↓ Skip to main content

Feasibility of continuous sedation monitoring in critically ill intensive care unit patients using the NeuroSENSE WAVCNS index

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, February 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
Title
Feasibility of continuous sedation monitoring in critically ill intensive care unit patients using the NeuroSENSE WAVCNS index
Published in
Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing, February 2018
DOI 10.1007/s10877-018-0115-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nicholas West, Paul B. McBeth, Sonia M. Brodie, Klaske van Heusden, Sarah Sunderland, Guy A. Dumont, Donald E. G. Griesdale, J. Mark Ansermino, Matthias Görges

Abstract

Sedation in the intensive care unit (ICU) is challenging, as both over- and under-sedation are detrimental. Current methods of assessment, such as the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS), are measured intermittently and rely on patients' behavioral response to stimulation, which may interrupt sleep/rest. A non-stimulating method for continuous sedation monitoring may be beneficial and allow more frequent assessment. Processed electroencephalography (EEG) monitors have not been routinely adopted in the ICU. The aim of this observational study was to assess the feasibility of using the NeuroSENSE™ monitor for EEG-based continuous sedation assessment. With ethical approval, ICU patients on continuous propofol sedation were recruited. Depth-of-hypnosis index (WAVCNS) values were obtained from the NeuroSENSE. Bedside nurses, blinded to the NeuroSENSE, performed regular RASS assessments and maintained the sedation regimen as per standard of care. Participants were monitored throughout the duration of their propofol infusion, up to 24 h. Fifteen patients, with median [interquartile range] age of 57 [52-62.5] years were each monitored for a duration of 9.0 [5.7-20.1] h. Valid WAVCNSvalues were obtained for 89% [66-99] of monitoring time and were widely distributed within and between individuals, with 6% [1-31] spent < 40 (very deep), and 3% [1-15] spent > 90 (awake). Significant EEG suppression was detected in 3/15 (20%) participants. Observed RASS matched RASS goals in 36/89 (40%) assessments. The WAVCNSvariability, and incidence of EEG suppression, highlight the limitations of using RASS as a standalone sedation measure, and suggests potential benefit of adjunct continuous brain monitoring.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 61 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 21%
Student > Postgraduate 7 11%
Student > Master 6 10%
Other 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 5 8%
Unknown 23 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 7%
Computer Science 3 5%
Neuroscience 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 23 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 February 2018.
All research outputs
#15,492,327
of 23,023,224 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#427
of 700 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#211,417
of 331,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing
#7
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,023,224 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 700 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,055 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.