Relationship between noise levels and intensive care patients' clinical complexity: An observational simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Noise pollution in intensive care units is a relevant problem, associated with psychological and physiological consequences for patients and healthcare staff. Sources of noise pollution include medical equipment, alarms, communication tools, staff activities, and conversations. AIM: To explore the cumulative effects of noise caused by an increasing number and type of medical devices in an intensive care setting on simulated patients with increasing clinical complexity. Secondly, to measure medical device alarms and nursing activities' sound levels, evaluating their role as potentially disruptive noises. STUDY DESIGN: Observational simulation study (reported according to the STROBE checklist). Using an electronic sound meter, the sound levels of an intensive care room in seven simulated clinical scenarios were measured on a single day (09 March 2022), each featuring increasing numbers of devices, hypothetically corresponding to augmented patients' clinical complexity. Secondly, noise levels of medical device alarms and specific nursing activities performed at a distance of three meters from the sound meter were analysed. RESULTS: The empty room's mean baseline noise level was 37.8 (±0.7) dBA; among the simulated scenarios, noise ranged between 45.3 (±1.0) and 53.5 (±1.5) dBA. Alarms ranged between 76.4 and 81.3 dBA, while nursing tasks (closing a drawer, opening a saline bag overwrap, or sterile packages) and speaking were all over 80 dBA. The noisiest activity was opening a sterile package (98 dBA). CONCLUSION: An increased number of medical devices, an expression of patients' higher clinical complexity, is not a significant cause of increased noise. Some specific nursing activities and conversations produce higher noise levels than medical devices and alarms. This study's findings suggest further research to assess the relationships between these factors and to encourage adequate noise reduction strategies. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: Excessive noise level in the intensive care unit is a clinical issue that negatively affects patients' and healthcare providers' well-being. The increase in baseline room noise from medical devices is generally limited. Typical nursing tasks and conversations produce higher noise levels than medical devices and alarms. These findings could be helpful to raise awareness among healthcare professionals to recognize noise sources. The noisiest components of the environment can be modified by staff behaviour, promoting noise reduction strategies and improving the critical care environment.

Association Between Type of Anaesthesia and Clinical Outcome in Patients Undergoing Endovascular Repair of Thoraco-Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms by Fenestrated and Branched Endografts.

OBJECTIVE: Although endovascular repair of thoraco-abdominal aortic aneurysm (TAAA) is the treatment of choice in the high risk population that is ineligible for an open surgical approach, little is known about the association between the type of anaesthesia and complications. This study compared the short term clinical outcomes of patients undergoing the visceral step of TAAA with fenestrated endograft aortic repair (FEVAR) and branched endograft aortic repair (BEVAR) under general anaesthesia (GA) with sedation with monitored care anaesthesia (MAC). METHODS: This single centre, retrospective, observational study recruited 124 consecutive patients undergoing elective F/BEVAR from 2014 - 2021. The primary endpoint was the short term complication rate according to the type of anaesthesia. Secondary endpoints included: need for inotropes or vasopressors for hypotension, time spent in the operating room, and admission to the intensive care unit. Propensity score matching was generated to account for the between group imbalance in the pre-operative covariables. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 42 patients under GA were matched with 42 under MAC. The two groups showed no difference in cardiac and non-cardiac complications. Among the secondary outcomes, a higher number of patients in the GA group required inotropes or vasopressors compared with MAC (33% vs. 9%; p = .031). Although GA and MAC showed the same 30 day technical success (81% vs. 83%; p = .078), non-significant lower rates of major adverse events (10% vs. 12%; p = .72), one year re-intervention (14% vs. 21%; p = .39), and one year target vessel instability (10% vs. 21%; p = .39) were observed in the GA group. Overall, the in hospital mortality rate was 4%, with no difference between GA and MAC (2% vs. 5%; p = 1.0). CONCLUSION: The type of anaesthesia seemed to have no effect on procedure success, peri-operative morbidity, or mortality in patients undergoing F/BEVAR.

One-Year Multidisciplinary Follow-Up of Patients With COVID-19 Requiring Invasive Mechanical Ventilation.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with COVID-19 frequently develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Data on long-term survival of these patients are lacking. The authors investigated 1-year survival, quality of life, and functional recovery of patients with COVID-19 ARDS requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Tertiary-care university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: All patients with COVID-19 ARDS receiving invasive mechanical ventilation and discharged alive from hospital. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were contacted by phone after 1 year. Functional, cognitive, and psychological outcomes were explored through a questionnaire and assessed using validated scales. Patients were offered the possibility to undergo a follow-up chest computed tomography (CT) scan. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The study included all adult (age ≥18 years) patients with COVID-19-related ARDS admitted to an ICU of the authors' institution between February 25, 2020, and April 27, 2020, who received at least 1 day of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Of 116 patients who received IMV, 61 (52.6%) survived to hospital discharge. These survivors were assessed 1 year after discharge and 56 completed a battery of tests of cognition, activities of daily living, and interaction with family members. They had overall good functional recovery, with >80% reporting good recovery and no difficulties in usual activities. A total of 52 (93%) of patients had no dyspnea at rest. Severe anxiety/depression was reported by 5 (8.9%) patients. Comparing 2-month and 1-year data, the authors observed the most significant improvements in the areas of working status and exertional dyspnea. One-year chest CT scans were available for 36 patients; fibrotic-like changes were present in 4 patients. CONCLUSIONS: All patients who survived the acute phase of COVID-19 and were discharged from the hospital were alive at the 1-year follow up, and the vast majority of them had good overall recovery and quality of life.

Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic on Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest System-of-Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Introduction: COVID-19 pandemic overwhelmed healthcare systems and diverted resources allocated for other conditions. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to analyse how the pandemic impacted the system-of-care of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.Methods: We searched PubMed and Embase up to May 31, 2021, for studies comparing out-of-hospital cardiac arrests that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic versus a non-pandemic period. Survival at hospital discharge or at 30 days was the primary outcome.Results: We included 24 studies for a total of 75,952 patients. Out-of-hospital cardiac arrests during COVID-19 pandemic had lower survival (19 studies; 603/11,666 [5.2%] vs. 1320/17,174 [7.7%]; OR = 0.54; 95% CI, 0.44-0.65; P = 0.001) and return of spontaneous circulation (4370/24353 [18%] vs. 7401/34510 [21%]; OR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.55-0.75; P < 0.001) compared with non-pandemic periods. Ambulance response times (10.1 vs 9.0 minutes, MD = 1.01; 95% CI, 0.59-1.42; P < 0.001) and non-shockable rhythms (18,242/21,665 [84%] vs. 19,971/24,817 [81%]; OR = 1.27; 95% CI, 1.10-1.46; P < 0.001) increased. Use of supraglottic airways devices increased (2853/7645 [37%] vs. 2043/17521 [12%]; OR = 1.97; 95% CI, 1.42-2.74; P < 0.001).Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic affected the system-of-care of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, and patients had worse short-term outcomes compared to pre-pandemic periods. Advanced airway management strategy shifted from endotracheal intubation to supraglottic airway devices. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021250339.

Two-year multidisciplinary follow-up of COVID-19 patients requiring invasive and noninvasive respiratory support.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 patients frequently develop respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation. Data on long-term survival of patients who had severe COVID-19 are insufficient. We assessed and compared two-year survival, CT imaging, quality of life, and functional recovery of COVID-19 ARDS patients requiring respiratory support with invasive (IMV) versus noninvasive ventilation (NIV). METHODS: Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted up to May 28th, 2020, who required IMV or NIV, and survived to hospital discharge were enrolled. Patients were contacted two years after discharge to assess vital status, functional, psychological, and cognitive outcomes using validated scales. Patients with persistent respiratory symptoms or high burden of residual lung damage at previous CT scan received a two-year chest CT scan. RESULTS: Out of 61 IMV survivors, 98% were alive at two-year follow-up, and 52 completed the questionnaire. Out of 82 survivors receiving NIV only, 94% were alive at two years, and 47 completed the questionnaire. We found no major differences between invasively and noninvasively ventilated patients, with overall acceptable functional recovery. Among the 99 patients completing the questionnaire, 23 have more than moderate exertional dyspnea. Chest CT scans showed that 4 patients (all received IMV) had fibrotic-like changes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received mechanical ventilation due to COVID-19 and were discharged from hospital had a 96% survival rate at the two-year follow-up. There was no difference in overall recovery and quality of life between patients who did and did not require IMV, although respiratory morbidity remains high.

How many of the COVID-19 deaths occurred in the Intensive Care Unit?

BACKGROUND: The percentage of overall COVID-19 deaths which occurred in intensive care units (ICU) is unknown. We estimated 18% in Italy from February 21, 2020, to February 21, 2021, using cumulative numbers from publicly available databases. This study aims to confirm this percentage using raw data from Italian and European registries. METHODS: We searched PubMed, government health reports, and medical websites to obtain the ratio between number of COVID-19 deaths in ICUs and total number of COVID-19 deaths in the most hit European regions during the first year of the pandemic. When available, we distinguished between different waves and interwaves periods. We performed a forest plot with random effect of proportions to calculate the overall European percentage. RESULTS: We found data for six European countries (United Kingdom, Netherlands, Norway, Italy, Denmark, and Germany). The percentage of COVID-19 deaths which occurred in United Kingdom ICUs was 10% and 11% during the first and the second pandemic waves, respectively. Netherlands and Norway counted 13% and 16%. Italy had 18% of the overall COVID-19 deaths occurring in the ICU during both pandemic waves, and 17% during the intra-pandemic period. Denmark and Germany counted 20% and 22%. Overall, 16% of the COVID-19 deaths occurred in European ICUs. CONCLUSIONS: The percentage of COVID-19 deaths which occurred in European ICUs was 16% and consistent across different countries, ranging from 10% to 22%. Interestingly, we observed no difference between pandemic waves and intra-pandemic periods.

A radiological predictor for pneumomediastinum/pneumothorax in COVID-19 ARDS patients.

PURPOSE: To determine whether Macklin effect (a linear collection of air contiguous to the bronchovascular sheath) on baseline CT imaging is an accurate predictor for subsequent pneumomediastinum (PMD)/pneumothorax (PNX) development in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is an observational, case-control study. From a prospectively acquired database, all consecutive invasively ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients who underwent at least one baseline chest CT scan during the study time period (February 25th, 2020-December 31st, 2020) were identified; those who had tracheal lesion or already had PMD/PNX at the time of the first available chest imaging were excluded. RESULTS: 37/173 (21.4%) patients enrolled had PMD/PNX; specifically, 20 (11.5%) had PMD, 10 (5.8%) PNX, 7 (4%) both. 33/37 patients with subsequent PMD/PNX had Macklin effect on baseline CT (89.2%, true positives) 8.5 days [range, 1-18] before the first actual radiological evidence of PMD/PNX. Conversely, 6/136 patients without PMD/PNX (4.4%, false positives) demonstrated Macklin effect (p < 0.001). Macklin effect yielded a sensitivity of 89.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 74.6-96.9), a specificity of 95.6% (95% CI: 90.6-98.4), a positive predictive value (PV) of 84.5% (95% CI: 71.3-92.3), a negative PV of 97.1% (95% CI: 74.6-96.9) and an accuracy of 94.2% (95% CI: 89.6-97.2) in predicting PMD/PNX (AUC:0.924). CONCLUSIONS: Macklin effect accurately predicts, 8.5 days in advance, PMD/PNX development in COVID-19 ARDS patients.