The correlation among the Ramsay sedation scale, Richmond agitation sedation scale and Riker sedation agitation scale during midazolam-remifentanil sedation

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Namigar,Turgut
Publication Date: 2017
Other Authors: Serap,Karacalar, Esra,Akdaş Tekin, Özgül,Odacılar, Can,Öztürk Ali, Aysel,Ak, Achmet,Ali
Format: Article
Language: eng
Source: Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
Download full: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942017000400347
Summary: Abstract Background and objectives: Sedative and analgesic treatment administered to critically ill patients need to be regularly assessed to ensure that previously stated goals are well achieved as the risk of complications of oversedation is minimized. We revised and prospectively tested the Ramsay Sedation scale (RSS) for interrater reliability and compared it with the Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) and the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) to test construct validity during midazolam-remifentanil sedation. Methods: A convenience sample of ICU patients was simultaneously and independently examined by pairs of trained evaluators by using the revised SAS, RSS, and RASS. Ninety-two ICU patients were examined a total of 276 times by evaluator pairs. Results: The mean patient age was 61.32 ± 18.68 years, 45,7% were female (n = 42), 54.3% male (n = 50). Their APACHE values varied between 3 and 39 with an average of 13.27 ± 7.86 and 75% of the cases were under mechanical ventilation. When classified by using RSS (2.70 ± 1.28), 10.9% were anxious or agitated (RSS1), 68.5% were calm (RSS 2-3), and 20.6% were sedated (RSS 4-6). When classified by using RASS (-0.64 ± 1.58), 20.7% were anxious or agitated (RASS+1 to +4), 63.0% were calm (RASS 0 to -2), and 16.3% were sedated (RASS -3 to -5). When classified by using SAS (2.63 ± 1.00), 12% were anxious or agitated (SAS 5-7), 57.6% were calm (SAS 4), and 30.4% were sedated (SAS 1-3). RSS was correlated with the SAS (r = -0.656, p < 0.001) and RASS was correlated with the SAS (r = 0.565, p < 0.001). RSS was highly correlated with the RASS (r = -0.664, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Ramsay is both reliable and valid (high correlation with the RASS and SAS scales) in assessing agitation and sedation in adult ICU patients.
id SBA-1_644a65dd653a27a9e69bc34aca435202
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S0034-70942017000400347
network_acronym_str SBA-1
network_name_str Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
repository_id_str
spelling The correlation among the Ramsay sedation scale, Richmond agitation sedation scale and Riker sedation agitation scale during midazolam-remifentanil sedationCritically illSedation scaleValidityReliabilityAbstract Background and objectives: Sedative and analgesic treatment administered to critically ill patients need to be regularly assessed to ensure that previously stated goals are well achieved as the risk of complications of oversedation is minimized. We revised and prospectively tested the Ramsay Sedation scale (RSS) for interrater reliability and compared it with the Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) and the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) to test construct validity during midazolam-remifentanil sedation. Methods: A convenience sample of ICU patients was simultaneously and independently examined by pairs of trained evaluators by using the revised SAS, RSS, and RASS. Ninety-two ICU patients were examined a total of 276 times by evaluator pairs. Results: The mean patient age was 61.32 ± 18.68 years, 45,7% were female (n = 42), 54.3% male (n = 50). Their APACHE values varied between 3 and 39 with an average of 13.27 ± 7.86 and 75% of the cases were under mechanical ventilation. When classified by using RSS (2.70 ± 1.28), 10.9% were anxious or agitated (RSS1), 68.5% were calm (RSS 2-3), and 20.6% were sedated (RSS 4-6). When classified by using RASS (-0.64 ± 1.58), 20.7% were anxious or agitated (RASS+1 to +4), 63.0% were calm (RASS 0 to -2), and 16.3% were sedated (RASS -3 to -5). When classified by using SAS (2.63 ± 1.00), 12% were anxious or agitated (SAS 5-7), 57.6% were calm (SAS 4), and 30.4% were sedated (SAS 1-3). RSS was correlated with the SAS (r = -0.656, p < 0.001) and RASS was correlated with the SAS (r = 0.565, p < 0.001). RSS was highly correlated with the RASS (r = -0.664, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Ramsay is both reliable and valid (high correlation with the RASS and SAS scales) in assessing agitation and sedation in adult ICU patients.Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia2017-07-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942017000400347Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia v.67 n.4 2017reponame:Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)instacron:SBA10.1016/j.bjane.2016.07.002info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessNamigar,TurgutSerap,KaracalarEsra,Akdaş TekinÖzgül,OdacılarCan,Öztürk AliAysel,AkAchmet,Alieng2018-02-01T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S0034-70942017000400347Revistahttps://www.sbahq.org/revista/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||sba2000@openlink.com.br1806-907X0034-7094opendoar:2018-02-01T00:00Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv The correlation among the Ramsay sedation scale, Richmond agitation sedation scale and Riker sedation agitation scale during midazolam-remifentanil sedation
title The correlation among the Ramsay sedation scale, Richmond agitation sedation scale and Riker sedation agitation scale during midazolam-remifentanil sedation
spellingShingle The correlation among the Ramsay sedation scale, Richmond agitation sedation scale and Riker sedation agitation scale during midazolam-remifentanil sedation
Namigar,Turgut
Critically ill
Sedation scale
Validity
Reliability
title_short The correlation among the Ramsay sedation scale, Richmond agitation sedation scale and Riker sedation agitation scale during midazolam-remifentanil sedation
title_full The correlation among the Ramsay sedation scale, Richmond agitation sedation scale and Riker sedation agitation scale during midazolam-remifentanil sedation
title_fullStr The correlation among the Ramsay sedation scale, Richmond agitation sedation scale and Riker sedation agitation scale during midazolam-remifentanil sedation
title_full_unstemmed The correlation among the Ramsay sedation scale, Richmond agitation sedation scale and Riker sedation agitation scale during midazolam-remifentanil sedation
title_sort The correlation among the Ramsay sedation scale, Richmond agitation sedation scale and Riker sedation agitation scale during midazolam-remifentanil sedation
author Namigar,Turgut
author_facet Namigar,Turgut
Serap,Karacalar
Esra,Akdaş Tekin
Özgül,Odacılar
Can,Öztürk Ali
Aysel,Ak
Achmet,Ali
author_role author
author2 Serap,Karacalar
Esra,Akdaş Tekin
Özgül,Odacılar
Can,Öztürk Ali
Aysel,Ak
Achmet,Ali
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Namigar,Turgut
Serap,Karacalar
Esra,Akdaş Tekin
Özgül,Odacılar
Can,Öztürk Ali
Aysel,Ak
Achmet,Ali
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Critically ill
Sedation scale
Validity
Reliability
topic Critically ill
Sedation scale
Validity
Reliability
description Abstract Background and objectives: Sedative and analgesic treatment administered to critically ill patients need to be regularly assessed to ensure that previously stated goals are well achieved as the risk of complications of oversedation is minimized. We revised and prospectively tested the Ramsay Sedation scale (RSS) for interrater reliability and compared it with the Sedation-Agitation Scale (SAS) and the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) to test construct validity during midazolam-remifentanil sedation. Methods: A convenience sample of ICU patients was simultaneously and independently examined by pairs of trained evaluators by using the revised SAS, RSS, and RASS. Ninety-two ICU patients were examined a total of 276 times by evaluator pairs. Results: The mean patient age was 61.32 ± 18.68 years, 45,7% were female (n = 42), 54.3% male (n = 50). Their APACHE values varied between 3 and 39 with an average of 13.27 ± 7.86 and 75% of the cases were under mechanical ventilation. When classified by using RSS (2.70 ± 1.28), 10.9% were anxious or agitated (RSS1), 68.5% were calm (RSS 2-3), and 20.6% were sedated (RSS 4-6). When classified by using RASS (-0.64 ± 1.58), 20.7% were anxious or agitated (RASS+1 to +4), 63.0% were calm (RASS 0 to -2), and 16.3% were sedated (RASS -3 to -5). When classified by using SAS (2.63 ± 1.00), 12% were anxious or agitated (SAS 5-7), 57.6% were calm (SAS 4), and 30.4% were sedated (SAS 1-3). RSS was correlated with the SAS (r = -0.656, p < 0.001) and RASS was correlated with the SAS (r = 0.565, p < 0.001). RSS was highly correlated with the RASS (r = -0.664, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Ramsay is both reliable and valid (high correlation with the RASS and SAS scales) in assessing agitation and sedation in adult ICU patients.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017-07-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942017000400347
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0034-70942017000400347
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1016/j.bjane.2016.07.002
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia v.67 n.4 2017
reponame:Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)
instacron:SBA
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)
instacron_str SBA
institution SBA
reponame_str Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
collection Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv Revista Brasileira de Anestesiologia (Online) - Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||sba2000@openlink.com.br
_version_ 1752126629402902528