Search

The 2021 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines provided evidence-based recommendations for adult patients with sepsis and septic shock. This iteration of the guidelines placed increased emphasis on a diverse, global perspective, as well as on the long-term sequelae of sepsis experienced by patients and their families. The guidelines encompassed the following sections: 1) screening and early treatment; 2) infection; 3) hemodynamic management; 4) ventilation; 5) additional therapies; and 6) goals of care and long-term outcomes. In this review, we provide a summary of key recommendations of interest to the practicing clinician, which are either novel or require a change in practice, as well as those for which the evidence has substantially evolved in the 5 years since the 2016 iteration of the Guidelines. Rather than reviewing the underlying evidence, we emphasize the practical aspects of interpretation, dissemination, and implementation of these recommendations in the clinical setting.

This systematic review and meta-analysis addresses the efficacy and safety of nonopioid adjunctive analgesics for patients in the ICU., Data Sources: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL Plus, and Web of Science., Study Selection: Two independent reviewers screened citations. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials comparing efficacy and safety of an adjuvant-plus-opioid regimen to opioids alone in adult ICU patients., Data Extraction: We conducted duplicate screening of citations and data abstraction., Data Synthesis: Of 10,949 initial citations, we identified 34 eligible trials. These trials examined acetaminophen, carbamazepine, clonidine, dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, ketamine, magnesium sulfate, nefopam, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (including diclofenac, indomethacin, and ketoprofen), pregabalin, and tramadol as adjunctive analgesics. Use of any adjuvant in addition to an opioid as compared to an opioid alone led to reductions in patient-reported pain scores at 24 hours (standard mean difference, -0.88; 95% CI, -1.29 to -0.47; low certainty) and decreased opioid consumption (in oral morphine equivalents over 24 hr; mean difference, 25.89 mg less; 95% CI, 19.97-31.81 mg less; low certainty). In terms of individual medications, reductions in opioid use were demonstrated with acetaminophen (mean difference, 36.17 mg less; 95% CI, 7.86-64.47 mg less; low certainty), carbamazepine (mean difference, 54.69 mg less; 95% CI, 40.39-to 68.99 mg less; moderate certainty), dexmedetomidine (mean difference, 10.21 mg less; 95% CI, 1.06-19.37 mg less; low certainty), ketamine (mean difference, 36.81 mg less; 95% CI, 27.32-46.30 mg less; low certainty), nefopam (mean difference, 70.89 mg less; 95% CI, 64.46-77.32 mg less; low certainty), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (mean difference, 11.07 mg less; 95% CI, 2.7-19.44 mg less; low certainty), and tramadol (mean difference, 22.14 mg less; 95% CI, 6.67-37.61 mg less; moderate certainty)., Conclusions: Clinicians should consider using adjunct agents to limit opioid exposure and improve pain scores in critically ill patients., Competing Interests: Dr. Rochwerg is supported by a Hamilton Health Sciences Early Career Research Award. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)

Background: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed., Methods: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations., Results: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy., Conclusion: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.

Background: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed., Methods: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations., Results: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy., Conclusion: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.

Objective: To update and expand the 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the ICU., Design: Thirty-two international experts, four methodologists, and four critical illness survivors met virtually at least monthly. All section groups gathered face-to-face at annual Society of Critical Care Medicine congresses; virtual connections included those unable to attend. A formal conflict of interest policy was developed a priori and enforced throughout the process. Teleconferences and electronic discussions among subgroups and whole panel were part of the guidelines' development. A general content review was completed face-to-face by all panel members in January 2017., Methods: Content experts, methodologists, and ICU survivors were represented in each of the five sections of the guidelines: Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption). Each section created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome, and nonactionable, descriptive questions based on perceived clinical relevance. The guideline group then voted their ranking, and patients prioritized their importance. For each Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question, sections searched the best available evidence, determined its quality, and formulated recommendations as "strong," "conditional," or "good" practice statements based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation principles. In addition, evidence gaps and clinical caveats were explicitly identified., Results: The Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) panel issued 37 recommendations (three strong and 34 conditional), two good practice statements, and 32 ungraded, nonactionable statements. Three questions from the patient-centered prioritized question list remained without recommendation., Conclusions: We found substantial agreement among a large, interdisciplinary cohort of international experts regarding evidence supporting recommendations, and the remaining literature gaps in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. Highlighting this evidence and the research needs will improve Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) management and provide the foundation for improved outcomes and science in this vulnerable population.

Objective: To better understand how local policies influence organ donation rates., Research Methodology/design: We conducted a document analysis of our ICU organ donation policies, protocols and order sets. We used a systematic search of our institution's policy library to identify documents related to organ donation. We used Mindnode software to create a publication timeline, basic statistics to describe document characteristics, and qualitative content analysis to extract document themes., Setting: Documents were retrieved from Hamilton Health Sciences, an academic hospital system with a high volume of organ donation, from database inception to October 2015., Findings: We retrieved 12 active organ donation documents, including six protocols, two policies, two order sets, and two unclassified documents, a majority (75%) after the introduction of donation after circulatory death in 2006. Four major themes emerged: organ donation process, quality of care, patient and family-centred care, and the role of the institution. These themes indicate areas where documented institutional standards may be beneficial., Conclusion: Further research is necessary to determine the relationship of local policies, protocols, and order sets to actual organ donation practices, and to identify barriers and facilitators to improving donation rates., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To understand the perspectives and attitudes of ICU clinicians about use of a daily goals checklist on rounds., Design: Our three data collection methods were as follows: (1) Field observations: two investigators conducted field observations to understand how and by whom the daily goals checklist was used for 80 ICU patient rounds over 6 days. (2) Document analysis: The 72 completed daily goals checklists from observed rounds were analyzed using mixed methods. (3) Interviews: With 56 clinicians, we conducted semistructured individual and focus-group interviews, analyzing transcripts using a qualitative descriptive approach and content analysis. Triangulation was achieved by a multidisciplinary investigative team using two research methods and three data sources., Setting: Fifteen bed closed ICU in a tertiary care, university-affiliated hospital., Patients: Medical-surgical ICU patients., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Field observations: The daily goals checklist was completed for 93% of observed rounds, largely by residents (86%). The champion of the verbal review was commonly a resident (83%) or medical student (9%). Document analysis: Domains with high completion rates included ventilation, sedation, central venous access, nutrition, and various prophylactic interventions. Interviews: The daily goals checklist enhanced communication, patient care, and education. Nurses, physicians, and pharmacists endorsed its enhancement of interdisciplinary communication. It facilitated a structured, thorough, and individualized approach to patient care. The daily goals checklist helped to identify new patient care issues and sparked management discussions, especially for sedation, weaning, and medications. Residents were prominent users, finding served as a multipurpose teaching tool., Conclusions: The daily goals checklist was perceived to improve the management of critically ill patients by creating a systematic, comprehensive approach to patient care and by setting individualized daily goals. Reportedly improving interprofessional communication and practice, the daily goals checklist also enhanced patient safety and daily progress, encouraging momentum in recovery from critical illness. Daily goals checklist review prompted teaching opportunities for multidisciplinary learners on morning rounds.

Introduction: Despite the growing recognition for analgesic needs in post-craniotomy patients, this remains a poorly studied area in neurological surgery. The class and regimen of analgesia that is most suitable for these patients remains controversial. The objective of this study is to examine the current beliefs and practices of Canadian neurosurgeons when managing post-craniotomy pain., Methods: A survey was sent to all practicing Canadian neurosurgeons to examine the following aspects of analgesia in craniotomy patients: type of analgesics used, common side effects encountered, satisfaction with current regimen and the rationale for their practice., Results: Of 156 potential respondents, 103 neurosurgeons (66%) completed the survey. Codeine (59%) was the most prescribed first line analgesic followed by morphine (38%). The use of a second-line opioid was significantly higher among codeine prescribers compared to morphine, 53% compared to 28% (p < 0.001). Nausea, constipation and neurologic depression were reported as common side effects by 76%, 66% and 27% of respondents respectively. Of the respondents, 90% reported a high level of satisfaction with their current choice of analgesia; nonetheless, they predominantly described their practice as personal preference or protocol driven rather than evidence-based., Conclusions: Codeine - a weak opioid - is the most common first-line analgesic prescribed to craniotomy patients. This practice is associated with substantially increased reliance on potent opioids for rescue analgesia. Whether novel regimens can provide optimal pain control while minimizing neurologic and gastrointestinal side effects remains to be addressed by future trials.