Intensive Care in India in 2018-2019: The Second Indian Intensive Care Case Mix and Practice Patterns Study.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to study organizational aspects, case mix, and practices in Indian intensive care units (ICUs) from 2018 to 2019, following the Indian Intensive Care Case Mix and Practice Patterns Study (INDICAPS) of 2010-2011. METHODS: An observational, 4-day point prevalence study was performed between 2018 and 2019. ICU, patient characteristics, and interventions were recorded for 24 hours, and ICU outcomes till 30 days after the study day. Adherence to selected compliance measures was determined. Data were analyzed for 4,669 adult patients from 132 ICUs. RESULTS: On the study day, mean age, acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE II), and sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores were 56.9 ± 17.41 years, 16.7 ± 9.8, and 4.4 ± 3.6, respectively. Moreover, 24% and 22.2% of patients received mechanical ventilation (MV) and vasopressors or inotropes (VIs), respectively. On the study days, 1,195 patients (25.6%) were infected and 1,368 patients (29.3%) had sepsis during their ICU stay. ICU mortality was 1,092 out of 4,669 (23.4%), including 737 deaths and 355 terminal discharges (TDs) from ICU. Compliance for process measures related to MV ranged between 62.7 and 85.3%, 11.2 and 47.4% for monitoring delirium, sedation, and analgesia, and 7.7 and 25.3% for inappropriate transfusion of blood products. Only 34.8% of ICUs routinely used capnography. Large hospitals with ≥500 beds, closed ICUs, the APACHE II and SOFA scores, medical admissions, the presence of cancer or cirrhosis of the liver, the presence of infection on the study day, and the need for MV or VIs were independent predictors of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital size and closed ICUs are independently associated with worse outcomes. The proportion of TDs remains high. There is a scope for improvements in processes of care.Registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03631927). HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Divatia JV, Mehta Y, Govil D, Zirpe K, Amin PR, Ramakrishnan N, et al. Intensive Care in India in 2018-2019: The Second Indian Intensive Care Case Mix and Practice Patterns Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(10):1093-1107.

Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine Experts Committee Consensus Statement on ICU Planning and Designing, 2020.

BACKGROUND: Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine (ISCCM) guidelines on Planning and Designing Intensive care (ICU) were first developed in 2001 and later updated in 2007. These guidelines were adopted in India, many developing Nations and major Institutions including NABH. Various international professional bodies in critical care have their own position papers and guidelines on planning and designing of ICUs; being the professional body of intensivists in India ISCCM therefore addresses the subject in contemporary context relevant to our clinical practice, its variability according to specialty and subspecialty, quality, resource limitation, size and location of the institution. Aim: To have a consensus document reflecting the philosophy of ISCCM to deliver safe & quality Critical Care in India, taking into consideration the requirement of regulatory agencies (national & international) and need of people at large, including promotion of training, education and skill upgradation. It also aiming to promote leadership and development and managerial skill among the critical care team. Material and Methods: Extensive review of literature including search of databases in English language, resources of regulatory bodies, guidelines and recommendations of international critical care societies. National Survey of ISCCM members and experts to understand their viewpoints on respective issues. Visiting of different types and levels of ICUs by team members to understand prevailing practices, aspiration and Challenges. Several face to face meetings of the expert committee members in big and small groups with extensive discussions, presentations, brain storming and development of initial consensus draft. Discussion on draft through video conferencing, phone calls, Emails circulations, one to one discussion Result: Based upon extensive review, survey and input of experts' ICUs were categorized in to three levels suitable in Indian setting. Level III ICUs further divided into sub category A and B. Recommendations were grouped in to structure, equipment and services of ICU with consideration of variation in level of ICU of different category of hospitals. Conclusion: This paper summarizes consensus statement of various aspect of ICU planning and design. Defined mandatory and desirable standards of all level of ICUs and made recommendations regarding structure and layout of ICUs. Definition of intensive care and intensivist, planning for strength of ICU and requirement of manpower were also described. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Rungta N, Zirpe KG, Dixit SB, Mehta Y, Chaudhry D, Govil D, et al. Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine Experts Committee Consensus Statement on ICU Planning and Designing, 2020. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(Suppl 1):S43-S60.

Guidelines for prevention of hospital acquired infections.

These guidelines, written for clinicians, contains evidence-based recommendations for the prevention of hospital acquired infections Hospital acquired infections are a major cause of mortality and morbidity and provide challenge to clinicians. Measures of infection control include identifying patients at risk of nosocomial infections, observing hand hygiene, following standard precautions to reduce transmission and strategies to reduce VAP, CR-BSI, CAUTI. Environmental factors and architectural lay out also need to be emphasized upon. Infection prevention in special subsets of patients - burns patients, include identifying sources of organism, identification of organisms, isolation if required, antibiotic prophylaxis to be used selectively, early removal of necrotic tissue, prevention of tetanus, early nutrition and surveillance. Immunodeficient and Transplant recipients are at a higher risk of opportunistic infections. The post tranplant timetable is divided into three time periods for determining risk of infections. Room ventilation, cleaning and decontamination, protective clothing with care regarding food requires special consideration. Monitoring and Surveillance are prioritized depending upon the needs. Designated infection control teams should supervise the process and help in collection and compilation of data. Antibiotic Stewardship Recommendations include constituting a team, close coordination between teams, audit, formulary restriction, de-escalation, optimizing dosing, active use of information technology among other measure. The recommendations in these guidelines are intended to support, and not replace, good clinical judgment. The recommendations are rated by a letter that indicates the strength of the recommendation and a Roman numeral that indicates the quality of evidence supporting the recommendation, so that readers can ascertain how best to apply the recommendations in their practice environments.

Computed tomography severity score as a predictor of disease severity and mortality in COVID-19 patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Prediction of outcomes in severe COVID-19 patients using chest computed tomography severity score (CTSS) may enable more effective clinical management and early, timely ICU admission. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the predictive accuracy of the CTSS for disease severity and mortality in severe COVID-19 subjects. METHODS: The electronic databases PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched to find eligible studies that investigated the impact of CTSS on disease severity and mortality in COVID-19 patients between 7 January 2020 and 15 June 2021. Two independent authors looked into the risk of bias using the Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool. RESULTS: Seventeen studies involving 2788 patients reported the predictive value of CTSS for disease severity. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and summary area under the curve (sAUC) of CTSS were 0.85 (95% CI 0.78-0.90, I2 =83), 0.86 (95% CI 0.76-0.92, I2 =96) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.89-0.94), respectively. Six studies involving 1403 patients reported the predictive values of CTSS for COVID-19 mortality. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and sAUC of CTSS were 0.77 (95% CI 0.69-0.83, I2 = 41), 0.79 (95% CI 0.72-0.85, I2 = 88), and 0.84 (95% CI 0.81-0.87), respectively. DISCUSSION: Early prediction of prognosis is needed to deliver the better care to patients and stratify them as soon as possible. Because different CTSS thresholds have been reported in various studies, clinicians are still determining whether CTSS thresholds should be used to define disease severity and predict prognosis. CONCLUSION: Early prediction of prognosis is needed to deliver optimal care and timely stratification of patients.  CTSS has strong discriminating power for the prediction of disease severity and mortality in patients with COVID-19.

Comparison of analgesic effects of pericapsular nerve group block and fascia iliaca compartment block during hip arthroplasty: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Background and Aims: Postoperative pain for patients having hip arthroplasty ranges from moderate to severe. Many regional anaesthesia procedures treat postoperative pain to improve functional ability and quality of life. Evidence comparing the analgesic effects of the pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block and fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) remains unclear. The analgesic efficacies of PENG and FICB in hip arthroplasty were compared to determine which technique is associated with superior analgesia. Methods: The electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar and Web of Sciences) were searched for published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) till 5 April 2023 comparing PENG block vs. FICB following hip arthroplasty. The primary outcome was pain scores [numerical rating scale (NRS) or visual analogue scale (VAS)] between 0 and 10 at rest and during movement at 24 h. Secondary outcomes included pain scores at rest and during movement within 30 min, at 6 h and 12 h, time to first rescue analgesia and cumulative postoperative opioid use in 24 h. We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration Risk-of-Bias 2 tool. Using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), the certainty of the evidence was assessed. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore the source of heterogeneity. Results: We included 12 RCTs examining 644 patients. Pain scores at rest at 24 h (standardised mean differences (SMDs): 0.17; 95% confidence interval (CI): -0.90 to 1.23; P = 0.76, moderate certainty) and during movement at 24 h (SMD: -0.58, 95% CI: -1.53 to 0.38, P = 0.24, moderate certainty) were not different in both PENG block and FICB. Pain scores at rest and during movement within 30 min may be lower with PENG block than FICB. However, the pain score at rest and during movement at 6 h and the time to first rescue analgesia were not different between the two treatment arms. The mean opioid consumption in oral morphine equivalents (mg) in 24 h may be lower with PENG than FICB. Conclusion: We observed no difference between the PENG block and the FICB at 24 h for pain at rest and movement with a moderate degree of certainty. However, PENG block showed improved analgesia within 30 min at rest and during movement, and reduce postoperative opioid consumption in 24 h with moderate certainty of evidence. Further large-scale and high-quality RCTs are required to supplement the present findings.

ROX index as a good predictor of high flow nasal cannula failure in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Prediction of high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) failure in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) may improve clinical management and stratification of patients for optimal treatment. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine performance of ROX index as a predictor of HFNC failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic search was performed in electronic databases (PubMed, Google Scholar, Web of Science and Cochrane Library) for articles published till 15 June 2021 investigating ROX index as a predictor for HFNC failure. Quality In Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool was used to analyze risk of bias for prognostic factors, by two independent authors. RESULTS: Eight retrospective or prospective cohort studies involving 1301 patients showed a good discriminatory value, summary area under the curve (sAUC) 0.81 (95% CI, 0.77-0.84) with sensitivity of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.59-0.80) and specificity of 0.79 (95% CI, 0.67-0.88) for predicting HNFC failure. The positive and negative likelihood ratio were 3.0 (95% CI, 2.2-5.3) and 0.37 (95% CI, 0.28-0.50) respectively, and was strongly associated with a promising predictive accuracy (Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) 9, 95% CI, 5-16). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis suggests ROX index has good discriminating power for prediction of HFNC failure in COVID-19 patients with AHRF.

Critical care as a career for anaesthesiologists.

Anaesthesiologists by virtue of their understanding of physiology, pharmacology and resuscitation skills are best suited to manage critical care units. Armed with this varied knowledge, the anaesthesiologist is 'physician to the surgeon and a surgeon to the physician'. Specialised training helps them to provide extended postoperative and critical care. During the past few months in the battle with coronavirus disease (COVID)-19, anaesthesiologists have stood up to the challenge of caring for critically ill patients, compromising on their operating room responsibilities. The fact from a growing body of literature suggests that an anaesthesiologist as a critical care specialist provides efficient care and better outcomes. With an increasing awareness and need for critical care, government support is going to increase with an increase in avenues for training and research leading to better professional development and earning potential.

Randomized Double-Blinded Comparative Study of Intravenous Nalbuphine and Tramadol for the Treatment of Postspinal Anesthesia Shivering.

CONTEXT: Shivering is one of the most commonly recognized complications of the central neuraxial blockade. For optimal perioperative care, control of postspinal anesthesia shivering is essential. AIMS: The present study designed to compare the clinical efficacy, hemodynamic parameters, and side effects of nalbuphine and tramadol for control of postspinal anesthesia shivering. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was conducted on 90 American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I and II patients of either gender, aged between 18 and 60 years, who subsequently developed shivering grade 3 or 4, scheduled for different surgical procedures under spinal anesthesia. The patients were randomized into two groups of 45 patients each to receive either nalbuphine 0.06 mg.kg-1 (Group N) or tramadol 1 mg.kg-1 (Group T). Grade of shivering, onset of shivering, time interval for cessation of shivering, response rate at 5 and 30 min, rescue dose, hemodynamic parameters, and side effects were observed at scheduled intervals. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Independent t-test and Chi-square/Fisher's exact test were used to analyze the data. RESULTS: The time taken for cessation of shivering was significantly less with nalbuphine in comparison with tramadol (P < 0.05). It was observed that the response time at 5 and 30 min and rescue dose requirement for control of shivering were not much difference (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both nalbuphine and tramadol are effective; however, the time taken for cessation of shivering is significantly less with nalbuphine when compared to tramadol. Furthermore, tramadol causes significantly more nausea and vomiting; however, nalbuphine causes significantly more sedation.