British societies guideline on the management of emergencies in implantable left ventricular assist device recipients in transplant centres.

An implantable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) is indicated as a bridge to transplantation or recovery in the United Kingdom (UK). The mechanism of action of the LVAD results in a unique state of haemodynamic stability with diminished arterial pulsatility. The clinical assessment of an LVAD recipient can be challenging because non-invasive blood pressure, pulse and oxygen saturation measurements may be hard to obtain. As a result of this unusual situation and complex interplay between the device and the native circulation, resuscitation of LVAD recipients requires bespoke guidelines. Through collaboration with key UK stakeholders, we assessed the current evidence base and developed guidelines for the recognition of clinical deterioration, inadequate circulation and time-critical interventions. Such guidelines, intended for use in transplant centres, are designed to be deployed by those providing immediate care of LVAD patients under conditions of precipitous clinical deterioration. In summary, the Joint British Societies and Transplant Centres LVAD Working Group present the UK guideline on management of emergencies in implantable LVAD recipients for use in advanced heart failure centres. These recommendations have been made with a UK resuscitation focus but are widely applicable to professionals regularly managing patients with implantable LVADs.

RAND appropriateness panel to determine the applicability of UK guidelines on the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and other strategies in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has become the most common cause of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) worldwide. Features of the pathophysiology and clinical presentation partially distinguish it from 'classical' ARDS. A Research and Development (RAND) analysis gauged the opinion of an expert panel about the management of ARDS with and without COVID-19 as the precipitating cause, using recent UK guidelines as a template. METHODS: An 11-person panel comprising intensive care practitioners rated the appropriateness of ARDS management options at different times during hospital admission, in the presence or absence of, or varying severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection on a scale of 1-9 (where 1-3 is inappropriate, 4-6 is uncertain and 7-9 is appropriate). A summary of the anonymised results was discussed at an online meeting moderated by an expert in RAND methodology. The modified online survey comprising 76 questions, subdivided into investigations (16), non-invasive respiratory support (18), basic intensive care unit management of ARDS (20), management of refractory hypoxaemia (8), pharmacotherapy (7) and anticoagulation (7), was completed again. RESULTS: Disagreement between experts was significant only when addressing the appropriateness of diagnostic bronchoscopy in patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Adherence to existing published guidelines for the management of ARDS for relevant evidence-based interventions was recommended. Responses of the experts to the final survey suggested that the supportive management of ARDS should be the same, regardless of a COVID-19 diagnosis. For patients with ARDS with COVID-19, the panel recommended routine treatment with corticosteroids and a lower threshold for full anticoagulation based on a high index of suspicion for venous thromboembolic disease. CONCLUSION: The expert panel found no reason to deviate from the evidence-based supportive strategies for managing ARDS outlined in recent guidelines.

Rapid deployment of virtual ICU support during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic brought many serious challenges to the clinical workplace, and was a catalyst to novel approaches to the way in which we practice medicine. These challenges include extreme numbers of critically ill patients overwhelming many intensive care units, how to maintain the flow of communication between clinicians, patients and their families, and how to prevent the spread of infection working on quarantined units in personal protective equipment. The Royal Brompton and Harefield Hospitals deployed a series of digital solutions to try to address some of those challenges and a series of case studies describes their clinical application in three clinical domains: communicating with families, clinical communication between clinicians and the delivery of clinical education.