Venous thromboembolism in critically ill adult patients with hematologic malignancy: a population-based cohort study.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to describe the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding among hospitalized patients with hematologic malignancy, assessing its association with critical illness and other baseline characteristics. METHODS: We conducted a population-based cohort study of hospitalized adults with a new diagnosis of hematologic malignancy in Ontario, Canada, between 2006 and 2017. The primary outcome was VTE (pulmonary embolism or deep venous thrombosis). Secondary outcomes were major bleeding and in-hospital mortality. We compared the incidence of VTE between intensive care unit (ICU) and non-ICU patients and described the association of other baseline characteristics and VTE. RESULTS: Among 76,803 eligible patients (mean age 67 years [standard deviation, SD, 15]), 20,524 had at least one ICU admission. The incidence of VTE was 3.7% in ICU patients compared to 1.2% in non-ICU patients (odds ratio [OR] 3.08; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.77-3.42). The incidence of major bleeding was 7.6% and 2.4% (OR 3.33; 95% CI 3.09-3.58), respectively. The association of critical illness and VTE remained significant after adjusting for potential confounders (OR 2.92; 95% CI 2.62-3.25). We observed a higher incidence of VTE among specific subtypes of hematologic malignancy and patients with prior VTE (OR 6.64; 95% CI 5.42-8.14). Admission more than 1 year after diagnosis of hematologic malignancy (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.56-0.74) and platelet count ≤ 50 × 109/L at the time of hospitalization (OR 0.63; 95% CI 0.48-0.84) were associated with a lower incidence of VTE. CONCLUSION: Among patients with hematologic malignancy, critical illness and certain baseline characteristics were associated with a higher incidence of VTE.

Impacts of antipsychotic medication prescribing practices in critically ill adult patients on health resource utilization and new psychoactive medication prescriptions.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic medications are commonly prescribed to critically ill adult patients and initiation of new antipsychotic prescriptions in the intensive care unit (ICU) increases the proportion of patients discharged home on antipsychotics. Critically ill adult patients are also frequently exposed to multiple psychoactive medications during ICU admission and hospitalization including benzodiazepines and opioid medications which may increase the risk of psychoactive polypharmacy following hospital discharge. The associated impact on health resource utilization and risk of new benzodiazepine and opioid prescriptions is unknown. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the burden of health resource utilization and odds of new prescriptions of benzodiazepines and opioids up to 1-year post-hospital discharge in critically ill patients with new antipsychotic prescriptions at hospital discharge? STUDY DESIGN & METHODS: We completed a multi-center, propensity-score matched retrospective cohort study of critically ill adult patients. The primary exposure was administration of ≥1 dose of an antipsychotic while the patient was admitted in the ICU and ward with continuation at hospital discharge and a filled outpatient prescription within 1-year following hospital discharge. The control group was defined as no doses of antipsychotics administered in the ICU and hospital ward and no filled outpatient prescriptions for antipsychotics within 1-year following hospital discharge. The primary outcome was health resource utilization (72-hour ICU readmission, 30-day hospital readmission, 30-day emergency room visitation, 30-day mortality). Secondary outcomes were administration of benzodiazepines and/or opioids in-hospital and following hospital discharge in patients receiving antipsychotics. RESULTS: 1,388 propensity-score matched patients were included who did and did not receive antipsychotics in ICU and survived to hospital discharge. New antipsychotic prescriptions were not associated with increased health resource utilization or 30-day mortality following hospital discharge. There was increased odds of new prescriptions of benzodiazepines (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.61 [95%CI 1.19-2.19]) and opioids (aOR 1.82 [95%CI 1.38-2.40]) up to 1-year following hospital discharge in patients continuing antipsychotics at hospital discharge. INTERPRETATION: New antipsychotic prescriptions at hospital discharge are significantly associated with additional prescriptions of benzodiazepines and opioids in-hospital and up to 1-year following hospital discharge.

Facilitators and Barriers Influencing Antipsychotic Medication Prescribing and Deprescribing Practices in Critically Ill Adult Patients: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic medications do not alter the incidence or duration of delirium, but these medications are frequently prescribed and continued at transitions of care in critically ill patients when they may no longer be necessary or appropriate. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify and describe relevant domains and constructs that influence antipsychotic medication prescribing and deprescribing practices among physicians, nurses, and pharmacists that care for critically ill adult patients during and following critical illness. DESIGN: We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews with critical care and ward healthcare professionals including physicians, nurses, and pharmacists to understand antipsychotic prescribing and deprescribing practices for critically ill adult patients during and following critical illness. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one interviews were conducted with 11 physicians, five nurses, and five pharmacists from predominantly academic centres in Alberta, Canada, between July 6 and October 29, 2021. MAIN MEASURES: We used deductive thematic analysis using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify and describe constructs within relevant domains. KEY RESULTS: Seven TDF domains were identified as relevant from the analysis: Social/Professional role and identity; Beliefs about capabilities; Reinforcement; Motivations and goals; Memory, attention, and decision processes; Environmental context and resources; and Beliefs about consequences. Participants reported antipsychotic prescribing for multiple indications beyond delirium and agitation including patient and staff safety, sleep management, and environmental factors such as staff availability and workload. Participants identified potential antipsychotic deprescribing strategies to reduce ongoing antipsychotic medication prescriptions for critically ill patients including direct communication tools between prescribers at transitions of care. CONCLUSIONS: Critical care and ward healthcare professionals report several factors influencing established antipsychotic medication prescribing practices. These factors aim to maintain patient and staff safety to facilitate the provision of care to patients with delirium and agitation limiting adherence to current guideline recommendations.

Measures for the Core Outcome Set for Research Evaluating Interventions to Prevent and/or Treat Delirium in Critically Ill Adults: An International Consensus Study (Del-COrS).

To gain consensus on measurement methods for outcomes (delirium occurrence, severity, time to resolution, mortality, health-related quality of life [HrQoL], emotional distress including anxiety, depression, acute stress, and post-traumatic stress disorder, and cognition) of our Core Outcome Set (COS) for trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in critically ill adults. DESIGN: International consensus process. SETTING: Three virtual meetings (April 2021). PATIENTS/SUBJECTS: Critical illness survivors/family, clinicians, and researchers from six Countries. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Measures (selected based on instrument validity, existing recommendations, and feasibility) and measurement time horizons were discussed. Participants voted on instruments and measurement timing (a priori consensus threshold ≥ 70%). Eighteen stakeholders (28% ICU survivors/family members) participated. We achieved consensus on the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist to measure delirium occurrence and delirium resolution (100%), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale for emotional distress (71%), and Montreal Cognitive Assessment-Blind for cognition (83%). We did not achieve consensus on EQ-5D five-level for HrQoL (69%) or its measurement at 6 months. We also did not achieve consensus on the Impact of Event Scale (IES)-Revised or IES-6 for post-traumatic stress (65%) or on measurement instruments for delirium severity incorporating delirium-related emotional distress. We were unable to gain consensus on when to commence and when to discontinue assessing for delirium occurrence and time to resolution, when to determine mortality. We gained consensus that emotional distress and cognition should be measured up to 12 months from hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus was reached on measurement instruments for four of seven outcomes in the COS for delirium prevention or treatment trials for critically ill adults. Further work is required to validate instruments for delirium severity that include delirium-related emotional distress.

Critical Care Staffing in Pandemics and Disasters: A Consensus Report From a Subcommittee of the Task Force for Mass Critical Care - Systems Strategies to Sustain the Health Care Workforce.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to unprecedented mental health disturbances, burnout, and moral distress among health care workers, affecting their ability to care for themselves and their patients. RESEARCH QUESTION: In health care workers, what are key systemic factors and interventions impacting mental health and burnout? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The Workforce Sustainment subcommittee of the Task Force for Mass Critical Care (TFMCC) utilized a consensus development process, incorporating evidence from literature review with expert opinion through a modified Delphi approach to determine factors affecting mental health, burnout, and moral distress in health care workers, to propose necessary actions to help prevent these issues and enhance workforce resilience, sustainment, and retention. RESULTS: Consolidation of evidence gathered from literature review and expert opinion resulted in 197 total statements that were synthesized into 14 major suggestions. These suggestions were organized into three categories: (1) mental health and well-being for staff in medical settings; (2) system-level support and leadership; and (3) research priorities and gaps. Suggestions include both general and specific occupational interventions to support health care worker basic physical needs, lower psychological distress, reduce moral distress and burnout, and foster mental health and resilience. INTERPRETATION: The Workforce Sustainment subcommittee of the TFMCC offers evidence-informed operational strategies to assist health care workers and hospitals plan, prevent, and treat the factors affecting health care worker mental health, burnout, and moral distress to improve resilience and retention following the COVID-19 pandemic.

New and Persistent Sedative Prescriptions Among Older Adults Following a Critical Illness: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: ICU survivors often have complex care needs and can experience insufficient medication reconciliation and polypharmacy. It is unknown which ICU survivors are at risk of new sedative use posthospitalization. RESEARCH QUESTION: For sedative-naive, older adult ICU survivors, how common is receipt of new and persistent sedative prescriptions, and what factors are associated with receipt? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This population-based cohort study included ICU survivors aged ≥ 66 years who had not filled sedative prescriptions within ≤ 6 months before hospitalization (sedative-naive) in Ontario, Canada (2003-2019). Using multilevel logistic regression, demographic, clinical, and hospital characteristics and their association with new sedative prescription within ≤ 7 days of discharge are described. Variation between hospitals was quantified by using the adjusted median OR. Factors associated with persistent prescriptions (≤ 6 months) were examined with a multivariable proportional hazards model. RESULTS: A total of 250,428 patients were included (mean age, 76 years; 61% male). A total of 15,277 (6.1%) filled a new sedative prescription, with variation noted across hospitals (2% [95% CI, 1-3] to 44% [95% CI, 3-57]); 8,458 (3.4%) filled persistent sedative prescriptions. Adjusted factors associated with a new sedative included: discharge to long-term care facility (adjusted OR [aOR], 4.00; 95% CI, 3.72-4.31), receipt of inpatient geriatric (aOR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.80-2.10) or psychiatry (aOR, 2.76; 95% CI, 2.62-2.91) consultation, invasive ventilation (aOR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.53-1.66), and ICU length of stay ≥ 7 days (aOR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.42-1.58). The residual heterogeneity between hospitals (adjusted median OR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.35-1.49) had a stronger association with new sedative prescriptions than the Charlson Comorbidity Index score or sepsis. Factors associated with persistent sedative use were similar with the addition of female subjects (subdistribution hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.13) and pre-existing polypharmacy (subdistribution hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.80-0.93). INTERPRETATION: One in 15 sedative-naive, older adult ICU survivors filled a new sedative within ≤ 7 days of discharge; more than one-half of these survivors filled persistent prescriptions. New prescriptions at discharge varied widely across hospitals and represent the potential value of modifying prescription practices, including medication review and reconciliation.

A National Modified Delphi Consensus Process to Prioritize Experiences and Interventions for Antipsychotic Medication Deprescribing Among Adult Patients With Critical Illness.

Antipsychotic medications are frequently prescribed to critically ill patients leading to their continuation at transitions of care thereafter. The aim of this study was to generate evidence-informed consensus statements with key stakeholders on antipsychotic minimization and deprescribing for ICU patients. DESIGN: We completed three rounds of surveys in a National modified Delphi consensus process. During rounds 1 and 2, participants used a 9-point Likert scale (1-strongly disagree, 9-strongly agree) to rate perceptions related to antipsychotic prescribing (i.e., experiences regarding delivery of patient care), knowledge and frequency of antipsychotic use, knowledge surrounding antipsychotic guideline recommendations, and strategies (i.e., interventions addressing current antipsychotic prescribing practices) for antipsychotic minimization and deprescribing. Consensus was defined as a median score of 1-3 or 7-9. During round 3, participants ranked statements on antipsychotic minimization and deprescribing strategies that achieved consensus (median score 7-9) using a weighted ranking scale (0-100 points) to determine priority. SETTING: Online surveys distributed across Canada. SUBJECTS: Fifty-seven stakeholders (physicians, nurses, pharmacists) who work with ICU patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Participants prioritized six consensus statements on strategies for consideration when developing and implementing interventions to guide antipsychotic minimization and deprescribing. Statements focused on limiting antipsychotic prescribing to patients: 1) with hyperactive delirium, 2) at risk to themselves, their family, and/or staff due to agitation, and 3) whose care and treatment are being impacted due to agitation or delirium, and prioritizing 4) communication among staff about antipsychotic effectiveness, 5) direct and efficient communication tools on antipsychotic deprescribing at transitions of care, and 6) medication reconciliation at transitions of care. CONCLUSIONS: We engaged diverse stakeholders to generate evidence-informed consensus statements regarding antipsychotic prescribing perceptions and practices that can be used to implement interventions to promote antipsychotic minimization and deprescribing strategies for ICU patients with and following critical illness.

A scoping review of perceptions from healthcare professionals on antipsychotic prescribing practices in acute care settings.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic medications are frequently prescribed in acute care for clinical indications other than primary psychiatric disorders such as delirium. Unfortunately, they are commonly continued at hospital discharge and at follow-ups thereafter. The objective of this scoping review was to characterize antipsychotic medication prescribing practices, to describe healthcare professional perceptions on antipsychotic prescribing and deprescribing practices, and to report on antipsychotic deprescribing strategies within acute care. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases from inception date to July 3, 2021 for published primary research studies reporting on antipsychotic medication prescribing and deprescribing practices, and perceptions on those practices within acute care. We included all study designs excluding protocols, editorials, opinion pieces, and systematic or scoping reviews. Two reviewers screened and abstracted data independently and in duplicate. The protocol was registered on Open Science Framework prior to data abstraction (10.17605/OSF.IO/W635Z). RESULTS: Of 4528 studies screened, we included 80 studies. Healthcare professionals across all acute care settings (intensive care, inpatient, emergency department) perceived prescribing haloperidol (n = 36/36, 100%) most frequently, while measured prescribing practices reported common quetiapine prescribing (n = 26/36, 76%). Indications for antipsychotic prescribing were delirium (n = 48/69, 70%) and agitation (n = 20/69, 29%). Quetiapine (n = 18/18, 100%) was most frequently prescribed at hospital discharge. Three studies reported in-hospital antipsychotic deprescribing strategies focused on pharmacist-driven deprescribing authority, handoff tools, and educational sessions. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived antipsychotic prescribing practices differed from measured prescribing practices in acute care settings. Few in-hospital deprescribing strategies were described. Ongoing evaluation of antipsychotic deprescribing strategies are needed to evaluate their efficacy and risk.

Impact of Ketamine on Analgosedative Consumption in Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to synthesize evidence available on continuous infusion ketamine versus nonketamine regimens for analgosedation in critically ill patients. DATA SOURCES: A search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CDSR, and ClinicalTrials.gov was performed from database establishment to November 2021 using the following search terms: critical care, ICU, ketamine, sedation, and anesthesia. All studies included the primary outcome of interest: daily opioid and/or sedative consumption. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Relevant human studies were considered. Randomized controlled trials (RCT), quasi-experimental studies, and observational cohort studies were eligible. Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data, and appraised studies using the Cochrane RoB and ROBINS-I tools. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 13 RCTs, 5 retrospective, and 1 prospective cohort study were included (2255 participants). The primary analysis of six RCTs demonstrated reduced opioid consumption with ketamine regimens (n = 494 participants, -13.19 µg kg-1 h-1 morphine equivalents, 95% CI -22.10 to -4.28, P = 0.004). No significant difference was observed in sedative consumption, duration of mechanical ventilation (MV), ICU or hospital length of stay (LOS), intracranial pressure, and mortality. Small sample size of studies may have limited ability to detect true differences between groups. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: This meta-analysis examining ketamine use in critically ill patients is the first restricting analysis to RCTs and includes up-to-date publication of trials. Findings may guide clinicians in consideration and dosing of ketamine for multimodal analgosedation. CONCLUSION: Results suggest ketamine as an adjunct analgosedative has the potential to reduce opioid exposure in postoperative and MV patients in the ICU. More RCTs are required before recommending routine use of ketamine in select populations.

Mass Critical Care Surge Response During COVID-19: Implementation of Contingency Strategies - A Preliminary Report of Findings From the Task Force for Mass Critical Care.

BACKGROUND: After the publication of a 2014 consensus statement regarding mass critical care during public health emergencies, much has been learned about surge responses and the care of overwhelming numbers of patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Gaps in prior pandemic planning were identified and require modification in the midst of severe ongoing surges throughout the world. RESEARCH QUESTION: A subcommittee from The Task Force for Mass Critical Care (TFMCC) investigated the most recent COVID-19 publications coupled with TFMCC members anecdotal experience in order to formulate operational strategies to optimize contingency level care, and prevent crisis care circumstances associated with increased mortality. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: TFMCC adopted a modified version of established rapid guideline methodologies from the World Health Organization and the Guidelines International Network-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist. With a consensus development process incorporating expert opinion to define important questions and extract evidence, the TFMCC developed relevant pandemic surge suggestions in a structured manner, incorporating peer-reviewed literature, "gray" evidence from lay media sources, and anecdotal experiential evidence. RESULTS: Ten suggestions were identified regarding staffing, load-balancing, communication, and technology. Staffing models are suggested with resilience strategies to support critical care staff. ICU surge strategies and strain indicators are suggested to enhance ICU prioritization tactics to maintain contingency level care and to avoid crisis triage, with early transfer strategies to further load-balance care. We suggest that intensivists and hospitalists be engaged with the incident command structure to ensure two-way communication, situational awareness, and the use of technology to support critical care delivery and families of patients in ICUs. INTERPRETATION: A subcommittee from the TFMCC offers interim evidence-informed operational strategies to assist hospitals and communities to plan for and respond to surge capacity demands resulting from COVID-19.

Melatonin for Insomnia in Medical Inpatients: A Narrative Review.

In this narrative review, we describe what is known about non-pharmacological and pharmacological treatments for insomnia in medical inpatients, with a focus on melatonin. Hospital-acquired insomnia is common, resulting in shortened total sleep time and more nighttime awakenings. Sleep disturbance has been shown to increase systemic inflammation, pain, and the likelihood of developing delirium in hospital. Treatment for insomnia includes both non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions, the latter of which requires careful consideration of risks and benefits given the known adverse effects. Though benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepine benzodiazepine receptor agonists are commonly prescribed (i.e., sedative-hypnotics), they are relatively contraindicated for patients over the age of 65 due to the risk of increased falls, cognitive decline, and potential for withdrawal symptoms after long-term use. Exogenous melatonin has a comparatively low likelihood of adverse effects and drug-drug interactions and is at least as effective as other sedative-hypnotics. Though more research is needed on both its effectiveness and relative safety for inpatients, small doses of melatonin before bedtime may be an appropriate choice for inpatients when insomnia persists despite non-pharmacological interventions.

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions to prevent delirium in critically ill patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the effects of prevention interventions on delirium occurrence in critically ill adults. METHODS: MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Prospero, and WHO international clinical trial registry were searched from inception to April 8, 2021. Randomized controlled trials of pharmacological, sedation, non-pharmacological, and multi-component interventions enrolling adult critically ill patients were included. We performed conventional pairwise meta-analyses, NMA within Bayesian random effects modeling, and determined surface under the cumulative ranking curve values and mean rank. Reviewer pairs independently extracted data, assessed bias using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and evidence certainty with GRADE. The primary outcome was delirium occurrence; secondary outcomes were durations of delirium and mechanical ventilation, length of stay, mortality, and adverse effects. RESULTS: Eighty trials met eligibility criteria: 67.5% pharmacological, 31.3% non-pharmacological and 1.2% mixed pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions. For delirium occurrence, 11 pharmacological interventions (38 trials, N = 11,993) connected to the evidence network. Compared to placebo, only dexmedetomidine (21/22 alpha2 agonist trials were dexmedetomidine) probably reduces delirium occurrence (odds ratio (OR) 0.43, 95% Credible Interval (CrI) 0.21-0.85; moderate certainty). Compared to benzodiazepines, dexmedetomidine (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.08-0.51; low certainty), sedation interruption (OR 0.21, 95% CrI 0.06-0.69; very low certainty), opioid plus benzodiazepine (OR 0.27, 95% CrI 0.10-0.76; very low certainty), and protocolized sedation (OR 0.27, 95% CrI 0.09-0.80; very low certainty) may reduce delirium occurrence but the evidence is very uncertain. Dexmedetomidine probably reduces ICU length of stay compared to placebo (Ratio of Means (RoM) 0.78, CrI 0.64-0.95; moderate certainty) and compared to antipsychotics (RoM 0.76, CrI 0.61-0.98; low certainty). Sedative interruption, protocolized sedation and opioids may reduce hospital length of stay compared to placebo, but the evidence is very uncertain. No intervention influenced mechanical ventilation duration, mortality, or arrhythmia. Single and multi-component non-pharmacological interventions did not connect to any evidence networks to allow for ranking and comparisons as planned; pairwise comparisons did not detect differences compared to standard care. CONCLUSION: Compared to placebo and benzodiazepines, we found dexmedetomidine likely reduced the occurrence of delirium in critically ill adults. Compared to benzodiazepines, sedation-minimization strategies may also reduce delirium occurrence, but the evidence is uncertain.

It Takes a Village : Contending With Drug Shortages During Disasters.

Critical drug shortages have been widely documented during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, particularly for IV sedatives used to facilitate mechanical ventilation. Surges in volume of patients requiring mechanical ventilation coupled with prolonged ventilator days and the high sedative dosing requirements observed quickly led to the depletion of "just-in-time" inventories typically maintained by institutions. This manuscript describes drug shortages in the context of global, manufacturing, regional and institutional perspectives in times of a worldwide crisis such as a pandemic. We describe etiologic factors that lead to drug shortages including issues related to supply (eg, manufacturing difficulties, supply chain breakdowns) and variables that influence demand (eg, volatile prescribing practices, anecdotal or low-level data, hoarding). In addition, we describe methods to mitigate drug shortages as well as conservation strategies for sedatives, analgesics and neuromuscular blockers that could readily be applied at the bedside. The COVID-19 pandemic has accentuated the need for a coordinated, multi-pronged approach to optimize medication availability as individual or unilateral efforts are unlikely to be successful.

Strategies for the Prevention and Treatment of Iatrogenic Withdrawal from Opioids and Benzodiazepines in Critically Ill Neonates, Children and Adults: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill patients are at high risk of iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome (IWS), due to exposure to high doses or prolonged periods of opioids and benzodiazepines. PURPOSE: To examine pharmacological management strategies designed to prevent and/or treat IWS from opioids and/or benzodiazepines in critically ill neonates, children and adults. METHODS: We included non-randomised studies of interventions (NRSI) and randomised controlled trials (RCTs), reporting on interventions to prevent or manage IWS in critically ill neonatal, paediatric and adult patients. Database searching included: PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane databases, TRIP, CMA Infobase and NICE evidence. Additional grey literature was examined. Study selection and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Data collected included: population, definition of opioid, benzodiazepine or mixed IWS, its assessment and management (drug or strategy, route of administration, dosage and titration), previous drug exposures and outcomes measures. Methodological quality assessment was performed by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for RCTs and the ROBINS-I tool for NRSI. A qualitative synthesis of the results is provided. For the subset of studies evaluating multifaceted protocolised care, we meta-analysed results for 4 outcomes and examined the quality of evidence using GRADE post hoc. RESULTS: Thirteen studies were eligible, including 10 NRSI and 3 RCTs; 11 of these included neonatal and paediatric patients exclusively. Eight studies evaluated multifaceted protocolised interventions, while 5 evaluated individual components of IWS management (e.g. clonidine or methadone at varying dosages, routes of administration and duration of tapering). IWS was measured using an appropriate tool in 6 studies. Ten studies reported upon occurrence of IWS, showing significant reductions (n = 4) or no differences (n = 6). Interventions failed to impact duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, and adverse effects. Impact on opioid and/or benzodiazepine total doses and duration showed no differences in 4 studies, while 3 showed opioid and benzodiazepine cumulative doses were significantly reduced by 20-35% and 32-66%, and treatment durations by 1.5-11 and 19 days, respectively. Variable effects on intervention drug exposures were found. Weaning durations were reduced by 6-12 days (n = 4) for opioids and/or methadone and by 13 days (n = 1) for benzodiazepines. In contrast, two studies using interventions centred on transition to enteral routes or longer tapering durations found significant increases in intervention drug exposures. Interventions had overall non-significant effects on additional drug requirements (except for one study). Included studies were at high risk of bias, relating to selection, detection and reporting bias. CONCLUSION: Interventions for IWS management fail to impact duration of mechanical ventilation or ICU length of stay, while effect on occurrence of IWS and drug exposures is inconsistent. Heterogeneity in the interventions used and methodological issues, including inappropriate and/or subjective identification of IWS and bias due to study design, limited the conclusions.

Influence of sedation on delirium recognition in critically ill patients: A multinational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines advocate intensive care unit (ICU) patients be regularly assessed for delirium using either the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC). Single-centre studies, primarily with the CAM-ICU, suggest level of sedation may influence delirium screening results. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to determine the association between level of sedation and delirium occurrence in critically ill patients assessed with either the CAM-ICU or the ICDSC. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a multinational, prospective cohort study performed in nine ICUs from seven countries. Consecutive ICU patients with a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) of -3 to 0 at the time of delirium assessment where a RASS ≤ 0 was secondary to a sedating medication. Patients were assessed with either the CAM-ICU or the ICDSC. Logistic regression analysis was used to account for factors with the potential to influence level of sedation or delirium occurrence. RESULTS: Among 1660 patients, 1203 patients underwent 5741 CAM-ICU assessments [9.6% were delirium positive; at RASS = 0 (3.3% were delirium positive), RASS = -1 (19.3%), RASS = -2 (35.1%); RASS = -3 (39.0%)]. The other 457 patients underwent 3210 ICDSC assessments [11.6% delirium positive; at RASS = 0 (4.9% were delirium positive), RASS = -1 (15.8%), RASS = -2 (26.6%); RASS = -3 (20.6%)]. A RASS of -3 was associated with more positive delirium evaluations (odds ratio: 2.31; 95% confidence interval: 1.34-3.98) in the CAM-ICU-assessed patients (vs. the ICDSC-assessed patients). At a RASS of 0, assessment with the CAM-ICU (vs. the ICDSC) was associated with fewer positive delirium evaluations (odds ratio: 0.58; 95% confidence interval: 0.43-0.78). At a RASS of -1 or -2, no association was found between the delirium assessment method used (i.e., CAM-ICU or ICDSC) and a positive delirium evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: The influence of level of sedation on a delirium assessment result depends on whether the CAM-ICU or ICDSC is used. Bedside ICU nurses should consider these results when evaluating their sedated patients for delirium. Future research is necessary to compare the CAM-ICU and the ICDSC simultaneously in sedated and nonsedated ICU patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT02518646.

Proton Pump Inhibitors in the Elderly Hospitalized Patient: Evaluating Appropriate Use and Deprescribing.

Background: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are often prescribed for elderly patients without appropriate indication, or for longer durations than recommended. Objective: To review appropriateness of PPI use prior to and in hospital, and deprescribing rates across different hospital units. Methods: Retrospective analysis of patients ≥65 years admitted to 5 acute care units: intensive care unit, acute care for elderly, orthopedics, surgery, and medicine. Patients who were "non-naive" (prehospital PPI use) or "naive" (new PPI initiated in hospital) users were included. For both groups, demographics, reason for admission, length of stay, comorbidities, name and number of home medications, PPI name, dose and indication, and PPI discharge instructions were collected. For naive patients, duration of in-hospital use and prescriber specialty was recorded. Results: Among non-naive patients (n = 377), for 37 patients (10%), the indication for a PPI was not appropriate, and for 92 patients (24%), the indication was unclear. Most patients had their home PPI continued while in hospital (87%) and at discharge (90%). Among naive (n = 93) patients, for 8 patients (9%), the indication for a PPI was not appropriate, and for 25 (27%) patients, the indication was unclear. PPI was prescribed to only 16 (18%) by the gastrointestinal consult service. Most patients had their new PPI continued at discharge (74%); only 7 (9%) were discharged with a plan to reassess PPI indication. Conclusion: PPIs are infrequently deprescribed during hospital admission, despite inappropriate or unclear indications for use. Thorough medication reconciliation, documentation of PPI indication and duration, and institutional focus on deprescribing are encouraged.

External Validation of Two Models to Predict Delirium in Critically Ill Adults Using Either the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist for Delirium Assessment.

OBJECTIVES: To externally validate two delirium prediction models (early prediction model for ICU delirium and recalibrated prediction model for ICU delirium) using either the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist for delirium assessment. DESIGN: Prospective, multinational cohort study. SETTING: Eleven ICUs from seven countries in three continents. PATIENTS: Consecutive, delirium-free adults admitted to the ICU for greater than or equal to 6 hours in whom delirium could be reliably assessed. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The predictors included in each model were collected at the time of ICU admission (early prediction model for ICU delirium) or within 24 hours of ICU admission (recalibrated prediction model for ICU delirium). Delirium was assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. Discrimination was determined using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. The predictive performance was determined for the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU and Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist cohort, and compared with both prediction models' original reported performance. A total of 1,286 Confusion Assessment Method-ICU-assessed patients and 892 Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist-assessed patients were included. Compared with the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.71-0.79) in the original study, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the early prediction model for ICU delirium was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.64-0.71) for delirium as assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU and 0.70 (95% CI, 0.66-0.74) using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. Compared with the original area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.74-0.79), the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the recalibrated prediction model for ICU delirium was 0.75 (95% CI, 0.72-0.78) for assessing delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU and 0.71 (95% CI, 0.67-0.75) using the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. CONCLUSIONS: Both the early prediction model for ICU delirium and recalibrated prediction model for ICU delirium are externally validated using either the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist for delirium assessment. Per delirium prediction model, both assessment tools showed a similar moderate-to-good statistical performance. These results support the use of either the early prediction model for ICU delirium or recalibrated prediction model for ICU delirium in ICUs around the world regardless of whether delirium is evaluated with the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist.

Pharmacological interventions for agitated behaviours in patients with traumatic brain injury: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy and safety of pharmacological agents in the management of agitated behaviours following traumatic brain injury (TBI). METHODS: We performed a search strategy in PubMed, OvidMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Directory of Open Access Journals, LILACS, Web of Science and Prospero (up to 10 December 2018) for published and unpublished evidence on the risks and benefits of 9 prespecified medications classes used to control agitated behaviours following TBI. We included all randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental and observational studies examining the effects of medications administered to control agitated behaviours in TBI patients. Included studies were classified into three mutually exclusive categories: (1) agitated behaviour was the presenting symptom; (2) agitated behaviour was not the presenting symptom, but was measured as an outcome variable; and (3) safety of pharmacological interventions administered to control agitated behaviours was measured. RESULTS: Among the 181 articles assessed for eligibility, 21 studies were included. Of the studies suggesting possible benefits, propranolol reduced maximum intensities of agitation per week and physical restraint use, methylphenidate improved anger measures following 6 weeks of treatment, valproic acid reduced weekly agitated behaviour scale ratings and olanzapine reduced irritability, aggressiveness and insomnia between weeks 1 and 3 of treatment. Amantadine showed variable effects and may increase the risk of agitation in the critically ill. In three studies evaluating safety outcomes, antipsychotics were associated with an increased duration of post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) in unadjusted analyses. Small sample sizes, heterogeneity and an unclear risk of bias were limits. CONCLUSIONS: Propranolol, methylphenidate, valproic acid and olanzapine may offer some benefit; however, they need to be further studied. Antipsychotics may increase the length of PTA. More studies on tailored interventions and continuous evaluation of safety and efficacy throughout acute, rehabilitation and outpatient settings are needed. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016033140.

Major publications in critical care pharmacotherapy literature in 2018.

PURPOSE: To summarize selected original critical care pharmacotherapy research published in 2018. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Critical Care Pharmacotherapy Literature Update (CCPLU) Group screened 32 journals monthly for impactful articles and reviewed 100 articles during 2018. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) criteria were applied to all relevant articles included in the monthly CCPLU. Articles with a 1A grade, including one clinical practice guideline, two meta-analyses, and ten original research trials, were selected for review. RESULTS: Clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption were summarized. Meta-analyses on the role of corticosteroids in sepsis and early enteral nutrition were reviewed. Included original research trials evaluated corticosteroids in sepsis, enteral and parenteral nutrition in patients with shock, tenecteplase in acute ischemic stroke, antipsychotics for the treatment of intensive care unit delirium, vasopressors in cardiogenic shock, balanced crystalloids and saline for fluid administration, and meropenem and piperacillin-tazobactam for treatment of resistant Gram-negative organisms. CONCLUSION: This clinical review and expert commentary of impactful critical care pharmacotherapy publications in 2018 provides perspectives and insights for the critical care practitioner.