BACKGROUND: Septic shock is a severe form of sepsis characterised by deterioration in circulatory and cellular-metabolic parameters. Despite standard therapy, the outcomes are poor. Newer adjuvant therapy, such as CytoSorb® extracorporeal haemoadsorption device, has been investigated and shown promising outcome. However, there is a lack of some guidance to make clinical decisions on the use of CytoSorb® haemoadsorption as an adjuvant therapy in septic shock in Indian Setting. Therefore, this expert consensus was formulated. AIM: To formulate/establish specific consensus statements on the use of CytoSorb® haemoadsorption treatment based on the best available evidence and contextualised to the Indian scenario. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature on CytoSorb® haemoadsorption in sepsis, septic shock in PubMed selecting papers published between January 2011 and March 2023 2021 in English language. The statements for a consensus document were developed based on the summarised literature analysis and identification of knowledge gaps. Using a modified Delphi approach combining evidence appraisal and expert opinion, the following topics related to CytoSorb® in septic shock were addressed: need for adjuvant therapy, initiation timeline, need for Interleukin -6 levels, duration of therapy, change of adsorbers, safety, prerequisite condition, efficacy endpoints and management flowchart. Eleven expert members from critical care, emergency medicine, and the intensive care participated and voted on nine statements and one open-ended question. RESULTS: Eleven expert members from critical care, emergency medicine, and the intensive care participated and voted on nine statements and one open-ended question. All 11 experts in the consensus group (100%) participated in the first, second and third round of voting. After three iterative voting rounds and adapting two statements, consensus was achieved on nine statements out of nine statements. The consensus expert panel also recognised the necessity to form an association or society that can keep a registry regarding the use of CytoSorb® for all indications in the open-ended question (Q10) focusing on "future recommendations for CytoSorb® therapy". CONCLUSION: This Indian perspective consensus statement supports and provides guidance on the use of CytoSorb® haemoadsorption as an adjuvant treatment in patients with septic shock to achieve optimal outcomes.
Background: Critically ill patients are frequently transported to various locations within the hospital for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, which increases the risk of adverse events (AEs). This multicenter prospective observational study was undertaken to determine the incidence of AEs related to intrahospital transport, their severity, and their effects on patient outcomes. Patients and methods: We included consecutive unstable critically ill patients requiring intrahospital transport, across 15 Indian tertiary care centers over 5 months (October 11, 2022-February 20, 2023). Apart from the demographics and severity of illness, data related to transport itself, such as indications and destination, incidence of AEs, their category and treatment required, and patient outcomes, were recorded in a standard form. Results: Eight hundred and ninety-three patients were transported on 1065 occasions out of the intensive care unit (ICU). The mean (SD) acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score of the patients was 15.38 (±7.35). One hundred and two AEs occurred, wherein cardiovascular instability was the most common occurrence (31, 30.4%). Two patients had cardiac arrest immediately after transport. Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II [odds ratio (OR): 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 1.00-1.05, p = 0.04], emergent transport (OR: 5.11, 95% CI - 3.32-7.88, p = 0.00), and team composition (OR: 5.34, 95% CI - 1.63-17.5, p = 0.00) during transport were found to be independent predictors of AEs. Conclusion: We found a high incidence of AEs during intrahospital transport of critically ill patients. These events were more common during emergent transports and when the patients were transported by doctors. Transport by itself was not related to ICU mortality. We feel that stabilization of the patients before transport and adherence to a standardized protocol may help in minimizing the AEs, thereby enhancing patient safety. How to cite this article: Zirpe KG, Tiwari AM, Kulkarni AP, Govil D, Dixit SB, Munjal M, et al. Adverse Events during Intrahospital Transport of Critically Ill Patients: A Multicenter, Prospective, Observational Study (I-TOUCH Study). Indian J Crit Care Med 2023;27(9):635-641.
Objective: To gain better insight into the extent of secondary bacterial and fungal infections in hospitalized patients in India, and to assess how these alter the course of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) so that control measures can be suggested. Methods: In this retrospective, multicentre study, the data of all patients who tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) on reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR), admitted to hospital between March 2020 and July 2021, were accessed from the electronic health records of a network of 10 hospitals across five states in North India. Results: Of 19,852 patients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 on RT-PCR and admitted to the study hospitals during the study period, 1940 (9.8%) patients developed secondary infections (SIs). Patients with SIs were, on average, 8 years older than patients without SIs (median age 62.6 vs 54.3 years; P<0.001). The risk of SIs was significantly (P<0.001) associated with age, severity of disease at admission, diabetes, admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and ventilator use. The most common site of infection was urine (41.7%), followed by blood (30.8%) and sputum/bronchoalveolar lavage/endotracheal fluid (24.8%); the least common was pus/wound discharge (2.6%). Gram-negative bacilli (GNB) were the most common organisms (63.2%), followed by Gram-positive cocci (GPC) (19.6%) and fungi (17.3%). Most patients with SIs were on multiple antimicrobials. The most commonly used antibiotics against GNB were beta-lactam/beta-lactamase inhibitors (76.9%), carbapenems (57.7%), cephalosporins (53.9%), and antibiotics against carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (47.1%). Empirical use of antibiotics against GPC was seen in 58.9% of patients with SIs, and empirical use of antifungals was observed in 56.9% of patients with SIs. The average length of hospital stay for patients with SIs was almost twice as long as that of patients without SIs (median 13 vs 7 days). Overall mortality among patients with SIs (40.3%) was more than eight times higher than that among patients without SIs (4.6%). Only 1.2% of patients with SIs with mild COVID-19 at admission died, compared with 17.5% of those with moderate COVID-19 at admission and 58.5% of those with severe COVID-19 at admission (P<0.001). The mortality rate was highest in patients with bloodstream infections (49.8%), followed by those with hospital-acquired pneumonia (47.9%), urinary tract infections (29.4%), and skin and soft tissue infections (29.4%). The mortality rate in patients with diabetes with SIs was 45.2%, compared with 34.3% in those without diabetes (P<0.001). Conclusions: SIs complicate the course of patients hospitalized with COVID-19. These patients tend to have a much longer hospital stay, a higher requirement for oxygen and ICU care, and a significantly higher mortality rate compared with those without SIs. The groups most vulnerable to SIs are patients with more severe COVID-19, elderly patients and patients with diabetes. Judicious empirical use of combination antimicrobials in these groups of vulnerable patients can save lives. It is desirable to have region- or country-specific guidelines for appropriate use of antibiotics and antifungals to prevent their overuse.
