Opioid, sedative, preadmission medication and iatrogenic withdrawal risk in UK adult critically ill patients: a point prevalence study

Rebekah Eadie,Cathrine A McKenzie,Daniel Hadfield,Nicola J Kalk,Scott Bolesta,Martin Dempster,Daniel F McAuley,Bronagh Blackwood,UK ALERT-ICU study investigators
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11096-023-01614-9
Abstract:Background: Iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome, after exposure medication known to cause withdrawal is recognised, yet under described in adult intensive care. Aim: To investigate, opioid, sedation, and preadmission medication practice in critically ill adults with focus on aspects associated with iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome. Method: One-day point prevalence study in UK intensive care units (ICUs). We collected ICU admission medication and/or substances with withdrawal potential, sedation policy, opioid and sedative use, dose, and duration. Results: Thirty-seven from 39 participating ICUs contributed data from 386 patients. The prevalence rate for parenteral opioid and sedative medication was 56.1% (212 patients). Twenty-three ICUs (59%) had no sedation/analgesia policy, and no ICUs screened for iatrogenic withdrawal. Patient admission medications with withdrawal-potential included antidepressants or antipsychotics (43, 20.3%) and nicotine (41, 19.3%). Of 212 patients, 202 (95.3%) received opioids, 163 (76.9%) sedatives and 153 (72.2%) both. Two hundred and two (95.3%) patients received opioids: 167 (82.7%) by continuous infusions and 90 (44.6%) patients for longer than 96-h. One hundred and sixty-three (76.9%) patients received sedatives: 157 (77.7%) by continuous infusions and 74 (45.4%) patients for longer than 96-h. Conclusion: Opioid sedative and admission medication with iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome potential prevalence rates were high, and a high proportion of ICUs had no sedative/analgesic policies. Nearly half of patients received continuous opioids and sedatives for longer than 96-h placing them at high risk of iatrogenic withdrawal. No participating unit reported using a validated tool for iatrogenic withdrawal assessment.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?