Intraoperative mechanical ventilation practice in thoracic surgery patients and its association with postoperative pulmonary complications: results of a multicenter prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative mechanical ventilation may influence postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). Current practice during thoracic surgery is not well described. METHODS: This is a post-hoc analysis of the prospective multicenter cross-sectional LAS VEGAS study focusing on patients who underwent thoracic surgery. Consecutive adult patients receiving invasive ventilation during general anesthesia were included in a one-week period in 2013. Baseline characteristics, intraoperative and postoperative data were registered. PPCs were collected as composite endpoint until the 5th postoperative day. Patients were stratified into groups based on the use of one lung ventilation (OLV) or two lung ventilation (TLV), endoscopic vs. non-endoscopic approach and ARISCAT score risk for PPCs. Differences between subgroups were compared using χ2 or Fisher exact tests or Student's t-test. Kaplan-Meier estimates of the cumulative probability of development of PPC and hospital discharge were performed. Cox-proportional hazard models without adjustment for covariates were used to assess the effect of the subgroups on outcome. RESULTS: From 10,520 patients enrolled in the LAS VEGAS study, 302 patients underwent thoracic procedures and were analyzed. There were no differences in patient characteristics between OLV vs. TLV, or endoscopic vs. open surgery. Patients received VT of 7.4 ± 1.6 mL/kg, a PEEP of 3.5 ± 2.4 cmH2O, and driving pressure of 14.4 ± 4.6 cmH2O. Compared with TLV, patients receiving OLV had lower VT and higher peak, plateau and driving pressures, higher PEEP and respiratory rate, and received more recruitment maneuvers. There was no difference in the incidence of PPCs in OLV vs. TLV or in endoscopic vs. open procedures. Patients at high risk had a higher incidence of PPCs compared with patients at low risk (48.1% vs. 28.9%; hazard ratio, 1.95; 95% CI 1.05-3.61; p = 0.033). There was no difference in the incidence of severe PPCs. The in-hospital length of stay (LOS) was longer in patients who developed PPCs. Patients undergoing OLV, endoscopic procedures and at low risk for PPC had shorter LOS. CONCLUSION: PPCs occurred frequently and prolonged hospital LOS following thoracic surgery. Proportionally large tidal volumes and high driving pressure were commonly used in this sub-population. However, large RCTs are needed to confirm these findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial was prospectively registered at the Clinical Trial Register (www.clinicaltrials.gov; NCT01601223 ; registered May 17, 2012.).

Prophylactic Haloperidol Effects on Long-term Quality of Life in Critically Ill Patients at High Risk for Delirium: Results of the REDUCE Study.

BACKGROUND: Delirium incidence in intensive care unit patients is high and associated with impaired long-term outcomes. The use of prophylactic haloperidol did not improve short-term outcome among critically ill adults at high risk of delirium. This study evaluated the effects of prophylactic haloperidol use on long-term quality of life in this group of patients and explored which factors are associated with change in quality of life. METHODS: A preplanned secondary analysis of long-term outcomes of the pRophylactic haloperidol usE for DeliriUm in iCu patients at high risk for dElirium (REDUCE) study was conducted. In this multicenter randomized clinical trial, nondelirious intensive care unit patients were assigned to prophylactic haloperidol (1 or 2 mg) or placebo (0.9% sodium chloride). In all groups, patients finally received study medication for median duration of 3 days [interquartile range, 2 to 6] until onset of delirium or until intensive care unit discharge. Long-term outcomes were assessed using the Short Form-12 questionnaire at intensive care unit admission (baseline) and after 1 and 6 months. Quality of life was summarized in the physical component summary and mental component summary scores. Differences between the haloperidol and placebo group and factors associated with changes in quality of life were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 1,789 study patients, 1,245 intensive care unit patients were approached, of which 887 (71%) responded. Long-term quality of life did not differ between the haloperidol and placebo group (physical component summary mean score of 39 ± 11 and 39 ± 11, respectively, and P = 0.350; and mental component summary score of 50 ± 10 and 51 ± 10, respectively, and P = 0.678). Age, medical and trauma admission, quality of life score at baseline, risk for delirium (PRE-DELIRIC) score, and the number of sedation-induced coma days were significantly associated with a decline in long-term quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic haloperidol use does not affect long-term quality of life in critically ill patients at high risk for delirium. Several factors, including the modifiable factor number of sedation-induced coma days, are associated with decline in long-term outcomes.

High PEEP/low FiO2 ventilation is associated with lower mortality in COVID-19.

RATIONALE: The positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) strategy in patients with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains debated. Most studies originate from the initial waves of the pandemic. Here we aimed to assess the impact of high PEEP/low FiO2 ventilation on outcomes during the second wave in the Netherlands. METHODS: Retrospective observational study of invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients during the second wave. Patients were categorized based on whether they received high PEEP or low PEEP ventilation according to the ARDS Network tables. The primary outcome was ICU mortality, and secondary outcomes included hospital and 90-day mortality, duration of ventilation and length of stay, and the occurrence of kidney injury. Propensity matching was performed to correct for factors with a known relationship to ICU mortality. RESULTS: This analysis included 790 COVID-ARDS patients. At ICU discharge, 32 (22.5%) out of 142 high PEEP patients and 254 (39.2%) out of 848 low PEEP patients had died (HR 0.66 [0.46-0.96]; P = 0.03). High PEEP was linked to improved secondary outcomes. Matched analysis did not change findings. CONCLUSIONS: High PEEP ventilation was associated with improved ICU survival in patients with COVID-ARDS.

Prevalence and management of delirium in intensive care units in the Netherlands: An observational multicentre study.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the prevalence, risk factors of delirium and current practice of delirium management in intensive care units of various levels of care. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY/DESIGN: Prospective multicentre cohort study. SETTING: In all adult patients admitted to one of the participating intensive care units on World Delirium Awareness Day 2018, delirium point and period prevalence rates were measured between ICU admission and seven days after the index day. RESULTS: In total, 28 (33%) Dutch intensive care units participated in this study. Point-prevalence was 23% (range 41), and period-prevalence was 42% (range 70). University intensive care units had a significantly higher delirium point-prevalence compared with non-university units (26% vs.15%, p = 0.02). No significant difference were found in period prevalence (50% vs. 39%, p = 0.09). Precipitating risk factors, infection and mechanical ventilation differed significantly between delirium and non-delirium patients. No differences were observed for predisposing risk factors. A delirium protocol was present in 89% of the ICUs. Mean delirium assessment compliance measured was 84% (±19) in 14 units and estimated 59% (±29) in the other 14. CONCLUSION: Delirium prevalence in Dutch intensive care units is substantial and occurs with a large variation, with the highest prevalence in university units. Precipitating risk factors were more frequent in patients with delirium. In the majority of units a delirium management protocol is in place.

Perception by family members and ICU staff of the quality of dying and death in the ICU: a prospective multicenter study in The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE: Admission to the ICU is a major event in a patient's life and also for family members. We tried to elucidate how family members and ICU caregivers experience the dying process of their patients. METHODS: The prospective study took place in three Dutch ICUs. Patients who had stayed . 48 h and died in the ICU were eligible. The Quality of Dying and Death (QODD) questionnaire was used, with addition of items pertaining to the patient's autonomy. Values indicate median and interquartile range. RESULTS: We included 100 consecutive patients. ICU stay before death was 8 (3-16) days. APACHE (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation) II score at admission was 24 (19-31). Family response rate was 89%. Families were satisfied with overall QODD (score, 8 [7-9]) and felt supported by the ICU caregivers (8 [7-9]). Pain control was scored lower by family members (8 [5.75- 8.25]) than by nurses and physicians (9 [8-10], P 5 .024) Almost always, physicians discussed the patient's end-of-life wishes with family members, although families rated the quality of the discussion lower (7 [5.5-8.5]) than physicians (9 [6.5-10]) ( P 5 .045). The majority of the families (89%) felt included in the decision-making process. More than one-half of the family members (57%) believed that the physician made the fi nal decision alone after giving information, whereas 36.8% believed they had participated in making the decision. Family members rated the QODD questionnaire as difficult (6 [5-8]), and several items were not answered by a majority of family members. CONCLUSIONS: Quality of dying and death is generally perceived to be good by family members and caregivers of patients who die in Dutch ICUs. There is a need for modification of the QODD questionnaire for the European ICU population.