The current state of intensive care unit discharge practices - Results of an international survey study.

Background: Increasing pressure on limited intensive care capacities often requires a subjective assessment of a patient's discharge readiness in the absence of established Admission, Discharge, and Transfer (ADT) guidelines. To avoid suboptimal care transitions, it is important to define clear guidelines for the admission and discharge of intensive care patients and to optimize transfer processes between the intensive care unit (ICU) and lower care levels. To achieve these goals, structured insights into usual ICU discharge and transfer practices are essential. This study aimed to generate these insights by focusing on involved stakeholders, established processes, discharge criteria and tools, relevant performance metrics, and current barriers to a timely and safe discharge. Method: In 2022, a structured, web-based, anonymous cross-sectional survey was conducted, aimed at practicing ICU physicians, nurses, and bed coordinators. The survey consisted of 29 questions (open, closed, multiple choice, and scales) that were divided into thematic blocks. The study was supported by several national and international societies for intensive care medicine and nursing. Results: A total of 219 participants from 40 countries (105 from Germany) participated in the survey. An overload of acute care resources with ~90% capacity utilization in the ICU and the general ward (GW) leads to not only premature but also delayed patient transfers due to a lack of available ward and intermediate care (IMC) beds. After multidisciplinary rounds within the intensive care team, the ICU clinician on duty usually makes the final transfer decision, while one-third of the panel coordinates discharge decisions across departmental boundaries. By the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, half of the hospitals had implemented ADT policies. Among these hospitals, nearly one-third of the hospitals had specific transfer criteria established, consisting primarily of vital signs and laboratory data, patient status and autonomy, and organization-specific criteria. Liaison nurses were less common but were ranked right after the required IMC capacities to bridge the care gap between the ICU and normal wards. In this study, 80% of the participants suggested that transfer planning would be easier if there was good transparency regarding the capacity utilization of lower care levels, a standardized transfer process, and improved interdisciplinary communication. Conclusion: To improve care transitions, transfer processes should be managed proactively across departments, and efforts should be made to identify and address care gaps.

Hospital-acquired bloodstream infections in critically ill cirrhotic patients: a post-hoc analysis of the EUROBACT-2 international cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired bloodstream infections are common in the intensive care unit (ICU) and have a high mortality rate. Patients with cirrhosis are especially susceptible to infections, yet there is a knowledge gap in the epidemiological distinctions in hospital-acquired bloodstream infections between cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients in the ICU. It has been suggested that cirrhotic patients, present a trend towards more gram-positive infections, and especially enterococcal infections. This study aims to describe epidemiological differences in hospital-acquired bloodstream infections between cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients hospitalized in the ICU regarding infection sources, microorganisms and mortality. METHODS: Using prospective Eurobact-2 international cohort study data, we compared hospital-acquired bloodstream infections sources and microorganisms in cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients. The association between Enterococcus faecium and cirrhosis was studied using a multivariable mixed logistic regression. The association between cirrhosis and mortality was assessed by a multivariable frailty Cox model. RESULTS: Among the 1059 hospital-acquired bloodstream infections patients included from 101 centers, 160 had cirrhosis. Hospital-acquired bloodstream infection source in cirrhotic patients was primarily abdominal (35.6%), while it was pulmonary (18.9%) for non-cirrhotic (p < 0.01). Gram-positive hospital-acquired bloodstream infections accounted for 42.3% in cirrhotic patients compared to 33.2% in non-cirrhotic patients (p = 0.02). Hospital-acquired bloodstream infections in cirrhotic patients were most frequently caused by Klebsiella spp (16.5%), coagulase-negative Staphylococci (13.7%) and E. faecium (11.5%). E. faecium bacteremia was more frequent in cirrhotic patients (11.5% versus 4.5%, p < 0.01). After adjusting for possible confounding factors, cirrhosis was associated with higher E. faecium hospital-acquired bloodstream infections risk (Odds ratio 2.5, 95% CI 1.3-4.5, p < 0.01). Cirrhotic patients had increased mortality compared to non-cirrhotic patients (Hazard Ratio 1.3, 95% CI 1.01-1.7, p = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: Critically ill cirrhotic patients with hospital-acquired bloodstream infections exhibit distinct epidemiology, with more Gram-positive infections and particularly Enterococcus faecium.

Thromboembolism after Astra Zeneca COVID-19 vaccine: Not always PF4- antibody mediated.

Cases of thromboembolic events in 2021 flared up the discussion about the safety of Astra Zeneca's AZD1222 vaccine. We hereby report three cases of pulmonary embolism (PE), one case of extended portal vein thrombosis, and one case of combined portal vein thrombosis and PE within 2 weeks after vaccination with the Astra Zeneca AZD1222 vaccine in a 60-year-old, a 50-year old, a 33-year-old, a 30-year old, and a 40-year-old male in that year. All patients were healthy before. In three patients, we observed thrombocytopenia and to some extent unusually low antibody levels for the Spike Protein (S-protein), while the other two had normal thrombocyte counts. Only one patient had anti-platelet factor 4 (PF4)-antibodies detectable as it has been described in the "heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT)-like" disease of "vaccine-induced prothrombotic immune thrombocytopenia" (VIPIT) and we therefore assume that heterogeneous mechanisms led to PE. Therefore, we advise to collect and report more cases, in order to determine the age-related risks of vaccination balanced against the benefits of immunity to SARS-COV-2 for the AZD1222 vaccine in order to gain knowledge for the next pandemic.

ICU- and ventilator-free days with isoflurane or propofol as a primary sedative - A post- hoc analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To compare ICU-free (ICU-FD) and ventilator-free days (VFD) in the 30 days after randomization in patients that received isoflurane or propofol without receiving the other sedative. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A recent randomized controlled trial (RCT) compared inhaled isoflurane via the Sedaconda® anaesthetic conserving device (ACD) with intravenous propofol for up to 54 h (Meiser et al. 2021). After end of study treatment, continued sedation was locally determined. Patients were eligible for this post-hoc analysis only if they had available 30-day follow-up data and never converted to the other drug in the 30 days from randomization. Data on ventilator use, ICU stay, concomitant sedative use, renal replacement therapy (RRT) and mortality were collected. RESULTS: Sixty-nine of 150 patients randomized to isoflurane and 109 of 151 patients randomized to propofol were eligible. After adjusting for potential confounders, the isoflurane group had more ICU-FD than the propofol group (17.3 vs 13.8 days, p = 0.028). VFD for the isoflurane and propofol groups were 19.8 and 18.5 respectively (p = 0.454). Other sedatives were used more frequently (p < 0.0001) and RRT started in a greater proportion of patients in the propofol group (p = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Isoflurane via the ACD was not associated with more VFD but with more ICU-FD and less concomitant sedative use.

Epidemiology and outcomes of hospital-acquired bloodstream infections in intensive care unit patients: the EUROBACT-2 international cohort study.

PURPOSE: In the critically ill, hospital-acquired bloodstream infections (HA-BSI) are associated with significant mortality. Granular data are required for optimizing management, and developing guidelines and clinical trials. METHODS: We carried out a prospective international cohort study of adult patients (≥ 18 years of age) with HA-BSI treated in intensive care units (ICUs) between June 2019 and February 2021. RESULTS: 2600 patients from 333 ICUs in 52 countries were included. 78% HA-BSI were ICU-acquired. Median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was 8 [IQR 5; 11] at HA-BSI diagnosis. Most frequent sources of infection included pneumonia (26.7%) and intravascular catheters (26.4%). Most frequent pathogens were Gram-negative bacteria (59.0%), predominantly Klebsiella spp. (27.9%), Acinetobacter spp. (20.3%), Escherichia coli (15.8%), and Pseudomonas spp. (14.3%). Carbapenem resistance was present in 37.8%, 84.6%, 7.4%, and 33.2%, respectively. Difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR) was present in 23.5% and pan-drug resistance in 1.5%. Antimicrobial therapy was deemed adequate within 24 h for 51.5%. Antimicrobial resistance was associated with longer delays to adequate antimicrobial therapy. Source control was needed in 52.5% but not achieved in 18.2%. Mortality was 37.1%, and only 16.1% had been discharged alive from hospital by day-28. CONCLUSIONS: HA-BSI was frequently caused by Gram-negative, carbapenem-resistant and DTR pathogens. Antimicrobial resistance led to delays in adequate antimicrobial therapy. Mortality was high, and at day-28 only a minority of the patients were discharged alive from the hospital. Prevention of antimicrobial resistance and focusing on adequate antimicrobial therapy and source control are important to optimize patient management and outcomes.

Isoflurane vs. propofol for sedation in invasively ventilated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: an a priori hypothesis substudy of a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) is a leading concern in critically ill patients. Experimental and clinical data suggest that early sedation with volatile anesthestics may improve arterial oxygenation and reduce the plasma and alveolar levels of markers of alveolar epithelial injury and of proinflammatory cytokines. METHODS: An a priori hypothesis substudy of a multicenter randomized controlled trial (The Sedaconda trial, EUDRA CT Number 2016-004551-67). In the Sedaconda trial, 301 patients on invasive mechanical ventilation were randomized to 48 h of sedation with isoflurane or propofol in a 1:1 ratio. For the present substudy, patients with a ratio of arterial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) to inspired fraction of oxygen (FiO2), PaO2/FiO2, of ≤ 300 mmHg at baseline were included (n = 162). The primary endpoint was the change in PaO2/FiO2 between baseline and the end of study sedation. A subgroup analysis in patients with PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 200 mmHg was performed (n = 82). RESULTS: Between baseline and the end of study sedation (48 h), oxygenation improved to a similar extent in the isoflurane vs. the propofol group (isoflurane: 199 ± 58 to 219 ± 76 mmHg (n = 70), propofol: 202 ± 62 to 236 ± 77 mmHg (n = 89); p = 0.185). On day seven after randomization, PaO2/FiO2 was 210 ± 79 mmHg in the isoflurane group (n = 41) and 185 ± 87 mmHg in the propofol group (n = 44; p = 0.411). In the subgroup of patients with PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 200 mmHg, PaO2/FiO2 increase between baseline and end of study sedation was 152 ± 33 to 186 ± 54 mmHg for isoflurane (n = 37), and 150 ± 38 to 214 ± 85 mmHg for propofol (n = 45; p = 0.029). On day seven, PaO2/FiO2 was 198 ± 69 mmHg in patients randomized to isoflurane (n = 20) and 174 ± 106 mmHg in patients randomized to propofol (n = 20; p = 0.933). Both for the whole study population and for the subgroup with PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 200 mmHg, no significant between-group differences were observed for PaCO2, pH and tidal volume as well as 30-day mortality and ventilator-free days alive. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with AHRF, inhaled sedation with isoflurane for a duration of up to 48 h did not lead to improved oxygenation in comparison to intravenous sedation with propofol. Trial registration The main study was registered in the European Medicines Agency's EU Clinical Trial register (EudraCT), 2016-004551-67, before including the first patient. The present substudy was registered at German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS, ID: DRKS00018959) on January 7th, 2020, before opening the main study data base and obtaining access to study results.

SARS-CoV-2 Altered Hemorheological and Hematological Parameters during One-Month Observation Period in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients.

Hematological and hemorheological parameters are known to be altered in COVID-19; however, the value of combined monitoring in order to deduce disease severity is only scarcely examined. A total of 44 acute SARS-CoV-2-infected patients (aCOV) and 44 age-matched healthy controls (Con) were included. Blood of aCOV was sampled at admission (T0), and at day 2 (T2), day 5 (T5), day 10 (T10), and day 30 (T30) while blood of Con was only sampled once. Inter- and intra-group differences were calculated for hematological and hemorheological parameters. Except for mean cellular volume and mean cellular hemoglobin, all blood cell parameters were significantly different between aCOV and Con. During the acute disease state (T0-T5), hematological and hemorheological parameters were highly altered in aCOV; in particular, anemic conditions and increased immune cell response/inflammation, oxidative/nitrosative stress, decreased deformability, as well as increased aggregation, were observed. During treatment and convalescence until T30, almost all abnormal values of aCOV improved towards Con values. During the acute state of the COVID-19 disease, the hematological, as well as the hemorheological system, show fast and potentially pathological changes that might contribute to the progression of the disease, but changes appear to be largely reversible after four weeks. Measuring RBC deformability and aggregation, as well as oxidative stress induction, may be helpful in monitoring critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Antimicrobial stewardship.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The optimal use of antimicrobials is necessary to slow resistance development and improve patient outcomes. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) is a bundle of interventions aimed at promoting the responsible use of antiinfectives. The ICU is an important field of activity for AMS because of high rates of antimicrobial use, high prevalence of resistant pathogens and complex pharmacology. This review discusses aims and interventions of AMS with special emphasis on the ICU. RECENT FINDINGS: AMS-interventions can improve the quality and quantity of antimicrobial prescribing in the ICU without compromising patient outcomes. The de-escalation of empiric therapy according to microbiology results and the limitation of treatment duration are important steps to reduce resistance pressure. Owing to the complex nature of critical illness, the pharmacological optimization of antimicrobial therapy is an important goal in the ICU. AMS-objectives and strategies are also applicable to patients with sepsis. This is reflected in the most recent guidelines by the Surviving Sepsis Campaign. AMS-interventions need to be adapted to their respective setting and be mindful of local prescribing cultures and prescribers' attitudes. SUMMARY: AMS in the ICU is effective and safe. Intensivists should be actively involved in AMS-programs and propagate responsible use of antimicrobials.

Delphi study to derive expert consensus on a set of criteria to evaluate discharge readiness for adult ICU patients to be discharged to a general ward-European perspective.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Discharge decisions in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients are frequently taken under pressure to free up ICU beds. In the absence of established guidelines, the evaluation of discharge readiness commonly underlies subjective judgements. The challenge is to come to the right decision at the right time for the right patient. A premature care transition puts patients at risk of readmission to the ICU. Delayed discharge is a waste of resources and may result in over-treatment and suboptimal patient flow. More objective decision support is required to assess the individual patient's discharge readiness but also the current care capabilities of the receiving unit. METHODS: In a modified online Delphi process, an international panel of 27 intensive care experts reached consensus on a set of 28 intensive care discharge criteria. An initial evidence-based proposal was developed further through the panelists' edits, adding, comments and voting over a course of 5 rounds. Consensus was defined as achieved when ≥ 90% of the experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale or in a multiple-choice survey. Round 1 to 3 focused on inclusion and exclusion of the criteria based on the consensus threshold, where round 3 was a reiteration to establish stability. Round 4 and 5 focused on the exact phrasing, values, decision makers and evaluation time frames per criterion. RESULTS: Consensus was reached on a standard set of 28 ICU discharge criteria for adult ICU patients, that reflect the patient's organ systems ((respiratory (7), cardiovascular (9), central nervous (1), and urogenital system (2)), pain (1), fluid loss and drainages (1), medication and nutrition (1), patient diagnosis, prognosis and preferences (2) and institution-specific criteria (4). All criteria have been specified in a binary decision metric (fit for ICU discharge vs. needs further intensive therapy/monitoring), with consented value calculation methods where applicable and a criterion importance rank with "mandatory to be met" flags and applicable exceptions. CONCLUSION: For a timely identification of stable intensive care patients and safe and efficient care transitions, a standardized discharge readiness evaluation should be based on patient factors as well as organizational boundary conditions and involve multiple stakeholders.

Effect of therapeutic drug monitoring-based dose optimization of piperacillin/tazobactam on sepsis-related organ dysfunction in patients with sepsis: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Insufficient antimicrobial exposure is associated with worse outcomes in sepsis. We evaluated whether therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM)-guided antibiotic therapy improves outcomes. METHODS: Randomized, multicenter, controlled trial from January 2017 to December 2019. Adult patients (n = 254) with sepsis or septic shock were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive continuous infusion of piperacillin/tazobactam with dosing guided by daily TDM of piperacillin or continuous infusion with a fixed dose (13.5 g/24 h if eGFR ≥ 20 mL/min). Target plasma concentration was four times the minimal inhibitory concentration (range ± 20%) of the underlying pathogen, respectively, of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in empiric situation. Primary outcome was the mean of daily total Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score up to day 10. RESULTS: Among 249 evaluable patients (66.3 ± 13.7 years; female, 30.9%), there was no significant difference in mean SOFA score between patients with TDM (7.9 points; 95% CI 7.1-8.7) and without TDM (8.2 points; 95% CI 7.5-9.0) (p = 0.39). Patients with TDM-guided therapy showed a lower 28-day mortality (21.6% vs. 25.8%, RR 0.8, 95% CI 0.5-1.3, p = 0.44) and a higher rate of clinical (OR 1.9; 95% CI 0.5-6.2, p = 0.30) and microbiological cure (OR 2.4; 95% CI 0.7-7.4, p = 0.12), but these differences did not reach statistical significance. Attainment of target concentration was more common in patients with TDM (37.3% vs. 14.6%, OR 4.5, CI 95%, 2.9-6.9, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: TDM-guided therapy showed no beneficial effect in patients with sepsis and continuous infusion of piperacillin/tazobactam with regard to the mean SOFA score. Larger studies with strategies to ensure optimization of antimicrobial exposure are needed to definitively answer the question.

Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vv-ECMO) for severe respiratory failure in adult cancer patients: a retrospective multicenter analysis.

PURPOSE: The question of whether cancer patients with severe respiratory failure benefit from veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vv-ECMO) remains unanswered. We, therefore, analyzed clinical characteristics and outcomes of a large cohort of cancer patients treated with vv-ECMO with the aim to identify prognostic factors. METHODS: 297 cancer patients from 19 German and Austrian hospitals who underwent vv-ECMO between 2009 and 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. A multivariable cox proportional hazards analysis for overall survival was performed. In addition, a propensity score-matched analysis and a latent class analysis were conducted. RESULTS: Patients had a median age of 56 (IQR 44-65) years and 214 (72%) were males. 159 (54%) had a solid tumor and 138 (47%) a hematologic malignancy. The 60-day overall survival rate was 26.8% (95% CI 22.1-32.4%). Low platelet count (HR 0.997, 95% CI 0.996-0.999; p = 0.0001 per 1000 platelets/µl), elevated lactate levels (HR 1.048, 95% CI 1.012-1.084; p = 0.0077), and disease status (progressive disease [HR 1.871, 95% CI 1.081-3.238; p = 0.0253], newly diagnosed [HR 1.571, 95% CI 1.044-2.364; p = 0.0304]) were independent adverse prognostic factors for overall survival. A propensity score-matched analysis with patients who did not receive ECMO treatment showed no significant survival advantage for treatment with ECMO. CONCLUSION: The overall survival of cancer patients who require vv-ECMO is poor. This study shows that the value of vv-ECMO in cancer patients with respiratory failure is still unclear and further research is needed. The risk factors identified in the present analysis may help to better select patients who may benefit from vv-ECMO.

Monocyte subtype expression patterns in septic patients with diabetes are distinct from patterns observed in obese patients.

Background: Sepsis causes a high rate of mortality and long-term morbidity, associated with an imbalance of innate immunity against infections and inflammation. Obesity and diabetes increase the risk for disease severity. Monocyte dysfunction plays a major role and justify further investigations. Objective: To investigate the distribution and inflammatory phenotypes in circulating monocyte subsets in patients manifesting with sepsis including septic shock with and without obesity and diabetes. Methods: A total of 235 blood samples were tested from critically ill adult patients registered at the intensive care unit (ICU). The cohorts were divided into non-diabetic groups with or without obesity and diabetic groups with or without obesity, suffering from sepsis or septic shock. We determined frequencies of total monocytes and of monocyte subsets in the circulation and density expression levels of functional markers, including CD14, CD16, HLA-DR, CD33, CD163, CD206, and arginase-1 by flow cytometric analysis. Results: When progressing to septic shock in non-diabetic and diabetic patients, the percentages of total monocytes among the leukocyte population and of CD33+ and CD14+ monocytes among the monocyte population were consistently down-regulated compared to non-sepsis in non-diabetic and diabetic patients, respectively. Non-diabetic sepsis patients further presented with decreased CD33 and up-regulated CD163 expression density, which was absent in diabetic patients. We subsequently addressed obesity-related changes of monocytes in non-diabetic and diabetic septic patients. Obese septic patients with diabetes were unique in displaying increased monocytic CD16 and CD163 expression. However, obese septic patients without diabetes solely presented with lower amounts of non-classical monocytes. Body mass index (BMI) dependent changes were restricted to diabetic septic patients, with a significantly higher diminution of the classical monocyte subset and concomitantly increased CD16 expression densities. Conclusion: Distribution and phenotypes of monocyte subsets were differentially modulated in critically ill patients with and without metabolic disease when progressing to sepsis or septic shock. Only diabetic septic patients displayed decline of classical monocytes and increase of CD16 expression densities. Therefore, diabetes but not obesity appears to promote the inflammatory phenotype of circulating monocytes in critically ill patients.

Antimicrobial stewardship, therapeutic drug monitoring and infection management in the ICU: results from the international A- TEAMICU survey.

BACKGROUND: Severe infections and multidrug-resistant pathogens are common in critically ill patients. Antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) and therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) are contemporary tools to optimize the use of antimicrobials. The A-TEAMICU survey was initiated to gain contemporary insights into dissemination and structure of AMS programs and TDM practices in intensive care units. METHODS: This study involved online survey of members of ESICM and six national professional intensive care societies. RESULTS: Data of 812 respondents from mostly European high- and middle-income countries were available for analysis. 63% had AMS rounds available in their ICU, where 78% performed rounds weekly or more often. While 82% had local guidelines for treatment of infections, only 70% had cumulative antimicrobial susceptibility reports and 56% monitored the quantity of antimicrobials administered. A restriction of antimicrobials was reported by 62%. TDM of antimicrobial agents was used in 61% of ICUs, mostly glycopeptides (89%), aminoglycosides (77%), carbapenems (32%), penicillins (30%), azole antifungals (27%), cephalosporins (17%), and linezolid (16%). 76% of respondents used prolonged/continuous infusion of antimicrobials. The availability of an AMS had a significant association with the use of TDM. CONCLUSIONS: Many respondents of the survey have AMS in their ICUs. TDM of antimicrobials and optimized administration of antibiotics are broadly used among respondents. The availability of antimicrobial susceptibility reports and a surveillance of antimicrobial use should be actively sought by intensivists where unavailable. Results of this survey may inform further research and educational activities.

One year with the COVID-19 pandemic - Lessons learnt? Intersectoral collaboration measures established during the crisis could benefit capacity and patient flow management in daily clinical practice.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed the way hospitals work. Strategies that were detached from the boundaries of departments and responsibilities in the COVID-19 pandemic have proven themselves under extreme conditions and show a beneficial influence on patient flow and resource management as well as on the communication culture. The continuation of closer interdisciplinary and cross-sectoral co-operation in a "new clinical routine" could have a positive impact on personnel concepts, communication strategies, and the management of acute care capacities and patient pathways. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: The aim of the paper is to critically discuss the knowledge gained in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic from the various approaches in patient flow and capacity management as well as interdisciplinary co-operation. More recent research has evaluated patient pathway management, personnel planning and communication measures with regard to their effect and practicability for continuation in everyday clinical practice. FINDINGS: Patient flows and acute care capacities can be more efficiently managed by continuing a culture change towards closer interdisciplinary and intersectoral co-operation and technologies that support this with telemedicine functionalities and regional healthcare data interoperability. Together with a bi-directional, more frequent and open communication and feedback culture, it could form a "new clinical routine". ORIGINALITY/VALUE: This paper discusses a holistic approach on the way away from silo thinking towards cross-departmental collaboration.

Inhaled isoflurane via the anaesthetic conserving device versus propofol for sedation of invasively ventilated patients in intensive care units in Germany and Slovenia: an open-label, phase 3, randomised controlled, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies indicate that isoflurane could be useful for the sedation of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), but prospective studies evaluating isoflurane's efficacy have been small. The aim of this study was to test whether the sedation with isoflurane was non-inferior to sedation with propofol. METHODS: This phase 3, randomised, controlled, open-label non-inferiority trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of up to 54 h of isoflurane compared with propofol in adults (aged ≥18 years) who were invasively ventilated in ICUs in Germany (21 sites) and Slovenia (three sites). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to isoflurane inhalation via the Sedaconda anaesthetic conserving device (ACD; Sedana Medical AB, Danderyd, Sweden; ACD-L [dead space 100 mL] or ACD-S [dead space 50 mL]) or intravenous propofol infusion (20 mg/mL) for 48 h (range 42-54) using permuted block randomisation with a centralised electronic randomisation system. The primary endpoint was percentage of time in Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) range -1 to -4, assessed in eligible participants with at least 12 h sedation (the per-protocol population), five or more RASS measurements, and no major protocol violations, with a non-inferiority margin of 15%. Key secondary endpoints were opioid requirements, spontaneous breathing, time to wake-up and extubation, and adverse events. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose. The trial is complete and registered with EudraCT, 2016-004551-67. FINDINGS: Between July 2, 2017, and Jan 12, 2020, 338 patients were enrolled and 301 (89%) were randomly assigned to isoflurane (n=150) or propofol (n=151). 146 patients (97%) in each group completed the 24-h follow-up. 146 (97%) patients in the isoflurane group and 148 (98%) of patients in the propofol group were included in the per-protocol analysis of the primary endpoint. Least-squares mean percentage of time in RASS target range was 90·7% (95% CI 86·8-94·6) for isoflurane and 91·1% (87·2-95·1) for propofol. With isoflurane sedation, opioid dose intensity was 29% lower than with propofol for the overall sedation period (0·22 [0·12-0·34] vs 0·32 [0·21-0·42] mg/kg per h morphine equivalent dose, p=0·0036) and spontaneous breathing was more frequent on day 1 (odds ratio [OR] 1·72 [1·12-2·64], generalised mixed linear model p=0·013, with estimated rates of 50% of observations with isoflurane vs 37% with propofol). Extubation times were short and median wake-up was significantly faster after isoflurane on day 2 (20 min [IQR 10-30] vs 30 min [11-120]; Cox regression p=0·0011). The most common adverse events by treatment group (isoflurane vs propofol) were: hypertension (ten [7%] of 150 vs two [1%] of 151), delirium (eight [5%] vs seven [5%]), oliguria (seven [5%] vs six [4%]), and atrial fibrillation (five [3%] vs four [3%]). INTERPRETATION: These results support the use of isoflurane in invasively ventilated patients who have a clinical need for sedation. FUNDING: Sedana Medical AB.

Conservative management of COVID-19 associated hypoxaemia.

This correspondence argues that data presented previously cannot justify a novel approach for treating hypoxic patients with severe #COVID19 https://bit.ly/3dLaPlk.

Extracorporeal life support in COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: A EuroELSO international survey.

Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is a means to support patients with acute respiratory failure. Initially, recommendations to treat severe cases of pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with ECLS have been restrained. In the meantime, ECLS has been shown to produce similar outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 compared to existing data on ARDS mortality. We performed an international email survey to assess how ECLS providers worldwide have previously used ECLS during the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19. A questionnaire with 45 questions (covering, e.g., indication, technical aspects, benefit, and reasons for treatment discontinuation), mostly multiple choice, was distributed by email to ECLS centers. The survey was approved by the European branch of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO); 276 ECMO professionals from 98 centers in 30 different countries on four continents reported that they employed ECMO for very severe COVID-19 cases, mostly in veno-venous configuration (87%). The most common reason to establish ECLS was isolated hypoxemic respiratory failure (50%), followed by a combination of hypoxemia and hypercapnia (39%). Only a small fraction of patients required veno-arterial cannulation due to heart failure (3%). Time on ECLS varied between less than 2 and more than 4 weeks. The main reason to discontinue ECLS treatment prior to patient's recovery was lack of clinical improvement (53%), followed by major bleeding, mostly intracranially (13%). Only 4% of respondents reported that triage situations, lack of staff or lack of oxygenators, were responsible for discontinuation of ECLS support. Most ECLS physicians (51%, IQR 30%) agreed that patients with COVID-19-induced ARDS (CARDS) benefitted from ECLS. Overall mortality of COVID-19 patients on ECLS was estimated to be about 55%. ECLS has been utilized successfully during the COVID-19 pandemic to stabilize CARDS patients in hypoxemic or hypercapnic lung failure. Age and multimorbidity limited the use of ECLS. Triage situations were rarely a concern. ECLS providers stated that patients with severe COVID-19 benefitted from ECLS.