Search

Objectives: To evaluate the effect of procalcitonin-guided management on the duration of antibiotic therapy in critically ill cancer patients with sepsis., Design: Randomized, controlled, single-blinded trial., Setting: A comprehensive multidisciplinary cancer hospital in Jordan., Patients: Adults with cancer treated in the ICU who were started on antibiotics for suspected infection, met the SEPSIS-3 criteria, and were expected to stay in the ICU greater than or equal to 48 hours., Interventions: Patients were randomized to the procalcitonin-guided or standard care (SC) arms. All patients had procalcitonin measured daily, up to 5 days or until ICU discharge or death. For the procalcitonin arm, a procalcitonin-guided algorithm was provided to guide antibiotic management, but clinicians were allowed to override the algorithm, if clinically indicated. In the SC arm, ICU clinicians were blinded to the procalcitonin levels., Measurements and Main Results: Primary outcome was time to antibiotic cessation. We also evaluated the number of antibiotic-free days at 28 days, hospital discharge, or death, whichever came first, and antibiotic defined daily doses (DDDs). We enrolled 77 patients in the procalcitonin arm and 76 in the SC arm. Mean age was 58 ± 14 (sd) years, 67% were males, 74% had solid tumors, and 13% were neutropenic. Median (interquartile range [IQR]) Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were 7 (6-10) and 7 (5-9) and procalcitonin concentrations (ng/mL) at baseline were 3.4 (0.8-16) and 3.4 (0.5-26), in the procalcitonin and SC arms, respectively. There was no difference in the median (IQR) time to antibiotic cessation in the procalcitonin and SC arms, 8 (4-11) and 8 (5-13), respectively (p = 0.463). Median (IQR) number of antibiotic-free days were 20 (17-24) and 20 (16-23), (p = 0.484) and total DDDs were 1541.4 and 2050.4 in the procalcitonin and SC arms, respectively., Conclusions: In critically ill cancer patients with sepsis, procalcitonin-guided management did not reduce the duration of antibiotic treatment., Competing Interests: The authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)

Background: This Rapid Practice Guideline (RPG) aimed to provide evidence-based recommendations for ketamine analgo-sedation (monotherapy and adjunct) versus non-ketamine sedatives or usual care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients on invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV) and to identify knowledge gaps for future research., Methods: The RPG panel comprised 23 multinational multidisciplinary panelists, including a patient representative. An up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis constituted the evidence base. The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, and the evidence-to-decision framework were used to assess the certainty of evidence and to move from evidence to decision/recommendation. The panel provided input on the balance of the desirable and undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs, resources, equity, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities., Results: Data from 17 randomized clinical trials (n = 898) and nine observational studies (n = 1934) were included. There was considerable uncertainty about the desirable and undesirable effects of ketamine monotherapy for analgo-sedation. The evidence was very low certainty and downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency. Uncertainty or variability in values and preferences were identified. Costs, resources, equity, and acceptability were considered varied. Adjunctive ketamine therapy had no effect on mortality (within 28 days) (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.27; low certainty), and may slightly reduce iMV duration (days) (mean difference [MD] -0.05 days; 95% CI -0.07 to -0.03; low certainty), and uncertain effect on the cumulative dose of opioids (mcg/kg/h morphine equivalent) (MD -11.6; 95% CI -20.4 to -2.7; very low certainty). Uncertain desirable effects (cumulative dose of sedatives and vasopressors) and undesirable effects (adverse event rate, delirium, arrhythmia, hepatotoxicity, hypersalivation, use of physical restraints) were also identified. A possibility of important uncertainty or variability in patient-important outcomes led to a balanced effect that favored neither the intervention nor the comparison. Cost, resources, and equity were considered varied., Conclusion: The RPG panel provided two conditional recommendations and suggested (1) against using ketamine as monotherapy analgo-sedation in critically ill adults on iMV when other analgo-sedatives are available; and (2) using ketamine as an adjunct to non-ketamine usual care sedatives (e.g., opioids, propofol, dexmedetomidine) or continuing with non-ketamine usual care sedatives alone. Large-scale trials should provide additional evidence., (© 2024 Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica Foundation.)

Background: This Rapid Practice Guideline (RPG) aimed to provide evidence‑based recommendations for ketamine analgo-sedation (monotherapy and adjunct) versus non-ketamine sedatives or usual care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients on invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV) and to identify knowledge gaps for future research., Methods: The RPG panel comprised 23 multinational multidisciplinary panelists, including a patient representative. An up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis constituted the evidence base. The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, and the evidence-to-decision framework were used to assess the certainty of evidence and to move from evidence to decision/recommendation. The panel provided input on the balance of the desirable and undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs, resources, equity, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities., Results: Data from 17 randomized clinical trials (n=898) and 9 observational studies (n=1934) were included. There was considerable uncertainty about the desirable and undesirable effects of ketamine monotherapy for analgo-sedation. The evidence was very low certainty and downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency. Uncertainty or variability in values and preferences were identified. Costs, resources, equity, and acceptability were considered varied. Adjunctive ketamine therapy had no effect on mortality (within 28 days) (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.27; low certainty), and may slightly reduce iMV duration (days) (mean difference [MD] -0.05 days; 95% CI -0.07 to -0.03; low certainty), and uncertain effect on the cumulative dose of opioids (mcg/kg/h morphine equivalent) (MD -11.6; 95% CI -20.4 to -2.7; very low certainty). Uncertain desirable effects (cumulative dose of sedatives and vasopressors) and undesirable effects (adverse event rate, delirium, arrhythmia, hepatotoxicity, hypersalivation, use of physical restraints) were also identified. A possibility of important uncertainty or variability in patient-important outcomes led to a balanced effect that favored neither the intervention nor the comparison. Cost, resources, and equity were considered varied., Conclusion: The RPG panel provided two conditional recommendations and suggested (1) against using ketamine as monotherapy analgo-sedation in critically ill adults on iMV when other analgo-sedatives are available; and (2) using ketamine as an adjunct to non-ketamine usual care sedatives (e.g., opioids, propofol, dexmedetomidine) or continuing with non-ketamine usual care sedatives alone. Large-scale trials should provide additional evidence., (Copyright © 2024 International Anesthesia Research Society.)

Objective: To discuss the strengths and limitations of ventilator-free days and to provide a comprehensive discussion of the different analytic methods for analyzing and interpreting this outcome., Methods: Using simulations, the power of different analytical methods was assessed, namely: quantile (median) regression, cumulative logistic regression, generalized pairwise comparison, conditional approach and truncated approach. Overall, 3,000 simulations of a two-arm trial with n = 300 per arm were computed using a two-sided alternative hypothesis and a type I error rate of α = 0.05., Results: When considering power, median regression did not perform well in studies where the treatment effect was mainly driven by mortality. Median regression performed better in situations with a weak effect on mortality but a strong effect on duration, duration only, and moderate mortality and duration. Cumulative logistic regression was found to produce similar power to the Wilcoxon rank-sum test across all scenarios, being the best strategy for the scenarios of moderate mortality and duration, weak mortality and strong duration, and duration only., Conclusion: In this study, we describe the relative power of new methods for analyzing ventilator-free days in critical care research. Our data provide validation and guidance for the use of the cumulative logistic model, median regression, generalized pairwise comparisons, and the conditional and truncated approach in specific scenarios.

Objectives: To identify the best population, design of the intervention, and to assess between-group biochemical separation, in preparation for a future phase III trial., Design: Investigator-initiated, parallel-group, pilot randomized double-blind trial., Setting: Eight ICUs in Australia, New Zealand, and Japan, with participants recruited from April 2021 to August 2022., Patients: Thirty patients greater than or equal to 18 years, within 48 hours of admission to the ICU, receiving a vasopressor, and with metabolic acidosis (pH < 7.30, base excess [BE] < -4 mEq/L, and Pa co2 < 45 mm Hg)., Interventions: Sodium bicarbonate or placebo (5% dextrose)., Measurements and Main Result: The primary feasibility aim was to assess eligibility, recruitment rate, protocol compliance, and acid-base group separation. The primary clinical outcome was the number of hours alive and free of vasopressors on day 7. The recruitment rate and the enrollment-to-screening ratio were 1.9 patients per month and 0.13 patients, respectively. Time until BE correction (median difference, -45.86 [95% CI, -63.11 to -28.61] hr; p < 0.001) and pH correction (median difference, -10.69 [95% CI, -19.16 to -2.22] hr; p = 0.020) were shorter in the sodium bicarbonate group, and mean bicarbonate levels in the first 24 hours were higher (median difference, 6.50 [95% CI, 4.18 to 8.82] mmol/L; p < 0.001). Seven days after randomization, patients in the sodium bicarbonate and placebo group had a median of 132.2 (85.6-139.1) and 97.1 (69.3-132.4) hours alive and free of vasopressor, respectively (median difference, 35.07 [95% CI, -9.14 to 79.28]; p = 0.131). Recurrence of metabolic acidosis in the first 7 days of follow-up was lower in the sodium bicarbonate group (3 [20.0%] vs. 15 [100.0%]; p < 0.001). No adverse events were reported., Conclusions: The findings confirm the feasibility of a larger phase III sodium bicarbonate trial; eligibility criteria may require modification to facilitate recruitment., Competing Interests: Dr. Higgins’ institution received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) investigator grant. Dr. Young disclosed government work. Dr. Maeda disclosed work for hire. Dr. French disclosed the off-label product use of Sodium bicarbonate in critical illness. Dr. Cooper’s institution received funding from the NHMRC of Australia and Eustralis Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd (Pressura Neuro). Dr. Udy disclosed that he received trial consumables from Integra Lifesciences. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Background: To our knowledge, the use and management of pressure support ventilation (PSV) in patients receiving prolonged (≥ 7 days) invasive mechanical ventilation has not previously been described. Objective: To collect and analyse data on the use and management of PSV in critically ill patients receiving prolonged ventilation. Design, setting and participants: We performed a multicentre retrospective observational study in Australia, with a focus on PSV in patients ventilated for ≥ 7 days. Main outcome measures: We obtained detailed data on ventilator management twice daily (8am and 8pm moments) for the first 7 days of ventilation. Results: Among 143 consecutive patients, 90/142 (63.4%) had received PSV by Day 7, and PSV accounted for 40.5% (784/1935) of ventilation moments. The most common pressure support level was 10 cmH 2 O (352/780) observations [45.1%]) with little variation over time, and 37 of 114 patients (32.4%) had no change in pressure support. Mean tidal volume during PSV was 8.3 (7.0-9.5) mL/kg predicted bodyweight (PBW) compared with 7.5 (7.0-8.3) mL/kg PBW during mandatory ventilation (P < 0.001). For 74.6% (247/331) of moments, despite a tidal volume of more than 8 mL/kg PBW, the pressure support level was not changed. Among 122 patients exposed to PSV, 97 (79.5%) received likely over-assistance according to rapid shallow breathing index criteria. Of 784 PSV moments, 411 (52.4%) were also likely over-assisted according to rapid shallow breathing index criteria, and 269/346 (77.7%) having no subsequent adjustment of pressure support. Conclusions: In patients receiving prolonged ventilation, almost two-thirds received PSV, which accounted for 40.5% of mechanical ventilation time. Half of the PSV-treated patients were exposed to high tidal volume and two-thirds to likely over-assistance. These observations provide evidence that can be used to inform interventional studies of PSV management., Competing Interests: No relevant disclosures., (© 2021 College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand.)

Competing Interests: We declare no competing interests.

Background: Establishing sequela following critical illness is a public health priority; however, recruitment and retention of this cohort make assessing functional outcomes difficult. Completing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) via telephone may improve participant and researcher involvement; however, there is little evidence regarding the correlation of PROMs to performance-based outcome measures in critical care survivors., Objectives: The objective of this study was to assess the relationship between self-reported and performance-based measures of function in survivors of critical illness., Methods: This was a nested cohort study of patients enrolled within a previously published study determining predictors of disability-free survival. Spearman's correlation (r s ) was calculated between four performance-based outcomes (the Functional Independence Measure [FIM], 6-min walk distance [6MWD], Functional Reach Test [FRT], and grip strength) that were collected during a home visit 6 months following their intensive care unit admission, with two commonly used PROMs (World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale 2.0 12 Level [WHODAS 2.0] and EuroQol-5 Dimension-5 Level [EQ-5D-5L]) obtained via phone interview (via the PREDICT study) at the same time point., Results: There were 38 PROMs obtained from 40 recruited patients (mean age = 59.8 ± 16 yrs, M:F = 24:16). All 40 completed the FIM and grip strength, 37 the 6MWD, and 39 the FRT. A strong correlation was found between the primary outcome of the WHODAS 2.0 with all performance-based outcomes apart from grip strength where a moderate correlation was identified. Although strong correlations were also established between the EQ-5D-5L utility score and the FIM, 6MWD, and FRT, it only correlated weakly with grip strength. The EQ-5D overall global health rating only had very weak to moderate correlations with the performance-based outcomes., Conclusion: The WHODAS 2.0 correlated stronger across multiple performance-based outcome measures of functional recovery and is recommended for use in survivors of critical illness., (Copyright © 2022 Australian College of Critical Care Nurses Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The BALANCE study is a randomised clinical trial (3626 participants) designed to assess the non-inferiority of 7 days (short-course) antibiotic therapy compared with 14 days of therapy for bacteraemia using the pragmatic endpoint of 90-day survival. Based on pilot study data, approximately 30% of enrolees will have a urinary tract infection (UTI) as the source of bacteraemia., Methods and Analysis: We aim to assess the non-inferiority of short-course antibiotic therapy for patients with bacteraemia UTIs.Participating sites in four countries will be invited to join this substudy. All participants of this substudy will be enrolled in the main BALANCE study. The intervention will be assigned and treatment administered as specified in the main protocol.We will include participants in this substudy if the probable source of their infection is a UTI, as judged by the site principal investigator, and they have a urine microscopy and culture indicative of a UTI. Participants will be excluded if they have an ileal loop, vesicoureteric reflux or suspected or confirmed prostatitis.The primary outcome is the absence of a positive culture on a test-of-cure urine sample collected 6-12 days after cessation of antimicrobials, with a non-inferiority margin of 15%. Secondary outcomes include the clinical resolution of infection symptoms at test-of-cure., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has been approved in conjunction with the main BALANCE study through the relevant ethics review process at each participating site. We will disseminate the results through the Australasian Society for Infectious Diseases, Canadian Critical Care Trials Group, the Association for Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Canada Clinical Research Network (AMMI Canada CRN) and other collaborators., Universal Trial Number: U1111-1256-0874., Main Balance Trial Registration: NCT03005145., Trial Registration Number: Australian Clinical Trial Register: ACTRN12620001108909., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: N95 respirators, together with eye protection, form vital elements of personal protective equipment (PPE) for healthcare workers (HCW) caring for patients with respiratory infections, such as COVID-19. Duckbill N95 respirators are widely used but have a high failure rate when Fit Tested. The commonest site for inward leaks is the region between the nose and maxilla. Safety goggles with an elastic headband may press the upper rim of the respirator against the face, thereby reducing inward leaks. We hypothesized that the use of safety goggles with an elastic headband will improve the overall fit-factor of a duckbill N95 respirator and increase the proportion of users who pass a quantitative Fit Test., Methods: About 60 volunteer HCWs, who had previously failed quantitative Fit Testing with a duckbill N95 respirator, participated in this before-and-after intervention study. A PortaCount® 8048 was used for quantitative Fit Testing. The test was first performed with a duckbill N95 respirator only. It was then repeated after participants donned a pair of safety goggles (3M Fahrenheit, ID 70071531621)., Results: Before the intervention, i.e., with the respirator only, 8 (13.3%) participants passed their Fit Test. This increased to 49 (81.7%) after the application of safety goggles (OR 42, 95% CI 7.14-1697.9, p < 0.0001). The adjusted mean overall fit factor, using Tobit regression analysis, increased from 40.3 to 193.0 ( t = 12.32, p < 0.001)., Conclusion: The use of safety goggles with an elastic headband significantly increases the proportion of users who pass a quantitative Fit Test and improves the fit-factor of a duckbill N95 respirator., How to Cite This Article: Kamal M, Bhatti M, Stewart WC, Johns M, Collins D, Shehabi Y, et al . Safety Goggles with Elastic Headband to Improve N95 Fit Following Failed Quantitative Fit Test. Indian J Crit Care Med 2023;27(6):386-391., Competing Interests: Source of support: Nil Conflict of interest: None, (Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).)

Objective: There is a need for evidence on the best sedative agents in children undergoing open heart surgery for congenital heart disease. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of dexmedetomidine in this group compared with midazolam., Design: Double blinded, pilot randomized controlled trial., Setting: Cardiac operating theatre and paediatric intensive care unit in Brisbane, Australia., Participants: Infants (≤12 months of age) undergoing their first surgical repair of a congenital heart defect., Interventions: Dexmedetomidine (up to 1.0mcg/kg/hr) versus midazolam (up to 80mcg/kg/hr), commenced in the cardiac operating theatre prior to surgery., Main Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the time spent in light sedation (Sedation Behavior Scale [SBS] -1 to +1); Co-primary feasibility outcome was recruitment, retention and protocol adherence. Secondary outcomes were use of supplemental sedatives, ventilator free days, delirium, vasoactive drug support, and adverse events. Neurodevelopment and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were assessed at 12 months post-surgery., Results: Sixty-six participants were recruited. The number of SBS scores in the light sedation range were greater in the dexmedetomidine group at 24 hours, 48 hours, and overall study duration (0-14 days) versus the midazolam group (24hr: 76/170 [45%] vs 60/178 [34%], aOR 4.14 [95% CI 0.48, 35.92]; 48hr: 154/298 [52%] vs 122/314 [39%], aOR 6.95 [95% CI 0.77, 63.13]; 0-14 days: 597/831 [72%] vs 527/939 [56%], aOR 3.93 [95% CI 0.62, 25.03]). Feasibility was established with no withdrawals or loss to follow-up at 14 days and minimal protocol deviations. There were no differences between the groups relating to clinical, safety, neurodevelopment or HRQoL outcomes., Conclusions: The use of dexmedetomidine was associated with more time spent in light sedation when compared with midazolam. The feasibility of conducting a blinded RCT of midazolam and dexmedetomidine in children undergoing open heart surgery was also established. The findings justify further investigation in a larger trial., Clinical Trial Registration: ACTRN12615001304527., (© 2023 Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand.)

Background: Central venous access device (CVAD) is a common procedure in ICU which, although generally safe, can lead to acute and delayed complications. Training and accreditation process for its insertion vary worldwide., Aims: The objective of this study was to explore variability in existing training and accreditation processes for central venous access device (CVAD) insertion among different intensive care units (ICU), current practices of CVAD insertion among fellows of the College of Intensive Care Medicine (CICM) working in Australia and New Zealand (ANZ) and their recommendations for improvement., Methods: A prospective cross-sectional web-based survey was sent through email and CICM e-newsletter to intensivists and directors of ICU across ANZ. All responses were tabulated, post-hoc exploratory analysis using multivariable ordinal logistic regression was used and free texts were analysed thematically and summarised., Results: A total of 115 responses was received from various public and private ICU from all states of ANZ; 32% of the participants did not have any accreditation process for CVAD insertion skill in their ICU, whereas 91% of respondents revealed there were no processes to assess deskilling. Most intensivists recommended supervision, simulation, various education tools and ultrasound training to improve training and assessment. Thirty-five percent of the participants inserted 0-5 CVAD and more than half of the intensivists had inserted <10 CVAD in a 1-year period. Two-thirds of the respondents recommended inserting between 6 and 20 CVAD each year to maintain competence., Conclusion: The study identified wide variability in current practice, training methods and accreditation process for CVAD insertion among intensivists and ICU trainees in ANZ. Policy makers should consider revising the current clinical practice and training policies to new policies for accreditation and ongoing assessment for CVAD insertions across ANZ ICU., (© 2022 Royal Australasian College of Physicians.)

Rationale: The SPICE III (Sedation Practice in Intensive Care Evaluation) trial reported significant heterogeneity in mortality with dexmedetomidine treatment. Supplemental propofol was commonly used to achieve desirable sedation. Objectives: To quantify the association of different infusion rates of dexmedetomidine and propofol, given in combination, with mortality and to determine if this is modified by age. Methods: We included 1,177 patients randomized in SPICE III to receive dexmedetomidine and given supplemental propofol, stratified by age (>65 or ⩽65 yr). We used double stratification analysis to produce quartiles of steady infusion rates of dexmedetomidine while escalating propofol dose and vice versa. We used Cox proportional hazard and multivariable regression adjusted for relevant clinical variable to evaluate the association of sedative dose with 90-day mortality. Measurements and Main Results: Younger patients (598 of 1,177 [50.8%]) received significantly higher doses of both sedatives compared with older patients to achieve comparable sedation depth. On double stratification analysis, escalating infusion rates of propofol to 1.27 mg/kg/h at a steady dexmedetomidine infusion rate (0.54 μg/kg/h) was associated with reduced adjusted mortality in younger but not older patients. This was consistent with multivariable regression modeling (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.78; P  < 0.0001) adjusted for baseline risk and interaction with dexmedetomidine dose. In contrast, among younger patients, using multivariable regression, escalating dexmedetomidine infusion rate was associated with increased adjusted mortality (hazard ratio, 1.30; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.65; P  = 0.029). Conclusions: In patients ⩽65 years of age sedated with dexmedetomidine and propofol combination, preferentially increasing the dose of propofol was associated with decreased adjusted 90-day mortality. Conversely, increasing dexmedetomidine may be associated with increased mortality. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01728558).

Background: Sedative agents may variably impact the stress response. Dexmedetomidine is a sympatholytic alpha 2 -adrenergic agonist mainly used as a second-line sedative agent in mechanically ventilated patients. We hypothesised that early sedation with dexmedetomidine as the primary agent would result in a reduced stress response compared to usual sedatives in critically ill ventilated adults., Methods: This was a prospective sub-study nested within a multi-centre randomised controlled trial of early sedation with dexmedetomidine versus usual care. The primary outcome was the mean group differences in plasma levels of stress response biomarkers measured over 5 days following randomisation. Other hormonal, biological and physiological parameters were collected. Subgroup analyses were planned for patients with proven or suspected sepsis., Results: One hundred and three patients were included in the final analysis. Baseline illness severity (APACHE II score), the proportion of patients receiving propofol and the median dose of propofol received were comparable between groups. More of the usual-care patients received midazolam (57.7% vs 33.3%; p = 0.01) and at higher dose (median (95% interquartile range) 0.46 [0.20-0.93] vs 0.14 [0.08-0.38] mg/kg/day; p < 0.01). The geometric mean (95% CI) plasma level of the stress hormones, adrenaline (0.32 [0.26-0.4] vs 0.38 [0.31-0.48]), noradrenaline (4.27 [3.12-5.85] vs 6.2 [4.6-8.5]), adrenocorticotropic hormone (17.1 [15.1-19.5] vs 18.1 [15.9-20.5]) and cortisol (515 [409-648] vs 618 [491-776)] did not differ between dexmedetomidine and usual-care groups, respectively. There were no significant differences in any other assayed biomarkers or physiological parameters Sensitivity analyses showed no effect of age or sepsis., Conclusions: Early sedation with dexmedetomidine as the primary sedative agent in mechanically ventilated critically ill adults resulted in comparable changes in physiological and blood-borne parameters associated with the stress-response as with usual-care sedation., (© 2022. Crown.)

In the ideal intensive care unit (ICU) of the future, all patients are free from delirium, a syndrome of brain dysfunction frequently observed in critical illness and associated with worse ICU-related outcomes and long-term cognitive impairment. Although screening for delirium requires limited time and effort, this devastating disorder remains underestimated during routine ICU care. The COVID-19 pandemic brought a catastrophic reduction in delirium monitoring, prevention, and patient care due to organizational issues, lack of personnel, increased use of benzodiazepines and restricted family visitation. These limitations led to increases in delirium incidence, a situation that should never be repeated. Good sedation practices should be complemented by novel ICU design and connectivity, which will facilitate non-pharmacological sedation, anxiolysis and comfort that can be supplemented by balanced pharmacological interventions when necessary. Improvements in the ICU sound, light control, floor planning, and room arrangement can facilitate a healing environment that minimizes stressors and aids delirium prevention and management. The fundamental prerequisite to realize the delirium-free ICU, is an awake non-sedated, pain-free comfortable patient whose management follows the A to F (A-F) bundle. Moreover, the bundle should be expanded with three additional letters, incorporating humanitarian care: gaining (G) insight into patient needs, delivering holistic care with a 'home-like' (H) environment, and redefining ICU architectural design (I). Above all, the delirium-free world relies upon people, with personal challenges for critical care teams to optimize design, environmental factors, management, time spent with the patient and family and to humanize ICU care., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: The aim of this Intensive Care Medicine Rapid Practice Guideline (ICM‑RPG) was to formulate evidence‑based guidance for the use of dexmedetomidine for sedation in invasively mechanically ventilated adults in the intensive care unit (ICU)., Methods: We adhered to the methodology for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines, including use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty of evidence, and the Evidence-to-Decision framework to generate recommendations. The guideline panel comprised 28 international panelists, including content experts, ICU clinicians, methodologists, and patient representatives. Through teleconferences and web‑based discussions, the panel provided input on the balance and magnitude of the desirable and undesirable effects, the certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs and resources, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities., Results: The ICM‑RPG panel issued one weak recommendation (suggestion) based on overall moderate certainty of evidence: "In invasively mechanically ventilated adult ICU patients, we suggest using dexmedetomidine over other sedative agents, if the desirable effects including a reduction in delirium are valued over the undesirable effects including an increase in hypotension and bradycardia"., Conclusion: This ICM-RPG provides updated evidence-based guidance on the use of dexmedetomidine for sedation in mechanically ventilated adults, and outlines uncertainties and research priorities., (© 2022. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Since the publication of the 2018 Clinical Guidelines about sedation, analgesia, delirium, mobilization, and sleep deprivation in critically ill patients, no evaluation and adequacy assessment of these recommendations were studied in an international context. This survey aimed to investigate these current practices and if the COVID-19 pandemic has changed them., Methods: This study was an open multinational electronic survey directed to physicians working in adult intensive care units (ICUs), which was performed in two steps: before and during the COVID-19 pandemic., Results: We analyzed 1768 questionnaires and 1539 (87%) were complete. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, we received 1476 questionnaires and 292 were submitted later. The following practices were observed before the pandemic: the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (61.5%), the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) (48.2%), the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) (76.6%), and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) (66.6%) were the most frequently tools used to assess pain, sedation level, and delirium, respectively; midazolam and fentanyl were the most frequently used drugs for inducing sedation and analgesia (84.8% and 78.3%, respectively), whereas haloperidol (68.8%) and atypical antipsychotics (69.4%) were the most prescribed drugs for delirium treatment; some physicians regularly prescribed drugs to induce sleep (19.1%) or ordered mechanical restraints as part of their routine (6.2%) for patients on mechanical ventilation; non-pharmacological strategies were frequently applied for pain, delirium, and sleep deprivation management. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the intensive care specialty was independently associated with best practices. Moreover, the mechanical ventilation rate was higher, patients received sedation more often (94% versus 86.1%, p < 0.001) and sedation goals were discussed more frequently in daily rounds. Morphine was the main drug used for analgesia (77.2%), and some sedative drugs, such as midazolam, propofol, ketamine and quetiapine, were used more frequently., Conclusions: Most sedation, analgesia and delirium practices were comparable before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the intensive care specialty was a variable that was independently associated with the best practices. Although many findings are in accordance with evidence-based recommendations, some practices still need improvement., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of sedative medication use in critically ill adults undergoing mechanical ventilation differ considerably in their methodological approach. This heterogeneity impedes the ability to compare results across studies. The Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research Recommendations convened a meeting of multidisciplinary experts to develop recommendations for key methodologic elements of sedation trials in the ICU to help guide academic and industry clinical investigators., Design: A 2-day in-person meeting was held in Washington, DC, on March 28-29, 2019, followed by a three-round, online modified Delphi consensus process., Participants: Thirty-six participants from academia, industry, and the Food and Drug Administration with expertise in relevant content areas, including two former ICU patients attended the in-person meeting, and the majority completed an online follow-up survey and participated in the modified Delphi process., Measurements and Main Results: The final recommendations were iteratively refined based on the survey results, participants' reactions to those results, summaries written by panel moderators, and a review of the meeting transcripts made from audio recordings. Fifteen recommendations were developed for study design and conduct, subject enrollment, outcomes, and measurement instruments. Consensus recommendations included obtaining input from ICU survivors and/or their families, ensuring adequate training for personnel using validated instruments for assessments of sedation, pain, and delirium in the ICU environment, and the need for methodological standardization., Conclusions: These recommendations are intended to assist researchers in the design, conduct, selection of endpoints, and reporting of clinical trials involving sedative medications and/or sedation protocols for adult ICU patients who require mechanical ventilation. These recommendations should be viewed as a starting point to improve clinical trials and help reduce methodological heterogeneity in future clinical trials., Competing Interests: The views expressed in this article are those of the authors, none of whom have financial conflicts of interest specifically related to the issues discussed in this article. At the time of the meeting (March 28–29, 2019) on which this article is based, several participants were employed by a pharmaceutical company or had received consulting fees or honoraria from one or more pharmaceutical or device companies. Meeting participants of this article who were not employed by industry at the time of the meeting received (or their Universities received) travel stipends, hotel accommodations, and meals during the meeting from the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks public-private partnership with the Food and Drug Administration. Drs. Ward, Aitken, Colantuoni, Maze, and Needham received funding from Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, and Networks (ACTTION). Dr. Ward received support for article research from the University of Rochester Maine Medical Center Spectrum Medical Partners. Dr. Absalom’s institution received funding from The Medicines Company, Carefusion (BD), and Rigel; he received support for article research from Philips, Janssen Pharma, Johnson & Johnson, Ever Pharma, Orion, and Paion. Drs. Aitken, Brown, and Coursin received funding from Innovations Consulting Group LLC. Dr. Aitken also received funding from Elsevier Australia. Dr. Balas’ institution received funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, AACN research grant; she received funding from H3C and received support for article research from the NIH. Dr. Colantuoni received support for article research from ACTTION. Dr. Dexter received funding from the Division of Management Consulting of the University of Iowa’s Department of Anesthesia. Dr. Dworkin’s institution received funding from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA); he received funding from Abide, Acadia, Adynxx, Analgesic Solutions, Aptinyx, Aquinox, Asahi Kasei, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Biohaven, Boston Scientific, Braeburn, Celgene, Centrexion, Chromocell, Clexio, Collegium, Concert, Coronado, Daiichi Sankyo, Decibel, Dong-A, Editas, Eli Lilly, Eupraxia, Glenmark, Grace, Hope, Hydra, Immune, Johnson & Johnson, Lotus Clinical Research, Mainstay, Medavante, Merck, Neumentum, Neurana, NeuroBo, Novaremed, Novartis, NSGene, Olatec, Periphagen, Pfizer, Phosphagenics, Quark, Reckitt Benckiser, Regenacy, Relmada, Sanifit, Scilex, Semnur, SK Life Sciences, Sollis, Spinifex, Syntrix, Teva, Thar, Theranexus, Trevena, Vertex, and Vizuri. Dr. Girard received funding from Haisco Pharmaceutical. Dr. Hopkins’ institution received funding from Intermountain Medical and Research Foundation. Dr. Maze received funding from the University of California Office of the President and Cambridge University Press; he received support for article research from the NIH. Dr. Needham received funding from the FDA, Haisco-USA Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis Pharma; he disclosed he is a principal investigator on a NIH-funded, multicentered randomized trial (R01HL132887) funded by Baxter Healthcare Corporation and Reck Medical Devices. Dr. Pandharipande’s institution received funding from Pfizer. Dr. Shehabi’s institution received funding from Orion Pharma and Pfizer; he received funding from Pfizer, Orion Pharma, Abbott Laboratories, and Ever Pharma. Dr. Sun received funding from UpToDate; she disclosed she is the Editor in Chief for UpToDate/Anesthesiology. Dr. Tung received funding from Anesthesia and Analgesia. Dr. Urman’s institution received funding from Medtronic/Covidien and AcelRx; he received funding from Merck, Sandoz, Heron, Takeda, and Pfizer. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Older patients have a less pronounced immune response to infection, which may also influence infection biomarkers. There is currently insufficient data regarding clinical effects of procalcitonin (PCT) to guide antibiotic treatment in older patients., Objective and Design: We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis to investigate the association of age on effects of PCT-guided antibiotic stewardship regarding antibiotic use and outcome., Subjects and Methods: We had access to 9,421 individual infection patients from 28 randomized controlled trials comparing PCT-guided antibiotic therapy (intervention group) or standard care. We stratified patients according to age in four groups (<75 years [n = 7,079], 75-80 years [n = 1,034], 81-85 years [n = 803] and >85 years [n = 505]). The primary endpoint was the duration of antibiotic treatment and the secondary endpoints were 30-day mortality and length of stay., Results: Compared to control patients, mean duration of antibiotic therapy in PCT-guided patients was significantly reduced by 24, 22, 26 and 24% in the four age groups corresponding to adjusted differences in antibiotic days of -1.99 (95% confidence interval [CI] -2.36 to -1.62), -1.98 (95% CI -2.94 to -1.02), -2.20 (95% CI -3.15 to -1.25) and - 2.10 (95% CI -3.29 to -0.91) with no differences among age groups. There was no increase in the risk for mortality in any of the age groups. Effects were similar in subgroups by infection type, blood culture result and clinical setting (P interaction >0.05)., Conclusions: This large individual patient data meta-analysis confirms that, similar to younger patients, PCT-guided antibiotic treatment in older patients is associated with significantly reduced antibiotic exposures and no increase in mortality., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aim and Objective: Fogging of eyeglasses while wearing N95 respirators is common. It is commonly held that the N95 respirator has a poor fit if there is fogging of eyeglasses. We conducted this prospective, pilot study to determine if fogging of eyeglasses predicts poor fit of N95 respirator., Materials and Methods: Seventy volunteer healthcare workers from a tertiary intensive care unit in Sydney, Australia participated. The participants donned one of the following N95 respirators: three-panel flat-fold respirator (3M 1870), cup-shaped respirator (3M 1860), or a duckbill respirator. After a satisfactory "user seal check" as recommended by the manufacturer, the participants donned eyeglasses and checked for fogging. A quantitative fit test (QnFT) of the respirator was then performed (using PortaCount Respirator Fit Tester 8048, TSI Inc., Minnesota, USA). A fit factor of <100 on quantitative fit testing indicates poor fit. The sensitivity and specificity for fogging of eyeglasses (index test) to predict the poor fit of N95 respirator was determined, compared to QnFT (gold standard test)., Results: Fogging of eyeglasses as a predictor of poor respirator fit (i.e., fit factor <100 on QnFT) had sensitivity of 71% (95% CI, 54-85%) and specificity 46% (95% CI, 29-63%). The odds ratio of fogging as a predictor for poor fit was 2.10 (95% CI, 0.78-5.67), with a two-tailed p -value of 0.22 (not significant). The receiver operating characteristic curve for fogging of eyeglasses as a diagnostic test had the area under the curve of 0.59., Conclusion: Fogging of eyeglasses is neither a sensitive nor a specific predictor for poor fit of N95 respirators., How to Cite This Article: Kyaw S, Johns M, Lim R, Stewart WC, Rojas N, Thambiraj SR, et al. Prediction of N95 Respirator Fit from Fogging of Eyeglasses: A Pilot Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(9):976-980., Competing Interests: Source of support: Nil Conflict of interest: Dr. Arora is the Director of Quiz Time in Critical Care PTY Ltd, Sydney, Australia; which runs the website www.gotheextramile.com - MCQ in Critical Care. Dr. Arora is not paid any salary for his work with Go the Extra Mile., (Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.)

N95 respirators and safety goggles are important components of personal protective equipment to reduce the spread of airborne infections, such as COVID-19, among healthcare workers. Poor N95 respirator seal may reduce its protective effect, thereby increasing transmission. Quantitative fit testing is an established way of assessing the N95 respirator fit, which provides a quantitative measure for seal, called the fit factor. Duckbill N95 respirators frequently fail the fit test. We hypothesized that using safety goggles with a wraparound elastic headband will increase their fit-factor by reinforcing the seal between the face and the upper margin of the respirator. We studied the effect of safety goggles with a wraparound elastic headband (3M™ Chemical Splash Resistant Goggles, ID 70006982741) on the fit factor of two types of Duckbill N95 respirators (Halyard FLUIDSHIELD*3, Model 99SA070M, and ProShield® N95 Model TN01-11) in 63 healthy volunteers in a nonrandomized, before-and-after intervention study design. The mean fit factor increased from 69.4 to 169.1 increased from 17/63 (27%) to 46/63 (73%) after the intervention ( p <0.0001, OR 3 [95% CI = 4.9-1223]). This is the first study to explore the impact of safety goggles on N95 respirator fit. We conclude that the use of safety goggles with a wraparound elastic headband increases the fit factor of the tested Duckbill N95 respirators., How to Cite This Article: Johns M, Kyaw S, Lim R, Stewart WC, Thambiraj SR, Shehabi Y, et al . Fit Factor Change on Quantitative Fit Testing of Duckbill N95 Respirators with the Use of Safety Goggles. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(9):981-986., Competing Interests: Source of support: Nil Conflict of interest: Dr Arora is the Director of Quiz Time in Critical Care Pty Ltd, Sydney, Australia; which runs the website www.gotheextramile.com - MCQ in Critical Care. Dr Arora is not paid any salary for his work with Go the Extra Mile., (Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.)

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication of cardiac surgery. Factors such as cardiopulmonary bypass, aortic cross-clamping and surgical stress may precipitate renal hypoperfusion and ischaemia, inflammation and oxidative stress are associated with development of AKI. Albumin's pharmacological properties and widespread availability have the potential to mitigate these factors. However, the effect of albumin on cardiac surgery-associated AKI is unknown., Objective: To evaluate the impact of postoperative 20% albumin infusion on kidney function after high-risk cardiac surgery., Methods: We designed an open-label, multicentre, randomised controlled trial-the ALBICS study (ALBumin Infusion and acute kidney injury following Cardiac Surgery). A total of 590 patients undergoing high-risk cardiac surgery (combined procedure or estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) < 60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ) will be enrolled into the study and randomly allocated to receive a postoperative 20% albumin infusion or standard care in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by centre and baseline renal function. The study fluid will be administered upon arrival in intensive care for 15 h. Patients will be followed up until 28 days after surgery or until discharge from the hospital. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients who develop AKI in both groups. Secondary outcomes to be measured are proportions of AKI stage II and III, 28-day mortality, mechanical ventilation time and length of stay in intensive care and hospital., Conclusion: This trial aims to determine if a postoperative infusion of concentrated albumin reduces the risk of AKI following high-risk cardiac surgery., Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12619001355167. Registered on 03 October 2019-retrospectively registered. https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=378383 ., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Objectives: Previous case series reported an association between dexmedetomidine use and hyperthermia. Temperature data have not been systematically reported in previous randomized controlled trials evaluating dexmedetomidine. A causal link between dexmedetomidine administration and elevated temperature has not been demonstrated., Design: Post hoc analysis., Setting: Four ICUs in Australia and New Zealand., Patients: About 703 mechanically ventilated ICU patients., Interventions: Early sedation with dexmedetomidine versus usual care., Measurements and Main Results: The primary outcome was mean daily body temperature. Secondary outcomes included the proportions of patients with body temperatures greater than or equal to 38.3°C and greater than or equal to 39°C, respectively. Outcomes were recorded for 5 days postrandomization in the ICU. The mean daily temperature was not different between the dexmedetomidine (n = 351) and usual care (n = 352) groups (36.84°C ± sd vs 36.78°C ± sd; p = 0.16). Over the first 5 ICU days, more dexmedetomidine group (vs usual care) patients had a temperature greater than or equal to 38.3°C (43.3% vs 32.7%, p = 0.004; absolute difference 10.6 percentage points) and greater than or equal to 39.0°C (19.4% vs 12.5%, p = 0.013; absolute difference 6.9 percentage points). Results were similar after adjusting for diagnosis, admitting temperature, age, weight, study site, sepsis occurrence, and the time from dexmedetomidine initiation to first hyperthermia recorded. There was a significant dose response relationship with temperature increasing by 0.30°C ±0.08 for every additional 1 μg/kg/hr of dexmedetomidine received p < 0.0002., Conclusions: Our study suggests potentially important elevations in body temperature are associated with early dexmedetomidine sedation, in adults who are mechanically ventilated in the ICU., Competing Interests: Dr. Grayson received funding from institutional funds. Dr. Bellomo reports receiving fees for expert testimony from Pfizer. Dr. Wright’s institution received funding from the Cardiothoracic Research Fund and the Sydney Medical School Foundation- University of Sydney, Australia. Dr. Shehabi's institution received funding from Orion Pharma; he received funding from Monach Health (lecture fees and travel support), Pfizer (lecture fees), and from Stephens Lawyers and Consultants, Melbourne, Australia (expert testimony); and he received support for article research from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Purpose: To quantify potential heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE), of early sedation with dexmedetomidine (DEX) compared with usual care, and identify patients who have a high probability of lower or higher 90-day mortality according to age, and other identified clusters., Methods: Bayesian analysis of 3904 critically ill adult patients expected to receive invasive ventilation > 24 h and enrolled in a multinational randomized controlled trial comparing early DEX with usual care sedation., Results: HTE was assessed according to age and clusters (based on 12 baseline characteristics) using a Bayesian hierarchical models. DEX was associated with lower 90-day mortality compared to usual care in patients > 65 years (odds ratio [OR], 0.83 [95% credible interval [CrI] 0.68-1.00], with 97.7% probability of reduced mortality across broad categories of illness severity. Conversely, the probability of increased mortality in patients ≤ 65 years was 98.5% (OR 1.26 [95% CrI 1.02-1.56]. Two clusters were identified: cluster 1 (976 patients) mostly operative, and cluster 2 (2346 patients), predominantly non-operative. There was a greater probability of benefit with DEX in cluster 1 (OR 0.86 [95% CrI 0.65-1.14]) across broad categories of age, with 86.4% probability that DEX is more beneficial in cluster 1 than cluster 2., Conclusion: In critically ill mechanically ventilated patients, early sedation with dexmedetomidine exhibited a high probability of reduced 90-day mortality in older patients regardless of operative or non-operative cluster status. Conversely, a high probability of increased 90-day mortality was observed in younger patients of non-operative status. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Agonists of α 2 -adrenoceptors are increasingly being used for the provision of comfort, sedation and the management of delirium in critically ill patients, with and without sepsis. In this context, increased sympathetic and inflammatory activity are common pathophysiological features linked to multi-organ dysfunction, particularly in patients with sepsis or those undergoing cardiac surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass. Experimental and clinical studies support the notion that the α 2 -adrenoceptor agonists, dexmedetomidine and clonidine, mitigate sympathetic and inflammatory overactivity in sepsis and cardiac surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass. These effects can protect vital organs, including the cardiovascular system, kidneys, heart and brain. We review the pharmacodynamic mechanisms by which α 2 -adrenoceptor agonists might mitigate multi-organ dysfunction arising from pathophysiological conditions associated with excessive inflammatory and adrenergic stress in experimental studies. We also outline recent clinical trials that have examined the use of dexmedetomidine in critically ill patients with and without sepsis and in patients undergoing cardiac surgery., (© 2021 The British Pharmacological Society.)

Background: Metabolic acidosis is a major complication of critical illness. However, its current epidemiology and its treatment with sodium bicarbonate given to correct metabolic acidosis in the ICU are poorly understood., Method: This was an international retrospective observational study in 18 ICUs in Australia, Japan, and Taiwan. Adult patients were consecutively screened, and those with early metabolic acidosis (pH < 7.3 and a Base Excess < -4 mEq/L, within 24-h of ICU admission) were included. Screening continued until 10 patients who received and 10 patients who did not receive sodium bicarbonate in the first 24 h (early bicarbonate therapy) were included at each site. The primary outcome was ICU mortality, and the association between sodium bicarbonate and the clinical outcomes were assessed using regression analysis with generalized linear mixed model., Results: We screened 9437 patients. Of these, 1292 had early metabolic acidosis (14.0%). Early sodium bicarbonate was given to 18.0% (233/1292) of these patients. Dosing, physiological, and clinical outcome data were assessed in 360 patients. The median dose of sodium bicarbonate in the first 24 h was 110 mmol, which was not correlated with bodyweight or the severity of metabolic acidosis. Patients who received early sodium bicarbonate had higher APACHE III scores, lower pH, lower base excess, lower PaCO 2 , and a higher lactate and received higher doses of vasopressors. After adjusting for confounders, the early administration of sodium bicarbonate was associated with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.44 to 1.62) for ICU mortality. In patients with vasopressor dependency, early sodium bicarbonate was associated with higher mean arterial pressure at 6 h and an aOR of 0.52 (95% CI, 0.22 to 1.19) for ICU mortality., Conclusions: Early metabolic acidosis is common in critically ill patients. Early sodium bicarbonate is administered by clinicians to more severely ill patients but without correction for weight or acidosis severity. Bicarbonate therapy in acidotic vasopressor-dependent patients may be beneficial and warrants further investigation.

In the critically ill patient, optimal pain and sedation management remains the cornerstone of achieving comfort, safety, and to facilitate complex life support interventions. Pain relief, using multimodal analgesia, is an integral component of any orchestrated approach to achieve clinically appropriate goals in critically ill patients. Sedative management, however, remains a significant challenge. Subsequent studies including most recent randomized trials have failed to provide strong evidence in favor of a sedative agent, a mode of sedation or ancillary protocols such as sedative interruption and sedative minimization. In addition, clinical practice guidelines, despite a comprehensive evaluation of relevant literature, have limitations when applied to individual patients. These limitations have been most apparent during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. As such, there is a need for a mindset shift to a practical and achievable sedation strategy, driven by patients' characteristics and individual patient needs, rather than one cocktail for all patients. In this review, we present key principles to achieve patient-and symptom-oriented optimal analgesia and sedation in the critically ill patients. Sedative intensity should be proportionate to care complexity with due consideration to an individual patient's modifiers. The use of multimodal analgesics, sedatives, and antipsychotics agents-that are easily titratable-reduces the overall quantum of sedatives and opioids, and reduces the risk of adverse events while maximizing clinical benefits. In addition, critical considerations regarding the choice of sedative agents should be given to factors such as age, medical versus operative diagnosis, and cardiovascular status. Specific populations such as trauma, neurological injury, and pregnancy should also be taken into account to maximize efficacy and reduce adverse events., Competing Interests: None declared., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is one of the most demanding conditions in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Management of analgesia and sedation in ARDS is particularly challenging. An expert panel was convened to produce a "state-of-the-art" article to support clinicians in the optimal management of analgesia/sedation in mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS, including those with COVID-19. Current ICU analgesia/sedation guidelines promote analgesia first and minimization of sedation, wakefulness, delirium prevention and early rehabilitation to facilitate ventilator and ICU liberation. However, these strategies cannot always be applied to patients with ARDS who sometimes require deep sedation and/or paralysis. Patients with severe ARDS may be under-represented in analgesia/sedation studies and currently recommended strategies may not be feasible. With lightened sedation, distress-related symptoms (e.g., pain and discomfort, anxiety, dyspnea) and patient-ventilator asynchrony should be systematically assessed and managed through interprofessional collaboration, prioritizing analgesia and anxiolysis. Adaptation of ventilator settings (e.g., use of a pressure-set mode, spontaneous breathing, sensitive inspiratory trigger) should be systematically considered before additional medications are administered. Managing the mechanical ventilator is of paramount importance to avoid the unnecessary use of deep sedation and/or paralysis. Therefore, applying an "ABCDEF-R" bundle (R = Respiratory-drive-control) may be beneficial in ARDS patients. Further studies are needed, especially regarding the use and long-term effects of fast-offset drugs (e.g., remifentanil, volatile anesthetics) and the electrophysiological assessment of analgesia/sedation (e.g., electroencephalogram devices, heart-rate variability, and video pupillometry). This review is particularly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic given drug shortages and limited ICU-bed capacity.

Delirium, a syndrome characterized by an acute change in attention, awareness and cognition, is caused by a medical condition that cannot be better explained by a pre-existing neurocognitive disorder. Multiple predisposing factors (for example, pre-existing cognitive impairment) and precipitating factors (for example, urinary tract infection) for delirium have been described, with most patients having both types. Because multiple factors are implicated in the aetiology of delirium, there are likely several neurobiological processes that contribute to delirium pathogenesis, including neuroinflammation, brain vascular dysfunction, altered brain metabolism, neurotransmitter imbalance and impaired neuronal network connectivity. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) is the most commonly used diagnostic system upon which a reference standard diagnosis is made, although many other delirium screening tools have been developed given the impracticality of using the DSM-5 in many settings. Pharmacological treatments for delirium (such as antipsychotic drugs) are not effective, reflecting substantial gaps in our understanding of its pathophysiology. Currently, the best management strategies are multidomain interventions that focus on treating precipitating conditions, medication review, managing distress, mitigating complications and maintaining engagement to environmental issues. The effective implementation of delirium detection, treatment and prevention strategies remains a major challenge for health-care organizations globally.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited., Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19., Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020., Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%)., Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.

Objectives: Patients with impaired kidney function have a significantly slower decrease of procalcitonin (PCT) levels during infection. Our aim was to study PCT-guided antibiotic stewardship and clinical outcomes in patients with impairments of kidney function as assessed by creatinine levels measured upon hospital admission., Methods: We pooled and analyzed individual data from 15 randomized controlled trials who were randomly assigned to receive antibiotic therapy based on a PCT-algorithms or based on standard of care. We stratified patients on the initial glomerular filtration rate (GFR, ml/min/1.73 m2) in three groups (GFR >90 [chronic kidney disease; CKD 1], GFR 15-89 [CKD 2-4] and GFR<15 [CKD 5]). The main efficacy and safety endpoints were duration of antibiotic treatment and 30-day mortality., Results: Mean duration of antibiotic treatment was significantly shorter in PCT-guided (n=2,492) compared to control patients (n=2,510) (9.5-7.6 days; adjusted difference in days -2.01 [95% CI, -2.45 to -1.58]). CKD 5 patients had overall longer treatment durations, but a 2.5-day reduction in treatment duration was still found in patients receiving in PCT-guided care (11.3 vs. 8.6 days [95% CI -3.59 to -1.40]). There were 397 deaths in 2,492 PCT-group patients (15.9%) compared to 460 deaths in 2,510 control patients (18.3%) (adjusted odds ratio, 0.88 [95% CI 0.78 to 0.98)]. Effects of PCT-guidance on antibiotic treatment duration and mortality were similar in subgroups stratified by infection type and clinical setting (p interaction >0.05)., Conclusions: This individual patient data meta-analysis confirms that the use of PCT in patients with impaired kidney function, as assessed by admission creatinine levels, is associated with shorter antibiotic courses and lower mortality rates.

Objectives: To assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of a sedation protocol using dexmedetomidine as the primary sedative in mechanically ventilated critically ill children., Design: Open-label, pilot, prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial. The primary outcome was the proportion of sedation scores in the target sedation range in the first 48 hours. Safety outcomes included device removal, adverse events, and vasopressor use. Feasibility outcomes included time to randomization and protocol fidelity., Setting: Six tertiary PICUs in Australia and New Zealand., Patients: Critically ill children, younger than 16 years old, requiring intubation and mechanical ventilation and expected to be mechanically ventilated for at least 24 hours., Interventions: Children randomized to dexmedetomidine received a dexmedetomidine-based algorithm targeted to light sedation (State Behavioral Scale -1 to +1). Children randomized to usual care received sedation as determined by the treating clinician (but not dexmedetomidine), also targeted to light sedation., Measurements and Main Results: Sedation with dexmedetomidine as the primary sedative resulted in a greater proportion of sedation measurements in the light sedation range (State Behavioral Scale -1 to +1) over the first 48 hours (229/325 [71%] vs 181/331 [58%]; p = 0.04) and the first 24 hours (66/103 [64%] vs 48/116 [41%]; p < 0.001) compared with usual care. Cumulative midazolam dosage was significantly reduced in the dexmedetomidine arm compared with usual care (p = 0.002).There were more episodes of hypotension and bradycardia with dexmedetomidine (including one serious adverse event) but no difference in vasopressor requirements. Median time to randomization after intubation was 6.0 hours (interquartile range, 2.0-9.0 hr) in the dexmedetomidine arm compared with 3.0 hours (interquartile range, 1.0-7.0 hr) in the usual care arm (p = 0.24)., Conclusions: A sedation protocol using dexmedetomidine as the primary sedative was feasible, appeared safe, achieved early, light sedation, and reduced midazolam requirements. The findings of this pilot study justify further studies of sedative agents in critically ill children.

Objective: Delirium is common in intensive care patients and is associated with short- and long-term adverse outcomes. We investigated the long-term risk of cognitive impairment and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in intensive care patients with and without delirium., Methods: This is a prospective cohort study in ICUs in two Australian university-affiliated hospitals. Patients were eligible if they were older than 18 years, mechanically ventilated for more than 24 h and did not meet exclusion criteria. Delirium was assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit. Variables assessing cognitive function and PTSD symptoms were collected at ICU discharge, after 6 and 12 months: Mini-Mental State Examination, Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status, Impact of Events Scale-Revised and Informant Questionnaire for Cognitive Decline (caregiver)., Results: 103 participants were included of which 36% developed delirium in ICU. Patients with delirium were sicker and had longer duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay. After 12 months, 41/60 (68.3%) evaluable patients were cognitively impaired, with 11.6% representing the presence of symptoms consistent with dementia. When evaluated by the patient's caregiver, the patient's cognitive function was found to be severely impaired in a larger proportion of patients (14/60, 23.3%). Delirium was associated with worse cognitive function at ICU discharge, but not with long-term cognitive function. IES-R scores, measuring PTSD symptoms, were significantly higher in patients who had delirium compared to patients without delirium. In regression analysis, delirium was independently associated with cognitive function at ICU discharge and PTSD symptoms at 12 months., Conclusions: Intensive care survivors have significant rates of long-term cognitive decline and PTSD symptoms. Delirium in ICU was independently associated with short-term but not long-term cognitive function, and with long-term PTSD symptoms. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12616001116415, 15/8/2016 retrospectively registered, https://www.anzctr.org.au.

Background: Septic shock is associated with decreased vasopressor responsiveness. Experimental data suggest that central alpha2-agonists like dexmedetomidine (DEX) increase vasopressor responsiveness and reduce catecholamine requirements in septic shock. However, DEX may also cause hypotension and bradycardia. Thus, it remains unclear whether DEX is hemodynamically safe or helpful in this setting., Methods: In this post hoc subgroup analysis of the Sedation Practice in Intensive Care Evaluation (SPICE III) trial, an international randomized trial comparing early sedation with dexmedetomidine to usual care in critically patients receiving mechanical ventilation, we studied patients with septic shock admitted to two tertiary ICUs in Australia and Switzerland. The primary outcome was vasopressor requirements in the first 48 h after randomization, expressed as noradrenaline equivalent dose (NEq [μg/kg/min] = noradrenaline + adrenaline + vasopressin/0.4)., Results: Between November 2013 and February 2018, 417 patients were recruited into the SPICE III trial at both sites. Eighty-three patients with septic shock were included in this subgroup analysis. Of these, 44 (53%) received DEX and 39 (47%) usual care. Vasopressor requirements in the first 48 h were similar between the two groups. Median NEq dose was 0.03 [0.01, 0.07] μg/kg/min in the DEX group and 0.04 [0.01, 0.16] μg/kg/min in the usual care group (p = 0.17). However, patients in the DEX group had a lower NEq/MAP ratio, indicating lower vasopressor requirements to maintain the target MAP. Moreover, on adjusted multivariable analysis, higher dexmedetomidine dose was associated with a lower NEq/MAP ratio., Conclusions: In critically ill patients with septic shock, patients in the DEX group received similar vasopressor doses in the first 48 h compared to the usual care group. On multivariable adjusted analysis, dexmedetomidine appeared to be associated with lower vasopressor requirements to maintain the target MAP., Trial Registration: The SPICE III trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01728558 ).

Introduction: Bloodstream infections are a leading cause of mortality and morbidity; the duration of treatment for these infections is understudied., Methods and Analysis: We will conduct an international, multicentre randomised clinical trial of shorter (7 days) versus longer (14 days) antibiotic treatment among hospitalised patients with bloodstream infections. The trial will include 3626 patients across 60 hospitals and 6 countries. We will include patients with blood cultures confirming a pathogenic bacterium after hospital admission. Exclusion criteria will include patient factors (severe immunosuppression), infection site factors (endocarditis, osteomyelitis, undrained abscesses, infected prosthetic material) and pathogen factors ( Staphylococcus aureus , Staphylococcus lugdunensis , Candida and contaminant organisms). We will leave the selection of specific antibiotics, doses and route of delivery to the discretion of treating physicians; no placebo control will be used given the diversity of pathogens and sources of bacteraemia. The intervention will be assignment of treatment duration to be 7 versus 14 days. We will minimise selection bias via central randomisation with variable block sizes, with concealed allocation until day 7 of adequate antibiotic treatment. The primary outcome is 90-day survival; we will test whether 7 days is non-inferior to 14 days of treatment, with a non-inferiority margin of 4% absolute mortality. Secondary outcomes include hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality, relapse rates of bacteraemia, hospital and ICU length of stay, mechanical ventilation and vasopressor duration, antibiotic-free days, C lostridium difficile infection, antibiotic allergy and adverse events and colonisation/infection with antibiotic-resistant organisms., Ethics and Dissemination: The study has been approved by the ethics review board at each participating site. Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre is the central ethics committee. We will disseminate study results via the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group and other collaborating networks to set the global paradigm for antibiotic treatment duration for non-staphylococcal Gram-positive, Gram-negative and anaerobic bacteraemia, among patients admitted to hospital., Trial Registration Number: The BALANCE (Bacteremia Antibiotic Length Actually Needed for Clinical Effectiveness) trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov (registration number: NCT03005145)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Critically ill patients often require sedation for comfort and to facilitate therapeutic interventions. Sedation practice guidelines provide an evidence-based framework with recommendations that can help improve key sedation-related outcomes., Materials and Methods: We conducted a narrative review of current guidelines and recent trials on sedation., Results: From a practice perspective, current guidelines share many limitations including lack of consensus on the definition of light sedation, optimal frequency of sedation assessment, optimal timing for light sedation and consideration of combinations of sedatives. We proposed several strategies to address these limitations and improve outcomes: 1) early light sedation within the first 48 hours with time-weighted monitoring (overall time spent in light sedation in the first 48 hours-sedation intensity-has a dose-dependent relationship with mortality risk, delirium and time to extubation); 2) provision of analgesia with minimal or no sedation where possible; 3) a goal-directed and balanced multimodal approach that combines the benefits of different agents and minimise their side effects; 4) use of dexmedetomidine and atypical antipsychotics as a sedative-sparing strategy to reduce weaning-related agitation, shorten ventilation time and accelerate physical and cognitive rehabilitation; and 5) a bundled approach to sedation that provides a framework to improve relevant clinical outcomes., Conclusion: More effort is required to develop a practical, time-weighted sedation scoring system. Emphasis on a balanced, multimodal appraoch that targets light sedation from the early phase of acute critical illness is important to achieve optimal sedation, lower mortality, shorten time on ventilator and reduce delirium.

Importance: It is unclear whether vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine are more effective than hydrocortisone alone in expediting resolution of septic shock., Objective: To determine whether the combination of vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine, compared with hydrocortisone alone, improves the duration of time alive and free of vasopressor administration in patients with septic shock., Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, open-label, randomized clinical trial conducted in 10 intensive care units in Australia, New Zealand, and Brazil that recruited 216 patients fulfilling the Sepsis-3 definition of septic shock. The first patient was enrolled on May 8, 2018, and the last on July 9, 2019. The final date of follow-up was October 6, 2019., Interventions: Patients were randomized to the intervention group (n = 109), consisting of intravenous vitamin C (1.5 g every 6 hours), hydrocortisone (50 mg every 6 hours), and thiamine (200 mg every 12 hours), or to the control group (n = 107), consisting of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg every 6 hours) alone until shock resolution or up to 10 days., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary trial outcome was duration of time alive and free of vasopressor administration up to day 7. Ten secondary outcomes were prespecified, including 90-day mortality., Results: Among 216 patients who were randomized, 211 provided consent and completed the primary outcome measurement (mean age, 61.7 years [SD, 15.0]; 133 men [63%]). Time alive and vasopressor free up to day 7 was 122.1 hours (interquartile range [IQR], 76.3-145.4 hours) in the intervention group and 124.6 hours (IQR, 82.1-147.0 hours) in the control group; the median of all paired differences was -0.6 hours (95% CI, -8.3 to 7.2 hours; P = .83). Of 10 prespecified secondary outcomes, 9 showed no statistically significant difference. Ninety-day mortality was 30/105 (28.6%) in the intervention group and 25/102 (24.5%) in the control group (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.69-2.00). No serious adverse events were reported., Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with septic shock, treatment with intravenous vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine, compared with intravenous hydrocortisone alone, did not significantly improve the duration of time alive and free of vasopressor administration over 7 days. The finding suggests that treatment with intravenous vitamin C, hydrocortisone, and thiamine does not lead to a more rapid resolution of septic shock compared with intravenous hydrocortisone alone., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03333278.

Background: The optimal treatment duration for patients with bloodstream infection is understudied. The Bacteremia Antibiotic Length Actually Needed for Clinical Effectiveness (BALANCE) pilot randomized clinical trial (RCT) determined that it was feasible to enroll and randomize intensive care unit (ICU) patients with bloodstream infection to 7 versus 14 days of treatment, and served as the vanguard for the ongoing BALANCE main RCT. We performed this BALANCE-Ward pilot RCT to examine the feasibility and impact of potentially extending the BALANCE main RCT to include patients hospitalized on non-ICU wards., Methods: We conducted an open pilot RCT among a subset of six sites participating in the ongoing BALANCE RCT, randomizing patients with positive non-Staphylococcus aureus blood cultures on non-ICU wards to 7 versus 14 days of antibiotic treatment. The co-primary feasibility outcomes were recruitment rate and adherence to treatment duration protocol. We compared feasibility outcomes, patient/pathogen characteristics, and overall outcomes among those enrolled in this BALANCE-Ward and prior BALANCE-ICU pilot RCTs. We estimated the sample size and non-inferiority margin impacts of expanding the BALANCE main RCT to include non-ICU patients., Results: A total of 134 patients were recruited over 47 site-months (mean 2.9 patients/site-month, median 1.0, range 0.1-4.4 patients/site-month). The overall recruitment rate exceeded the BALANCE-ICU pilot RCT (mean 1.10 patients/site-month, p < 0.0001). Overall protocol adherence also exceeded the adherence in the BALANCE-ICU pilot RCT (125/134, 93% vs 89/115, 77%, p = 0.0003). BALANCE-Ward patients were older, with lower Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores, and higher proportions of infections caused by Escherichia coli and genito-urinary sources of bloodstream infection. The BALANCE-Ward pilot RCT patients had an overall 90-day mortality rate of 17/133 (12.8%), which was comparable to the 90-day mortality rate in the ICU pilot RCT (17/115, 14.8%) (p = 0.65). Simulation models indicated there would be minimal sample size and non-inferiority margin implications of expanding enrolment to increasing proportions of non-ICU versus ICU patients., Conclusion: It is feasible to enroll non-ICU patients in a trial of 7 versus 14 days of antibiotics for bloodstream infection, and expanding the BALANCE RCT hospital-wide has the potential to improve the timeliness and generalizability of trial results., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02917551. Registered on September 28, 2016.

Introduction: A study was conducted to describe the sedation practices of intensive care units (ICUs) in Singapore in terms of drug use, sedation depth and the incidence of delirium in both early (< 48 hours) and late (> 48 hours) periods of ICU admission., Methods: A prospective multicentre cohort study was conducted on patients who were expected to be sedated and ventilated for over 24 hours in seven ICUs (surgical ICU, n = 4; medical ICU, n = 3) of four major public hospitals in Singapore. Patients were followed up to 28 days or until ICU discharge, with four-hourly sedation monitoring and daily delirium assessment by trained nurses. The Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (RASS) and Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) were used., Results: We enrolled 198 patients over a five-month period. The mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score was 25.3 ± 9.2, and 90.9% were emergency hospital admissions. Patients were followed up for 1,417 ICU patient days, of which 396 days were in the early period and 1,021 days were in the late period. 7,354 RASS assessments were performed. Propofol and fentanyl were the sedative agents of choice in the early and late periods, respectively. Patients were mostly in the light sedation range, especially in the late period. At least one episode of delirium was seen in 23.7% of patients., Conclusion: Sedation practices in Singapore ICUs are characterised by light sedation depth and low incidence of delirium, possibly due to the drugs used., (Copyright: © Singapore Medical Association.)

Purpose/background: As a sole agent, ketamine acutely compromises driving ability; however, performance after coadministration with the adjuvant sedating agents dexmedetomidine or fentanyl is unclear., Methods/procedures: Using a randomized within-subject design, 39 participants (mean ± SD age, 28.4 ± 5.8 years) received 0.3 mg/kg bolus followed by 0.15 mg kg h infusion of ketamine (3-hour duration), in addition to either (i) 0.7 μg kg h infusion of dexmedetomidine for 1.5 hours (n = 19; KET/DEX) or (ii) three 25 μg fentanyl injections for 1.5 hours (n = 20; KET/FENT). Whole blood drug concentrations were determined during ketamine only, at coadministration (KET/DEX or KET/FENT) and at 2 hours after treatment. Subjective effects were determined using a standardized visual analog scale. Driving performance was assessed at baseline and at posttreatment using a validated computerized driving simulator. Primary outcomes included SD of lateral position (SDLP) and steering variability (SV)., Findings/results: Administration of ketamine with dexmedetomidine but not fentanyl significantly increased SDLP (F1,18 = 22.60, P < 0.001) and reduced SV (F1,18 = 164.42, P < 0.001) 2 hours after treatment. These deficits were comparatively greater for the KET/DEX group than for the KET/FENT group (t37 = -5.21 [P < 0.001] and t37 = 5.22 [P < 0.001], (respectively). For the KET/DEX group, vehicle control (SV) and self-rated performance (visual analog scale), but not SDLP, was inversely associated with ketamine and norketamine blood concentrations (in nanograms per milliliter). Greater subjective effects were moderately associated with driving deficits., Implications/conclusions: Driving simulator performance is significantly compromised after coadministration of analgesic range doses of ketamine with dexmedetomidine but not fentanyl. An extended period of supervised driver abstinence is recommended after treatment, with completion of additional assessments to evaluate home readiness.

Analgesic doses of ketamine affects neurocognition; however, deficits under co-administration regimens are unknown. This study evaluated the effects of ketamine, alone and in combination with dexmedetomidine or fentanyl on neurocognition. Using a randomised, within-subjects gender stratified design, 39 participants (mean age = 28.4, SD ± 5.8) received a ketamine bolus of 0.3 mg/kg followed by 0.15 mg/kg/h infusion of ketamine (3 h duration). At 1.5 h post-ketamine infusion commencement, participants received either: i) 0.7 μg/kg/h infusion of dexmedetomidine (n = 19) (KET/DEX) or (ii) three 25 μg fentanyl injections over 1.5 h (n = 20) (KET/FENT). Reaction and Movement time (RTI, Simple and 5Choice), Visuospatial Working Memory (SWM) and Verbal Recognition Memory (VRM) were assessed using the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB). Whole blood drug concentrations were determined during ketamine-only infusion, at co-administration (KET/DEX or KET/FENT) and at 2-h post-treatment. Ketamine-only administration impaired psychomotor response speed (Simple and 5Choice) and impaired memory (all p < .001), however did not alter executive function abilities. Independent of sedation, co-administration of dexmedetomidine produced synergistic performance and memory deficits which persisted at post-treatment (KET/DEX) (all p < .001), and were comparatively greater than for KET/FENT (all p < .05). Ketamine, norketamine and dexmedetomidine concentrations were modestly associated with reduced psychomotor speed and accuracy (all p < .05), and an inverse relationship was found between blood concentrations of ketamine, norketamine and dexmedetomidine and performance on memory tasks. Co-administration of ketamine with dexmedetomidine but not with fentanyl exerts synergistic effects on psychomotor performance and memory without executive dysfunction. Assessment of these effects in clinical groups is warranted., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The optimum duration of antimicrobial therapy would eradicate infection whilst minimising potential adverse drug effects to the patient. Australian and New Zealand infectious diseases (ID) and ICU specialists were surveyed regarding their recommended duration of antibiotic treatment for five common bacteraemic syndromes. A total of 239 clinicians responded to the survey (15.5% ICU and 84.5% ID). Overall, the most common reported durations were 7 (33.7%), 10 (25.9%) and 14 (26.0%) days, with 46% of responses recommending ≤7 days. Most respondents (>75% for each characteristic) would not modify duration based on host characteristics such as patient age or co-morbidities. ID physicians recommended longer durations than ICU physicians for all five syndromes (ID, median 10, IQR 7-14, range 1-28 days; ICU, median 7, IQR 5-10, range 2-21 days). Across all respondents, the median (IQR) duration for each syndrome was: CVC-BSI, 7 (7-10) days; bacteraemic pneumonia, 7 (7-10) days; bacteraemic UTI, 10 (7-14) days; bacteraemic IAI, 7 (7-12) days; and bacteraemic SSTI, 10 (7-14) days. Marked variation exists amongst clinicians' recommended duration of antibiotic treatment for BSI. A proportion of clinicians recommend therapy of ≤7 days at present (33.3-59.7% across scenarios). Patient characteristics are not strongly considered in the decision on therapy duration. This survey was undertaken as preparatory work for initiation of the BALANCE study, an ongoing randomised trial comparing 7 days with 14 days of therapy for BSI, providing an evidence base to inform best clinical treatment for this patient population., (Crown Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Whether procalcitonin (PCT)-guided antibiotic management in patients with positive blood cultures is safe remains understudied. We performed a patient-level meta-analysis to investigate effects of PCT-guided antibiotic management in patients with bacteremia., Methods: We extracted and analyzed individual data of 523 patients with positive blood cultures included in 13 trials, in which patients were randomly assigned to receive antibiotics based on PCT levels (PCT group) or a control group. The main efficacy endpoint was duration of antibiotic treatment. The main safety endpoint was mortality within 30 days., Results: Mean duration of antibiotic therapy was significantly shorter for 253 patients who received PCT-guided treatment than for 270 control patients (-2.86 days [95% confidence interval [CI], -4.88 to -.84]; P = .006). Mortality was similar in both arms (16.6% vs 20.0%; P = .263). In subgroup analyses by type of pathogen, we noted a trend of shorter mean antibiotic durations in the PCT arm for patients infected with gram-positive organisms or Escherichia coli and significantly shorter treatment for subjects with pneumococcal bacteremia. In analysis by site of infection, antibiotic exposure was shortened in PCT subjects with Streptococcus pneumoniae respiratory infection and those with E. coli urogenital infections., Conclusions: This meta-analysis of patients with bacteremia receiving PCT-guided antibiotic management demonstrates lower antibiotic exposure without an apparent increase in mortality. Few differences were demonstrated in subgroup analysis stratified by type or site of infection but notable for decreased exposure in patients with pneumococcal pneumonia and E. coli urogenital infections., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Dexmedetomidine produces sedation while maintaining a degree of arousability and may reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and delirium among patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). The use of dexmedetomidine as the sole or primary sedative agent in patients undergoing mechanical ventilation has not been extensively studied., Methods: In an open-label, randomized trial, we enrolled critically ill adults who had been undergoing ventilation for less than 12 hours in the ICU and were expected to continue to receive ventilatory support for longer than the next calendar day to receive dexmedetomidine as the sole or primary sedative or to receive usual care (propofol, midazolam, or other sedatives). The target range of sedation-scores on the Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (which is scored from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]) was -2 to +1 (lightly sedated to restless). The primary outcome was the rate of death from any cause at 90 days., Results: We enrolled 4000 patients at a median interval of 4.6 hours between eligibility and randomization. In a modified intention-to-treat analysis involving 3904 patients, the primary outcome event occurred in 566 of 1948 (29.1%) in the dexmedetomidine group and in 569 of 1956 (29.1%) in the usual-care group (adjusted risk difference, 0.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, -2.9 to 2.8). An ancillary finding was that to achieve the prescribed level of sedation, patients in the dexmedetomidine group received supplemental propofol (64% of patients), midazolam (3%), or both (7%) during the first 2 days after randomization; in the usual-care group, these drugs were administered as primary sedatives in 60%, 12%, and 20% of the patients, respectively. Bradycardia and hypotension were more common in the dexmedetomidine group., Conclusions: Among patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in the ICU, those who received early dexmedetomidine for sedation had a rate of death at 90 days similar to that in the usual-care group and required supplemental sedatives to achieve the prescribed level of sedation. More adverse events were reported in the dexmedetomidine group than in the usual-care group. (Funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and others; SPICE III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01728558.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)