The story of critical care in Asia: a narrative review

Trauma systems in Asian countries: challenges and recommendations

INTRODUCTION

Trauma burden is one of the leading causes of young human life and economic loss in low- and middle-income countries. Improved emergency and trauma care systems may save up to 2 million lives in these countries.

METHOD

This is a comprehensive expert opinion participated by 4 experts analyzing 6 Asian countries compiling the most pressing trauma care issues in Asia as well as goal directed solutions for uplifting of trauma care in these countries.

RESULT

Lack of legislation, stable funding under a dedicated lead agency is a major deterrent to development and sustainment of trauma systems in most Asian countries. While advocating trauma, critical care as a specialty is a key event in the system establishment, Trauma specialized training is challenging in low resource settings and can be circumvented by regional cooperation in creating trauma specialized academic centers of excellence. Trauma quality improvement process is integral to the system maturity but acquisition and analysis of quality data through trauma specific registries is the least developed in the Asian setting.

Critical care response during the COVID-19 pandemic

Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, millions of people worldwide have passed away due to critical illness. Intensive care for severe COVID-19 infection remains one of the most important ways to save patients' lives. In Taiwan, the government-led critical care model and COVID-19 clinical rounds, grand rounds, and chief rounds by experts; critical care guidelines established by the Taiwan Centers for Disease Control and major professional societies; consensus and management recommendations among medical institutes; and research works in the field of critical care constitute the concrete basis of intensive care. This review article briefly summarizes the current achievements of critical care for COVID-19 in Taiwan and recommendations on future directions.

The Evolution and Future of Intensive Care Management in the Era of Telecritical Care and Artificial Intelligence

Critical care practice has been embodied in the healthcare system since the institutionalization of intensive care units (ICUs) in the late '50s. Over time, this sector has experienced many changes and improvements in providing immediate and dedicated healthcare as patients requiring intensive care are often frail and critically ill with high mortality and morbidity rates. These changes were aided by innovations in diagnostic, therapeutic, and monitoring technologies, as well as the implementation of evidence-based guidelines and organizational structures within the ICU. In this review, we examine these changes in intensive care management over the past 40 years and their impact on the quality of care available to patients. Moreover, the current state of intensive care management is characterized by a multidisciplinary approach and the use of innovative technologies and research databases. Advancements such as telecritical care and artificial intelligence are being increasingly explored, especially since the COVID-19 pandemic, to reduce the length of hospitalization and ICU mortality. With these advancements in intensive care and ever-changing patient needs, critical care experts, hospital managers, and policymakers must also explore appropriate organizational structures and future enhancements within the ICU.

Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score for predicting mortality in patients with sepsis in Vietnamese intensive care units: a multicentre, cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the accuracy of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) Scores in predicting mortality among intensive care unit (ICU) patients with sepsis in a low-income and middle-income country.

DESIGN

A multicentre, cross-sectional study.

SETTING

A total of 15 adult ICUs throughout Vietnam.

PARTICIPANTS

We included all patients aged ≥18 years who were admitted to ICUs for sepsis and who were still in ICUs from 00:00 to 23:59 of the specified study days (ie, 9 January, 3 April, 3 July and 9 October of the year 2019).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome was hospital all-cause mortality (hospital mortality). We also defined the secondary outcome as all-cause deaths in the ICU (ICU mortality).

RESULTS

Of 252 patients, 40.1% died in hospitals, and 33.3% died in ICUs. SOFA Score (areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC): 0.688 (95% CI 0.618 to 0.758); cut-off value≥7.5; P_AUROC<0.001) and APACHE II Score (AUROC: 0.689 (95% CI 0.622 to 0.756); cut-off value ≥20.5; P_AUROC<0.001) both had a poor discriminatory ability for predicting hospital mortality. However, the discriminatory ability for predicting ICU mortality of SOFA (AUROC: 0.713 (95% CI 0.643 to 0.783); cut-off value≥9.5; P_AUROC<0.001) was fair and was better than that of APACHE II Score (AUROC: 0.672 (95% CI 0.603 to 0.742); cut-off value≥18.5; P_AUROC<0.001). A SOFA Score≥8 (adjusted OR (AOR): 2.717; 95% CI 1.371 to 5.382) and an APACHE II Score≥21 (AOR: 2.668; 95% CI 1.338 to 5.321) were independently associated with an increased risk of hospital mortality. Additionally, a SOFA Score≥10 (AOR: 2.194; 95% CI 1.017 to 4.735) was an independent predictor of ICU mortality, in contrast to an APACHE II Score≥19, for which this role did not.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, SOFA and APACHE II Scores were worthwhile in predicting mortality among ICU patients with sepsis. However, due to better discrimination for predicting ICU mortality, the SOFA Score was preferable to the APACHE II Score in predicting mortality.Clinical trials registry - India: CTRI/2019/01/016898.

Predictive validity of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score for the mortality in patients with sepsis in Vietnamese intensive care units

Background

The simple scoring systems for predicting the outcome of sepsis in intensive care units (ICUs) are few, especially for limited-resource settings. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the quick Sequential (Sepsis-Related) Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score in predicting the mortality of ICU patients with sepsis in Vietnam.

Methods

We did a multicenter cross-sectional study of patients with sepsis (≥18 years old) presenting to 15 adult ICUs throughout Vietnam on the specified days (i.e., 9th January, 3rd April, 3rd July, and 9th October) representing the different seasons of 2019. The primary and secondary outcomes were the hospital and ICU all-cause mortalities, respectively. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was calculated to determine the discriminatory ability of the qSOFA score for deaths in the hospital and ICU. The cut-off value of the qSOFA scores was determined by the receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Upon ICU admission, factors associated with the hospital and ICU mortalities were assessed in univariable and multivariable logistic models.

Results

Of 252 patients, 40.1% died in the hospital, and 33.3% died in the ICU. The qSOFA score had a poor discriminatory ability for both the hospital (AUROC: 0.610 [95% CI: 0.538 to 0.681]; cut-off value: ≥2.5; sensitivity: 34.7%; specificity: 84.1%; P_AUROC = 0.003) and ICU (AUROC: 0.619 [95% CI: 0.544 to 0.694]; cutoff value: ≥2.5; sensitivity: 36.9%; specificity: 83.3%; P_AUROC = 0.002) mortalities. However, multivariable logistic regression analyses show that the qSOFA score of 3 was independently associated with the increased risk of deaths in both the hospital (adjusted odds ratio, AOR: 3.358; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.756 to 6.422) and the ICU (AOR: 3.060; 95% CI: 1.651 to 5.671).

Conclusion

In our study, despite having a poor discriminatory value, the qSOFA score seems worthwhile in predicting mortality in ICU patients with sepsis in limited-resource settings.

Clinical trial registration

Clinical trials registry–India: CTRI/2019/01/016898