Search

Background: Acute respiratory distress syndrome is an important clinical presentation of respiratory complications caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, a novel coronavirus responsible for the ongoing pandemic. The disease is poorly understood, and immunopathogenesis is constantly evolving. Cytokine release syndrome remains central to pathology of coronavirus disease 2019. Antivirals, anticytokine treatment, and other pharmacological approaches have failed to treat it. CytoSorb, an extracorporeal cytokine adsorber that reduces the cytokine storm and other inflammatory mediators in the blood, seems promising in treating severely ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019.Case Presentation: This article presents three cases of Asian ethnicity of severely ill adult patients with coronavirus disease 2019 admitted to intensive care unit who were treated with CytoSorb therapy. All patients used single CytoSorb device. During their clinical course, all patients were prescribed tocilizumab (an interleukin-6 receptor blocker), antivirals, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and other antibiotics and general antipyretic drugs. No vasopressor treatment was required. The patients' average duration of stay in intensive care unit was 30 days; the average duration of stay in hospital was 31 days. All three patients showed significant improvement in biochemical parameters and clinical outcomes post CytoSorb therapy. C-reactive protein levels decreased by 91.5%, 97.4%, and 55.75 %, and mean arterial pressure improved by 18%, 23%, and 17 % in patient 1, 2, and 3, respectively, on day 7 post-therapy.Conclusions: All three patients improved clinically and survived. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study presents a real-world scenario for prescription pattern, efficacy, and safety data on the current clinical use of intravenous fosfomycin in critically ill patients in Indian settings. Patients and methods: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted for a period of 10 months among critically ill patients admitted to hospital's critical care unit. The primary objective of the study was to analyze the prescription pattern of intravenous fosfomycin, and the secondary objective was to evaluate the safety profile and patient outcomes. Results: A total of 309 patients were enrolled, and they were diagnosed with bacteremia (45.3%), pneumonia (15.85%), septic shock (14.24%), and urinary tract infections (UTI) (13.91%). The average dose of fosfomycin given was 11.7 ± 4.06 gm/day. The average duration of the therapy was 4.85 ± 3.59 days with a median duration of 4 days. Fosfomycin was given at 8 hourly dosing frequency to maximum (45.6%) cases. Hypokalemia was the most observed adverse event. The overall survival was seen in 55% of patients. Conclusion: Our data suggest that UTI, infection caused by Escherichia coli, and a daily dose of >12 g were associated with better clinical outcomes. The overall survival of critically ill patients receiving fosfomycin was 55%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim/objective/introduction: Cytokine storm or cytokine release syndrome (CRS) is inevitable in severe and critically ill patients with novel coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). This review aimed to discuss current therapeutic options for the management of CRS in COVID-19. Background: Cytokine storm is caused by the colossal release of proinflammatory cytokines [e.g., IL (interleukin)-2, IL-6, IL-8 TNF (tumor necrosis factor)-α, etc.] causing dysregulated, hyperimmune response. This immunopathogenesis leads to acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Targeting cytokine storm with the therapies that are already available in India with the support of published guidelines and consensus can assist in achieving a better outcome in COVID-19. Review results: We predominantly included published guidelines or consensus recommendations about the management of cytokine storm in COVID-19. From the existing literature evidence, it is observed that among the currently available agents, low-dose corticosteroids and heparin can be beneficial in managing cytokine storm. The use of serine protease inhibitors such as ulinastatin has been advised by some experts. Though therapies such as high-dose vitamin C and interleukin-6 inhibitors (e.g., tocilizumab) have been advised, the evidence regarding their use for cytokine storm in COVID-19 is limited. Therapies such as Janus kinase inhibitors (JAK) inhibitors and Neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1) antagonists are still in research. Besides, pharmaceutical treatments, use of blood purification strategies, and convalescent plasma may be life-saving options in some of the critically ill COVID-19 patients. For these therapies, there is a need to generate further evidence to substantiate their use in CRS management. Conclusion: Current management of COVID-19 is preventive and supportive. Different therapies can be used to prevent and treat the cytokine storm. More research is needed for further supporting the use of these treatments in COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aim: Intensive-care practices and settings differ for India in comparison to other countries. While guidelines are available to direct the use of enteral nutrition (EN), there are no recommendations specific to nutritional management of EN in dysglycemic patients, specific to patients in Indian critical care settings. Advisory board meetings were arranged to develop the practice guidelines specific to the Indian context, for the use of EN in dysglycemic critically ill patients and to overcome challenges in this field. Materials and methods: Two advisory board meetings were organized to review various existing guidelines, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled trials and review articles, for their contextual relevance and strength. Three rounds of Delphi voting were done to arrive at consensus on certain recommendations. A systematic grading of practice guidelines by the advisory board was done based on strength of the consensus voting and reviewed supporting evidences. Results: Based on the literature review, the recommendations for developing the practice guidelines were made as per the grading criteria agreed upon by the advisory board. The recommendations were to address challenges regarding prediction and assessment of dysglycemia (DG), acceptable glycemic targets in such settings, general nutritional aspects pertaining to DG nutrition, and nutrition in various superspecialty cases in critical care settings, where DG is commonly encountered. Conclusion: This paper summarizes the optimum EN practices for managing DG in critically ill patients. The practical solutions to overcome the challenges in this field are presented as practice guidelines at the end of each section. These guidelines are expected to provide guidance for EN management in dysglycemic critically ill patients. These guidelines also outline the model glycemic control task force and its roles in nutrition care as well as an intensive care unit DG nutrition protocol. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: Intensive-care practices and settings may differ for India in comparison to other countries. While international guidelines are available to direct the use of enteral nutrition (EN), there are no recommendations specific to Indian settings. Advisory board meetings were arranged to develop the practice guidelines specific to Indian context, for the use of EN in critically ill patients and to overcome challenges in this field. Methods: Various existing guidelines, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, controlled trials, and review articles were reviewed for their contextual relevance and strength. A systematic grading of practice guidelines by advisory board was done based on strength of the supporting evidence. Wherever Indian studies were not available, references were taken from the international guidelines. Results: Based on the literature review, the recommendations for developing the practice guidelines were made as per the grading criteria agreed upon by the advisory board. The recommendations were to address challenges regarding EN versus parenteral nutrition; nutrition screening and assessment; nutrition in hemodynamically unstable; route of nutrition; tube feeding and challenges; tolerance; optimum calorie-protein requirements; selection of appropriate enteral feeding formula; micronutrients and immune-nutrients; standard nutrition in hepatic, renal, and respiratory diseases and documentation of nutrition practices. Conclusion: This paper summarizes the optimum nutrition practices for critically ill patients. The possible solutions to overcome the challenges in this field are presented as practice guidelines at the end of each section. These guidelines are expected to provide guidance in critical care settings regarding appropriate critical-care nutrition practices and to set up Intensive Care Unit nutrition protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) is a commonly performed procedure in critically sick patients. It can be safely performed bedside by intensivists.This has resulted in decline in the use of surgical tracheostomy in intensive care unit (ICU) except in few selected cases. Most common indication of tracheostomy in ICU is need for prolonged ventilation. About 10% of patients requiring at least 3 days of mechanical ventilator support get tracheostomised during ICU stay. The ideal timing of PDT remains undecided at present. Contraindications and complications become fewer with increase in experience. Various methods of performing PDT have been discovered in last two decades. Preoperative work up, patient selection and post tracheostomy care form key components of a successful PDT. Bronchoscopy and ultrasound have been found to be useful procedural adjuncts, especially in presence of unfavorable anatomy. This article gives a brief overview about the use of PDT in ICU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are contradictory data regarding the effect of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) on the incidence of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and heart failure (HF) decompensation in critically ill patients. This study evaluated the effect of adjunctive use of IPC on the rate of incident DVT and ventilation-free days among critically ill patients with HF. In this pre-specified secondary analysis of the PREVENT trial (N = 2003), we compared the effect of adjunctive IPC added to pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis (IPC group), with pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone (control group) in critically ill patients with HF. The presence of HF was determined by the treating teams according to local practices. Patients were stratified according to preserved (≥ 40%) versus reduced (< 40%) left ventricular ejection fraction, and by the New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification. The primary outcome was incident proximal lower-limb DVT, determined with twice weekly venous Doppler ultrasonography. As a co-primary outcome, we evaluated ventilation-free days as a surrogate for clinically important HF decompensation. Among 275 patients with HF, 18 (6.5%) patients had prevalent proximal lower-limb DVT (detected on trial day 1 to 3). Of 257 patients with no prevalent DVT, 11/125 (8.8%) patients in the IPC group developed incident proximal lower-limb DVT compared to 6/132 (4.5%) patients in the control group (relative risk, 1.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.74–5.08, p = 0.17). There was no significant difference in ventilator-free days between the IPC and control groups (median 21 days versus 25 days respectively, p = 0.17). The incidence of DVT with IPC versus control was not different across NYHA classes (p value for interaction = 0.18), nor across patients with reduced and preserved ejection fraction (p value for interaction = 0.15). Ventilator-free days with IPC versus control were also not different across NYHA classes nor across patients with reduced or preserved ejection fraction. In conclsuion, the use of adjunctive IPC compared with control was associated with similar rate of incident proximal lower-limb DVT and ventilator-free days in critically ill patients with HF. Trial registration: The PREVENT trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02040103 (registered on 3 November 2013, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT02040103) and Current controlled trials, ID: ISRCTN44653506 (registered on 30 October 2013). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Pneumatic CompREssion for Preventing VENous Thromboembolism (PREVENT) trial evaluates the effect of adjunctive intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) with pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis compared to pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone on venous thromboembolism (VTE) in critically ill adults.Methods/design: In this multicenter randomized trial, critically ill patients receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis will be randomized to an IPC or a no IPC (control) group. The primary outcome is "incident" proximal lower-extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) within 28 days after randomization. Radiologists interpreting the lower-extremity ultrasonography will be blinded to intervention allocation, whereas the patients and treating team will be unblinded. The trial has 80% power to detect a 3% absolute risk reduction in the rate of proximal DVT from 7% to 4%.Discussion: Consistent with international guidelines, we have developed a detailed plan to guide the analysis of the PREVENT trial. This plan specifies the statistical methods for the evaluation of primary and secondary outcomes, and defines covariates for adjusted analyses a priori. Application of this statistical analysis plan to the PREVENT trial will facilitate unbiased analyses of clinical data.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov , ID: NCT02040103 . Registered on 3 November 2013; Current controlled trials, ID: ISRCTN44653506 . Registered on 30 October 2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]