Feasibility, safety, and patient acceptability of electronic inspiratory muscle training in patients who require prolonged mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit: A dual-centre observational study.

BACKGROUND: Inspiratory muscle training (IMT) is an intervention that can be used to rehabilitate the respiratory muscle deconditioning experienced by patients with critical illness, requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation. Clinicians are currently using mechanical threshold IMT devices that have limited resistance ranges. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety, feasibility, and acceptability of using an electronic device to facilitate IMT with participants requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation. METHOD: A dual-centre observational cohort study, with convenience sampling, was conducted at two tertiary intensive care units. Daily training supervised by intensive care unit physiotherapists was completed with the electronic IMT device. A priori definitions for feasibility, safety, and acceptability were determined. Feasibility was defined as more than 80% of planned sessions completed. Safety was defined as no major adverse events and less than 3% minor adverse event rate, and acceptability was evaluated following the acceptability of intervention framework principles. RESULTS: Forty participants completed 197 electronic IMT treatment sessions. Electronic IMT was feasible, with 81% of planned sessions completed. There were 10% minor adverse events and no major adverse events. All the minor adverse events were transient without clinical consequences. All the participants who recalled completing electronic IMT sessions reported that the training was acceptable. Acceptability was demonstrated; over 85% of participants reported that electronic IMT was either helpful or beneficial and that electronic IMT assisted their recovery. CONCLUSION: Electronic IMT is feasible and acceptable to complete with critically ill participants who require prolonged mechanical ventilation. As all minor adverse events were transient without clinical consequences, electronic IMT can be considered a relatively safe intervention with patients who require prolonged mechanical ventilation.

Inhaled nebulised unfractionated heparin (UFH) for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19: A randomised controlled pilot study.

There is a strong scientific rationale to use nebulised unfractionated heparin (UFH) in treating patients with COVID-19. This pilot study investigated whether nebulised UFH was safe and had any impact on mortality, length of hospitalisation and clinical progression, in the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19. This parallel group, open label, randomised trial included adult patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection admitted to two hospitals in Brazil. One hundred patients were planned to be randomised to either "standard of care" (SOC) or SOC plus nebulized UFH. The trial was stopped after randomisation of 75 patients due to falling COVID-19 hospitalisation rates. Significance tests were 1-sided test (10% significance level). The key analysis populations were intention to treat (ITT) and modified ITT (mITT) which excluded (from both arms) subjects admitted to ITU or who died within 24 h of randomisation. In the ITT population (n = 75), mortality was numerically lower for nebulised UFH (6 out of 38 patients; 15.8%) versus SOC (10 out of 37 patients; 27.0%), but not statistically significant; odds ratio (OR) 0.51, p = 0.24. However, in the mITT population, nebulised UFH reduced mortality (OR 0.2, p = 0.035). Length of hospital stay was similar between groups, but at day 29, there was a greater improvement in ordinal score following treatment with UFH in the ITT and mITT populations (p = 0.076 and p = 0.012 respectively), while mechanical ventilation rates were lower with UFH in the mITT population (OR 0.31; p = 0.08). Nebulised UFH did not cause any significant adverse events. In conclusion, nebulised UFH added to SOC in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was well tolerated and showed clinical benefit, particularly in patients who received at least 6 doses of heparin. This trial was funded by The J.R. Moulton Charity Trust and registered under REBEC RBR-8r9hy8f (UTN code: U1111-1263-3136).

Can nebulised HepArin Reduce morTality and time to Extubation in patients with COVID-19 Requiring invasive ventilation Meta-Trial (CHARTER-MT): Protocol and statistical analysis plan for an investigator-initiated international meta-trial of prospective randomised clinical studies.

There is significant interest in the potential for nebulised unfractionated heparin (UFH), as a novel therapy for patients with COVID-19 induced acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure requiring invasive ventilation. The scientific and biological rationale for nebulised heparin stems from the evidence for extensive activation of coagulation resulting in pulmonary microvascular thrombosis in COVID-19 pneumonia. Nebulised delivery of heparin to the lung may limit alveolar fibrin deposition and thereby limit progression of lung injury. Importantly, laboratory studies show that heparin can directly inactivate the SARS-CoV-2 virus, thereby prevent its entry into and infection of mammalian cells. UFH has additional anti-inflammatory and mucolytic properties that may be useful in this context. METHODS AND INTERVENTION: The Can nebulised HepArin Reduce morTality and time to Extubation in Patients with COVID-19 Requiring invasive ventilation Meta-Trial (CHARTER-MT) is a collaborative prospective individual patient data analysis of on-going randomised controlled clinical trials across several countries in five continents, examining the effects of inhaled heparin in patients with COVID-19 requiring invasive ventilation on various endpoints. Each constituent study will randomise patients with COVID-19 induced respiratory failure requiring invasive ventilation. Patients are randomised to receive nebulised heparin or standard care (open label studies) or placebo (blinded placebo-controlled studies) while under invasive ventilation. Each participating study collect a pre-defined minimum dataset. The primary outcome for the meta-trial is the number of ventilator-free days up to day 28 day, defined as days alive and free from invasive ventilation.

Inhaled nebulised unfractionated heparin for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19: A multicentre case series of 98 patients.

AIMS: To determine the safety and efficacy-potential of inhaled nebulised unfractionated heparin (UFH) in the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: Retrospective, uncontrolled multicentre single-arm case series of hospitalised patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19, treated with inhaled nebulised UFH (5000 IU q8h, 10 000 IU q4h, or 25 000 IU q6h) for 6 ± 3 (mean ± standard deviation) days. Outcomes were activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT) before treatment (baseline) and highest-level during treatment (peak), and adverse events including bleeding. Exploratory efficacy outcomes were oxygenation, assessed by ratio of oxygen saturation to fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2 ) and FiO2 , and the World Health Organisation modified ordinal clinical scale. RESULTS: There were 98 patients included. In patients on stable prophylactic or therapeutic systemic anticoagulant therapy but not receiving therapeutic UFH infusion, APTT levels increased from baseline of 34 ± 10 seconds to a peak of 38 ± 11 seconds (P < .0001). In 3 patients on therapeutic UFH infusion, APTT levels did not significantly increase from baseline of 72 ± 20 to a peak of 84 ± 28 seconds (P = .17). Two patients had serious adverse events: bleeding gastric ulcer requiring transfusion and thigh haematoma; both were on therapeutic anticoagulation. Minor bleeding occurred in 16 patients, 13 of whom were on therapeutic anticoagulation. The oxygen saturation/FiO2 ratio and the FiO2 worsened before and improved after commencement of inhaled UFH (change in slope, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Inhaled nebulised UFH in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 was safe. Although statistically significant, inhaled nebulised UFH did not produce a clinically relevant increase in APTT (peak values in the normal range). Urgent randomised evaluation of nebulised UFH in patients with COVID-19 is warranted and several studies are currently underway.

Characteristics and outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander patients with dialysis-dependent kidney disease in Australian intensive care units.

BACKGROUND: In Australia, 531 people per million population have dialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (CKD5D). The incidence is four times higher for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (indigenous) people compared with non-Indigenous Australians. CKD5D increases the risk of hospitalisation, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and mortality compared with patients without CKD5D. There is limited literature describing short-term outcomes of patients with CKD5D who are admitted to the ICU, comparing indigenous and non-indigenous patients. AIMS: This registry-based retrospective cohort analysis compared demographic and clinical data between indigenous and non-indigenous patients with CKD5D and tested whether indigenous status predicted short-term outcomes independently of other contributing factors. Adjusted hospital mortality was the primary outcome measure. METHODS: Data were from the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society's Centre for Outcome and Resource Evaluation Adult Patient Database. Australian ICU admissions between 2010 and 2017 were included. Data from 173 ICU (2136 beds) include 1 051 697 ICU admissions, of which 23 793 had a pre-existing diagnosis of CKD5D. RESULTS: Indigenous patients comprised 11.9% of CKD5D patients in ICU. CKD5D was prevalent among 4.9% of indigenous and 2.9% of non-indigenous ICU admissions. Indigenous patients were 13.5 years younger, had fewer comorbidities and lower crude mortality despite equivalent calculated mortality risk. After adjusting for age, remoteness and severity of illness, indigenous status did not predict mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Socioeconomic disadvantage contributes to earlier development of CKD5D and the overrepresentation in ICU of indigenous people. Mortality is equivalent once correcting for confounders, but addressing inequality requires strengthening preventative care.

INHALEd nebulised unfractionated HEParin for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (INHALE-HEP): Protocol and statistical analysis plan for an investigator-initiated international metatrial of randomised studies.

AIMS: Inhaled nebulised unfractionated heparin (UFH) has a strong scientific and biological rationale that warrants urgent investigation of its therapeutic potential in patients with COVID-19. UFH has antiviral effects and prevents the SARS-CoV-2 virus' entry into mammalian cells. In addition, UFH has significant anti-inflammatory and anticoagulant properties, which limit progression of lung injury and vascular pulmonary thrombosis. METHODS: The INHALEd nebulised unfractionated HEParin for the treatment of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (INHALE-HEP) metatrial is a prospective individual patient data analysis of on-going randomised controlled trials and early phase studies. Individual studies are being conducted in multiple countries. Participating studies randomise adult patients admitted to the hospital with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, who do not require immediate mechanical ventilation, to inhaled nebulised UFH or standard care. All studies collect a minimum core dataset. The primary outcome for the metatrial is intubation (or death, for patients who died before intubation) at day 28. The secondary outcomes are oxygenation, clinical worsening and mortality, assessed in time-to-event analyses. Individual studies may have additional outcomes. ANALYSIS: We use a Bayesian approach to monitoring, followed by analysing individual patient data, outcomes and adverse events. All analyses will follow the intention-to-treat principle, considering all participants in the treatment group to which they were assigned, except for cases lost to follow-up or withdrawn. TRIAL REGISTRATION, ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The metatrial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04635241. Each contributing study is individually registered and has received approval of the relevant ethics committee or institutional review board. Results of this study will be shared with the World Health Organisation, published in scientific journals and presented at scientific meetings.

Addressing ethical confusion in deceased donation and transplantation research: the need for dedicated guidance.

Innovative research in deceased donation and transplantation often presents ethical challenges for researchers and those responsible for ethical governance of research. These challenges have been recognized as potential barriers to the conduct of research. We review the literature to identify and describe ethical considerations that may cause confusion or uncertainty in the context of research involving potential deceased donors or deceased donor transplantation. We normatively examine these considerations and discuss their implications for the ethical conduct of research. In addition to the complexities of research involving critically ill, dying or recently deceased individuals, uncertainty may arise regarding the ethical status of various individuals who may be involved in research aimed at improving availability and outcomes of organ transplantation. Consequently, routine ethical guidelines for clinical research may fail to provide clear guidance with regards to the design, conduct and governance of some deceased donation or transplantation studies. Ethical uncertainty may result in delays or barriers to research, or neglect of important ethical considerations. Specific ethical guidance is needed to support research in deceased donation and transplantation as the ethical considerations that arise in the design and conduct of such research may not be addressed in the existing guidelines for human research.

Compliance Phenotypes in Early Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome before the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Rationale: A novel model of phenotypes based on set thresholds of respiratory system compliance (Crs) was recently postulated in context of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). In particular, the dissociation between the degree of hypoxemia and Crs was characterized as a distinct ARDS phenotype.Objectives: To determine whether such Crs-based phenotypes existed among patients with ARDS before the COVID-19 pandemic and to closely examine the Crs-mortality relationship.Methods: We undertook a secondary analysis of patients with ARDS, who were invasively ventilated on controlled modes and enrolled in a large, multinational, epidemiological study. We assessed Crs, degree of hypoxemia, and associated Crs-based phenotypic patterns with their characteristics and outcomes.Measurements and Main Results: Among 1,117 patients with ARDS who met inclusion criteria, the median Crs was 30 (interquartile range, 23-40) ml/cm H2O. One hundred thirty-six (12%) patients had preserved Crs (≥50 ml/cm H2O; phenotype with low elastance ["phenotype L"]), and 827 (74%) patients had poor Crs (<40 ml/cm H2O; phenotype with high elastance ["phenotype H"]). Compared with those with phenotype L, patients with phenotype H were sicker and had more comorbidities and higher hospital mortality (32% vs. 45%; P < 0.05). A near complete dissociation between PaO2/FiO2 and Crs was observed. Of 136 patients with phenotype L, 58 (43%) had a PaO2/FiO2 < 150. In a multivariable-adjusted analysis, the Crs was independently associated with hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio per ml/cm H2O increase, 0.988; 95% confidence interval, 0.979-0.996; P = 0.005).Conclusions: A wide range of Crs was observed in non-COVID-19 ARDS. Approximately one in eight patients had preserved Crs. PaO2/FiO2 and Crs were dissociated. Lower Crs was independently associated with higher mortality. The Crs-mortality relationship lacked a clear transition threshold.

Annual prevalence, characteristics, and outcomes of intensive care patients with skin or soft tissue infections in Australia and New Zealand: A retrospective cohort study between 2006-2017.

BACKGROUND: There are limited published data on the epidemiology of skin and soft tissue infections (SSTIs) requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. This study intended to describe the annual prevalence, characteristics, and outcomes of critically ill adult patients admitted to the ICU for an SSTI. METHODS: This was a registry-based retrospective cohort study, using data submitted to the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society Adult Patient Database for all admissions with SSTI between 2006 and 2017. The inclusion criteria were as follows: primary diagnosis of SSTI and age ≥16 years. The exclusion criteria were as follows: ICU readmissions (during the same hospital admission) and transfers from ICUs from other hospitals. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and the secondary outcomes were ICU mortality and length of stay (LOS) in the ICU and hospital with independent predictors of outcomes. RESULTS: Admissions due to SSTI accounted for 10 962 (0.7%) of 1 470 197 ICU admissions between 2006 and 2017. Comorbidities were present in 25.2% of the study sample. The in-hospital mortality was 9% (991/10 962), and SSTI necessitating ICU admission accounted for 0.07% of in-hospital mortality of all ICU admissions between 2006 and 2017. Annual prevalence of ICU admissions for SSTI increased from 0.4% to 0.9% during the study period, but in-hospital mortality decreased from 16.1% to 6.8%. The median ICU LOS was 2.1 days (interquartile range = 3.4), and the median hospital LOS was 12.1 days (interquartile range = 20.6). ICU LOS remained stable between 2006 and 2017 (2.0-2.1 days), whereas hospital LOS decreased from 15.7 to 11.2 days. Predictors for in-hospital mortality included Australian and New Zealand Risk of Death scores [odds ratio (OR): 1.07; confidence interval (CI) (1.05, 1.09); p < 0.001], any comorbidity except diabetes [OR: 2.00; CI (1.05, 3.79); p = 0.035], and admission through an emergency response call [OR: 2.07; CI (1.03, 4.16); p = 0.041]. CONCLUSIONS: SSTIs are uncommon as primary ICU admission diagnosis. Although the annual prevalence of ICU admissions for SSTI has increased, in-hospital mortality and hospital LOS have decreased over the last decade.

Respiratory Muscle Rehabilitation in Patients with Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation: A Targeted Approach.

This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2020. Other selected articles can be found online at https://www.biomedcentral.com/collections/annualupdate2020. Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from http://www.springer.com/series/8901.

Nebulised heparin as a treatment for COVID-19: scientific rationale and a call for randomised evidence.

Nebulised unfractionated heparin (UFH) has a strong scientific and biological rationale and warrants urgent investigation of its therapeutic potential, for COVID-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). COVID-19 ARDS displays the typical features of diffuse alveolar damage with extensive pulmonary coagulation activation resulting in fibrin deposition in the microvasculature and formation of hyaline membranes in the air sacs. Patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 who manifest severe disease have high levels of inflammatory cytokines in plasma and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and significant coagulopathy. There is a strong association between the extent of the coagulopathy and poor clinical outcomes.The anti-coagulant actions of nebulised UFH limit fibrin deposition and microvascular thrombosis. Trials in patients with acute lung injury and related conditions found inhaled UFH reduced pulmonary dead space, coagulation activation, microvascular thrombosis and clinical deterioration, resulting in increased time free of ventilatory support. In addition, UFH has anti-inflammatory, mucolytic and anti-viral properties and, specifically, has been shown to inactivate the SARS-CoV-2 virus and prevent its entry into mammalian cells, thereby inhibiting pulmonary infection by SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, clinical studies have shown that inhaled UFH safely improves outcomes in other inflammatory respiratory diseases and also acts as an effective mucolytic in sputum-producing respiratory patients. UFH is widely available and inexpensive, which may make this treatment also accessible for low- and middle-income countries.These potentially important therapeutic properties of nebulised UFH underline the need for expedited large-scale clinical trials to test its potential to reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients.

Influence of sedation on delirium recognition in critically ill patients: A multinational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines advocate intensive care unit (ICU) patients be regularly assessed for delirium using either the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC). Single-centre studies, primarily with the CAM-ICU, suggest level of sedation may influence delirium screening results. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the association between level of sedation and delirium occurrence in critically ill patients assessed with either the CAM-ICU or the ICDSC. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a multinational, prospective cohort study performed in nine ICUs from seven countries. Consecutive ICU patients with a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) of -3 to 0 at the time of delirium assessment where a RASS ≤ 0 was secondary to a sedating medication. Patients were assessed with either the CAM-ICU or the ICDSC. Logistic regression analysis was used to account for factors with the potential to influence level of sedation or delirium occurrence. RESULTS: Among 1660 patients, 1203 patients underwent 5741 CAM-ICU assessments [9.6% were delirium positive; at RASS = 0 (3.3% were delirium positive), RASS = -1 (19.3%), RASS = -2 (35.1%); RASS = -3 (39.0%)]. The other 457 patients underwent 3210 ICDSC assessments [11.6% delirium positive; at RASS = 0 (4.9% were delirium positive), RASS = -1 (15.8%), RASS = -2 (26.6%); RASS = -3 (20.6%)]. A RASS of -3 was associated with more positive delirium evaluations (odds ratio: 2.31; 95% confidence interval: 1.34-3.98) in the CAM-ICU-assessed patients (vs. the ICDSC-assessed patients). At a RASS of 0, assessment with the CAM-ICU (vs. the ICDSC) was associated with fewer positive delirium evaluations (odds ratio: 0.58; 95% confidence interval: 0.43-0.78). At a RASS of -1 or -2, no association was found between the delirium assessment method used (i.e., CAM-ICU or ICDSC) and a positive delirium evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: The influence of level of sedation on a delirium assessment result depends on whether the CAM-ICU or ICDSC is used. Bedside ICU nurses should consider these results when evaluating their sedated patients for delirium. Future research is necessary to compare the CAM-ICU and the ICDSC simultaneously in sedated and nonsedated ICU patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT02518646.

External Validation of Two Models to Predict Delirium in Critically Ill Adults Using Either the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist for Delirium Assessment.

OBJECTIVES: To externally validate two delirium prediction models (early prediction model for ICU delirium and recalibrated prediction model for ICU delirium) using either the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist for delirium assessment. DESIGN: Prospective, multinational cohort study. SETTING: Eleven ICUs from seven countries in three continents. PATIENTS: Consecutive, delirium-free adults admitted to the ICU for greater than or equal to 6 hours in whom delirium could be reliably assessed. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The predictors included in each model were collected at the time of ICU admission (early prediction model for ICU delirium) or within 24 hours of ICU admission (recalibrated prediction model for ICU delirium). Delirium was assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. Discrimination was determined using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The predictive performance was determined for the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU and Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist cohort, and compared with both prediction models' original reported performance. A total of 1,286 Confusion Assessment Method-ICU-assessed patients and 892 Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist-assessed patients were included. Compared with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.71-0.79) in the original study, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the early prediction model for ICU delirium was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.64-0.71) for delirium as assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.66-0.74) using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. Compared with the original area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74-0.79), the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the recalibrated prediction model for ICU delirium was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.72-0.78) for assessing delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.67-0.75) using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. CONCLUSIONS: Both the early prediction model for ICU delirium and recalibrated prediction model for ICU delirium are externally validated using either the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist for delirium assessment. Per delirium prediction model, both assessment tools showed a similar moderate-to-good statistical performance. These results support the use of either the early prediction model for ICU delirium or recalibrated prediction model for ICU delirium in ICUs around the world regardless of whether delirium is evaluated with the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist.

Delirium prediction in the intensive care unit: comparison of two delirium prediction models.

BACKGROUND: Accurate prediction of delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU) may facilitate efficient use of early preventive strategies and stratification of ICU patients by delirium risk in clinical research, but the optimal delirium prediction model to use is unclear. We compared the predictive performance and user convenience of the prediction  model for delirium (PRE-DELIRIC) and early prediction model for delirium (E-PRE-DELIRIC) in ICU patients and determined the value of a two-stage calculation. METHODS: This 7-country, 11-hospital, prospective cohort study evaluated consecutive adults admitted to the ICU who could be reliably assessed for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. The predictive performance of the models was measured using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Calibration was assessed graphically. A physician questionnaire evaluated user convenience. For the two-stage calculation we used E-PRE-DELIRIC immediately after ICU admission and updated the prediction using PRE-DELIRIC after 24 h. RESULTS: In total 2178 patients were included. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was significantly greater for PRE-DELIRIC (0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.71-0.76)) compared to E-PRE-DELIRIC (0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.66-0.71)) (z score of - 2.73 (p < 0.01)). Both models were well-calibrated. The sensitivity improved when using the two-stage calculation in low-risk patients. Compared to PRE-DELIRIC, ICU physicians (n = 68) rated the E-PRE-DELIRIC model more feasible. CONCLUSIONS: While both ICU delirium prediction models have moderate-to-good performance, the PRE-DELIRIC model predicts delirium better. However, ICU physicians rated the user convenience of E-PRE-DELIRIC superior to PRE-DELIRIC. In low-risk patients the delirium prediction further improves after an update with the PRE-DELIRIC model after 24 h. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02518646 . Registered on 21 July 2015.

A multicenter randomized controlled trial comparing three-times-a-day intermittent enteral postural feeding to continuous enteral feeding among mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intermittent feeding versus continuous feeding used different methods, employed shorter fasting intervals, ignored patients' posture in bed during feeds, and showed mixed results. Prolonged fasting intervals are hypothesized to have several benefits. Additionally, there is evidence for more efficient gastric emptying in the right lateral position. In this multicenter RCT, we aimed to compare the effects of three-times-a-day gastric feeding while in the right lateral tilt position (intermittent postural feeding) versus standard continuous gastric feeding (standard feeding) on gastrointestinal intolerance and mortality among mechanically ventilated patients in ICU. METHODS: Adult ICU patients with gastric feeding tube in-situ and requiring invasive mechanical ventilation were randomized to either intermittent postural feeding group or to the standard feeding group. The feeding formula, target daily feed volume and posture turns were determined as per standard practice for all patients. Primary outcome was an incidence rate per 100 patient-days of gastrointestinal intolerance, a composite outcome of vomiting, diarrhea or constipation. Secondary outcomes were all-cause hospital mortality, gastrointestinal intolerance-free days, ventilator-free days, episodes of vomiting or diarrhea per patient, and mean diet volume ratio (diet received/diet prescribed). RESULTS: At five multidisciplinary ICUs, 120 mechanically ventilated, adult ICU patients (median age 65 years, 60% males) were randomly allocated to intermittent postural feeding (n = 61) and standard feeding (n = 59). The primary outcome did not differ between intermittent feeding arm versus standard arm (8.5, 95% confidence interval (CI): 5.9-11.8, versus 6.2, 95% CI: 4.1-9.1 per 100 patient-days; p = 0.23). Gastrointestinal intolerance-free days until day 14 were similar (6 [2-8] versus 5 [2-10]; p = 0.68) in both groups. Number of episodes per patient of vomiting, diarrhea, or constipation also did not differ in between groups. All-cause hospital mortality between intermittent feeding arm versus standard arm was 20% versus 31% (p = 0.17). There were no significant between-group differences in any of the other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Intermittent gastric feeds delivered three-times-a-day while in the right lateral tilt position among mechanically ventilated patients was as well tolerated as the continuous enteral feeding. A definitive RCT to assess other clinically important outcomes is justified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12616000212459 https://anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=365526&isReview=true.

Psychological symptoms and health-related quality of life in intubated and non-intubated intensive care survivors: A multicentre, prospective observational cohort study.

Objective: To compare long-term psychological symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in intubated versus non-intubated ICU survivors. Design: Prospective, multicentre observational cohort study. Setting: Four tertiary medical-surgical ICUs in Australia. Participants: Intubated and non-intubated adult ICU survivors. Main outcome measures: Primary outcomes: clinically significant psychological symptoms at 3- and 12-month follow-up using Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome-14 for post-traumatic stress disorder; Depression, Anxiety Stress Scales-21 for depression, anxiety, and stress. Secondary outcomes: HRQOL, using EuroQol-5D-5L questionnaire. Results: Of the 133 ICU survivors, 54/116 (47 %) had at least one clinically significant psychological symptom (i.e., post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, depression, stress) at follow-up. Clinically significant scores for psychological symptoms were observed in 26 (39 %) versus 16 (32 %) at 3-months [odds ratio 1.4, 95 % confidence interval (0.66-3.13), p = 0.38]; 23 (37 %) versus 10 (31 %) at 12-months [odds ratio 1.3, 95 % confidence interval (0.53-3.31), p = 0.57] of intubated versus non-intubated survivors, respectively. Usual activities and mobility were the most commonly affected HRQOL dimension, with >30 % at 3 versus months and >20 % at 12-months of overall survivors reporting ≥ moderate problems. There was no difference between the groups in any of the EQ5D dimensions. Conclusions: Nearly one-in-two (47 %) of the intubated and non-intubated ICU survivors reported clinically significant psychological symptoms at 3 and 12-month follow-ups. Overall, more than 30 % at 3-months and over 20 % at 12-months of the survivors in both groups had moderate or worse problems with their usual activities and mobility. The presence of psychological symptoms and HRQOL impairments was similar between the groups.

Sodium bicarbonate infusion to reduce cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury: a phase II multicenter double-blind randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury occurs in up to 50% of patients and is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. This study aimed to discover if perioperative urinary alkalinization with sodium bicarbonate infusion reduces the prevalence of cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury. DESIGN: This study was a phase IIb multicenter double-blind randomized controlled trial. SETTING: This study was conducted in three tertiary hospitals in New Zealand and Australia. PATIENTS: A total of 427 patients scheduled to undergo elective cardiac surgery, who were at increased risk of development of cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury using recognized risk factors. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients were randomly allocated to receive either sodium bicarbonate (n = 215) or sodium chloride (n = 212) infusion, commencing at the start of anesthesia, in a dose of 0.5 mEq/kg/hr for the first hour and then 0.2 mmol/kg/hr for 23 hours. The primary outcome measure was the number of patients with development of cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury, defined as an increase in creatinine greater than 25% or 0.5 mg/dL (44 µmol/L) from baseline to peak value within the first five postoperative days. Significant differences among the groups in both plasma and urinary biochemistry were achieved 6 hours after commencement of the infusion, and these changes persisted for more than 24 hours. A total of 100 out of 215 patients (47% [95% CI, 40%-53%]) in the sodium bicarbonate group and 93 of 212 patients (44% [95% CI, 37%-51%]) in the sodium chloride group with development of acute kidney injury within the first five postoperative days (p = 0.58). There were also no significant differences in ventilation hours, ICU or hospital length of stay, or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative alkalinization of blood and urine using an infusion of sodium bicarbonate did not result in a decrease in the prevalence of acute kidney injury in patients following cardiac surgery.

The bereavement experiences of families of potential organ donors: a qualitative longitudinal case study illuminating opportunities for family care.

OBJECTIVES: To illuminate opportunities for care in the context of deceased organ donation by exploring pre-existing family and healthcare professional characteristics, in-hospital experiences, and ongoing adjustment through the lenses of grief theory, systems theory, meaning-making, narrative, and organ donation literature. METHOD: Qualitative longitudinal case studies explored individual and family change in five Australian families who had consented to Donation after Circulatory Determination of Death at a single centre. Participants attended semi-structured interviews at four, eight, and twelve months after the death. FINDINGS: Family values, pre-existing relationships, and in-hospital experiences influenced first responses to their changed lives, understanding of the patient's death, and ongoing family adjustment. Novel behaviour that was conguent with family values was required at the hospital, especially if the patient had previously played a key role in family decision-making. This behaviour and emerging interactional patterns were drawn into family life over the first year of their bereavement. RECOMMENDATIONS: Training that includes lenses introduced in this study will enable healthcare professionals to confidently respond to individual and family psychosocial needs. CONCLUSION: The lenses of grief theory and systems thinking highlight opportunities for care tailored to the unique in-hospital context and needs that emerge in the months that follow.