RESUMEN
Background: Incorporating unfamiliar therapies into practice requires effective longitudinal learning and the optimal way to achieve this is debated. Though not a novel therapy, ketamine in critical care has a paucity of data and variable acceptance, with limited research describing intensivist perceptions and utilization. The Coronavirus-19 pandemic presented a particular crisis where providers rapidly adapted analgosedation strategies to achieve prolonged, deep sedation due to a surge of severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Question: How does clinical experience with ketamine impact the perception and attitude of clinicians toward this therapy? Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study using quantitative ketamine prescription data and qualitative focus group data. We analyzed prescription patterns of ketamine in a tertiary academic ICU during two different time points: pre-COVID-19 (March 1-June 30, 2019) and during the COVID-19 surge (March 1-June 30, 2020). Two focus groups (FG) of critical care attendings were held, and data were analyzed using the Framework Method for content analysis. Results: Four-hundred forty-six medical ICU patients were mechanically ventilated (195 pre-COVID-19 and 251 during COVID-19). The COVID-19 population was more likely to receive ketamine (81[32.3%] vs 4 [2.1%], p < 0.001). Thirteen respondents participated across two FG sessions (Pre-COVID = 8, Post-COVID=5). The most prevalent attitude among our respondents was discomfort, with three key themes identified as follows: 1) lack of evidence regarding ketamine, 2) lack of personal experience, and 3) desire for more education and protocols. Conclusion: Despite a substantial increase in ketamine prescription during COVID-19, intensivists continued to feel discomfort with utilization. Factors contributing to this discomfort include a lack of evidence, a lack of experience, and a desire for more education and protocols. Increase in experience with ketamine alone was not sufficient to minimize provider discomfort. These findings should inform future curricula and call for process improvement to optimize continuing education.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that the administration of amantadine would increase awakening of comatose patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest. METHODS: We performed a prospective, randomized, controlled pilot trial, randomizing subjects to amantadine 100 mg twice daily or placebo for up to 7 days. The study drug was administered between 72 and 120 hours after resuscitation and patients with absent N20 cortical responses, early cerebral edema, or ongoing malignant electroencephalography patterns were excluded. Our primary outcome was awakening, defined as following two-step commands, within 28 days of cardiac arrest. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, awakening, time to awakening, and neurologic outcome measured by Cerebral Performance Category at hospital discharge. We compared the proportion of subjects awakening and hospital survival using Fisher exact tests and time to awakening and hospital length of stay using Wilcoxon rank sum tests. RESULTS: After 2 years, we stopped the study due to slow enrollment and lapse of funding. We enrolled 14 subjects (12% of goal enrollment), seven in the amantadine group and seven in the placebo group. The proportion of patients who awakened within 28 days after cardiac arrest did not differ between amantadine (n=2, 28.6%) and placebo groups (n=3, 42.9%; P>0.99). There were no differences in secondary outcomes. Study medication was stopped in three subjects (21.4%). Adverse events included a recurrence of seizures (n=2; 14.3%), both of which occurred in the placebo group. CONCLUSION: We could not determine the effect of amantadine on awakening in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest due to small sample size.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Airway management during in-hospital cardiac arrest represents a fundamental component of resuscitative efforts, yet little is known about temporal trends in intubation during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Our objective was to investigate changes in in-hospital cardiac arrest airway management over time and in response to national guideline updates. DESIGN: Observational cohort study of a prospectively collected database. SETTING: Multicenter study of hospitals participating in the "Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation" registry from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2018. SUBJECTS: Adult patients who experienced an in-hospital cardiac arrest and did not have an invasive airway in place prior to the arrest. INTERVENTIONS: The primary outcome was the rate of intra-arrest intubation from 2001 to 2018. We constructed multivariable regression models with generalized estimating equations to determine the annual adjusted odds of intubation. We also assessed the timing of intubation relative to the onset of pulselessness and other arrest measures. We used an interrupted time-series analysis to assess the association between the 2010 Advanced Cardiac Life Support guideline update and intubation rates. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One thousand sixty-six eight hundred patients from 797 hospitals were included. From 2001 to 2018, the percentage of patients intubated during an arrest decreased from 69% to 55% for all rhythms, 73% to 60% for nonshockable rhythms, and 58% to 36% for shockable rhythms (p < 0.001 for trend for all 3 groups). The median time from onset of pulselessness to intubation increased from 5 minutes in 2001 (interquartile range, 2-8 min) to 6 minutes in 2018 (interquartile range, 4-10 min) (p < 0.001 for trend). Following the 2010 guideline update, there was a downward step change and a steeper decrease over time in the rate of intubation as compared to the preintervention period (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Endotracheal intubation rates during in-hospital cardiac arrest have decreased significantly over time, with a more substantial decline following the updated 2010 guideline that prioritized chest compressions over airway management.
