Strategies to Optimize ICU Liberation (A to F) Bundle Performance in Critically Ill Adults With Coronavirus Disease 2019

Impact of Sedation Practices on Mortality in COVID-19-Associated Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome Patients: A Multicenter Retrospective Descriptive Study

Background: Reduction in sedation exposure is an important metric in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. However, challenges arose during the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in adhering to this practice, driven by concerns on transmission and disease severity issues. Accordingly, diverse sedation approaches emerged, although the effect on mortality has not been studied thoroughly. Methods: Retrospective cohort study in the medical ICU of seven hospitals within a major Health System in Northeast Ohio. We included all adult patients admitted with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) from March 2020 to December 2021. Results: Study included 2394 COVID-19 patients requiring IMV. Across waves, sample included 55-63% male subjects, with an average age of 61-68 years (P < 0.001), Acute Physiologic and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE)-III score 65.8-68.9 (P = 0.37), median IMV duration 8-10 days (P = 0.14), and median ICU duration 9.8-11.6 days (P = 0.084). Propofol remained the primary sedative (84-92%; P = 0.089). Ketamine use increased from the first (9.7%) to fourth (19%) wave (P = 0.002). Midazolam use decreased from the first (27.4%) to third (9.4%) wave (P = 0.001). Dexmedetomidine use declined from 35% to 27-28% (P = 0.002) after the first wave. A multivariable regression analysis indicated clinical variables explained 34% of the variation in hospital mortality (R2). Factors associated with higher mortality included age [aOR = 1.059 (95% CI 1.049-1.069); P < 0.001], COVID-19 wave, especially fourth wave [aOR = 2.147, (95% CI 1.370-3.365); P = 0.001], and higher number of vasopressors [aOR = 31.636, (95% CI 17.603-56.856); P < 0.001]. Addition of sedative medications to a second model led to an increase in the R2 by only 1.6% to 35.6% [aOR = 1 (95% CI 1-1); P > 0.05] for propofol, ketamine, and midazolam. Dexmedetomidine demonstrated a decrease in the odds of mortality [aOR = 0.96 (95% CI 0.94-0.97); P < 0.001]. Conclusion: Mortality in critical COVID-19 patients was mostly driven by illness severity, and the choice of sedation might have minimal impact when other factors are controlled.

Pain management interventions of the non-communicating patient in intensive care: What works for whom and why? A rapid realist review

AIM

The utility and uptake of pain management interventions across intensive care settings is inconsistent. A rapid realist review was conducted to synthesise the evidence for the purpose of theory building and refinement.

DESIGN

A five-step iterative process was employed to develop project scope/ research questions, collate evidence, appraise literature, synthesise evidence and interpret information from data sources.

METHODS

Realist synthesis method was employed to systematically review literature for developing a programme theory.

DATA SOURCES

Initial searches were undertaken in three electronic databases: MEDLINE, CINHAL and OVID. The review was supplemented with key articles from bibliographic search of identified articles. The first 200 hits from Google Scholar were screened.

RESULTS

Three action-oriented themes emerged as integral to successful implementation of pain management interventions. These included health facility actions, unit/team leader actions and individual nurses' actions.

CONCLUSION

Pain assessment interventions are influenced by a constellation of factors which trigger mechanisms yielding effective implementation outcomes.

IMPLICATIONS

The results have implications on policy makers, health organisations, nursing teams and nurses concerned with optimising the successful implementation of pain management interventions.

IMPACT

The review enabled formation of a programme theory concerned with explaining how to effectively implement pain management interventions in intensive care.

REPORTING METHOD

This review was informed by RAMESES publication standards for realist synthesis.

PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution. The study protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. 10.17605/OSF.IO/J7AEZ.

Physical rehabilitation while awake, intubated and proned for COVID-19-associated severe acute respiratory distress syndrome

This case study demonstrates the implementation of evidence-based guidelines in the intensive care unit setting, including light sedation and early physical rehabilitation while receiving prone positioning and lung protective mechanical ventilation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome from SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Improving Outcomes in Mechanically Ventilated Adult ICU Patients Following Implementation of the ICU Liberation (ABCDEF) Bundle Across a Large Healthcare System

OBJECTIVES

To measure how the ICU Liberation Bundle (aka ABCDEF Bundle or the Bundle) affected clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated (MV) adult ICU patients, as well as bundle sustainability and spread across a healthcare system.

DESIGN

We conducted a multicenter, prospective, cohort observational study to measure bundle performance versus patient outcomes and sustainability in 11 adult ICUs at six community hospitals. We then prospectively measured bundle spread and performance across the other 28 hospitals of the healthcare system.

SETTING

A large community-based healthcare system.

PATIENTS

In 11 study ICUs, we enrolled 1,914 MV patients (baseline n = 925, bundle performance/outcomes n = 989), 3,019 non-MV patients (baseline n = 1,323, bundle performance/outcomes n = 1,696), and 2,332 MV patients (bundle sustainability). We enrolled 9,717 MV ICU patients in the other 28 hospitals to assess bundle spread.

INTERVENTIONS

We used evidence-based strategies to implement the bundle in all 34 hospitals.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We compared outcomes for the 12-month baseline and bundle performance periods. Bundle implementation reduced ICU length of stay (LOS) by 0.5 days (p = 0.02), MV duration by 0.6 days (p = 0.01), and ICU LOS greater than or equal to 7 days by 18.1% (p < 0.01). Performance period bundle compliance was compared with the preceding 3-month baseline compliance period. Compliance with pain management and spontaneous awakening trial (SAT) and spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) remained high, and reintubation rates remained low. Sedation assessments increased (p < 0.01) and benzodiazepine sedation use decreased (p < 0.01). Delirium assessments increased (p = 0.02) and delirium prevalence decreased (p = 0.02). Patient mobilization and ICU family engagement did not significantly improve. Bundle element sustainability varied. SAT/SBT compliance dropped by nearly half, benzodiazepine use remained low, sedation and delirium monitoring and management remained high, and patient mobility and family engagement remained low. Bundle compliance in ICUs across the healthcare system exceeded that of study ICUs.

CONCLUSIONS

The ICU Liberation Bundle improves outcomes in MV adult ICU patients. Evidence-based implementation strategies improve bundle performance, spread, and sustainability across large healthcare systems.

Risk Factors Associated With Opioid/Benzodiazepine Iatrogenic Withdrawal Syndrome in COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

BackgroundMechanically ventilated COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients often receive deeper sedation and analgesia to maintain respiratory compliance and minimize staff exposure, which incurs greater risk of iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome (IWS) and has been associated with worse patient outcomes. Objective: To identify potential risk factors and differences in patient outcomes associated with the development of IWS in COVID-19 ARDS patients. Methods: Retrospective analysis of ventilated COVID-19 ARDS intensive care unit (ICU) patients who received continuous intravenous (IV) analgesia and sedation for ≥5 days from March 2020-May 2021. Patients were classified as IWS and non-IWS based on receipt of scheduled oral sedative/analgesic regimens after cessation of IV therapy. Risk factors were assessed in univariate analyses and multivariable modeling. Results: A total of 115 patients were included. The final multivariable model showed: (1) each additional day of IV opioid therapy was associated with an 8% increase in odds of IWS (95% CI, 1.02-1.14), (2) among sedatives, receipt of lorazepam was associated with 3 times higher odds of IWS (95% CI 1.12-8.15), and (3) each 1-point increase in Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II was associated with a 4% reduction in odds of IWS (95% CI 0.93-0.999). Conclusion: Prolonged and high dose exposures to IV opioids and benzodiazepines should be limited when possible. Additional prospective studies are needed to identify modifiable risk factors to prevent IWS.

Clinicians' perceptions on implementation strategies used to facilitate ABCDEF bundle adoption: A multicenter survey

BACKGROUND

Intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians struggle to routinely implement the ICU Liberation bundle (ABCDEF bundle). As a result, critically ill patients experience increased risk of morbidity and mortality. Despite extensive research related to the barriers and facilitators of bundle use, little is known regarding which implementation strategies are used to facilitate its adoption and sustainability.

OBJECTIVES

To identify implementation strategies used to increase adoption of the ABCDEF bundle and how those strategies are perceived by end-users (i.e., ICU clinicians) related to their helpfulness, acceptability, feasibility, and cost.

METHODS

We conducted a national, cross-sectional survey of ICU clinicians from the 68 ICU sites that previously participated in the Society of Critical Care Medicine's ICU Liberation Collaborative. The survey was structured using the 73 Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) implementation strategies. Surveys were delivered electronically to site contacts.

RESULTS

Nineteen ICUs (28%) returned completed surveys. Sites used 63 of the 73 ERIC implementation strategies, with frequent use of strategies that may be readily available to clinicians (e.g., providing educational meetings or ongoing training), but less use of strategies that require changes to well-established organizational systems (e.g., alter incentive allowance structure). Overall, sites described the ERIC strategies used in their implementation process to be moderately helpful (mean score >3<4 on a 5-point Likert scale), somewhat acceptable and feasible (mean score >2<3), and either not-at-all or somewhat costly (mean scores >1<3).

CONCLUSIONS

Our results show a potential over-reliance on accessible strategies and the possible benefit of unused ERIC strategies related to changing infrastructure and utilizing financial strategies.

Lessons Learned From a Systematic, Hospital-Wide Implementation of the ABCDEF Bundle: A Survey Evaluation

Objective

We recently reported the first part of a study testing the impact of data literacy training on "assessing pain, spontaneous awakening and breathing trials, choice of analgesia and sedation, delirium monitoring/management, early exercise/mobility, and family and patient empowerment" [ABCDEF [A-F]) compliance. The purpose of the current study, part 2, was to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation approach by surveying clinical staff to examine staff knowledge, skill, motivation, and organizational resources.

DESIGN

The Clark and Estes Gap Analysis framework was used to study knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO) influences. Assumed influences identified in the literature were used to design the A-F bundle implementation strategies. The influences were validated against a survey distributed to the ICU interprofessional team.

SETTING

Single-center study was conducted in eight adult ICUs in a quaternary academic medical center.

SUBJECTS

Interprofessional ICU clinical team.

INTERVENTIONS

A quantitative survey was sent to 386 participants to evaluate the implementation design postimplementation. An exploratory factor analysis was performed to understand the relationship between the KMO influences and the questions posed to validate the influence. Descriptive statistics were used to identify strengths needed to sustain performance and weaknesses that required improvement to increase A-F bundle adherence.

MEASUREMENT AND RESULTS

The survey received an 83% response rate. The exploratory factor analysis confirmed that 38 of 42 questions had a strong relationship to the KMO influences, validating the survey's utility in evaluating the effectiveness of implementation design. A total of 12 KMO influences were identified, 8 were categorized as a strength and 4 as a weakness of the implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study used an evidence-based gap analysis framework to demonstrate key implementation approaches needed to increase A-F bundle compliance. The following drivers were recommended as essential methods required for successful protocol implementation: data literacy training and performance monitoring, organizational support, value proposition, multidisciplinary collaboration, and interprofessional teamwork activities. We believe the learning generated in this two-part study is applicable to implementation design beyond the A-F bundle.

Individualised analgesia, sedation, delirium and comfort management strategies in the ICU: a narrative review

This group is a product of the collaboration agreement signed by SOMIAMA (Sociedad de Medicina Intensiva de Madrid) and SAR MADRID (Sociedad de Anestesiología, Reanimación y Terapéutica del Dolor de Madrid) under which the organisations agreed to create joint working groups to improve critical patient care. Pain, discomfort, agitation, and delirium cause suffering, delay discharge, and can lead to serious complications in patients admitted to medical and surgical critical care units and post-anaesthesia care units. The main objectives in this type of unit include: Ensuring the comfort of patients suffering or recovering from a critical illness.Avoiding complications associated with the measures, particularly pharmacological, taken to ensure that comfort.

Family Participation in Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit Rounds: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Observational studies have shown an association between family participation in intensive care unit (ICU) rounds and better family-centred outcomes. However, evidence from randomized studies on the impact of family participation in ICU rounds is lacking. The objective of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility of a randomized trial for family participation in ICU rounds and obtain preliminary estimates of effect to inform a future effectiveness trial.

Methods

Family members of patients in the cardiovascular ICU at an academic tertiary-care hospital were randomized to the intervention (participation in rounds) or usual-care group. Following ICU discharge, family member participants completed the family satisfaction (Family Satisfaction in the Intensive Care Unit Survey [FS-ICU]). Feasibility metrics were recruitment (≥ 10 participants per month), uptake (≥ 80%), and follow-up (≥ 80%). Effectiveness was measured by between-group differences in survey score at follow-up.

Results

A total of 27 participants were recruited over 8 weeks. A total of 44% of family members (27 of 61) who were approached agreed to participate. Nonparticipation was due most commonly to lack of interest (N = 20; 64%). All family members randomized to the intervention (N = 16) were present for rounds (100% uptake). Follow-up data were available for 23 participants (85%). Family members who participated in rounds had a higher level of satisfaction with care, compared to the usual-care group (87.3 vs 74.7, P = 0.03, respectively).

Conclusions

Family participation in cardiovascular ICU rounds is feasible and effective at improving family satisfaction. Our findings will inform the design of a planned, larger, multicentre study to evaluate the effectiveness of family participation in ICU rounds to improve family-centred outcomes. Trial registration number: NCT05528185.

Rehabilitation Therapy Allocation and Changes in Physical Function Among Patients Hospitalized Due to COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Limited staffing and initial transmission concerns have limited rehabilitation services during the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of this analysis was to determine the associations between Activity Measure for Post-Acute Care (AM-PAC) mobility categories and allocation of rehabilitation, and in-hospital AM-PAC score change and receipt of rehabilitation services for patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of electronic health record data from 1 urban hospital, including adults with a COVID-19 diagnosis, admitted August 2020 to April 2021. Patients were stratified by level of medical care (intensive care unit [ICU] and floor). Therapy allocation (referral for rehabilitation, receipt of rehabilitation, and visit frequency) was the primary outcome; change in AM-PAC score was secondary. AM-PAC Basic Mobility categories (None [21-24], Minimum [18-21], Moderate [10-17], and Maximum [6-9]) were the main predictor variable. Primary analysis included logistic and linear regression, adjusted for covariates.

RESULTS

A total of 1397 patients (ICU: n = 360; floor: n = 1037) were included. AM-PAC mobility category was associated with therapy allocation outcomes for floor but not patients in the ICU: the Moderate category had greater adjusted odds of referral (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 10.88; 95% CI = 5.71-21.91), receipt of at least 1 visit (aOR = 3.45; 95% CI = 1.51-8.55), and visit frequency (percentage mean difference) (aOR = 42.14; 95% CI = 12.45-79.67). The secondary outcome of AM-PAC score improvement was highest for patients in the ICU who were given at least 1 rehabilitation therapy visit (aOR = 5.31; 95% CI = 1.90-15.52).

CONCLUSION

AM-PAC mobility categories were associated with rehabilitation allocation outcomes for floor patients. AM-PAC score improvement was highest among patients requiring ICU-level care with at least 1 rehabilitation therapy visit.

IMPACT

Use of AM-PAC Basic Mobility categories may help improve decisions for rehabilitation therapy allocation among patients who do not require critical care, particularly during times of limited resources.

Interprofessional Team Collaboration and Work Environment Health in 68 US Intensive Care Units

BACKGROUND

Safe, reliable, high-quality critical care delivery depends upon interprofessional teamwork.

OBJECTIVE

To describe perceptions of intensive care unit (ICU) teamwork and healthy work environments and evaluate whether perceptions vary by profession.

METHODS

In August 2015, Assessment of Interprofessional Team Collaboration Scale (AITCS) and the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses Healthy Work Environment Assessment Tool (HWEAT) surveys were distributed to all interprofessional members at the 68 ICUs participating in the ICU Liberation Collaborative. Overall scores range from 1 (needs improvement) to 5 (excellent).

RESULTS

Most of the 3586 surveys completed were from registered nurses (51.2%), followed by respiratory therapists (17.8%), attending physicians (10.5%), rehabilitation therapists (8.3%), pharmacists (4.9%), nursing assistants (3.1%), and physician trainees (4.1%). Overall, respondents rated teamwork and work environment health favorably (mean [SD] scores: AITCS, 3.92 [0.64]; HWEAT, 3.45 [0.79]). The highest-rated AITCS domain was "partnership/shared decision-making" (mean [SD], 4.00 [0.63); lowest, "coordination" (3.67 [0.80]). The highest-scoring HWEAT standard was "effective decision-making" (mean [SD], 3.60 [0.79]); lowest, "meaningful recognition" (3.30 [0.92]). Compared with attending physicians (mean [SD] scores: AITCS, 3.99 [0.54]; HWEAT, 3.48 [0.70]), AITCS scores were lower for registered nurses (3.91 [0.62]), respiratory therapists (3.86 [0.76]), rehabilitation therapists (3.84 [0.65]), and pharmacists (3.83 [0.55]), and HWEAT scores were lower for respiratory therapists (3.38 [0.86]) (all P ≤ .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Teamwork and work environment health were rated by ICU team members as good but not excellent. Care coordination and meaningful recognition can be improved.

ABCDE and ABCDEF care bundles: A systematic review of the implementation process in intensive care units

BACKGROUND

The ABCDE (Awakening and Breathing Coordination of daily sedation and ventilator removal trials, Delirium monitoring and management, and Early mobility and exercise) and ABCDEF (Assessment, prevent and manage pain, Both spontaneous awakening and spontaneous breathing trials, Choice of analgesia and sedation, assess, prevent and manage Delirium, Early mobility and exercise, Family engagement) care bundles consist of small sets of evidence-based interventions and are part of the science behind Intensive Care Unit (ICU) liberation. This review sought to analyse the process of implementation of ABCDE and ABCDEF care bundles in ICUs, identifying barriers, facilitators and changes in perception and attitudes of healthcare professionals; and to estimate care bundle effectiveness and safety.

METHODS

We selected qualitative and quantitative studies addressing the implementation of ABCDE and ABCDEF bundles in the ICU, identified on MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO, Virtual Health Library and Open Grey, without restriction on language or date of publication, up to June 2018. The outcomes measured were ICU and hospital length of stay; mechanical ventilation time; incidence and prevalence of delirium or coma; level of agitation and sedation; early mobilization; mortality in ICU and hospital; change in perception, attitude or behaviour of the stakeholders; and change in knowledge of health professionals. Two reviewers independently selected the studies, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias and methodological quality. A meta-analysis of random effects was performed.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were included, 13 of which had a predominantly qualitative and 7 a quantitative design (31,604 participants). The implementation strategies were categorized according to the taxonomy developed by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group and eighty strategies were identified. The meta-analysis results showed that implementation of the bundles may reduce length of ICU stay, mechanical ventilation time, delirium, ICU and hospital mortality, and promoted early mobilization in critically-ill patients.

CONCLUSIONS

: This study can contribute to the planning and execution of the implementation process of ABCDE and ABCDEF care bundles in ICUs. However, the effectiveness and safety of these bundles need to be corroborated by further studies with greater methodological rigor.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019121307.

Perioperative neurocognitive disorders: A narrative review focusing on diagnosis, prevention, and treatment

Perioperative neurocognitive disorders (NCDs) refer to neurocognitive abnormalities detected during the perioperative periods, including preexisting cognitive impairment, preoperative delirium, delirium occurring up to 7 days after surgery, delayed neurocognitive recovery, and postoperative NCD. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders‐5th edition (DSM‐5) is the golden standard for diagnosing perioperative NCDs. Given the impracticality of using the DSM‐5 by non‐psychiatric practitioners, many diagnostic tools have been developed and validated for different clinical scenarios. The etiology of perioperative NCDs is multifactorial and includes predisposing and precipitating factors. Identifying these risk factors is conducive to preoperative risk stratification and perioperative risk reduction. Prevention for perioperative NCDs should include avoiding possible contributors and implementing nonpharmacologic and pharmacological interventions. The former generally includes avoiding benzodiazepines, anticholinergics, prolonged liquid fasting, deep anesthesia, cerebral oxygen desaturation, and intraoperative hypothermia. Nonpharmacologic measures include preoperative cognitive prehabilitation, comprehensive geriatric assessment, implementing fast‐track surgery, combined use of regional block, and sleep promotion. Pharmacological measures including dexmedetomidine, nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs, and acetaminophen are found to have beneficial effects. Nonpharmacological treatments are the first‐line measures for established perioperative NCDs. Pharmacological treatments are still limited to severely agitated or distressed patients.

Time to active sitting position: One-year findings from a temporary COVID-19 intensive care unit

Objective

To investigate the association between time to active sitting position and clinical features in people with COVID-19 admitted to intensive care unit (ICU) and referred to physiotherapists.

Method

Prospective study conducted in the largest temporary ICU in Lombardy (Italy) between April 2020 and June 2021. All individuals with COVID-19 who received physiotherapy were included. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard model was fitted to explore the statistical association between active sitting position and characteristics of patients referred to physiotherapists, also accounting for the different multidisciplinary teams responsible for patients.

Results

284 individuals over 478 (59.4%) had access to physiotherapy, which was performed for a median of 8 days, without difference between multidisciplinary teams (P = 0.446). The active sitting position was reached after a median of 18 (IQR: 10.0–32.0) days. Sex was the only characteristic associated with the time to active sitting position, with males showing a reduced hazard by a factor of 0.65 (95% CI: 0.48–0.87; P = 0.0042) compared to females. At ICU discharge, nearly 50% individuals increased Manchester Mobility Score by 3 points. During physiotherapy no major adverse event was recorded.

Conclusion

Individuals with COVID-19 take long time to reach active sitting position in ICU, with males requiring longer rehabilitation than females.

Practices in sedation, analgesia, mobilization, delirium, and sleep deprivation in adult intensive care units (SAMDS-ICU): an international survey before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

Background

Since the publication of the 2018 Clinical Guidelines about sedation, analgesia, delirium, mobilization, and sleep deprivation in critically ill patients, no evaluation and adequacy assessment of these recommendations were studied in an international context. This survey aimed to investigate these current practices and if the COVID-19 pandemic has changed them.

Methods

This study was an open multinational electronic survey directed to physicians working in adult intensive care units (ICUs), which was performed in two steps: before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Results

We analyzed 1768 questionnaires and 1539 (87%) were complete. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, we received 1476 questionnaires and 292 were submitted later. The following practices were observed before the pandemic: the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (61.5%), the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) (48.2%), the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) (76.6%), and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) (66.6%) were the most frequently tools used to assess pain, sedation level, and delirium, respectively; midazolam and fentanyl were the most frequently used drugs for inducing sedation and analgesia (84.8% and 78.3%, respectively), whereas haloperidol (68.8%) and atypical antipsychotics (69.4%) were the most prescribed drugs for delirium treatment; some physicians regularly prescribed drugs to induce sleep (19.1%) or ordered mechanical restraints as part of their routine (6.2%) for patients on mechanical ventilation; non-pharmacological strategies were frequently applied for pain, delirium, and sleep deprivation management. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the intensive care specialty was independently associated with best practices. Moreover, the mechanical ventilation rate was higher, patients received sedation more often (94% versus 86.1%, p < 0.001) and sedation goals were discussed more frequently in daily rounds. Morphine was the main drug used for analgesia (77.2%), and some sedative drugs, such as midazolam, propofol, ketamine and quetiapine, were used more frequently.

Conclusions

Most sedation, analgesia and delirium practices were comparable before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the intensive care specialty was a variable that was independently associated with the best practices. Although many findings are in accordance with evidence-based recommendations, some practices still need improvement.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13613-022-00985-y.

COVID-19 Critical Illness: A Data-Driven Review

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has posed unprecedented challenges in critical care medicine, including extreme demand for intensive care unit (ICU) resources and rapidly evolving understanding of a novel disease. Up to one-third of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 experience critical illness. The most common form of organ failure in COVID-19 critical illness is acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, which clinically presents as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in three-quarters of ICU patients. Noninvasive respiratory support modalities are being used with increasing frequency given their potential to reduce the need for intubation. Determining optimal patient selection for and timing of intubation remains a challenge. Management of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 largely mirrors that of non-COVID-19 ARDS. Organ failure is common and portends a poor prognosis. Mortality rates have improved over the course of the pandemic, likely owing to increasing disease familiarity, data-driven pharmacologics, and improved adherence to evidence-based critical care.

Implementation of the ABCDEF Bundle for Critically Ill ICU Patients During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Multi-National 1-Day Point Prevalence Study

Background: Data regarding delivery of evidence-based care to critically ill patients in Intensive Care Units (ICU) during the COVID-19 pandemic is crucial but lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the implementation rate of the ABCDEF bundle, which is a collection of six evidence-based ICU care initiatives which are strongly recommended to be incorporated into clinical practice, and ICU diaries for patients with and without COVID-19 infections in ICUs, and to analyze the impact of COVID-19 on implementation of each element of the bundle and independent associated factors.

Methods: A world-wide 1-day point prevalence study investigated the delivery of the ABCDEF bundle and ICU diary to patients without or with COVID-19 infections on 27 January 2021 via an online questionnaire. Multivariable logistic regression analysis with adjustment for patient demographics evaluated the impact of COVID-19 and identified factors in ICU administrative structures and policies independently associated with delivery.

Results: From 54 countries and 135 ICUs, 1,229 patients were eligible, and 607 (49%) had COVID-19 infections. Implementation rates were: entire bundle (without COVID-19: 0% and with COVID-19: 1%), Element A (regular pain assessment: 64 and 55%), Element B (both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials: 17 and 10%), Element C (regular sedation assessment: 45 and 61%), Element D (regular delirium assessment: 39 and 35%), Element E (exercise: 22 and 25%), Element F (family engagement/empowerment: 16 and 30%), and ICU diary (17 and 21%). The presence of COVID-19 was not associated with failure to implement individual elements. Independently associated factors for each element in common between the two groups included presence of a specific written protocol, application of a target/goal, and tele-ICU management. A lower income status country and a 3:1 nurse-patient ratio were significantly associated with non-implementation of elements A, C, and D, while a lower income status country was also associated with implementation of element F.

Conclusions: Regardless of COVID-19 infection status, implementation rates for the ABCDEF bundle, for each element individually and an ICU diary were extremely low for patients without and with COVID-19 infections during the pandemic. Strategies to facilitate implementation of and adherence to the complete ABCDEF bundle should be optimized and addressed based on unit-specific barriers and facilitators.

Weaning Analgosedation in Patients Requiring Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation

Although research supports the minimization of sedation in mechanically ventilated patients, many patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receive prolonged opioid and sedative infusions. ICU teams face the challenge of weaning these medications, balancing the risks of sedation with the potential to precipitate withdrawal symptoms. In this article, we use a clinical case to discuss our approach to weaning analgosedation in patients recovering from long-term mechanical ventilation. We believe that a protocolized, multimodal weaning strategy implemented by a multidisciplinary care team is required to reduce potential harm from both under- and over-sedation. At present, there is no strong randomized clinical trial evidence to support a particular weaning strategy in adult ICU patients, but appraisal of the existing literature in adults and children can guide decision-making to enhance the recovery of these patients.

Postintensive Care Syndrome in Survivors of Critical Illness Related to Coronavirus Disease 2019: Cohort Study From a New York City Critical Care Recovery Clinic

OBJECTIVE

Determine the characteristics of postintensive care syndrome in the cognitive, physical, and psychiatric domains in coronavirus disease 2019 ICU survivors.

DESIGN

Single-center descriptive cohort study from April 21, to July 7, 2020.

SETTING

Critical care recovery clinic at The Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City.

PATIENTS

Adults who had critical illness due to coronavirus disease 2019 requiring an ICU stay of 7 days or more and who agreed to a telehealth follow-up in the critical care recovery clinic 1-month post hospital discharge.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASURES AND MAIN RESULTS

Patient-reported outcome measures assessing physical and psychiatric domains were collected electronically, a cognitive test was performed by a clinician, and clinical data were obtained through electronic medical records. Outcome measures assessed postintensive care syndrome symptoms in the physical (Modified Rankin Scale, Dalhousie Clinical Frailty Scale, Neuro-Quality of Life Upper Extremity and Lower Extremity Function, Neuro-Quality of Life Fatigue), psychiatric (Insomnia Severity Scale; Patient Health Questionnaire-9; and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition), and cognitive (Telephone Montreal Cognitive Assessment) domains. The 3-Level Version of Euro-QoL-5D was used to assess the physical and psychiatric domains. A diagnosis of postintensive care syndrome was made in cases with evidence of impairment in at least one postintensive care syndrome domain. We included 45 patients with a mean (sd) age of 54 (13) years, and 73% were male. Ninety-one percent of coronavirus disease 2019 ICU survivors fit diagnostic criteria for postintensive care syndrome. 86.7 % had impairments in the physical domain, 22 (48%) reported impairments in the psychiatric domain, and four (8%) had impairments on cognitive screening. We found that 58% had some degree of mobility impairment. In the psychiatric domain, 38% exhibited at least mild depression, and 18 % moderate to severe depression. Eighteen percent presented Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, scores suggestive of posttraumatic stress syndrome diagnosis. In the Telephone Montreal Cognitive Assessment, 9% had impaired cognition.

CONCLUSIONS

Survivors of critical illness related to coronavirus disease 2019 are at high risk of developing postintensive care syndrome. These findings highlight the importance of planning for appropriate post-ICU care to diagnose and treat this population.

Occupational Therapy During COVID-19-Related Critical Illness: A Case Report

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has presented unique challenges for occupational therapy practitioners working in acute and critical care settings. Using the best available evidence, this case report overviews a prototypical COVID-19 disease course and discusses key aspects of clinical reasoning for practitioners working with this novel population. Following a single patient admitted to a tertiary academic medical center, the authors review the occupational profile and medical history, common impairments, the intervention plan, and strategies to align the occupational therapy and medical goals of care.

ICU Survivorship-The Relationship of Delirium, Sedation, Dementia, and Acquired Weakness

The advent of modern critical care medicine has revolutionized care of the critically ill patient in the last 50 years. The Society of Critical Care Medicine (was formed in recognition of the challenges and need for specialized treatment for these fragile patients. As the specialty has grown, it has achieved impressive scientific advances that have reduced mortality and saved lives. With those advances, however, came growing recognition that the burden of critical illness did not end at the doorstep of the hospital. Delirium, once thought to be a mere by-product of critical illness, was found to be an independent predictor of mortality, prolonged mechanical ventilation, and long-lasting cognitive impairment. Similarly, deep sedation and immobility, so often used to keep patients "comfortable" and to facilitate mechanical ventilation and recovery, worsen mortality and lead to the development of ICU-acquired weakness. The realization that these outcomes are inextricably linked to one another and how we manage our patients has helped us recognize the need for culture change. We, as a specialty, now understand that although celebrating the successes of survival, we now also have a duty to focus on those who survive their diseases. Led by initiatives such as the ICU Liberation Campaign of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, the natural progression of the field is now focused on getting patients back to their homes and lives unencumbered by disability and impairment. Much work remains to be done, but the futures of our most critically ill patients will continue to benefit if we leverage and build on the history of our first 50 years.

Delirium Severely Worsens Outcome in Patients with COVID-19-A Retrospective Cohort Study from Temporary Critical Care Hospitals

Delirium is a sign of deterioration of homeostasis and worse prognosis. The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency, risk factors and prognosis of delirium in patients with COVID-19 in a temporary acute setting hospital. A retrospective cohort analysis of data collected between October 2020 and February 2021 from two temporary acute care hospitals was performed. All consecutive hospitalized patients ≥18 years old with COVID-19 were included. An assessment of consciousness was carried out at least two times a day, including neurological examination. Delirium was identified through retrospective chart review according to DSM-5 criteria if present at least once during hospitalization. Analysis included 201 patients, 39 diagnosed with delirium (19.4%). Delirious patients were older (p < 0.001), frailer (p < 0.001) and the majority were male (p = 0.002). Respiratory parameters were worse in this group with higher oxygen flow (p = 0.013), lower PaO2 (p = 0.043) and higher FiO2 (p = 0.006). The mortality rate was significantly higher in patients with delirium (46.15% vs 3.70%, p < 0.001) with OR 17.212 (p < 0.001) corrected for age and gender. Delirious patients experienced significantly more complications: cardiovascular (OR 7.72, p < 0.001), pulmonary (OR 8.79, p < 0.001) or septic (OR 3.99, p = 0.029). The odds of mortality in patients with COVID-19 presenting with delirium at any point of hospitalization were seventeen times higher.

Emerging COVID-19 Neurological Manifestations: Present Outlook and Potential Neurological Challenges in COVID-19 Pandemic

The unremitting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) marked a year-long phase of public health adversaries and has severely compromised healthcare globally. Early evidence of COVID-19 noted its impact on the pulmonary and cardiovascular functions, while multiple studies in recent time shed light on its substantial neurological complications, though a comprehensive understanding of the cause(s), the mechanism(s), and their neuropathological outcomes is scarce. In the present review, we conferred evidence of neurological complications in COVID-19 patients and shed light on the SARS-CoV-2 infection routes including the hematogenous, direct/neuronal, lymphatic tissue or cerebrospinal fluid, or infiltration through infected immune cells, while the underlying mechanism of SARS-CoV-2 invasion to the central nervous system (CNS) was also discussed. In an up-to-date manner, we further reviewed the impact of COVID-19 in developing diverse neurologic manifestations associated with CNS, peripheral nervous system (PNS), skeletal muscle, and also pre-existing neurological diseases, including Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and myasthenia gravis. Furthermore, we discussed the involvement of key factors including age, sex, comorbidity, and disease severity in exacerbating the neurologic manifestations in COVID-19 patients. An outlook of present therapeutic strategies and state of existing challenges in COVID-19 management was also accessed. Conclusively, the present report provides a comprehensive review of COVID-19-related neurological complications and emphasizes the need for their early clinical management in the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Consensus for the management of analgesia, sedation and delirium in adults with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome

Objective

To propose agile strategies for a comprehensive approach to analgesia, sedation, delirium, early mobility and family engagement for patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome, considering the high risk of infection among health workers, the humanitarian treatment that we must provide to patients and the inclusion of patients’ families, in a context lacking specific therapeutic strategies against the virus globally available to date and a potential lack of health resources.

Methods

A nonsystematic review of the scientific evidence in the main bibliographic databases was carried out, together with national and international clinical experience and judgment. Finally, a consensus of recommendations was made among the members of the Committee for Analgesia, Sedation and Delirium of the Sociedad Argentina de Terapia Intensiva.

Results

Recommendations were agreed upon, and tools were developed to ensure a comprehensive approach to analgesia, sedation, delirium, early mobility and family engagement for adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19.

Discussion

Given the new order generated in intensive therapies due to the advancing COVID-19 pandemic, we propose to not leave aside the usual good practices but to adapt them to the particular context generated. Our consensus is supported by scientific evidence and national and international experience and will be an attractive consultation tool in intensive therapies.

Early mobilization and physical exercise in patients with COVID-19: A narrative literature review

BACKGROUND

Currently, little is known about early mobilization and exercise in individuals with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the indication and safety of early mobilization and exercises in mild to severe COVID-19 patients and to investigate the use of telerehabilitation to deliver exercise programs to these patients.

METHODS

This narrative literature review was conducted performing a comprehensive search of databases.

RESULTS

32 articles met the established criteria and the main findings were summarized and described, including indication, contraindication and recommendation for early rehabilitation and exercises prescription.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature suggests that early mobilization and physical exercise are beneficial for individuals with COVID-19. However, much of what has been published is based on expert opinion due to a lack of randomized trials, which are needed.

ABCDEF Bundle and Supportive ICU Practices for Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Infection: An International Point Prevalence Study

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Objectives:

To investigate implementation of evidence-based and supportive cares in ICUs, such as the ABCDEF, nutrition therapy, and ICU diary, for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection in ICUs and their association with ICU clinical practice and setting.

Design:

A worldwide, 2-day point prevalence study.

Setting:

The study was carried out on June 3, 2020, and July 1, 2020. A total of 212 ICUs in 38 countries participated. Clinicians in each participating ICU completed web-based online surveys.

Patients:

The ICU patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Interventions:

None.

Measurements and Main results:

The implementation rate for the elements of the ABCDEF bundle, other supportive ICU care measures, and implementation-associated structures were investigated. Data were collected for 262 patients, of whom 47.3% underwent mechanical ventilation and 4.6% were treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Each element was implemented for the following percentages of patients: elements A (regular pain assessment), 45%; B (both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials), 28%; C (regular sedation assessment), 52%; D (regular delirium assessment), 35%; E (early mobility and exercise), 47%; and F (family engagement and empowerment), 16%. The implementation of element E was 4% for patients on mechanical ventilation and 8% for patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Supportive care, such as protein provision throughout the ICU stay (under 1.2 g/kg for more than 50% of the patients) and introduction of ICU diary (25%), was infrequent. Implementation rates of elements A and D were higher in ICUs with specific protocols and fewer ICU beds exclusively for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection. Element E was implemented at a higher rate in ICUs that had more ICU beds assigned for them.

Conclusions:

This point prevalence study showed low implementation of the ABCDEF bundle. Specific protocols and the number of ICU beds reserved for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 infection might be key factors for delivering appropriate supportive care.

Severe covid-19 pneumonia: pathogenesis and clinical management

Severe covid-19 pneumonia has posed critical challenges for the research and medical communities. Older age, male sex, and comorbidities increase the risk for severe disease. For people hospitalized with covid-19, 15-30% will go on to develop covid-19 associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS). Autopsy studies of patients who died of severe SARS CoV-2 infection reveal presence of diffuse alveolar damage consistent with ARDS but with a higher thrombus burden in pulmonary capillaries. When used appropriately, high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) may allow CARDS patients to avoid intubation, and does not increase risk for disease transmission. During invasive mechanical ventilation, low tidal volume ventilation and positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration to optimize oxygenation are recommended. Dexamethasone treatment improves mortality for the treatment of severe and critical covid-19, while remdesivir may have modest benefit in time to recovery in patients with severe disease but shows no statistically significant benefit in mortality or other clinical outcomes. Covid-19 survivors, especially patients with ARDS, are at high risk for long term physical and mental impairments, and an interdisciplinary approach is essential for critical illness recovery.

Occupational Therapy: Essential to Critical Care Rehabilitation

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic reshaped the health care landscape, leading to the reassignment of essential health care workers to critical areas and widespread furloughs of providers deemed nonessential, including occupational therapy practitioners. Although multidisciplinary critical care teams often include occupational therapy practitioners, efforts to define, measure, and disseminate occupational therapy's unique contributions to critical care outcomes have been overlooked. This editorial provides recommendations to improve the occupational therapy profession's readiness to meet society's current and future pandemic needs. We propose a three-pronged strategy to strengthen occupational therapy clinical practice, education, and advocacy to illuminate the distinct value of occupational therapy in critical care.

Care bundles for improving outcomes in patients with COVID-19 or related conditions in intensive care - a rapid scoping review

BACKGROUND

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the strain of coronavirus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can cause serious illness in some people resulting in admission to intensive care units (ICU) and frequently, ventilatory support for acute respiratory failure. Evaluating ICU care, and what is effective in improving outcomes for these patients is critical. Care bundles, a small set of evidence-based interventions, delivered together consistently, may improve patient outcomes. To identify the extent of the available evidence on the use of care bundles in patients with COVID-19 in the ICU, the World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned a scoping review to inform WHO guideline discussions. This review does not assess the effectiveness of the findings, assess risk of bias, or assess the certainty of the evidence (GRADE). As this review was commissioned to inform guideline discussions, it was done rapidly over a three-week period from 26 October to 18 November 2020.

OBJECTIVES

To identify and describe the available evidence on the use of care bundles in the ICU for patients with COVID-19 or related conditions (acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) viral pneumonia or pneumonitis), or both. In carrying out the review the focus was on characterising the evidence base and not evaluating the effectiveness or safety of the care bundles or their component parts.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL and the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 26 October 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies of all designs that reported on patients who are critically ill with COVID-19, ARDS, viral pneumonia or pneumonitis, in the ICU setting, where a care bundle was implemented in providing care, were eligible for inclusion. One review author (VS) screened all records on title and abstract. A second review author (DR) checked 20% of excluded and included records; agreement was 99.4% and 100% respectively on exclude/include decisions. Two review authors (VS and DR) independently screened all records at full-text level. VS and DR resolved any disagreements through discussion and consensus, or referral to a third review author (AN) as required.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

One review author (VS) extracted the data and a second review author (DR) checked 20% of this for accuracy. As the review was not designed to synthesise effectiveness data, assess risk of bias, or characterise the certainty of the evidence (GRADE), we mapped the extracted data and presented them in tabular format based on the patient condition; that is patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19, patients with ARDS, patients with any influenza or viral pneumonia, patients with severe respiratory failure, and patients with mixed conditions. We have also provided a narrative summary of the findings from the included studies.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 studies and identified three ongoing studies. The studies were of variable designs and included a systematic review of standardised approaches to caring for critically ill patients in ICU, including but not exclusive to care bundles (1 study), a randomised trial (1 study), prospective and retrospective cohort studies (4 studies), before and after studies (7 studies), observational quality improvement reports (4 studies), case series/case reports (3 studies) and audit (1 study). The studies were conducted in eight countries, most commonly China (5 studies) and the USA (4 studies), were published between 1999 and 2020, and involved over 2000 participants in total. Studies categorised participant conditions patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 (7 studies), patients with ARDS (7 studies), patients with another influenza or viral pneumonia (5 studies), patients with severe respiratory failure (1 study), and patients with mixed conditions (1 study). The care bundles described in the studies involved multiple diverse practices. Guidance on ventilator settings (10 studies), restrictive fluid management (8 studies), sedation (7 studies) and prone positioning (7 studies) were identified most frequently, while only one study mentioned chest X-ray. None of the included studies reported the prespecified outcomes ICU-acquired weakness (muscle wasting, weight loss) and users' experience adapting care bundles. Of the remaining prespecified outcomes, 14 studies reported death in ICU, nine reported days of ventilation (or ventilator-free days), nine reported length of stay in ICU in days, five reported death in hospital, three reported length of stay in hospital in days, and three reported adherence to the bundle.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This scoping review has identified 21 studies on care bundle use in critically ill patients in ICU with COVID-19, ARDS, viral influenza or pneumonia and severe respiratory failure. The data for patients with COVID-19 specifically are limited, derived mainly from observational quality improvement or clinical experiential accounts. Research is required, urgently, to further assess care bundle use and optimal components of these bundles in this patient cohort. The care bundles described were also varied, with guidance on ventilator settings described in 10 care bundles, while chest X-ray was part mentioned in one care bundle in one study only. None of the studies identified in this scoping review measured users' experience of adapting care bundles. Optimising care bundle implementation requires that the components of the care bundle are collectively and consistently applied. Data on challenges, barriers and facilitators to implementation are needed. A formal synthesis of the outcome data presented in this review and a critical appraisal of the evidence is required by a subsequent effectiveness review. This subsequent review should further explore effect estimates across the included studies.

Delirium

Delirium, a syndrome characterized by an acute change in attention, awareness and cognition, is caused by a medical condition that cannot be better explained by a pre-existing neurocognitive disorder. Multiple predisposing factors (for example, pre-existing cognitive impairment) and precipitating factors (for example, urinary tract infection) for delirium have been described, with most patients having both types. Because multiple factors are implicated in the aetiology of delirium, there are likely several neurobiological processes that contribute to delirium pathogenesis, including neuroinflammation, brain vascular dysfunction, altered brain metabolism, neurotransmitter imbalance and impaired neuronal network connectivity. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) is the most commonly used diagnostic system upon which a reference standard diagnosis is made, although many other delirium screening tools have been developed given the impracticality of using the DSM-5 in many settings. Pharmacological treatments for delirium (such as antipsychotic drugs) are not effective, reflecting substantial gaps in our understanding of its pathophysiology. Currently, the best management strategies are multidomain interventions that focus on treating precipitating conditions, medication review, managing distress, mitigating complications and maintaining engagement to environmental issues. The effective implementation of delirium detection, treatment and prevention strategies remains a major challenge for health-care organizations globally.

Analgesia and sedation in patients with ARDS

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is one of the most demanding conditions in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Management of analgesia and sedation in ARDS is particularly challenging. An expert panel was convened to produce a "state-of-the-art" article to support clinicians in the optimal management of analgesia/sedation in mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS, including those with COVID-19. Current ICU analgesia/sedation guidelines promote analgesia first and minimization of sedation, wakefulness, delirium prevention and early rehabilitation to facilitate ventilator and ICU liberation. However, these strategies cannot always be applied to patients with ARDS who sometimes require deep sedation and/or paralysis. Patients with severe ARDS may be under-represented in analgesia/sedation studies and currently recommended strategies may not be feasible. With lightened sedation, distress-related symptoms (e.g., pain and discomfort, anxiety, dyspnea) and patient-ventilator asynchrony should be systematically assessed and managed through interprofessional collaboration, prioritizing analgesia and anxiolysis. Adaptation of ventilator settings (e.g., use of a pressure-set mode, spontaneous breathing, sensitive inspiratory trigger) should be systematically considered before additional medications are administered. Managing the mechanical ventilator is of paramount importance to avoid the unnecessary use of deep sedation and/or paralysis. Therefore, applying an "ABCDEF-R" bundle (R = Respiratory-drive-control) may be beneficial in ARDS patients. Further studies are needed, especially regarding the use and long-term effects of fast-offset drugs (e.g., remifentanil, volatile anesthetics) and the electrophysiological assessment of analgesia/sedation (e.g., electroencephalogram devices, heart-rate variability, and video pupillometry). This review is particularly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic given drug shortages and limited ICU-bed capacity.

Management of psychiatric conditions and delirium during the COVID-19 pandemic across continents: lessons learned and recommendations

Background

With the uncertainties of COVID-19, people infected with coronavirus present with diverse psychiatric presentations. Some institutions have had to manage their patients with existing protocols, others have had to create them. In this article we aimed to report the challenges and good practices in the management of psychiatric conditions and delirium coexisting with COVID-19 across continents.

Methods

Early Career Psychiatrists (ECPs) from across five continents were approached to share their experiences on the management of psychiatric conditions in patients with COVID-19 during the current pandemic.

Results

We collected information about the experiences from sixteen countries. Commonalities were similar psychiatric presentations and poor preparedness across countries. Differences were varying adjustments made in the management of psychiatric conditions coexisting with COVID-19 and different innovations. Good practices which can be adopted by other countries are novel approaches such as telepsychiatry, proactive consultation-liaison units and enhanced community services targeted at circumventing challenges faced when providing mental health services.

Conclusions

These findings highlight the need for global preparedness in the mental health sector during outbreaks of infectious diseases, and the need for concerted efforts targeted at global and locally sensitive adaptation of existing protocols and the development of new guidelines for the management of psychiatric conditions for the present pandemic and subsequent occurrences.

•

ECPs provided their perspective on the management of psychiatric conditions in patients with COVID-19.

•

We found commonalities and differences in the management of psychiatric conditions coexisting with COVID-19.

•

There are shared similarities and differences, likewise modifications in pre-existing protocols for management of delirium.

•

A common factor is the need to adapt guidelines and protocols for the management of psychiatric conditions.

Sedation, Analgesia, and Paralysis in COVID-19 Patients in the Setting of Drug Shortages

The rapid spread of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) has led to a global pandemic. The 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19) presents with a spectrum of symptoms ranging from mild to critical illness requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Acute respiratory distress syndrome is a major complication in patients with severe COVID-19 disease. Currently, there are no recognized pharmacological therapies for COVID-19. However, a large number of COVID-19 patients require respiratory support, with a high percentage requiring invasive ventilation. The rapid spread of the infection has led to a surge in the rate of hospitalizations and ICU admissions, which created a challenge to public health, research, and medical communities. The high demand for several therapies, including sedatives, analgesics, and paralytics, that are often utilized in the care of COVID-19 patients requiring mechanical ventilation, has created pressure on the supply chain resulting in shortages in these critical medications. This has led clinicians to develop conservation strategies and explore alternative therapies for sedation, analgesia, and paralysis in COVID-19 patients. Several of these alternative approaches have demonstrated acceptable levels of sedation, analgesia, and paralysis in different settings but they are not commonly used in the ICU. Additionally, they have unique pharmaceutical properties, limitations, and adverse effects. This narrative review summarizes the literature on alternative drug therapies for the management of sedation, analgesia, and paralysis in COVID-19 patients. Also, this document serves as a resource for clinicians in current and future respiratory illness pandemics in the setting of drug shortages.

Rethinking the Drug Distribution and Medication Management Model: How a New York City Hospital Pharmacy Department Responded to COVID-19

Beginning in March 2020, New York City began the fight against coronavirus disease 2019. Health care workers were faced with a disease that led to significant morbidity and mortality with no proven therapies. As hospitals became inundated with patients and underwent rapid expansion of capacity, resources such as drugs, protective and medical equipment, and hospital staff became limited. Pharmacists played a critical role in the management of clinical care and drug delivery during the pandemic. As members of the department of pharmacy within NewYork‐Presbyterian Hospital, we describe our experiences and processes to overcome challenges faced during the pandemic. Strict inventory management through the use of daily usage reports, frequent communication, and minimization of waste was critical for the management of drug shortages. The creation of guidelines, protocols, and restrictions were not only used to mitigate drug shortages, but also helped educate health care providers and guided medication use. Managing technology through setting up new automatic dispensing cabinets to address hospital expansions and modifying the electronic order entry system to include new protocols and drug shortage information were also vital. Additional key pharmacist functions included provision of investigational drug service support and training of pharmacists, prescribers, nurses, and respiratory therapists to educate and standardize medication use. Through implementation of operational and clinical processes, pharmacists managed critical drug inventory and guided patient treatment. As the pandemic continues, pharmacists will remain vital members of the multidisciplinary team dedicated to the fight against the virus.

COVID-19: Pain Management in Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection-Molecular Mechanisms, Challenges, and Perspectives

Since the end of 2019, the whole world has been struggling with the pandemic of the new Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2). Available evidence suggests that pain is a common symptom during Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). According to the World Health Organization, many patients suffer from muscle pain (myalgia) and/or joint pain (arthralgia), sore throat and headache. The exact mechanisms of headache and myalgia during viral infection are still unknown. Moreover, many patients with respiratory failure get admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for ventilatory support. Pain in ICU patients can be associated with viral disease itself (myalgia, arthralgia, peripheral neuropathies), may be caused by continuous pain and discomfort associated with ICU treatment, intermittent procedural pain and chronic pain present before admission to the ICU. Undertreatment of pain, especially when sedation and neuromuscular blocking agents are used, prone positioning during mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may trigger delirium and cause peripheral neuropathies. This narrative review summarizes current knowledge regarding challenges associated with pain assessment and management in COVID-19 patients. A structured prospective evaluation should be undertaken to analyze the probability, severity, sources and adequate treatment of pain in patients with COVID-19 infection.