A randomised controlled trial of a nutrition and a decision support intervention to enable partnerships with families of critically ill patients.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to investigate the effect of supporting family members to partner with health professionals on nutrition intakes and decision-making and to evaluate intervention and study feasibility. BACKGROUND: Family partnerships can improve outcomes for critically ill patients and family members. Interventions that support families to engage with health professionals require evaluation. DESIGN: A multi-centre, randomised, parallel group superiority Phase II randomised controlled trial. METHODS: In nine intensive care units (ICUs) across three countries, critically ill patients ≥60 years, or those 55-59 years with advanced chronic diseases and expected ICU length of stay >72 h and their family member were enrolled between 9 May 2017 and 31 March 2020. Participants were randomised (1:1:1) to either a decision support or nutrition optimisation family-centred intervention, or usual care. Primary outcomes included protein and energy intake during ICU and hospital stay (nutrition intervention) and family satisfaction (decision support). Study feasibility was assessed as a composite of consent rate, intervention adherence, contamination and physician awareness of intervention assignment. RESULTS: We randomised 135 patients/family members (consent rate 51.7%). The average rate of randomisation was 0.5 (0.13-1.53) per month. Unavailability (staff/family) was the major contributor to families not being approached for consent. Declined consent was attributed to families feeling overwhelmed (58/126, 46%). Pandemic visitor restrictions contributed to early study cessation. Intervention adherence for the decision support intervention was 76.9%-100.0% and for the nutrition intervention was 44.8%-100.0%. Nutritional adequacy, decisional conflict, satisfaction with decision-making and overall family satisfaction with ICU were similar for all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Active partnerships between family members and health professionals are important but can be challenging to achieve in critical care contexts. We were unable to demonstrate the efficacy of either intervention. Feasibility outcomes suggest further refinement of interventions and study protocol may be warranted. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Interventions to promote family partnerships in critical illness are needed but require a greater understanding of the extent to which families want and are able to engage and the activities in which they have most impact. REPORTING METHOD: This study has been reported following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) guidelines. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and caregivers were engaged in and contributed to the development and subsequent iterations of the two family-centred interventions use in this study. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Trial registration. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, ID: NCT02920086. Registered on 30 September 2016. First patient enrolled on 9 May 2017 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=&term=NCT02920086&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=.

The PROMIZING trial enrollment algorithm for early identification of patients ready for unassisted breathing.

BACKGROUND: Liberating patients from mechanical ventilation (MV) requires a systematic approach. In the context of a clinical trial, we developed a simple algorithm to identify patients who tolerate assisted ventilation but still require ongoing MV to be randomized. We report on the use of this algorithm to screen potential trial participants for enrollment and subsequent randomization in the Proportional Assist Ventilation for Minimizing the Duration of MV (PROMIZING) study. METHODS: The algorithm included five steps: enrollment criteria, pressure support ventilation (PSV) tolerance trial, weaning criteria, continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) tolerance trial (0 cmH2O during 2 min) and spontaneous breathing trial (SBT): on fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) 40% for 30-120 min. Patients who failed the weaning criteria, CPAP Zero trial, or SBT were randomized. We describe the characteristics of patients who were initially enrolled, but passed all steps in the algorithm and consequently were not randomized. RESULTS: Among the 374 enrolled patients, 93 (25%) patients passed all five steps. At time of enrollment, most patients were on PSV (87%) with a mean (± standard deviation) FiO2 of 34 (± 6) %, PSV of 8.7 (± 2.9) cmH2O, and positive end-expiratory pressure of 6.1 (± 1.6) cmH2O. Minute ventilation was 9.0 (± 3.1) L/min with a respiratory rate of 17.4 (± 4.4) breaths/min. Patients were liberated from MV with a median [interquartile range] delay between initial screening and extubation of 5 [1-49] hours. Only 7 (8%) patients required reintubation. CONCLUSION: The trial algorithm permitted identification of 93 (25%) patients who were ready to extubate, while their clinicians predicted a duration of ventilation higher than 24 h.

Cultural adaptation of a community-based advance serious illness planning decision aid to the Quebec context involving end-users.

INTRODUCTION: Traditional advance care planning focuses on end-of-life planning in the context of a certain or imminent death. It is not tailored for serious illness planning, where the 'death' outcome is uncertain. The Plan Well Guide™ (PWG) is a decision aid that empowers lay persons to better understand different types of care and prepares them, and their substitute decision-makers, to express both their authentic values and informed treatment preferences in anticipation of serious illness. A cultural adaptation was necessary to make the material suitable to the context of Quebec, a French-speaking Canadian province. METHODS: We engaged lay collaborators and experts in a panel, involving three phases of consultation and data collection. These included an online questionnaire, focused interviews and virtual focus groups that identified elements within the francophone PWG affecting its feasibility, adaptation and integration, as well as items that should be modified. RESULTS: We engaged 22 collaborators between April and September 2021. The majority (82%) ranked the first translation as good or very good; most (70%) stated that they would recommend the final adaptation. Both lay and expert panel members suggested simplifying the language and framing the tool better within the context of other advance medical planning processes in Quebec. Translation was considered in a cultural context; the challenges identified by the research team or by collaborators were addressed during the focus group. Examples of wording that required discussion include translating 'getting the medical care that's right for you' when referring to the PWG's goal. An equivalent expression in the French translation was believed to invoke religious associations. Using the term 'machines' to describe life-sustaining treatments was also deliberated. CONCLUSION: Our collaborative iterative adaptation process led to the first French advanced serious illness planning tool. How acceptable and user-friendly this French adaptation of the PWG is in various Canadian French-speaking environments requires further study. CONTRIBUTION: We organized a focus group inviting both lay collaborators and experts to contribute to the interpretation of the results of the previous phases. This choice allowed us to add more value to our results and to the final PWG in French.

The central nervous system during lung injury and mechanical ventilation: a narrative review.

Mechanical ventilation induces a number of systemic responses for which the brain plays an essential role. During the last decade, substantial evidence has emerged showing that the brain modifies pulmonary responses to physical and biological stimuli by various mechanisms, including the modulation of neuroinflammatory reflexes and the onset of abnormal breathing patterns. Afferent signals and circulating factors from injured peripheral tissues, including the lung, can induce neuronal reprogramming, potentially contributing to neurocognitive dysfunction and psychological alterations seen in critically ill patients. These impairments are ubiquitous in the presence of positive pressure ventilation. This narrative review summarises current evidence of lung-brain crosstalk in patients receiving mechanical ventilation and describes the clinical implications of this crosstalk. Further, it proposes directions for future research ranging from identifying mechanisms of multiorgan failure to mitigating long-term sequelae after critical illness.

A Systematic Review of Risk Factors for Sleep Disruption in Critically Ill Adults.

OBJECTIVES: Numerous risk factors for sleep disruption in critically ill adults have been described. We performed a systematic review of all risk factors associated with sleep disruption in the ICU setting. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies of any design published between 1990 and April 2018 that evaluated sleep in greater than or equal to 10 critically ill adults (> 18 yr old) and investigated greater than or equal to 1 potential risk factor for sleep disruption during ICU stay. We assessed study quality using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale or Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. DATA EXTRACTION: We abstracted all data independently and in duplicate. Potential ICU sleep disruption risk factors were categorized into three categories based on how data were reported: 1) patient-reported reasons for sleep disruption, 2) patient-reported ratings of potential factors affecting sleep quality, and 3) studies reporting a statistical or temporal association between potential risk factors and disrupted sleep. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 5,148 citations, we included 62 studies. Pain, discomfort, anxiety/fear, noise, light, and ICU care-related activities are the most common and widely studied patient-reported factors causing sleep disruption. Patients rated noise and light as the most sleep-disruptive factors. Higher number of comorbidities, poor home sleep quality, home sleep aid use, and delirium were factors associated with sleep disruption identified in available studies. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review summarizes all premorbid, illness-related, and ICU-related factors associated with sleep disruption in the ICU. These findings will inform sleep promotion efforts in the ICU and guide further research in this field.

One-Year Outcomes in Caregivers of Critically Ill Patients.

BACKGROUND: Few resources are available to support caregivers of patients who have survived critical illness; consequently, the caregivers' own health may suffer. We studied caregiver and patient characteristics to determine which characteristics were associated with caregivers' health outcomes during the first year after patient discharge from an intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We prospectively enrolled 280 caregivers of patients who had received 7 or more days of mechanical ventilation in an ICU. Using hospital data and self-administered questionnaires, we collected information on caregiver and patient characteristics, including caregiver depressive symptoms, psychological well-being, health-related quality of life, sense of control over life, and effect of providing care on other activities. Assessments occurred 7 days and 3, 6, and 12 months after ICU discharge. RESULTS: The caregivers' mean age was 53 years, 70% were women, and 61% were caring for a spouse. A large percentage of caregivers (67% initially and 43% at 1 year) reported high levels of depressive symptoms. Depressive symptoms decreased at least partially with time in 84% of the caregivers but did not in 16%. Variables that were significantly associated with worse mental health outcomes in caregivers were younger age, greater effect of patient care on other activities, less social support, less sense of control over life, and less personal growth. No patient variables were consistently associated with caregiver outcomes over time. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, most caregivers of critically ill patients reported high levels of depressive symptoms, which commonly persisted up to 1 year and did not decrease in some caregivers. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00896220.).

Effects of sedatives and opioids on trigger and cycling asynchronies throughout mechanical ventilation: an observational study in a large dataset from critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: In critically ill patients, poor patient-ventilator interaction may worsen outcomes. Although sedatives are often administered to improve comfort and facilitate ventilation, they can be deleterious. Whether opioids improve asynchronies with fewer negative effects is unknown. We hypothesized that opioids alone would improve asynchronies and result in more wakeful patients than sedatives alone or sedatives-plus-opioids. METHODS: This prospective multicenter observational trial enrolled critically ill adults mechanically ventilated (MV) > 24 h. We compared asynchronies and sedation depth in patients receiving sedatives, opioids, or both. We recorded sedation level and doses of sedatives and opioids. BetterCare™ software continuously registered ineffective inspiratory efforts during expiration (IEE), double cycling (DC), and asynchrony index (AI) as well as MV modes. All variables were averaged per day. We used linear mixed-effects models to analyze the relationships between asynchronies, sedation level, and sedative and opioid doses. RESULTS: In 79 patients, 14,166,469 breaths were recorded during 579 days of MV. Overall asynchronies were not significantly different in days classified as sedatives-only, opioids-only, and sedatives-plus-opioids and were more prevalent in days classified as no-drugs than in those classified as sedatives-plus-opioids, irrespective of the ventilatory mode. Sedative doses were associated with sedation level and with reduced DC (p < 0.0001) in sedatives-only days. However, on days classified as sedatives-plus-opioids, higher sedative doses and deeper sedation had more IEE (p < 0.0001) and higher AI (p = 0.0004). Opioid dosing was inversely associated with overall asynchronies (p < 0.001) without worsening sedation levels into morbid ranges. CONCLUSIONS: Sedatives, whether alone or combined with opioids, do not result in better patient-ventilator interaction than opioids alone, in any ventilatory mode. Higher opioid dose (alone or with sedatives) was associated with lower AI without depressing consciousness. Higher sedative doses administered alone were associated only with less DC. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT03451461.

Pain and Delirium in Critical Illness: An Exploration of Key 2018 SCCM PADIS Guideline Evidence Gaps.

Managing pain and delirium are crucial to patients, families, and caregivers in intensive care units. The Society of Critical Care Medicine 2018 Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep disruption (PADIS) guidelines reviewed literature until October 2015 and made its recommendations for critically-ill adults. This chapter addresses evidence gaps, identified during the guideline process, most relevant to clinicians, adds newer evidence published after the PADIS 2018 guidelines were produced, describes hindsight-driven PADIS process or content-related gaps, and reflects on how these considerations may help inform future research investigations and new guideline efforts.

Delirium assessment in neuro-critically ill patients: A validation study.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is underinvestigated in the neuro-critically ill, although the harmful effect of delirium is well established in patients in medical and surgical intensive care units (ICU).To detect delirium, a valid tool is needed. We hypothesized that delirium screening would be feasible in patients with acute brain injury and we aimed to validate and compare the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU and the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist against clinical International Classification of Diseases-10 criteria as reference. METHODS: Nurses assessed delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU and Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist in adult patients with acute brain injury admitted to the Neurointensive care unit (Neuro-ICU), Copenhagen University Hospital, if their Richmond agitation-sedation scale score was -2 or above. As the reference, a team of psychiatrist assessed patients using the International Classification of Diseases-10 criteria. RESULTS: We enrolled 74 patients, of whom 25 (34%) were deemed unable to assess by the psychiatrists, leaving 49 (66%) for final analysis. Sensitivity and specificity for the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU was 59% (95% CI: 41-75) and 56% (95% CI: 32-78), respectively, and 85% (95% CI: 70-94) and 75% (95% CI: 51-92), respectively, for the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist may be a valid tool and the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU is less suitable for delirium detection for patients in the Neuro-ICU. In the neuro-critically ill, delirium screening is challenged by limited feasibility.

Low-Dose Nocturnal Dexmedetomidine Prevents ICU Delirium. A Randomized, Placebo-controlled Trial.

RATIONALE: Dexmedetomidine is associated with less delirium than benzodiazepines and better sleep architecture than either benzodiazepines or propofol; its effect on delirium and sleep when administered at night to patients requiring sedation remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine if nocturnal dexmedetomidine prevents delirium and improves sleep in critically ill adults. METHODS: This two-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomized 100 delirium-free critically ill adults receiving sedatives to receive nocturnal (9:30 p.m. to 6:15 a.m.) intravenous dexmedetomidine (0.2 µg/kg/h, titrated by 0.1 µg /kg/h every 15 min until a goal Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale score of -1 or maximum rate of 0.7 µg/kg/h was reached) or placebo until ICU discharge. During study infusions, all sedatives were halved; opioids were unchanged. Delirium was assessed using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist every 12 hours throughout the ICU admission. Sleep was evaluated each morning by the Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Nocturnal dexmedetomidine (vs. placebo) was associated with a greater proportion of patients who remained delirium-free during the ICU stay (dexmedetomidine [40 (80%) of 50 patients] vs. placebo [27 (54%) of 50 patients]; relative risk, 0.44; 95% confidence interval, 0.23-0.82; P = 0.006). The average Leeds Sleep Evaluation Questionnaire score was similar (mean difference, 0.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-1.92) between the 34 dexmedetomidine (average seven assessments per patient) and 30 placebo (six per patient) group patients able to provide one or more assessments. Incidence of hypotension, bradycardia, or both did not differ significantly between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Nocturnal administration of low-dose dexmedetomidine in critically ill adults reduces the incidence of delirium during the ICU stay; patient-reported sleep quality appears unchanged. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01791296).

Methodologic Innovation in Creating Clinical Practice Guidelines: Insights From the 2018 Society of Critical Care Medicine Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption Guideline Effort.

OBJECTIVES: To describe novel guideline development strategies created and implemented as part of the Society of Critical Care Medicine's 2018 clinical practice guidelines for pain, agitation (sedation), delirium, immobility (rehabilitation/mobility), and sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. DESIGN: We involved critical illness survivors from start to finish, used and expanded upon Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology for making recommendations, identified evidence gaps, and developed communication strategies to mitigate challenges. SETTING/SUBJECTS: Thirty-two experts from five countries, across five topic-specific sections; four methodologists, two medical librarians, four critical illness survivors, and two Society of Critical Care Medicine support staff. INTERVENTIONS: Unique approaches included the following: 1) critical illness survivor involvement to help ensure patient-centered questions and recommendations; 2) qualitative and semiquantitative approaches for developing descriptive statements; 3) operationalizing a three-step approach to generating final recommendations; and 4) systematic identification of evidence gaps. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Critical illness survivors contributed to prioritizing topics, questions, and outcomes, evidence interpretation, recommendation formulation, and article review to ensure that their values and preferences were considered in the guidelines. Qualitative and semiquantitative approaches supported formulating descriptive statements using comprehensive literature reviews, summaries, and large-group discussion. Experts (including the methodologists and guideline chairs) developed and refined guideline recommendations through monthly topic-specific section conference calls. Recommendations were precirculated to all members, presented to, and vetted by, most members at a live meeting. Final electronic voting provided links to all forest plots, evidence summaries, and "evidence to decision" frameworks. Written comments during voting captured dissenting views and were integrated into evidence to decision frameworks and the guideline article. Evidence gaps, reflecting clinical uncertainty in the literature, were identified during the evidence to decision process, live meeting, and voting and formally incorporated into all written recommendation rationales. Frequent scheduled "check-ins" mitigated communication gaps. CONCLUSIONS: Our multifaceted, interdisciplinary approach and novel methodologic strategies can help inform the development of future critical care clinical practice guidelines.

Delirium Monitoring in Neurocritically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: The Society of Critical Care Medicine recommends routine delirium monitoring, based on data in critically ill patients without primary neurologic injury. We sought to answer whether there are valid and reliable tools to monitor delirium in neurocritically ill patients and whether delirium is associated with relevant clinical outcomes (e.g., survival, length of stay, functional independence, cognition) in this population. DATA SOURCES: We systematically reviewed Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, and PubMed. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Inclusion criteria allowed any study design investigating delirium monitoring in neurocritically ill patients (e.g., neurotrauma, ischemic, and/or hemorrhagic stroke) of any age. We extracted data relevant to delirium tool sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, interrater reliability, and associated clinical outcomes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Among seven prospective cohort studies and a total of 1,173 patients, delirium was assessed in neurocritically patients using validated delirium tools after considering primary neurologic diagnoses and associated complications, finding a pooled prevalence rate of 12-43%. When able to compare against a common reference standard, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, the test characteristics showed a sensitivity of 62-76%, specificity of 74-98%, positive predictive value of 63-91%, negative predictive value of 70-94%, and reliability kappa of 0.64-0.94. Among four studies reporting multivariable analyses, delirium in neurocritically patients was associated with increased hospital length of stay (n = 3) and ICU length of stay (n = 1), as well as worse functional independence (n = 1) and cognition (n = 2), but not survival. CONCLUSIONS: These data from studies of neurocritically ill patients demonstrate that patients with primary neurologic diagnoses can meet diagnostic criteria for delirium and that delirious features may predict relevant untoward clinical outcomes. There is a need for ongoing investigations regarding delirium in these complicated neurocritically ill patients.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU.

OBJECTIVE: To update and expand the 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the ICU. DESIGN: Thirty-two international experts, four methodologists, and four critical illness survivors met virtually at least monthly. All section groups gathered face-to-face at annual Society of Critical Care Medicine congresses; virtual connections included those unable to attend. A formal conflict of interest policy was developed a priori and enforced throughout the process. Teleconferences and electronic discussions among subgroups and whole panel were part of the guidelines' development. A general content review was completed face-to-face by all panel members in January 2017. METHODS: Content experts, methodologists, and ICU survivors were represented in each of the five sections of the guidelines: Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption). Each section created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome, and nonactionable, descriptive questions based on perceived clinical relevance. The guideline group then voted their ranking, and patients prioritized their importance. For each Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question, sections searched the best available evidence, determined its quality, and formulated recommendations as "strong," "conditional," or "good" practice statements based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation principles. In addition, evidence gaps and clinical caveats were explicitly identified. RESULTS: The Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) panel issued 37 recommendations (three strong and 34 conditional), two good practice statements, and 32 ungraded, nonactionable statements. Three questions from the patient-centered prioritized question list remained without recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial agreement among a large, interdisciplinary cohort of international experts regarding evidence supporting recommendations, and the remaining literature gaps in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. Highlighting this evidence and the research needs will improve Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) management and provide the foundation for improved outcomes and science in this vulnerable population.

Effectiveness and Safety of an Extended ICU Visitation Model for Delirium Prevention: A Before and After Study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of an extended visitation model compared with a restricted visitation model on the occurrence of delirium among ICU patients. DESIGN: Prospective single-center before and after study. SETTING: Thirty-one-bed medical-surgical ICU. PATIENTS: All patients greater than or equal to 18 years old with expected length of stay greater than or equal to 24 hours consecutively admitted to the ICU from May 2015 to November 2015. INTERVENTIONS: Change of visitation policy from a restricted visitation model (4.5 hr/d) to an extended visitation model (12 hr/d). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Two hundred eighty-six patients were enrolled (141 restricted visitation model, 145 extended visitation model). The primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of delirium, assessed bid using the confusion assessment method for the ICU. Predefined secondary outcomes included duration of delirium/coma; any ICU-acquired infection; ICU-acquired bloodstream infection, pneumonia, and urinary tract infection; all-cause ICU mortality; and length of ICU stay. The median duration of visits increased from 133 minutes (interquartile range, 97.7-162.0) in restricted visitation model to 245 minutes (interquartile range, 175.0-272.0) in extended visitation model (p < 0.001). Fourteen patients (9.6%) developed delirium in extended visitation model compared with 29 (20.5%) in restricted visitation model (adjusted relative risk, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.26-0.95). In comparison with restricted visitation model patients, extended visitation model patients had shorter length of delirium/coma (1.5 d [interquartile range, 1.0-3.0] vs 3.0 d [interquartile range, 2.5-5.0]; p = 0.03) and ICU stay (3.0 d [interquartile range, 2.0-4.0] vs 4.0 d [interquartile range, 2.0-6.0]; p = 0.04). The rate of ICU-acquired infections and all-cause ICU mortality did not differ significantly between the two study groups. CONCLUSIONS: In this medical-surgical ICU, an extended visitation model was associated with reduced occurrence of delirium and shorter length of delirium/coma and ICU stay.

Worldwide Survey of the "Assessing Pain, Both Spontaneous Awakening and Breathing Trials, Choice of Drugs, Delirium Monitoring/Management, Early Exercise/Mobility, and Family Empowerment" (ABCDEF) Bundle.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the knowledge and use of the Assessment, prevention, and management of pain; spontaneous awakening and breathing trials; Choice of analgesia and sedation; Delirium assessment; Early mobility and exercise; and Family engagement and empowerment (ABCDEF) bundle to implement the Pain, Agitation, Delirium guidelines. DESIGN: Worldwide online survey. SETTING: Intensive care. INTERVENTION: A cross-sectional online survey using the Delphi method was administered to intensivists worldwide, to assess the knowledge and use of all aspects of the ABCDEF bundle. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 1,521 respondents from 47 countries, 57% had implemented the ABCDEF bundle, with varying degrees of compliance across continents. Most of the respondents (83%) used a scale to evaluate pain. Spontaneous awakening trials and spontaneous breathing trials are performed in 66% and 67% of the responder ICUs, respectively. Sedation scale was used in 89% of ICUs. Delirium monitoring was implemented in 70% of ICUs, but only 42% used a validated delirium tool. Likewise, early mobilization was "prescribed" by most, but 69% had no mobility team and 79% used no formal mobility scale. Only 36% of the respondents assessed ICU-acquired weakness. Family members were actively involved in 67% of ICUs; however, only 33% used dedicated staff to support families and only 35% reported that their unit was open 24 hr/d for family visits. CONCLUSIONS: The current implementation of the ABCDEF bundle varies across individual components and regions. We identified specific targets for quality improvement and adoption of the ABCDEF bundle. Our data reflect a significant but incomplete shift toward patient- and family-centered ICU care in accordance with the Pain, Agitation, Delirium guidelines.

Guidelines for Family-Centered Care in the Neonatal, Pediatric, and Adult ICU.

OBJECTIVE: To provide clinicians with evidence-based strategies to optimize the support of the family of critically ill patients in the ICU. METHODS: We used the Council of Medical Specialty Societies principles for the development of clinical guidelines as the framework for guideline development. We assembled an international multidisciplinary team of 29 members with expertise in guideline development, evidence analysis, and family-centered care to revise the 2007 Clinical Practice Guidelines for support of the family in the patient-centered ICU. We conducted a scoping review of qualitative research that explored family-centered care in the ICU. Thematic analyses were conducted to support Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome question development. Patients and families validated the importance of interventions and outcomes. We then conducted a systematic review using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations methodology to make recommendations for practice. Recommendations were subjected to electronic voting with pre-established voting thresholds. No industry funding was associated with the guideline development. RESULTS: The scoping review yielded 683 qualitative studies; 228 were used for thematic analysis and Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome question development. The systematic review search yielded 4,158 reports after deduplication and 76 additional studies were added from alerts and hand searches; 238 studies met inclusion criteria. We made 23 recommendations from moderate, low, and very low level of evidence on the topics of: communication with family members, family presence, family support, consultations and ICU team members, and operational and environmental issues. We provide recommendations for future research and work-tools to support translation of the recommendations into practice. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines identify the evidence base for best practices for family-centered care in the ICU. All recommendations were weak, highlighting the relative nascency of this field of research and the importance of future research to identify the most effective interventions to improve this important aspect of ICU care.

The RECOVER Program: Disability Risk Groups and 1-Year Outcome after 7 or More Days of Mechanical Ventilation.

RATIONALE: Disability risk groups and 1-year outcome after greater than or equal to 7 days of mechanical ventilation (MV) in medical/surgical intensive care unit (ICU) patients are unknown and may inform education, prognostication, rehabilitation, and study design. OBJECTIVES: To stratify patients for post-ICU disability and recovery to 1 year after critical illness. METHODS: We evaluated a multicenter cohort of 391 medical/surgical ICU patients who received greater than or equal to 1 week of MV at 7 days and 3, 6, and 12 months after ICU discharge. Disability risk groups were identified using recursive partitioning modeling. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The 7-day post-ICU Functional Independence Measure (FIM) determined the recovery trajectory to 1-year after ICU discharge and was an independent risk factor for 1-year mortality. The 7-day post-ICU FIM was predicted by age and ICU length of stay. By 2 weeks of MV, ICU patients could be stratified into four disability groups characterized by increasing risk for post ICU disability, ICU and post-ICU healthcare use, and disposition. Patients less than 42 years with ICU length of stay less than 2 weeks had the best function and fewest deaths at 1 year compared with patients greater than 66 years with ICU length of stay greater than 2 weeks who sustained the worst disability and 40% 1-year mortality. Depressive symptoms (17%) and post-traumatic stress disorder (18%) persisted at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: ICU survivors of greater than or equal to 1 week of MV may be stratified into four disability groups based on age and ICU length of stay. These groups determine 1-year recovery and healthcare use and are independent of admitting diagnosis and illness severity. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 00896220).

Analgesia in Neurocritical Care: An International Survey and Practice Audit.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize analgesic administration in neurocritical care. DESIGN: ICU pharmacy database analgesic delivery audits from five countries. A 31-question analgesic agent survey was constructed, validated, and e-distributed in four countries. SETTING: International multicenter neuro-ICU database audit and electronic survey. PATIENTS: Six ICUs provided individual, anonymized analgesic delivery data in primary neurological diagnosis patients. Prescriber surveys were disseminated by neurocritical care societies. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Analgesic delivery data from 173 patients in French, Canadian, American, and Australian and New Zealand ICUs suggest that acetaminophen/paracetamol is the most common first-line analgesic (49.1% of patients); opiates are the "second line" in 31.5% of patients; however, 33% patients received no second agent. In the 2.3% with demyelinating disease, gabapentin was the most likely second analgesic (50.0%). Third-line analgesics were scarce across sites and neuropathologies. Few national or regional differences were found. The analgesic preference rankings noted by the 95 international physicians who completed the survey matched the audits. However, self-reported analgesic prescription rates were much higher than pharmacy records indicate, with self-reported prescribing of both acetaminophen/paracetamol and opiates in 97% of patients and gabapentin in 45% of patients. Third-line analgesic variability appeared to be driven by neuropathology; ibuprofen was preferred for traumatic brain injury, postcraniotomy, and thromboembolic stroke patients, whereas gabapentin/pregabalin were favored in subarachnoid hemorrhage, intracranial hemorrhage, spine, demyelinating disease, and epileptic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Opiates and acetaminophen are preferred analgesic agents, and gabapentin is a contextual third choice, in neurocritically ill patients. Other agents are rarely prescribed. The discordance in physician self-reports and objective audits suggest that pain management optimization studies are warranted.

Preventing ICU Subsyndromal Delirium Conversion to Delirium With Low-Dose IV Haloperidol: A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy and safety of scheduled low-dose haloperidol versus placebo for the prevention of delirium (Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist ≥ 4) administered to critically ill adults with subsyndromal delirium (Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist = 1-3). DESIGN: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Three 10-bed ICUs (two medical and one surgical) at an academic medical center in the United States. PATIENTS: Sixty-eight mechanically ventilated patients with subsyndromal delirium without complicating neurologic conditions, cardiac surgery, or requiring deep sedation. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive IV haloperidol 1 mg or placebo every 6 hours until delirium occurred (Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist ≥ 4 with psychiatric confirmation), 10 days of therapy had elapsed, or ICU discharge. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were similar between the haloperidol (n = 34) and placebo (n = 34) groups. A similar number of patients given haloperidol (12/34 [35%]) and placebo (8/34 [23%]) developed delirium (p = 0.29). Haloperidol use reduced the hours per study day spent agitated (Sedation Agitation Scale ≥ 5) (p = 0.008), but it did not influence the proportion of 12-hour ICU shifts patients spent alive without coma (Sedation Agitation Scale ≤ 2) or delirium (p = 0.36), the time to first delirium occurrence (p = 0.22), nor delirium duration (p = 0.26). Days of mechanical ventilation (p = 0.80), ICU mortality (p = 0.55), and ICU patient disposition (p = 0.22) were similar in the two groups. The proportion of patients who developed corrected QT-interval prolongation (p = 0.16), extrapyramidal symptoms (p = 0.31), excessive sedation (p = 0.31), or new-onset hypotension (p = 1.0) that resulted in study drug discontinuation was comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose scheduled haloperidol, initiated early in the ICU stay, does not prevent delirium and has little therapeutic advantage in mechanically ventilated, critically ill adults with subsyndromal delirium.