ABCDEF Critical Care

The ABCDEF Bundle in
C r i t i c a l C a re
Annachiara Marra, MD, PhD(c)a, E. Wesley Ely, MD, MPHb,
Pratik P. Pandharipande, MD, MSCI, FCCMc, Mayur B. Patel, MD, MPH
d,
*
KEYWORDS
Pain Spontaneous awakening trials Spontaneous breathing trials Sedation
Analgesia Delirium Early mobility Intensive care unit
KEY POINTS
The ABCDEF bundle is an evidence-based guide for clinicians to coordinate multidisci-
plinary patient care in the intensive care unit (ICU).
Assessment of pain is the first step before administering pain relief. The Behavioral Pain
Scale (BPS) and the Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) are the most valid and
reliable behavioral pain scales for ICU patients unable to communicate.
Continued
Disclosures and Funding Sources: E.W. Ely, P.P. Pandharipande, and M.B. Patel are supported
by National Institutes of Health HL111111 and GM120484 (Bethesda, MD). E.W. Ely is supported
by the Veterans Affairs Tennessee Valley Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center
(Nashville, TN). E.W. Ely and P.P. Pandharipande are supported by the VA Clinical Science
Research and Development Service (Washington, DC) and the National Institutes of Health
AG027472 and AG035117 (Bethesda, MD). M.B. Patel is supported by the Vanderbilt Faculty
Research Scholars Program. This project was supported by REDCap, a secure online database,
supported in part by the National Institutes of Health TR000445. E.W. Ely has received honorar-
ia from Abbott Laboratories, Hospira, Inc, and Orion Corporation, and research grants from
Abbott Laboratories. P.P. Pandharipande and E.W. Ely have received research grants from Hos-
pira, Inc. A. NIHMS: 834685. The authors have no other disclosures relevant to this article.
a
Center for Health Services Research, Division of Allergy, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medi-
cine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, University of Naples Federico II, 1215 21st Avenue
South, Medical Center East, Suite 6100, Nashville, TN 37232-8300, USA; b VA GRECC, Center
for Health Services Research, Division of Allergy, Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Vander-
bilt University Medical Center, 1215 21st Avenue South, Medical Center East, Suite 6109, Nash-
ville, TN 37232-8300, USA; c Division of Anesthesiology Critical Care Medicine, Department of
Anesthesiology, Center for Health Services Research, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, 1211
21st Avenue South, Medical Arts Building, Suite 526, Nashville, TN 37212, USA; d Division of
Trauma, Surgical Critical Care, and Emergency General Surgery, Section of Surgical Sciences,
Department of Surgery, Center for Health Services Research, Vanderbilt University Medical Cen-
ter, 1211 21st Avenue South, Medical Arts Building, Suite 404, Nashville, TN 37212, USA
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: mayur.b.patel@Vanderbilt.Edu
Crit Care Clin 33 (2017) 225–243

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ccc.2016.12.005 criticalcare.theclinics.com
0749-0704/17/Published by Elsevier Inc.
Downloaded for MARIA OLGA MERIDA MOLINA (ma_olga28@hotmail.com) at Francisco Marroquín University from
ClinicalKey.com by Elsevier on January 08, 2020. For personal use only. No other uses without permission. Copyright ©2020. Elsevier
Inc. All rights reserved.
226 Marra et al
Continued
Coordination of spontaneous awakening trials (SAT) with spontaneous breathing trials
(SBT) is associated with decreases in sedative use, delirium, time on mechanical ventila-
tion, and ICU and hospital lengths of stay.
Delirium monitoring and management is critically important because it is a strong risk fac-
tor for increased time on mechanical ventilation, length of ICU and hospital stay, cost of
hospitalization, long-term cognitive impairment, and mortality.
Early mobility is the only currently known intervention associated with a decrease in
delirium duration. Physical therapy is safe and feasible in the ICU, even while on mechan-
ical ventilation, renal-replacement therapy, and/or circulatory support.
With more than 4 million intensive care unit (ICU) admissions per year in the United
States, there is increasing recognition of the long-term consequences of ICU care
on the physical and mental health function of patients. An acute care hospitalization
and critical illness has tangible consequences of cognitive decline,1 posttraumatic
stress disorder,2 and depression.3 In a multicenter cohort of 821 critically ill patients
with respiratory failure or shock, our group demonstrated that one of four ICU patients
had cognitive impairment after 12 months after critical illness that was similar in
severity to that of patients with mild Alzheimer disease and moderate traumatic brain
injury.4 The largest risk factor for this ICU-related cognitive impairment was delirium.
Disability associated with ICU care and hospitalization is an unfortunately common
occurrence in older adults with significant consequences for patients and caregivers
(Box 1).5
Box 1
Factors related to hospitalization-associated disability
Preillness determinants of functional reserve (vulnerability and capacity to recover)

Age
Poor mobility
Cognitive function
Activities of daily living and IADLs
Geriatric syndrome (falls, incontinence)
Social functioning
Depression
Severity of acute illness
Hospitalization factors
Environment
Restricted mobility
Undernutrition
Enforced dependence
Polypharmacy
Little encouragement of independence
Posthospitalization factors
Environment
Resources
Community supports
Quality of discharge planning
Abbreviation: IADL, instrumental activities of daily living.
Data from Covinsky KE, Pierluissi E, Johnston CB. Hospitalization-associated disability: she
was probably able to ambulate, but I’m not sure. JAMA 2011;306(16):1782–93.
The ABCDEF Bundle in Critical Care 227
ICU survivorship has become a top concern and methods to optimize patient recov-
ery and outcomes are important objectives for the health provider, families, and re-
searchers. In 2013, the American College of Critical Care Medicine, in collaboration
with the Society of Critical Care Medicine and American Society of Health-System
Pharmacists, updated the Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain,
Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU PAD Guide-
lines) to provide recommendations for clinicians to better manage critically ill pa-
tients.6 Many elements of the symptom-based ICU PAD guideline are implemented
using an interdependent, multicomponent, evidence-based guide for the coordination
multidisciplinary ICU care, the ABCDEF bundle. The ABCDEF bundle includes:
Assess, prevent, and manage pain; Both spontaneous awakening trials (SAT) and
spontaneous breathing trials (SBT); Choice of analgesia and sedation; Delirium:
assess, prevent, and manage; Early mobility and exercise; and Family engagement
and empowerment.
ASSESS, PREVENT, AND MANAGE PAIN
ICU patients commonly experience pain, with an incidence of up to 50% in surgical

and medical patients. It is a major clinical symptom that requires systematic diagnosis
and treatment.7,8
In a prospective, cross-sectional, multicenter, multinational study of pain intensity
associated with 12 procedures, the Europain study, Puntillo and colleagues9 showed
that common ICU procedures induced a significant increase in pain, although no pro-
cedure caused severe pain. For the three most painful procedures (ie, chest tube
removal, wound drain removal, and arterial line insertion) pain intensity more than
doubled during the procedure compared with the preprocedural levels.
Assessment of pain is the first step before administering pain relief. Pain assess-
ments are often only performed 35% of the time before ICU procedures.7 Patient’s
self-report of pain using a 1 to 10 numerical rating scale is considered the gold stan-
dard and is highly recommended by many critical care societies.6,8 Because of the
high interrelation between delirium and pain,8 assessing and treating pain could be
important in the prevention and/or management of delirium.
In the absence of a patient’s self-report, observable behavioral and physiologic in-
dicators become important indices for the assessment of pain.10 The Behavioral Pain
Scale (BPS) and the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) are the most valid and
reliable behavioral pain scales for ICU patients unable to communicate (Table 1). The
BPS is composed of three subscales: (1) facial expression, (2) movement of the upper
limbs, and (3) compliance with mechanical ventilation. Each subscale is scored from
one (no response) to four (full response). A BPS score of five or higher is considered
to reflect unacceptable pain. The CPOT has components: (1) facial expression, (2)
body movements, (3) muscle tension, and (4) compliance with the ventilator for intu-
bated patients or vocalization for extubated patients. Each component is scored
from zero to two with a possible total score ranging from zero to eight. A CPOT greater
than or equal to three indicates significant pain. Both the BPS and the CPOT provide
guidance for the selection of pharmacologic interventions for pain and in the evalua-
tion of their effectiveness.11,12
According to ICU PAD Guidelines, pain medications should be routinely adminis-
tered in the presence of significant pain (ie, numerical rating scale 4, BPS >5, or
CPOT 3) and before performing painful invasive procedures. Parenteral opioids
are first-line pharmacologic agents for treating nonneuropathic pain in critically ill pa-
tients. All opioids have the potential to induce tolerance over time, resulting in the need
228 Marra et al
Table 1
Clinical Pain Observational Tool and Behavioral Pain Scale
Critical Pain Observational Tool (CPOT)

Score
Facial expressions
Relaxed, neutral 0
Tense 1
Grimacing 2
Body movements
Absence of movements or normal position 0
Protection 1
Restlessness/agitation 2
Compliance with the ventilator (intubated patients)
Tolerating ventilator or movement 0
Coughing but tolerating 1
Fighting ventilator 2
Vocalization (nonintubuted patients)
Talking in normal tone or no sound 0
Sighing, moaning 1
Crying out sobbing 2
Muscle tension
Relaxed 0
Tense, rigid 1
Very tense or rigid 2
Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS)

Score
Facial expressions
Relaxed 1
Partially tightened 2
Fully tightened 3
Upper limbs
No movement 1
Partially bent 2
Fully bent with finger flexion 3
Permanently retracted 4
Compliance with ventilation
Tolerating movement 1
Coughing but tolerating ventilation for most of the time 2
Fighting ventilator 3
Unable to control ventilation 4
BPS greater than five or CPOT greater than three indicate significant pain.
Adapted from Payen JF, Bru O, Bosson JL, et al. Assessing pain in critically ill sedated patients by
using a behavioral pain scale. Crit Care Med 2001;29(12):2259.
for escalating doses to achieve the same analgesic effect. For the treatment of neuro-
pathic pain in ICU patients, gabapentin or carbamazepine should be administered
enterally, in addition to opioids. Nonopioid analgesics, such as acetaminophen,
nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or ketamine, should be used as adjunctive
pain medications to reduce opioid requirements and opioid-related side effects.
Use of regional analgesia in ICU patients is limited to the use of epidural analgesia
in specific subpopulations of surgical patients, and in patients with traumatic rib frac-
tures.6 In managing pain in the ICU, nonpharmacologic methods are often effective
and safe (eg, injury stabilization, patient repositioning, use of heat/cold).13
BOTH SPONTANEOUS AWAKENING TRIALS AND SPONTANEOUS BREATHING TRIALS
Daily SATs are the stopping of narcotics (as long as pain is controlled) and sedatives
every day and, if needed, restarting either narcotics or sedatives at half the previous
dose and titrating as need. Daily interruption of sedation shortens the duration of me-
chanical ventilation and the ICU length of stay. The 2013 ICU PAD Guidelines empha-
size the importance of minimizing sedative use and maintaining a light level of sedation
in patients, using either a daily sedative interruption strategy (ie, SAT), or by continu-
ously titrating sedatives to maintain a light level of sedation (ie, targeted sedation strat-
egy). Kress and colleagues14 conducted a randomized, controlled trial involving 128
adult patients who were receiving mechanical ventilation and continuous infusions
of sedative drugs in a medical ICU. In the intervention group, the sedative infusions
were interrupted daily until the patients were awake; in the control group, the infusions
were interrupted only at the discretion of the clinicians. In this study, daily interruption
of the infusion of sedative drugs shortened the duration of mechanical ventilation by
more than 2 days and the length of stay in the ICU by 3.5 days.14 These data suggest
that daily SAT uses less analgosedation while improving ICU outcomes.14
There is a consistent relationship between deeper sedation and worse ICU out-
comes. Deep sedation in the first 48 hours of an ICU stay has been associated with
delayed time to extubation, higher need for tracheostomy, increased risk of hospital,
and long-term death.15–17 Shehabi and colleagues15 examined the relationships be-
tween early sedation and time to extubation, delirium, hospital, and 180-day mortality
among ventilated critically ill patients in the ICU. Every additional Richmond Agitation-
Sedation Score (RASS) assessment in the deep sedation range in the first 48 hours
was associated with delayed time to extubation of 12.3 hours, a 10% increased risk
of hospital death, and an 8% increased risk of death at 6 months. Balzer and col-
leagues17 examined short- and long-term survival after deep sedation during the first
48 hours after ICU admission. In this study, 1884 patients receiving mechanical venti-
lation were grouped as either lightly or deeply sedated (light sedation, RASS 2 to 0;
deep sedation, RASS 3 or less). Deep sedation (27.2%; n 5 513) was associated
with an in-hospital mortality hazard ratio of 1.661 (95% confidence interval [CI],
1.074–2.567; P 5 .022) and a 2-year hazard ratio of 1.866 (95% CI, 1.351–2.576;
P<.001). In summary, deeply sedated patients had longer ventilation times, increased
length of stay, and higher rates of mortality.17 These studies show that early deep
sedation is a modifiable risk factor and that the implementation of sedation protocols
to achieve light sedation is feasible and reproducible in the early phase of ICU
treatment.
Daily SBT has been proven to be effective and superior to other techniques to venti-
lator weaning. Numerous randomized trials support the use of ventilator weaning pro-
tocols that include daily SBTs as their centerpiece.18,19 About two-thirds of the time on
mechanical ventilation is spent during weaning, so anything that reduced this period
230 Marra et al
would have a high likelihood of improving outcomes. Girard and colleagues20 under-
took the Awakening and Breathing Controlled (ABC) trial, a multicenter, randomized
controlled trial to assess the efficacy and safety of a protocol of daily SATs paired
with SBTs (intervention group, n 5 168) versus a standard SBT protocol in patients
receiving patient-targeted sedation as part of usual care (control group, n 5 168). Pa-
tients in the intervention group (both SAT and SBT) spent more days breathing without
assistance during the 28-day study period (14.7 days vs 11.6 days; mean difference,
3.1 days; 95% CI, 0.7–5.6; P 5 .02) and were discharged earlier from the ICU (median
time in ICU, 9.1 days vs 12.9 days; P 5 .01) and earlier from the hospital (median hos-
pital time, 14.9 days vs 19.2 days; P 5 .04).20 During the year after enrollment, patients
receiving SATs with SBTs (intervention) were less likely to die than were patients
receiving only SBTs (control) (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.50–0.92; P 5 0.01). For
every seven patients treated with the intervention, one life was saved (number needed
to treat, 7.4; 95% CI, 4.2–35.5).20 Conversely, the SLEAP trial (protocolized light seda-
tion in combination with daily SAT vs protocolized light sedation alone) found no dif-
ference between the groups with regard to time to extubation, duration of ICU, and
hospital stays.21 One reason the SLEAP study might not have showed an effect is
because both the treatment and control groups received high sedative doses that
would result in moderate to deep levels, rather than light levels of sedation.22
No sedation has also been applied as a strategy in ICU patients. Strøm and col-
leagues23 enrolled 140 critically ill adult patients who were undergoing mechanical
ventilation and were expected to need ventilation for more than 1 day. Patients
were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio (unblinded) to receive no sedation (n 5 70 pa-
tients) or sedation (n 5 70, control group). Patients receiving no sedation had signifi-
cantly more days without ventilation (mean, 13.8 days [standard deviation, 11.0] vs
mean, 9.6 days [standard deviation, 10.0]; mean difference, 4.2 days; 95% CI, 0.3–
8.1; P 5 .0191) in a 28-day period, and reduced stays in the ICU and hospital. This
study did find increased hyperactive delirium in the group receiving no sedation.23
Ultimately, the core features of the ABCDEF bundle involve coordination of SATs
and SBTs emphasizing narcotic and sedation titration resulting in earlier liberation
from mechanical ventilation, ICU, and hospitalization (Fig. 1).
CHOICE OF ANALGESIA AND SEDATION
The 2013 PAD guidelines emphasize the need for goal-directed delivery of psychoac-
tive medications to avoid oversedation, to promote earlier extubation, and to help the
medical team agree on a target sedation level by using sedation scales. Of the avail-
able reliable and valid sedation scales, the PAD guidelines recommend the use of the
RASS and the Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS). Table 2 shows the psychometric
properties of the RASS and SAS. The SAS has seven individual tiers ranging from
unarousable (one) to dangerous agitation (seven).24 RASS is a 10-point scale, with
four levels of escalating agitation (RASS 11 to 14), one level denoting a calm and alert
state (RASS 0), three levels of sedation (RASS 1 to 3), and two levels of coma
(RASS 4 to 5). A unique feature of RASS is that it relies on the duration of eye con-
tact following verbal stimulation. The RASS takes less than 20 seconds to perform with
minimal training, and has shown high reliability among multiple types of health care
providers and an excellent interrater reliability in a broad range of adult medical and
surgical ICU patients.25
To maximize patient outcomes, it is essential to carefully choose sedatives and
analgesic medications, and consider medication doses, titration, and discontinua-
tion.25 For example, there is a clear association between decreased exposure to
Fig. 1. “Wake up and breathe” protocol: SATs with SBTs. FiO2, fraction of inspired oxygen;
PEEP, positive end-expiratory pressure. (From ICU Delirium, Vanderbilt University. Available
at: www.ICUdelerium.org.)
sedatives, particularly benzodiazepines, and improved patient outcomes.15,17,26,27

Pandharipande and colleagues28 evaluated 198 mechanically ventilated patients to
determine the probability of daily transition to delirium, as a function of sedative and
analgesic dose administration during the previous 24-hour period. They found that
every unit dose of lorazepam was associated with a higher risk for daily transition to
delirium (odds ratio, 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1–1.4; P 5 .003).28 Similarly Seymour and col-
leagues29 confirmed that benzodiazepines are an independent risk factor for develop-
ment of delirium during critical illness even when given more than 8 hours before a
delirium assessment. These results expand and support the recommendation made
in the 2013 ICU PAD guidelines that nonbenzodiazepine sedative options may be
preferred over benzodiazepine-based sedative regimens.6
Two major studies evaluated benzodiazepines against a novel a2-agonist sedative,
dexmedetomidine. The SEDCOM trial (Safety and Efficacy of Dexmedetomidine
Compared with Midazolam) showed a reduction in the prevalence of delirium and in
232 Marra et al
Table 2
Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale
RASS SAS
14 Combative 7 Dangerous agitation
Combative, violent immediate danger to Pulling at ETT, trying to remove catheters,
staff climbing over bedrail, striking at staff,
trashing side-to-side
13 Very agitated 6 Very agitated
Pulls to remove tubes or catheters; Requiring restraint and frequent verbal
aggressive reminding of limits, biting ETT
12 Agitated 6 Very agitated
Frequent nonpurposeful movement, fights Requiring restraint and frequent verbal
ventilator reminding of limits, biting ETT
11 Restless 5 Agitated
Anxious, apprehensive, movements not Anxious or physically agitated, calms to
aggressive verbal instructions
0 Alert and calm 4 Calm and cooperative
Spontaneously pays attention to caregiver Calm, easily arousable, follows commands
1 Drowsy 3 Sedated
Not fully alert, but has sustained Difficult to arouse but awakens to verbal
awakening to voice: eye opening and stimuli or gentle shaking, follows simple
contact >10 s commands but drifts off again
2 Light sedation 3 Sedated
Briefly awakens to voice: eyes open and Difficult to arouse but awakens to verbal
contact <10 s stimuli or gentle shaking, follows simple
commands but drifts off again
3 Moderate sedation 3 Sedated
Movement or eye opening to voice: no eye Difficult to arouse but awakens to verbal
contact stimuli or gentle shaking, follows simple
4 Deep sedation 3 Sedated
No response to voice, but movement or eye Difficult to arouse but awakens to verbal
opening to physical stimulation stimuli or gentle shaking, follows simple
2 Very sedated
Arouses to physical stimuli but does not
communicate or follow commands, may
move spontaneously
5 Unarousable 1 Unarousable
No response to voice or physical Minimal or no response to noxious stimuli,
stimulation does not communicate or follow
commands
Abbreviation: ETT, endotracheal tube.

From ICU Delirium, Vanderbilt University. Available at: www.ICUdelerium.org. Accessed
December 29, 2016; and Adapted from Riker RR, Picard JT, Fraser GL. Prospective evaluation of
the sedation-agitation scale for adult critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 1999;27(7):1327; and Sess-
ler 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;166:1339.
the duration of mechanical ventilation in patients sedated with dexmedetomidine

compared with midazolam.30 The MENDS study (Maximizing Efficacy of Targeted
Sedation and Reducing Neurologic Dysfunction) evaluated the role of changing seda-
tion paradigms on acute brain dysfunction, comparing dexmedetomidine with loraze-
pam.31 The dexmedetomidine sedative strategy resulted in more days alive without
delirium or coma, but without differences in mortality or ventilator-free days. Notably,

the subgroup of patients with sepsis sedated with dexmedetomidine in the MENDS
study had shorter durations of delirium and coma, lower daily probability of delirium,
shorter time on the ventilator, and improved 28-day survival.32 There is an ongoing trial
(MENDS II study) to determine the best sedative medication to reduce delirium and
improve survival and long-term brain function in the ventilated patient with sepsis
(ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01739933).
DELIRIUM—ASSESS, PREVENT, AND MANAGE
An important third element in the PAD guidelines is monitoring and management of

delirium. Delirium is a disturbance in attention and awareness that develops over a
short period of time, hours to days, and fluctuates over time.33 More than 80% of pa-
tients developed delirium during their hospital stay, with most cases occurring in the
ICU with an average time of onset between the second and the third day.
Several methods have been developed and validated to diagnose delirium in ICU
patients but the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-
ICU; Fig. 2A) and the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC; Fig. 2B)
are the most frequently used tools for this purpose.34 The ICDSC checklist is an
eight-item screening tool (one point for each item) that is based on Diagnostic and Sta-
tistical Manual criteria and applied to data that are collected through medical records
or to information obtained from the multidisciplinary team.34 The pooled values for the
sensitivity and specificity of the ICDSC are 74% and 81.9%, respectively.34 The CAM-
ICU is composed by four features: (1) acute onset of mental status changes or fluctu-
ating course, (2) inattention, (3) disorganized thinking, and (4) altered level of con-
sciousness. The patient is considered CAM positive and thus delirious if he/she
manifests both features one and two, plus either feature three or four.35 Overall accu-
racy of the CAM-ICU is excellent, with pooled values for sensitivity and specificity of
80% and 95.9%, respectively.34 The CAM-ICU has been modified and validated in pe-
diatric, emergency department, and neurocritical care populations, and translated in
more than 25 languages.36–40
Delirium can be categorized into subtypes according to psychomotor behavior. Hy-
peractive delirium (CAM positive, RASS positive range) is associated with a better
overall prognosis and it is characterized by agitation, restlessness, and emotional
lability.41 Hypoactive delirium (CAM positive, RASS negative range), which is common
and often more deleterious in the long term, is characterized by decreased respon-
siveness, withdrawal, and apathy and remains unrecognized in 66% to 84% of hospi-
talized patients.42 Another categorization based on the ICDSC score assigns patients
with a score of zero to have no delirium, those with a score greater than or equal to four
to have clinical delirium, and those with a score of one to three to have subsyndromal
delirium.43 Whichever delirium metric is used, the best picture of the patient’s mental
status comes from assessing delirium serially throughout the day.
Evidence shows that delirium is a strong predictor of increased length of mechanical
ventilation, longer ICU stays, increased cost, long-term cognitive impairment, and
mortality (Fig. 3).19,44–47 The cumulative effect of multiple days of delirium on mortality
may be multiplicative, rather than additive.48
Numerous risk factors for delirium have been identified, including preexisting
cognitive impairment; advanced age; use of psychoactive drugs; mechanical ventila-
tion; untreated pain; and a variety of medical conditions, such as heart failure, pro-
longed immobilization, abnormal blood pressure, anemia, sleep deprivation, and
sepsis.42,49 The most frequent risk factor was the use of benzodiazepines or
234 Marra et al
Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) Flowsheet
1. Acute Change or Fluctuating Course of Mental Status:

NO CAM-ICU negative
• Is there an acute change from mental status baseline? OR
• Has the patient’s mental status fluctuated during the past 24 h?
NO DELIRIUM
YES
2. Inattention:
• “Squeeze my hand when I say the letter ‘A’.”
Read the following sequence of letters:
0 –2 CAM-ICU negative
S A V E A H A A R T or C A S A B L A N C A or A B A D B A D A A Y Errors NO DELIRIUM
ERRORS: No squeeze with ‘A’ & Squeeze on letter other than ‘A’
• If unable to complete Letters Æ Pictures
>2 Errors
3. Altered Level of Consciousness RASS other CAM-ICU positive

Current RASS level than zero DELIRIUM Present
RASS = zero
4. Disorganized Thinking:
1. Will a stone float on water? >1 Error
2. Are there fish in the sea?
3. Does one pound weigh more than two?
4. Can you use a hammer to pound a nail?
0 –1
Command: “Hold up this many fingers” (Hold up 2 fingers) Error
“Now do the same thing with the other hand” (Do not demonstrate) CAM-ICU negative
OR “Add one more finger” (If patient unable to move both arms) NO DELIRIUM
Fig. 2. (A) Confusion assessment method for the ICU (CAM-ICU). (B) Intensive Care
Delirium Screening checklist. Normal, 0; delirium, 4–8; subsyndromal delirium, 1–3. Score
your patient over the entire shift. Components do not all need to be present at the same
time. Components 1 through 4 cannot be completed when the patient is deeply sedated
or comatose (ie, SAS 5 1 or 2; RASS 5 4 or 5); Components 5 through 8 are based on
observations throughout the entire shift. Information from the prior 24 hours should be
obtained for components 7 and 8. ([A] Courtesy of E. Wesley, MD, MPH and Vanderbilt
University, Nashville, TN; and [B] Adapted from Bergeron N, Dubois MJ, Dumont M,
et al. Intensive care delirium screening checklist: evaluation of a new screening tool.
Intensive Care Med 2001;27(5):859–64; and Ouimet S, Riker R, Bergeron N, et al. Sub-
syndromal delirium in the ICU: evidence for a disease spectrum. Intensive Care Med
2007;33:1007–13.)
narcotics (98%).44 The mean number of identified risk factors for delirium in these pa-
tients was 11 4 with a range of 3 to 17 risk factors present. Patients with three or
more risk factors were considered at high risk for delirium.42,49,50 In delirious patients,
a systematic protocolized search for all reversible precipitants is the first line of action
and symptomatic treatment should be considered when available and not contrain-
dicated (Fig. 4).51
Antipsychotics, especially haloperidol, are commonly administered for the treat-
ment of delirium in critically ill patients. However, evidence for the safety and efficacy
of antipsychotics in this patient population is lacking. Moreover, the 2013 PAD
Guidelines include no specific recommendations for using any particular medica-
tion.6 Ely and colleagues are conducting the MIND-USA (Modifying the Impact of
ICU-Induced Neurologic Dysfunction-USA) Study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier
NCT01211522) to define the role of antipsychotics in the management of delirium
in vulnerable critically ill patients.
Delirium prophylaxis with medications is discouraged in the PAD guidelines.
Recently, a prospective, randomized, multicenter trial compared a low-dose
No of events/total
Study or Subgroup Patients with Patients Mantel-Haenszel Weight Mantel-Haenszel
delirium without delirium random risk (%) random risk
b
)
Test for heterogeneity: τ χ p

p
Without With
deliriu m deliriu m
Fig. 3. Impact of delirium on hospital mortality in critically ill patients. CI, confidence inter-
val. (From Salluh JI, Wang H, Schneider EB, et al. Outcome of delirium in critically ill patients:
systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2015;350:h2538.)
haloperidol infusion administered for 12 hours (0.5-mg intravenous bolus injection

followed by continuous infusion at a rate of 0.1 mg/h; n 5 229 patients) with placebo
(n 5 228 patients) in the immediate postoperative period. This study provided evi-
dence that haloperidol could reduce the incidence of delirium within the first
7 days postoperatively in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery (15.3% in the
haloperidol group vs 23.2% in the control group; P 5 .031).52 By contrast, another
ICU study showed no benefit of early administration of intravenous haloperidol in
a mixed population of medical and surgical adult ICU patients.53 In this double-
blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial, 142 patients were randomized to
receive haloperidol or placebo intravenously every 8 hours irrespective of coma or
delirium status. Patients in the haloperidol group spent about the same number of
days alive, without delirium or coma, as did patients in the placebo group (median,
5 days [interquartile range, 0–10] vs 6 days [0–11] days; P 5 .53).
The only strategy strongly recommended in the PAD Guidelines to reduce the inci-
dence and duration of ICU delirium and to improve functional outcomes is promoting
sleep hygiene to prevent sleep disruption and the use of early and progressive mobi-
lization in these patients.
236
DELIRIUM PROTOCOL
Marra et al
Perform Delirium Assessment via CAM-ICU
Delirious (CAM-ICU positive)

Non-delirious Stupor or coma while on sedative
(CAM-ICU negative) Consider differential diagnosis (Dr. DRE or THINK)1 or analgesic drugs 7
(RASS -4 or -5)
Treat pain and anxiety if

Remove deliriogenic drugs 2
indicated via pain score4 Does the patient require deep sedation or
Non-pharmacological protocol 3
or RASS analgosedation?
RASS +2 to +4 RASS -1 to -3 Yes No
Is the patient in pain?4 Reassess target

RASS 0 to +1 sedation goal Perform SAT 8
every shift
Yes No Assure adequate pain
control 4 Consider typical If tolerates SAT, perform SBT 9
Reassess target sedation goal
Give analgesic 5 or atypical antipsychotics 6

and perform SAT 8
Give adequate sedative for safety if

required and titrate to goal RASS If tolerates SAT, perform SBT 9
Consider typical or
atypical antipsychotics 6
1. Dr. DRE: Non-pharmacological protocol3

Diseases: Sepsis, CHF, COPD Orientation
Drug Removal: SATs and stopping benzodiazepines/narcotics Provide visual and hearing aids
Environment: Immobilization, sleep and day/night orientation, hearing aids, eye Encourage communication and reorient
glasses, noise patient repetitively Have familiar
THINK: objects from patient’s home in the room
Toxic Situations – CHF, shock, dehydration – Deliriogenic meds (tight titration) – Attempt consistency in nursing staff
New organ failure (liver, kidney, etc) Family engagement and empowerment
Hypoxemia;
Environment
Infection/sepsis (nosocomial), Immobilization
Nonpharmacological interventions3 Sleep hygiene: Lights off at night, on during day.
K+ or Electrolvte problems Control excess noise (staff, equipment), earplugs
Early Mobilization and exercise
2. Consider stopping or substituting deliriogenic medications such as benzodiazepines, anticholinergic medications (metoclopromide, H2 blockers, promethazine, diphenhydramine), steroids, etc.
Music
3. See non pharmacological protocol – see below saturations>90%
4. If patient is non-verbal assess via CPOT or if patient is verbal assess via visual analog scale Treat underlying metabolic derangements and infections
5. Analgesia – Adequate pain control may decrease delirium. Consider opiates, non-steroidals, acetaminophen or gabapentin (neuropathic pain) ABCDEF Bundle
6. Typical or atypical antipsychotics. There is no evidence that haloperidol decreases the duration of delirium. Atypical antipsychotics may decrease the duration of delirium. http://www.icudelirium.org/medicalprofessionals.html
Discontinue if high fever, QTc prolongation, or drug-induced rigidity.
7. Consider non-benzodiazepine sedation strategies (propofol or dexmedetomidine)
8. Spontaneous Awakening Trial (SAT) –If meets safety criteria (No active seizures, no alcohol withdrawal, no agitation, no paralytics, no myocardial ischemia, normal intracranial pressure, Fio2 ≤70%)
9. Spontaneous Breathing Trial (SBT) – If meets safety criteria (No agitation, No myocardial ischemia, FiO2 ≤50%, adequate inspiratory efforts, O2 saturation ≥ 88%, no vasopressor use, PEEP ≤ 7.5 cm)
Fig. 4. Sample delirium protocol. CPAP, continuous positive airway pressure; EKG, electrocardiogram; PEEP, positive end-expiratory pressure; PS, Pressure
Support. (From ICU Delirium, Vanderbilt University. Available at: www.ICUdelerium.org. Accessed December 29, 2016.)
EARLY MOBILITY
Early mobility is an integral part of the ABCDEF bundle and has been the only inter-
vention resulting in a decrease in days of delirium.54 During ICU stay critically ill pa-
tients can lose up to 25% peripheral muscle weakness within 4 days when
mechanically ventilated and 18% in body weight by the time of discharge and this
process is higher in the first 2 to 3 weeks of immobilization.55 The consequence of
physical dysfunction in critically ill patients is profound and long-term with significant
reduction in functional status being observed even 1 year and 5 years after ICU
discharge.56–58
ICU-acquired weakness is caused by many different pathophysiologic mechanisms
that are not mutually exclusive given the diverse diseases that precipitate critical
illness, the drugs used during its management, and the consequences of protracted
immobility.54 The reported incidence of ICU-acquired weakness ranges from 25%
to 100%.59,60 The diagnosis of ICU-acquired weakness is made by the Medical
Research Council scale for grading the strength (ie, 0 [total palsy] to 5 [normal
strength]) of various muscle groups in the upper and lower extremities. The scale
ranges from 0 (complete tetraplegia) to 60 (normal muscle strength), with a score
less than 48 diagnostic of ICU-acquired weakness.61 Patients with ICU-acquired
weakness should undergo serial evaluations, and if persistent deficits are noted, elec-
trophysiologic studies, muscle biopsy, or both are warranted.54
Although clinical providers may have fears about early mobilization, there is good
evidence regarding the strategy of minimizing sedation and increasing the physical ac-
tivity of ICU patients to the point of getting up and out of bed.54 Physical therapy has
shown to be feasible and safe, even in the most complicated patients receiving the
most advanced medical therapies (eg, continuous renal-replacement therapy, extra-
corporeal cardiopulmonary support).62,63 Early activity can be done without increases
in usual ICU staffing and with a low risk (<1%) of complications.64 Studying patients
early in the their course of mechanical ventilation (<3 days), Schweickert and col-
leagues65 showed that a daily SAT combined with physical and occupational therapy,
versus SAT alone, resulted in an improved return to independent functional status at
hospital discharge, shorter duration of ICU-delirium, higher survival, and more days
breathing without assistance. However, in a study where ICU patients were enrolled
4 days after the initiation of mechanical ventilation (average, 8 days), an intensive
physical therapy program did not improve long-term physical functioning when
compared with a standard of care program.66 Although both these studies demon-
strated feasibility of physical therapy, it may be more effective to embark on physical
therapy early in the ICU course, rather than later when it is much more challenging to
improve ICU-acquired weakness.65,66
The focus on rehabilitation of critically ill patients should begin in the ICU and
continue all the way to recovery at home. The close collaboration and coordination
with medicine, nursing, and physical therapists is fundamental for an efficacy and
safe strategy.62 This is particularly important because the burden of illness affects
not only the patient but also his or her family or other caregivers.54
FAMILY ENGAGEMENT
The ABCDE bundle has evolved to include family engagement, because no ICU treat-
ment plan is complete without incorporation of the family’s wishes, concerns, ques-
tions, and participation. Family members and surrogate decision makers must
become active partners in multiprofessional decision-making and treatment planning.
238 Marra et al
Through this partnership, patients’ preferences are identified, the anxiety of families is
lessened, and physicians can have appropriate input into decisions.67
Family presence on ICU rounds is beneficial, and it does not interfere with educa-
tion and communication process.68 Families have reported increased feelings of in-
clusion, respect, and having a better understanding of their loved one’s care.
Nurses have indicated satisfaction with team communication and facilitation of fam-
ily relationships.69 Several studies suggested that increased focus on communica-
tion with family members, through routine ICU family conferences, palliative care
consultation, or ethics consultation, can reduce ICU length of stay for those patients
whose trajectory is ultimately mortal.70–73 One study of communication occurring
during ICU family conferences sought to understand how ICU clinicians conduct
communication concerning withdrawing life-sustaining treatments or the delivery
of bad news, and how this communication might be improved.74 Most clinicians
failed to listen and respond appropriately, failed to acknowledge the expression
of family members’ emotions, and failed to explain key tenets of palliative care.
An important missed opportunity when communicating with families is exploring pa-
tient treatment preferences that are key to clinical decision making in the ICU
setting.74
Ethics and palliative care consultations have been introduced into the practice of
medicine during the past several decades as a way to help health care professionals,
patients, and surrogates come to a decision about medical treatment ensuring that the
process of decision making is inclusive, educational, respectful of cultural values, and
reflect appropriate resource utilization. When ethics consultation have been used, they
have been associated with reductions in hospital and ICU lengths of stay, and more
frequent decisions to forgo life-sustaining treatment.72,75 When tackling treatment
conflicts, most (87%) ICU physicians, nurses, and patients/surrogates agreed that
ethics consultations are helpful. However, in a recent randomized study in four med-
ical ICUs in those receiving mechanical ventilation for greater than 1 week, family
discussions conducted by palliative care specialists (intervention) versus standard
ICU-led family discussions (control) did not alter anxiety or depression symptoms in
surrogate decision makers.76
Beyond sharing of communication, family presence has been encouraged in trau-
matizing medical events and procedures, such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation
(CPR). In some studies, the family presence during CPR is associated with positive re-
sults on psychological variables, and did not interfere with medical efforts, increase
stress in the health care team, or result in medicolegal conflicts. In fact, relatives
who did not witness CPR had symptoms of anxiety and depression more frequently
than those who did witness CPR.77
Critical illness usually impacts not only an individual, but their entire support system,
which may or may not be their nuclear family, or some combination of family and
friends or other caregivers who are actively engaged in supportive roles. In light of
this, it is crucial not only to recognize the needs of the identified patient but also the
needs of their family.
SUMMARY
The core evidence and features behind the ABCDEF bundle have been reviewed,
which was created to combat the adverse effects of critical illness related to acute
and chronic brain dysfunction. The ABCDEF bundle represents one method of
approaching the organizational changes that create a culture shift in treatment of
ICU patients. The multifold potential benefits of these recommended strategies
outweigh minimal risks of costs and coordination. Ultimately, the ABCDEF bundle is
one path to well-rounded patient care and optimal resource utilization resulting in
more interactive ICU patients with better pain control, who can safely participate
with their families and health care providers in higher-order physical and cognitive ac-
tivities at the earliest point in their critical illness.
REFERENCES
1. Ehlenbach WJ, Hough CL, Crane PK, et al. Association between acute care and
critical illness hospitalization and cognitive function in older adults. JAMA 2010;
303(8):763–70.
2. Patel MB, Jackson JC, Morandi A, et al. Incidence and risk factors for intensive
care unit-related post-traumatic stress disorder in veterans and civilians. Am J
Respir Crit Care Med 2016;193(12):1373–81.
3. Jackson JC, Pandharipande PP, Girard TD, et al. Depression, post-traumatic
stress disorder, and functional disability in survivors of critical illness in the
BRAIN-ICU study: a longitudinal cohort study. Lancet Respir Med 2014;2(5):
369–79.
4. Pandharipande PP, Girard TD, Jackson JC, et al. Long-term cognitive impairment
after critical illness. N Engl J Med 2013;369(14):1306–16.
5. Covinsky KE, Pierluissi E, Johnston CB. Hospitalization-associated disability:
“She was probably able to ambulate, but I’m not sure. JAMA 2011;306(16):
1782–93.
6. Barr J, Fraser GL, Puntillo K, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the manage-
ment of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit.
Crit Care Med 2013;41(1):263–306.
7. Payen JF, Chanques G, Mantz J, et al. Current practices in sedation and anal-
gesia for mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a prospective multicenter
patient-based study. Anesthesiology 2007;106(4):687–95.
8. Chanques G, Viel E, Constantin JM, et al. The measurement of pain in intensive
care unit: comparison of 5 self-report intensity scales. Pain 2010;151(3):711–21.
9. Puntillo KA, Max A, Timsit JF, et al. Determinants of procedural pain intensity in
the intensive care unit. The Europain(R) study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med
2014;189(1):39–47.
10. Gelinas C, Fillion L, Puntillo KA, et al. Validation of the critical-care pain observa-
tion tool in adult patients. Am J Crit Care 2006;15(4):420–7.
11. 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(6):1691–9.
12. Payen JF, Bosson JL, Chanques G, et al. 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(6):1308–16.
13. Erstad BL, Puntillo K, Gilbert HC, et al. Pain management principles in the criti-
cally ill. Chest 2009;135(4):1075–86.
14. 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(20):1471–7.
15. Shehabi Y, Bellomo R, Reade MC, et al. Early intensive care sedation predicts
long-term mortality in ventilated critically ill patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med
2012;186(8):724–31.
240 Marra et al
16. Tanaka LM, Azevedo LC, Park M, et al. Early sedation and clinical outcomes of
mechanically ventilated patients: a prospective multicenter cohort study. Crit
Care 2014;18(4):R156.
17. Balzer F, Weiss B, Kumpf O, et al. Early deep sedation is associated with
decreased in-hospital and two-year follow-up survival. Crit Care 2015;19:197.
18. Pandharipande P, Banerjee A, McGrane S, et al. Liberation and animation for
ventilated ICU patients: the ABCDE bundle for the back-end of critical care.
Crit Care 2010;14(3):157.
19. Ely EW, Baker AM, Dunagan DP, et al. Effect on the duration of mechanical venti-
lation of identifying patients capable of breathing spontaneously. N Engl J Med
1996;335(25):1864–9.
20. 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(9607):126–34.
21. Mehta S, Burry L, Cook D, et al. Daily sedation interruption in mechanically venti-
lated critically ill patients cared for with a sedation protocol: a randomized
controlled trial. JAMA 2012;308(19):1985–92.
22. Hughes CG, Girard TD, Pandharipande PP. Daily sedation interruption versus tar-
geted light sedation strategies in ICU patients. Crit Care Med 2013;41(9 Suppl 1):
S39–45.
23. Strøm T, Martinussen T, Toft P. A protocol of no sedation for critically ill patients
receiving mechanical ventilation: a randomised trial. Lancet 2010;375(9713):
475–80.
24. Khan BA, Guzman O, Campbell NL, et al. Comparison and agreement between
the Richmond agitation-sedation scale and the Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale in
evaluating patients’ eligibility for delirium assessment in the ICU. Chest 2012;
142(1):48–54.
25. Ely EW, Truman B, Shintani A, et al. Monitoring sedation status over time in ICU pa-
tients: reliability and validity of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS).
JAMA 2003;289(22):2983–91.
26. Kollef MH, Levy NT, Ahrens TS, et al. The use of continuous IV sedation is asso-
ciated with prolongation of mechanical ventilation. Chest 1998;114(2):541–8.
27. Dale CR, Kannas DA, Fan VS, et al. Improved analgesia, sedation, and delirium
protocol associated with decreased duration of delirium and mechanical ventila-
tion. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2014;11(3):367–74.
28. 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(1):21–6.
29. Seymour CW, Pandharipande PP, Koestner T, et al. Diurnal sedative changes dur-
ing intensive care: impact on liberation from mechanical ventilation and delirium.
Crit Care Med 2012;40(10):2788–96.
30. Riker RR, Shehabi Y, Bokesch PM, et al. Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam for
sedation of critically ill patients: a randomized trial. JAMA 2009;301(5):489–99.
31. Pandharipande PP, Pun BT, Herr DL, et al. Effect of sedation with dexmedetomi-
dine vs lorazepam on acute brain dysfunction in mechanically ventilated patients:
the MENDS randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2007;298(22):2644–53.
32. Pandharipande PP, Sanders RD, Girard TD, et al. Effect of dexmedetomidine
versus lorazepam on outcome in patients with sepsis: an a priori-designed anal-
ysis of the MENDS randomized controlled trial. Crit Care 2010;14(2):R38.
33. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders: DSM-5. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013.
34. Gusmao-Flores D, Salluh JI, Chalhub RA, et al. The Confusion Assessment
Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and Intensive Care Delirium
Screening Checklist (ICDSC) for the diagnosis of delirium: a systematic review
and meta-analysis of clinical studies. Crit Care 2012;16(4):R115.
35. Ely EW, Inouye SK, Bernard GR, et al. Delirium in mechanically ventilated pa-
tients: validity and reliability of the confusion assessment method for the intensive
care unit (CAM-ICU). JAMA 2001;286(21):2703–10.
36. Mitasova A, Kostalova M, Bednarik J, et al. Poststroke delirium incidence and out-
comes: validation of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care
Unit (CAM-ICU). Crit Care Med 2012;40(2):484–90.
37. Naidech AM, Beaumont JL, Rosenberg NF, et al. Intracerebral hemorrhage and
delirium symptoms. Length of stay, function, and quality of life in a 114-patient
cohort. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013;188(11):1331–7.
38. Han JH, Wilson A, Graves AJ, et al. Validation of the Confusion Assessment
Method for the Intensive Care Unit in older emergency department patients.
Acad Emerg Med 2014;21(2):180–7.
39. Smith HA, Boyd J, Fuchs DC, et al. Diagnosing delirium in critically ill children:
validity and reliability of the pediatric confusion assessment method for the Inten-
sive Care Unit. Crit Care Med 2011;39(1):150–7.
40. Smith HA, Gangopadhyay M, Goben CM, et al. The Preschool Confusion Assess-
ment Method for the ICU: valid and reliable delirium monitoring for critically ill In-
fants and children. Crit Care Med 2016;44(3):592–600.
41. Pun BT, Ely EW. The importance of diagnosing and managing ICU delirium. Chest
2007;132(2):624–36.
42. Marcantonio ER, Goldman L, Mangione CM, et al. A clinical prediction rule for
delirium after elective noncardiac surgery. JAMA 1994;271(2):134–9.
43. Ouimet S, Riker R, Bergeron N, et al. Subsyndromal delirium in the ICU: evidence
for a disease spectrum. Intensive Care Med 2007;33(6):1007–13.
44. Ely EW, Shintani A, Truman B, et al. Delirium as a predictor of mortality in mechan-
ically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit. JAMA 2004;291(14):1753–62.
45. Jackson JC, Hart RP, Gordon SM, et al. Six-month neuropsychological outcome
of medical intensive care unit patients. Crit Care Med 2003;31(4):1226–34.
46. Lin SM, Liu CY, Wang CH, et al. The impact of delirium on the survival of mechan-
ically ventilated patients. Crit Care Med 2004;32(11):2254–9.
47. Salluh JI, Wang H, Schneider EB, et al. Outcome of delirium in critically ill pa-
tients: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2015;350:h2538.
48. Pisani MA, Kong SY, Kasl SV, et al. Days of delirium are associated with 1-year
mortality in an older intensive care unit population. Am J Respir Crit Care Med
2009;180(11):1092–7.
49. Inouye SK, Charpentier PA. Precipitating factors for delirium in hospitalized
elderly persons. Predictive model and interrelationship with baseline vulnerability.
JAMA 1996;275(11):852–7.
50. Inouye SK, Viscoli CM, Horwitz RI, et al. A predictive model for delirium in hospi-
talized elderly medical patients based on admission characteristics. Ann Intern
Med 1993;119(6):474–81.
51. Ely EW, Gautam S, Margolin R, et al. The impact of delirium in the intensive care
unit on hospital length of stay. Intensive Care Med 2001;27(12):1892–900.
242 Marra et al
52. Wang W, Li HL, Wang DX, et al. Haloperidol prophylaxis decreases delirium inci-
dence in elderly patients after noncardiac surgery: a randomized controlled trial*.
Crit Care Med 2012;40(3):731–9.
53. 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(7):515–23.
54. Kress JP, Hall JB. ICU-acquired weakness and recovery from critical illness.
N Engl J Med 2014;371(3):287–8.
55. Morris PE. Moving our critically ill patients: mobility barriers and benefits. Crit
Care Clin 2007;23(1):1–20.
56. Herridge MS, Cheung AM, Tansey CM, et al. One-year outcomes in survivors of
the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2003;348(8):683–93.
57. Herridge MS, Tansey CM, Matte A, et al. Functional disability 5 years after acute
respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med 2011;364(14):1293–304.
58. Sacanella E, Perez-Castejon JM, Nicolas JM, et al. Functional status and quality
of life 12 months after discharge from a medical ICU in healthy elderly patients: a
prospective observational study. Crit Care 2011;15(2):R105.
59. De Jonghe B, Sharshar T, Lefaucheur JP, et al. Paresis acquired in the intensive
care unit: a prospective multicenter study. JAMA 2002;288(22):2859–67.
60. Bednarik J, Vondracek P, Dusek L, et al. Risk factors for critical illness polyneur-
omyopathy. J Neurol 2005;252(3):343–51.
61. Kleyweg RP, van der Meche FG, Schmitz PI. Interobserver agreement in the
assessment of muscle strength and functional abilities in Guillain-Barre syn-
drome. Muscle Nerve 1991;14(11):1103–9.
62. Dammeyer J, Dickinson S, Packard D, et al. Building a protocol to guide mobility
in the ICU. Crit Care Nurs Q 2013;36(1):37–49.
63. Freeman R, Maley K. Mobilization of intensive care cardiac surgery patients on
mechanical circulatory support. Crit Care Nurs Q 2013;36(1):73–88.
64. Bailey P, Thomsen GE, Spuhler VJ, et al. Early activity is feasible and safe in res-
piratory failure patients. Crit Care Med 2007;35(1):139–45.
65. Schweickert WD, Pohlman MC, Pohlman AS, et al. Early physical and occupa-
tional therapy in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a randomised
controlled trial. Lancet 2009;373(9678):1874–82.
66. Moss M, Nordon-Craft A, Malone D, et al. A randomized trial of an intensive phys-
ical therapy program for acute respiratory failure patients. Am J Respir Crit Care
Med 2015;193(10):1101–10.
67. Davidson JE, Powers K, Hedayat KM, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for sup-
port of the family in the patient-centered intensive care unit: American College of
Critical Care Medicine Task Force 2004-2005. Crit Care Med 2007;35(2):605–22.
68. Phipps LM, Bartke CN, Spear DA, et al. Assessment of parental presence during
bedside pediatric intensive care unit rounds: effect on duration, teaching, and
privacy. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2007;8(3):220–4.
69. Cameron MA, Schleien CL, Morris MC. Parental presence on pediatric intensive
care unit rounds. J Pediatr 2009;155(4):522–8.
70. Lilly CM, De Meo DL, Sonna LA, et al. An intensive communication intervention for
the critically ill. Am J Med 2000;109(6):469–75.
71. Campbell ML, Guzman JA. Impact of a proactive approach to improve end-of-life
care in a medical ICU. Chest 2003;123(1):266–71.
72. Schneiderman LJ, Gilmer T, Teetzel HD, et al. Effect of ethics consultations on
nonbeneficial life-sustaining treatments in the intensive care setting: a random-
ized controlled trial. JAMA 2003;290(9):1166–72.
73. Schneiderman LJ, Gilmer T, Teetzel HD. Impact of ethics consultations in the
intensive care setting: a randomized, controlled trial. Crit Care Med 2000;
28(12):3920–4.
74. Curtis JR, Engelberg RA, Wenrich MD, et al. Missed opportunities during family
conferences about end-of-life care in the intensive care unit. Am J Respir Crit
Care Med 2005;171(8):844–9.
75. Dowdy MD, Robertson C, Bander JA. A study of proactive ethics consultation for
critically and terminally ill patients with extended lengths of stay. Crit Care Med
1998;26(2):252–9.
76. Carson SS, Cox CE, Wallenstein S, et al. Effect of palliative care-led meetings for
families of patients with chronic critical illness: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA
2016;316(1):51–62.
77. Jabre P, Belpomme V, Azoulay E, et al. Family presence during cardiopulmonary
resuscitation. N Engl J Med 2013;368(11):1008–18.

ABCDEF Critical Care

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ABCDEF Critical Care

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ABCDEF Critical Care

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The ABCDEF Bundle in

Crit Care Clin 33 (2017) 225–243

Preillness determinants of functional reserve (vulnerability and capacity to recover)

ASSESS, PREVENT, AND MANAGE PAIN

ICU patients commonly experience pain, with an incidence of up to 50% in surgical

Critical Pain Observational Tool (CPOT)

Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS)

BOTH SPONTANEOUS AWAKENING TRIALS AND SPONTANEOUS BREATHING TRIALS

CHOICE OF ANALGESIA AND SEDATION

sedatives, particularly benzodiazepines, and improved patient outcomes.15,17,26,27

Abbreviation: ETT, endotracheal tube.

the duration of mechanical ventilation in patients sedated with dexmedetomidine

delirium or coma, but without differences in mortality or ventilator-free days. Notably,

DELIRIUM—ASSESS, PREVENT, AND MANAGE

An important third element in the PAD guidelines is monitoring and management of

Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) Flowsheet

1. Acute Change or Fluctuating Course of Mental Status:

• If unable to complete Letters Æ Pictures

3. Altered Level of Consciousness RASS other CAM-ICU positive

Test for heterogeneity: τ χ p

haloperidol infusion administered for 12 hours (0.5-mg intravenous bolus injection

Delirious (CAM-ICU positive)

Treat pain and anxiety if

RASS +2 to +4 RASS -1 to -3 Yes No

Is the patient in pain?4 Reassess target

Give analgesic 5 or atypical antipsychotics 6

Give adequate sedative for safety if

1. Dr. DRE: Non-pharmacological protocol3

33. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

You might also like