Decreasing central line-associated bloodstream infections rates in intensive care units in 30 low- and middle-income countries: An INICC approach

BACKGROUND

Central line (CL)-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs) occurring in the intensive care unit (ICU) are common and associated with a high burden.

METHODS

We implemented a multidimensional approach, incorporating an 11-element bundle, education, surveillance of CLABSI rates and clinical outcomes, monitoring compliance with bundle components, feedback of CLABSI rates and clinical outcomes, and performance feedback in 316 ICUs across 30 low- and middle-income countries. Our dependent variables were CLABSI per 1,000-CL-days and in-ICU all-cause mortality rates. These variables were measured at baseline and during the intervention, specifically during the second month, third month, 4 to 16 months, and 17 to 29 months. Comparisons were conducted using a two-sample t test. To explore the exposure-outcome relationship, we used a generalized linear mixed model with a Poisson distribution to model the number of CLABSIs.

RESULTS

During 1,837,750 patient-days, 283,087 patients, used 1,218,882 CL-days. CLABSI per 1,000 CL-days rates decreased from 15.34 at the baseline period to 7.97 in the 2nd month (relative risk (RR) = 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.48-0.56; P < .001), 5.34 in the 3rd month (RR = 0.35; 95% CI = 0.32-0.38; P < .001), and 2.23 in the 17 to 29 months (RR = 0.15; 95% CI = 0.13-0.17; P < .001). In-ICU all-cause mortality rate decreased from 16.17% at baseline to 13.68% (RR = 0.84; P = .0013) at 17 to 29 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The implemented approach was effective, and a similar intervention could be applied in other ICUs of low- and middle-income countries to reduce CLABSI and in-ICU all-cause mortality rates.

From ICU Syndromes to ICU Subphenotypes: Consensus Report and Recommendations For Developing Precision Medicine in ICU

Critical care uses syndromic definitions to describe patient groups for clinical practice and research. There is growing recognition that a "precision medicine" approach is required and that integrated biologic and physiologic data identify reproducible subpopulations that may respond differently to treatment. This article reviews the current state of the field and considers how to successfully transition to a precision medicine approach. In order to impact clinical care, identified subpopulations must do more than differentiate prognosis. They must differentiate response to treatment, ideally by defining subgroups with distinct functional or pathobiological mechanisms (endotypes). There are now multiple examples of reproducible subpopulations of sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and acute kidney or brain injury described using clinical, physiological, and/or biological data. Many of these subpopulations have demonstrated the potential to define differential treatment response, largely in retrospective studies, and that the same treatment-responsive subpopulations may cross multiple clinical syndromes (treatable traits). To bring about a change in clinical practice, a precision medicine approach must be evaluated in prospective clinical studies requiring novel adaptive trial designs. Several such studies are underway but there are multiple challenges to be tackled. Such subpopulations must be readily identifiable and be applicable to all critically ill populations around the world. Subdividing clinical syndromes into subpopulations will require large patient numbers. Global collaboration of investigators, clinicians, industry and patients over many years will therefore be required to transition to a precision medicine approach and ultimately realize treatment advances seen in other medical fields. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Examining the impact of a 9-component bundle and the INICC multidimensional approach on catheter-associated urinary tract infection rates in 32 countries across Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East

BACKGROUND

Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infections (CAUTIs) frequently occur in the intensive care unit (ICU) and are correlated with a significant burden.

METHODS

We implemented a strategy involving a 9-element bundle, education, surveillance of CAUTI rates and clinical outcomes, monitoring compliance with bundle components, feedback of CAUTI rates and performance feedback. This was executed in 299 ICUs across 32 low- and middle-income countries. The dependent variable was CAUTI per 1,000 UC days, assessed at baseline and throughout the intervention, in the second month, third month, 4 to 15 months, 16 to 27 months, and 28 to 39 months. Comparisons were made using a 2-sample t test, and the exposure-outcome relationship was explored using a generalized linear mixed model with a Poisson distribution.

RESULTS

Over the course of 978,364 patient days, 150,258 patients utilized 652,053 UC-days. The rates of CAUTI per 1,000 UC days were measured. The rates decreased from 14.89 during the baseline period to 5.51 in the second month (risk ratio [RR] = 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.34-0.39; P < .001), 3.79 in the third month (RR = 0.25; 95% CI = 0.23-0.28; P < .001), 2.98 in the 4 to 15 months (RR = 0.21; 95% CI = 0.18-0.22; P < .001), 1.86 in the 16 to 27 months (RR = 0.12; 95% CI = 0.11-0.14; P < .001), and 1.71 in the 28 to 39 months (RR = 0.11; 95% CI = 0.09-0.13; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our intervention, without substantial costs or additional staffing, achieved an 89% reduction in CAUTI incidence in ICUs across 32 countries, demonstrating feasibility in ICUs of low- and middle-income countries.

Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine and Indian Association of Palliative Care Expert Consensus and Position Statements for End-of-life and Palliative Care in the Intensive Care Unit

End-of-life care (EOLC) exemplifies the joint mission of intensive and palliative care (PC) in their human-centeredness. The explosion of technological advances in medicine must be balanced with the culture of holistic care. Inevitably, it brings together the science and the art of medicine in their full expression. High-quality EOLC in the ICU is grounded in evidence, ethical principles, and professionalism within the framework of the Law. Expert professional statements over the last two decades in India were developed while the law was evolving. Recent landmark Supreme Court judgments have necessitated a review of the clinical pathway for EOLC outlined in the previous statements. Much empirical and interventional evidence has accumulated since the position statement in 2014. This iteration of the joint Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine-Indian Association of Palliative Care (ISCCM-IAPC) Position Statement for EOLC combines contemporary evidence, ethics, and law for decision support by the bedside in Indian ICUs.

How to cite this article

Mani RK, Bhatnagar S, Butola S, Gursahani R, Mehta D, Simha S, et al. Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine and Indian Association of Palliative Care Expert Consensus and Position Statements for End-of-life and Palliative Care in the Intensive Care Unit. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(3):200-250.

International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC) report of health care associated infections, data summary of 45 countries for 2015 to 2020, adult and pediatric units, device-associated module

BACKGROUND

Reporting on the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium study results from 2015 to 2020, conducted in 630 intensive care units across 123 cities in 45 countries spanning Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East.

METHODS

Prospective intensive care unit patient data collected via International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium Surveillance Online System. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Health Care Safety Network definitions applied for device-associated health care-associated infections (DA-HAI).

RESULTS

We gathered data from 204,770 patients, 1,480,620 patient days, 936,976 central line (CL)-days, 637,850 mechanical ventilators (MV)-days, and 1,005,589 urinary catheter (UC)-days. Our results showed 4,270 CL-associated bloodstream infections, 7,635 ventilator-associated pneumonia, and 3,005 UC-associated urinary tract infections. The combined rates of DA-HAIs were 7.28%, and 10.07 DA-HAIs per 1,000 patient days. CL-associated bloodstream infections occurred at 4.55 per 1,000 CL-days, ventilator-associated pneumonias at 11.96 per 1,000 MV-days, and UC-associated urinary tract infections at 2.91 per 1,000 UC days. In terms of resistance, Pseudomonas aeruginosa showed 50.73% resistance to imipenem, 44.99% to ceftazidime, 37.95% to ciprofloxacin, and 34.05% to amikacin. Meanwhile, Klebsiella spp had resistance rates of 48.29% to imipenem, 72.03% to ceftazidime, 61.78% to ciprofloxacin, and 40.32% to amikacin. Coagulase-negative Staphylococci and Staphylococcus aureus displayed oxacillin resistance in 81.33% and 53.83% of cases, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The high rates of DA-HAI and bacterial resistance emphasize the ongoing need for continued efforts to control them.

Heterogeneity of treatment effect of higher dose dexamethasone by geographic region (Europe vs. India) in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia - a post hoc evaluation of the COVID STEROID 2 trial

Background

In the COVID-STEROID 2 trial there was suggestion of heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) between patients enrolled from Europe vs. India on the primary outcome. Whether there was HTE for the remaining patient-centred outcomes is unclear.

Methods

In this post hoc analysis of the COVID-STEROID 2 trial, which compared 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone in adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, we evaluated HTE by geographical region (Europe vs. India) for secondary outcomes with analyses adjusted for stratification variables. Results are presented as risk differences (RDs) or mean differences (MDs) with 99% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-values from interaction tests.

Findings

There were differences in mortality at day 28 (RD for Europe -8.3% (99% CI: -17.7 to 1.0) vs. India 0.1% (99% CI: -10.0 to 10.0)), mortality at day 90 (RD for Europe -7.4% (99% CI: -17.1 to 2.0) vs. India -1.4% (99% CI: -12.8 to 9.8)), mortality at day 180 (RD for Europe -6.7% (99% CI: -16.4 to 2.9) vs. India -1.0% (99% CI: -12.3 to 10.3)), and number of days alive without life support at day 90 (MD for Europe 6.1 days (99% CI: -1.3 to 13.4) vs. India 1.7 days (99% CI: -8.4 to 11.8)). For serious adverse reactions, the direction was reversed (RD for Europe -1.0% (99% CI: -7.1 to 5.2) vs. India -5.3% (99% CI: -16.2 to 5.0).

Interpretation

Our analysis suggests higher dose dexamethasone may have less beneficial effects for patients in India as compared with those in Europe; however, the evidence is weak, and this could represent a chance finding.

Funding

None for this analysis. The COVID STEROID 2 trial was funded by The Novo Nordisk Foundation and supported by Rigshospitalet's Research Council.

Role of artificial intelligence in haemodynamic monitoring

This narrative review explores the evolving role of artificial intelligence (AI) in haemodynamic monitoring, emphasising its potential to revolutionise patient care. The historical reliance on invasive procedures for haemodynamic assessments is contrasted with the emerging non-invasive AI-driven approaches that address limitations and risks associated with traditional methods. Developing the hypotension prediction index and introducing CircEWSTM and CircEWS-lite TM showcase AI's effectiveness in predicting and managing circulatory failure. The crucial aspects include the balance between AI and healthcare professionals, ethical considerations, and the need for regulatory frameworks. The use of AI in haemodynamic monitoring will keep growing with ongoing research, better technology, and teamwork. As we navigate these advancements, it is crucial to balance AI's power and healthcare professionals' essential role. Clinicians must continue to use their clinical acumen to ensure that patient outliers or system problems do not compromise the treatment of the condition and patient safety.

An international prospective study of INICC analyzing the incidence and risk factors for catheter-associated urinary tract infections in 235 ICUs across 8 Asian Countries

BACKGROUND

Identify urinary catheter (UC)-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI) incidence and risk factors (RF) in 235 ICUs in 8 Asian countries: India, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam.

METHODS

From January 1, 2014, to February 12, 2022, we conducted a prospective cohort study. To estimate CAUTI incidence, the number of UC days was the denominator, and CAUTI was the numerator. To estimate CAUTI RFs, we analyzed 11 variables using multiple logistic regression.

RESULTS

84,920 patients hospitalized for 499,272 patient days acquired 869 CAUTIs. The pooled CAUTI rate per 1,000 UC-days was 3.08; for those using suprapubic-catheters (4.11); indwelling-catheters (2.65); trauma-ICU (10.55), neurologic-ICU (7.17), neurosurgical-ICU (5.28); in lower-middle-income countries (3.05); in upper-middle-income countries (1.71); at public-hospitals (5.98), at private-hospitals (3.09), at teaching-hospitals (2.04). The following variables were identified as CAUTI RFs: Age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.01; 95% CI = 1.01-1.02; P < .0001); female sex (aOR = 1.39; 95% CI = 1.21-1.59; P < .0001); using suprapubic-catheter (aOR = 4.72; 95% CI = 1.69-13.21; P < .0001); length of stay before CAUTI acquisition (aOR = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.04-1.05; P < .0001); UC and device utilization-ratio (aOR = 1.07; 95% CI = 1.01-1.13; P = .02); hospitalized at trauma-ICU (aOR = 14.12; 95% CI = 4.68-42.67; P < .0001), neurologic-ICU (aOR = 14.13; 95% CI = 6.63-30.11; P < .0001), neurosurgical-ICU (aOR = 13.79; 95% CI = 6.88-27.64; P < .0001); public-facilities (aOR = 3.23; 95% CI = 2.34-4.46; P < .0001).

DISCUSSION

CAUTI rate and risk are higher for older patients, women, hospitalized at trauma-ICU, neurologic-ICU, neurosurgical-ICU, and public facilities. All of them are unlikely to change.

CONCLUSIONS

It is suggested to focus on reducing the length of stay and the Urinary catheter device utilization ratio, avoiding suprapubic catheters, and implementing evidence-based CAUTI prevention recommendations.

Sex and gender differences in intensive care medicine

Despite significant advancements in critical care medicine, limited attention has been given to sex and gender disparities in management and outcomes of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). While "sex" pertains to biological and physiological characteristics, such as reproductive organs, chromosomes and sex hormones, "gender" refers more to sociocultural roles and human behavior. Unfortunately, data on gender-related topics in the ICU are lacking. Consequently, data on sex and gender-related differences in admission to the ICU, clinical course, length of stay, mortality, and post-ICU burdens, are often inconsistent. Moreover, when examining specific diagnoses in the ICU, variations can be observed in epidemiology, pathophysiology, presentation, severity, and treatment response due to the distinct impact of sex hormones on the immune and cardiovascular systems. In this narrative review, we highlight the influence of sex and gender on the clinical course, management, and outcomes of the most encountered intensive care conditions, in addition to the potential co-existence of unconscious biases which may also impact critical illness. Diagnoses with a known sex predilection will be discussed within the context of underlying sex differences in physiology, anatomy, and pharmacology with the goal of identifying areas where clinical improvement is needed. To optimize patient care and outcomes, it is crucial to comprehend and address sex and gender differences in the ICU setting and personalize management accordingly to ensure equitable, patient-centered care. Future research should focus on elucidating the underlying mechanisms driving sex and gender disparities, as well as exploring targeted interventions to mitigate these disparities and improve outcomes for all critically ill patients.

Efficacy and adverse events profile of videolaryngoscopy in critically ill patients: subanalysis of the INTUBE study

BACKGROUND

Tracheal intubation is a high-risk procedure in the critically ill, with increased intubation failure rates and a high risk of other adverse events. Videolaryngoscopy might improve intubation outcomes in this population, but evidence remains conflicting, and its impact on adverse event rates is debated.

METHODS

This is a subanalysis of a large international prospective cohort of critically ill patients (INTUBE Study) performed from 1 October 2018 to 31 July 2019 and involving 197 sites from 29 countries across five continents. Our primary aim was to determine the first-pass intubation success rates of videolaryngoscopy. Secondary aims were characterising (a) videolaryngoscopy use in the critically ill patient population and (b) the incidence of severe adverse effects compared with direct laryngoscopy.

RESULTS

Of 2916 patients, videolaryngoscopy was used in 500 patients (17.2%) and direct laryngoscopy in 2416 (82.8%). First-pass intubation success was higher with videolaryngoscopy compared with direct laryngoscopy (84% vs 79%, P=0.02). Patients undergoing videolaryngoscopy had a higher frequency of difficult airway predictors (60% vs 40%, P<0.001). In adjusted analyses, videolaryngoscopy increased the probability of first-pass intubation success, with an OR of 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.87). Videolaryngoscopy was not significantly associated with risk of major adverse events (odds ratio 1.24, 95% CI 0.95-1.62) or cardiovascular events (odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.60-1.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill patients, videolaryngoscopy was associated with higher first-pass intubation success rates, despite being used in a population at higher risk of difficult airway management. Videolaryngoscopy was not associated with overall risk of major adverse events.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03616054.

Atrial Fibrillation (AFIB) in the ICU: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes: The International AFIB-ICU Cohort Study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of atrial fibrillation (AF) in the ICU and to describe current practice in the management of AF.

DESIGN

Multicenter, prospective, inception cohort study.

SETTING

Forty-four ICUs in 12 countries in four geographical regions.

SUBJECTS

Adult, acutely admitted ICU patients without a history of persistent/permanent AF or recent cardiac surgery were enrolled; inception periods were from October 2020 to June 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We included 1,423 ICU patients and analyzed 1,415 (99.4%), among whom 221 patients had 539 episodes of AF. Most (59%) episodes were diagnosed with continuous electrocardiogram monitoring. The incidence of AF was 15.6% (95% CI, 13.8-17.6), of which newly developed AF was 13.3% (11.5-15.1). A history of arterial hypertension, paroxysmal AF, sepsis, or high disease severity at ICU admission was associated with AF. Used interventions to manage AF were fluid bolus 19% (95% CI 16-23), magnesium 16% (13-20), potassium 15% (12-19), amiodarone 51% (47-55), beta-1 selective blockers 34% (30-38), calcium channel blockers 4% (2-6), digoxin 16% (12-19), and direct current cardioversion in 4% (2-6). Patients with AF had more ischemic, thromboembolic (13.6% vs 7.9%), and severe bleeding events (5.9% vs 2.1%), and higher mortality (41.2% vs 25.2%) than those without AF. The adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio for 90-day mortality by AF was 1.38 (95% CI, 0.95-1.99).

CONCLUSIONS

In ICU patients, AF occurred in one of six and was associated with different conditions. AF was associated with worse outcomes while not statistically significantly associated with 90-day mortality in the adjusted analyses. We observed variations in the diagnostic and management strategies for AF.

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.

Role of Point-of-Care Ultrasound in Emergency Airway Management Outside the Operating Room

Tracheal intubation is one of the most frequently performed procedures in critically ill patients, and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Hemodynamic instability and cardiovascular collapse are common complications associated with the procedure, and are likely in patients with a physiologically difficult airway. Bedside point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) can help identify patients with high risk of cardiovascular collapse, provide opportunity for hemodynamic and respiratory optimization, and help tailor airway management plans to meet individual patient needs. This review discusses the role of POCUS in emergency airway management, provides an algorithm to facilitate its incorporation into existing practice, and provides a framework for future studies.

ESICM guidelines on acute respiratory distress syndrome: definition, phenotyping and respiratory support strategies

The aim of these guidelines is to update the 2017 clinical practice guideline (CPG) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM). The scope of this CPG is limited to adult patients and to non-pharmacological respiratory support strategies across different aspects of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), including ARDS due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). These guidelines were formulated by an international panel of clinical experts, one methodologist and patients' representatives on behalf of the ESICM. The review was conducted in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement recommendations. We followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and grade recommendations and the quality of reporting of each study based on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network guidelines. The CPG addressed 21 questions and formulates 21 recommendations on the following domains: (1) definition; (2) phenotyping, and respiratory support strategies including (3) high-flow nasal cannula oxygen (HFNO); (4) non-invasive ventilation (NIV); (5) tidal volume setting; (6) positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment maneuvers (RM); (7) prone positioning; (8) neuromuscular blockade, and (9) extracorporeal life support (ECLS). In addition, the CPG includes expert opinion on clinical practice and identifies the areas of future research.

The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score: has the time come for an update?

The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was developed more than 25 years ago to provide a simple method of assessing and monitoring organ dysfunction in critically ill patients. Changes in clinical practice over the last few decades, with new interventions and a greater focus on non-invasive monitoring systems, mean it is time to update the SOFA score. As a first step in this process, we propose some possible new variables that could be included in a SOFA 2.0. By so doing, we hope to stimulate debate and discussion to move toward a new, properly validated score that will be fit for modern practice.

Preventing unrecognised oesophageal intubation: a consensus guideline from the Project for Universal Management of Airways and international airway societies

Across multiple disciplines undertaking airway management globally, preventable episodes of unrecognised oesophageal intubation result in profound hypoxaemia, brain injury and death. These events occur in the hands of both inexperienced and experienced practitioners. Current evidence shows that unrecognised oesophageal intubation occurs sufficiently frequently to be a major concern and to merit a co-ordinated approach to address it. Harm from unrecognised oesophageal intubation is avoidable through reducing the rate of oesophageal intubation, combined with prompt detection and immediate action when it occurs. The detection of 'sustained exhaled carbon dioxide' using waveform capnography is the mainstay for excluding oesophageal placement of an intended tracheal tube. Tube removal should be the default response when sustained exhaled carbon dioxide cannot be detected. If default tube removal is considered dangerous, urgent exclusion of oesophageal intubation using valid alternative techniques is indicated, in parallel with evaluation of other causes of inability to detect carbon dioxide. The tube should be removed if timely restoration of sustained exhaled carbon dioxide cannot be achieved. In addition to technical interventions, strategies are required to address cognitive biases and the deterioration of individual and team performance in stressful situations, to which all practitioners are vulnerable. These guidelines provide recommendations for preventing unrecognised oesophageal intubation that are relevant to all airway practitioners independent of geography, clinical location, discipline or patient type.

Practice of Awake Prone Positioning in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients-Insights from the PRoAcT-COVID Study

We describe the incidence, practice and associations with outcomes of awake prone positioning in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in a national multicenter observational cohort study performed in 16 intensive care units in the Netherlands (PRoAcT−COVID-study). Patients were categorized in two groups, based on received treatment of awake prone positioning. The primary endpoint was practice of prone positioning. Secondary endpoint was ‘treatment failure’, a composite of intubation for invasive ventilation and death before day 28. We used propensity matching to control for observed confounding factors. In 546 patients, awake prone positioning was used in 88 (16.1%) patients. Prone positioning started within median 1 (0 to 2) days after ICU admission, sessions summed up to median 12.0 (8.4−14.5) hours for median 1.0 day. In the unmatched analysis (HR, 1.80 (1.41−2.31); p < 0.001), but not in the matched analysis (HR, 1.17 (0.87−1.59); p = 0.30), treatment failure occurred more often in patients that received prone positioning. The findings of this study are that awake prone positioning was used in one in six COVID-19 patients. Prone positioning started early, and sessions lasted long but were often discontinued because of need for intubation.

Intravenous fluid therapy in perioperative and critical care setting-Knowledge test and practice: An international cross-sectional survey

PURPOSE

In the absence of recent international recommendations supported by scientific societies like Anesthesiology or Intensive Care Medicine, healthcare professionals (HCP) knowledge on IV fluid is expected to vary. We undertook a cross-sectional survey, aiming to assess prescription patterns and test the knowledge of HCP for IV fluid use in the operating room (OR) and intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

An online international cross-sectional survey was conducted between October 20, 2019, and November 27, 2021. The survey included multiple-choice questions on demographics, practice patterns and knowledge of IV fluids, and a hemodynamically unstable patient assessment.

RESULTS

1045 HCP, from 97 countries responded to the survey. Nearly three-quarters reported the non-existence of internal hospital or ICU-based guidelines on IV fluids. The respondents' mean score on the knowledge assessment questions was 46.4 ± 14.4. The cumulative mean scores were significantly higher among those supervising trainees (p = 0.02), specialists (p < 0.001) and those working in high-income (p < 0.001) countries. Overall performance of respondents on the knowledge testing for IV fluid was unsatisfactory with only 6.5% respondents performed above average.

CONCLUSION

There is a wide difference in the knowledge and prescription of IV fluids among the HCP surveyed. These findings reflect the urgent need for education on IV fluids.

Peri-intubation Cardiovascular Collapse in Patients Who Are Critically Ill: Insights from the INTUBE Study

Rationale: Cardiovascular instability/collapse is a common peri-intubation event in patients who are critically ill. Objectives: To identify potentially modifiable variables associated with peri-intubation cardiovascular instability/collapse (i.e., systolic arterial pressure <65 mm Hg [once] or <90 mm Hg for >30 minutes; new/increased vasopressor requirement; fluid bolus >15 ml/kg, or cardiac arrest). Methods: INTUBE (International Observational Study to Understand the Impact and Best Practices of Airway Management In Critically Ill Patients) was a multicenter prospective cohort study of patients who were critically ill and undergoing tracheal intubation in a convenience sample of 197 sites from 29 countries across five continents from October 1, 2018, to July 31, 2019. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 2,760 patients were included in this analysis. Peri-intubation cardiovascular instability/collapse occurred in 1,199 out of 2,760 patients (43.4%). Variables associated with this event were older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.03), higher heart rate (OR, 1.008; 95% CI, 1.004-1.012), lower systolic blood pressure (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.98-0.99), lower oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry/Fi_O2 before induction (OR, 0.998; 95% CI, 0.997-0.999), and the use of propofol as an induction agent (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05-1.57). Patients with peri-intubation cardiovascular instability/collapse were at a higher risk of ICU mortality with an adjusted OR of 2.47 (95% CI, 1.72-3.55), P < 0.001. The inverse probability of treatment weighting method identified the use of propofol as the only factor independently associated with cardiovascular instability/collapse (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.02-1.49). When administered before induction, vasopressors (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.84-2.11) or fluid boluses (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.96-1.44) did not reduce the incidence of cardiovascular instability/collapse. Conclusions: Peri-intubation cardiovascular instability/collapse was associated with an increased risk of both ICU and 28-day mortality. The use of propofol for induction was identified as a modifiable intervention significantly associated with cardiovascular instability/collapse.Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03616054).

Management of acute atrial fibrillation in the intensive care unit: An international survey

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and is associated with poor outcomes. Different management strategies exist, but the evidence is limited and derived from non-ICU patients. This international survey of ICU doctors evaluated the preferred management of acute AF in ICU patients.

METHOD

We conducted an international online survey of ICU doctors with 27 questions about the preferred management of acute AF in the ICU, including antiarrhythmic therapy in hemodynamically stable and unstable patients and use of anticoagulant therapy.

RESULTS

A total of 910 respondents from 70 ICUs in 14 countries participated in the survey with 24%-100% of doctors from sites responding. Most ICUs (80%) did not have a local guideline for the management of acute AF. The preferred first-line strategy for the management of hemodynamically stable patients with acute AF was observation (95% of respondents), rhythm control (3%), or rate control (2%). For hemodynamically unstable patients, the preferred strategy was observation (48%), rhythm control (48%), or rate control (4%). Overall, preferred antiarrhythmic interventions included amiodarone, direct current cardioversion, beta-blockers other than sotalol, and magnesium in that order. A total of 67% preferred using anticoagulant therapy in ICU patients with AF, among whom 61% preferred therapeutic dose anticoagulants and 39% prophylactic dose anticoagulants.

CONCLUSION

This international survey indicated considerable practice variation among ICU doctors in the clinical management of acute AF, including the overall management strategies and the use of antiarrhythmic interventions and anticoagulants.

Infection control in the intensive care unit: expert consensus statements for SARS-CoV-2 using a Delphi method

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, health-care workers and uninfected patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 as a result of transmission from infected patients and health-care workers. In the absence of high-quality evidence on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, clinical practice of infection control and prevention in ICUs varies widely. Using a Delphi process, international experts in intensive care, infectious diseases, and infection control developed consensus statements on infection control for SARS-CoV-2 in an ICU. Consensus was achieved for 31 (94%) of 33 statements, from which 25 clinical practice statements were issued. These statements include guidance on ICU design and engineering, health-care worker safety, visiting policy, personal protective equipment, patients and procedures, disinfection, and sterilisation. Consensus was not reached on optimal return to work criteria for health-care workers who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 or the acceptable disinfection strategy for heat-sensitive instruments used for airway management of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Well designed studies are needed to assess the effects of these practice statements and address the remaining uncertainties.

2022 American Society of Anesthesiologists Practice Guidelines for Management of the Difficult Airway

The American Society of Anesthesiologists; All India Difficult Airway Association; European Airway Management Society; European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care; Italian Society of Anesthesiology, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care; Learning, Teaching and Investigation Difficult Airway Group; Society for Airway Management; Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia; Society for Head and Neck Anesthesia; Society for Pediatric Anesthesia; Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists; and the Trauma Anesthesiology Society present an updated report of the Practice Guidelines for Management of the Difficult Airway.

Infection control in the intensive care unit: expert consensus statements for SARS-CoV-2 using a Delphi method

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, health-care workers and uninfected patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 as a result of transmission from infected patients and health-care workers. In the absence of high-quality evidence on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, clinical practice of infection control and prevention in ICUs varies widely. Using a Delphi process, international experts in intensive care, infectious diseases, and infection control developed consensus statements on infection control for SARS-CoV-2 in an ICU. Consensus was achieved for 31 (94%) of 33 statements, from which 25 clinical practice statements were issued. These statements include guidance on ICU design and engineering, health-care worker safety, visiting policy, personal protective equipment, patients and procedures, disinfection, and sterilisation. Consensus was not reached on optimal return to work criteria for health-care workers who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 or the acceptable disinfection strategy for heat-sensitive instruments used for airway management of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Well designed studies are needed to assess the effects of these practice statements and address the remaining uncertainties.

Effect of 12 mg vs 6 mg of Dexamethasone on the Number of Days Alive Without Life Support in Adults With COVID-19 and Severe Hypoxemia: The COVID STEROID 2 Randomized Trial

IMPORTANCE

A daily dose with 6 mg of dexamethasone is recommended for up to 10 days in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, but a higher dose may benefit those with more severe disease.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effects of 12 mg/d vs 6 mg/d of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A multicenter, randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 2020 and May 2021 at 26 hospitals in Europe and India and included 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 requiring at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation. End of 90-day follow-up was on August 19, 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized 1:1 to 12 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 503) or 6 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 497) for up to 10 days.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 28 days and was adjusted for stratification variables. Of the 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 are included in this analysis (the number of days alive without life support at 90 days, the number of days alive out of the hospital at 90 days, mortality at 28 days and at 90 days, and ≥1 serious adverse reactions at 28 days).

RESULTS

Of the 1000 randomized patients, 982 were included (median age, 65 [IQR, 55-73] years; 305 [31%] women) and primary outcome data were available for 971 (491 in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 480 in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group). The median number of days alive without life support was 22.0 days (IQR, 6.0-28.0 days) in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 20.5 days (IQR, 4.0-28.0 days) in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted mean difference, 1.3 days [95% CI, 0-2.6 days]; P = .07). Mortality at 28 days was 27.1% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 32.3% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.86 [99% CI, 0.68-1.08]). Mortality at 90 days was 32.0% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 37.7% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.87 [99% CI, 0.70-1.07]). Serious adverse reactions, including septic shock and invasive fungal infections, occurred in 11.3% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 13.4% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.83 [99% CI, 0.54-1.29]).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, 12 mg/d of dexamethasone compared with 6 mg/d of dexamethasone did not result in statistically significantly more days alive without life support at 28 days. However, the trial may have been underpowered to identify a significant difference.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04509973 and ctri.nic.in Identifier: CTRI/2020/10/028731.

Personalized mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome

A personalized mechanical ventilation approach for patients with adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) based on lung physiology and morphology, ARDS etiology, lung imaging, and biological phenotypes may improve ventilation practice and outcome. However, additional research is warranted before personalized mechanical ventilation strategies can be applied at the bedside. Ventilatory parameters should be titrated based on close monitoring of targeted physiologic variables and individualized goals. Although low tidal volume (VT) is a standard of care, further individualization of VT may necessitate the evaluation of lung volume reserve (e.g., inspiratory capacity). Low driving pressures provide a target for clinicians to adjust VT and possibly to optimize positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), while maintaining plateau pressures below safety thresholds. Esophageal pressure monitoring allows estimation of transpulmonary pressure, but its use requires technical skill and correct physiologic interpretation for clinical application at the bedside. Mechanical power considers ventilatory parameters as a whole in the optimization of ventilation setting, but further studies are necessary to assess its clinical relevance. The identification of recruitability in patients with ARDS is essential to titrate and individualize PEEP. To define gas-exchange targets for individual patients, clinicians should consider issues related to oxygen transport and dead space. In this review, we discuss the rationale for personalized approaches to mechanical ventilation for patients with ARDS, the role of lung imaging, phenotype identification, physiologically based individualized approaches to ventilation, and a future research agenda.

Emergency Airway Management in Patients with COVID-19: A Prospective International Multicenter Cohort Study

Background:

Tracheal intubation for patients with COVID-19 is required for invasive mechanical ventilation. The authors sought to describe practice for emergency intubation, estimate success rates and complications, and determine variation in practice and outcomes between high-income and low- and middle-income countries. The authors hypothesized that successful emergency airway management in patients with COVID-19 is associated with geographical and procedural factors.

Methods:

The authors performed a prospective observational cohort study between March 23, 2020, and October 24, 2020, which included 4,476 episodes of emergency tracheal intubation performed by 1,722 clinicians from 607 institutions across 32 countries in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation. The authors investigated associations between intubation and operator characteristics, and the primary outcome of first-attempt success.

Results:

Successful first-attempt tracheal intubation was achieved in 4,017/4,476 (89.7%) episodes, while 23 of 4,476 (0.5%) episodes required four or more attempts. Ten emergency surgical airways were reported—an approximate incidence of 1 in 450 (10 of 4,476). Failed intubation (defined as emergency surgical airway, four or more attempts, or a supraglottic airway as the final device) occurred in approximately 1 of 120 episodes (36 of 4,476). Successful first attempt was more likely during rapid sequence induction versus non–rapid sequence induction (adjusted odds ratio, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.49 to 2.39]; P < 0.001), when operators used powered air-purifying respirators versus nonpowered respirators (adjusted odds ratio, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.16 to 2.20]; P=0.006), and when performed by operators with more COVID-19 intubations recorded (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03 for each additional previous intubation [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.06]; P=0.015). Intubations performed in low- or middle-income countries were less likely to be successful at first attempt than in high-income countries (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.41 to 0.79]; P=0.001).

Conclusions:

The authors report rates of failed tracheal intubation and emergency surgical airway in patients with COVID-19 requiring emergency airway management, and identified factors associated with increased success. Risks of tracheal intubation failure and success should be considered when managing COVID-19.

The authors report a secondary analysis of associations of intubation and operator characteristics related to the primary outcome of first-attempt intubation success in 4,476 intubations among 1,722 clinicians at 607 institutions across 32 countries, also considering differential rates of success between high-income and low- and middle-income countries. Although successful first-attempt intubation was noted in 89.7% of intubations, 0.5% required four or more attempts, an emergency surgical airway was required in 0.2%, and a composite variable of failed intubation occurred in 0.8%. Multivariable analysis demonstrated that successful first attempts were more likely with rapid sequence intubations, when operators used powered air-purifying respirators, and with increasing operator experience. Intubations performed in low- and middle-income countries were nearly half as likely to be successful on first attempt than in high-income countries. These results provide potentially useful information for global and local policy-making related to this and future pandemics. However, the observational nature, along with lack of patient level characteristics, leave room for substantial residual confounding of these associations.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Higher vs lower doses of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (COVID STEROID 2) trial: Protocol and statistical analysis plan

Background

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has resulted in millions of deaths and overburdened healthcare systems worldwide. Systemic low‐dose corticosteroids have proven clinical benefit in patients with severe COVID‐19. Higher doses of corticosteroids are used in other inflammatory lung diseases and may offer additional clinical benefits in COVID‐19. At present, the balance between benefits and harms of higher vs. lower doses of corticosteroids for patients with COVID‐19 is unclear.

Methods

The COVID STEROID 2 trial is an investigator‐initiated, international, parallel‐grouped, blinded, centrally randomised and stratified clinical trial assessing higher (12 mg) vs. lower (6 mg) doses of dexamethasone for adults with COVID‐19 and severe hypoxia. We plan to enrol 1,000 patients in Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland and India. The primary outcome is days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support or renal replacement therapy) at day 28. Secondary outcomes include serious adverse reactions at day 28; all‐cause mortality at day 28, 90 and 180; days alive without life support at day 90; days alive and out of hospital at day 90; and health‐related quality of life at day 180. The primary outcome will be analysed using the Kryger Jensen and Lange test adjusted for stratification variables and reported as adjusted mean differences and median differences. The full statistical analysis plan is outlined in this protocol.

Discussion

The COVID STEROID 2 trial will provide evidence on the optimal dosing of systemic corticosteroids for COVID‐19 patients with severe hypoxia with important implications for patients, their relatives and society.

Emergency Airway Management Outside the Operating Room: Current Evidence and Management Strategies

Emergency airway management outside the operating room (OR) is often associated with an increased risk of airway related, as well as cardiopulmonary, complications which can impact morbidity and mortality. These emergent airways may take place in the intensive care unit (ICU), where patients are critically ill with minimal physiological reserve, or other areas of the hospital where advanced equipment and personnel are often unavailable. As such, emergency airway management outside the OR requires expertise at manipulation of not only the anatomically difficult airway but also the physiologically and situationally difficult airway. Adequate preparation and appropriate use of airway management techniques are important to prevent complications. Judicious utilization of pre- and apneic oxygenation is important as is the choice of medications to facilitate intubation in this at-risk population. Recent study in critically ill patients has shown that postintubation hemodynamic and respiratory compromise is common, independently associated with poor outcomes and can be impacted by the choice of drugs and techniques used. In addition to adequately preparing for a physiologically difficult airway, enhancing the ability to predict an anatomically difficult airway is essential in reducing complication rates. The use of artificial intelligence in the identification of difficult airways has shown promising results and could be of significant advantage in uncooperative patients as well as those with a questionable airway examination. Incorporating this technology and understanding the physiological, anatomical, and logistical challenges may help providers better prepare for managing such precarious airways and lead to successful outcomes. This review discusses the various challenges associated with airway management outside the OR, provides guidance on appropriate preparation, airway management skills, medication use, and highlights the role of a coordinated multidisciplinary approach to out-of-OR airway management.

Practice of adjunctive treatments in critically ill COVID-19 patients-rational for the multicenter observational PRoAcT-COVID study in The Netherlands

Background

Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may need hospitalization for supplemental oxygen, and some need intensive care unit (ICU) admission for escalation of care. Practice of adjunctive and supportive treatments remain uncertain and may vary widely between countries, within countries between hospitals, and possibly even within ICUs. We aim to investigate practice of adjunctive and supportive treatments, and their associations with outcome, in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Methods

The ‘PRactice of Adjunctive Treatments in Intensive Care Unit Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019’ (PRoAcT-COVID) study is a national, observational study to be undertaken in a large set of ICUs in The Netherlands. The PRoAcT-COVID includes consecutive ICU patients, admitted because of COVID-19 to one of the participating ICUs during a 3-month period. Daily follow-up lasts 28 days. The primary endpoint is a combination of adjunctive treatments, including types of oxygen support, ventilation, rescue therapies for hypoxemia refractory to supplementary oxygen or during invasive ventilation, other adjunctive and supportive treatments, and experimental therapies. We will also collect tracheostomy rate, duration of invasive ventilation and ventilator-free days and alive at day 28 (VFD-28), ICU and hospital length of stay, and the mortality rates in the ICU, hospital and at day 90.

Discussion

The PRoAcT-COVID study is an observational study combining high density treatment data with relevant clinical outcomes. Information on treatment practices, and their associations with outcomes in COVID-19 patients in highly and urgently needed. The results of the PRoAcT-COVID study will be rapidly available, and circulated through online presentations, such as webinars and electronic conferences, and publications in peer-reviewed journals—findings will also be presented at a dedicated website. At request, and after agreement of the PRoAcT-COVID steering committee, source data will be made available through local, regional and national anonymized datasets.

Trial registration

The PRoAcT-COVID study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (study identifier NCT04719182).

Expert consensus statements for the management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure using a Delphi method

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice.

METHODS

Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ²) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable).

RESULTS

Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16-24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment.

CONCLUSION

Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.

Expert consensus statements for the management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure using a Delphi method

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice.

METHODS

Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ²) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable).

RESULTS

Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16-24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment.

CONCLUSION

Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.

Preferences for the measurement and supplementation of magnesium, phosphate and zinc in ICUs: The international WhyTrace survey

BACKGROUND

Patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) often have low magnesium, phosphate and zinc levels. Monitoring of serum concentrations and supplementation may be important, but there is no consensus on optimal practice. The objective of the WhyTrace survey was to describe current practice regarding the measurement and supplementation of magnesium, phosphate and zinc in ICUs.

METHODS

A 54-item electronic questionnaire was developed in accordance with SURGE, SUrvey Reporting GuidelinE, to address international clinical practice in the ICU. National investigators recruited ICUs in ten countries with one physician responding per ICU using a unique e-mail distributed survey-link.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was sent to clinicians in 336 ICUs of whom 283 (84%) responded. In 62% of the ICUs, a standard procedure was in place regarding the measurement of serum magnesium levels, in 58% for phosphate and in 9% for zinc. Zinc was never or rarely measured in 64% of ICUs. The frequency of requesting serum levels varied from twice daily to once weekly. Regarding supplementation, 66% of ICUs had a standard procedure for magnesium, 63% for phosphate and 15% for zinc. Most procedures recommended supplementation when serum levels were below the lower reference level, but some used the upper reference levels as the threshold for supplementation and others decided on a case-by-case basis.

CONCLUSION

The practice of measuring and supplementing magnesium, phosphate and zinc differed substantially between ICUs. Our findings indicate that there is a need for high-quality prospective data on frequencies of measurements, treatment goals and effects of supplementation on patient-important outcomes.

Procedures in COVID-19 Patients: Part-I

The number of cases with novel coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) infection is increasing every day in the world, and India contributes a substantial proportion of this burden. Critical care specialists have accepted the challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic and are frontline warriors in this war. They have worked hard in streamlining workflow isolation of positive patients, clinical management of critically ill patients, and infection prevention practices. With no end in sight for this pandemic, intensive care unit (ICU) practitioners, hospital administrators, and policy makers have to join hands to prepare for the surge in critical care bed capacity. In this position article, we offer several suggestions on important interventions to the ICU practitioners for better management of critically ill patients. This position article highlights key interventions for COVID-19 treatment and covers several important issues such as endotracheal intubation and tracheostomy (surgical vs PCT), nebulization, bronchoscopy, and invasive procedures such as central venous catheters, arterial lines, and HD catheters. How to cite this article: Pande RK, Bhalla A, SN Myatra, Yaddanpuddi LN, Gupta S, Sahoo TK, et al. Procedures in COVID-19 Patients: Part-I. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(Suppl 5):S263-S271.

Anesthesia for oral surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic

The severe acute respiratory syndrome corona virus 2(SARS-Cov2) virus replicates in the nasal cavity, nasopharynx, and the oropharynx. During oral surgery, the risk of viral transmission is high during instrumentation in these areas, while performing airway management procedures, the oral surgery itself, and related procedures. During the corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, patients with an oral pathology usually present for emergency procedures. However, patients with oral cancer, being a semi-emergency, may also present for diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. When elective surgeries are resumed, these patients will come to the operating room. In asymptomatic patients, the false-negative rate can be as high as 30%. These patients are a source of infection to the healthcare workers and other patients. This mandates universal precautions to be taken for all patients presenting for surgery. Lesions along the airway, distorted anatomy secondary to cancer therapy, shared airway with the surgeon, surgical handling of the airway and the risk of bleeding, make airway management challenging in these patients, especially while wearing personal protective equipment. Airway management procedures, oral surgery, use of cautery, and other powered surgical instruments in the aero digestive tract, along with constant suctioning are a source of significant aerosol generation, further adding to the risk of viral transmission. Maintaining patient safety, while protecting the healthcare workers from getting infected during oral surgery is paramount. Meticulous advance planning and team preparation are essential. In this review, we discuss the challenges and recommendations for safe anesthesia practice for oral surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic, with special emphasis on risk mitigation.

Risks to healthcare workers following tracheal intubation of patients with COVID-19: a prospective international multicentre cohort study

Healthcare workers involved in aerosol‐generating procedures, such as tracheal intubation, may be at elevated risk of acquiring COVID‐19. However, the magnitude of this risk is unknown. We conducted a prospective international multicentre cohort study recruiting healthcare workers participating in tracheal intubation of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID‐19. Information on tracheal intubation episodes, personal protective equipment use and subsequent provider health status was collected via self‐reporting. The primary endpoint was the incidence of laboratory‐confirmed COVID‐19 diagnosis or new symptoms requiring self‐isolation or hospitalisation after a tracheal intubation episode. Cox regression analysis examined associations between the primary endpoint and healthcare worker characteristics, procedure‐related factors and personal protective equipment use. Between 23 March and 2 June 2020, 1718 healthcare workers from 503 hospitals in 17 countries reported 5148 tracheal intubation episodes. The overall incidence of the primary endpoint was 10.7% over a median (IQR [range]) follow‐up of 32 (18–48 [0–116]) days. The cumulative incidence within 7, 14 and 21 days of the first tracheal intubation episode was 3.6%, 6.1% and 8.5%, respectively. The risk of the primary endpoint varied by country and was higher in women, but was not associated with other factors. Around 1 in 10 healthcare workers involved in tracheal intubation of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID‐19 subsequently reported a COVID‐19 outcome. This has human resource implications for institutional capacity to deliver essential healthcare services, and wider societal implications for COVID‐19 transmission.

Procedures in COVID-19 Patients: Part-II

Critical care in the era of novel coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) infection has multiple challenges including management of the patient, underlying comorbidities, and the complications. With no end in sight to the pandemic, intensive care unit (ICU) practitioners and hospital administrators have to join hands to prepare for the long battle ahead. Critically ill COVID-19 patients need imaging or image-guided interventions in one form or the other including X-rays, ultrasonography (USG), echocardiography (ECHO), and CT scan. These patients often require renal replacement therapy (RRT) for either the preexisting chronic renal insufficiency or acutely developing kidney injury. Another important component of care is transfer of the patient to and fro from the ICU or to higher care centers. Most of the ICUs are equipped with modern facilities but with increasing number of patients a large number of makeshift arrangements are being made for managing these patients. This position paper outlines important tips to formulate protocols and procedures for critically ill patients, who are managed in the ICU.

How to cite this article: Pande RK, Bhalla A, Myatra SN, Yaddanpuddi LN, Gupta S, Sahoo TK, et al. Procedures in COVID-19 Patients: Part-II. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(Suppl 5):S272–S279.

Central neuraxial blockade for splenectomy in myeloproliferative disease: A word of caution

We describe management of portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in a patient with myeloproliferative disease after splenectomy. This case posed a unique therapeutic challenge in maintaining a fine balance between life-saving thrombolysis and the risk of neuraxial complications due to bleeding. The incidence of PVT after splenectomy in patients with myeloproliferative disorders is high (40%). Anaesthesiologists should be aware of this and avoid central neuraxial blockade in such cases. If post-operative emergency thrombolysis is required in a patient having an epidural catheter in situ, it should be done under close monitoring, weighing the risks and benefits. Fibrinogen levels should be monitored to evaluate the presence of residual thrombolytic effects and to time the catheter removal.

Guidelines for prevention of hospital acquired infections

These guidelines, written for clinicians, contains evidence-based recommendations for the prevention of hospital acquired infections Hospital acquired infections are a major cause of mortality and morbidity and provide challenge to clinicians. Measures of infection control include identifying patients at risk of nosocomial infections, observing hand hygiene, following standard precautions to reduce transmission and strategies to reduce VAP, CR-BSI, CAUTI. Environmental factors and architectural lay out also need to be emphasized upon. Infection prevention in special subsets of patients - burns patients, include identifying sources of organism, identification of organisms, isolation if required, antibiotic prophylaxis to be used selectively, early removal of necrotic tissue, prevention of tetanus, early nutrition and surveillance. Immunodeficient and Transplant recipients are at a higher risk of opportunistic infections. The post tranplant timetable is divided into three time periods for determining risk of infections. Room ventilation, cleaning and decontamination, protective clothing with care regarding food requires special consideration. Monitoring and Surveillance are prioritized depending upon the needs. Designated infection control teams should supervise the process and help in collection and compilation of data. Antibiotic Stewardship Recommendations include constituting a team, close coordination between teams, audit, formulary restriction, de-escalation, optimizing dosing, active use of information technology among other measure. The recommendations in these guidelines are intended to support, and not replace, good clinical judgment. The recommendations are rated by a letter that indicates the strength of the recommendation and a Roman numeral that indicates the quality of evidence supporting the recommendation, so that readers can ascertain how best to apply the recommendations in their practice environments.

Tracheal intubation in the ICU: Life saving or life threatening?

Tracheal intubation (TI) is a routine procedure in the intensive care unit (ICU), and is often life saving. However, life-threatening complications occur in a significant proportion of procedures, making TI perhaps one the most common but underappreciated airway emergencies in the ICU. In contrast to the controlled conditions in the operating room (OR), the unstable physiologic state of critically ill patients along with underevaluation of the airways and suboptimal response to pre-oxygenation are the major factors for the high incidence of life-threatening complications like severe hypoxaemia and cardiovascular collapse in the ICU. Studies have shown that strategies planned for TI in the OR can be adapted and extrapolated for use in the ICU. Non-invasive positive-pressure ventilation for pre-oxygenation provides adequate oxygen stores during TI for patients with precarious respiratory pathology. The intubation procedure should include not only airway management but also haemodynamic, gas exchange and neurologic care, which are often crucial in critically ill patients. Hence, there is a necessity for the implementation of an Intubation Bundle during routine airway management in the ICU. Adherence to a plan for difficult airway management incorporating the use of intubation aids and airway rescue devices and strategies is useful.