Pregnant women with acute respiratory distress syndrome triggered by COVID-19. / Gravide med akutt, alvorlig respirasjonssvikt utløst av covid-19.

Background: Pregnant women with COVID-19 are probably at increased risk of serious illness. The objective of this study was to describe the course of illness in pregnant women admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with acute respiratory distress syndrome triggered by COVID-19. Material and method: Pregnant women with COVID-19 were registered on admission to an ICU at Rikshospitalet, Oslo University Hospital in the period March 2020 to May 2023. We reviewed the patients' medical records retrospectively and describe clinical trajectories, management parameters and laboratory data collected during the period in intensive care. Self-perceived health was surveyed 15 months after discharge from intensive care. Results: Thirteen pregnant women were admitted in the period from February to December 2021. All met criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and were treated with corticosteroids and mechanical ventilation according to current guidelines. None of the patients had been vaccinated against COVID-19. Ten patients were orally intubated after therapeutic failure with non-invasive mechanical ventilation. One patient was treated with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). All patients survived their stay in intensive care, but there were two cases of intrauterine fetal demise. Almost half of the patients reported moderate to significantly reduced self-perceived health and quality of life 15 months after discharge from intensive care. Interpretation: All pregnant women admitted to an ICU at Rikshospitalet, Oslo University Hospital with ARDS triggered by COVID-19 survived hospitalisation, but several had symptoms that persisted long after their stay in the ICU.

New-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill adult patients-an SSAI clinical practice guideline.

BACKGROUND: Acute or new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in critically ill adult patients, and observational data suggests that NOAF is associated to adverse outcomes. METHODS: We prepared this guideline according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. We posed the following clinical questions: (1) what is the better first-line pharmacological agent for the treatment of NOAF in critically ill adult patients?, (2) should we use direct current (DC) cardioversion in critically ill adult patients with NOAF and hemodynamic instability caused by atrial fibrillation?, (3) should we use anticoagulant therapy in critically ill adult patients with NOAF?, and (4) should critically ill adult patients with NOAF receive follow-up after discharge from hospital? We assessed patient-important outcomes, including mortality, thromboembolic events, and adverse events. Patients and relatives were part of the guideline panel. RESULTS: The quantity and quality of evidence on the management of NOAF in critically ill adults was very limited, and we did not identify any relevant direct or indirect evidence from randomized clinical trials for the prespecified PICO questions. We were able to propose one weak recommendation against routine use of therapeutic dose anticoagulant therapy, and one best practice statement for routine follow-up by a cardiologist after hospital discharge. We were not able to propose any recommendations on the better first-line pharmacological agent or whether to use DC cardioversion in critically ill patients with hemodynamic instability induced by NOAF. An electronic version of this guideline in layered and interactive format is available in MAGIC: https://app.magicapp.org/#/guideline/7197. CONCLUSIONS: The body of evidence on the management of NOAF in critically ill adults is very limited and not informed by direct evidence from randomized clinical trials. Practice variation appears considerable.

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.

Patient characteristics, management and outcomes in a Nordic subset of the "large observational study to understand the global impact of severe acute respiratory failure" (LUNG SAFE) study.

BACKGROUND: The "Large observational study to understand the global impact of severe acute respiratory failure" (LUNG SAFE) study described the worldwide epidemiology and management of patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF). Here, we present the Nordic subset of data from the LUNG SAFE cohort. METHODS: We extracted LUNG SAFE data for adults fulfilling criteria for AHRF in intensive care units (ICU) in Denmark, Norway and Sweden, including demographics, co-morbidities, clinical assessment and management characteristics, 90-day survival and length-of-stay (LOS). We analysed ICU LOS with linear regression, and associations between risk factors and mortality were quantified using Cox regression. RESULTS: We included 192 patients, with a median age of 64 years (IQR 55, 72), and a male-to-female ratio of 2:1. The majority had one or more co-morbidities, and clinicians identified pneumonia as the primary cause of respiratory failure in 56% and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in 21%. Median ICU LOS and duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were 5 and 3 days. Tidal volumes (TV) were frequently larger than that supported by evidence and IMV allowing for spontaneous ventilation was common. Younger age, co-morbidity, surgical admission and ARDS were associated with ICU LOS. Sixty-one patients (32%) were dead at 90 days. Age and a non-surgical cause of admission were associated with death. CONCLUSIONS: In this subset of LUNG SAFE, ARDS was often not recognised in patients with AHRF and management frequently deviated from evidence-based practices. ICU LOS was generally short, and mortality was attributable to known risk factors.

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.

Spontaneous Versus Controlled Mechanical Ventilation in Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review clinical evidence on whether or not to allow mechanically ventilated patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to breathe spontaneously. RECENT FINDINGS: Observational data (LUNG SAFE study) indicate that mechanical ventilation allowing for spontaneous breathing (SB) is associated with more ventilator-free days and a shorter stay in the intensive care unit without any effect on hospital mortality. A paediatric trial, comparing airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) and low-tidal volume ventilation, showed an increase in mortality in the APRV group. Conversely, in an unpublished trial comparing SB and controlled ventilation (NCT01862016), the authors concluded that SB is feasible but did not improve outcomes in ARDS patients. SUMMARY: A paucity of clinical trial data continues to prevent firm guidance on if or when to allow SB during mechanical ventilation in patients with ARDS. No published large randomised controlled trial exists to inform practice about the benefits and harms of either mode.