pain and sedation management and monitoring in pediatric intensive care units across Europe: an ESPNIC survey. Crit Care. 2022;26:88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Malinowski A, Benedict NJ, Ho MN, Kirisci L, Kane-Gill SL. Patient-Reported Outcomes Associated With Sedation and Agitation Intensity in the Critically Ill. Am J Crit Care. 2020;29:140–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Chiu JA, Shergill M, Dhingra V, Ronco JJ, LeBlanc A, Pamplin C, et al. Variation in the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Intensive Care Units in British Columbia. Am J Crit Care. 2020;29:122–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Egerod I, Albarran JW, Ring M, Blackwood B. Sedation practice in Nordic and non-Nordic ICUs: a European survey. Nurs Crit Care. 2013;18:166–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Garcia-Sanchez M, Caballero-Lopez J, Ceniceros-Rozalen I, Gimenez-Esparza Vich C, Romera-Ortega MA, Pardo-Rey C, et al. Management of analgesia, sedation and delirium in Spanish Intensive Care Units: A national two-part survey. Med Intensiva (Engl Ed). 2019;43:225–33.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Luz M, Brandao Barreto B, de Castro REV, Salluh J, Dal-Pizzol F, Araujo C, et al. Practices in sedation, analgesia, mobilization, delirium, and sleep deprivation in adult intensive care units (SAMDS-ICU): an international survey before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Ann Intensive Care. 2022;12:9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Talsi O, Kiiski Berggren R, Johansson G, Winso O. A national survey on routines regarding sedation in Swedish intensive care units. Ups J Med Sci. 2019;124:199–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Arias-Rivera S, Lopez-Lopez C, Frade-Mera MJ, Via clavero G, Rodriguez-Mondejar JJ, Sanchez-Sanchez MM, et al. Assessment of analgesia, sedation, physical restraint and delirium in patients admitted to Spanish intensive care units Proyecto ASCyD. Enferm Intensiva (Engl Ed). 2020;31:3–18.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Sharma A, Minh Duc NT, Luu Lam Thang T, Nam NH, Ng SJ, Abbas KS, et al. A Consensus-Based Checklist for Reporting of Survey Studies (CROSS). J Gen Intern Med. 2021;36:3179–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Aitken LM, Kydonaki K, Blackwood B, Trahair LG, Purssell E, Sekhon M, et al. Inconsistent relationship between depth of sedation and intensive care outcome: systematic review and meta-analysis. Thorax. 2021;76:1089–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Samuelson KA, Lundberg D, Fridlund B. Stressful memories and psychological distress in adult mechanically ventilated intensive care patients - a 2-month follow-up study. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2007;51:671–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Treggiari MM, Romand JA, Yanez ND, Deem SA, Goldberg J, Hudson L, et al. Randomized trial of light versus deep sedation on mental health after critical illness. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:2527–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Nieszkowska A, Combes A, Luyt CE, Ksibi H, Trouillet JL, Gibert C, et al. Impact of tracheotomy on sedative administration, sedation level, and comfort of mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients. Crit Care Med. 2005;33:2527–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Trouillet JL, Luyt CE, Guiguet M, Ouattara A, Vaissier E, Makri R, et al. Early percutaneous tracheotomy versus prolonged intubation of mechanically ventilated patients after cardiac surgery: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2011;154:373–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Schmidt M, Fisser C, Martucci G, Abrams D, Frapard T, Popugaev K, et al. Tracheostomy management in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: an International Multicenter Retrospective Study. Crit Care. 2021;25:238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Martin J, Franck M, Sigel S, Weiss M, Spies C. Changes in sedation management in German intensive care units between 2002 and 2006: a national follow-up survey. Crit Care. 2007;11:R124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Barr J, Fraser GL, Puntillo K, Ely EW, Gelinas C, Dasta JF, et al. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Taskforce DAS, Baron R, Binder A, Biniek R, Braune S, Buerkle H, et al. Evidence and consensus based guideline for the management of delirium, analgesia, and sedation in intensive care medicine. Revision 2015 (DAS-Guideline 2015) - short version. Ger Med Sci. 2015;13:Doc19.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Vincent JL, Shehabi Y, Walsh TS, Pandharipande PP, Ball JA, Spronk P, et al. Comfort and patient-centred care without excessive sedation: the eCASH concept. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:962–71.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Grest A, Kurmann J, Muller M, Jeger V, Kruger B, Spahn DR, et al. Cardiovascular safety of clonidine and dexmedetomidine in critically ill patients after cardiac surgery. Crit Care Res Pract. 2020;2020:4750615.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Blondonnet R, Quinson A, Lambert C, Audard J, Godet T, Zhai R, et al. Use of volatile agents for sedation in the intensive care unit: A national survey in France. PLoS ONE. 2021;16:e0249889.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Rotondi AJ, Chelluri L, Sirio C, Mendelsohn A, Schulz R, Belle S, et al. Patients’ recollections of stressful experiences while receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2002;30:746–52.

  39. Douglas SL, Hobbs HA, Sibley SR, Digby GC. Providing Evidence-Based Care, Day and Night: A Quality Improvement Initiative to Improve Intensive Care Unit Patient Sleep Quality. J Intensive Care Med. 2021;36:1450–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Happ MB, Seaman JB, Nilsen ML, Sciulli A, Tate JA, Saul M, et al. The number of mechanically ventilated ICU patients meeting communication criteria. Heart Lung. 2015;44:45–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Freeman-Sanderson A, Morris K, Elkins M. Characteristics of patient communication and prevalence of communication difficulty in the intensive care unit: An observational study. Aust Crit Care. 2019;32:373–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Danielis M, Povoli A, Mattiussi E, Palese A. Understanding patients’ experiences of being mechanically ventilated in the Intensive Care Unit: Findings from a meta-synthesis and meta-summary. J Clin Nurs. 2020;29:2107–24.

  43. Baumgarten M, Poulsen I. Patients’ experiences of being mechanically ventilated in an ICU: a qualitative metasynthesis. Scand J Caring Sci. 2015;29:205–14.

  44. Carroll SM. Nonvocal ventilated patients perceptions of being understood. West J Nurs Res. 2004;26:85–103 discussion 4-12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Guttormson JL, Bremer KL, Jones RM. “Not being able to talk was horrid”: a descriptive, correlational study of communication during mechanical ventilation. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2015;31:179–86.

  46. Carruthers H, Astin F, Munro W. Which alternative communication methods are effective for voiceless patients in Intensive Care Units? A systematic review. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2017;42:88–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Freeman-Sanderson AL, Togher L, Elkins MR, Phipps PR. Return of voice for ventilated tracheostomy patients in ICU: a randomized controlled trial of early-targeted Intervention. Crit Care Med. 2016;44:1075–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. McGrath B, Lynch J, Wilson M, Nicholson L, Wallace S. Above cuff vocalisation: A novel technique for communication in the ventilator-dependent tracheostomy patient. J Intensive Care Soc. 2016;17:19–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Monica Mary Heil for help with language editing the manuscript.

We acknowledge support by the Open Access Publication Funds of the Ruhr-Universität Bochum.

Standards of reporting

The Checklist for Reporting Of Survey Studies (CROSS) was used.

Funding

Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. No other funding was involved in the study.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Christian Waydhas

    Present address: Klinik Für Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum, Universitätsmedizin Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, 45147, Essen, Germany

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ruhr-Universität-Bochum, Universitätsstrasse 150, 44801, Bochum, Germany

    Christian Waydhas, Uwe Hamsen & Aileen Spiekermann

  2. Klinik Und Poliklinik Für Chirurgie, Berufsgenossenschaftliches Universitätsklinikum Bergmannsheil Bochum, Bürkle-de-La-Camp-Platz 1, 44789, Bochum, Germany

    Christian Waydhas, Uwe Hamsen & Aileen Spiekermann

  3. Klinik Für Unfallchirurgie, Universitätsklinikum, Universitätsmedizin Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, 45147, Essen, Germany

    Sonja Vonderhagen

  4. Klinik Für Anästhesiologie Und Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Bachstrasse 18, 07743, Jena, Germany

    Teresa Deffner

  5. Fakultät Für Psychologie, Lehrgebiet Allgemeine Psychologie: Lernen, Motivation, Emotion, FernUniversität in Hagen, Universitätsstrasse 33, 58084, Hagen, Germany

    Robert Gaschler

  6. Center for Public Health and Health Services Research, University Hospital Tübingen, Osianderstraße 5, 72076, Tübingen, Germany

    David Häske

  7. Klinik Für Anästhesiologie Und Intensivmedizin, Universitätsklinikum, Universitätsmedizin Essen, Hufelandstr. 55, 45147, Essen, Germany

    Frank Herbstreit

  8. Klinik Für Anästhesiologie Und Intensivtherapie, Universitätsmedizin Rostock, Schillingallee 35, 18057, Rostock, Germany

    Anke Hierundar

  9. Klinik Für Anästhesiologie Mit Schwerpunkt Operative Intensivmedizin, Campus Charité Mitte Und Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, corporate member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität Zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany

    Oliver Kumpf

  10. University Clinic for Anaesthesiology / Intensive Care Medicine / Emergency Medicine / Pain Medicine, Klinikum Oldenburg, Medical Campus of the University Oldenburg), Rahel Straus - Str. 10, 26133, Oldenburg, Germany

    Georg Rohe

  11. Klinik Für Anästhesiologie, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Str. 40, 37099, Göttingen, Germany

    Reiner M. Waeschle

  12. Department Für Innere Medizin, Universitätsklinikum Tübingen, Otfried-Müller-Str. 10, 72076, Tübingen, Germany

    Reimer Riessen

Authors
  1. Christian Waydhas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Teresa Deffner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert Gaschler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. David Häske
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Uwe Hamsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Frank Herbstreit
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Anke Hierundar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Oliver Kumpf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Georg Rohe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Aileen Spiekermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Sonja Vonderhagen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Reiner M. Waeschle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Reimer Riessen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors (CW, TD, RG, DH, UH, FH, AH, OK, GR, AS, SV, RW, RR) contributed to the study conception, design, and material preparation. Data collection and analysis were performed by CW and all authors commented on the analysis and interpretation (CW, TD, RG, DH, UH, FH, AH, OK, GR, AS, SV, RW, RR). The first draft of the manuscript was written by CW and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript (CW, TD, RG, DH, UH, FH, AH, OK, GR, AS, SV, RW, RR). All authors read and approved the final manuscript (CW, TD, RG, DH, UH, FH, AH, OK, GR, AS, SV, RW, RR).

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian Waydhas.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was performed in accordance with the ethical standards as laid down in the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The survey was completely anonymous with respect both to patients (cumulative data) and to participating physicians / intensive care units and data cannot be traced to a particular individual. The need for ethics approval was deemed unnecessary according to national regulations (Professional Code for Physicians in Germany (https://www.bundesaerztekammer.de/fileadmin/user_upload/_old-files/downloads/pdf-Ordner/Recht/MBO-AE_Beschluesse_124._DAET_2021_engl._Fassung.pdf). Consent of the participants was assumed by completing the survey.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

Waydhas C received honoraria for lectures from Sedana Medical. Herbstreit F received honoraria for editorial board work for Anesthesia&Analgesia and travel support and honoraria for lectures from Biotest, Getinge, and Aerogen Ltd. None of the other authors declares a conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Waydhas, C., Deffner, T., Gaschler, R. et al. Sedation, sleep-promotion, and non-verbal and verbal communication techniques in critically ill intubated or tracheostomized patients: results of a survey. BMC Anesthesiol 22, 384 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-022-01887-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-022-01887-z

Keywords

BMC Anesthesiology

ISSN: 1471-2253

Contact us