Critical care delivery across health care systems in low-income and low-middle-income country settings: A systematic review.

Background: Prior research has demonstrated that low- and low-middle-income countries (LLMICs) bear a higher burden of critical illness and have a higher rate of mortality from critical illness than high-income countries (HICs). There is a pressing need for improved critical care delivery in LLMICs to reduce this inequity. This systematic review aimed to characterise the range of critical care interventions and services delivered within LLMIC health care systems as reported in the literature. Methods: A search strategy using terms related to critical care in LLMICs was implemented in multiple databases. We included English language articles with human subjects describing at least one critical care intervention or service in an LLMIC setting published between 1 January 2008 and 1 January 2020. Results: A total of 1620 studies met the inclusion criteria. Among the included studies, 45% of studies reported on pediatric patients, 43% on adults, 23% on infants, 8.9% on geriatric patients and 4.2% on maternal patients. Most of the care described (94%) was delivered in-hospital, with the remainder (6.2%) taking place in out-of-hospital care settings. Overall, 49% of critical care described was delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians delivered critical care in 60% of the included studies. Additional critical care was delivered by general physicians (40%), as well as specialist physician trainees (22%), pharmacists (16%), advanced nursing or midlevel practitioners (8.9%), ambulance providers (3.3%) and respiratory therapists (3.1%). Conclusions: This review represents a comprehensive synthesis of critical care delivery in LLMIC settings. Approximately 50% of critical care interventions and services were delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians were the most common health care professionals involved in care delivery in the included studies, however generalist physicians were commonly reported to provide critical care interventions and services. This study additionally characterised the quality of the published evidence guiding critical care practice in LLMICs, demonstrating a paucity of interventional and cost-effectiveness studies. Future research is needed to understand better how to optimise critical care interventions, services, care delivery and costs in these settings. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42019146802.

Knowledge and awareness of infection control practices among nursing professionals: A cross-sectional survey from South Asia and the Middle East.

BACKGROUND: The proficiency of nursing professionals in the infection prevention and control (IPC) practices is a core component of the strategy to mitigate the challenge of healthcare associated infections. AIM: To test knowledge of nurses working in intensive care units (ICU) in South Asia and Middle East countries on IPC practices. METHODS: An online self-assessment questionnaire based on various aspects of IPC practices was conducted among nurses over three weeks. RESULTS: A total of 1333 nurses from 13 countries completed the survey. The average score was 72.8% and 36% of nurses were proficient (mean score > 80%). 43% and 68.3% of respondents were from government and teaching hospitals, respectively. 79.2% of respondents worked in < 25 bedded ICUs and 46.5% in closed ICUs. Statistically, a significant association was found between the knowledge and expertise of nurses, the country's per-capita income, type of hospitals, accreditation and teaching status of hospitals and type of ICUs. Working in high- and upper-middle-income countries (ß = 4.89, 95%CI: 3.55 to 6.22) was positively associated, and the teaching status of the hospital (ß = -4.58, 95%CI: -6.81 to -2.36) was negatively associated with the knowledge score among respondents. CONCLUSION: There is considerable variation in knowledge among nurses working in ICU. Factors like income status of countries, public vs private and teaching status of hospitals and experience are independently associated with nurses' knowledge of IPC practices.

Oxygen Consumption with High-Flow Nasal Oxygen versus Mechanical Ventilation- An International Multicenter Observational Study in COVID-19 Patients (PROXY-COVID).

The COVID-19 pandemic led to local oxygen shortages worldwide. To gain a better understanding of oxygen consumption with different respiratory supportive therapies, we conducted an international multicenter observational study to determine the precise amount of oxygen consumption with high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) and with mechanical ventilation. A retrospective observational study was conducted in three intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands and Spain. Patients were classified as HFNO patients or ventilated patients, according to the mode of oxygen supplementation with which a patient started. The primary endpoint was actual oxygen consumption; secondary endpoints were hourly and total oxygen consumption during the first two full calendar days. Of 275 patients, 147 started with HFNO and 128 with mechanical ventilation. Actual oxygen use was 4.9-fold higher in patients who started with HFNO than in patients who started with ventilation (median 14.2 [8.4-18.4] versus 2.9 [1.8-4.1] L/minute; mean difference = 11.3 [95% CI 11.0-11.6] L/minute; P < 0.01). Hourly and total oxygen consumption were 4.8-fold (P < 0.01) and 4.8-fold (P < 0.01) higher. Actual oxygen consumption, hourly oxygen consumption, and total oxygen consumption are substantially higher in patients that start with HFNO compared with patients that start with mechanical ventilation. This information may help hospitals and ICUs predicting oxygen needs during high-demand periods and could guide decisions regarding the source of distribution of medical oxygen.

Safety and efficacy of endovascular thrombectomy in patients with severe cerebral venous thrombosis: A meta-analysis.

Background: Cerebral venous thrombosis (CVT) is a rare thrombotic condition which is traditionally treated with anti-coagulation therapy. Subsets of patients with severe CVT have been treated with endovascular thrombectomy (EVT). Despite the high estimated mortality associated with severe CVT, there has been only one randomized control trial done regarding safety and efficacy of EVT in severe CVT compared to standard medical management. Evidence in this area is lacking. Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to analyze all existing literature and generate robust information regarding the role of EVT in the management of patients with severe CVT. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed PRISMA guideline. PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, and CNKI were searched for eligible studies from 2007 to 2021. Safety and efficacy of EVT were evaluated by meta-analyzing recanalization status, the good functional outcome at follow-up, recurrent CVT, new hematoma. A pooled proportion with a 95% confidence interval was derived from a meta-analysis of various outcomes (CI). Results: A total of 33 studies comprising 610 patients treated with EVT were included for analysis which comprised one randomized control trial, one prospective study and 31 retrospective studies. Based on pooled data, 85% of patients had good functional outcome, 62% had complete recanalization, 5% had all-cause mortality, and 3% had catheter related complications. The efficacy outcomes in this analysis had a significant heterogeneity and a subgroup analysis was also done to explain these findings. The minimum time of follow up was 3 months and varied EVT techniques were used across the studies. Conclusion: This meta-analysis suggests EVT may be safe and efficacious in treating patients with severe CVT. Registration: Our protocol was registered with PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews with the registration number CRD42021254760.

Upcoming and urgent challenges in critical care research based on COVID-19 pandemic experience.

While the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic placed a heavy burden on healthcare systems worldwide, it also induced urgent mobilisation of research teams to develop treatments preventing or curing the disease and its consequences. It has, therefore, challenged critical care research to rapidly focus on specific fields while forcing critical care physicians to make difficult ethical decisions. This narrative review aims to summarise critical care research -from organisation to research fields- in this pandemic setting and to highlight opportunities to improve research efficiency in the future, based on what is learned from COVID-19. This pressure on research revealed, i.e., (i) the need to harmonise regulatory processes between countries, allowing simplified organisation of international research networks to improve their efficiency in answering large-scale questions; (ii) the importance of developing translational research from which therapeutic innovations can emerge; (iii) the need for improved triage and predictive scores to rationalise admission to the intensive care unit. In this context, key areas for future critical care research and better pandemic preparedness are artificial intelligence applied to healthcare, characterisation of long-term symptoms, and ethical considerations. Such collaborative research efforts should involve groups from both high and low-to-middle income countries to propose worldwide solutions. As a conclusion, stress tests on healthcare organisations should be viewed as opportunities to design new research frameworks and strategies. Worldwide availability of research networks ready to operate is essential to be prepared for next pandemics. Importantly, researchers and physicians should prioritise realistic and ethical goals for both clinical care and research.

Providing Neurocritical Care in Resource-Limited Settings: Challenges and Opportunities.

Acute neurologic illnesses (ANI) contribute significantly to the global burden of disease and cause disproportionate death and disability in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) where neurocritical care resources and expertise are limited. Shifting epidemiologic trends in recent decades have increased the worldwide burden of noncommunicable diseases, including cerebrovascular disease and traumatic brain injury, which coexist in many LMICs with a persistently high burden of central nervous system infections such as tuberculosis, neurocysticercosis, and HIV-related opportunistic infections and complications. In the face of this heavy disease burden, many resource-limited countries lack the infrastructure to provide adequate care for patients with ANI. Major gaps exist between wealthy and poor countries in access to essential resources such as intensive care unit beds, neuroimaging, clinical laboratories, neurosurgical capacity, and medications for managing complex neurologic emergencies. Moreover, many resource-limited countries face critical shortages in health care workers trained to manage neurologic emergencies, with subspecialized neurocritical care expertise largely absent outside of high-income countries. Numerous opportunities exist to overcome these challenges through capacity-building efforts that improve outcomes for patients with ANI in resource-limited countries. These include research on needs and best practices for ANI management in LMICs, developing systems for effective triage, education and training to expand the neurology workforce, and supporting increased collaboration and data sharing among LMIC health care workers and systems. The success of these efforts in curbing the disproportionate and rising impact of ANI in LMICs will depend on the coordinated engagement of the global neurocritical care community.

Visiting and Communication Policy in Intensive Care Units during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-sectional Survey from South Asia and the Middle East.

Purpose: The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic had affected the visiting or communicating policies for family members. We surveyed the intensive care units (ICUs) in South Asia and the Middle East to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on visiting and communication policies. Materials and method: A web-based cross-sectional survey was used to collect data between March 22, 2021, and April 7, 2021, from healthcare professionals (HCP) working in COVID and non-COVID ICUs (one response per ICU). The topics of the questionnaire included current and pre-pandemic policies on visiting, communication, informed consent, and end-of-life care in ICUs. Results: A total of 292 ICUs (73% of COVID ICUs) from 18 countries were included in the final analysis. Most (92%) of ICUs restricted their visiting hours, and nearly one-third (32.3%) followed a "no-visitor" policy. There was a significant change in the daily visiting duration in COVID ICUs compared to the pre-pandemic times (p = 0.011). There was also a significant change (p <0.001) in the process of informed consent and end-of-life discussions during the ongoing pandemic compared to pre-pandemic times. Conclusion: Visiting and communication policies of the ICUs had significantly changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Future studies are needed to understand the sociopsychological and medicolegal implications of revised policies. How to cite this article: Chanchalani G, Arora N, Nasa P, Sodhi K, Al Bahrani MJ, Al Tayar A, et al. Visiting and Communication Policy in Intensive Care Units during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-sectional Survey from South Asia and the Middle East. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(3):268-275.

Inpatient Management of Acute Stroke of Unknown Type in Resource-Limited Settings.

Stroke is the second leading cause of death and disability worldwide, with a disproportionate burden on low- and middle-income countries. Critical elements of guideline-based stroke care developed in high-income countries are not applicable to resource-limited settings, where lack of access to neuroimaging prevents clinicians from distinguishing between ischemic stroke and intracranial hemorrhage, requiring challenging clinical decision-making, particularly in the acute setting. We discuss strategies for acute inpatient management of stroke of unknown type with a focus on blood pressure management and antiplatelet therapy when neuroimaging is unavailable, and review some of the challenges and strategies for successfully implementing stroke unit care in resource-limited health care settings.

Global lessons learned from COVID-19 mass casualty incidents.

With healthcare systems rapidly becoming overwhelmed and occupied by patients during a pandemic, effective and safe care for patients is easily compromised. During the course of the current pandemic, numerous treatment guidelines have been developed and published that have improved care for patients with COVID-19. Certain lessons have only been learned during the course of the outbreak, from which we can learn for future pandemics. This editorial aims to raise awareness about the importance of timely stockpiling of sufficient amounts of personal protection equipment and medications, adequate oxygen supplies, uninterrupted electricity, and fair locally adapted triage strategies.

White Paper on Early Critical Care Services in Low Resource Settings.

This White Paper has been formally accepted for support by the International Federation for Emergency Medicine (IFEM) and by the World Federation of Intensive and Critical Care (WFICC), put forth by a multi-specialty group of intensivists and emergency medicine providers from low- and low-middle-income countries (LMICs) and high-income countries (HiCs) with the aim of 1) defining the current state of caring for the critically ill in low-resource settings (LRS) within LMICs and 2) highlighting policy options and recommendations for improving the system-level delivery of early critical care services in LRS. LMICs have a high burden of critical illness and worse patient outcomes than HICs, hence, the focus of this White Paper is on the care of critically ill patients in the early stages of presentation in LMIC settings. In such settings, the provision of early critical care is challenged by a fragmented health system, costs, a health care workforce with limited training, and competing healthcare priorities. Early critical care services are defined as the early interventions that support vital organ function during the initial care provided to the critically ill patient-these interventions can be performed at any point of patient contact and can be delivered across diverse settings in the healthcare system and do not necessitate specialty personnel. Currently, a single "best" care delivery model likely does not exist in LMICs given the heterogeneity in local context; therefore, objective comparisons of quality, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness between varying models are difficult to establish. While limited, there is data to suggest that caring for the critically ill may be cost effective in LMICs, contrary to a widely held belief. Drawing from locally available resources and context, strengthening early critical care services in LRS will require a multi-faceted approach, including three core pillars: education, research, and policy. Education initiatives for physicians, nurses, and allied health staff that focus on protocolized emergency response training can bridge the workforce gap in the short-term; however, each country's current human resources must be evaluated to decide on the duration of training, who should be trained, and using what curriculum. Understanding the burden of critical Illness, best practices for resuscitation, and appropriate quality metrics for different early critical care services implementation models in LMICs are reliant upon strengthening the regional research capacity, therefore, standard documentation systems should be implemented to allow for registry use and quality improvement. Policy efforts at a local, national and international level to strengthen early critical care services should focus on funding the building blocks of early critical care services systems and promoting the right to access early critical care regardless of the patient's geographic or financial barriers. Additionally, national and local policies describing ethical dilemmas involving the withdrawal of life-sustaining care should be developed with broad stakeholder representation based on local cultural beliefs as well as the optimization of limited resources.

Anesthesiology and Critical Care Response to COVID-19 in Resource-Limited Settings: Experiences from Nepal.

It is difficult to predict the future course and length of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has devastated health care systems in low- and middle-income countries. Anesthesiology and critical care services are hard hit because many hospitals have stopped performing elective surgeries, staff and scarce hospital resources have been diverted to manage COVID-19 patients, and several makeshift COVID-19 units had to be set up. Intensive care units are overwhelmed with critically ill patients. In these difficult times, low- and middle-income countries need to improvise, perform indigenous research, adapt international guidelines to suit local needs, and target attainable clinical goals.

Pragmatic Recommendations for Tracheostomy, Discharge, and Rehabilitation Measures in Hospitalized Patients Recovering From Severe COVID-19 in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

New studies of COVID-19 are constantly updating best practices in clinical care. However, research mainly originates in resource-rich settings in high-income countries. Often, it is impractical to apply recommendations based on these investigations to resource-constrained settings in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We report on a set of pragmatic recommendations for tracheostomy, discharge, and rehabilitation measures in hospitalized patients recovering from severe COVID-19 in LMICs. We recommend that tracheostomy be performed in a negative pressure room or negative pressure operating room, if possible, and otherwise in a single room with a closed door. We recommend using the technique that is most familiar to the institution and that can be conducted most safely. We recommend using fit-tested enhanced personal protection equipment, with the fewest people required, and incorporating strategies to minimize aerosolization of the virus. For recovering patients, we suggest following local, regional, or national hospital discharge guidelines. If these are lacking, we suggest deisolation and hospital discharge using symptom-based criteria, rather than with testing. We likewise suggest taking into consideration the capability of primary caregivers to provide the necessary care to meet the psychological, physical, and neurocognitive needs of the patient.

Pragmatic Recommendations for the Management of Anticoagulation and Venous Thrombotic Disease for Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

New studies of COVID-19 are constantly updating best practices in clinical care. Often, it is impractical to apply recommendations based on high-income country investigations to resource limited settings in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). We present a set of pragmatic recommendations for the management of anticoagulation and thrombotic disease for hospitalized patients with COVID-19 in LMICs. In the absence of contraindications, we recommend prophylactic anticoagulation with either low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH) for all hospitalized COVID-19 patients in LMICs. If available, we recommend LMWH over UFH for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis to minimize risk to healthcare workers. We recommend against the use of aspirin for VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients in LMICs. Because of limited evidence, we suggest against the use of "enhanced" or "intermediate" prophylaxis in COVID-19 patients in LMICs. Based on current available evidence, we recommend against the initiation of empiric therapeutic anticoagulation without clinical suspicion for VTE. If contraindications exist to chemical prophylaxis, we recommend mechanical prophylaxis with intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) devices or graduated compression stockings (GCS) for hospitalized COVID-19 patients in LMICs. In LMICs, we recommend initiating therapeutic anticoagulation for hospitalized COVID-19 patients, in accordance with local clinical practice guidelines, if there is high clinical suspicion for VTE, even in the absence of testing. If available, we recommend LMWH over UFH or Direct oral anticoagulants for treatment of VTE in LMICs to minimize risk to healthcare workers. In LMIC settings where continuous intravenous UFH or LMWH are unavailable or not feasible to use, we recommend fixed dose heparin, adjusted to body weight, in hospitalized COVID-19 patients with high clinical suspicion of VTE. We suggest D-dimer measurement, if available and affordable, at the time of admission for risk stratification, or when clinical suspicion for VTE is high. For hospitalized COVID-19 patients in LMICs, based on current available evidence, we make no recommendation on the use of serial D-dimer monitoring for the initiation of therapeutic anticoagulation. For hospitalized COVID-19 patients in LMICs receiving intravenous therapeutic UFH, we recommend serial monitoring of partial thromboplastin time or anti-factor Xa level, based on local laboratory capabilities. For hospitalized COVID-19 patients in LMICs receiving LMWH, we suggest against serial monitoring of anti-factor Xa level. We suggest serial monitoring of platelet counts in patients receiving therapeutic anticoagulation for VTE, to assess risk of bleeding or development of heparin induced thrombocytopenia.