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

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

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

End-of-life care (EOLC) exemplifies the joint mission of intensive and palliative care (PC) in their human-centeredness. The explosion of technological advances in medicine must be balanced with the culture of holistic care. Inevitably, it brings together the science and the art of medicine in their full expression. High-quality EOLC in the ICU is grounded in evidence, ethical principles, and professionalism within the framework of the Law. Expert professional statements over the last two decades in India were developed while the law was evolving. Recent landmark Supreme Court judgments have necessitated a review of the clinical pathway for EOLC outlined in the previous statements. Much empirical and interventional evidence has accumulated since the position statement in 2014. This iteration of the joint Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine-Indian Association of Palliative Care (ISCCM-IAPC) Position Statement for EOLC combines contemporary evidence, ethics, and law for decision support by the bedside in Indian ICUs. How to cite this article: Mani RK, Bhatnagar S, Butola S, Gursahani R, Mehta D, Simha S, et al. Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine and Indian Association of Palliative Care Expert Consensus and Position Statements for End-of-life and Palliative Care in the Intensive Care Unit. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(3):200-250.

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

OBJECTIVES: To assess the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of atrial fibrillation (AF) in the ICU and to describe current practice in the management of AF. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, inception cohort study. SETTING: Forty-four ICUs in 12 countries in four geographical regions. SUBJECTS: Adult, acutely admitted ICU patients without a history of persistent/permanent AF or recent cardiac surgery were enrolled; inception periods were from October 2020 to June 2021. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We included 1,423 ICU patients and analyzed 1,415 (99.4%), among whom 221 patients had 539 episodes of AF. Most (59%) episodes were diagnosed with continuous electrocardiogram monitoring. The incidence of AF was 15.6% (95% CI, 13.8-17.6), of which newly developed AF was 13.3% (11.5-15.1). A history of arterial hypertension, paroxysmal AF, sepsis, or high disease severity at ICU admission was associated with AF. Used interventions to manage AF were fluid bolus 19% (95% CI 16-23), magnesium 16% (13-20), potassium 15% (12-19), amiodarone 51% (47-55), beta-1 selective blockers 34% (30-38), calcium channel blockers 4% (2-6), digoxin 16% (12-19), and direct current cardioversion in 4% (2-6). Patients with AF had more ischemic, thromboembolic (13.6% vs 7.9%), and severe bleeding events (5.9% vs 2.1%), and higher mortality (41.2% vs 25.2%) than those without AF. The adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio for 90-day mortality by AF was 1.38 (95% CI, 0.95-1.99). CONCLUSIONS: In ICU patients, AF occurred in one of six and was associated with different conditions. AF was associated with worse outcomes while not statistically significantly associated with 90-day mortality in the adjusted analyses. We observed variations in the diagnostic and management strategies for AF.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND: Tracheal intubation is a high-risk procedure in the critically ill, with increased intubation failure rates and a high risk of other adverse events. Videolaryngoscopy might improve intubation outcomes in this population, but evidence remains conflicting, and its impact on adverse event rates is debated. METHODS: This is a subanalysis of a large international prospective cohort of critically ill patients (INTUBE Study) performed from 1 October 2018 to 31 July 2019 and involving 197 sites from 29 countries across five continents. Our primary aim was to determine the first-pass intubation success rates of videolaryngoscopy. Secondary aims were characterising (a) videolaryngoscopy use in the critically ill patient population and (b) the incidence of severe adverse effects compared with direct laryngoscopy. RESULTS: Of 2916 patients, videolaryngoscopy was used in 500 patients (17.2%) and direct laryngoscopy in 2416 (82.8%). First-pass intubation success was higher with videolaryngoscopy compared with direct laryngoscopy (84% vs 79%, P=0.02). Patients undergoing videolaryngoscopy had a higher frequency of difficult airway predictors (60% vs 40%, P<0.001). In adjusted analyses, videolaryngoscopy increased the probability of first-pass intubation success, with an OR of 1.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.87). Videolaryngoscopy was not significantly associated with risk of major adverse events (odds ratio 1.24, 95% CI 0.95-1.62) or cardiovascular events (odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.60-1.02). CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients, videolaryngoscopy was associated with higher first-pass intubation success rates, despite being used in a population at higher risk of difficult airway management. Videolaryngoscopy was not associated with overall risk of major adverse events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03616054.

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

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

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

Rationale: Cardiovascular instability/collapse is a common peri-intubation event in patients who are critically ill. Objectives: To identify potentially modifiable variables associated with peri-intubation cardiovascular instability/collapse (i.e., systolic arterial pressure <65 mm Hg [once] or <90 mm Hg for >30 minutes; new/increased vasopressor requirement; fluid bolus >15 ml/kg, or cardiac arrest). Methods: INTUBE (International Observational Study to Understand the Impact and Best Practices of Airway Management In Critically Ill Patients) was a multicenter prospective cohort study of patients who were critically ill and undergoing tracheal intubation in a convenience sample of 197 sites from 29 countries across five continents from October 1, 2018, to July 31, 2019. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 2,760 patients were included in this analysis. Peri-intubation cardiovascular instability/collapse occurred in 1,199 out of 2,760 patients (43.4%). Variables associated with this event were older age (odds ratio [OR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.02-1.03), higher heart rate (OR, 1.008; 95% CI, 1.004-1.012), lower systolic blood pressure (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.98-0.99), lower oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry/FiO2 before induction (OR, 0.998; 95% CI, 0.997-0.999), and the use of propofol as an induction agent (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.05-1.57). Patients with peri-intubation cardiovascular instability/collapse were at a higher risk of ICU mortality with an adjusted OR of 2.47 (95% CI, 1.72-3.55), P < 0.001. The inverse probability of treatment weighting method identified the use of propofol as the only factor independently associated with cardiovascular instability/collapse (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.02-1.49). When administered before induction, vasopressors (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.84-2.11) or fluid boluses (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.96-1.44) did not reduce the incidence of cardiovascular instability/collapse. Conclusions: Peri-intubation cardiovascular instability/collapse was associated with an increased risk of both ICU and 28-day mortality. The use of propofol for induction was identified as a modifiable intervention significantly associated with cardiovascular instability/collapse.Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03616054).

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

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

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

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and is associated with poor outcomes. Different management strategies exist, but the evidence is limited and derived from non-ICU patients. This international survey of ICU doctors evaluated the preferred management of acute AF in ICU patients. METHOD: We conducted an international online survey of ICU doctors with 27 questions about the preferred management of acute AF in the ICU, including antiarrhythmic therapy in hemodynamically stable and unstable patients and use of anticoagulant therapy. RESULTS: A total of 910 respondents from 70 ICUs in 14 countries participated in the survey with 24%-100% of doctors from sites responding. Most ICUs (80%) did not have a local guideline for the management of acute AF. The preferred first-line strategy for the management of hemodynamically stable patients with acute AF was observation (95% of respondents), rhythm control (3%), or rate control (2%). For hemodynamically unstable patients, the preferred strategy was observation (48%), rhythm control (48%), or rate control (4%). Overall, preferred antiarrhythmic interventions included amiodarone, direct current cardioversion, beta-blockers other than sotalol, and magnesium in that order. A total of 67% preferred using anticoagulant therapy in ICU patients with AF, among whom 61% preferred therapeutic dose anticoagulants and 39% prophylactic dose anticoagulants. CONCLUSION: This international survey indicated considerable practice variation among ICU doctors in the clinical management of acute AF, including the overall management strategies and the use of antiarrhythmic interventions and anticoagulants.

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

BACKGROUND: Tracheal intubation for patients with COVID-19 is required for invasive mechanical ventilation. The authors sought to describe practice for emergency intubation, estimate success rates and complications, and determine variation in practice and outcomes between high-income and low- and middle-income countries. The authors hypothesized that successful emergency airway management in patients with COVID-19 is associated with geographical and procedural factors. METHODS: The authors performed a prospective observational cohort study between March 23, 2020, and October 24, 2020, which included 4,476 episodes of emergency tracheal intubation performed by 1,722 clinicians from 607 institutions across 32 countries in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation. The authors investigated associations between intubation and operator characteristics, and the primary outcome of first-attempt success. RESULTS: Successful first-attempt tracheal intubation was achieved in 4,017/4,476 (89.7%) episodes, while 23 of 4,476 (0.5%) episodes required four or more attempts. Ten emergency surgical airways were reported-an approximate incidence of 1 in 450 (10 of 4,476). Failed intubation (defined as emergency surgical airway, four or more attempts, or a supraglottic airway as the final device) occurred in approximately 1 of 120 episodes (36 of 4,476). Successful first attempt was more likely during rapid sequence induction versus non-rapid sequence induction (adjusted odds ratio, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.49 to 2.39]; P < 0.001), when operators used powered air-purifying respirators versus nonpowered respirators (adjusted odds ratio, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.16 to 2.20]; P = 0.006), and when performed by operators with more COVID-19 intubations recorded (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03 for each additional previous intubation [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.06]; P = 0.015). Intubations performed in low- or middle-income countries were less likely to be successful at first attempt than in high-income countries (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.41 to 0.79]; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The authors report rates of failed tracheal intubation and emergency surgical airway in patients with COVID-19 requiring emergency airway management, and identified factors associated with increased success. Risks of tracheal intubation failure and success should be considered when managing COVID-19.

Personalized mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome.

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

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

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice. METHODS: Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ2) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable). RESULTS: Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16-24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment. CONCLUSION: Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.

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

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

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

BACKGROUND: Patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) often have low magnesium, phosphate and zinc levels. Monitoring of serum concentrations and supplementation may be important, but there is no consensus on optimal practice. The objective of the WhyTrace survey was to describe current practice regarding the measurement and supplementation of magnesium, phosphate and zinc in ICUs. METHODS: A 54-item electronic questionnaire was developed in accordance with SURGE, SUrvey Reporting GuidelinE, to address international clinical practice in the ICU. National investigators recruited ICUs in ten countries with one physician responding per ICU using a unique e-mail distributed survey-link. RESULTS: The questionnaire was sent to clinicians in 336 ICUs of whom 283 (84%) responded. In 62% of the ICUs, a standard procedure was in place regarding the measurement of serum magnesium levels, in 58% for phosphate and in 9% for zinc. Zinc was never or rarely measured in 64% of ICUs. The frequency of requesting serum levels varied from twice daily to once weekly. Regarding supplementation, 66% of ICUs had a standard procedure for magnesium, 63% for phosphate and 15% for zinc. Most procedures recommended supplementation when serum levels were below the lower reference level, but some used the upper reference levels as the threshold for supplementation and others decided on a case-by-case basis. CONCLUSION: The practice of measuring and supplementing magnesium, phosphate and zinc differed substantially between ICUs. Our findings indicate that there is a need for high-quality prospective data on frequencies of measurements, treatment goals and effects of supplementation on patient-important outcomes.

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

Importance: A daily dose with 6 mg of dexamethasone is recommended for up to 10 days in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, but a higher dose may benefit those with more severe disease. Objective: To assess the effects of 12 mg/d vs 6 mg/d of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 2020 and May 2021 at 26 hospitals in Europe and India and included 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 requiring at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation. End of 90-day follow-up was on August 19, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to 12 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 503) or 6 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 497) for up to 10 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 28 days and was adjusted for stratification variables. Of the 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 are included in this analysis (the number of days alive without life support at 90 days, the number of days alive out of the hospital at 90 days, mortality at 28 days and at 90 days, and ≥1 serious adverse reactions at 28 days). Results: Of the 1000 randomized patients, 982 were included (median age, 65 [IQR, 55-73] years; 305 [31%] women) and primary outcome data were available for 971 (491 in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 480 in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group). The median number of days alive without life support was 22.0 days (IQR, 6.0-28.0 days) in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 20.5 days (IQR, 4.0-28.0 days) in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted mean difference, 1.3 days [95% CI, 0-2.6 days]; P = .07). Mortality at 28 days was 27.1% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 32.3% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.86 [99% CI, 0.68-1.08]). Mortality at 90 days was 32.0% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 37.7% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.87 [99% CI, 0.70-1.07]). Serious adverse reactions, including septic shock and invasive fungal infections, occurred in 11.3% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 13.4% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.83 [99% CI, 0.54-1.29]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, 12 mg/d of dexamethasone compared with 6 mg/d of dexamethasone did not result in statistically significantly more days alive without life support at 28 days. However, the trial may have been underpowered to identify a significant difference. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04509973 and ctri.nic.in Identifier: CTRI/2020/10/028731.

An international survey of airway management education in 61 countries†.

BACKGROUND: Deficiencies in airway management skills and judgement contribute to poor outcomes. Airway management practice guidelines emphasise the importance of education. Little is known about the global uptake of guidelines, availability of equipment, provision of training, assessment of skills, and confidence with procedures. METHODS: We devised a survey to examine these issues. Initially, 24 127 anaesthetists were questioned in New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, UK, India, and Germany, representing the home countries of the members of the Worldwide Airway Meeting (2015) Education Group; however, the survey could be forwarded to others. The survey was open for a maximum of 90 days. RESULTS: We received 4948 fully or partially completed surveys from 61 countries: 33 high-income and 28 middle- or low-income countries. Most respondents were consultants (77.2%, n=4948), and the remainder trainees, with a male/female ratio of 1.8:1 (3105 males, n=4866). Of those responding, 1358 (76.6%, n=1798) were members of an airway interest group. Most respondents (91.3% of 2910) agreed with assessment of airway skills, fewer (2237; 59.7%, n=3750) reported requiring airway training for completion of training, and only 810 (33.6%, n=2408) reported it as a requirement for continuing medical education. Reported confidence was lowest for awake tracheal intubation, front-of-neck access, and retrograde intubation. CONCLUSIONS: Global training is variable in its delivery and necessity. Confidence is limited in potentially life-saving techniques. The desire for assessment appears universal and may improve standards, but in resource- or time-limited environments this will be challenging.

Procedures in COVID-19 Patients: Part-I.

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

Procedures in COVID-19 Patients: Part-II.

Critical care in the era of novel coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) infection has multiple challenges including management of the patient, underlying comorbidities, and the complications. With no end in sight to the pandemic, intensive care unit (ICU) practitioners and hospital administrators have to join hands to prepare for the long battle ahead. Critically ill COVID-19 patients need imaging or image-guided interventions in one form or the other including X-rays, ultrasonography (USG), echocardiography (ECHO), and CT scan. These patients often require renal replacement therapy (RRT) for either the preexisting chronic renal insufficiency or acutely developing kidney injury. Another important component of care is transfer of the patient to and fro from the ICU or to higher care centers. Most of the ICUs are equipped with modern facilities but with increasing number of patients a large number of makeshift arrangements are being made for managing these patients. This position paper outlines important tips to formulate protocols and procedures for critically ill patients, who are managed in the ICU. How to cite this article: Pande RK, Bhalla A, Myatra SN, Yaddanpuddi LN, Gupta S, Sahoo TK, et al. Procedures in COVID-19 Patients: Part-II. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(Suppl 5):S272-S279.

Anesthesia for oral surgeries during the COVID-19 pandemic.

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