Patient Outcomes and Management Strategies for Intensive Care Unit (ICU)-Associated Delirium: A Literature Review.

Delirium is a significant public health concern, with tremendous implications for patient outcomes. Intensive care unit (ICU)-related delirium is gaining attention due to the higher prevalence of delirium in ICU-admitted patients. The most common negative outcomes of ICU delirium include cognitive impairments, functional dependence, high incidence of mortality, extended stay in the ICU, and high costs. So far, no single etiological factor has been identified as the sole cause of delirium. Several functional, neurotransmitter, or injury-causing hypotheses have been proposed for ICU delirium. Several risk factors contribute to the development of delirium in patients admitted to the ICU. These are age, gender, types of sedation, physical restraints, medical and surgical interventions, pain, and extended stay in the ICU. The most commonly used assessment modules for ICU delirium are the PREdiction of DELIRium in ICu patients (PRE-DELIRIC), Early PREdiction model for DELIRium in ICu patients (E-PRE-DELERIC), and Lanzhou Model, Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU), Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC), and Delirium Rating Scale (DRS). There is no proper treatment for ICU delirium; however, it can be managed through various pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. Healthcare providers should receive constant education and training on delirium recognition, prevention, and management to enhance patient care and outcomes in the ICU. Further research is needed on the effective prevention and management of ICU delirium.

Intensive Care Unit (ICU)-Related Post-traumatic Stress Disorder: A Literature Review.

An intensive care unit (ICU) is a challenging environment characterized by frequent incidences of stressors and traumatic situations. Therefore, both patients and caregivers are at high risk of developing psychological disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression. ICU-related PTSD is a significant concern that remains under-recognized. This literature review examines the current state of knowledge regarding ICU-related PTSD, including its prevalence, risk factors, clinical manifestations, and potential interventions. Key findings suggest that a considerable proportion of ICU survivors develop PTSD symptoms, which can significantly impact their quality of life and recovery. The most common predictors investigated for PTSD in ICU survivors are age, gender, pre-illness psychopathy, length of stay in the ICU, delirium, and sedative agents. The treatment and prevention strategies of ICU-related PTSD include psychological therapies and pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. Psychological interventions, including cognitive-behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy, have shown promise in mitigating PTSD symptoms in ICU survivors. However, further research is needed to better understand the mechanisms underlying ICU-related PTSD and to develop targeted interventions to prevent and manage this debilitating condition.

Bolus Versus Continuous Enteral Feeding for Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Enteral feeding is a crucial aspect of nutritional support for critically ill patients. However, the optimal feeding approach, whether bolus or continuous, remains a subject of debate. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of bolus feeding and continuous enteral feeding in critically ill patients. A systemic search was carried out in PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Ultimate, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar to identify relevant studies. To ensure that we obtain the latest evidence on the topic, the search was limited to the last five years. Risk of bias assessments and meta-analyses were performed for relevant clinical outcomes. A total of nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, involving a total of 863 patients. All the studies were published between 2020 and 2023. High-risk performance bias was observed in seven studies, with unclear risk in two studies. In terms of clinical outcomes, no statistically significant differences were found between bolus and continuous enteral feeding in terms of diarrhea (odds ratio {OR} 0.60, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.30, p=0.20), constipation (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.53, p=0.11), vomiting (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.49, p=0.39), distention (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.58, p=0.66), aspiration (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.16 to 2.73, p=0.48), and gastric residual volume (GRV) (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.15, p=0.66). Furthermore, no significant differences between bolus and continuous feeding were observed in terms of intensive care unit (ICU) mortality (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.04, p=0.07), hospital mortality (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.03, p=0.06), ICU length of stay (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.90, p=0.25), and hospital length of stay (OR -0.86, 95% CI -3.04 to 1.33, p=0.44). This systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that bolus and continuous enteral feeding methods exhibit comparable outcomes in critically ill patients. However, both ICU mortality and hospital mortality outcomes were close to achieving statistical significance, which favored the continuous feeding approach.

Restrictive Versus Liberal Fluid Regimen in Refractory Sepsis and Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The optimal fluid management strategy for patients with sepsis remains a topic of debate. This meta-analysis aims to evaluate the impact of restrictive versus liberal fluid regimens on mortality, adverse events, and other clinical outcomes in patients with sepsis. We systematically reviewed 11 randomized controlled trials published between 2008 and 2023, comprising a total of 4,121 participants. The studies assessed 90-day mortality, 30-day mortality, adverse events, hospital length of stay, ICU admission rate, mechanical ventilation, ventilator-free days, ICU-free days, and vasopressor-free days. Quality assessments indicated minimal bias across the studies. The meta-analysis showed no statistically significant difference in 90-day mortality between restrictive and liberal fluid regimens (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.70; P=0.30). Similar results were observed for 30-day mortality (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.30 to 1.80; P=0.50). Adverse events were comparable between the two groups (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.19; P=0.28). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in hospital length of stay (OR, 0.47; 95% CI, -0.85 to 1.80; P=0.48) or ICU admission rate (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.77; P=0.75) between the restrictive and liberal fluid regimens. Regarding mechanical ventilation and ventilator-free days, no significant distinctions were observed (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.17; P=0.48; OR, 0.99; 95% CI, -0.17 to 2.15; P=0.09, respectively). ICU-free days and vasopressor-free days also showed no significant differences between the two groups (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, -0.28 to 2.21; P=0.13; OR, -0.38; 95% CI, -1.14 to 0.37; P=0.32, respectively). This comprehensive meta-analysis of clinical trials suggests that restrictive and liberal fluid management strategies have comparable outcomes in patients with sepsis, including mortality, adverse events, and various clinical parameters. However, most studies favored restrictive fluid regimen over liberal approach regarding the number of vasopressor-free days, need for mechanical ventilation, adverse events, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality in sepsis patients.

The Impact of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapy on Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Patients: A Systematic Review.

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a novel oxygenation approach in the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). This systematic review was focused on evaluating current evidence concerning the efficacy of HFNC in ARDS and its comparison with standard treatment approaches. For this review, a systematic search was undertaken in PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar to identify relevant studies. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. All those studies that investigated the impact of HFNC on ARDS patients and were published in the English language were included. The literature search from all databases provided 6157 potentially relevant articles from PubMed (n = 1105), CINAHL (n = 808), Web of Science (n = 811), Embase (n = 2503), Cochrane database (n = 930), and Google Scholar (n = 46). After the exclusion of studies that did not fulfill the criteria, 18 studies were shortlisted for the scope of this systematic review. Among the included studies, five focused on HFNC's impact on COVID-19-related ARDS, whereas 13 studies focused on HFNC's impact on ARDS patients. Most studies demonstrated the efficacy of HFNC in managing ARDS, with some studies showing comparable efficacy and higher safety compared to noninvasive ventilation (NIV). This systematic review highlights the potential benefits of HFNC in ARDS management. The findings show that HFNC is effective in reducing the respiratory distress symptoms, the incidence of invasive ventilation, and the adverse events associated with ARDS. These findings can help clinical decision-making processes and contribute to the evidence base for optimal ARDS management strategies.

Lower Versus Higher Oxygenation Targets for Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review.

Supplemental oxygen is a standard therapeutic intervention for critically ill patients such as patients suffering from cardiac arrest, myocardial ischemia, traumatic brain injury, and stroke. However, the optimal oxygenation targets remain elusive owing to the paucity and inconsistencies in the relevant literature. A comprehensive analysis of the available scientific evidence was performed to establish the relative efficacy of the lower and higher oxygenation targets. A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Scopus databases from 2010 to 2023. Further, Google Scholar was also searched. Studies evaluating the efficacy of oxygenation targets and the associated clinical outcomes were included. Studies that included participants with hyperbaric oxygen therapy, chronic respiratory diseases, or extracorporeal life support were excluded. The literature search was performed by two blinded reviewers. A total of 19 studies were included in this systemic review, including 72,176 participants. A total of 14 randomized control trials were included. A total of 12 studies investigated the efficacy of lower and higher oxygenation targets in ICU-admitted patients, and seven were assessed in patients with acute myocardial infarction and stroke. For ICU patients, the evidence was conflicting, with some studies showing the efficacy of conservative oxygen therapy while others reported no difference. Overall, nine studies concluded that lower oxygen targets are favorable. However, most studies (n=4) in stroke and myocardial infarction patients showed no difference in lower or higher oxygenation targets whereas only two supported lower oxygenation targets. Available evidence suggests that lower oxygenation targets result in either improved or equivalent clinical outcomes compared with higher oxygenation targets.