Development and Usability of an Inexpensive and Reusable Phantom for Ultrasound-Guided Needle Cannulation.

Introduction Ultrasound-guided peripheral venous catheter placement (UG-PVCP) is a key skill for establishing intravenous access, especially in patients with anatomical challenges. Ultrasound is highly operator-dependent, and it is essential to ensure a sufficient level of competence when educating healthcare professionals. Competence can be acquired through simulation-based training (SBT) using phantoms or simulators. We developed a phantom for SBT, and in this study, we explore the phantom's usability and technical fidelity. Methods Novices with no experience in UG-PVCP and experts who routinely performed the procedure were asked to perform three ultrasound-guided catheter placement attempts on the phantom. Afterward, they were asked to complete a usability questionnaire consisting of 14 questions exploring the usability and fidelity of the phantom. Results Fifty-seven participants were included in the study: 29 novices and 28 experts. When assessing positive questions about the frequency of use, ease of use, integration of functionality, quickness to learn, and confidence level, the study showed a median score of 4 to 5 out of 5 in the two groups. The median was 1 to 2 out of 5 for negative questions assessing cumbersomeness, unnecessary complexity, and model inconsistency. In an additional comment textbox, one participant mentioned that the cannulation did not feel realistic but that it was good for cannulation practice. Conclusions We believe the phantom is suitable for an educational curriculum since it shows a high level of usability, scoring high on positive questions while scoring low on negative questions, and having high functional fidelity.

Platelet transfusions in adult thrombocytopenic ICU patients: Protocol for a sub-study of the PLOT-ICU cohort.

INTRODUCTION: Platelet transfusions are frequently used in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, but contemporary epidemiological data are sparse. We aim to present contemporary international data on the use of platelet transfusions in adult ICU patients with thrombocytopenia. METHODS: This is a protocol and statistical analysis plan for a post hoc sub-study of 504 thrombocytopenic patients from the 'Thrombocytopenia and platelet transfusions in ICU patients: an international inception cohort study (PLOT-ICU)'. The primary outcome will be the number of patients receiving platelet transfusion in the ICU reported according to the type of product received (apheresis-derived versus pooled whole-blood-derived transfusions). Secondary platelet transfusion outcomes will include platelet transfusion volumes; timing of platelet transfusion; approach to platelet transfusion dosing (fixed dosing versus weight-based dosing) and platelet count increments for prophylactic transfusions. Secondary clinical outcomes will include the number of patients receiving red blood cell- and plasma transfusions during ICU stay; the number of patients who bled in the ICU, the number of patients who had a new thrombosis in the ICU, and the number of patients who died. The duration of follow-up was 90 days. Baseline characteristics and secondary clinical outcomes will be stratified according to platelet transfusion status in the ICU and severity of thrombocytopenia. Data will be presented descriptively. CONCLUSIONS: The outlined study will provide detailed epidemiological data on the use of platelet transfusions in adult ICU patients with thrombocytopenia using data from the large international PLOT-ICU cohort study. The findings will inform the design of future randomised trials evaluating platelet transfusions in ICU patients.

Red Blood Cell Transfusion in the Intensive Care Unit.

Importance: Red blood cell (RBC) transfusion is common among patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Despite multiple randomized clinical trials of hemoglobin (Hb) thresholds for transfusion, little is known about how these thresholds are incorporated into current practice. Objective: To evaluate and describe ICU RBC transfusion practices worldwide. Design, Setting, and Participants: International, prospective, cohort study that involved 3643 adult patients from 233 ICUs in 30 countries on 6 continents from March 2019 to October 2022 with data collection in prespecified weeks. Exposure: ICU stay. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the occurrence of RBC transfusion during ICU stay. Additional outcomes included the indication(s) for RBC transfusion (consisting of clinical reasons and physiological triggers), the stated Hb threshold and actual measured Hb values before and after an RBC transfusion, and the number of units transfused. Results: Among 3908 potentially eligible patients, 3643 were included across 233 ICUs (median of 11 patients per ICU [IQR, 5-20]) in 30 countries on 6 continents. Among the participants, the mean (SD) age was 61 (16) years, 62% were male (2267/3643), and the median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 3.2 (IQR, 1.5-6.0). A total of 894 patients (25%) received 1 or more RBC transfusions during their ICU stay, with a median total of 2 units per patient (IQR, 1-4). The proportion of patients who received a transfusion ranged from 0% to 100% across centers, from 0% to 80% across countries, and from 19% to 45% across continents. Among the patients who received a transfusion, a total of 1727 RBC transfusions were administered, wherein the most common clinical indications were low Hb value (n = 1412 [81.8%]; mean [SD] lowest Hb before transfusion, 7.4 [1.2] g/dL), active bleeding (n = 479; 27.7%), and hemodynamic instability (n = 406 [23.5%]). Among the events with a stated physiological trigger, the most frequently stated triggers were hypotension (n = 728 [42.2%]), tachycardia (n = 474 [27.4%]), and increased lactate levels (n = 308 [17.8%]). The median lowest Hb level on days with an RBC transfusion ranged from 5.2 g/dL to 13.1 g/dL across centers, from 5.3 g/dL to 9.1 g/dL across countries, and from 7.2 g/dL to 8.7 g/dL across continents. Approximately 84% of ICUs administered transfusions to patients at a median Hb level greater than 7 g/dL. Conclusions and Relevance: RBC transfusion was common in patients admitted to ICUs worldwide between 2019 and 2022, with high variability across centers in transfusion practices.

Long-term effects of restriction of intravenous fluid in adult ICU patients with septic shock.

PURPOSE: To assess long-term outcomes of restrictive versus standard intravenous (IV) fluid therapy in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with septic shock included in the European Conservative versus Liberal Approach to Fluid Therapy in Septic Shock in Intensive Care (CLASSIC) trial. METHODS: We conducted the pre-planned analyses of mortality, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) using EuroQol (EQ)-5D-5L index values and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS), and cognitive function using Mini Montreal Cognitive Assessment (Mini MoCA) test at 1 year. Deceased patients were assigned numerical zero for HRQoL as a state equal to death and zero for cognitive function outcomes as worst possible score, and we used multiple imputation for missing data on HRQoL and cognitive function. RESULTS: Among 1554 randomized patients, we obtained 1-year data on mortality in 97.9% of patients, HRQoL in 91.3%, and cognitive function in 86.3%. One-year mortality was 385/746 (51.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group versus 383/767 (49.9%) in the standard-fluid group, absolute risk difference 1.5%-points [99% confidence interval (CI) - 4.8 to 7.8]. Mean differences were 0.00 (99% CI - 0.06 to 0.05) for EQ-5D-5L index values, - 0.65 for EQ VAS (- 5.40 to 4.08), and - 0.14 for Mini MoCA (- 1.59 to 1.14) for the restrictive-fluid group versus the standard-fluid group. The results for survivors only were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among adult ICU patients with septic shock, restrictive versus standard IV fluid therapy resulted in similar survival, HRQoL, and cognitive function at 1 year, but clinically important differences could not be ruled out.

Research priorities for therapeutic plasma exchange in critically ill patients.

Therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) is a therapeutic intervention that separates plasma from blood cells to remove pathological factors or to replenish deficient factors. The use of TPE is increasing over the last decades. However, despite a good theoretical rationale and biological plausibility for TPE as a therapy for numerous diseases or syndromes associated with critical illness, TPE in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting has not been studied extensively. A group of eighteen experts around the globe from different clinical backgrounds used a modified Delphi method to phrase key research questions related to "TPE in the critically ill patient". These questions focused on: (1) the pathophysiological role of the removal and replacement process, (2) optimal timing of treatment, (3) dosing and treatment regimes, (4) risk-benefit assumptions and (5) novel indications in need of exploration. For all five topics, the current understanding as well as gaps in knowledge and future directions were assessed. The content should stimulate future research in the field and novel clinical applications.

Learning insertion of a Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta (REBOA) catheter: Is clinical experience necessary? A prospective trial.

BACKGROUND: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is an emerging and potentially life-saving procedure, necessitating qualified operators in an increasing number of centres. The procedure shares technical elements with other vascular access procedures using the Seldinger technique, which is mastered by doctors not only in endovascular specialties but also in trauma surgery, emergency medicine, and anaesthesiology. We hypothesised that doctors mastering the Seldinger technique (experienced anaesthesiologist) would learn the technical aspects of REBOA with limited training and remain technically superior to doctors unfamiliar with the Seldinger technique (novice residents) given similar training. METHODS: This was a prospective trial of an educational intervention. Three groups of doctors were enroled: novice residents, experienced anaesthesiologists, and endovascular experts. The novices and the anaesthesiologists completed 2.5 h of simulation-based REBOA training. Their skills were tested before and 8-12 weeks after training using a standardised simulated scenario. The endovascular experts, constituting a reference group, were equivalently tested. All performances were video recorded and rated by three blinded experts using a validated assessment tool for REBOA (REBOA-RATE). Performances were compared between groups and with a previously published pass/fail cutoff. RESULTS: Sixteen novices, 13 board-certified specialists in anaesthesiology, and 13 endovascular experts participated. Before training, the anaesthesiologists outperformed the novices by 30 percentage points of the maximum REBOA-RATE score (56% (SD 14.0) vs 26% (SD 17%), p<0.01). After training, there was no difference in skills between the two groups (78% (SD 11%) vs 78 (SD 14%), p = 0.93). Neither group reached the endovascular experts' skill level (89% (SD 7%), p<0.05). CONCLUSION: For doctors mastering the Seldinger technique, there was an initial inter-procedural transfer of skills advantage when performing REBOA. However, after identical simulation-based training, novices performed equally well to anaesthesiologists, indicating that vascular access experience is not a prerequisite to learning the technical aspects of REBOA. Both groups would need more training to reach technical proficiency.

Effects of 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone on thromboembolism and bleeding in patients with critical COVID-19 - a post hoc analysis of the randomized, blinded COVID STEROID 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Thromboembolism is more common in patients with critical COVID-19 than in other critically ill patients, and inflammation has been proposed as a possible mechanism. The aim of this study was to investigate if 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone daily reduced the composite outcome of death or thromboembolism in patients with critical COVID-19. METHODS: Using additional data on thromboembolism and bleeding we did a post hoc analysis of Swedish and Danish intensive care unit patients enrolled in the blinded randomized COVID STEROID 2 trial comparing 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone daily for up to 10 days. The primary outcome was a composite outcome of death or thromboembolism during intensive care. Secondary outcomes were thromboembolism, major bleeding, and any bleeding during intensive care. RESULTS: We included 357 patients. Whilst in intensive care, 53 patients (29%) in the 12 mg group and 53 patients (30%) in the 6 mg group met the primary outcome with an unadjusted absolute risk difference of - 0.5% (95% CI - 10 to 9.5%, p = 1.00) and an adjusted OR of 0.93 (CI 95% 0.58 to 1.49, p = 0.77). We found no firm evidence of differences in any of the secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with critical COVID-19, 12 mg vs. 6 mg dexamethasone daily did not result in a statistically significant difference in the composite outcome of death or thromboembolism. However, uncertainty remains due to the limited number of patients.

Thromboembolic and bleeding events in ICU patients with COVID-19: A nationwide, observational study.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have an increased risk of thromboembolic complications. We describe the occurrence of thromboembolic and bleeding events in all ICU patients with COVID-19 in Denmark during the first and second waves of the pandemic. METHODS: This was a sub-study of the Danish Intensive Care Covid database, in which all patients with SARS-CoV-2 admitted to Danish ICUs from 10th March 2020 to 30th June 2021 were included. We registered coagulation variables at admission, and all thromboembolic and bleeding events, and the use of heparins during ICU stay. Variables associated with thrombosis and bleeding and any association with 90-day mortality were estimated using Cox regression analyses. RESULTS: We included 1369 patients in this sub-study; 158 (12%, 95% confidence interval 10-13) had a thromboembolic event in ICU and 309 (23%, 20-25) had a bleeding event, among whom 81 patients (6%, 4.8-7.3) had major bleeding. We found that mechanical ventilation and increased D-dimer were associated with thrombosis and mechanical ventilation, low platelet count and presence of haematological malignancy were associated with bleeding. Most patients (76%) received increased doses of thromboprophylaxis during their ICU stay. Thromboembolic events were not associated with mortality in adjusted analysis (hazard ratio 1.35 [0.91-2.01, p = .14], whereas bleeding events were 1.55 [1.18-2.05, p = .002]). CONCLUSIONS: Both thromboembolic and bleeding events frequently occurred in ICU patients with COVID-19. Based on these data, it is not apparent that increased doses of thromboprophylaxis were beneficial.

Platelet transfusions and thrombocytopenia in intensive care units: Protocol for an international inception cohort study (PLOT-ICU).

INTRODUCTION: Thrombocytopenia is frequent in intensive care unit (ICU) patients and has been associated with worse outcome. Platelet transfusions are often used in the management of ICU patients with severe thrombocytopenia. However, the reported frequencies of thrombocytopenia and platelet transfusion practices in the ICU vary considerably. Therefore, we aim to provide contemporary epidemiological data on thrombocytopenia and platelet transfusion practices in the ICU. METHODS: We will conduct an international inception cohort, including at least 1000 acutely admitted adult ICU patients. Routinely available data will be collected at baseline (ICU admission), and daily during ICU stay up to a maximum of 90 days. The primary outcome will be the number of patients with thrombocytopenia (a recorded platelet count < 150 × 109 /L) at baseline and/or during ICU stay. Secondary outcomes include mortality, days alive and out of hospital, days alive without life-support, the number of patients with at least one bleeding episode, at least one thromboembolic event and at least one platelet transfusion in the ICU, the number of platelet transfusions and the indications for transfusion. The primary and secondary outcomes will be presented descriptively. In addition, we will assess risk factors for developing thrombocytopenia during ICU stay and the association between thrombocytopenia at baseline and 90-day mortality using logistic regression analyses. CONCLUSION: The outlined international PLOT-ICU cohort study will provide contemporary epidemiological data on the burden and clinical significance of thrombocytopenia in adult ICU patients and describe the current platelet transfusion practice.

Plasma exchange in the intensive care unit: a narrative review.

In this narrative review, we discuss the relevant issues of therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) in critically ill patients. For many conditions, the optimal indication, device type, frequency, duration, type of replacement fluid and criteria for stopping TPE are uncertain. TPE is a potentially lifesaving but also invasive procedure with risk of adverse events and complications and requires close monitoring by experienced teams. In the intensive care unit (ICU), the indications for TPE can be divided into (1) absolute, well-established, and evidence-based, for which TPE is recognized as first-line therapy, (2) relative, for which TPE is a recognized second-line treatment (alone or combined) and (3) rescue therapy, where TPE is used with a limited or theoretical evidence base. New indications are emerging and ongoing knowledge gaps, notably regarding the use of TPE during critical illness, support the establishment of a TPE registry dedicated to intensive care medicine.

Correction: Hands-On Time in Simulation-Based Ultrasound Training - A Dose-Related Response Study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1055/a-1795-5138.].

Restriction of Intravenous Fluid in ICU Patients with Septic Shock.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous fluids are recommended for the treatment of patients who are in septic shock, but higher fluid volumes have been associated with harm in patients who are in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: In this international, randomized trial, we assigned patients with septic shock in the ICU who had received at least 1 liter of intravenous fluid to receive restricted intravenous fluid or standard intravenous fluid therapy; patients were included if the onset of shock had been within 12 hours before screening. The primary outcome was death from any cause within 90 days after randomization. RESULTS: We enrolled 1554 patients; 770 were assigned to the restrictive-fluid group and 784 to the standard-fluid group. Primary outcome data were available for 1545 patients (99.4%). In the ICU, the restrictive-fluid group received a median of 1798 ml of intravenous fluid (interquartile range, 500 to 4366); the standard-fluid group received a median of 3811 ml (interquartile range, 1861 to 6762). At 90 days, death had occurred in 323 of 764 patients (42.3%) in the restrictive-fluid group, as compared with 329 of 781 patients (42.1%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.7 to 4.9; P = 0.96). In the ICU, serious adverse events occurred at least once in 221 of 751 patients (29.4%) in the restrictive-fluid group and in 238 of 772 patients (30.8%) in the standard-fluid group (adjusted absolute difference, -1.7 percentage points; 99% CI, -7.7 to 4.3). At 90 days after randomization, the numbers of days alive without life support and days alive and out of the hospital were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among adult patients with septic shock in the ICU, intravenous fluid restriction did not result in fewer deaths at 90 days than standard intravenous fluid therapy. (Funded by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and others; CLASSIC ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03668236.).

Hands-On Time in Simulation-Based Ultrasound Training - A Dose-Related Response Study.

Purpose Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) is widely used, but the sensitivity and specificity of the findings are highly user-dependent. There are many different approaches to ultrasound training. The aim of this study was to explore the effects of hands-on practice when learning POCUS. Methods Junior doctors with no or limited ultrasound experience were included in the study and divided into three groups. They all completed a Focused Assessment with Sonography for Trauma (FAST) course with different amounts of hands-on practice: 40 minutes (n=67), 60 minutes (n=12), and 90 minutes of hands-on time (n=27). By the end of the course, they all completed a previously validated test. Results More hands-on time improved the mean test scores and decreased the test time. The scores of the 40-, 60-, and 90-minute groups were 11.6 (SD 2.1), 12.8 (SD 2.5), and 13.7 (SD 2.5), respectively (p<0.001). The 90-minute group completed the test significantly faster than the other two groups (20 versus 26 minutes, p=0.003). A large inter-individual variation was seen. Conclusion The necessary amount of hands-on training is unknown. This study demonstrates that performance increases with prolonged hands-on time but the inter-individual variation among trainees is very large, thereby making it impossible to define the "optimal" time. This supports the use of the concept of mastery learning where each individual trainee can continue training until proficiency is reached.

Reliable and valid assessment of procedural skills in resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta.

BACKGROUND: Valid and reliable assessment of skills is essential for improved and evidence-based training concepts. In a recent study, we presented a novel tool to assess procedural skills in resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA), REBOA-RATE, based on international expert consensus. Although expert consensus is a strong foundation, the performance of REBOA-RATE has not been explored. The study aimed to examine the reliability and validity of REBOA-RATE. METHODS: This was an experimental simulation-based study. We enrolled doctors with three levels of expertise to perform two REBOA procedures in a simulated scenario of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Procedures were video-recorded, and videos were blinded and randomized. Three clinical experts independently rated all procedures using REBOA-RATE. Data were analyzed using Messick's framework for validity evidence, including generalizability analysis of reliability and determination of a pass/fail standard. RESULTS: Forty-two doctors were enrolled: 16 novices, 13 anesthesiologists, and 13 endovascular experts. They all performed two procedures, yielding 84 procedures and 252 ratings. The REBOA-RATE assessment tool showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.95) and excellent interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.97). Assessment using one rater and three procedures could ensure overall reliability suitable for high-stakes testing (G-coefficient >0.80). Mean scores (SD) for the three groups in the second procedure were as follows: novices, 32% (24%); anesthesiologists, 55% (29%); endovascular experts, 93% (4%) (p < 0.001). The pass/fail standard was set at 81%, which all experts but no novices passed. CONCLUSION: Data strongly support the reliability and validity of REBOA-RATE, which successfully discriminated between all experience levels. The REBOA-RATE assessment tool requires minimal instruction, and one rater is sufficient for reliable assessment. Together, these are strong arguments for the use of REBOA-RATE to assess REBOA skills, allowing for competency-based training and certification concepts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Diagnostic test, no or poor gold standard, level V.

Developing a tool to assess competence in resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta: An international Delphi consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is an emergency procedure that is potentially lifesaving in major noncompressible torso hemorrhage. It may also improve outcome in nontraumatic cardiac arrest. However, the procedure can be technically challenging and requires the immediate presence of a qualified operator. Thus, evidence-based training and assessment of operator skills are essential for successful implementation and patient safety. A prerequisite for this is a valid and reliable assessment tool specific for the procedure. The aim of this study was to develop a tool for assessing procedural competence in REBOA based on best-available knowledge from international experts in the field. METHODS: We invited international REBOA experts from multiple specialties to participate in an anonymous three-round iterative Delphi study to reach consensus on the design and content of an assessment tool. In round 1, participants suggested items to be included. In rounds 2 and 3, the relevance of each suggested item was evaluated by all participants to reach consensus. Interround data processing was done systematically by a steering group. RESULTS: Forty panelists representing both clinical and educational expertise in REBOA from 16 countries (in Europe, Asia, and North and South America) and seven different specialties participated in the study. After 3 Delphi rounds and 532 initial item suggestions, the panelists reached consensus on a 10-item assessment tool with behaviorally anchored rating scales. It includes assessment of teamwork, procedure time, selection and preparation of equipment, puncture technique, guidewire handling, sheath handling, placement of REBOA catheter, occlusion, and evaluation. CONCLUSION: We present the REBOA-RATE assessment tool developed systematically by international experts in the field to optimize content validity. Following further studies of its validity and reliability, this tool represents an important next step in evidence-based training programs in REBOA, for example, using mastery learning. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level V.

Low-dose hydrocortisone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia: The COVID STEROID randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: In the early phase of the pandemic, some guidelines recommended the use of corticosteroids for critically ill patients with COVID-19, whereas others recommended against the use despite lack of firm evidence of either benefit or harm. In the COVID STEROID trial, we aimed to assess the effects of low-dose hydrocortisone on patient-centred outcomes in adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia. METHODS: In this multicentre, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, blinded, centrally randomised, stratified clinical trial, we randomly assigned adults with confirmed COVID-19 and severe hypoxia (use of mechanical ventilation or supplementary oxygen with a flow of at least 10 L/min) to either hydrocortisone (200 mg/d) vs a matching placebo for 7 days or until hospital discharge. The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support at day 28 after randomisation. RESULTS: The trial was terminated early when 30 out of 1000 participants had been enrolled because of external evidence indicating benefit from corticosteroids in severe COVID-19. At day 28, the median number of days alive without life support in the hydrocortisone vs placebo group were 7 vs 10 (adjusted mean difference: -1.1 days, 95% CI -9.5 to 7.3, P = .79); mortality was 6/16 vs 2/14; and the number of serious adverse reactions 1/16 vs 0/14. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial of adults with COVID-19 and severe hypoxia, we were unable to provide precise estimates of the benefits and harms of hydrocortisone as compared with placebo as only 3% of the planned sample size were enrolled. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04348305. European Union Drug Regulation Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) Database: 2020-001395-15.