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

Sedation in the ICU

AbstractSedation practices are key to improving intensive care unit (ICU) outcomes. Adequate treatment of pain, minimization of sedation, delirium prevention, and improved patient interaction to ensure early rehabilitation and faster ventilator liberation are evidenced-based components of ICU care. Here we review components of appropriate ICU sedation including the use of multicomponent care bundles such as the ABCDEF bundle with a focus on changes in ICU practice that followed the Covid-19 pandemic.

Enhancing European Management of Analgesia, Sedation, and Delirium: A Multinational, Prospective, Interventional Before-After Trial

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to analyze the impact of a structured educational intervention on the implementation of guideline-recommended pain, agitation, and delirium (PAD) assessment.

METHODS

This was a prospective, multinational, interventional before-after trial conducted at 12 intensive care units from 10 centers in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and the UK. Intensive care units underwent a 6-week structured educational program, comprising online lectures, instructional videos, educational handouts, and bedside teaching. Patient-level PAD assessment data were collected in three 1-day point-prevalence assessments before (T1), 6 weeks after (T2), and 1 year after (T3) the educational program.

RESULTS

A total of 430 patients were included. The rate of patients who received all three PAD assessments changed from 55% (107/195) at T1 to 53% (68/129) at T2, but increased to 73% (77/106) at T3 (p = 0.003). The delirium screening rate increased from 64% (124/195) at T1 to 65% (84/129) at T2 and 77% (82/106) at T3 (p = 0.041). The pain assessment rate increased from 87% (170/195) at T1 to 92% (119/129) at T2 and 98% (104/106) at T3 (p = 0.005). The rate of sedation assessment showed no signficiant change. The proportion of patients who received nonpharmacological delirium prevention measures increased from 58% (114/195) at T1 to 80% (103/129) at T2 and 91% (96/106) at T3 (p < 0.001). Multivariable regression revealed that at T3, patients were more likely to receive a delirium assessment (odds ratio [OR] 2.138, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.206-3.790; p = 0.009), sedation assessment (OR 4.131, 95% CI 1.372-12.438; p = 0.012), or all three PAD assessments (OR 2.295, 95% CI 1.349-3.903; p = 0.002) compared with T1.

CONCLUSIONS

In routine care, many patients were not assessed for PAD. Assessment rates increased significantly 1 year after the intervention. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03553719.

Timing to out-of-bed mobilization and mobility levels of COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU: Experiences in Brazilian clinical practice

INTRODUCTION

At the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, there was scarce data about clinical/functional conditions during hospitalization or after hospital discharge. Little was known about COVID-19 repercussions and how to do early mobilization in intensive care unit (ICU).

OBJECTIVE

Identify the time to the initiation of out-of-bed mobilization and the levels of mobility (sitting over the edge of the bed, sitting in a chair, standing, and ambulating) reached by critically ill patients with COVID-19 during hospitalization and the factors that could impact early mobilization.

METHODS

This was a retrospective observational study of patients with COVID-19 in the ICU.

RESULTS

There were 157 surviving COVID-19 patients included in the study (median age: 61 years; median ICU length of stay: 12 days). The median time to initiate out-of-bed mobilization in the ICU was 6 days; between patients who received mechanical ventilation (MV) compared with those who did not, this time was 8 vs. 2.5 days (p < .001). Most patients who used MV were mobilized after extubation (79.6%). During ICU stays, 88.0% of all patients were mobilized out of bed, and 41.0% were able to ambulate either with assistance or independently. The time to initiate out-of-bed mobilization is associated with sedation time and MV time.

CONCLUSION

Despite the pandemic scenario, patients were quickly mobilized out of bed, and most of the patients achieved higher mobility levels in the ICU and at hospital discharge. Sedation time and MV time were associated with delays in initiating mobilization.

From bedside to recovery: exercise therapy for prevention of post-intensive care syndrome

BACKGROUND

As advancements in critical care medicine continue to improve Intensive Care Unit (ICU) survival rates, clinical and research attention is urgently shifting toward improving the quality of survival. Post-Intensive Care Syndrome (PICS) is a complex constellation of physical, cognitive, and mental dysfunctions that severely impact patients' lives after hospital discharge. This review provides a comprehensive and multi-dimensional summary of the current evidence and practice of exercise therapy (ET) during and after an ICU admission to prevent and manage the various domains of PICS. The review aims to elucidate the evidence of the mechanisms and effects of ET in ICU rehabilitation and highlight that suboptimal clinical and functional outcomes of ICU patients is a growing public health concern that needs to be urgently addressed.

MAIN BODY

This review commences with a brief overview of the current relationship between PICS and ET, describing the latest research on this topic. It subsequently summarises the use of ET in ICU, hospital wards, and post-hospital discharge, illuminating the problematic transition between these settings. The following chapters focus on the effects of ET on physical, cognitive, and mental function, detailing the multi-faceted biological and pathophysiological mechanisms of dysfunctions and the benefits of ET in all three domains. This is followed by a chapter focusing on co-interventions and how to maximise and enhance the effect of ET, outlining practical strategies for how to optimise the effectiveness of ET. The review next describes several emerging technologies that have been introduced/suggested to augment and support the provision of ET during and after ICU admission. Lastly, the review discusses future research directions.

CONCLUSION

PICS is a growing global healthcare concern. This review aims to guide clinicians, researchers, policymakers, and healthcare providers in utilising ET as a therapeutic and preventive measure for patients during and after an ICU admission to address this problem. An improved understanding of the effectiveness of ET and the clinical and research gaps that needs to be urgently addressed will greatly assist clinicians in their efforts to rehabilitate ICU survivors, improving patients' quality of survival and helping them return to their normal lives after hospital discharge.

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.

Early mobilisation in critically ill COVID-19 patients: a subanalysis of the ESICM-initiated UNITE-COVID observational study

BACKGROUND

Early mobilisation (EM) is an intervention that may improve the outcome of critically ill patients. There is limited data on EM in COVID-19 patients and its use during the first pandemic wave.

METHODS

This is a pre-planned subanalysis of the ESICM UNITE-COVID, an international multicenter observational study involving critically ill COVID-19 patients in the ICU between February 15th and May 15th, 2020. We analysed variables associated with the initiation of EM (within 72 h of ICU admission) and explored the impact of EM on mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, as well as discharge location. Statistical analyses were done using (generalised) linear mixed-effect models and ANOVAs.

RESULTS

Mobilisation data from 4190 patients from 280 ICUs in 45 countries were analysed. 1114 (26.6%) of these patients received mobilisation within 72 h after ICU admission; 3076 (73.4%) did not. In our analysis of factors associated with EM, mechanical ventilation at admission (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.25, 0.35; p = 0.001), higher age (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.98, 1.00; p ≤ 0.001), pre-existing asthma (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73, 0.98; p = 0.028), and pre-existing kidney disease (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.71, 0.99; p = 0.036) were negatively associated with the initiation of EM. EM was associated with a higher chance of being discharged home (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.08, 1.58; p = 0.007) but was not associated with length of stay in ICU (adj. difference 0.91 days; 95% CI - 0.47, 1.37, p = 0.34) and hospital (adj. difference 1.4 days; 95% CI - 0.62, 2.35, p = 0.24) or mortality (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.7, 1.09, p = 0.24) when adjusted for covariates.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate that a quarter of COVID-19 patients received EM. There was no association found between EM in COVID-19 patients' ICU and hospital length of stay or mortality. However, EM in COVID-19 patients was associated with increased odds of being discharged home rather than to a care facility. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04836065 (retrospectively registered April 8th 2021).

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.

Awakening and Breathing Coordination: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Determinants of Implementation

Rationale: Routine spontaneous awakening and breathing trial coordination (SAT/SBT) improves outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients, but adherence varies. Understanding barriers to and facilitators of consistent daily use of SAT/SBT (implementation determinants) can guide the development of implementation strategies to increase adherence to these evidence-based interventions. Objectives: We conducted an explanatory, sequential mixed-methods study to measure variation in the routine daily use of SAT/SBT and to identify implementation determinants that might explain variation in SAT/SBT use across 15 intensive care units (ICUs) in urban and rural locations within an integrated, community-based health system. Methods: We described the patient population and measured adherence to daily use of coordinated SAT/SBT from January to June 2021, selecting four sites with varied adherence levels for semistructured field interviews. We conducted key informant interviews with critical care nurses, respiratory therapists, and physicians/advanced practice clinicians (n = 55) from these four sites between October and December 2021 and performed content analysis to identify implementation determinants of SAT/SBT use. Results: The 15 sites had 1,901 ICU admissions receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for ⩾24 hours during the measurement period. The mean IMV patient age was 58 years, and the median IMV duration was 5.3 days (interquartile range, 2.5-11.9). Coordinated SAT/SBT adherence (within 2 h) was estimated at 21% systemwide (site range, 9-68%). ICU clinicians were generally familiar with SAT/SBT but varied in their knowledge and beliefs about what constituted an evidence-based SAT/SBT. Clinicians reported that SAT/SBT coordination was difficult in the context of existing ICU workflows, and existing protocols did not explicitly define how coordination should be performed. The lack of an agreed-upon system-level measure for tracking daily use of SAT/SBT led to uncertainty regarding what constituted adherence. The effects of the COVID-19 pandemic increased clinician workloads, impacting performance. Conclusions: Coordinated SAT/SBT adherence varied substantially across 15 ICUs within an integrated, community-based health system. Implementation strategies that address barriers identified by this study, including knowledge deficits, challenges regarding workflow coordination, and the lack of performance measurement, should be tested in future hybrid implementation-effectiveness trials to increase adherence to daily use of coordinated SAT/SBT and minimize harm related to the prolonged use of mechanical ventilation and sedation.

Perspectives on Sedation Among Interdisciplinary Team Members in ICU: A Survey Study

OBJECTIVE

To explore the interdisciplinary team members' beliefs and attitudes about sedation when caring for mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

A 17-bed cardiothoracic ICU at a tertiary care academic hospital in Colorado.

SUBJECTS

All nurses, physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), respiratory therapists, physical therapists (PTs), and occupational therapists (OTs) who work in the cardiothoracic ICU.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We modified a validated survey instrument to evaluate perspectives on sedation across members of the interdisciplinary ICU team. Survey responses were collected anonymously from 111 members (81% response rate). Respondents were predominantly female (70 [63%]). Most respondents across disciplines (94%) believed that their sedation practice made a difference in patients' outcomes. More nurses (48%), APPs (62%), and respiratory therapists (50%) believed that sedation could help alleviate the psychologic stress that patients experience on the ventilator than physicians (19%) and PTs/OTs (0%) (p = 0.008). The proportion of respondents who preferred to be sedated if they were mechanically ventilated themselves varied widely by discipline: respiratory therapists (88%), nurses (83%), APPs (54%), PTs/OTs (38%), and physicians (19%) (p < 0.001). In our exploratory analysis, listeners of an educational podcast had beliefs and attitudes more aligned with best evidence-based practices than nonlisteners.

CONCLUSIONS

We discovered significant interdisciplinary differences in the beliefs and attitudes regarding sedation use in the ICU. Since all ICU team members are involved in managing mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU, aligning the mental models of sedation may be essential to enhance interprofessional collaboration and promote sedation best practices.

Failure of First Transition to Pressure Support Ventilation After Spontaneous Awakening Trials in Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: Influence of COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

To describe the rate of failure of the first transition to pressure support ventilation (PSV) after systematic spontaneous awakening trials (SATs) in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) and to assess whether the failure is higher in COVID-19 compared with AHRF of other etiologies. To determine predictors and potential association of failure with outcomes.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Twenty-eight-bedded medical-surgical ICU in a private hospital (Argentina).

PATIENTS

Subjects with arterial pressure of oxygen (AHRF to Fio2 [Pao2/Fio2] < 300 mm Hg) of different etiologies under controlled mechanical ventilation (MV).

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We collected data during controlled ventilation within 24 hours before SAT followed by the first PSV transition. Failure was defined as the need to return to fully controlled MV within 3 calendar days of PSV start. A total of 274 patients with AHRF (189 COVID-19 and 85 non-COVID-19) were included. The failure occurred in 120 of 274 subjects (43.7%) and was higher in COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 (49.7% and 30.5%; p = 0.003). COVID-19 diagnosis (odds ratio [OR]: 2.22; 95% CI [1.15-4.43]; p = 0.020), previous neuromuscular blockers (OR: 2.16; 95% CI [1.15-4.11]; p = 0.017) and higher fentanyl dose (OR: 1.29; 95% CI [1.05-1.60]; p = 0.018) increased the failure chances. Higher BMI (OR: 0.95; 95% CI [0.91-0.99]; p = 0.029), Pao2/Fio2 (OR: 0.87; 95% CI [0.78-0.97]; p = 0.017), and pH (OR: 0.61; 95% CI [0.38-0.96]; p = 0.035) were protective. Failure groups had higher 60-day ventilator dependence (p < 0.001), MV duration (p < 0.0001), and ICU stay (p = 0.001). Patients who failed had higher mortality in COVID-19 group (p < 0.001) but not in the non-COVID-19 (p = 0.083).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with AHRF of different etiologies, the failure of the first PSV attempt was 43.7%, and at a higher rate in COVID-19. Independent risk factors included COVID-19 diagnosis, fentanyl dose, previous neuromuscular blockers, acidosis and hypoxemia preceding SAT, whereas higher BMI was protective. Failure was associated with worse outcomes.

Post-acute sequelae of COVID-19: understanding and addressing the burden of multisystem manifestations

Individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection can develop symptoms that persist well beyond the acute phase of COVID-19 or emerge after the acute phase, lasting for weeks or months after the initial acute illness. The post-acute sequelae of COVID-19, which include physical, cognitive, and mental health impairments, are known collectively as long COVID or post-COVID-19 condition. The substantial burden of this multisystem condition is felt at individual, health-care system, and socioeconomic levels, on an unprecedented scale. Survivors of COVID-19-related critical illness are at risk of the well known sequelae of acute respiratory distress syndrome, sepsis, and chronic critical illness, and these multidimensional morbidities might be difficult to differentiate from the specific effects of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. We provide an overview of the manifestations of post-COVID-19 condition after critical illness in adults. We explore the effects on various organ systems, describe potential pathophysiological mechanisms, and consider the challenges of providing clinical care and support for survivors of critical illness with multisystem manifestations. Research is needed to reduce the incidence of post-acute sequelae of COVID-19-related critical illness and to optimise therapeutic and rehabilitative care and support for patients.

Effect of early mobilisation on long-term cognitive impairment in critical illness in the USA: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients who have received mechanical ventilation can have prolonged cognitive impairment for which there is no known treatment. We aimed to establish whether early mobilisation could reduce the rates of cognitive impairment and other aspects of disability 1 year after critical illness.

METHODS

In this single-centre, parallel, randomised controlled trial, patients admitted to the adult medical-surgical intensive-care unit (ICU), at the University of Chicago (IL, USA), were recruited. Inclusion criteria were adult patients (aged ≥18 years) who were functionally independent and mechanically ventilated at baseline and within the first 96 h of mechanical ventilation, and expected to continue for at least 24 h. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) via computer-generated permuted balanced block randomisation to early physical and occupational therapy (early mobilisation) or usual care. An investigator designated each assignment in consecutively numbered, sealed, opaque envelopes; they had no further involvement in the trial. Only the assessors were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was cognitive impairment 1 year after hospital discharge, measured with a Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Patients were assessed for cognitive impairment, neuromuscular weakness, institution-free days, functional independence, and quality of life at hospital discharge and 1 year. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01777035, and is now completed.

FINDINGS

Between Aug 11, 2011, and Oct 24, 2019, 1222 patients were screened, 200 were enrolled (usual care n=100, intervention n=100), and one patient withdrew from the study in each group; thus 99 patients in each group were included in the intention-to-treat analysis (113 [57%] men and 85 [43%] women). 65 (88%) of 74 in the usual care group and 62 (89%) of 70 in the intervention group underwent testing for cognitive impairment at 1 year. The rate of cognitive impairment at 1 year with early mobilisation was 24% (24 of 99 patients) compared with 43% (43 of 99) with usual care (absolute difference -19·2%, 95% CI -32·1 to -6·3%; p=0·0043). Cognitive impairment was lower at hospital discharge in the intervention group (53 [54%] 99 patients vs 68 [69%] 99 patients; -15·2%, -28·6 to -1·7; p=0·029). At 1 year, the intervention group had fewer ICU-acquired weaknesses (none [0%] of 99 patients vs 14 [14%] of 99 patients; -14·1%; -21·0 to -7·3; p=0·0001) and higher physical component scores on quality-of-life testing than did the usual care group (median 52·4 [IQR 45·3-56·8] vs median 41·1 [31·8-49·4]; p<0·0001). There was no difference in the rates of functional independence (64 [65%] of 99 patients vs 61 [62%] of 99 patients; 3%, -10·4 to 16·5%; p=0·66) or mental component scores (median 55·9 [50·2-58·9] vs median 55·2 [49·5-59·7]; p=0·98) between the intervention and usual care groups at 1 year. Seven adverse events (haemodynamic changes [n=3], arterial catheter removal [n=1], rectal tube dislodgement [n=1], and respiratory distress [n=2]) were reported in six (6%) of 99 patients in the intervention group and in none of the patients in the usual care group (p=0·029).

INTERPRETATION

Early mobilisation might be the first known intervention to improve long-term cognitive impairment in ICU survivors after mechanical ventilation. These findings clearly emphasise the importance of avoiding delays in initiating mobilisation. However, the increased adverse events in the intervention group warrants further investigation to replicate these findings.

FUNDING

None.

Aloud real- time reading of intensive care unit diaries: A feasibility study

OBJECTIVES

Memories of frightening/delusional intensive care unit experiences are a major risk factor for subsequent psychiatric morbidity of critical illness survivors; factual memories are protective. Systematically providing factual information during initial memory consolidation could mitigate the emotional character of the formed memories. We explored feasibility and obtained stakeholder feedback of a novel approach to intensive care unit diaries whereby entries were read aloud to the patients right after they were written to facilitate systematic real time orientation and formation of factual memories.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Prospective interventional pilot study involving reading diary entries aloud. We have also interviewed involved stakeholders for feedback and collected exploratory data on psychiatric symptoms from patients right after the intensive care stay.

SETTING

Various intensive care units in a single academic center.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Feasibility was defined as intervention delivery on ≥80% of days following patient recruitment. Content analysis was performed on stakeholder interview responses. Questionnaire data were compared for patients who received real-time reading to the historical cohort who did not.

RESULTS

Overall, 57% (17 of 30) of patients achieved the set feasibility threshold. Following protocol adjustment, we achieved 86% feasibility in the last subset of patients. Patients reported the intervention as comforting and appreciated the reorientation aspect. Nurses overwhelmingly liked the idea; most common concern was not knowing what to write. Some therapists were unsure whether reading entries aloud might overwhelm the patients. There were no significant differences in psychiatric symptoms when compared to the historic cohort.

CONCLUSION

We encountered several implementation obstacles; once these were addressed, we achieved set feasibility target for the last group of patients. Reading diary entries aloud was welcomed by stakeholders. Designing a trial to assess efficacy of the intervention on psychiatric outcomes appears warranted.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE

There is no recommendation to change current practice as benefits of the intervention are unproven.

An Exploration of Critical Care Professionals' Strategies to Enhance Daily Implementation of the Assess, Prevent, and Manage Pain; Both Spontaneous Awakening and Breathing Trials; Choice of Analgesia and Sedation; Delirium Assess, Prevent, and Manage; Early Mobility and Exercise; and Family Engagement and Empowerment: A Group Concept Mapping Study

The goals of this exploratory study were to engage professionals from the Society for Critical Care Medicine ICU Liberation Collaborative ICUs to: 1) conceptualize strategies to enhance daily implementation of the Assess, prevent, and manage pain; Both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials; Choice of analgesia and sedation; Delirium assess, prevent, and manage; Early mobility and exercise; and Family engagement and empowerment (ABCDEF) bundle from different perspectives and 2) identify strategies to prioritize for implementation.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods group concept mapping over 8 months using an online method. Participants provided strategies in response to a prompt about what was needed for successful daily ABCDEF bundle implementation. Responses were summarized into a set of unique statements and then rated on a 5-point scale on degree of necessity (essential) and degree to which currently used.

SETTING

Sixty-eight academic, community, and federal ICUs.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 121 ICU professionals consisting of frontline and leadership professionals.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A final set of 76 strategies (reduced from 188 responses) were suggested: education (16 strategies), collaboration (15 strategies), processes and protocols (13 strategies), feedback (10 strategies), sedation/pain practices (nine strategies), education (eight strategies), and family (five strategies). Nine strategies were rated as very essential but infrequently used: adequate staffing, adequate mobility equipment, attention to (patient's) sleep, open discussion and collaborative problem solving, nonsedation methods to address ventilator dyssynchrony, specific expectations for night and day shifts, education of whole team on interdependent nature of the bundle, and effective sleep protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

In this concept mapping study, ICU professionals provided strategies that spanned a number of conceptual implementation clusters. Results can be used by ICU leaders for implementation planning to address context-specific interdisciplinary approaches to improve ABCDEF bundle implementation.

Psychological Morbidity After COVID-19 Critical Illness

Survivors of ICU hospitalizations often experience severe and debilitating symptoms long after critical illness has resolved. Many patients experience notable psychiatric sequelae such as depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) that may persist for months to years after discharge. The COVID-19 pandemic has produced large numbers of critical illness survivors, warranting deeper understanding of psychological morbidity after COVID-19 critical illness. Many patients with critical illness caused by COVID-19 experience substantial post-ICU psychological sequelae mediated by specific pathophysiologic, iatrogenic, and situational risk factors. Existing and novel interventions focused on minimizing psychiatric morbidity need to be further investigated to improve critical care survivorship after COVID-19 illness. This review proposes a framework to conceptualize three domains of risk factors (pathophysiologic, iatrogenic, and situational) associated with psychological morbidity caused by COVID-19 critical illness: (1) direct and indirect effects of the COVID-19 virus in the brain; (2) iatrogenic complications of ICU care that may disproportionately affect patients with COVID-19; and (3) social isolation that may worsen psychological morbidity. In addition, we review current interventions to minimize psychological complications after critical illness.

Epidemiology of Weaning From Invasive Mechanical Ventilation in Subjects With COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Patients requiring mechanical ventilation due to COVID-19 have different characteristics of evolution and outcome compared to the general ICU population. Although early weaning from mechanical ventilation is associated with improved outcomes, inadequate identification of patients unable to be weaned may lead to extubation failure and increased days on mechanical ventilation. Outcomes related to mechanical ventilation weaning in this population are scare and inconclusive. Therefore, the objective of this study was to describe the characteristics of mechanical ventilation weaning in subjects with acute respiratory failure induced by COVID-19.

METHODS

This was a multi-center, prospective cohort study. We included adult subjects requiring at least 12 h of mechanical ventilation due to COVID-19 infection admitted to any participating ICUs. Characteristics of the mechanical ventilation weaning and extubation process, as well as clinical results, were the primary outcome variables. Weaning types were defined according to previously described and internationally recognized categories.

RESULTS

Three hundred twenty-six subjects from 8 ICUs were included. A spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) was not performed in 52.1% of subjects. One hundred twenty-eight subjects were extubated, and 29.7% required re-intubation. All the subjects included could be classified by Weaning according to a New Definition (WIND) classification (group 0 = 52.1%, group 1 = 28.5%, group 2 = 8.0%, and group 3 = 11.3%) with statistically significant differences in duration of mechanical ventilation (P < .001) and ICU length of stay (P < .001) between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The mechanical ventilation weaning process in subjects with COVID-19 was negatively affected by the disease, with many subjects never completing an SBT. Even though temporal variables were modified, the clinical outcomes in each weaning group were similar to those previously reported.

Nutrition therapy in the intensive care unit during the COVID-19 pandemic: Findings from the ISIIC point prevalence study

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Nutrition therapy for Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients involves complex decision-making, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. We investigated the use of nutrition therapy in ICU patients with and without COVID-19 infections.

METHODS

Nutrition therapy was evaluated during a world-wide one-day prevalence study focused on implementation of the ABCDEF bundle (A: regular pain assessment, B: both spontaneous awakening and breathing trials, C: regular sedation assessment, D: regular delirium assessment, E: early mobility and exercise, and F: family engagement and empowerment) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Basic ICU and patient demographics including nutrition therapy delivery were collected on the survey day. Physical activity for patients with and without COVID infections was categorized using the ICU mobility scale (IMS). Multivariable regression analysis of nutrition was conducted using ICU parameters.

RESULTS

The survey included 627 non-COVID and 602 COVID patients. A higher proportion of COVID-19 patients received energy ≥20 kcal/kg/day (55% vs. 45%; p = 0.0007) and protein ≥1.2 g/kg/day (45% vs. 35%; p = 0.0011) compared to non-COVID patients. Enteral nutrition was provided to most COVID patients even with prone positioning (91%). Despite nutrition therapy, IMS was extremely low in both groups; median IMS was 1 in non-COVID patients and 0 in COVID patients. The rate of energy delivery ≥20 kcal/kg/day was significantly higher in patients with COVID-19 infections in the subgroup of ICU days ≤5 days and IMS ≤2. Having a dedicated ICU nutritionist/dietitian was significantly associated with appropriate energy delivery in patients both with and without COVID-19 infections, but not with protein delivery.

CONCLUSION

During the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with COVID-19 infections received higher energy and protein delivery. Generally low mobility levels highlight the need to optimize early mobilization with nutrition therapy in all ICU patients.

Prevalence and Risk Factor Analysis of Post-Intensive Care Syndrome in Patients with COVID-19 Requiring Mechanical Ventilation: A Multicenter Prospective Observational Study

Introduction: Post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) is an emerging problem in critically ill patients and the prevalence and risk factors are unclear in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This multicenter prospective observational study aimed to investigate the prevalence and risk factors of PICS in ventilated patients with COVID-19 after ICU discharge. Methods: Questionnaires were administered twice in surviving patients with COVID-19 who had required mechanical ventilation, concerning Barthel Index, Short-Memory Questionnaire, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale scores. The risk factors for PICS were examined using a multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results: The first and second PICS surveys were obtained at 5.5 and 13.5 months (mean) after ICU discharge, with 251 and 209 patients completing the questionnaires and with a prevalence of PICS of 58.6% and 60.8%, respectively, along with the highest percentages of cognitive impairment. Delirium (with an odds ratio of (OR) 2.34, 95% CI 1.1–4.9, and p = 0.03) and the duration of mechanical ventilation (with an OR of 1.29, 95% CI 1.05–1.58, and p = 0.02) were independently identified as the risk factors for PICS in the first PICS survey. Conclusion: Approximately 60% of the ventilated patients with COVID-19 experienced persistent PICS, especially delirium, and required longer mechanical ventilation.

Pain assessment and analgesic management in patients admitted to intensive care: an Australian and New Zealand point prevalence study

Objective: To describe pain assessment and analgesic management practices in patients in intensive care units (ICUs) in Australia and New Zealand. Design, setting and participants: Prospective, observational, multicentre, single-day point prevalence study conducted in Australian and New Zealand ICUs. Observational data were recorded for all adult patients admitted to an ICU without a neurological, neurosurgical or postoperative cardiac diagnosis. Demographic characteristics and data on pain assessment and analgesic management for a 24-hour period were collected. Main outcome measures: Types of pain assessment tools used and frequency of their use, use of opioid analgesia, use of adjuvant analgesia, and differences in pain assessment and analgesic management between postoperative and non-operative patients. Results: From the 499 patients enrolled from 45 ICUs, pain assessment was performed at least every 4 hours in 56% of patients (277/499), most commonly with a numerical rating scale. Overall, 286 patients (57%) received an opioid on the study day. Of the 181 mechanically ventilated patients, 135 (75%) received an intravenous opioid, with the predominant opioid infusion being fentanyl. The median dose of opioid infusion for ventilated patients was 140 mg oral morphine equivalents. Of the 318 non-ventilated patients, 41 (13%) received patient-controlled analgesia and 76 (24%) received an oral opioid, with the predominant opioid being oxycodone. Paracetamol was administered to 63 ventilated patients (35%) and 164 non-ventilated patients (52%), while 2% of all patients (11/499) received a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug. Ketamine infusion and regional analgesia were used in 15 patients (3%) and 17 patients (3%), respectively. Antineuropathic agents (predominantly gabapentinoids) were used in 53 patients (11%). Conclusions: Although a majority of ICU patients were frequently assessed for pain with a validated pain assessment tool, cumulative daily doses of opioids were high, and the use of multimodal adjuvant analgesia was low. Our data on current pain assessment and analgesic management practices may inform further research in this area.

Caring for the Critically Ill Patient with COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented numbers of critically ill patients. Critical care providers have been challenged to increase the capacity for critical care, prevent the spread of syndrome coronavirus 2 in hospitals, determine the optimal treatment approaches for patients with critical COVID-19, and to design and implement systems for fair allocation of scarce life-saving resources when capacity is exhausted. The global burden of COVID-19 highlighted disparities, across geographic regions and among minority patient populations. Faced with a novel pathogen, critical care providers grappled with the extent to which conventional supportive critical care practices should be followed versus adapted to treat patients with COVID-19. Fiercely debated practices included the use of awake prone positioning, the timing of intubation, and optimal approach to sedation. Advances in clinical trial design were necessary to rapidly identify appropriate therapeutics for the critically ill patient with COVID-19. In this article, we review the epidemiology, outcomes, and treatments for the critically ill patient with COVID-19.

Mobilization and Rehabilitation Practice in ICUs During the COVID-19 Pandemic

BACKGROUND

Mobilization and acute rehabilitation are essential in the intensive care unit (ICU), with substantial evidence supporting their benefits. This study aimed to characterize ICU mobilization practices during the COVID-19 pandemic for patients with and without COVID-19.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of an international point prevalence study. All ICUs across the world were eligible to participate and were required to enroll all patients in each ICU on the survey date, 27 January 2021. The primary outcome was the achievement of mobilization at the level of sitting over the edge of the bed. Independent factors associated with mobilization, including COVID-19 infection, were analyzed by multivariable analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 135 ICUs in 33 countries participated, for inclusion of 1229 patients. Among patients who were not receiving mechanical ventilation (MV), those with COVID-19 infection were mobilized more than those without COVID-19 (60% vs. 34%, p < 0.001). Among patients who were receiving MV, mobilization was low in both groups (7% vs. 9%, p = .56). These findings were consistent irrespective of ICU length of stay. Multivariable analysis showed that COVID-19 infection was associated with achievement of mobilization in patients without (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 4.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.71-7.42) and with MV (aOR = 2.13, 95% CI = 1.00-4.51). Factors that prevented mobilization were prone positioning in patients without MV and continuous use of neuromuscular blockade and sedation agents in patients with MV, whereas facilitating factors were the presence of targets/goals in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Mobilization rates for ICU patients across the globe are severely low, with the greatest immobility observed in mechanically ventilated patients. Although COVID-19 is not an independent barrier to the mobilization of patients with or without MV, this study has highlighted the current lack of mobility practice for all ICU patients during the COVID-19 pandemic.(299 words).

Upcoming and urgent challenges in critical care research based on COVID-19 pandemic experience

While the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic placed a heavy burden on healthcare systems worldwide, it also induced urgent mobilisation of research teams to develop treatments preventing or curing the disease and its consequences. It has, therefore, challenged critical care research to rapidly focus on specific fields while forcing critical care physicians to make difficult ethical decisions. This narrative review aims to summarise critical care research -from organisation to research fields- in this pandemic setting and to highlight opportunities to improve research efficiency in the future, based on what is learned from COVID-19. This pressure on research revealed, i.e., i/ the need to harmonise regulatory processes between countries, allowing simplified organisation of international research networks to improve their efficiency in answering large-scale questions; ii/ the importance of developing translational research from which therapeutic innovations can emerge; iii/ the need for improved triage and predictive scores to rationalise admission to the intensive care unit. In this context, key areas for future critical care research and better pandemic preparedness are artificial intelligence applied to healthcare, characterisation of long-term symptoms, and ethical considerations. Such collaborative research efforts should involve groups from both high and low-to-middle income countries to propose worldwide solutions. As a conclusion, stress tests on healthcare organisations should be viewed as opportunities to design new research frameworks and strategies. Worldwide availability of research networks ready to operate is essential to be prepared for next pandemics. Importantly, researchers and physicians should prioritise realistic and ethical goals for both clinical care and research.

Longing for homelikeness: A hermeneutic phenomenological analysis of patients' lived experiences in recovery from COVID-19-associated intensive care unit acquired weakness

Aims

To explore lived experiences of patients recovering from COVID‐19‐associated intensive care unit acquired weakness and to provide phenomenological descriptions of their recovery.

Design

A qualitative study following hermeneutic phenomenology.

Methods

Through purposeful sampling, 13 participants with COVID‐19‐associated intensive care unit acquired weakness were recruited with diversity in age, sex, duration of hospitalization and severity of muscle weakness. Semi‐structured in‐depth interviews were conducted from 4 to 8 months after hospital discharge, between July 2020 and January 2021. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using hermeneutic phenomenological analysis.

Results

The analysis yielded five themes: ‘waking up in alienation’, ‘valuing human contact in isolation’, ‘making progress by being challenged’, ‘coming home but still recovering’ and ‘finding a new balance’. The phenomenological descriptions reflect a recovery process that does not follow a linear build‐up, but comes with moments of success, setbacks, trying new steps and breakthrough moments of achieving mobilizing milestones.

Conclusion

Recovery from COVID‐19‐associated intensive care unit acquired weakness starts from a situation of alienation. Patients long for familiarity, for security and for recognition. Patients want to return to the familiar situation, back to the old, balanced, bodily self. It seems possible for patients to feel homelike again, not only by changing their outer circumstances but also by changing the understanding of themselves and finding a new balance in the altered situation.

Impact

Muscle weakness impacts many different aspects of ICU recovery in critically ill patients with COVID‐19‐associated intensive care unit acquired weakness. Their narratives can help nurses and other healthcare professionals, both inside and outside of the intensive care unit, to empathize with patient experiences. When healthcare professionals connect to the lifeworld of patients, they will start to act and communicate differently. These insights could lead to optimized care delivery and meeting patients' needs in this pandemic or a possible next.

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.

A dual-center cohort study on the association between early deep sedation and clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: The COVID-SED study

BACKGROUND

Mechanically ventilated patients have experienced greater periods of prolonged deep sedation during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Multiple studies from the pre-COVID era demonstrate that early deep sedation is associated with worse outcome. Despite this, there is a lack of data on sedation depth and its impact on outcome for mechanically ventilated patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to characterize the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) sedation practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to determine if early deep sedation was associated with worse clinical outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

Dual-center, retrospective cohort study conducted over 6 months (March-August, 2020), involving consecutive, mechanically ventilated adults. All sedation-related data during the first 48 h were collected. Deep sedation was defined as Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of - 3 to - 5 or Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale of 1-3. To examine impact of early sedation depth on hospital mortality (primary outcome), we used a multivariable logistic regression model. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days.

RESULTS

391 patients were studied, and 283 (72.4%) experienced early deep sedation. Deeply sedated patients received higher cumulative doses of fentanyl, propofol, midazolam, and ketamine when compared to light sedation. Deep sedation patients experienced fewer ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days, and greater mortality (30.4% versus 11.1%) when compared to light sedation (p < 0.01 for all). After adjusting for confounders, early deep sedation remained significantly associated with higher mortality (adjusted OR 3.44; 95% CI 1.65-7.17; p < 0.01). These results were stable in the subgroup of patients with COVID-19.

CONCLUSIONS

The management of sedation for mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU has changed during the COVID pandemic. Early deep sedation is common and independently associated with worse clinical outcomes. A protocol-driven approach to sedation, targeting light sedation as early as possible, should continue to remain the default approach.

Adherencia al paquete de medidas ABCDEF durante la pandemia de COVID-19

Introducción

El objetivo de este estudio fue describir el conocimiento y el uso reportado del paquete de medidas ABCDEF en las unidades de cuidados intensivos (UCI) de adultos de la República Argentina durante la pandemia por SARS-CoV-2.

Métodos

Se realizó un estudio cualitativo a través de una encuesta nacional dirigida a profesionales de la salud.

Resultados

Se recibieron 396 cuestionarios completos de profesionales de 21 provincias argentinas y la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires. El 66% de los participantes contestaron que conocen el paquete y lo aplican con diferentes grados de implementación. El 42,9% informó que usa al menos una herramienta validada para evaluar el dolor. Más de la mitad de los encuestados afirman realizar vacaciones de sedación y pruebas de ventilación espontánea diariamente. Las escalas de sedación fueron utilizadas por el 66,6% de los participantes en forma rutinaria. El 62% utiliza herramientas validadas para la detección de delirium. Respecto de la movilización temprana y ejercicio de los pacientes, el 91,8% de los profesionales entrevistados comunicaron que realizan rehabilitación neuromuscular en su UCI. Finalmente, solamente el 6,8% informó que su unidad estaba abierta las 24 horas para las visitas familiares. Las principales barreras a la aplicación del paquete de medidas fueron los recursos humanos y hospitalarios limitados, la resistencia al cambio, la falta de información y el aislamiento por COVID-19.

Conclusión

El 66% de los participantes contestó que conoce el paquete y lo aplica con diferentes grados de implementación.

Risk Factors for Bleeding Complications during Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as a Bridge to Recovery

Background

Bleeding complications during venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (V‐V ECMO) can be critical. However, there is limited information on the associated risk factors. This study investigated the risk factors for bleeding complications during V‐V ECMO as a bridge to recovery.

Methods

This single‐center retrospective study enrolled 59 patients (bleeding and non‐bleeding groups) who received V‐V ECMO from 2012 to 2020, to evaluate whether peak activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) value, lowest platelet count, and mobilization to sitting on the edge of the bed during V‐V ECMO were risk factors for bleeding complications, defined according to the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization guidelines. Age, sex, body mass index, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and ECMO duration before bleeding complications were covariates in the multivariate logistic regression analysis.

Results

Thirty‐one (53%) participants experienced 36 bleeding complications; the ECMO cannulation site, gastrointestinal tract, and nasopharyngeal region were the most common bleeding sites. The use of transfusion products and length of ECMO and intensive care unit stay were significantly and medical costs were non‐significantly increased in the bleeding group. Peak APTT (odds ratio [OR] 1.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01–1.05, p < 0.01) was significantly associated whereas the lowest platelet count (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82–1.13, p = 0.66) was unassociated with bleeding complications during ECMO. Achieving mobilization (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.02–1.17, p = 0.07) decreased the trend of risk for bleeding complications.

Conclusions

Peak APTT might be an independent modifiable factor for bleeding complications during V‐V ECMO. The protective effect of mobilization during V‐V ECMO requires further investigation.

Outcomes in Temporary ICUs Versus Conventional ICUs: An Observational Cohort of Mechanically Ventilated Patients With COVID-19-Induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, thousands of temporary ICUs have been established worldwide. The outcomes and management of mechanically ventilated patients in these areas remain unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate mortality and management of mechanically ventilated patients in temporary ICUs.

DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Observational cohort study in a single-institution academic center. We included all adult patients with severe COVID-19 hospitalized in temporary and conventional ICUs for invasive mechanical ventilation due to acute respiratory distress syndrome from March 23, 2020, to April 5, 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

To determine if management in temporary ICUs increased 30-day in-hospital mortality compared with conventional ICUs. Ventilator-free days, ICU-free days (both at 28 d), hospital length of stay, and ICU readmission were also assessed.

RESULTS

We included 776 patients (326 conventional and 450 temporary ICUs). Thirty-day in-hospital unadjusted mortality (28.8% conventional vs 36.0% temporary, log-rank test p = 0.023) was higher in temporary ICUs. After controlling for potential confounders, hospitalization in temporary ICUs was an independent risk factor associated with mortality (hazard ratio, 1.4; CI, 1.06-1.83; p = 0.016).There were no differences in ICU-free days at 28 days (6; IQR, 0-16 vs 2; IQR, 0-15; p = 0.5) or ventilator-free days at 28 days (8; IQR, 0-16 vs 5; IQR, 0-15; p = 0.6). We observed higher reintubation (18% vs 12%; p = 0.029) and readmission (5% vs 1.6%; p = 0.004) rates in conventional ICUs despite higher use of postextubation noninvasive mechanical ventilation (13% vs 8%; p = 0.025). Use of lung-protective ventilation (87% vs 85%; p = 0.5), prone positioning (76% vs 79%; p = 0.4), neuromuscular blockade (96% vs 98%; p = 0.4), and COVID-19 pharmacologic treatment was similar.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

We observed a higher 30-day in-hospital mortality in temporary ICUs. Although both areas had high adherence to evidence-based management, hospitalization in temporary ICUs was an independent risk factor associated with mortality.

Relation between nutrition therapy in the acute phase and outcomes of ventilated patients with COVID-19 infection: a multicenter prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Optimal nutrition therapy has not yet been established for the acute phase of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to examine the effects of nutrition delivery in the acute phase on mortality and the long-term outcomes of post-intensive care syndrome (PICS).

METHODS

A multicenter prospective study was conducted on adult patients with COVID-19 infection requiring mechanical ventilation during an intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Daily total energy (kcal/kg) and protein (g/kg) deliveries in the first week of the ICU stay were calculated. The questionnaire for PICS evaluation was mailed within a median of 6 mo after hospital discharge. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were the PICS components of physical impairment, cognitive dysfunction, and mental illness.

RESULTS

Among 414 eligible patients, 297 who received mechanical ventilation for 7 d or longer were examined. PICS was evaluated in 175 patients among them. High protein delivery on days 4-7 correlated with a low in-hospital mortality rate. In contrast, high protein delivery on days 1-3 correlated with physical impairment. A multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, BMI, and severity revealed that average energy and protein deliveries on days 4-7 correlated with decreased in-hospital mortality (OR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.89, 0.99; P = 0.013 and OR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.17, 0.93; P = 0.031, respectively). Nutrition delivery did not correlate with PICS outcomes after adjustments. In the multivariate regression using a restricted cubic spline model, in-hospital mortality monotonically decreased with increases in average nutrition delivery on days 4-7.

CONCLUSIONS

In patents with COVID-19 on mechanical ventilation for ≥7 d, nutrition delivery in the late period of the acute phase was monotonically associated with a decrease in in-hospital mortality. Adequate protein delivery is needed on days 4-7.This trial was registered at https://www.umin.ac.jp as UMIN000041276.

Effects of evidence-based ICU care on long-term outcomes of patients with sepsis or septic shock (ILOSS): protocol for a multicentre prospective observational cohort study in Japan

INTRODUCTION

Sepsis is not only the leading cause of death in the intensive care unit (ICU) but also a major risk factor for physical and cognitive impairment and mental disorders, known as postintensive care syndrome (PICS), reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and even mental health disorders in patient families (PICS-family; PICS-F). The ABCDEF bundle is strongly recommended to overcome them, while the association between implementing the bundle and the long-term outcomes is also unknown.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a multicentre prospective observational study at 26 ICUs. All consecutive patients between 1 November 2020 and 30 April 2022, who are 18 years old or older and expected to stay in an ICU for more than 48 hours due to sepsis or septic shock, are enrolled. Follow-up to evaluate survival and PICS/ PICS-F will be performed at 3, 6 and 12 months and additionally every 6 months up to 5 years after hospital discharge. Primary outcomes include survival at 12 months, which is the primary outcome, and the incidence of PICS defined as the presence of any physical impairment, cognitive impairment or mental disorders. PICS assessment scores, HRQoL and employment status are evaluated. The association between the implementation rate for the ABCDEF bundle and for each of the individual elements and long-term outcomes will be evaluated. The PICS-F, defined as the presence of mental disorders, and HRQoL of the family is also assessed. Additional analyses with data up to 5 years follow-up are planned.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study received ethics approvals from Saiseikai Utsunomiya Hospital (2020-42) and all other participating institutions and was registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry. Informed consent will be obtained from all patients. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

UMIN000041433.

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.

One-Year Outcomes of Postintensive Care Syndrome in Critically Ill Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients: A Single Institutional Study

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

IMPORTANCE:

Postintensive care syndrome has a strong impact on coronavirus disease 2019 survivors.

OBJECTIVES:

Assess the 1-year prevalence of postintensive care syndrome after coronavirus disease 2019.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:

This was a single-center prospective cohort using questionnaires and telephone calls from 4 months to 1 year after ICU discharge. Patients who were treated for coronavirus disease 2019-related acute respiratory distress between March 19, 2020, and April 30, 2020, participated.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:

Postintensive care syndrome was evaluated according to physical, mental, and cognitive domains. We surveyed the 8-item standardized Short Form questionnaire for assessing physical postintensive care syndrome; the Impact of Event Scale-Revised and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for assessing mental postintensive care syndrome; and Short-Memory Questionnaire for assessing cognitive postintensive care syndrome. The primary outcome was postintensive care syndrome occurrence of any domain at 1 year. Furthermore, the co-occurrence of the three postintensive care syndrome domains was assessed.

RESULTS:

Eighteen patients consented to the study and completed the survey. The median age was 57.5 years, and 78% of the patients were male. Median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-II score was 18. During ICU stay, 78% received invasive mechanical ventilation, and 83% received systemic steroid administration. Early mobilization was implemented in 61%. Delirium occurred in 44%. The median days of ICU and hospital stay were 6 and 23.5, respectively. Overall postintensive care syndrome occurrence was 67%. Physical, mental, and cognitive postintensive care syndrome occurred in 56%, 50%, and 33% of patients, respectively. The co-occurrence of all three domains of postintensive care syndrome was 28%. Age and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-II scores were higher, and systemic steroids were more commonly used in the postintensive care syndrome groups compared with the nonpostintensive care syndrome groups. Chronic symptoms were more common in the postintensive care syndrome groups than the nonpostintensive care syndrome groups.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:

Patients who suffered critical illness from coronavirus disease 2019 had a high frequency of postintensive care syndrome after 1 year. Long-term follow-up and care should be continuously offered.

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.

Effects of the 2020 health crisis on acute alcohol intoxication: A nationwide retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Recent data suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic and associated restrictions may have influenced alcohol use and promoted addictive behavior. We aimed to investigate the impact of the pandemic on acute alcohol intoxication (AAI) in France.

METHODS

We identified all hospital stays related to alcohol abuse in 2018-2020. Differences in number of hospitalizations between 2019 and 2020 were tested using Poisson regressions. Differences between observed and expected deliveries of drugs used in alcohol dependence in 2020 were also studied.

RESULTS

There was a decrease in the number of hospitalizations for AAI between 2019 and 2020 (-9677[-11·4%],RR:0·89[0·88-0·89]). This decrease was observed among men and women of all age groups, except women ≥ 85 years. We observed an increase in in-hospital mortality during 2020 and more hospitalizations for AAI with certain medical complications, especially during the first 2020 lockdown. There was a drop in observed deliveries of drugs used in alcohol dependence during the first 2020 lockdown.

CONCLUSIONS

The decrease in the number of hospitalizations for AAI in 2020 could be explained by several factors: fewer available hospital beds due to COVID-19, individuals with AAI delaying or avoiding medical care due to COVID-19 fears, and decreases driven by younger age groups returning to live with parents and socializing less. While alcohol consumption patterns have changed with the implementation of social distancing measures and lockdowns, the increase in mortality and the share of hospitalizations with complications suggest that these measures had an impact on event severity in a context of strained access to healthcare.

How to Manage Withdrawal of Sedation and Analgesia in Mechanically Ventilated COVID-19 Patients?

COVID-19 patients suffering from severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) require mechanical ventilation (MV) for respiratory failure. To achieve these ventilatory goals, it has been observed that COVID-19 patients in particular require high regimens and prolonged use of sedatives, analgesics and neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA). Withdrawal from analgo-sedation may induce a "drug withdrawal syndrome" (DWS), i.e., clinical symptoms of anxiety, tremor, agitation, hallucinations and vomiting, as a result of adrenergic activation and hyperalgesia. We describe the epidemiology, mechanisms leading to this syndrome and our strategies to prevent and treat it.

Post-Intensive Care Syndrome and Its New Challenges in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic: A Review of Recent Advances and Perspectives

Intensive care unit survivors experience prolonged physical impairments, cognitive impairments, and mental health problems, commonly referred to as post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). Previous studies reported the prevalence, assessment, and prevention of PICS, including the ABCDEF bundle approach. Although the management of PICS has been advanced, the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) posed an additional challenge to PICS. The prevalence of PICS after COVID-19 extensively varied with 28-87% of cases pertaining to physical impairments, 20-57% pertaining to cognitive impairments, and 6-60% pertaining to mental health problems after 1-6 months after discharge. Each component of the ABCDEF bundle is not sufficiently provided from 16% to 52% owing to the highly transmissible nature of the virus. However, new data are emerging about analgesia, sedation, delirium care, nursing care, early mobilization, nutrition, and family support. In this review, we summarize the recent data on PICS and its new challenge in PICS after COVID-19 infection.

Roles of Early Mobilization Program in Preventing Muscle Weakness and Decreasing Psychiatric Disorders in Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pneumonia: A Retrospective Observational Cohort Study

Although many coronavirus 2019 patients have experienced persistent symptoms and a long-term decline in quality of life after discharge, the details of these persistent symptoms and the effect of early rehabilitation are still unclear. We conducted a single-center, retrospective observational study to investigate the prevalence of persistent symptoms three months after discharge from the intensive care unit by checking the medical records. All patients received an early mobilization program. Four out of 13 patients (31%) had postintensive care syndrome. No patients had muscle weakness, and 11 patients (85%) returned to their previous work. However, psychiatric disorder, such as anxiety (23%) and posttraumatic stress disorder (15%), were observed. Eleven patients claimed persistent symptoms, including fatigue and numbness in the extremities. Our results suggest that the implementation of an early rehabilitation program plays some role in preventing muscle weakness and that decreasing psychiatric disorders should be a next target of patient care in the intensive care unit.

Risk Factors of Patient-Related Safety Events during Active Mobilization for Intubated Patients in Intensive Care Units-A Multi-Center Retrospective Observational Study

The aim of this study is to clarify the incidence and risk factors of patient-related safety events (PSE) in situations limited to intubated patients in which active mobilization, such as sitting on the edge of the bed/standing/walking, was carried out. A multi-center retrospective observational study was conducted at nine hospitals between January 2017 and March 2018. The safety profiles and PSE of 87 patients were analyzed. PSE occurred in 10 out of 87 patients (11.5%) and 13 out of 198 sessions (6.6%). The types of PSE that occurred were hypotension (8, 62%), heart rate instability (3, 23%), and desaturation (2, 15%). Circulation-related events occurred in 85% of overall cases. No accidents, such as line/tube removal or falls, were observed. The highest incidence of PSE was observed during the mobilization level of standing (8 out of 39 sessions, 20.5%). The occurrence of PSE correlated with the highest activity level under logistic regression analysis. Close vigilance is required for intubated patients during active mobilization in the standing position with regard to circulatory dynamics.

Delirium and long term cognition in critically ill patients

Delirium, a form of acute brain dysfunction, is very common in the critically ill adult patient population. Although its pathophysiology is poorly understood, multiple factors associated with delirium have been identified, many of which are coincident with critical illness. To date, no drug or non-drug treatments have been shown to improve outcomes in patients with delirium. Clinical trials have provided a limited understanding of the contributions of multiple triggers and processes of intensive care unit (ICU) acquired delirium, making identification of therapies difficult. Delirium is independently associated with poor long term outcomes, including persistent cognitive impairment. A longer duration of delirium is associated with worse long term cognition after adjustment for age, education, pre-existing cognitive function, severity of illness, and exposure to sedatives. Interestingly, differences in prevalence are seen between ICU survivor populations, with survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome experiencing higher rates of cognitive impairment at early follow-up compared with mixed ICU survivor populations. Although cognitive performance improves over time for some ICU survivors, impairment is persistent in others. Studies have so far been unable to identify patients at higher risk of long term cognitive impairment; this is an active area of scientific investigation.

The LiberAction Project: Implementation of a Pediatric Liberation Bundle to Screen Delirium, Reduce Benzodiazepine Sedation, and Provide Early Mobilization in a Human Resource-Limited Pediatric Intensive Care Unit

Background: Delirium, bed immobilization, and heavy sedation are among the major contributors of pediatric post-intensive care syndrome. Recently, the Society of Critical Care Medicine has proposed the implementation of daily interventions to minimize the incidence of these morbidities and optimize children functional outcomes and quality of life. Unfortunately, these interventions require important clinical and economical efforts which prevent their use in many pediatric intensive care units (PICU). Aim: First, to evaluate the feasibility and safety of a PICU bundle implementation prioritizing delirium screening and treatment, early mobilization (<72 h from PICU admission) and benzodiazepine-limited sedation in a human resource-limited PICU. Second, to evaluate the incidence of delirium and describe the early mobilization practices and sedative drugs used during the pre- and post-implementation periods. Third, to describe the barriers and adverse events encountered during early mobilization. Methods: This observational study was structured in a pre- (15th November 2019-30th June 2020) and post-implementation period (1st July 2020-31st December 2020). All patients admitted in PICU for more than 72 h during the pre and post-implementation period were included in the study. Patients were excluded if early mobilization was contraindicated. During the pre-implementation period, a rehabilitation program including delirium screening and treatment, early mobilization and benzodiazepine-sparing sedation guidelines was developed and all PICU staff trained. During the post-implementation period, delirium screening with the Connell Assessment of Pediatric Delirium scale was implemented at bedside. Early mobilization was performed using a structured tiered protocol and a new sedation protocol, limiting the use of benzodiazepine, was adopted. Results: Two hundred and twenty-five children were enrolled in the study, 137 in the pre-implementation period and 88 in the post-implementation period. Adherence to delirium screening, benzodiazepine-limited sedation and early mobilization was 90.9, 81.1, and 70.4%, respectively. Incidence of delirium was 23% in the post-implementation period. The median cumulative dose of benzodiazepines corrected for the total number of sedation days (mg/kg/sedation days) was significantly lower in the post-implementation period compared with the pre-implementation period: [0.83 (IQR: 0.53-1.31) vs. 0.74 (IQR: 0.55-1.16), p = 0.0001]. The median cumulative doses of fentanyl, remifentanil, and morphine corrected for the total number of sedation days were lower in the post-implementation period, but these differences were not significant. The median number of mobilizations per patient and the duration of each mobilization significantly increased in the post-implementation period [3.00 (IQR: 2.0-4.0) vs. 7.00 (IQR: 3.0-12.0); p = 0.004 and 4 min (IQR: 3.50-4.50) vs. 5.50 min (IQR: 5.25-6.5); p < 0.0001, respectively]. Barriers to early mobilization were: disease severity and bed rest orders (55%), lack of physicians' order (20%), lack of human resources (20%), and lack of adequate devices for patient mobilization (5%). No adverse events related to early mobilization were reported in both periods. Duration of mechanical ventilation and PICU length of stay was significantly lower in the post-implementation period as well as the occurrence of iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome. Conclusion: This study showed that the implementation of a PICU liberation bundle prioritizing delirium screening and treatment, benzodiazepine-limited sedation and early mobilization was feasible and safe even in a human resource-limited PICU. Further pediatric studies are needed to evaluate the clinical impact of delirium, benzodiazepine-limited sedation and early mobilization protocols on patients' long-term functional outcomes and on hospital finances.