High sedation needs of critically ill COVID-19 ARDS patients-A monocentric observational study

Early Deep Sedation Practices Worsened During the Pandemic Among Adult Patients Without COVID-19: A Retrospective Cohort Study

BACKGROUND

There is substantial evidence that patients with COVID-19 were treated with sustained deep sedation during the pandemic. However, it is unknown whether such guideline-discordant care had spillover effects to patients without COVID-19.

RESEARCH QUESTION

Did patterns of early deep sedation change during the pandemic for patients on mechanical ventilation without COVID-19?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We used electronic health record data from 4,237 patients who were intubated without COVID-19. We compared sedation practices in the first 48 h after intubation across prepandemic (February 1, 2018, to January 31, 2020), pandemic (April 1, 2020, to March 31, 2021), and late pandemic (April 1, 2021, to March 31, 2022) periods.

RESULTS

In the prepandemic period, patients spent an average of 13.0 h deeply sedated in the first 48 h after intubation. This increased 1.9 h (95% CI, 1.0-2.8) during the pandemic period and 2.9 h (95% CI, 2.0-3.8) in the late pandemic period. The proportion of patients that spent over one-half of the first 48 h deeply sedated was 18.9% in the prepandemic period, 22.3% during the pandemic period, and 25.9% during the late pandemic period. Ventilator-free days decreased during the pandemic, with a subdistribution hazard ratio of being alive without mechanical ventilation at 28 days of 0.87 (95% CI, 0.79-0.95) compared with the prepandemic period. Tracheostomy placement increased during the pandemic period compared with the prepandemic period (OR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.08-1.82). In the medical ICU, early deep sedation increased 2.5 h (95% CI, 0.6-4.4) during the pandemic period and 4.9 h (95% CI, 3.0-6.9) during the late pandemic period, compared with the prepandemic period.

INTERPRETATION

We found that among patients on mechanical ventilation without COVID-19, sedation use increased during the pandemic. In the subsequent year, these practices did not return to prepandemic standards.

A Retrospective Cohort Analysis of Analgosedation Requirements in COVID-19 Compared to Non-COVID-19 Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Patients

BACKGROUND

Reports have described increased sedation requirements in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) while on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) and for intubated COVID-19 patients. Thus, the objective of this study was to assess the analgosedation requirements of COVID-19 patients receiving ECMO compared to non-COVID-19 ECMO patients.

METHODS

This retrospective, observational cohort study included adult patients with ARDS requiring venovenous or venopulmonary arterial ECMO admitted to a single intensive care unit from January 2017 to December 2021. Patients were categorized as COVID-19 ECMO or non-COVID-19 ECMO. The primary outcome was median daily dosing of parenteral analgosedative medications. Pertinent secondary outcomes included incidence of extubation or tracheostomy and change in sedation following tracheostomy or addition of oral agents.

RESULTS

A total of 109 patients were evaluated; 63 COVID-19 ECMO patients and 46 non-COVID ECMO patients. The primary outcome was statistically higher in the COVID-19 compared to non-COVID-19 patients for propofol (4131.0 mg vs 2704.8 mg, P < .001), dexmedetomidine (1581.4 mcg vs 1081.3 mcg, P  =  .016), and parenteral morphine equivalents ([PME], 209.3 mg vs 154.1 mg, P  =  .027), but only propofol remained significant after adjustment for weight (31.1 mcg/kg/day vs 37.7 mcg/kg/day, P  =  .014). COVID-19 was significantly associated with increased propofol and PME requirements after adjustment for confounders on linear regression analysis. COVID-19 patients had more days with non-zero dose for propofol (8 days vs 7 days), dexmedetomidine (13 days vs 8.5 days), and PME (17 days vs 8.5 days). The only interventions that were associated with reductions in propofol dose were tracheostomy and antipsychotics.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 patients on ECMO had significantly longer durations and higher doses of propofol, dexmedetomidine, and parenteral opioids over the first 28 days of cannulation. The only interventions that were associated with statistical reductions in propofol were antipsychotics and tracheostomy.

The COVID-19 Tracheostomy Experience at a Large Academic Medical Center in New York during the First Year

Background: New York City was the epicenter of the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. Tracheostomy is a critical procedure in the care of patients with COVID-19. We hypothesized that early tracheostomy would decrease the length of time on sedation, time on mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit length of stay, and mortality. Methods: A retrospective analysis of outcomes for all patients with COVID-19 who underwent tracheostomy during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic at the Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City, New York. All adult intensive care units at the Mount Sinai Hospital, New York. Patients/subjects: 888 patients admitted to intensive care with COVID-19. Results: All patients admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 (888) from 1 March 2020 to 1 March 2021 were analyzed and separated further into those intubated (544) and those requiring tracheostomy (177). Of those receiving tracheostomy, outcomes were analyzed for early (≤12 days) or late (>12 days) tracheostomy. Demographics, medical history, laboratory values, type of oxygen and ventilatory support, and clinical outcomes were recorded and analyzed. Conclusions: Early tracheostomy resulted in reduced duration of mechanical ventilation, reduced hospital length of stay, and reduced intensive care unit length of stay in patients admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19. There was no effect on overall mortality.

Inhaled volatile anesthetics in the intensive care unit

The discovery and utilization of volatile anesthetics has significantly transformed surgical practices since their inception in the mid-19th century. Recently, a paradigm shift is observed as volatile anesthetics extend beyond traditional confines of the operating theatres, finding diverse applications in intensive care settings. In the dynamic landscape of intensive care, volatile anesthetics emerge as a promising avenue for addressing complex sedation requirements, managing refractory lung pathologies including acute respiratory distress syndrome and status asthmaticus, conditions of high sedative requirements including burns, high opioid or alcohol use and neurological conditions such as status epilepticus. Volatile anesthetics can be administered through either inhaled route via anesthetic machines/devices or through extracorporeal membrane oxygenation circuitry, providing intensivists with multiple options to tailor therapy. Furthermore, their unique pharmacokinetic profiles render them titratable and empower clinicians to individualize management with heightened accuracy, mitigating risks associated with conventional sedation modalities. Despite the amounting enthusiasm for the use of these therapies, barriers to widespread utilization include expanding equipment availability, staff familiarity and training of safe use. This article delves into the realm of applying inhaled volatile anesthetics in the intensive care unit through discussing their pharmacology, administration considerations in intensive care settings, complication considerations, and listing indications and evidence of the use of volatile anesthetics in the critically ill patient population.

Observational study of the effect of ketamine infusions on sedation depth, inflammation, and clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients with SARS-CoV-2

Severely ill patients with COVID-19 are challenging to sedate and often require high-dose sedation and analgesic regimens. Ketamine can be an effective adjunct to facilitate sedation of critically ill patients but its effects on sedation level and inflammation in COVID-19 patients have not been studied. This retrospective, observational cohort study evaluated the effect of ketamine infusions on inflammatory biomarkers and clinical outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. A total of 186 patients were identified (47 received ketamine, 139 did not). Patients who received ketamine were significantly younger than those who did not (mean (standard deviation) 59.2 (14.2) years versus 66.3 (14.4) years; P = 0.004), but there was no statistically significant difference in body mass index (P = 0.25) or sex distribution (P = 0.91) between groups. Mechanically ventilated patients who received ketamine infusions had a statistically significant reduction in Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score (-3.0 versus -2.0, P < 0.001). Regarding inflammatory biomarkers, ketamine was associated with a reduction in ferritin (P = 0.02) and lactate (P = 0.01), but no such association was observed for C-reactive protein (P = 0.27), lactate dehydrogenase (P = 0.64) or interleukin-6 (P = 0.87). No significant association was observed between ketamine administration and mortality (odds ratio 0.971; 95% confidence interval 0.501 to 1.882; P = 0.93). Ketamine infusion was associated with improved sedation depth in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients and provided a modest anti-inflammatory benefit but did not confer benefit with respect to mortality or intensive care unit length of stay.

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

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

Modification of Respiratory Drive and Lung Stress by Level of Support Pressure and ECMO Sweep Gas Flow in Patients With Severe COVID-19-Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: an Exploratory Retrospective Analysis

OBJECTIVES

Patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) often exhibit an unusually strong respiratory drive, which predisposes them to effort-induced lung injury. Careful titration of support pressure via the ventilator and carbon dioxide removal via extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) may attenuate respiratory drive and lung stress.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

At a single center, a university hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Ten patients with severe COVID-19-associated ARDS (CARDS) on venovenous ECMO therapy.

INTERVENTIONS

Assessment of the effect of titrated support pressure and titrated ECMO sweep gas flow on respiratory drive and lung stress in spontaneously breathing patients during ECMO therapy.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Airway occlusion pressure (P0.1) and the total swing of the transpulmonary pressure were determined as surrogate parameters of respiratory drive and lung stress. Ventilator-mediated elevation of support pressure decreased P0.1 but increased transpulmonary driving pressure, airway pressure, tidal volume, and end-inspiratory transpulmonary occlusion pressure. The increase in ECMO sweep gas flow lowered P0.1, transpulmonary pressures, tidal volume, and respiratory frequency linearly.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with CARDS on pressure support ventilation, even moderate support pressure may lead to overassistance during assisted ventilation, which is only reflected by advanced monitoring of respiratory mechanics. Modifying carbon dioxide removal via the extracorporeal system profoundly affects respiratory effort and mechanics. Spontaneously breathing patients with CARDS may benefit from consequent carbon dioxide removal.

Delirium in patients with COVID-19 treated in the intensive care unit

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to acute organ dysfunction, and delirium is associated with long-term cognitive impairment and a prolonged hospital stay. This retrospective single-center study aimed to investigate the risk factors for delirium in patients with COVID-19 infection receiving treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU). A total of 111 patients aged >18 years with COVID-19 pneumonia who required oxygen therapy from February 2021 to April 2022 were included. Data on patient demographics, past medical history, disease severity, delirium, and treatment strategies during hospitalization were obtained from electronic health records. Patient characteristics and risk factors for delirium were analyzed. Old age (P < 0.001), hypertension (P < 0.001), disease severity (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score) (P < 0.001), mechanical ventilator support (P < 0.001), neuromuscular blocker use (P < 0.001), and length of stay in the ICU (P < 0.001) showed statistically significant differences on the univariable analysis. Multivariable analysis with backward selection revealed that old age (odds ratio, 1.149; 95% confidence interval, 1.037-1.273; P = 0.008), hypertension (odds ratio, 8.651; 95% confidence interval, 1.322-56.163; P = 0.024), mechanical ventilator support (odds ratio, 226.215; 95% confidence interval, 15.780-3243.330; P < 0.001), and length of stay in the ICU (odds ratio, 30.295; 95% confidence interval, 2.539-361.406; P = 0.007) were significant risk factors for delirium. In conclusion, old age, ICU stay, hypertension, mechanical ventilator support, and neuromuscular blocker use were predictive factors for delirium in COVID-19 patients in the ICU. The study findings suggest the need for predicting the occurrence of delirium in advance and preventing and treating delirium.

International Analgesia and Sedation Weaning and Withdrawal Practices in Critically Ill Adults: The Adult Iatrogenic Withdrawal Study in the ICU

OBJECTIVES

Iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome (IWS) associated with opioid and sedative use for medical purposes has a reported high prevalence and associated morbidity. This study aimed to determine the prevalence, utilization, and characteristics of opioid and sedative weaning and IWS policies/protocols in the adult ICU population.

DESIGN

International, multicenter, observational, point prevalence study.

SETTING

Adult ICUs.

PATIENTS

All patients aged 18 years and older in the ICU on the date of data collection who received parenteral opioids or sedatives in the previous 24 hours.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

ICUs selected 1 day for data collection between June 1 and September 30, 2021. Patient demographic data, opioid and sedative medication use, and weaning and IWS assessment data were collected for the previous 24 hours. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients weaned from opioids and sedatives using an institutional policy/protocol on the data collection day. There were 2,402 patients in 229 ICUs from 11 countries screened for opioid and sedative use; 1,506 (63%) patients received parenteral opioids, and/or sedatives in the previous 24 hours. There were 90 (39%) ICUs with a weaning policy/protocol which was used in 176 (12%) patients, and 23 (10%) ICUs with an IWS policy/protocol which was used in 9 (0.6%) patients. The weaning policy/protocol for 47 (52%) ICUs did not define when to initiate weaning, and the policy/protocol for 24 (27%) ICUs did not specify the degree of weaning. A weaning policy/protocol was used in 34% (176/521) and IWS policy/protocol in 9% (9/97) of patients admitted to an ICU with such a policy/protocol. Among 485 patients eligible for weaning policy/protocol utilization based on duration of opioid/sedative use initiation criterion within individual ICU policies/protocols 176 (36%) had it used, and among 54 patients on opioids and/or sedatives ≥ 72 hours, 9 (17%) had an IWS policy/protocol used by the data collection day.

CONCLUSIONS

This international observational study found that a small proportion of ICUs use policies/protocols for opioid and sedative weaning or IWS, and even when these policies/protocols are in place, they are implemented in a small percentage of patients.

Bleeding Complications in COVID-19 Critically Ill ARDS Patients Receiving VV-ECMO Therapy

Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) therapy is rapidly expanding worldwide, yet this therapy has a serious risk of bleeding. Whether coagulation-activating viral infections such as COVID-19 may have an impact on the risk of bleeding is largely unknown. This study conducted a monocentric investigation of severely affected COVID-19 patients receiving VV-ECMO therapy with regard to the occurrence and possible influences of minor and major bleeding and transfusion requirements. Among the 114 included study patients, we were able to assess more than 74,000 h of VV-ECMO therapy. In these, 103 major bleeding events and 2283 minor bleeding events were detected. In total, 1396 red blood concentrates (RBCs) were administered. A statistically significant correlation with the applied anticoagulation or demographic data of the patients was not observed. Contrary to the frequently observed thromboembolic complications among COVID-19 patients, patients with VV-ECMO therapy, even under low-dose anticoagulation, show a distinct bleeding profile, especially of minor bleeding, with a substantial need for blood transfusions. COVID-19 patients show a tendency to have frequent bleeding and require repeated RBC transfusions during VV-ECMO. This fact might not be solely explained by the mechanical alteration of ECMO or anticoagulation.

Successful management of suspected propofol dependence with phenobarbital in an adult patient with COVID-19

PURPOSE

In critically ill patients, high sedation requirements for prolonged durations are often needed to achieve ventilator synchrony, a practice that was particularly common during the early stages of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We report the successful use of phenobarbital to facilitate propofol weaning after prolonged medication exposure.

SUMMARY

A 64-year-old male with hypertension was admitted for the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19 pneumonia. The patient received high doses of fentanyl and propofol with periods of concomitant midazolam and dexmedetomidine throughout his prolonged time on mechanical ventilation. Total days of exposure were 19 for fentanyl, 17 for propofol, 12 for midazolam, and 15 for dexmedetomidine. Upon improvement in lung function, attempts to wean the patient from propofol all failed due to symptoms such as tachypnea, tachycardia, and hypertension, with symptom resolution only upon return to the previous dose. Phenobarbital was trialed for possible propofol withdrawal syndrome, allowing for a dose reduction of 10 μg/kg/min within 2 hours of the first dose without any corresponding symptoms. The patient continued to receive intermittent doses of phenobarbital for another 36 hours until propofol was discontinued. He underwent tracheostomy shortly after weaning off all sedation and was discharged to rehab 34 days after his initial admission.

CONCLUSION

Information concerning propofol withdrawal syndrome in the literature is limited. Our experience demonstrates the successful use of phenobarbital to facilitate propofol weaning after prolonged exposure.

Influence of a Structured Microbiological Endotracheal Monitoring Program on the Outcome of Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: An Observational Study

BACKGROUND

In past influenza pandemics and the current COVID-19 pandemic, bacterial endotracheal superinfections are a well-known risk factor for higher morbidity and mortality. The goal of this study was to investigate the influence of a structured, objective, microbiological monitoring program on the prognosis of COVID-19 patients with mechanical ventilation.

METHODS

A structured microbiological monitoring program (at intubation, then every 3 days) included collection of endotracheal material. Data analysis focused on the spectrum of bacterial pathogens, mortality, as well as intensive care unit (ICU), hospital, and mechanical ventilation duration.

RESULTS

A total of 29% of the patients showed bacterial coinfection at the time of intubation, and within 48 h, 56% developed ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Even though patients with VAP had significantly longer ICU, hospital, and mechanical ventilation durations, there was no significant difference in mortality between patients with VAP pneumonia and patients without bacterial infection.

CONCLUSION

VAP is a common complication in COVID-19 patients. In contrast to already published studies, in our study implementing a structured microbiological monitoring program, COVID-19 patients with bacterial coinfection or VAP did not show higher mortality. Thus, a standardized, objective, microbiological screening can help detect coinfection and ventilator-associated infections, refining anti-infective therapy and positively influencing patient outcomes.

Influence of a structured microbiological endotracheal monitoring on the outcome of critically ill COVID-19 patients: an observational study.. [DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2436406/v2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0]

The full text of this preprint has been withdrawn by the authors due to author disagreement with the posting of the preprint. Therefore, the authors do not wish this work to be cited as a reference. Questions should be directed to the corresponding author.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Tracheostomized Patients With and Without COVID-19

Outcomes of tracheostomized patients with COVID-19 are seldomly investigated with conflicting evidence from the existing literature.

OBJECTIVES

To create a study evaluating the impact of COVID-19 on tracheostomized patients by comparing clinical outcomes and weaning parameters in COVID-19 positive and negative cohorts.

DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective observational cohort study of 604 tracheostomized patients hospitalized in 16 ICUs in New York City between March 9, 2020, and September 8, 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Patients were stratified into two cohorts: 398 COVID-19 negative (COVID-ve) and 206 COVID-19 positive (COVID+ve) patients. Clinical characteristics, outcomes, and weaning parameters (first pressure support [PS], tracheostomy collar [TC], speech valve placement, and decannulation) were analyzed.

RESULTS

COVID+ve had fewer comorbidities including coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, malignancy, chronic kidney disease, liver disease, and HIV (p < 0.05). Higher Fio2 (53% vs 44%), positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) (7.15 vs 5.69), Pco2 (45.8 vs 38.2), and lower pH (7.41 vs 7.43) were observed at the time of tracheostomy in COVID+ve (p < 0.005). There was no statistical difference in post-tracheostomy complication rates. Longer time from intubation to tracheostomy (15.90 vs 13.60 d; p = 0.002), tracheostomy to first PS (2.87 vs 1.80 d; p = 0.005), and TC placement (11.07 vs 4.46 d; p < 0.001) were seen in COVID+ve. However, similar time to speech valve placement, decannulation, and significantly lower 1-year mortality (23.3% vs 36.7%; p = 0.001) with higher number of discharges to long-term acute care hospital (LTACH) (23.8% vs 13.6%; p = 0.015) were seen in COVID+ve.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Patients with COVID-19 required higher Fio2 and PEEP ventilatory support at the time of tracheostomy, with no observed change in complication rates. Despite longer initial weaning period with PS or TC, similar time to speech valve placement or decannulation with significantly lower mortality and higher LTACH discharges suggest favorable outcome in COVID-19 positive patients. Higher ventilatory support requirements and prolonged weaning should not be a deterrent to pursuing a tracheostomy.

Outcomes after cardiac arrest in Medical Intensive Care Unit: A propensity score matching analysis of COVID-19 MICU vs non COVID-19 MICU cardiac arrest

AIM

To assess whether there were differences in resuscitation efforts and outcomes for medical intensive care unit (MICU) in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) during the COVID-19 pandemic when compared to pre-pandemic.

METHODS

Comparing COVID-19 MICU-IHCA patients (03/2020 to 10/2020) to non-COVID-19 MICU IHCA (01/2014 to 12/2018) at Clevleand Clinic Health System (CCHS) of NE Ohio. Propensity score matching analysis (PSMA) was used to create comparable groups.

RESULTS

There werea total of 516 patients, 51 in COVID-19 MICU IHCA cohort and 465 in the non-COVID-19 MICU IHCA cohort. The mean (SD) age of the study population was 60.9 (16) years and 56% were males. In 92.1% (n=475) patients, initial arrest rhythm was non-shockable. At the time of ICU admission, compared to the non-COVID-19 MICU-IHCA cohort, the COVID-19 MICU IHCA cohort had a lower mean APACHE III score (70 [32.9] vs 101.3 [39.6], P=<0.01). The COVID-19 cohort had a higher rate of survival to hospital discharge (12 [23.5%] vs 59 [12.7%], P=0.03). Upon PSMA, the algorithm selected 40 COVID-19 patients and 200 non-COVID-19 patients. Imbalances in baseline characteristics, comorbidities, and APACHE III were well-balanced after matching. Survival rate after matching became non-significant; (10 [25%) vs 42 [21%], P=0.67). Further, there were no significant differences in ICU or hospital length-of-stay or neurological outcomes at discharge for survivors in the two matched cohorts.

CONCLUSION

It is imperative that COVID-19 patients receive unbiased and unrestricted resuscitation measures, without any discouragement.

Impact of COVID-19 on Sedation Requirements during Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

COVID-19-associated ARDS (C-ARDS) is mentioned to express higher analgosedation needs, in comparison to ARDS of other etiologies. The objective of this monocentric retrospective cohort study was to compare the analgosedation needs between C-ARDS and non-COVID-19 ARDS (non-C-ARDS) on veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO). Data were collected from the electronic medical records of all adult patients treated with C-ARDS in our Department of Intensive Care Medicine between March 2020 and April 2022. The control group included patients treated with non-C-ARDS between the years 2009 and 2020. A sedation sum score was created in order to describe the overall analgosedation needs. A total of 115 (31.5%) patients with C-ARDS and 250 (68.5%) with non-C-ARDS requiring VV-ECMO therapy were included in the study. The sedation sum score was significantly higher in the C-ARDS group (p < 0.001). COVID-19 was significantly associated with analgosedation in the univariable analysis. By contrast, the multivariable model did not show a significant association between COVID-19 and the sum score. The year of VV-ECMO support, BMI, SAPS II and prone positioning were significantly associated with sedation needs. The potential impact of COVID-19 remains unclear, and further studies are warranted in order to evaluate specific disease characteristics linked with analgesia and sedation.

Neurorecovery after Critical COVID-19 Illness

With the hundreds of millions of people worldwide who have been, and continue to be, affected by pandemic coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and its chronic sequelae, strategies to improve recovery and rehabilitation from COVID-19 are critical global public health priorities. Neurologic complications have been associated with acute COVID-19 infection, usually in the setting of critical COVID-19 illness. Neurologic complications are also a core feature of the symptom constellation of long COVID and portend poor outcomes. In this article, we review neurologic complications and their mechanisms in critical COVID-19 illness and long COVID. We focus on parallels with neurologic disease associated with non-COVID critical systemic illness. We conclude with a discussion of how recent findings can guide both neurologists working in post-acute neurologic rehabilitation facilities and policy makers who influence neurologic resource allocation.

The positive impact of COVID-19 on critical care: from unprecedented challenges to transformative changes, from the perspective of young intensivists

Over the past 2 years, SARS-CoV-2 infection has resulted in numerous hospitalizations and deaths worldwide. As young intensivists, we have been at the forefront of the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic and it has been an intense learning experience affecting all aspects of our specialty. Critical care was put forward as a priority and managed to adapt to the influx of patients and the growing demand for beds, financial and material resources, thereby highlighting its flexibility and central role in the healthcare system. Intensivists assumed an essential and unprecedented role in public life, which was important when claiming for indispensable material and human investments. Physicians and researchers around the world worked hand-in-hand to advance research and better manage this disease by integrating a rapidly growing body of evidence into guidelines. Our daily ethical practices and communication with families were challenged by the massive influx of patients and restricted visitation policies, forcing us to improve our collaboration with other specialties and innovate with new communication channels. However, the picture was not all bright, and some of these achievements are already fading over time despite the ongoing pandemic and hospital crisis. In addition, the pandemic has demonstrated the need to improve the working conditions and well-being of critical care workers to cope with the current shortage of human resources. Despite the gloomy atmosphere, we remain optimistic. In this ten-key points review, we outline our vision on how to capitalize on the lasting impact of the pandemic to face future challenges and foster transformative changes of critical care for the better.

The impact of the coronavirus pandemic on sedation in critical care: volatile anesthetics in the ICU

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To reflect on the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on sedation for mechanically ventilated patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

Shortages of intravenous sedatives during coronavirus pandemic renewed interest in using widely available inhaled anaesthetics for sedation of critically ill patients. Universally used for surgical anaesthesia, inhaled anaesthetics may offer therapeutic advantages in patients with acute lung injury with good sedation profiles, rapid clearance and lower lung inflammation in pilot trials. However, enabling ICU sedation with inhaled anaesthetics required technological and human resource innovation during the chaos of the global pandemic. The disruption of standard sedation practices is challenging during normal operations, yet pandemic facilitated innovation in this field by fostering cross-discipline collaboration supported by healthcare professionals, hospitals, research institutes and regulators.

SUMMARY

Although further research is needed to establish the role of inhaled anaesthetics in critical care sedation toolkit, maintaining the spirit of innovation ignited during the recent coronavirus pandemic would require ongoing collaboration and streamlining of processes among healthcare, research and regulatory institutions.

Use of volatile anesthetics for sedation in the ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic: A national survey in France (VOL'ICU 2 study)

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the number of patients in ICUs leading to a worldwide shortage of the intravenous sedative agents obligating physicians to find alternatives including inhaled sedation. Inhaled sedation in French ICU has been previously explored in 2019 (VOL'ICU study). This survey was designed to explore the use of inhaled sedation two years after our first survey and to evaluate how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the use of inhaled sedation.

METHODS

We designed a national survey, contacting medical directors of French ICUs between June and October 2021. Over a 50-item questionnaire, the survey covered the characteristics of the ICU, data on inhaled sedation, and practical aspects of inhaled ICU sedation for both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. Answers were compared with the previous survey, VOL'ICU.

RESULTS

Among the 405 ICUs contacted, 25% of the questionnaires were recorded. Most ICU directors (87%) knew about the use of inhaled ICU sedation and 63% of them have an inhaled sedation's device in their unit. The COVID-19 pandemic increased the use of inhaled sedation in French ICUs. The main reasons said by the respondent were "need for additional sedative" (62%), "shortage of intravenous sedatives" (38%) and "involved in a clinical trial" (30%). The main reasons for not using inhaled ICU sedation were "device not available" (76%), "lack of familiarity" (60%) and "no training for the teams" (58%). More than 70% of respondents were overall satisfied with the use of inhaled sedation. Almost 80% of respondents stated that inhaled sedation was a seducing alternative to intravenous sedation for management of COVID-19 patients.

CONCLUSION

The use of inhaled sedation in ICU has increased fastly in the last 2 years, and is frequently associated with a good satisfaction among the users. Even if the COVID-19 pandemic could have impacted the widespread use of inhaled sedation, it represents an alternative to intravenous sedation for more and more physicians.

Electroencephalography spectral edge frequency and suppression rate-guided sedation in patients with COVID-19: A randomized controlled trial

Background

Sedation in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients has been identified as a major challenge. We aimed to investigate whether the use of a multiparameter electroencephalogram (EEG) protocol to guide sedation in COVID-19 patients would increase the 30-day mechanical ventilation-free days (VFD).

Methods

We conducted a double-blind randomized clinical trial. We included patients with severe pneumonia due to COVID-19 who required mechanical ventilation (MV) and deep sedation. We randomized to the control (n = 25) or multiparameter group (n = 25). Sedation in the intervention group was administered following the standard institutional protocols together with a flow chart designed to reduce the propofol administration dose if the EEG suppression rate was over 2% or the spectral edge frequency 95 (SEF95) was below 10 Hz. We performed an intention-to-treat analysis to evaluate our primary outcome (30-day VFD).

Results

There was no difference in VFD at day 30 (median: 11 [IQR 0–20] days in the control group vs. 0 [IQR 0–21] days in the BIS multiparameter group, p = 0.87). Among secondary outcomes, we documented a 17% reduction in the total adjusted propofol administered during the first 5 days of the protocol [median: 2.3 (IQR 1.9–2.8) mg/k/h in the control group vs. 1.9(IQR 1.5–2.2) mg/k/h in the MP group, p = 0.005]. This was accompanied by a higher average BIS value in the intervention group throughout the treatment period.

Conclusion

A sedation protocol guided by multivariate EEG-derived parameters did not increase the 30-day VFD. However, the intervention led to a reduction in total propofol administration.

The incidence of propofol infusion syndrome in critically-ill patients

PURPOSE

PRIS is a potentially fatal syndrome characterized by various clinical symptoms and abnormalities. Experts suggest that propofol treatment duration ≥48 h or dose ≥83 μg/kg/min is associated with developing PRIS. We hypothesized PRIS might be underdiagnosed due to the overlap of PRIS clinical manifestations with critical illnesses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Multihospital, retrospective study of adult patients who received continuous propofol infusion ≥48 h or dose ≥60μg/kg/min for >24 h since admission were assessed for the development of PRIS.

RESULTS

The incidence of PRIS was 2.9% with a PRIS-associated mortality rate of 36.8%. In PRIS patients, propofol was administered at a median dose of 36.4 μg/kg/min and over a median duration of 147.0 h. The development of PRIS was observed at a median of 125.0 h post-propofol initiation and a cumulative dose of 276.5 mg/kg. The development of metabolic acidosis (78.9%), cardiac dysfunction (52.6%), hypertriglyceridemia (100%), and rhabdomyolysis (26.3%) were observed in our PRIS patients.

CONCLUSION

PRIS can often be overlooked and underdiagnosed. It is important to monitor for early signs of PRIS in patients who are on prolonged propofol infusion. Prompt recognition and interventions can minimize the dangers resulting from PRIS.

Association of mortality and early tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19: a retrospective analysis

COVID-19 adds to the complexity of optimal timing for tracheostomy. Over the course of this pandemic, and expanded knowledge of the disease, many centers have changed their operating procedures and performed an early tracheostomy. We studied the data on early and delayed tracheostomy regarding patient outcome such as mortality. We performed a retrospective analysis of all tracheostomies at our institution in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 from March 2020 to June 2021. Time from intubation to tracheostomy and mortality of early (≤ 10 days) vs. late (> 10 days) tracheostomy were the primary objectives of this study. We used mixed cox-regression models to calculate the effect of distinct variables on events. We studied 117 tracheostomies. Intubation to tracheostomy shortened significantly (Spearman’s correlation coefficient; rho = − 0.44, p ≤ 0.001) during the course of this pandemic. Early tracheostomy was associated with a significant increase in mortality in uni- and multivariate analysis (Hazard ratio 1.83, 95% CI 1.07–3.17, p = 0.029). The timing of tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients has a potentially critical impact on mortality. The timing of tracheostomy has changed during this pandemic tending to be performed earlier. Future prospective research is necessary to substantiate these results.

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).

Development and Internal Validation of a New Prognostic Model Powered to Predict 28-Day All-Cause Mortality in ICU COVID-19 Patients-The COVID-SOFA Score

Background: The sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score has poor discriminative ability for death in severely or critically ill patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Our aim was to create a new score powered to predict 28-day mortality. Methods: Retrospective, observational, bicentric cohort study including 425 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, acute respiratory failure and SOFA score ≥ 2 requiring ICU admission for ≥72 h. Factors with independent predictive value for 28-day mortality were identified after stepwise Cox proportional hazards (PH) regression. Based on the regression coefficients, an equation was computed representing the COVID-SOFA score. Discriminative ability was tested using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, concordance statistics and precision-recall curves. This score was internally validated. Results: Median (Q1−Q3) age for the whole sample was 64 [55−72], with 290 (68.2%) of patients being male. The 28-day mortality was 54.58%. After stepwise Cox PH regression, age, neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and SOFA score remained in the final model. The following equation was computed: COVID-SOFA score = 10 × [0.037 × Age + 0.347 × ln(NLR) + 0.16 × SOFA]. Harrell’s C-index for the COVID-SOFA score was higher than the SOFA score alone for 28-day mortality (0.697 [95% CI; 0.662−0.731] versus 0.639 [95% CI: 0.605−0.672]). Subsequently, the prediction error rate was improved up to 16.06%. Area under the ROC (AUROC) was significantly higher for the COVID-SOFA score compared with the SOFA score for 28-day mortality: 0.796 [95% CI: 0.755−0.833] versus 0.699 [95% CI: 0.653−0.742, p < 0.001]. Better predictive value was observed with repeated measurement at 48 h after ICU admission. Conclusions: The COVID-SOFA score is better than the SOFA score alone for 28-day mortality prediction. Improvement in predictive value seen with measurements at 48 h after ICU admission suggests that the COVID-SOFA score can be used in a repetitive manner. External validation is required to support these results.

Electroencephalogram-Based Evaluation of Impaired Sedation in Patients with Moderate to Severe COVID-19 ARDS

The sedation management of patients with severe COVID-19 is challenging. Processed electroencephalography (pEEG) has already been used for sedation management before COVID-19 in critical care, but its applicability in COVID-19 has not yet been investigated. We performed this prospective observational study to evaluate whether the patient sedation index (PSI) obtained via pEEG may adequately reflect sedation in ventilated COVID-19 patients. Statistical analysis was performed by linear regression analysis with mixed effects. We included data from 49 consecutive patients. None of the patients received neuromuscular blocking agents by the time of the measurement. The mean value of the PSI was 20 (±23). The suppression rate was determined to be 14% (±24%). A deep sedation equivalent to the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale of −3 to −4 (correlation expected PSI 25−50) in bedside examination was noted in 79.4% of the recordings. Linear regression analysis revealed a significant correlation between the sedative dosages of propofol, midazolam, clonidine, and sufentanil (p < 0.01) and the sedation index. Our results showed a distinct discrepancy between the RASS and the determined PSI. However, it remains unclear to what extent any discrepancy is due to the electrophysiological effects of neuroinflammation in terms of pEEG alteration, to the misinterpretation of spinal or vegetative reflexes during bedside evaluation, or to other causes.

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.

Associated Factors of High Sedative Requirements within Patients with Moderate to Severe COVID-19 ARDS

The coronavirus pandemic continues to challenge global healthcare. Severely affected patients are often in need of high doses of analgesics and sedatives. The latter was studied in critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in this prospective monocentric analysis. COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients admitted between 1 April and 1 December 2020 were enrolled in the study. A statistical analysis of impeded sedation using mixed-effect linear regression models was performed. Overall, 114 patients were enrolled, requiring unusual high levels of sedatives. During 67.9% of the observation period, a combination of sedatives was required in addition to continuous analgesia. During ARDS therapy, 85.1% (n = 97) underwent prone positioning. Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vv-ECMO) was required in 20.2% (n = 23) of all patients. vv-ECMO patients showed significantly higher sedation needs (p < 0.001). Patients with hepatic (p = 0.01) or renal (p = 0.01) dysfunction showed significantly lower sedation requirements. Except for patient age (p = 0.01), we could not find any significant influence of pre-existing conditions. Age, vv-ECMO therapy and additional organ failure could be demonstrated as factors influencing sedation needs. Young patients and those receiving vv-ECMO usually require increased sedation for intensive care therapy. However, further studies are needed to elucidate the causes and mechanisms of impeded sedation.

Use of Sedatives and Neuromuscular-Blocking Agents in Mechanically Ventilated Patients with COVID-19 ARDS

OBJECTIVES

To assess differences in the use of analgesics, sedatives and neuromuscular-blocking agents (NMBA) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19 or other conditions.

METHODS

Retrospective observational cohort study, single-center tertiary Intensive Care Unit. COVID-19 patients with ARDS (March-May 2020) and non-COVID ARDS patients (2017-2020) on mechanical ventilation and receiving sedation for at least 48 h.

RESULTS

A total of 39 patients met the inclusion criteria in each group, with similar demographics at baseline. COVID-19 patients had a longer duration of MV (median 22 (IQRs 16-29) vs. 9 (6-18) days; p < 0.01), of sedatives administration (18 (11-22) vs. 5 (4-9) days; p < 0.01) and NMBA therapy (12 (9-16) vs. 3 (2-7) days; p < 0.01). During the first 7 days of sedation, compared to non-COVID patients, COVID patients received more frequently a combination of multiple sedative drugs (76.9% vs. 28.2%; p < 0.01) and a higher NMBA regimen (cisatracurium: 3.0 (2.1-3.7) vs. 1.3 (0.9-1.9) mg/kg/day; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The duration and consumption of sedatives and NMBA was significantly increased in patients with COVID-19 related ARDS than in non-COVID ARDS. Different sedation strategies and protocols might be needed in COVID-19 patients with ARDS, with potential implications on long-term complications and drugs availability.