Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Glycemic Control for Critically Ill Children and Adults 2024.

RATIONALE: Maintaining glycemic control of critically ill patients may impact outcomes such as survival, infection, and neuromuscular recovery, but there is equipoise on the target blood levels, monitoring frequency, and methods. OBJECTIVES: The purpose was to update the 2012 Society of Critical Care Medicine and American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) guidelines with a new systematic review of the literature and provide actionable guidance for clinicians. PANEL DESIGN: The total multiprofessional task force of 22, consisting of clinicians and patient/family advocates, and a methodologist applied the processes described in the ACCM guidelines standard operating procedure manual to develop evidence-based recommendations in alignment with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Approach (GRADE) methodology. Conflict of interest policies were strictly followed in all phases of the guidelines, including panel selection and voting. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes question related to glycemic management in critically ill children (≥ 42 wk old adjusted gestational age to 18 yr old) and adults, including triggers for initiation of insulin therapy, route of administration, monitoring frequency, role of an explicit decision support tool for protocol maintenance, and methodology for glucose testing. We identified the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak or as a good practice statement. In addition, "In our practice" statements were included when the available evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, but the panel felt that describing their practice patterns may be appropriate. Additional topics were identified for future research. RESULTS: This guideline is an update of the guidelines for the use of an insulin infusion for the management of hyperglycemia in critically ill patients. It is intended for adult and pediatric practitioners to reassess current practices and direct research into areas with inadequate literature. The panel issued seven statements related to glycemic control in unselected adults (two good practice statements, four conditional recommendations, one research statement) and seven statements for pediatric patients (two good practice statements, one strong recommendation, one conditional recommendation, two "In our practice" statements, and one research statement), with additional detail on specific subset populations where available. CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines panel achieved consensus for adults and children regarding a preference for an insulin infusion for the acute management of hyperglycemia with titration guided by an explicit clinical decision support tool and frequent (≤ 1 hr) monitoring intervals during glycemic instability to minimize hypoglycemia and against targeting intensive glucose levels. These recommendations are intended for consideration within the framework of the patient's existing clinical status. Further research is required to evaluate the role of individualized glycemic targets, continuous glucose monitoring systems, explicit decision support tools, and standardized glycemic control metrics.

Flow-Sizing Critical Care Resources.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the factors affecting critical care capacity and how critical care organizations (CCOs) within academic centers in the U.S. flow-size critical care resources under normal operations, strain, and surge conditions. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, federal agency and American Hospital Association reports, and previous CCO survey results were reviewed. STUDY SELECTION: Studies and reports of critical care bed capacity and utilization within CCOs and in the United States were selected. DATA EXTRACTION: The Academic Leaders in the Critical Care Medicine Task Force established regular conference calls to reach a consensus on the approach of CCOs to "flow-sizing" critical care services. DATA SYNTHESIS: The approach of CCOs to "flow-sizing" critical care is outlined. The vertical (relation to institutional resources, e.g., space allocation, equipment, personnel redistribution) and horizontal (interdepartmental, e.g., emergency department, operating room, inpatient floors) integration of critical care delivery (ICUs, rapid response) for healthcare organizations and the methods by which CCOs flow-size critical care during normal operations, strain, and surge conditions are described. The advantages, barriers, and recommendations for the rapid and efficient scaling of critical care operations via a CCO structure are explained. Comprehensive guidance and resources for the development of "flow-sizing" capability by a CCO within a healthcare organization are provided. CONCLUSIONS: We identified and summarized the fundamental principles affecting critical care capacity. The taskforce highlighted the advantages of the CCO governance model to achieve rapid and cost-effective "flow-sizing" of critical care services and provide recommendations and resources to facilitate this capability. The relevance of a comprehensive approach to "flow-sizing" has become particularly relevant in the wake of the latest COVID-19 pandemic. In light of the growing risks of another extreme epidemic, planning for adequate capacity to confront the next critical care crisis is urgent.

The Impact of the Society of Critical Care Medicine's Flagship Journal: Critical Care Medicine: Reflections of Critical Care Pioneers.

On the 50th anniversary of the Society of Critical Care Medicine's journal Critical Care Medicine, critical care pioneers reflect on the importance of the journal to their careers and to the development of the field of adult and pediatric critical care.

Regionalization of Critical Care in the United States: Current State and Proposed Framework From the Academic Leaders in Critical Care Medicine Task Force of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

OBJECTIVES: The Society of Critical Care Medicine convened its Academic Leaders in Critical Care Medicine taskforce on February 22, 2016, during the 45th Critical Care Congress to develop a series of consensus papers with toolkits for advancing critical care organizations in North America. The goal of this article is to propose a framework based on the expert opinions of critical care organization leaders and their responses to a survey, for current and future critical care organizations, and their leadership in the health system to design and implement successful regionalization for critical care in their regions. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Members of the workgroup convened monthly via teleconference with the following objectives: to 1) develop and analyze a regionalization survey tool for 23 identified critical care organizations in the United States, 2) assemble relevant medical literature accessed using Medline search, 3) use a consensus of expert opinions to propose the framework, and 4) create groups to write the subsections and assemble the final product. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The most prevalent challenges for regionalization in critical care organizations remain a lack of a strong central authority to regulate and manage the system as well as a lack of necessary infrastructure, as described more than a decade ago. We provide a framework and outline a nontechnical approach that the health system and their critical care medicine leadership can adopt after considering their own structure, complexity, business operations, culture, and the relationships among their individual hospitals. Transforming the current state of regionalization into a coordinated, accountable system requires a critical assessment of administrative and clinical challenges and barriers. Systems thinking, business planning and control, and essential infrastructure development are critical for assisting critical care organizations. CONCLUSIONS: Under the value-based paradigm, the goals are operational efficiency and patient outcomes. Health systems that can align strategy and operations to assist the referral hospitals with implementing regionalization will be better positioned to regionalize critical care effectively.

The pathophysiology of sepsis-2021 update: Part 1, immunology and coagulopathy leading to endothelial injury.

PURPOSE: To provide an overview of current literature on the pathophysiology of sepsis, with a focus on mediators of endothelial injury and organ dysfunction. SUMMARY: Sepsis is a dysregulated response to infection that triggers cascades of interconnected systems. Sepsis has been a significant cause of mortality worldwide, and the recent viral pandemic that may produce severe sepsis and septic shock has been a major contributor to sepsis-related mortality. Understanding of the pathophysiology of sepsis has changed dramatically over the last several decades. Significant insight into the components of the inflammatory response that contribute to endothelial injury and trigger coagulation pathways has been achieved. Similarly, characterization of anti-inflammatory pathways that may lead to secondary infections and poor outcome has illustrated opportunities for improved therapies. Description of an increasing number of important mediators and pathways has occurred and may point the way to novel therapies to address immune dysregulation. Pharmacists will need a fundamental understanding of the overlapping pathways of the immune response to fully prepare for use of novel treatment options. While pharmacists typically understand coagulation cascade how to utilize anticoagulants, the issues in sepsis related coagulopathy and role of mediators such as cytokines and complement and role of activated platelets and neutrophils require a different perspective. CONCLUSION: Pharmacists can benefit from understanding both the cellular and organ system issues in sepsis to facilitate assessment of potential therapies for risk and benefit.

The pathophysiology of sepsis - 2021 update: Part 2, organ dysfunction and assessment.

PURPOSE: This is the second article in a 2-part series discussing the pathophysiology of sepsis. Part 1 of the series reviewed the immunologic response and overlapping pathways of inflammation and coagulation that contribute to the widespread organ dysfunction. In this article (part 2), major organ systems and their dysfunction in sepsis are reviewed, with discussion of scoring systems used to identify patterns and abnormal vital signs and laboratory values associated with sepsis. SUMMARY: Sepsis is a dysregulated host response to infection that produces significant morbidity, and patients with shock due to sepsis have circulatory and cellular and metabolic abnormalities that lead to a higher mortality. Cardiovascular dysfunction produces vasodilation, reduced cardiac output and hypotension/shock requiring fluids, vasopressors, and advanced hemodynamic monitoring. Respiratory dysfunction may require mechanical ventilation and attention to volume status. Renal dysfunction is a frequent manifestation of sepsis. Hematologic dysfunction produces low platelets and either elevation or reduction of leukocytes, so consideration of the neutrophil:lymphocyte ratio may be useful. Procoagulant and antifibrinolytic activity leads to coagulation that is stimulated by inflammation. Hepatic dysfunction manifest as elevated bilirubin is often a late finding in sepsis and may cause reductions in production of essential proteins. Neurologic dysfunction may result from local endothelial injury and systemic inflammation through activity of the vagus nerve. CONCLUSION: Timely recognition and team response with efficient use of therapies can improve patient outcome, and pharmacists with a complete understanding of the pathophysiologic mechanisms and treatments are valuable members of that team.

Maintaining Blood Glucose Levels in Range (70-150 mg/dL) is Difficult in COVID-19 Compared to Non-COVID-19 ICU Patients-A Retrospective Analysis.

Beta cell dysfunction is suggested in patients with COVID-19 infections. Poor glycemic control in ICU is associated with poor patient outcomes. This is a single center, retrospective analysis of 562 patients in an intensive care unit from 1 March to 30 April 2020. We review the time in range (70-150 mg/dL) spent by critically ill COVID-19 patients and non-COVID-19 patients, along with the daily insulin use. Ninety-three in the COVID-19 cohort and 469 in the non-COVID-19 cohort were compared for percentage of blood glucose TIR (70-150 mg/dL) and average daily insulin use. The COVID-19 cohort spent significantly less TIR (70-150 mg/dL) compared to the non-COVID-19 cohort (44.4% vs. 68.5%). Daily average insulin use in the COVID-19 cohort was higher (8.37 units versus 6.17 units). ICU COVID-19 patients spent less time in range (70-150 mg/dL) and required higher daily insulin dose. A higher requirement for ventilator and days on ventilator was associated with a lower TIR. Mortality was lower for COVID-19 patients who achieved a higher TIR.

Position Paper on Critical Care Pharmacy Services (Executive Summary): 2020 Update.

OBJECTIVES: Provide a multiorganizational statement to update the statement from a paper in 2000 about critical care pharmacy practice and makes recommendations for future practice. DESIGN: The Society of Critical Care Medicine, American College of Clinical Pharmacy Critical Care Practice and Research Network, and the American Society of Health-Systems Pharmacists convened a joint task force of 15 pharmacists representing a broad cross-section of critical care pharmacy practice and pharmacy administration, inclusive of geography, critical care practice setting, and roles. The Task Force chairs reviewed and organized primary literature, outlined topic domains, and prepared the methodology for group review and consensus. A modified Delphi method was used until consensus (> 66% agreement) was reached for each practice recommendation. Previous position statement recommendations were reviewed and voted to either retain, revise, or retire. Recommendations were categorized by level of ICU service to be applicable by setting, and grouped into five domains: patient care, quality improvement, research and scholarship, training and education, and professional development. MAIN RESULTS: There are 82 recommendation statements: forty-four original recommendations and 38 new recommendation statements. Thirty-four recommendations were made for patient care, primarily relating to critical care pharmacist duties and pharmacy services. In the quality improvement domain, 21 recommendations address the role of the critical care pharmacist in patient and medication safety, clinical quality programs, and analytics. Nine recommendations were made in the domain of research and scholarship. Ten recommendations are in the domain of training and education and eight recommendations regarding professional development. CONCLUSIONS: The statements recommended by this taskforce delineate the activities of a critical care pharmacist and the scope of pharmacy services within the ICU. Effort should be made from all stakeholders to implement the recommendations provided, with continuous effort toward improving the delivery of care for critically ill patients.

Position Paper on Critical Care Pharmacy Services: 2020 Update.

OBJECTIVES: To provide a multiorganizational statement to update recommendations for critical care pharmacy practice and make recommendations for future practice. A position paper outlining critical care pharmacist activities was last published in 2000. Since that time, significant changes in healthcare and critical care have occurred. DESIGN: The Society of Critical Care Medicine, American College of Clinical Pharmacy Critical Care Practice and Research Network, and the American Society of Health-Systems Pharmacists convened a joint task force of 15 pharmacists representing a broad cross-section of critical care pharmacy practice and pharmacy administration, inclusive of geography, critical care practice setting, and roles. The Task Force chairs reviewed and organized primary literature, outlined topic domains, and prepared the methodology for group review and consensus. A modified Delphi method was used until consensus (> 66% agreement) was reached for each practice recommendation. Previous position statement recommendations were reviewed and voted to either retain, revise, or retire. Recommendations were categorized by level of ICU service to be applicable by setting and grouped into five domains: patient care, quality improvement, research and scholarship, training and education, and professional development. MAIN RESULTS: There are 82 recommendation statements: 44 original recommendations and 38 new recommendation statements. Thirty-four recommendations represent the domain of patient care, primarily relating to critical care pharmacist duties and pharmacy services. In the quality improvement domain, 21 recommendations address the role of the critical care pharmacist in patient and medication safety, clinical quality programs, and analytics. Nine recommendations were made in the domain of research and scholarship. Ten recommendations were made in the domain of training and education and eight recommendations regarding professional development. CONCLUSIONS: Critical care pharmacists are essential members of the multiprofessional critical care team. The statements recommended by this taskforce delineate the activities of a critical care pharmacist and the scope of pharmacy services within the ICU. Effort should be made from all stakeholders to implement the recommendations provided, with continuous effort toward improving the delivery of care for critically ill patients.

Position Paper on Critical Care Pharmacy Services (Executive Summary): 2020 Update.

OBJECTIVES: Provide a multiorganizational statement to update the statement from a paper in 2000 about critical care pharmacy practice and make recommendations for future practice. DESIGN: The Society of Critical Care Medicine, American College of Clinical Pharmacy Critical Care Practice and Research Network, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists convened a joint task force of 15 pharmacists representing a broad cross-section of critical care pharmacy practice and pharmacy administration, inclusive of geography, critical care practice setting, and roles. The Task Force chairs reviewed and organized primary literature, outlined topic domains, and prepared the methodology for group review and consensus. A modified Delphi method was used until consensus (>66% agreement) was reached for each practice recommendation. Previous position statement recommendations were reviewed and voted to either retain, revise, or retire. Recommendations were categorized by level of ICU service to be applicable by setting, and grouped into five domains: patient care, quality improvement, research and scholarship, training and education, and professional development. MAIN RESULTS: There are 82 recommendation statements: forty-four original recommendations and 38 new recommendation statements. Thirty-four recommendations were made for patient care, primarily relating to critical care pharmacist duties and pharmacy services. In the quality improvement domain, 21 recommendations address the role of the critical care pharmacist in patient and medication safety, clinical quality programs, and analytics. Nine recommendations were made in the domain of research and scholarship. Ten recommendations are in the domain of training and education and eight recommendations regarding professional development. CONCLUSIONS: The statements recommended by this taskforce delineate the activities of a critical care pharmacist and the scope of pharmacy services within the ICU. Effort should be made from all stakeholders to implement the recommendations provided, with continuous effort toward improving the delivery of care for critically ill patients.

Management of Endocrine Emergencies in the ICU.

Endocrine emergencies are frequent in critically ill patients and may be the cause of admission or can be secondary to other critical illness. The ability to anticipate endocrine abnormalities such as adrenal excess or , hypothyroidism, can mitigate their duration and severity. Hyperglycemic crisis may trigger hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) admission and may be life threatening. Recognition and safe treatment of severe conditions such as acute adrenal insufficiency, thyroid crisis, and hypoglycemia and hyperglycemic crisis may be lifesaving. Electrolyte abnormalities such as hypercalcemia and hypocalcemia may have underlying endocrine causes, and may be treated differently with recognition of those disorders- electrolyte replacement alone may not be adequate for efficient resolution. Sodium disorders are common in the ICU and are generally related to altered water balance however may be related to pituitary abnormalities in selected patients, and recognition may improve treatment effectiveness and safety.

The Implementation of Targeted Temperature Management: An Evidence-Based Guideline from the Neurocritical Care Society.

BACKGROUND: Targeted temperature management (TTM) is often used in neurocritical care to minimize secondary neurologic injury and improve outcomes. TTM encompasses therapeutic hypothermia, controlled normothermia, and treatment of fever. TTM is best supported by evidence from neonatal hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, although it has also been explored in ischemic stroke, traumatic brain injury, and intracranial hemorrhage patients. Critical care clinicians using TTM must select appropriate cooling techniques, provide a reasonable rate of cooling, manage shivering, and ensure adequate patient monitoring among other challenges. METHODS: The Neurocritical Care Society recruited experts in neurocritical care, nursing, and pharmacotherapy to form a writing Committee in 2015. The group generated a set of 16 clinical questions relevant to TTM using the PICO format. With the assistance of a research librarian, the Committee undertook a comprehensive literature search with no back date through November 2016 with additional references up to March 2017. RESULTS: The Committee utilized GRADE methodology to adjudicate the quality of evidence as high, moderate, low, or very low based on their confidence that the estimate of effect approximated the true effect. They generated recommendations regarding the implementation of TTM based on this systematic review only after considering the quality of evidence, relative risks and benefits, patient values and preferences, and resource allocation. CONCLUSION: This guideline is intended for neurocritical care clinicians who have chosen to use TTM in patient care; it is not meant to provide guidance regarding the clinical indications for TTM itself. While there are areas of TTM practice where clear evidence guides strong recommendations, many of the recommendations are conditional, and must be contextualized to individual patient and system needs.