Different ventilation intensities among various categories of patients ventilated for reasons other than ARDS--A pooled analysis of 4 observational studies.

PURPOSE: We investigated driving pressure (ΔP) and mechanical power (MP) and associations with clinical outcomes in critically ill patients ventilated for reasons other than ARDS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient data analysis of a pooled database that included patients from four observational studies of ventilation. ΔP and MP were compared among invasively ventilated non-ARDS patients with sepsis, with pneumonia, and not having sepsis or pneumonia. The primary endpoint was ΔP; secondary endpoints included MP, ICU mortality and length of stay, and duration of ventilation. RESULTS: This analysis included 372 (11%) sepsis patients, 944 (28%) pneumonia patients, and 2040 (61%) patients ventilated for any other reason. On day 1, median ΔP was higher in sepsis (14 [11-18] cmH2O) and pneumonia patients (14 [11-18]cmH2O), as compared to patients not having sepsis or pneumonia (13 [10-16] cmH2O) (P < 0.001). Median MP was also higher in sepsis and pneumonia patients. ΔP, as opposed to MP, was associated with ICU mortality in sepsis and pneumonia patients. CONCLUSIONS: The intensity of ventilation differed between patients with sepsis or pneumonia and patients receiving ventilation for any other reason; ΔP was associated with higher mortality in sepsis and pneumonia patients. REGISTRATION: This post hoc analysis was not registered; the individual studies that were merged into the used database were registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01268410 (ERICC), NCT02010073 (LUNG SAFE), NCT01868321 (PRoVENT), and NCT03188770 (PRoVENT-iMiC).

Mental health symptoms in family members of COVID-19 ICU survivors 3 and 12 months after ICU admission: a multicentre prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: Long-term mental outcomes in family members of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) intensive care unit (ICU) survivors are unknown. Therefore, we assessed the prevalence of mental health symptoms, including associated risk factors, and quality of life (QoL) in family members of COVID-19 ICU survivors 3 and 12 months post-ICU. METHODS: A prospective multicentre cohort study in ICUs of ten Dutch hospitals, including adult family members of COVID-19 ICU survivors admitted between March 1, and July 1, 2020. Symptom prevalence rates of anxiety, depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (Impact of Event Scale-6), and QoL (Short Form-12) before ICU admission (baseline), and after 3 and 12 months were measured. Additionally, associations between family and patient characteristics and mental health symptoms were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 166 out of 197 (84.3%) included family members completed the 12-month follow-up of whom 46.1% and 38.3% had mental health symptoms 3 and 12 months post-ICU, respectively; both higher compared to baseline (22.4%) (p < 0.001). The mental component summary score of the SF-12 was lower at 12-month follow-up compared with baseline [mean difference mental component score: - 5.5 (95% confidence interval (CI) - 7.4 to - 3.6)]. Furthermore, 27.9% experienced work-related problems. Symptoms of anxiety (odds ratio (OR) 9.23; 95% CI 2.296-37.24; p = 0.002) and depression (OR 5.96; 95% CI 1.29-27.42; p = 0.02) prior to ICU admission were identified as risk factors for mental health symptoms after 12 months. CONCLUSION: A considerable proportion of family members of COVID-19 survivors reported mental health symptoms 3 and 12 months after ICU admission, disrupting QoL and creating work-related problems.

Clinical Outcomes Among Patients With 1-Year Survival Following Intensive Care Unit Treatment for COVID-19.

IMPORTANCE: One-year outcomes in patients who have had COVID-19 and who received treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU) are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the occurrence of physical, mental, and cognitive symptoms among patients with COVID-19 at 1 year after ICU treatment. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: An exploratory prospective multicenter cohort study conducted in ICUs of 11 Dutch hospitals. Patients (N = 452) with COVID-19, aged 16 years and older, and alive after hospital discharge following admission to 1 of the 11 ICUs during the first COVID-19 surge (March 1, 2020, until July 1, 2020) were eligible for inclusion. Patients were followed up for 1 year, and the date of final follow-up was June 16, 2021. EXPOSURES: Patients with COVID-19 who received ICU treatment and survived 1 year after ICU admission. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcomes were self-reported occurrence of physical symptoms (frailty [Clinical Frailty Scale score ≥5], fatigue [Checklist Individual Strength-fatigue subscale score ≥27], physical problems), mental symptoms (anxiety [Hospital Anxiety and Depression {HADS} subscale score ≥8], depression [HADS subscale score ≥8], posttraumatic stress disorder [mean Impact of Event Scale score ≥1.75]), and cognitive symptoms (Cognitive Failure Questionnaire-14 score ≥43) 1 year after ICU treatment and measured with validated questionnaires. RESULTS: Of the 452 eligible patients, 301 (66.8%) patients could be included, and 246 (81.5%) patients (mean [SD] age, 61.2 [9.3] years; 176 men [71.5%]; median ICU stay, 18 days [IQR, 11 to 32]) completed the 1-year follow-up questionnaires. At 1 year after ICU treatment for COVID-19, physical symptoms were reported by 182 of 245 patients (74.3% [95% CI, 68.3% to 79.6%]), mental symptoms were reported by 64 of 244 patients (26.2% [95% CI, 20.8% to 32.2%]), and cognitive symptoms were reported by 39 of 241 patients (16.2% [95% CI, 11.8% to 21.5%]). The most frequently reported new physical problems were weakened condition (95/244 patients [38.9%]), joint stiffness (64/243 patients [26.3%]) joint pain (62/243 patients [25.5%]), muscle weakness (60/242 patients [24.8%]) and myalgia (52/244 patients [21.3%]). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this exploratory study of patients in 11 Dutch hospitals who survived 1 year following ICU treatment for COVID-19, physical, mental, or cognitive symptoms were frequently reported.

Awake Proning as an Adjunctive Therapy for Refractory Hypoxemia in Non-Intubated Patients with COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Failure: Guidance from an International Group of Healthcare Workers.

Non-intubated patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 could benefit from awake proning. Awake proning is an attractive intervention in settings with limited resources, as it comes with no additional costs. However, awake proning remains poorly used probably because of unfamiliarity and uncertainties regarding potential benefits and practical application. To summarize evidence for benefit and to develop a set of pragmatic recommendations for awake proning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, focusing on settings where resources are limited, international healthcare professionals from high and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with known expertise in awake proning were invited to contribute expert advice. A growing number of observational studies describe the effects of awake proning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in whom hypoxemia is refractory to simple measures of supplementary oxygen. Awake proning improves oxygenation in most patients, usually within minutes, and reduces dyspnea and work of breathing. The effects are maintained for up to 1 hour after turning back to supine, and mostly disappear after 6-12 hours. In available studies, awake proning was not associated with a reduction in the rate of intubation for invasive ventilation. Awake proning comes with little complications if properly implemented and monitored. Pragmatic recommendations including indications and contraindications were formulated and adjusted for resource-limited settings. Awake proning, an adjunctive treatment for hypoxemia refractory to supplemental oxygen, seems safe in non-intubated patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory failure. We provide pragmatic recommendations including indications and contraindications for the use of awake proning in LMICs.

Effect of Haloperidol on Survival Among Critically Ill Adults With a High Risk of Delirium: The REDUCE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Results of studies on use of prophylactic haloperidol in critically ill adults are inconclusive, especially in patients at high risk of delirium. Objective: To determine whether prophylactic use of haloperidol improves survival among critically ill adults at high risk of delirium, which was defined as an anticipated intensive care unit (ICU) stay of at least 2 days. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled investigator-driven study involving 1789 critically ill adults treated at 21 ICUs, at which nonpharmacological interventions for delirium prevention are routinely used in the Netherlands. Patients without delirium whose expected ICU stay was at least a day were included. Recruitment was from July 2013 to December 2016 and follow-up was conducted at 90 days with the final follow-up on March 1, 2017. Interventions: Patients received prophylactic treatment 3 times daily intravenously either 1 mg (n = 350) or 2 mg (n = 732) of haloperidol or placebo (n = 707), consisting of 0.9% sodium chloride. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days that patients survived in 28 days. There were 15 secondary outcomes, including delirium incidence, 28-day delirium-free and coma-free days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU and hospital length of stay. Results: All 1789 randomized patients (mean, age 66.6 years [SD, 12.6]; 1099 men [61.4%]) completed the study. The 1-mg haloperidol group was prematurely stopped because of futility. There was no difference in the median days patients survived in 28 days, 28 days in the 2-mg haloperidol group vs 28 days in the placebo group, for a difference of 0 days (95% CI, 0-0; P = .93) and a hazard ratio of 1.003 (95% CI, 0.78-1.30, P=.82). All of the 15 secondary outcomes were not statistically different. These included delirium incidence (mean difference, 1.5%, 95% CI, -3.6% to 6.7%), delirium-free and coma-free days (mean difference, 0 days, 95% CI, 0-0 days), and duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU, and hospital length of stay (mean difference, 0 days, 95% CI, 0-0 days for all 3 measures). The number of reported adverse effects did not differ between groups (2 [0.3%] for the 2-mg haloperidol group vs 1 [0.1%] for the placebo group). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill adults at high risk of delirium, the use of prophylactic haloperidol compared with placebo did not improve survival at 28 days. These findings do not support the use of prophylactic haloperidol for reducing mortality in critically ill adults. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01785290.

Current Use of Pain Scores in Dutch Intensive Care Units: A Postal Survey in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Pain is a common problem for critically ill patients treated in the intensive care unit (ICU) and can have serious consequences. For this reason, the appropriate recognition and treatment of pain is of extreme importance. However, pain assessment in critically ill patients can be challenging because these patients are often unable to self-report. To identify attitudes and practices regarding the assessment and management of pain in ICU patients unable to self-report, we surveyed all adult ICUs in the Netherlands. METHODS: A multicenter, exploratory survey was sent by mail to all adult ICUs in the Netherlands. RESULTS: Eighty-four of 107 ICUs returned the questionnaire for a response rate of 79%. In patients able to self-report, 94% (n = 79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 86.7%-98%) of the ICUs used a standardized pain score. Visual Analog Scale and Numerical Rating Scale were used in 57% (n = 48; 99.3% CI, 41%-72%) and 48% (n = 40; 99.3% CI, 33%-64%), respectively. Nonteaching hospitals used pain assessment tools more often than teaching hospitals (P = 0.012). In patients not able to self-report, pain assessment tools were used in 19% (n = 16) of the ICUs. In the ICUs that used behaviorally based scoring systems, the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool and Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) were used in 6% (n = 5; 99.5% CI, 1.1%-17%) and 5% (n = 4; 99.5% CI, 0.1%-15%), respectively. Among Dutch nurses, nursing opinion was considered the gold standard assessment in 36% (n = 30; 98.8% CI, 23%-50%) of the respondents, even when a patient was able to self-report and pain scales were used. In patients unable to self-report, nurses judged themselves to be more accurate than a behavioral pain assessment tool in 98% (n = 82; 98.8% CI, 89.7%-99.9%) of the patients. CONCLUSIONS: In the Netherlands, most ICUs used a standardized pain score in patients able to self-report. Nonteaching hospitals used pain assessment tools more often than teaching hospitals. In patients unable to self-report, pain is not routinely measured with a validated behavioral pain assessment tool. Almost all nurses in our survey felt that their assessment of patient pain was more accurate than behavioral pain assessment tools in patients unable to self-report. More research is needed to identify factors preventing more widespread acceptance of validated behavioral pain scores in patients unable to self-report.