Should all critical care patients with a central venous catheter in situ be screened for central catheter related thrombosis?

There are many studies on central catheter related thrombosis (CCRT), however, there are significantly fewer studies focusing on the incidence and evolution of CCRT in the adult critical care population. This article reviews data collected from observational studies that have performed bedside duplex ultrasound for surveillance of CCRT and discuss if we should routinely screen for CCRT. The reported CCRT incidence is 17-38%, with most thrombus being detectable on ultrasound within seven days of line placement. Nearly all CCRT are designated as asymptomatic (no associated pulmonary embolism (PE) or deep vein thrombosis (DVT)) and no significant changes in mortality rates amongst patients that develop CCRT were reported. Based on the evidence reviewed, we do not recommend screening routinely for CCRT in the adult critical care population.

Which method of renal replacement therapy is best for patients with acute kidney injury in intensive care?

There are several methods of renal replacement therapy but none has a definitive survival benefit in patients with acute kidney injury. This article discusses the advantages and disadvantages of continuous and intermittent renal replacement for patients with acute kidney injury.

Should central venous catheters be routinely replaced in adults?

Central venous catheters are sited for a variety of reasons in the adult critically ill patient. There is clear guidance for indications and maintenance of central venous catheters, but there is no clear guidance on how long a central venous catheter should remain in situ. This article looks at evidence to answer this question.

Should the femoral or brachial artery be used if radial artery cannulation is difficult?

Current best practice in placement of arterial lines is to attempt to cannulate the radial artery in the first instance. However, if the radial artery is difficult to cannulate there is no consensus among clinicians on how best to proceed. This article looks at the evidence for the different options.

Should all patients with septic shock have a mean arterial pressure threshold of 65 mmHg?

Sepsis requiring cardiovascular support is a common reason for critical care admission. The threshold for mean arterial pressure in septic shock has been set at a population-wide threshold of 65 mmHg by a European consensus statement, but should the threshold be higher?

The end of the rapid sequence induction?

The rapid sequence induction has been a cornerstone of anaesthetic teaching since it was first described in 1970. Although the technique is taught as a standard protocol there is considerable variation in its practice. So, can we reach consensus over what to include in 'the safe, textbook version' of a rapid sequence induction in modern anaesthesia?

Protocolised non-invasive compared with invasive weaning from mechanical ventilation for adults in intensive care: the Breathe RCT.

BACKGROUND: Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is a life-saving intervention. Following resolution of the condition that necessitated IMV, a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) is used to determine patient readiness for IMV discontinuation. In patients who fail one or more SBTs, there is uncertainty as to the optimum management strategy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of using non-invasive ventilation (NIV) as an intermediate step in the protocolised weaning of patients from IMV. DESIGN: Pragmatic, open-label, parallel-group randomised controlled trial, with cost-effectiveness analysis. SETTING: A total of 51 critical care units across the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Adult intensive care patients who had received IMV for at least 48 hours, who were categorised as ready to wean from ventilation, and who failed a SBT. INTERVENTIONS: Control group (invasive weaning): patients continued to receive IMV with daily SBTs. A weaning protocol was used to wean pressure support based on the patient's condition. Intervention group (non-invasive weaning): patients were extubated to NIV. A weaning protocol was used to wean inspiratory positive airway pressure, based on the patient's condition. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was time to liberation from ventilation. Secondary outcome measures included mortality, duration of IMV, proportion of patients receiving antibiotics for a presumed respiratory infection and health-related quality of life. RESULTS: A total of 364 patients (invasive weaning, n = 182; non-invasive weaning, n = 182) were randomised. Groups were well matched at baseline. There was no difference between the invasive weaning and non-invasive weaning groups in median time to liberation from ventilation {invasive weaning 108 hours [interquartile range (IQR) 57-351 hours] vs. non-invasive weaning 104.3 hours [IQR 34.5-297 hours]; hazard ratio 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89 to 1.39; p = 0.352}. There was also no difference in mortality between groups at any time point. Patients in the non-invasive weaning group had fewer IMV days [invasive weaning 4 days (IQR 2-11 days) vs. non-invasive weaning 1 day (IQR 0-7 days); adjusted mean difference -3.1 days, 95% CI -5.75 to -0.51 days]. In addition, fewer non-invasive weaning patients required antibiotics for a respiratory infection [odds ratio (OR) 0.60, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.00; p = 0.048]. A higher proportion of non-invasive weaning patients required reintubation than those in the invasive weaning group (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.24). The within-trial economic evaluation showed that NIV was associated with a lower net cost and a higher net effect, and was dominant in health economic terms. The probability that NIV was cost-effective was estimated at 0.58 at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. CONCLUSIONS: A protocolised non-invasive weaning strategy did not reduce time to liberation from ventilation. However, patients who underwent non-invasive weaning had fewer days requiring IMV and required fewer antibiotics for respiratory infections. FUTURE WORK: In patients who fail a SBT, which factors predict an adverse outcome (reintubation, tracheostomy, death) if extubated and weaned using NIV? TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15635197. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 23, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Patients who become very unwell may require help from a breathing machine. This requires the patient to be given drugs to put them to sleep (sedation) and have a tube placed through their mouth directly into the windpipe (tube ventilation). This can be life-saving, but may cause harm if used for long periods of time. Non-invasive ventilation (mask ventilation) provides breathing support through a mask that covers the face. Mask ventilation has several advantages over tube ventilation, such as less need for sedation, and it enables the patient to cough and communicate. In previous studies, switching patients from tube to mask ventilation when they start to get better seemed to improve survival rates and reduce complications. The Breathe trial tested if using a protocol to remove tube ventilation and replace it with mask ventilation is better than continuing with tube ventilation until the patient no longer needs breathing machine support. The trial recruited 364 patients. Half of these patients were randomly selected to have the tube removed and replaced with mask ventilation and half were randomly selected to continue with tube ventilation until they no longer needed breathing machine support. The mask group spent 3 fewer days receiving tube ventilation, although the overall time needing breathing machine help (mask and tube) did not change. Fewer patients in the mask group needed antibiotics for chest infections. After removing the tube, twice as many patients needed the tube again in the mask group as in the tube group. There were no differences between the groups in the number of adverse (harm) events or the number of patients who survived to leave hospital. Mask ventilation was no more expensive than tube ventilation. In conclusion, mask ventilation may be an effective alternative to continued tube ventilation when patients start to get better in intensive care.

Effect of Protocolized Weaning With Early Extubation to Noninvasive Ventilation vs Invasive Weaning on Time to Liberation From Mechanical Ventilation Among Patients With Respiratory Failure: The Breathe Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: In adults in whom weaning from invasive mechanical ventilation is difficult, noninvasive ventilation may facilitate early liberation, but there is uncertainty about its effectiveness in a general intensive care patient population. Objective: To investigate among patients with difficulty weaning the effects of protocolized weaning with early extubation to noninvasive ventilation on time to liberation from ventilation compared with protocolized invasive weaning. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, allocation-concealed, open-label, multicenter clinical trial enrolling patients between March 2013 and October 2016 from 41 intensive care units in the UK National Health Service. Follow-up continued until April 2017. Adults who received invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours and in whom a spontaneous breathing trial failed were enrolled. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive either protocolized weaning via early extubation to noninvasive ventilation (n = 182) or protocolized standard weaning (continued invasive ventilation until successful spontaneous breathing trial, followed by extubation) (n = 182). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was time from randomization to successful liberation from all forms of mechanical ventilation among survivors, measured in days, with the minimal clinically important difference defined as 1 day. Secondary outcomes were duration of invasive and total ventilation (days), reintubation or tracheostomy rates, and survival. Results: Among 364 randomized patients (mean age, 63.1 [SD, 14.8] years; 50.5% male), 319 were evaluable for the primary effectiveness outcome (41 died before liberation, 2 withdrew, and 2 were discharged with ongoing ventilation). The median time to liberation was 4.3 days in the noninvasive group vs 4.5 days in the invasive group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.89-1.40). Competing risk analysis accounting for deaths had a similar result (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.86-1.34). The noninvasive group received less invasive ventilation (median, 1 day vs 4 days; incidence rate ratio, 0.6; 95% CI, 0.47-0.87) and fewer total ventilator days (median, 3 days vs 4 days; incidence rate ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.62-1.0). There was no significant difference in reintubation, tracheostomy rates, or survival. Adverse events occurred in 45 patients (24.7%) in the noninvasive group compared with 47 (25.8%) in the invasive group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients requiring mechanical ventilation in whom a spontaneous breathing trial had failed, early extubation to noninvasive ventilation did not shorten time to liberation from any ventilation. Trial Registration: ISRCTN Identifier: ISRCTN15635197.

Validation of a classification system for causes of death in critical care: an assessment of inter-rater reliability.

OBJECTIVE: Trials in critical care have previously used unvalidated systems to classify cause of death. We aimed to provide initial validation of a method to classify cause of death in intensive care unit patients. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: One hundred case scenarios of patients who died in an ICU were presented online to raters, who were asked to select a proximate and an underlying cause of death for each, using the ICU Deaths Classification and Reason (ICU-DECLARE) system. We evaluated two methods of categorising proximate cause of death (designated Lists A and B) and one method of categorising underlying cause of death. Raters were ICU specialists and research coordinators from Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Inter-rater reliability, as measured by the Fleiss multirater kappa, and the median proportion of raters choosing the most likely diagnosis (defined as the most popular classification choice in each case). RESULTS: Across all raters and cases, for proximate cause of death List A, kappa was 0.54 (95% CI, 0.49-0.60), and for proximate cause of death List B, kappa was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.53-0.63). For the underlying cause of death, kappa was 0.48 (95% CI, 0.44-0.53). The median proportion of raters choosing the most likely diagnosis for proximate cause of death, List A, was 77.5% (interquartile range [IQR], 60.0%-93.8%), and the median proportion choosing the most likely diagnosis for proximate cause of death, List B, was 82.5% (IQR, 60.0%-92.5%). The median proportion choosing the most likely diagnosis for underlying cause was 65.0% (IQR, 50.0%-81.3%). Kappa and median agreement were similar between countries. ICU specialists showed higher kappa and median agreement than research coordinators. CONCLUSIONS: The ICU-DECLARE system allowed ICU doctors to classify the proximate cause of death of patients who died in the ICU with substantial reliability.