Introduction: Out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) remains one of the main causes of death among industrialized countries. The initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) by laypeople before the arrival of emergency medical services improves survival. Mouth-to-mouth ventilation may constitute a hindering factor to start bystander CPR, while during continuous chest compressions (CCC) CPR quality decreases rapidly. The aim of this scoping review is to examine the existing literature on strategies that investigate the inclusion of intentional pauses during compression-only resuscitation (CO-CPR) to improve the performance in the context of single lay rescuer OHCA. Methods: The protocol of this Scoping review was prospectively registered in Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/rvn8j). A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL was performed. Results: Six articles were included. All studies were carried out on simulation manikins and involved a total of 1214 subjects. One study had a multicenter design. Three studies were randomized controlled simulation trials, the rest were prospective randomized crossover studies. The tested protocols were heterogeneous and compared CCC to CO-CPR with intentional interruptions of various length. The most common primary outcome was compressions depth. Compression rate, rescuers' perceived exertion and composite outcomes were also evaluated. Compressions depth and perceived exertion improved in most study groups while compression rate and chest compression fraction remained within guidelines indications. Conclusions: In simulation studies, the inclusion of intentional interruptions during CO-CPR within the specific scenario of single rescuer bystander CPR during OHCA may improve the rate of compressions with correct depth and lower rate of perceived exertion. Further high-quality research and feasibility and safety of protocols incorporating intentional interruptions during CO-CPR may be justified.
The elements that render anaesthesia a captivating profession can also foster stress and fatigue. Professionals considering anaesthesia as a career choice should have a comprehensive understanding of the negative consequences of fatigue and its implications for clinical performance and of the available preventive measures. Available evidence suggests that factors unrelated to patient characteristics or condition can affect clinical outcomes where anaesthetists are involved. Workload, nighttime work, and fatigue are persistent issues in anaesthesia and are perceived as presenting greater perioperative risks to patients. Fatigue seems to negatively affect both physical and mental health of anaesthetists. Existing evidence justifies specific interventions by institutions, stakeholders, and scientific societies to address the effects of anaesthetist fatigue. This narrative review summarises current knowledge regarding the effects of fatigue on anaesthetist well-being and patient safety, and discusses potential preventive solutions.
BACKGROUND: Dissemination of medical practice and scientific information through social media (SoMe) by clinicians and researchers is increasing. Broad exposure of information can promote connectivity within the scientific community, overcome barriers to access to sources, increase debate, and reveal layperson perspectives and preferences. On the other hand, practices lacking scientific evidence may also be promoted, laypeople may misunderstand the professional message, and clinician may suffer erosion of professional status. The aim of this project was to enhance awareness and advise the anesthesia community and clinicians at large about the potential risks advocate for responsible use of SoMe to disseminate information related to medical practices and knowledge. METHODS: A modified Delphi process with prespecified consensus criteria was conducted among a multidisciplinary panel of experts, including anesthesiologists-intensivists, clinical psychologists, and forensic medicine specialists. Six items were identified: Ethics and deontological principles, the practice of sharing information via social media, legal aspects, psychological aspects, self-promotion, and criteria for appropriate dissemination. Statements and rationales were produced and subjected to blinded panelists' votes. After reaching consensus, a document was written which then underwent external review by experts uninvolved in the consensus process. The project was promoted by the Italian Society of Anesthesia Analgesia Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI). RESULTS: Twelve statements were produced, and consensus was achieved for all. The panel concluded that the general principles guiding dissemination of professional information via SoMe must remain in line with the general principles of ethics, deontology, and scientific validity that guide the medical profession and science in general. Professional equity must be maintained while communicating via SoMe. Medical practices lacking support by scientific evidence should not be disseminated. Patients' informed consent must be obtained before dissemination of information, images, or data. Self-promotion must not be prioritized over any of these principles. CONCLUSIONS: When sharing medical practices and scientific information on SoMe, healthcare professionals are advised to act conscientiously and ethically. Local regulations should be adhered to. Institutional training on the potential risks and proper of SoMe for such purpose may contribute to preservation of professional integrity.
BACKGROUND: Qualitative data on the opinions of anaesthesiologists regarding the impact of peri-operative night-time working conditions on patient safety are lacking. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to achieve in-depth understanding of anaesthesiologists' perceptions regarding the impact of night-time working conditions on peri-operative patient safety and actions that may be undertaken to mitigate perceived risks. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of responses to two open-ended questions. SETTING: Online platform questionnaire promoted by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC). PARTICIPANTS: The survey sample consisted of an international cohort of anaesthesiologists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We identified and classified recurrent themes in the responses to questions addressing perceptions regarding (Q1) peri-operative night-time working conditions, which may affect patient safety and (Q2) potential solutions. RESULTS: We analysed 2112 and 2113 responses to Q1 and Q2, respectively. The most frequently reported themes in relation to Q1 were a perceived reduction in professional performance accompanied by concerns regarding the possible consequences of work with fatigue (27%), and poor working conditions at night-time (35%). The most frequently proposed solutions in response to Q2 were a reduction of working hours and avoidance of 24-h shifts (21%), an increase in human resources (14%) and performance of only urgent or emergency surgeries at night (14%). CONCLUSION: Overall, the surveyed anaesthesiologists believe that workload-to-staff imbalance and excessive working hours were potential bases for increased peri-operative risk for their patients, partly because of fatigue-related medical errors during night-time work. The performance of nonemergency elective surgical cases at night and lack of facilities were among the reported issues and potential targets for improvement measures. Further studies should investigate whether countermeasures can improve patient safety as well as the quality of life of anaesthesia professionals. Regulations to improve homogeneity, safety, and quality of anaesthesia practice at night seem to be urgently needed.
Anesthesiology , Quality of Life , Humans , Anesthesiologists , Surveys and Questionnaires , Fatigue
Key Clinical Message: A timely diagnosis is essential to start appropriate therapy and to reduce risks of life-threatening complications of rhabdomyolysis. Some cases can undergo differential diagnosis with other clinical conditions, e.g., myocardial infarction. Abstract: We present the case of a 65-years-old male who was admitted to the emergency department with a clinical presentation related to myocardial infarction. The patient underwent coronary angioplasty and was then admitted to ICU due to hemodynamical instability, elevated potassium levels, and anuria. Further investigations revealed rhabdomyolysis. The patient received vasopressors, oxygenation support and renal replacement therapy. Outcomes at ICU discharge were favorable. The temporal association between rhabdomyolysis and myocardial infarction, together with an unclear pathophysiological relationship, made differential diagnosis difficult. We discuss this uncertainty in light of published literature.
BACKGROUND: No data are available on the working conditions and workload of anesthesiologists during perioperative nighttime work in Italy and on the perceived risks. RESULTS: We analyzed 1085 responses out of the 5292 from the whole dataset. Most of the responders (76%) declared working a median of 12 consecutive hours during night shifts, with an irregular nightshift schedule (70%). More than half of the responders stated to receive a call 2-4 (40%) or 5 times or more (25%) to perform emergency procedures and/or ICU activities during night shifts. More than 70% of the responders declared having relaxation rooms for nighttime work (74%) but none to be used after a nightshift before going back home (82%) and no free meals, snacks, or beverages (89%). Furthermore, almost all (95%) of the surveyed anesthesiologists declared not having received specifical training or education on how to work at night, and that no institutional program has been held by the hospital to monitor fatigue or stress for night workers (99%). More than half of the responders stated having the possibility, sometimes (38%) or always (45%), to involve another colleague in difficult medical decisions and to feel comfortable, sometimes (31%) or always (35%), to call the on-call colleague. Participants declared that nighttime work affects their quality of life extremely (14%) or significantly (63%), and that sleep deprivation, fatigue, and current working conditions may reduce performance (67%) and increase risk for the patients (74%). CONCLUSIONS: Italian anesthesiologists declare current nighttime practice to negatively affect their quality of life, and their performance, and are thus concerned for their patients' safety. Proper education on night work, starting from traineeship, and implementing institutional programs to monitor stress and fatigue of operators and to support them during nighttime work could be a mean to improve nighttime work conditions and safety for both patients and healthcare workers.
BACKGROUND: The clinical impact of vasopressin in hemorrhagic shock remains largely unknown. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to investigate the effects of vasopressin receptor agonists during the resuscitation of hemorrhagic shock. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and PubMed Central was conducted for relevant articles. Experimental (animal) and clinical studies were included. The primary objective was to investigate the correlation of vasopressin receptor agonist use with mortality and various hemodynamic parameters. RESULTS: Data extraction was possible in thirteen animal studies and two clinical studies. Differences in risk of mortality between patients who received a vasopressin receptor agonist were not statistically significant when compared to those who were not treated with such agents [RR (95% CI): 1.17 (0.67, 2.08); p = 0.562; I2 = 50%]. The available data were insufficient to conduct a meta-analysis assessing the effect of vasopressin receptor agonists on hemodynamics. Drawing safe conclusions from animal studies was challenging, due to significant heterogeneity in terms of species and dosage of vasopressin receptor agonists among studies. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in risk of mortality between patients who received a vasopressin receptor agonist were not statistically significant when compared to those who were not treated with such agents after hemorrhagic shock. More data are needed to deduce certain conclusions.
BACKGROUND: In septic patients, hyperoxia may help with its bactericidal effects, but it may cause systemic impairments. The role of hyperoxia and the appropriate oxygen target in these patients is unknown. The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the available literature. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search screening PubMed and Cochrane Library. Studies on adult patients with sepsis or septic shock and admitted to ICU addressing the topic of hyperoxia were included and described. RESULTS: We included 12 studies, for a total of 15.782 included patients. Five studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or analyses from RCTs, three were prospective observational studies, and four were retrospective observational studies. The definition of hyperoxia was heterogeneous across the included studies. Mortality was the most frequent outcome: six studies showed an increased rate or risk of mortality with hyperoxia, three found no differences, and one a protective effect of hyperoxia. At the critical appraisal assessment stage, no major methodological flaws were detected, except for a single-center, pilot study, with a lack of adjustment for confounders and imbalance between the groups. CONCLUSION: The optimum range of oxygen level able to minimize risks and provide benefits in patients with sepsis or septic shock seems still unknown. Clinical equipoise between hyperoxia and normoxia is uncertain as conflicting evidence exists. Further studies should aim at identifying the best range of oxygenation and its optimal duration, investigating how effects of different levels of oxygen may vary according to identified pathogens, source of infection, and prescribed antibiotics in critically ill patients with sepsis and septic shock.
BACKGROUND: During COVID-19 pandemic, restrictions to in-person visiting of caregivers to patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) were applied in many countries. Our aim was to describe the variations in communication and family visiting policies in Italian ICUs during the pandemic. METHODS: A secondary analysis from the COVISIT international survey was conducted, focusing on data from Italy. RESULTS: Italian ICUs provided 118 (18%) responses out of 667 responses collected worldwide. A total of 12 Italian ICUs were at the peak of COVID-19 admissions at the time of the survey and 42/118 had 90% or more of patients admitted to ICU affected by COVID-19. During the COVID-19 peak, 74% of Italian ICUs adopted a no-in-person-visiting policy. This remained the most common strategy (67%) at the time of the survey. Information to families was provided by regular phone calls (81% in Italy versus 47% for the rest of the world). Virtual visiting was available for 69% and most commonly performed using devices provided by the ICU (71% in Italy versus 36% outside Italy). CONCLUSION: Our study showed that restrictions to the ICU applied during the COVID-19 pandemic were still in use at the time of the survey. The main means of communication with caregivers were telephone and virtual meetings.
Background and Objectives: Palliative care is an interdisciplinary medical specialty focused on improving the quality of life of critically ill patients, including those with frailty, during their illness. Materials and Methods: We conducted an extensive literature review on Pubmed focusing on palliative care in neuro-oncology patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Results: We identified 967 articles and, after excluding 952 articles in accordance with the PRISMA flow chart, we included a total of 15 articles in the final selection. The potential role of palliative care in neuro-oncology appears necessary to ensure comprehensive end-of-life patient care. However, this seems underestimated and poorly applied, especially in the context of intensive care units. Medical personnel also face ethical dilemmas, considering not only the pathology but also the socio-spiritual context of the patient. In addition, caregivers' understanding of prognosis and realistic goals is critical for optimal end-of-life management. Conclusions: The provision of palliative care to neuro-oncological patients admitted to ICU is a complex challenge supported by fragmented evidence. Additional research on palliative care and communication about end-of-life care in the neuro-oncology and neuro-ICU setting is needed.
Brain Neoplasms , Palliative Care , Humans , Quality of Life , Intensive Care Units , Death
Background: Autologous conditioned serum is a product of blood origin, with fragmented evidence of therapeutic properties in osteoarthritis chronic pain. This pilot observational prospective study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a treatment with conditional autologous serum (ACS) in patients with severe chronic pain and grade I-III osteoarthritis and to describe its cytokine content. Methods: We prospectively collected data on consecutive patients affected by osteoarthritis grade I to III and treated with four weekly injections of ACS at our outpatient pain service. The primary outcome was pain intensity, measured with the visual analogic scale (VAS). Additional outcomes were symptoms evaluated using joint district-specific scales. The study also evaluated concentrations of 48 cytokines and chemokines involved in the balance pro-inflammation/anti-inflammation and tissue repair in the ACS. Results: We included 26 patients, mostly female (65.4%), with a median age of 63.5 years [IQR 58.25-73]. A median reduction of VAS of -3 cm [-5; -1.25] was observed 6 months after the first injection of ACS. The analysis showed a statistically significant difference between the values of VAS (p < .01; X2 = 69.6; df = 6, N = 26) at the different time points. No adverse events were observed or reported by patients during the entire study period. Conclusions: Conditional autologous serum may be a feasible option for patients with chronic pain due to grade I-III osteoarthritis refractory to other treatments. These preliminary findings should be confirmed in studies with adequate design.
BACKGROUND: No international data are available on the night working conditions and workload of anaesthesiologists and their opinions about associated risks. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this international survey was to describe the peri-operative night working conditions of anaesthesiologists and their perception of the impact these conditions have on patient outcomes and their own quality of life. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Not applicable. PARTICIPANTS: Anaesthesiologists providing peri-operative care during night shifts responded to an online survey promoted by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC). INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Twenty-eight closed questions. RESULTS: Overall 5292 complete responses were analysed. Of these, 920 were from trainees. The median reported monthly number of night shifts was 4 [IQR 3-6]. An irregular weekly night shift schedule was most common (51%). Almost all the respondents (98%) declared that their centres have no relevant institutional programmes to monitor stress or fatigue. Most respondents (90%) had received no training or information regarding performance improvement methods for night work. Most respondents were of the opinion that sleep deprivation affects their professional performance (71%) and that their fatigue during night work may increase the peri-operative risk for their patients (74%). Furthermore, 81% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that night work represents an additional risk per se for patient safety, and 77% stated that their night work affects the quality of their daily life significantly or extremely. CONCLUSION: Anaesthesiologists commonly perform perioperative night work without appropriate training, education or support on this specific condition. They perceive current practice as adversely affecting their professional performance and the safety of their patients. They also report significant effects on their own quality of life. Adequate training and education for night work may ally some of these concerns and programmes to monitor workers' stress and fatigue should be mandated to assess whether these concerns are justified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.
Anesthesiologists , Quality of Life , Humans , Cross-Sectional Studies , Surveys and Questionnaires , Fatigue
RATIONALE: In patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia, the clinical benefit of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) remains unclear. We aimed to examine whether HFNO compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT) could prevent escalation of respiratory support in this patient population. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, parallel-group, open-label trial, patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≤92% who required oxygen therapy were randomised to HFNO or COT. The primary outcome was the rate of escalation of respiratory support (ie, continuous positive airway pressure, non-invasive ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation) within 28 days. Among secondary outcomes, clinical recovery was defined as the improvement in oxygenation (SpO2 ≥96% with fractional inspired oxygen (FiO2) ≤30% or partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide/FiO2 ratio >300 mm Hg). RESULTS: Among 364 randomised patients, 55 (30.3%) of 181 patients assigned to HFNO and 70 (38.6%) of 181 patients assigned to COT underwent escalation of respiratory support, with no significant difference between groups (absolute risk difference -8.2% (95% CI -18% to +1.4%); RR 0.79 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.05); p=0.09). There was no significant difference in clinical recovery (69.1% vs 60.8%; absolute risk difference 8.2% (95% CI -1.5% to +18.0%), RR 1.14 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.32)), intensive care unit admission (7.7% vs 11.0%, absolute risk difference -3.3% (95% CI -9.3% to +2.6%)), and in hospital length of stay (11 (IQR 8-17) vs 11 (IQR 7-20) days, absolute risk difference -1.0% (95% CI -3.1% to +1.1%)). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and mild hypoxaemia, the use of HFNO did not significantly reduce the likelihood of escalation of respiratory support. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04655638.
COVID-19 , Humans , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/therapy , Oxygen , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy , Hypoxia/etiology , Hypoxia/therapy , Respiration, Artificial
BACKGROUND: The literature is unresolved on whether female receive advanced cardiac life support less than do male and on whether female have a survival advantage over male after cardiopulmonary resuscitation. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Embase and Web of Science databases (from inception to 23-April-2022) for papers reporting outcomes in adult male and female after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The main study outcome was the rate of adjusted survival to hospital discharge or 30 days. Secondary outcomes included unadjusted survival to hospital discharge and favourable neurological outcome. RESULTS: A total of 28 studies were included, involving 1,931,123 patients. Female were older than male, their cardiac arrests were less likely to be witnessed and less likely to present with a shockable rhythm. Unadjusted analysis showed that females had a lower likelihood of survival than males (OR 0.68 [0.62-0.74], I2 = 97%). After adjustment, no significant difference was identified between male and female in survival at hospital discharge/30 days (OR 1.01 [0.93-1.11], I2 = 87%). Data showed that male had a significantly higher likelihood of favorable neurological outcome in unadjusted analysis but this trend disappeared after adjustment. Both the primary outcome (adjusted for several variables) and the secondary outcomes were associated with substantial heterogeneity. The variables examined using meta-regression, subgroup and sensitivity analyses (i.e., study type, location, years, population, quality of adjustment, risk of bias) did not reduce heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: The adjusted rate of survival to hospital discharge/30 days was similar for male and female despite an initial seeming survival advantage for male. The validity of this finding is limited by substantial heterogeneity despite in-depth investigation of its causes, which raises concerns regarding latent inequalities in some reports nonetheless. Further study on this topic may require inclusion of factors not reported in the Utstein template and in-depth analysis of decision-making processes.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this review is to provide a practical and updated summary on healthcare-associated central nervous system infections and their management. RECENT FINDINGS: The term 'healthcare-associated ventriculitis and meningitis' has recently been coined and clinical practical guidelines have been published on the management of these nosocomial infections. Many aspects have still to be further investigated (e.g. cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers, indications for novel antibiotics, intrathecal antimicrobial regimens). SUMMARY: Clinicians should maintain a high index of suspicion for healthcare-associated central nervous system infections in patients with specific risk factors (i.e. recent neurosurgery, cerebrospinal shunts, drains or implantable devices, head/spinal traumatic events), taking into account systemic signs, and alterations in microbiological, imaging, cerebrospinal fluid findings. The diagnosis is often difficult to confirm because of reduced levels of consciousness or coma. Both Gram-positive and Gram-negative (often multidrug-resistant or even pandrug-resistant) microorganisms may be the cause. Selection of antibiotics must consider susceptibility and penetration into the central nervous system. Ineffective treatments are frequent, and mortality can reach 60%. Future research should focus on the diagnostic performance of biomarkers and on the use of novel antimicrobial regimens, especially for the treatment of difficult to treat infections.
Central Nervous System Infections , Cross Infection , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Central Nervous System , Central Nervous System Infections/chemically induced , Central Nervous System Infections/diagnosis , Central Nervous System Infections/therapy , Cross Infection/diagnosis , Cross Infection/therapy , Delivery of Health Care , Humans
BACKGROUND: The aim of this document is to support clinical decision-making concerning positioning and mobilization of the critically ill patient in the early identification and resolution of risk factors (primary prevention) and in the early recognition of those most at risk (secondary prevention). The addresses of this document are physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, and other professionals involved in patient positioning in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: A consensus pathway was followed using the Nominal Focus Group and the Delphi Technique, integrating a phase of focused group discussion online and with a pre-coded guide to an individual phase. A multidisciplinary advisory board composed by nine experts on the topic contributed to both the phases of the process, to reach a consensus on four clinical questions positioning and mobilization of the critically ill patient. RESULTS: The topics addressed by the clinical questions were the risks associated with obligatory positioning and therapeutic positions, the effective interventions in preventing pressure injuries, the appropriate instruments for screening for pressure injuries in the ICU, and the cost-effectiveness of preventive interventions relating to ICU positioning. A total of 27 statements addressing these clinical questions were produced by the panel. Among the statements, nine provided guidance on how to manage safely some specific patients' positions, including the prone position; five suggested specific screening tools and patients' factors to consider when assessing the individual risk of developing pressure injuries; five gave indications on mobilization and repositioning; and eight focused on the use of devices, such as positioners and preventive dressings. CONCLUSIONS: The statements may represent a practical guidance for a broad public of healthcare professionals involved in the management of critically ill patients.
Carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacteria are frequent causes of sepsis and septic shock in intensive care unit (ICU) and thus considered a public health threat. Until now, the best available therapies consist of combinations of preexisting or new antibiotics with ß-lactamase inhibitors (either new or preexisting). Several mechanisms of resistance, especially those mediated by metallo-ß-lactamases (MBL), are responsible for the inefficacy of these treatments, leaving an unmet medical need. Intravenous cefiderocol has been recently approved by the American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the treatment of complicated urinary tract infections and nosocomial pneumonia due to Gram-negative, when limited therapeutical options are available. In addition, its ability to hijack bacterial iron uptake mechanisms makes cefiderocol stable against the whole Ambler ß-lactamase inhibitors and increases the in vitro efficacy against Gram-negative pathogens (e.g., Enterobacterales spp., Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Acinetobacter baumannii). Trials have already demonstrated their non-inferiority to comparators. In 2021, ESCMID guidelines released a conditional recommendation supporting the use of cefiderocol against metallo-ß-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales and against Acinetobacter baumannii. This review provides the opinion of experts about the general management of empiric treatment of patients with sepsis and septic shock in the intensive care unit and detects the proper place in therapy of cefiderocol considering recent evidence sought through a systematic search.
We report a case of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest occurred in a 61-year-old recreational female diver. After resuscitation, the patient was referred to the hospital. With data provided by witnesses and appropriate medical investigations, drowning related to a failed rebreather system was the most plausible explanation. Patient outcome was favorable.
PURPOSE: The goal of this survey was to describe the use and diffusion of lung ultrasound (LUS), the level of training received before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the clinical impact LUS has had on COVID-19 cases in intensive care units (ICU) from February 2020 to May 2020. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Italian Lung Ultrasound Survey (ITALUS) was a nationwide online survey proposed to Italian anesthesiologists and intensive care physicians carried out after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. It consisted of 27 questions, both quantitative and qualitative. RESULTS: 807 responded to the survey. The median previous LUS experience was 3 years (IQR 1.0-6.0). 473 (60.9â%) reported having attended at least one training course on LUS before the COVID-19 pandemic. 519 (73.9â%) reported knowing how to use the LUS score. 404 (52â%) reported being able to use LUS without any supervision. 479 (68.2â%) said that LUS influenced their clinical decision-making, mostly with respect to patient monitoring. During the pandemic, the median of patients daily evaluated with LUS increased 3-fold (pâ<â0.001), daily use of general LUS increased from 10.4â% to 28.9â% (pâ<â0.001), and the daily use of LUS score in particular increased from 1.6â% to 9.0â% (pâ<â0.001). CONCLUSION: This survey showed that LUS was already extensively used during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic by anesthesiologists and intensive care physicians in Italy, and then its adoption increased further. Residency programs are already progressively implementing LUS teaching. However, 76.7â% of the sample did not undertake any LUS certification.
Analgesia , Anesthesia , COVID-19 , Critical Care , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Pandemics , Ultrasonography/methods
BACKGROUND: Whether night-time extubation is associated with clinical outcomes is unclear. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the association between night-time extubation and the reintubation rate, mortality, ICU and in-hospital length of stay in adult patients, compared with daytime extubation. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science from inception to 2 January 2021 (PROSPERO registration - CRD42020222812). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised, quasi and cluster randomised, and nonrandomised studies describing associations between adult patients' outcomes and time of extubation (daytime/night-time) in intensive care or postanaesthesia care units. RESULTS: Seven retrospective studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis, for a total of 293â663 patients. All the studies were performed in United States (USA). All the studies were judged at moderate risk of bias for reintubation and mortality. The analyses were conducted with random effects models. The analyses from adjusted estimates demonstrated no association between night-time extubation and increased risk of either reintubation (OR 1.00; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13; Pâ=â1.00; I2â=â66%; low-certainty evidence) or all-cause mortality at the longest available follow-up (OR 1.11; 95% CI 0.87 to 1.42; Pâ=â0.39; I2â=â79%; low-certainty evidence), in comparison with daytime extubation. Analyses from unadjusted data for reintubation, mortality and ICU or in-hospital length of stay showed no significant association with night-time extubation. Analyses based on type of admission, number of centres or duration of mechanical ventilation showed no significant subgroup effects. CONCLUSION: Night-time extubation of adult patients was not associated with higher adjusted risks for reintubation or death, in comparison with daytime extubation, but the certainty of the evidence was low.
Airway Extubation , Respiration, Artificial , Adult , Critical Care , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Length of Stay , Retrospective Studies
