Airway injury from the presence of endotracheal tubes and the association with subglottic secretion drainage: a prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: Laryngeal and tracheal injuries are known complications of endotracheal intubation. Endotracheal tubes (ETTs) with subglottic suction devices (SSDs) are commonly used in the critical care setting. There is concern that herniation of tissue into the suction port of these devices may lead to tracheal injury resulting in serious clinical consequences such as tracheal stenosis. We aimed to describe the type and location of tracheal injuries seen in intubated critically ill patients and assess injuries at the suction port as well as in-hospital complications associated with those injuries. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study of 57 critically ill patients admitted to a level 3 intensive care unit who were endotracheally intubated and underwent percutaneous tracheostomy. Investigators performed bronchoscopy and photographic evaluation of the airway during the percutaneous tracheostomy procedure to evaluate tracheal and laryngeal injury. RESULTS: Forty-one (72%) patients intubated with ETT with SSD and sixteen (28%) patients with standard ETT were included in the study. Forty-seven (83%) patients had a documented airway injury ranging from hyperemia to deep ulceration of the mucosa. A common tracheal injury was at the site of the tracheal cuff. Injury at the site of the subglottic suction device was seen in 5/41 (12%) patients. There were no in-hospital complications. CONCLUSIONS: Airway injury was common in critically ill patients following endotracheal intubation, and tracheal injury commonly occurred at the site of the endotracheal cuff. Injury occurred at the site of the subglottic suction port in some patients although the clinical consequences of these injuries remain unclear.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les lésions laryngées et trachéales sont des complications connues de l'intubation endotrachéale. Les sondes endotrachéales (SET) avec dispositifs d'aspiration sous-glottiques (DASG) sont couramment utilisées aux soins intensifs. On craint qu'une hernie tissulaire dans l'orifice d'aspiration de ces dispositifs n'entraîne des lésions trachéales, résultant en de graves conséquences cliniques telles qu'une sténose trachéale. Nous avons cherché à décrire le type et l'emplacement des lésions trachéales observées chez les patients gravement malades intubés et à évaluer les lésions au port d'aspiration ainsi que les complications hospitalières associées à ces lésions. MéTHODE: Nous avons mené une étude observationnelle prospective auprès de 57 patients gravement malades admis dans une unité de soins intensifs de niveau 3 qui ont été intubés par voie endotrachéale et ont subi une trachéostomie percutanée. Les chercheurs ont réalisé une bronchoscopie et une évaluation photographique des voies aériennes au cours de la trachéostomie percutanée afin d'évaluer les lésions trachéales et laryngées. RéSULTATS: Quarante et un (72 %) intubés par SET avec DASG et seize (28 %) patients avec SET standard ont été inclus dans l'étude. Quarante-sept (83 %) patients ont présenté une lésion documentée des voies aériennes allant de l'hyperémie à l'ulcération profonde de la muqueuse. Une lésion trachéale commune était localisée sur le site du ballonnet trachéal. Une lésion au site du dispositif d'aspiration sous-glottique a été observée chez 5/41 (12 %) patients. Il n'y a pas eu de complications à l'hôpital. CONCLUSION: Les lésions des voies aériennes étaient fréquentes chez les patients gravement malades après une intubation endotrachéale, et les lésions trachéales se produisaient généralement au site du ballonnet endotrachéal. Des lésions se sont produites au site de l'orifice d'aspiration sous-glottique chez certains patients, bien que les conséquences cliniques de ces lésions restent incertaines.

Pharmacological interventions for the prevention of acute postoperative pain in adults following brain surgery.

BACKGROUND: Pain following brain surgery can compromise recovery. Several pharmacological interventions have been used to prevent pain after craniotomy; however, there is currently a lack of evidence regarding which interventions are most effective. OBJECTIVES: The objectives are to assess the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for prevention of acute postoperative pain in adults undergoing brain surgery; compare them in terms of additional analgesic requirements, incidence of chronic headache, sedative effects, length of hospital stay and adverse events; and determine whether these characteristics are different for certain subgroups. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Web of Science and two trial registries together with reference checking and citation searching on 28th of November 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included blinded and non-blinded, randomized controlled trials evaluating pharmacological interventions for the prevention of acute postoperative pain in adults undergoing neurosurgery, which had at least one validated pain score outcome measure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We calculated mean differences for the primary outcome of pain intensity; any pain scores reported on a 0 to 100 scale were converted to a 0 to 10 scale. MAIN RESULTS: We included 42 completed studies (3548 participants) and identified one ongoing study. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) reduce pain up to 24 hours (0 to 6 hours, MD -1.16, 95% CI -1.57 to -0.76; 12 hours, MD -0.62, 95% CI -1.11 to -0.14; 24 hours, MD -0.66, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.13; 6 studies, 742 participants; all high-quality evidence). Results for other outcomes were imprecise (additional analgesic requirements: MD 1.29 mg, 95% CI -5.0 to 2.46, 4 studies, 265 participants; nausea and vomiting RR 1.34, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.94, 2 studies, 345 participants; both low-quality evidence). Dexmedetomidine reduces pain up to 12 hours (0 to 6 hours, MD -0.89, 95% CI -1.27 to -0.51, moderate-quality evidence; 12 hours, MD -0.81, 95% CI -1.21 to -0.42, low-quality evidence). It did not show efficacy at 24 hours (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.16; 2 studies, 128 participants; low-quality evidence). Dexmedetomidine may decrease additional analgesic requirements (MD -21.36 mg, 95% CI -34.63 to -8.1 mg, 2 studies, 128 participants, low-quality evidence). Results for other outcomes were imprecise (nausea and vomiting RR -0.43, 95% CI 0.06 to 3.08, 3 studies, 261 participants; hypotension RR 0.5, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.28, 3 studies, 184 participants; both low-quality evidence). Scalp blocks may reduce pain up to 48 hours (0 to 6 hours, MD -0.98, 95% CI -1.66 to -0.3, 10 studies, 414 participants; 12 hours, MD -0.95, 95% CI -1.53 to -0.37, 8 studies, 294 participants; 24 hours, MD -0.78, 95% CI -1.52 to -0.05, 9 studies, 433 participants, all low-quality evidence; 48 hours, MD -1.34, 95% CI -2.57 to -0.11, 4 studies, 135 participants, very low-quality evidence. When studies with high risk of bias were excluded, significance remained at 12 hours only. Scalp blocks may decrease additional analgesia requirements (SMD -1.11, 95% CI -1.97 to -0.25, 7 studies, 314 participants). Results for other outcomes were imprecise (nausea and vomiting RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.32, 4 studies, 165 participants, very low-quality evidence). Scalp Infiltration may reduce pain postoperatively but efficacy was inconsistent, with a significant effect at 12 and 48 hours only (12 hours, MD -0.71, 95% CI -1.34 to -0.08, 7 studies, 309 participants, low-quality evidence; 48 hours, MD - 1.09, 95% CI -2.13 to - 0.06, 3 studies, 128 participants, moderate-quality evidence). No benefit was observed at other times (0 to 6 hours, MD -0.64, 95% CI -1.28 to -0.00, 9 studies, 475 participants, moderate-quality evidence; 24 hours, MD -0.39, 95% CI -1.06 to 0.27,6 studies, 260 participants, low-quality evidence. Scalp infiltration may reduce additional analgesia requirements MD -9.56 mg, 95% CI -15.64 to -3.49, 6 studies, 345 participants, very low-quality evidence). When studies with high risk of bias were excluded, scalp infiltration lost the pain benefit at 12 hours and effects on additional analgesia requirements, but retained the pain-reducing benefit at 48 hours (MD -0.56, 95% CI -1.20 to -0.32, 2 studies, 100 participants, very low-quality evidence). Results for other outcomes were imprecise (nausea and vomiting, RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.41, 4 studies, 318 participants, low-quality evidence). Pregabalin or gabapentin may reduce pain up to 6 hours (2 studies, 202 participants), MD -1.15,95% CI -1.66 to -0.6, 2 studies, 202 participants, low-quality evidence). One study examined analgesic efficacy at 12 hours showing significant benefit. No analgesia efficacy was shown at later times (24 hours, MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.19; 48 hours, MD - 0.06, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.77, 2 studies, 202 participants, low-quality evidence). Additional analgesia requirements were not significantly less (MD -0.37 (95% CI -1.10 to 0.35, 3 studies, 234 participants, low-quality evidence). Risk of nausea and vomiting was significantly reduced (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.89, 3 studies, 273 participants, low-quality evidence). Results for other outcomes were imprecise (additional analgesia requirements: MD -0.37, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.35, 3 studies, 234 participants, low-quality evidence). Acetaminophen did not show analgesic benefit (0 to 6 hours, MD -0.35, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.30; 12 hours, MD -0.51, 95% CI -1.04 to 0.03, 3 studies, 332 participants, moderate-quality evidence; 24 hours, MD -0.34, 95% CI -1.20 to 0.52, 4 studies, 439 participants, high-quality evidence). Results for other outcomes remained imprecise (additional analgesia requirements, MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.99, 4 studies, 459 participants, high-quality evidence; length of hospitalizations, MD -3.71, 95% CI -14.12 to 6.7, 2 studies, 335 participants, moderate-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is high-quality evidence that NSAIDs reduce pain up to 24 hours postoperatively. The evidence for reductions in pain with dexmedetomidine, pregabalin or gabapentin, scalp blocks, and scalp infiltration is less certain and of very low to moderate quality. There is low-quality evidence that scalp blocks and dexmedetomidine may reduce additional analgesics requirements. There is low-quality evidence that gabapentin or pregabalin may decrease nausea and vomiting, with the caveat that the total number of events for this comparison was low.

Humanization of critical care-psychological effects on healthcare professionals and relatives: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review and evaluate the effects of humanized care of the critically ill on empathy among healthcare professionals, anxiety among relatives, and burnout and compassion fatigue in both groups. SOURCE: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ProQuest Dissertations were searched from inception to 29 June 2017 for studies that investigated the effects of interventions with potential to humanize care of the critically ill on the following outcomes: empathy among critical care professionals, anxiety among relatives, and burnout and compassion fatigue in either group. We defined a humanizing intervention as one with substantial potential to increase physical or emotional proximity to the patient. Two reviewers independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and data quality. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Twelve studies addressing four discrete interventions (liberal visitation, diaries, family participation in basic care, and witnessed resuscitation) and one mixed intervention were included. Ten studies measured anxiety among 1,055 relatives. Two studies measured burnout in 288 critical care professionals. None addressed empathy or compassion fatigue. Eleven of the included studies had an overall high risk of bias. No pooled estimates of effect were calculated as a priori criteria for data synthesis were not met. CONCLUSIONS: We found insufficient evidence to make any quantitative assessment of the effect of humanizing interventions on any of these psychologic outcomes. We observed a trend towards reduced anxiety among family members who participated in basic patient care, liberal visitation, and diary keeping. We found conflicting effects of liberal visitation on burnout among healthcare professionals.

Cooling for cerebral protection during brain surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing neurosurgery are at risk of cerebral ischaemia with resultant cerebral hypoxia and neuronal cell death. This can increase both the risk of mortality and long term neurological disability. Induced hypothermia has been shown to reduce the risk of cerebral ischaemic damage in both animal studies and in humans who have been resuscitated following cardiac arrest. This had lead to an increasing interest in its neuroprotective potential in neurosurgical patients. This review was originally published in 2011 and did not find any evidence of either effectiveness or harm in these patients. This updated review was designed to capture current evidence to readdress these issues. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety profile of induced hypothermia versus normothermia for neuroprotection in patients undergoing brain surgery. Effectiveness was to be measured in terms of short and long term mortality and functional neurological outcomes. Safety was to be assessed in terms of the rate of the adverse events infection, myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, congestive cardiac failure and any other adverse events reported by the authors of the included studies. SEARCH METHODS: For the original review, the authors searched the databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP) and LILACS to November 2010. For the updated review all these databases were re-searched from November 2010 to May 2014.For both the original and updated versions, grey literature was sought by searching reference lists of identified studies and relevant review articles, and conference proceedings. No language restrictions were applied. SELECTION CRITERIA: As in the original review, we included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of induced hypothermia versus normothermia for neuroprotection in patients of any age and gender undergoing brain surgery, which addressed mortality, neurological morbidity or adverse event outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently extracted data and two independently assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion between authors. MAIN RESULTS: In this updated review, one new ongoing study was found but no new eligible completed studies were identified. This update was therefore conducted using the same four studies included in the original review. These studies included a total of 1219 participants, mean age 40 to 54 years. All included studies were reported as RCTs. Two were multicentred, together including a total of 1114 patients who underwent cerebral aneurysm clipping, and were judged to have an overall low risk of bias. The other two studies were single centred. One included 80 patients who had a craniotomy following severe traumatic brain injury and was judged to have an unclear or low risk of bias. The other study included 25 patients who underwent hemicranicectomy to relieve oedema following cerebral infarction and was judged to have an unclear or high risk of bias. All studies assessed hypothermia versus normothermia. Overall 608 participants received hypothermia with target temperatures ranging from 32.5 °C to 35 °C, and 611 were assigned to normothermia with the actual temperatures recorded in this group ranging form 36.5 °C to 38 °C. For those who were cooled, 556 had cooling commenced immediately after induction of anaesthesia that was continued until the surgical objective of aneurysm clipping was achieved, and 52 had cooling commenced immediately after surgery and continued for 48 to 96 hours.Pooled estimates of effect were calculated for the outcomes mortality during treatment or follow-up (ranging from in-hospital to one year); neurological outcome measured in terms of the Glasgow Outcome Score (GOS) of 3 or less; and adverse events of infections, myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke and congestive cardiac failure. With regards to mortality, the risk of dying if allocated to hypothermia compared to normothermia was not statistically significantly different (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.27, P = 0.47). There was no indication that the time at which cooling was started affected the risk of dying (RR with intraoperative cooling 0.95, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.51, P = 0.83; RR for cooling postoperatively 0.67, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.35, P = 0.26). For the neurological outcome, the risk of having a poor outcome with a GOS of 3 or less was not statistically different in those who received hypothermia versus normothermia (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.04, P = 0.09). Again there was no indication that the time at which cooling was started affected this result. Regarding adverse events, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence in those allocated to hypothermia versus normothermia for risk of surgical infection (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.97, P = 0.48), myocardial infarction (RR 1.86, 95% CI 0.69 to 4.98, P = 0.22), ischaemic stroke (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.05, P = 0.24) or congestive heart failure (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.21, P = 0.38). In contrast to other outcomes, where time of application of cooling did not change the statistical significance of the effect estimates, there was a weak statistically significant increased risk of infection in those who were cooled postoperatively versus those who were not cooled (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.98, P = 0.03). Overall, as in the original review, no evidence was found that the use of induced hypothermia was either beneficial or harmful in patients undergoing neurosurgery. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that the use of induced hypothermia was associated with a significant reduction in mortality or severe neurological disability, or an increase in harm in patients undergoing neurosurgery.

Partial liquid ventilation for preventing death and morbidity in adults with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are syndromes of severe respiratory failure that are associated with substantial mortality and morbidity. Artifical ventilatory support is commonly required and may exacerbate lung injury. Partial liquid ventilation (PLV) has been proposed as a less injurious form of ventilatory support for these patients. Although PLV has been shown to improve gas exchange and to reduce inflammation in experimental models of ALI, a previous systematic review did not find any evidence to support or refute its use in humans with ALI and ARDS. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this review was to assess whether PLV reduced mortality (at 28 d, at discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU), at discharge from hospital and at one, two and five years) in adults with ALI or ARDS when compared with conventional ventilatory support.Secondary objectives were to determine how PLV compared with conventional ventilation with regard to duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, duration of respiratory support, duration of oxygen therapy, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, incidence of infection, long-term cognitive impairment, long-term health related quality of life, long- term lung function, long-term morbidity costs and adverse events. The following adverse events were considered: hypoxia (arterial PO2 <80 mm Hg), pneumothorax (any air leak into the pleural space requiring therapeutic intervention), hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 90 mm Hg sustained for longer than two minutes or requiring treatment with fluids or vasoactive drugs), bradycardia (heart rate < 50 beats per minute sustained for longer than one minute or requiring therapeutic intervention) and cardiac arrest (absence of effective cardiac output). SEARCH METHODS: In this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL Issue 10, 2012, in The Cochrane Library; MEDLINE (Ovid SP, 1966 to November 2012); EMBASE (Ovid SP, 1980 to November 2012) and CINAHL (EBSCOhost,1982 to November 2012) for published studies. In our original review, we searched until May 2004.Grey literature was identified by searching conference proceedings and trial registries and by contacting experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: As in the original review, review authors selected randomized controlled trials that compared PLV with other forms of ventilation in adults (16 y of age or older) with ALI or ARDS, reporting one or more of the following: mortality; duration of mechanical ventilation, respiratory support, oxygen therapy, stay in the intensive care unit or stay in hospital; infection; long-term cognitive impairment or health-related quality of life; long-term lung function or cost. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently evaluated the quality of the relevant studies and extracted the data from included studies. MAIN RESULTS: In this updated review, one new eligible study was identified and included, yielding a total of two eligible studies (including a combined total of 401 participants). Of those 401 participants, 170 received 'high'-dose partial liquid ventilation (i.e. a mean dose of at least 20 mL/kg), 99 received 'low-dose' partial liquid ventilation (i.e. a dose of 10 mL/kg) and 132 received conventional mechanical ventilation (CMV). Pooled estimates of effect were calculated for all those who received 'high'-dose PLV versus conventional ventilation. No evidence indicated that 'high'-dose PLV either reduced mortality at 28 d (risk ratio (RR) 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.85, P = 0.37) or increased the number of days free of CMV at 28 d (mean difference (MD) -2.24, 95% CI -4.71 to 0.23, P = 0.08). The pooled estimate of effect for bradycardia in those who received PLV was significantly greater than in those who received CMV (RR 2.51, 95% CI 1.31 to 4.81, P = 0.005). Pooled estimates of effect for the following adverse events- hypoxia, pneumothorax, hypotension and cardiac arrest- all showed a nonsignificant trend towards a higher occurrence of these events in those treated with PLV. Because neither eligible study addressed morbidity or mortality beyond 28 d, it was not possible to determine the effect of PLV on these outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No evidence supports the use of PLV in ALI or ARDS; some evidence suggests an increased risk of adverse events associated with its use.