Challenges in Sedation Management in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19: a Brief Review.

Purpose of Review: To highlight the challenges associated with providing sedation and analgesia to critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and also understand the pathophysiological alterations induced by the disease process as well as the logistical difficulties encountered by providers caring for these patients. We also discuss the rationale and risks associated with the use of common sedative agents specifically within the context of COVID-19 and provide evidence-based management strategies to help manage sedation and analgesia in such patients. Recent Findings: A significant proportion of patients with COVID-19 require intensive care and mechanical ventilation, thus requiring sedation and analgesia. These patients tend to require higher doses of sedative medications and often for long periods of time. Most of the commonly used sedative and analgesic agents carry unique risks that should be considered within the context of the unique pathophysiology of COVID-19, the logistical issues the disease poses, and the ongoing drug shortages. Summary: With little attention being paid to sedation practices specific to patients with COVID-19 in critical care literature and minimal mention in national guidelines, there is a significant gap in knowledge. We review the existing literature to discuss the unique challenges that providers face while providing sedation and analgesia to critically ill patients with COVID-19 and propose evidence-based management strategies.

Cardiac Arrhythmias in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: A Brief Review.

Coronavirus disease 2019, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, is now a global pandemic affecting more than 12 million patients across 188 countries. A significant proportion of these patients require admission to intensive care units for acute hypoxic respiratory failure and are at an increased risk of developing cardiac arrhythmias. The presence of underlying comorbidities, pathophysiologic changes imposed by the disease, and concomitant polypharmacy, increase the likelihood of life-threatening arrhythmias in these patients. Supraventricular, as well as ventricular arrhythmias, are common and are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. It is important to understand the interplay of various causal factors while instituting strategies to mitigate the impact of modifiable risk factors. Furthermore, avoidance and early recognition of drug interactions, along with prompt treatment, might help improve outcomes in this vulnerable patient population.

Thromboembolic disease in COVID-19 patients: A brief narrative review.

Corona virus 2 (SARS-CoV2/ Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Corona Virus 2) infection has emerged as a global health crisis. Incidence of thromboembolic disease is reported to be high in SARS-CoV2 disease and is seen in a multitude of organ systems ranging from cutaneous thrombosis to pulmonary embolism, stroke or coronary thrombosis sometimes with catastrophic outcomes. Evidence points towards a key role of thromboembolism, hypercoagulability and over production of proinflammatory cytokines mimicking a "cytokine storm" which leads to multiorgan failure. This brief narrative review highlights the pathophysiology and risk factors of thromboembolic disease and provides a framework for management of anticoagulation based on the current evidence.

Continuation of atypical antipsychotic medications in critically ill patients discharged from the hospital: a single-center retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: Atypical antipsychotics (AAP) have been associated with reduced duration of delirium in the intensive care setting. However, long-term use of these drugs is associated with significant adverse events, including increased all-cause mortality in the elderly. Inappropriate continuation of AAPs after discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU) is worrisome and needs to be addressed.The aim of this work was to assess the prevalence of continuation of AAPs after hospital discharge and evaluate the associated risk factors. METHOD: This was a single-center retrospective chart analysis in the setting of adult ICUs at a tertiary care academic medical center. It involved all adult patients admitted to the ICU and initiated on AAPs from January 2012 to December 2014. The measurements were: (1) prevalence of ICU-initiated AAP continuation following hospital discharge, (2) risk factors associated with continuation of AAPs following hospital discharge, and (3) risk of continuation of AAPs in patients ⩾65 years of age. RESULTS: A total of 55% of ICU patients initiated on AAPs were discharged from the hospital with a prescription for continued AAP therapy. Male sex and discharge location were highly associated with continuation upon discharge. Older patients (⩾65 years of age) were not at a higher risk of being continued on these drugs after discharge. CONCLUSION: Male sex and discharge to a healthcare facility were associated with a higher rate of continuation. Research into practical methods to reduce their continuation upon discharge should be performed to mitigate the long-term risks of AAP administration.

Stroke prophylaxis in critically-ill patients with new-onset atrial fibrillation.

Despite a high incidence of new onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) in critically ill patients and its association with short and long-term incidence of stroke, there is limited data assessing anticoagulation on hospital discharge in these patients. We retrospectively reviewed electronic medical records of all adult patients admitted to non-cardiac ICUs at our institution between January 2009 and March 2016. Patients with NOAF were identified and CHA2DS2-VASc score of ICU survivors was calculated. Prescription of oral anticoagulant therapy on hospital discharge was analyzed. A total of 640 (1.7% [38,708 patients]; 95% CI 1.5%, 1.8%) patients developed NOAF during the study period. CHA2DS2-VASc score was calculated for 615 patients, of which 82.2% had a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 2. Of the 428 eligible patients, only 96 patients (22.4%) were discharged on oral anticoagulant therapy. Patients with a history of congestive heart failure (33.7% vs. 19.7%) and stroke/TIA or other thromboembolic disease (35.9% vs. 18.0%) were more likely to be discharged on an oral anticoagulant. Patients with a higher score were also more likely to be discharged on an oral anticoagulant (OR 1.27; 95% CI 1.10, 1.47). NOAF is common in critically ill patients admitted to non-cardiac ICUs and a significant proportion of these patients have a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥ 2. However, only a minority of them are discharged on an oral anticoagulant. There is a need to identify ways to improve implementation of effective stroke prophylaxis in these patients.

Liposomal Bupivacaine Use in Transversus Abdominis Plane Blocks Reduces Pain and Postoperative Intravenous Opioid Requirement After Colorectal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery protocols frequently use multimodal postoperative analgesia to improve postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing colorectal surgery. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate liposomal bupivacaine use in transversus abdominis plane blocks on postoperative pain scores and opioid use after colorectal surgery. DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study comparing outcomes between patients receiving nonliposomal anesthetic (n = 104) and liposomal bupivacaine (n = 303) blocks. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at a single tertiary care center. PATIENTS: Patients included those identified within an institutional database as inpatients undergoing colorectal procedures between 2013 and 2015 who underwent transversus abdominis plane block for perioperative analgesia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The study measured postoperative pain scores and opioid requirements. RESULTS: Patients receiving liposomal bupivacaine had significantly lower pain scores for the first 24 to 36 postoperative hours. Pain scores were similar after 36 hours. The use of intravenous opioids among the liposomal bupivacaine group decreased by more than one third during the hospitalization (99.1 vs 64.5 mg; p = 0.040). The use of ketorolac was also decreased (49.0 vs 18.3 mg; p < 0.001). In subgroup analysis, the decrease in opioid use was observed between laparoscopic and robotic procedures but not with laparotomies. No significant differences were noted in the use of oral opioids, acetaminophen, or ibuprofen. Postoperative length of stay and total cost were decreased in the liposomal bupivacaine group but did not achieve statistical significance. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its retrospective, single-center design and heterogeneity of block administration. CONCLUSIONS: Attenuated pain scores observed with liposomal bupivacaine use were associated with significantly lower intravenous opioid and ketorolac use, suggesting that liposomal bupivacaine-containing transversus abdominis plane blocks are well aligned with the opioid-reducing goals of many enhanced recovery protocols.