t, where CAM evaluable (Richmond agitation and sedation score of 4 rousable at least sufficient to evaluate. Sedatives in the last 24 hours have been recorded. Statistical significance was determined using Fisher’s exact test RESULTS. 186 reviews of 45 patients were f performed during 6 weeks, with 117 of them (63% of patients  <a href=”http://www.selleckbio.com/belinostat-S1085.html”>PXD101 Belinostat</a> were rousable sufficient to cause an intensive care unit CAM. In 16 of 117 ICUs phone start-up estimates cam (14% of patients were delirious, and 12 of them (75 % delirium were hypoactive type (patient or calm schl frig 11 of 45 patients (24% had delirium at least once. 7 of 24 assessments (29% of patients had back u is an agonist of GABA in the last 24 hours were positive for delirium, compared with 7 of 66 evaluations (11% of patients who again u no drugs in the last 24 hours (p0.<br>047, and two evaluations of 27 (7.4% in patients u contains no sedation lt had the GABA-agonist (p0.066 again in the last 24 hours. Table 1 incidence of delirium assessed when classified according MANAGEMENT SEDATIVE Delirious in the  <a href=”http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?sid=131480684″>PHA-739358</a> evaluation of n (% No delirium in the evaluation of n (% all patients 16 (14 101 (86 No sedatives in the last 24 hours 7 indicated (where 11 59 (89-agonist of GABA in the last 24 hours 7 (29 17 (71 Each drug agonist of GABA non-sedating in the last 24 hours 2 ( 7 25 (93 each sedative drug in the last 24 hours, 9 (18 42 (82 CONCLUSION. Incidence been given of delirium in the ICU was in the range previously reported. Significantly more patients who were re u is an agonist of GABA compared with those who were free of sedative in delirium.<br> REFERENCE (see Ely et al JAMA 1st, 2004, 291:1753 1762 two Dubois et al Int Care Med 2001, 1304 27:1297 three Pandharipande et al JAMA 2007, 298:2644 2653 4th Ely et al JAMA 2001, 286 …..: 2703 2710-display technology evaluation sessions organ I support .. 0538 0551 0538 sedation and analgesia PRACTICE IN INTENSIVE CARE EUROPEAN PEAN Nethirasigamani D., V. Mani, A. Abasalom Universit t Universit tsklinik for An Anesthesiology, Addenbrooke’s Hospital NHS Trust, Cambridge, UK INTRODUCTION We have to identify a survey among the members e ESICM and characterize the practice of sedation and analgesia in intensive care units. METHODS. After approval of the Committee of ESICM Research, was the survey on the e ESICM for participation ESICM members from 1 December 2007 to 31 January 2008 VER published.<br> There were 32 questions survey. RESULTS. members responded 92 were 80% senior health, 50% of respondents were at sthesisten and 35% was added with intensive care unit as their prime re specialties t. more than 90% of the respondents in intensive care units, patients and medical work surgery. Only 50% of respondents had a written protocol for sedation in their units and the degree of sedation was assessed every 6 04.00. A scoring system for sedation of 90% of the respondents used, with a notation that Ramsay at h ufigsten system used (60%. 21% of respondents use bispectral monitor to assess the level of sedation , were 50% neurological intensive care unit. There were only 13% of respondents who preferred to propofol for use sedation in children, and the youngest age group, they use ranged from 6 months to 16 years were in children.<br> Only 50% of respondents r umten one, they would adjust the calories needed when patients on propofol infusion are., 22% of respondents, the propofol infusion syndrome met in their clinical practice. to 53% used in the lactate, and 3% used malonyl or acyl carnitine levels as a marker, if they onnaient suspected propofol infusion syndrome. 96% of respondents used a continuous infusion for sedation with propofol is the drug of choice by 83% of them for sedation in the short term (less than 48 hours later. midazolam, the second drug h frequently used for sedation in the short term (approximately 58%, but it was the drug of choice (85% for the long-term sedation (more than 48 hours.<br> Respondents felt that the h hemodynamic status (90% of them and co t (63% of them has influenced their choice of sedation. Only 60% of respondents practiced regularly sedation ig and 30% wait less sedation practices. Haloperidol was the drug of choice (70% for the treatment of agitation in the intensive care unit, with clonidine being the second choice (30%. atracurium neuromuscular rer blocker was preferred by respondents, with about 80% of them used only occasionally. One third of respondents were not neuromuscular followed re blockade and only 50% peripheral nerve stimulator used for neuromuscular tions, monitor blockade. CONCLUSION. There is a big variation in e sedation and analgesia practice. It also is a significant difference in the FA it including normal sedation and muscle relaxation can be monitored. Given the potential benefit in the prognosis of patients, it may be useful for evidence-based protocol implementation in clinical practice. Scaven 0539 EFFECTS OF GAS