Comparative evaluation of stroke volume variation and inferior vena cava distensibility index for prediction of fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients.

Objectives: To evaluate the correlation between stroke volume variation (SVV) and inferior vena cava distensibility index (dIVC) as a marker for fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated hypotensive intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Methodology and Design: This study is designed as prospective observational study conducted in patients admitted to an ICU who were mechanically ventilated and experienced a hypotensive episode. Intervention: A fluid challenge of 10 mL/kg ringer's lactate was given over 20 min. Measurements: Hemodynamic parameters as well as SVV, IVCmax, IVCmin, dIVC, and cardiac output (CO), were recorded at a different time interval. An increase in ≥15% of CO was taken as fluid responsiveness. Results: Out of 67 patients, 67.2% responded to fluid challenge. Pearson's correlation graph at baseline showed a strong positive correlation between dIVC and SVV with r = 0.453, (P < 0.002). Non-responders also had a strong positive correlation (r = 0.474) at the baseline. Bland Altman's analysis of the correlation between dIVC and SVV post-fluid challenge showed a mean difference of - 4.444, with 1.49% of the values falling outside the limits of agreement (18.418 and -27.306). This difference was clinically significant. Pearson's correlation graph post-fluid challenge showed a moderately strong positive correlation between dIVC and SVV with r = 0.298 and P value = 0.047, which was statistically significant. Also, non-responders had a weak correlation as compared to the responder's group, r = 0.364 and P value = 0.095, which was not clinically significant. There was no significant difference in the trend of dIVC and SVV values between the non-surgical and surgical groups, nor was there any gender difference analyzed in the study. Conclusion: This study ascertains the positive correlation between dIVC and SVV and justifies its use in a clinical setting of hypotension suspected to be due to hypovolemia.

Optimal management of brain-dead organ donor.

Maintaining a brain stem-dead (BSD) donor is specialized science. It is a daunting task as they are fragile patients who need to be handled with utmost care owing to extreme haemodynamically instability and need the best of monitoring for maintenance of organs. To ensure a successful transplant, a BSD donor first needs to be identified on time. This requires scrupulous monitoring of neurologically compromised patients who tend to be the most frequent organ donors. Once the donor is identified, an all-out effort should be made to legally obtain consent for the donation. This may require numerous sessions of counselling of the relatives. It needs to be performed tactfully, displaying the best of intentions. It is important to understand the physiology of a brain-dead individual. A cascade of changes occurs in BSD donor which result in a catastrophic plummeting of the clinical condition of the donor. All organ systems are involved in this clinical chaos, and best possible clinical support of all organ systems should be available and extended to the donor. Organ support includes cardiovascular, pulmonary, temperature, glycaemic, metabolic and hormonal. This article has been written as a follow-up article of previously published article on identifying an organ donor. It intends to give the reader a concept of what the BSD donor undergoes after brain death and as to how to maintain and preserve various organs for donation for successful transplantation of maximum organs.

Comparative evaluation of efficacy of oxygenation using high flow nasal cannula vs. conventional nasal cannula during procedural sedation for endoscopic ultrasound: A pilot study.

Background and Aims: High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has numerous advantages against conventional oxygen therapy delivery systems. However, there is limited evidence supporting the use of HFNC in endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) under procedural sedation. The aims of this study is to evaluate the efficacy of two different oxygen delivery devices, that is,HFNCand conventional nasal cannula on the oxygenation status of patients during procedural sedation for EUS. Material and Methods: Sixty adult patients undergoing EUS for various ailments were randomized to two groups group HFNC (n=30) and group nasal cannula [NC (n = 30)]. HFNC (AIRVO2, Fisher and Paykel Healthcare, New Zealand) was used on patients in the group HFNC. Respiratory status of the patients was assessed using pulse oximetry, respiratory rate, procedural airway complications, and oxygen therapy adjustments. The endoscopist assessed the ease of performing EUS at the end of the procedure and patient satisfaction score (PSS) was assessed by using a Likert score in the post-anesthesia care unit. Results: SpO2 measurements in the HFNC group during the procedure were marginally better compared to the NC group but this failed to reach statistical significance. Also, no significant association was found between both groups while comparing desaturation events (P = 0.499), patient satisfaction score (PSS) and endendoscopist's satisfaction score (ESS) (P = 0.795). Both the groups were comparable in terms of airway manipulation, use of airway adjuncts, need to increase oxygen flow rate, endoscope removal, apneic episodes, hypotension, and bradycardia. No major complications were observed in either group. Conclusion: HFNC use in patients undergoing EUS is not superior when compared to conventional nasal cannula oxygen therapy. HFNC failed to show any significant impact on decreasing the risk of desaturation events and airway manipulation during the procedure.

Effect of Glycemic Variability on Mortality in ICU Settings: A Prospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests a role of glycemic variability in intensive care unit (ICU) mortality. OBJECTIVE: To assess effect of glycemic variability and ICU/in-hospital mortality. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: A 20-bedded medical/surgical ICU in a tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Critically ill patients requiring life-support measures admitted to the ICU between November 1, 2015 and December 30, 2016 with hyperglycemia [random blood sugar (RBS) ≥200 mg%] and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores ≤9. Patients were put on predefined insulin infusion protocol, multiple glucose values were obtained, and mean blood glucose level (MGL) was calculated as their simple arithmetic mean. Standard deviation (SD) of MGL and coefficient of variation (CV) of glucose (derived as a percentage of SD to mean blood glucose) were then calculated for each patient and analyzed for all-cause death during hospitalization period. RESULTS: A total of 123 patients having a mean age of 65.12 ± 16.27 years, mean SOFA score of 5.76 ± 1.76, and mean HbA1c of 6.22 ± 0.73% were included. MGL was 160.65 ± 24.19 mg/dl, SD 33.32 ± 15.08 mg/dl, and CV 20.74 ± 8.43. Deceased as compared to survivors had higher MGL (163.76 ± 24.85 vs 155.62 ± 22.43 mg/dl, P = 0.068) and higher glycemic variability (SD 38.92 ± 14.44 vs 25.06 ± 12.27 mg/dl; P < 0.001 and CV 23.69 ± 7.9 vs 15.98 ± 6.87; P < 0.001). Interestingly, more patients having higher CV at lower MGL (85.7%) died as compared to those having lower CV at higher MGL (55.6%). CONCLUSIONS: High glycemic variability is associated with increased ICU/in-hospital mortality. Outcome of patients having less glycemic variability even with slight hyperglycemia may be better than those having tight glycemic control but higher glycemic variability. Insulin protocols need to be in place for management of hyperglycemia in critical care setting aiming for adequate glycemic control as well as minimizing glycemic variability.

Brain stem death certification protocol.

Transplantation of Human Organs is guided by laid down specific Laws in India. The organs which are targeted to be transplanted are liver, kidney and cornea. The waiting list is enormous but the donor pool is meagre. This document has been made with a view that the donor pool can be enlarged by identifying patients who are 'Brain Dead' while still not having 'Cardiac Death'. The steps include the prerequisite conditions which must be satisfied by patients who have suspicion of being brain dead, detailed examination of the patient, confirmation of the Brain Death and Counselling of the relatives for organ donation.

Liraglutide as an Alternative to Insulin for Glycemic Control in Intensive Care Unit: A Randomized, Open-label, Clinical Study.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous insulin is the cornerstone in the management of hyperglycemia in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). We studied the efficacy of liraglutide compared with insulin in the ICU. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this prospective, open-labeled, randomized study, we included 120 patients (15-65 years, either sex) admitted to ICU with capillary blood glucose (CBG) between 181 and 300 mg/dl. We excluded patients with secondary diabetes and APACHE score >24. The patients were divided into two groups (n = 60) based on the CBG: Group 1 (181-240) and Group 2 (241-300). They were randomized further into four subgroups (n = 30) to receive insulin (Groups 1A and 2A), liraglutide (Group 1B), and insulin with liraglutide (Group 2B). The primary outcome was the ability to achieve CBG below 180 mg/dL at the end of 24 h. The secondary outcomes include mortality at 1 month and hospital stay. Data and results were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U-test, paired t- test, and Chi-square tests. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients (93M and 27F) was 57.1 ± 13.9 years, hospital stay (16.9 ± 7.5 days), and CBG was 240.5 ± 36.2 mg/dl. The primary outcome was reached in 26, 27, 25, and 28 patients of Groups 1A, 2A, 1B, and 2B, respectively. The 30-day mortality and hospital stay were similar across all the four groups. Hypoglycemia was common with insulin and gastrointestinal side effects were more common with liraglutide (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Liraglutide is a viable alternative to insulin for glycemic control in the ICU. Further studies with a larger number of patients are required to confirm our findings.