The "CHEOPS" bundle for the management of Left Ventricular Diastolic Dysfunction in critically ill patients: an experts' opinion

The impact of left ventricular (LV) diastolic dysfunction (DD) on the outcome of patients with heart failure was established over three decades ago. Nevertheless, the relevance of LVDD for critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit has seen growing interest recently, and LVDD is associated with poor prognosis. Whilst an assessment of LV diastolic function is desirable in critically ill patients, treatment options for LVDD are very limited, and pharmacological possibilities to rapidly optimize diastolic function have not been found yet. Hence, a proactive approach might have a substantial role in improving the outcomes of these patients. Recalling historical Egyptian parallelism suggesting that Doppler echocardiography has been the "Rosetta stone" to decipher the study of LV diastolic function, we developed a potentially useful acronym for physicians at the bedside to optimize the management of critically ill patients with LVDD with the application of the bundle. We summarized the bundle under the acronym of the famous ancient Egyptian pharaoh CHEOPS: Chest Ultrasound, combining information from echocardiography and lung ultrasound; HEmodynamics assessment, with careful evaluation of heart rate and rhythm, as well as afterload and vasoactive drugs; OPtimization of mechanical ventilation and pulmonary circulation, considering the effects of positive end-expiratory pressure on both right and left heart function; Stabilization, with cautious fluid administration and prompt fluid removal whenever judged safe and valuable. Notably, the CHEOPS bundle represents experts' opinion and are not targeted at the initial resuscitation phase but rather for the optimization and subsequent period of critical illness.

Inferior vena cava distensibility from subcostal and trans-hepatic imaging using both M-mode or artificial intelligence: a prospective study on mechanically ventilated patients

BACKGROUND

Variation of inferior vena cava (IVC) is used to predict fluid-responsiveness, but the IVC visualization with standard sagittal approach (SC, subcostal) cannot be always achieved. In such cases, coronal trans-hepatic (TH) window may offer an alternative, but the interchangeability of IVC measurements in SC and TH is not fully established. Furthermore, artificial intelligence (AI) with automated border detection may be of clinical value but it needs validation.

METHODS

Prospective observational validation study in mechanically ventilated patients with pressure-controlled mode. Primary outcome was the IVC distensibility (IVC-DI) in SC and TH imaging, with measurements taken both in M-Mode or with AI software. We calculated mean bias, limits of agreement (LoA), and intra-class correlation (ICC) coefficient.

RESULTS

Thirty-three patients were included. Feasibility rate was 87.9% and 81.8% for SC and TH visualization, respectively. Comparing imaging from the same anatomical site acquired with different modalities (M-Mode vs AI), we found the following IVC-DI differences: (1) SC: mean bias - 3.1%, LoA [- 20.1; 13.9], ICC = 0.65; (2) TH: mean bias - 2.0%, LoA [- 19.3; 15.4], ICC = 0.65. When comparing the results obtained from the same modality but from different sites (SC vs TH), IVC-DI differences were: (3) M-Mode: mean bias 1.1%, LoA [- 6.9; 9.1], ICC = 0.54; (4) AI: mean bias 2.0%, LoA [- 25.7; 29.7], ICC = 0.32.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients mechanically ventilated, AI software shows good accuracy (modest overestimation) and moderate correlation as compared to M-mode assessment of IVC-DI, both for SC and TH windows. However, precision seems suboptimal with wide LoA. The comparison of M-Mode or AI between different sites yields similar results but with weaker correlation. Trial registration Reference protocol: 53/2022/PO, approved on 21/03/2022.

Assessment of the inferior vena cava collapsibility from subcostal and trans-hepatic imaging using both M-mode or artificial intelligence: a prospective study on healthy volunteers

PURPOSE

Assessment of the inferior vena cava (IVC) respiratory variation may be clinically useful for the estimation of fluid-responsiveness and venous congestion; however, imaging from subcostal (SC, sagittal) region is not always feasible. It is unclear if coronal trans-hepatic (TH) IVC imaging provides interchangeable results. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) with automated border tracking may be helpful as part of point-of-care ultrasound but it needs validation.

METHODS

Prospective observational study conducted in spontaneously breathing healthy volunteers with assessment of IVC collapsibility (IVCc) in SC and TH imaging, with measures taken in M-mode or with AI software. We calculated mean bias and limits of agreement (LoA), and the intra-class correlation (ICC) coefficient with their 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Sixty volunteers were included; IVC was not visualized in five of them (n = 2, both SC and TH windows, 3.3%; n = 3 in TH approach, 5%). Compared with M-mode, AI showed good accuracy both for SC (IVCc: bias - 0.7%, LoA [- 24.9; 23.6]) and TH approach (IVCc: bias 3.7%, LoA [- 14.9; 22.3]). The ICC coefficients showed moderate reliability: 0.57 [0.36; 0.73] in SC, and 0.72 [0.55; 0.83] in TH. Comparing anatomical sites (SC vs TH), results produced by M-mode were not interchangeable (IVCc: bias 13.9%, LoA [- 18.1; 45.8]). When this evaluation was performed with AI, such difference became smaller: IVCc bias 7.7%, LoA [- 19.2; 34.6]. The correlation between SC and TH assessments was poor for M-mode (ICC = 0.08 [- 0.18; 0.34]) while moderate for AI (ICC = 0.69 [0.52; 0.81]).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of AI shows good accuracy when compared with the traditional M-mode IVC assessment, both for SC and TH imaging. Although AI reduces differences between sagittal and coronal IVC measurements, results from these sites are not interchangeable.

Implementation of video-calls between patients admitted to intensive care unit during the COVID-19 pandemic and their families: a pilot study of psychological effects

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused over 530 million infections to date (June 2022), with a high percentage of intensive care unit (ICU) admissions. In this context, relatives have been restricted from visiting their loved ones admitted to hospital. This situation has led to an inevitable separation between patients and their families. Video communication could reduce the negative effects of such phenomenon, but the impact of this strategy on levels of anxiety, depression, and PTSD disorder in caregivers is not well-known.

METHODS

We conducted a prospective study (6 October 2020-18 February 2022) at the Policlinico University Hospital in Catania, including caregivers of both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ICU patients admitted during the second wave of the pandemic. Video-calls were implemented twice a week. Assessment of anxiety, depression, and PTSD was performed at 1-week distance (before the first, T1, and before the third, video-call, T2) using the following validated questionnaires: Impact of Event Scale (Revised IES-R), Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS).

RESULTS

Twenty caregivers of 17 patients completed the study (T1 + T2). Eleven patients survived (n = 9/11 in the COVID-19 and n = 2/6 in the "non-COVID" group). The average results of the questionnaires completed by caregivers between T1 and T2 showed no significant difference in terms of CES-D (T1 = 19.6 ± 10, T2 = 22 ± 9.6; p = 0.17), HADS depression (T1 = 9.5 ± 1.6, T2 = 9 ± 3.9; p = 0.59), HADS anxiety (T1 = 8.7 ± 2.4, T2 = 8.4 ± 3.8; p = 0.67), and IES-R (T1 = 20.9 ± 10.8, T2 = 23.1 ± 12; p = 0.19). Similar nonsignificant results were observed in the two subgroups of caregivers (COVID-19 and "non-COVID"). However, at T1 and T2, caregivers of "non-COVID" patients had higher scores of CES-D (p = 0.01 and p = 0.04, respectively) and IES-R (p = 0.049 and p = 0.02, respectively), while HADS depression was higher only at T2 (p = 0.02). At T1, caregivers of non-survivors had higher scores of CES-D (27.6 ± 10.6 vs 15.3 ± 6.7, p = 0.005) and IES-R (27.7 ± 10.0 vs 17.2 ± 9.6, p = 0.03). We also found a significant increase in CES-D at T2 in ICU-survivors (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Our preliminary results showed that a video-call implementation strategy between caregivers and patients admitted to the ICU is feasible. However, this strategy did not show an improvement in terms of the risk of depression, anxiety, and PTSD among caregivers. Our pilot study remains exploratory and limited to a small sample.

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in the Perioperative Period of Cardiac Surgery: Predictors, Diagnosis, Prognosis, Management Options, and Future Directions

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) after cardiac surgery is reported with a widely variable incidence (from 0.4%-8.1%). Cardiac surgery patients usually are affected by several comorbidities, and the development of ARDS significantly affects their prognosis. Herein, evidence regarding the current knowledge in the field of ARDS in cardiac surgery is summarized and is followed by a discussion on therapeutic strategies, with consideration of the peculiar aspects of ARDS after cardiac surgery. Prevention of lung injury during and after cardiac surgery remains pivotal. Blood product transfusions should be limited to minimize the risk, among others, of lung injury. Open lung ventilation strategy (ventilation during cardiopulmonary bypass, recruitment maneuvers, and the use of moderate positive end-expiratory pressure) has not shown clear benefits on clinical outcomes. Clinicians in the intraoperative and postoperative ventilatory settings carefully should consider the effect of mechanical ventilation on cardiac function (in particular the right ventricle). Driving pressure should be kept as low as possible, with low tidal volumes (on predicted body weight) and optimal positive end-expiratory pressure. Regarding the therapeutic options, management of ARDS after cardiac surgery challenges the common approach. For instance, prone positioning may not be easily applicable after cardiac surgery. In patients who develop ARDS after cardiac surgery, extracorporeal techniques may be a valid choice in experienced hands. The use of neuromuscular blockade and inhaled nitric oxide can be considered on a case-by-case basis, whereas the use of aggressive lung recruitment and oscillatory ventilation should be discouraged.

Proactive Management of Intraoperative Hypotension Reduces Biomarkers of Organ Injury and Oxidative Stress during Elective Non-Cardiac Surgery: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Intraoperative hypotension is associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. Methods: We randomly assigned patients undergoing major general surgery to early warning system (EWS) and hemodynamic algorithm (intervention group, n = 20) or standard care (n = 20). The primary outcome was the difference in hypotension (defined as mean arterial pressure < 65 mmHg) and as secondary outcome surrogate markers of organ injury and oxidative stress. Results: The median number of hypotensive episodes was lower in the intervention group (−5.0 (95% CI: −9.0, −0.5); p < 0.001), with lower time spent in hypotension (−12.8 min (95% CI: −38.0, −2.3 min); p = 0.048), correspondent to −4.8% of total surgery time (95% CI: −12.7, 0.01%; p = 0.048).The median time-weighted average of hypotension was 0.12 mmHg (0.35) in the intervention group and 0.37 mmHg (1.11) in the control group, with a median difference of −0.25 mmHg (95% CI: −0.85, −0.01; p = 0.025). Neutrophil Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin (NGAL) correlated with time-weighted average of hypotension (R = 0.32; p = 0.038) and S100B with number of hypotensive episodes, absolute time of hypotension, relative time of hypotension and time-weighted average of hypotension (p < 0.001 for all). The intervention group showed lower Neuronal Specific Enolase (NSE) and higher reduced glutathione when compared to the control group. Conclusions: The use of an EWS coupled with a hemodynamic algorithm resulted in reduced intraoperative hypotension, reduced NSE and oxidative stress.

Hemoperfusion and blood purification strategies in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) ranges from asymptomatic infection to severe cases requiring admission to the intensive care unit. Together with supportive therapies (ventilation in particular), the suppression of the pro-inflammatory state has been a hypothesized target. Pharmacological therapies with corticosteroids and interleukin-6 (IL-6) receptor antagonists have reduced mortality. The use of extracorporeal cytokine removal, also known as hemoperfusion (HP), could be a promising non-pharmacological approach to decrease the pro-inflammatory state in COVID-19.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of PubMed and EMBASE databases in order to summarize the evidence regarding HP therapy in COVID-19. We included original studies and case series enrolling at least five patients.

RESULTS

We included 11 articles and describe the characteristics of the populations studied from both clinical and biological perspectives. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally low. Only two studies had a control group, one of which included 101 patients in total. The remaining studies had a range between 10 and 50 patients included. There was large variability in the HP techniques implemented and in clinical and biological outcomes reported. Most studies described decreasing levels of IL-6 after HP treatment.

CONCLUSION

Our review does not support strong conclusions regarding the role of HP in COVID-19. Considering the very low level of clinical evidence detected, starting HP therapies in COVID-19 patients does not seem supported outside of clinical trials. Prospective randomized data are needed.

Ten answers to key questions for fluid management in intensive care

This review focuses on fluid management of critically ill patients. The topic is addressed based on 10 single questions with simplified answers that provide clinicians with the basic information needed at the point of care in treating patients in the Intensive Care Unit. The review has didactic purposes and may serve both as an update on fluid management and as an introduction to the subject for novices in critical care. There is an urgent need to increase awareness regarding the potential risks associated with fluid overload. Clinicians should be mindful not only of the indications for administering fluid loads and of the type of fluids administered, but also of the importance to set safety limits. Lastly, it is important to implement proactive strategies seeking to establish negative fluid balance as soon as the clinical conditions are considered to be stable and the risk of deterioration is low.

Tracheal intubation while wearing personal protective equipment in simulation studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial-sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Tracheal intubation in patients with coronavirus disease-19 is a high-risk procedure that should be performed with personal protective equipment (PPE). The influence of PPE on operator's performance during tracheal intubation remains unclear.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of simulation studies to evaluate the influence of wearing PPE as compared to standard uniform regarding time-to-intubation (TTI) and success rate. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to device used and operator's experience.

RESULTS

The TTI was prolonged when wearing PPE (eight studies): Standard Mean Difference (SMD) -0.54, 95% Confidence Interval [-0.75, -0.34], p <  0.0001. Subgroup analyses according to device used showed similar findings (direct laryngoscopy, SMD -0.63 [-0.88, -0.38], p < 0.0001; videolaryngoscopy, SMD -0.39 [-0.75, -0.02], p =  0.04). Considering the operator's experience, non-anesthesiologists had prolonged TTI (SMD -0.75 [-0.98, -0.52], p < 0.0001) while the analysis on anesthesiologists did not show significant differences (SMD -0.25 [-0.51, 0.01], p = 0.06). The success rate of tracheal intubation was not influenced by PPE: Risk Ratio (RR) 1.02 [1.00, 1.04]; p = 0.12). Subgroup analyses according to device demonstrated similar results (direct laryngoscopy, RR 1.03 [0.99, 1.07], p = 0.15, videolaryngoscopy, RR 1.01 [0.98, 1.04], p =  0.52). Wearing PPE had a trend towards negative influence on success rate in non-anesthesiologists (RR 1.05 [1.00, 1.10], p = 0.05), but not in anesthesiologists (RR 1.00 [0.98, 1.03], p = 0.84). Trial-sequential analyses for TTI and success rate indicated robustness of both results.

CONCLUSIONS

Under simulated conditions, wearing PPE delays the TTI as compared to dressing standard uniform, with no influence on the success rate. However, certainty of evidence is very low. Performing tracheal intubation with direct laryngoscopy seems influenced to a greater extent as compared to videolaryngoscopy. Similarly, wearing PPE affects more the non-anesthesiologists subgroup as compared to anesthesiologists.

Targeted Temperature Management after Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis

Target temperature management (TTM) in cardiac arrest (CA) survivors is recommended after hospital admission for its possible beneficial effects on survival and neurological outcome. Whether a lower target temperature (i.e., 32–34 °C) improves outcomes is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on Pubmed and EMBASE to evaluate the effects on mortality and neurologic outcome of TTM at 32–34 °C as compared to controls (patients cared with “actively controlled” or “uncontrolled” normothermia). Results were analyzed via risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. TTM at 32–34 °C was compared to “actively controlled” normothermia in three RCTs and to “uncontrolled” normothermia in five RCTs. TTM at 32–34 °C does not improve survival as compared to normothermia (RR:1.06 (95%CI 0.94, 1.20), p = 0.36; I² = 39%). In the subgroup analyses, TTM at 32–34 °C is associated with better survival when compared to “uncontrolled” normothermia (RR: 1.31 (95%CI 1.07, 1.59), p = 0.008) but shows no beneficial effects when compared to “actively controlled” normothermia (RR: 0.97 (95%CI 0.90, 1.04), p = 0.41). TTM at 32–34 °C does not improve neurological outcome as compared to normothermia (RR: 1.17 (95%CI 0.97, 1.41), p = 0.10; I² = 60%). TTM at 32–34 °C increases the risk of arrhythmias (RR: 1.35 (95%CI 1.16, 1.57), p = 0.0001, I² = 0%). TTM at 32–34 °C does not improve survival nor neurological outcome after CA and increases the risk of arrhythmias.

Prevalence of burnout among intensive care physicians: a systematic review

Objective

We performed a systematic review to summarize the knowledge regarding the prevalence of burnout among intensive care unit physicians.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of the MEDLINE and PubMed® databases (last update 04.02.2019) with the goal of summarizing the evidence on burnout among intensive care unit physicians. We included all studies reporting burnout in intensive care unit personnel according to the Maslach Burnout Inventory questionnaire and then screened studies for data on burnout among intensive care unit physician specifically.

Results

We found 31 studies describing burnout in intensive care unit staff and including different healthcare profiles. Among these, 5 studies focused on physicians only, and 12 others investigated burnout in mixed intensive care unit personnel but provided separate data on physicians. The prevalence of burnout varied greatly across studies (range 18% - 49%), but several methodological discrepancies, among them cut-off criteria for defining burnout and variability in the Likert scale, precluded a meaningful pooled analysis.

Conclusion

The prevalence of burnout syndrome among intensive care unit physicians is relatively high, but significant methodological heterogeneities warrant caution being used in interpreting our results. The lower reported levels of burnout seem higher than those found in studies investigating mixed intensive care unit personnel. There is an urgent need for consensus recommending a consistent use of the Maslach Burnout Inventory test to screen burnout, in order to provide precise figures on burnout in intensive care unit physicians.

Self-citation policies and journal self-citation rate among Critical Care Medicine journals

BACKGROUND

Inappropriate authors' self-citation (A-SC) is a growing mal-practice possibly boosted by the raising importance given to author's metrics. Similarly, also excessive journals' self-citation (J-SC) practice may factitiously influence journal's metrics (impact factor, IF). Evaluating the appropriateness of each self-citation remains challenging.

MAIN BODY

We evaluated the presence of policies discouraging A-SC in Critical Care Medicine (CCM) journals with IF. We also calculated the J-SC rate of these journals. In order to evaluate if J-SC rates are influenced by the focus of interest of CCM journals, we separated them in three sub-categories ("multidisciplinary", "broad" or "topic-specific" CCM journals). We analyzed 35 CCM journals and only 5 (14.3%) discouraged excessive and inappropriate A-SC. The median IF was higher in CCM journals with A-SC policies [4.1 (3-12)] as compared to those without [2.5 (2-3.5); p = 0.02]. The J-SC rate was highly variable (0-35.4%), and not influenced by the presence of A-SC policies (p = 0.32). However, J-SC rate was different according to the focus of interest (p = 0.01): in particular, it was higher in "topic-specific" CCM journals [15.3 (8.8-23.3%)], followed by "broad" CCM [11.8 (4.8-17.9%)] and "multidisciplinary" journals [6.1 (3.6-9.1%)].

CONCLUSIONS

A limited number of CCM journals have policies for limiting A-SC, and these have higher IF. The J-SC rate among CCM journals is highly variable and higher in "topic-specific" interest CCM journals. Excluding self-referencing practice from scientific metrics calculation could be valuable to tackle this scientific malpractice.