Search

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected millions of people worldwide. As our understanding of the disease is evolving, our approach to the patient management is also changing swiftly. Available new evidence is helping us take radical decisions in COVID-19 management. We searched for inclusion of the published literature on treatment of COVID-19 from around the globe. All relevant evidences available till the time of submission of this article were briefly discussed. Once advised as blanket therapy for all patients, recent reports of hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin indicated no potential benefit and use of such combination may increase the risk of arrhythmias. Clinical evidence with newer antivirals such as remdesivir and favipiravir is promising that can hasten the patient recovery and reduce the mortality. With steroids, evidence is much clear in that it should be used in low dose and for short period not extending beyond 7 days in moderate to severe hospitalized patients. Low-molecular-weight heparin should be initiated in all hospitalized COVID-19 patients and dose should be based on the coagulation profile and risk of thromboembolism. Immunomodulatory drugs such tocilizumab may be considered for severe and critically ill patients to improve the outcomes. Though ulinastatin can be a potential alternative immunomodulator, there is lack of clinical evidence on its usage in COVID-19. Convalescent plasma therapy can be potentially lifesaving in critically ill patients. However, there is need to generate further evidence with various such therapies. Though availability of a potent vaccine is awaited, current treatment of COVID-19 is based on available therapies, which is guided by the evidence. In this review, we discuss the potential treatments available around the globe with current evidence on each of such treatments. [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]

A. ACUTE HYPERCAPNIC RESPIRATORY FAILURE A1. Acute Exacerbation of COPD: Recommendations: NIV should be used in management of acute exacerbation of COPD in patients with acute or acute-on-chronic respiratory acidosis (pH = 7.25-7.35). (1A) NIV should be attempted in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD (pH <7.25 & PaCO2 ≥ 45) before initiating invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) except in patients requiring immediate intubation. (2A). Lower the pH higher the chance of failure of NIV. (2B) NIV should not to be used routinely in normo- or mildly hyper-capneic patients with acute exacerbation of COPD, without acidosis (pH > 7.35). (2B) A2. NIV in ARF due to Chest wall deformities/ Neuromuscular diseases: Recommendations: NIV may be used in patients of ARF due to chest wall deformity/Neuromuscular diseases. (PaCO2 ≥ 45) (UPP) A3. NIV in ARF due to Obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS): Recommendations: NIV may be used in AHRF in OHS patients when they present with acute hypercapnic or acute on chronic respiratory failure (pH 45). (3B) NIV/CPAP may be used in obese, hypercapnic patients with OHS and/or right heart failure in the absence of acidosis. (UPP) B. NIV IN ACUTE HYPOXEMIC RESPIRATORY FAILURE: B1. NIV in Acute Cardiogenic Pulmonary Oedema: Recommendations: NIV is recommended in hospital patients with ARF, due to Cardiogenic pulmonary edema. (1A). NIV should be used in patients with acute heart failure/ cardiogenic pulmonary edema, right from emergency department itself. (1B) Both CPAP and BiPAP modes are safe and effective in patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema. (1A). However, BPAP (NIV-PS) should be preferred in cardiogenic pulmonary edema with hypercapnia. (3A) B2. NIV in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: Recommendations: NIV may be used over conventional oxygen therapy in mild early acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (P/F ratio <300 and >200 mmHg), under close supervision. (2B) We strongly recommend against a trial of NIV in patients with acute hypoxemic failure with P/F ratio <150. (2A) B3. NIV in ARF due to Chest Trauma: Recommendations: NIV may be used in traumatic flail chest along with adequate pain relief. (3B) B4. NIV in Immunocompromised Host: Recommendations: In Immunocompromised patients with early ARF, we may consider NIV over conventional oxygen. (2B). B5. NIV in Palliative Care: Recommendations: We strongly recommend use of NIV for reducing dyspnea in palliative care setting. (2A) B6. NIV in post-operative cases: Recommendations: NIV should be used in patients with post-operative acute respiratory failure. (2A) B6a. NIV in abdominal surgery: Recommendations: NIV may be used in patients with ARF following abdominal surgeries. (2A) B6b. NIV in bariatric surgery: Recommendations: NIV may be used in post-bariatric surgery patients with pre-existent OSA or OHS. (3A) B6c. NIV in Thoracic surgery: Recommendations: In cardiothoracic surgeries, use of NIV is recommended post operatively for acute respiratory failure to improve oxygenation and reduce chance of reintubation. (2A) NIV should not be used in patients undergoing esophageal surgery. (UPP) B6d. NIV in post lung transplant: Recommendations: NIV may be used for shortening weaning time and to avoid re-intubation following lung transplantation. (2B) B7. NIV during Procedures (ETI/Bronchoscopy/TEE/Endoscopy): Recommendations: NIV may be used for pre-oxygenation before intubation. (2B) NIV with appropriate interface may be used in patients of ARF during Bronchoscopy/Endoscopy to improve oxygenation. (3B) B8. NIV in Viral Pneumonitis ARDS: Recommendations: NIV cannot be considered as a treatment of choice for patients with acute respiratory failure with H1N1 pneumonia. However, it may be reasonable to use NIV in selected patients with single organ involvement, in a strictly controlled environment with close monitoring. (2B) B9. NIV and Acute exacerbation of Pulmonary Tuberculosis: Recommendations: Careful use of NIV in patients with acute Tuberculosis may be considered, with effective infection control precautions to prevent air-borne transmission. (3B) B10. NIV after planned extubation in high risk patients: Recommendation: We recommend that NIV may be used to wean high risk patients from invasive mechanical ventilation as it reduces re-intubation rate. (2B) B11. NIV for respiratory distress post extubation: Recommendations: We recommend that NIV therapy should not be used to manage respiratory distress post-extubation in high risk patients. (2B) C. APPLICATION OF NIV: Recommendation: Choice of mode should be mainly decided by factors like disease etiology and severity, the breathing effort by the patient and the operator familiarity and experience. (UPP) We suggest using flow trigger over pressure triggering in assisted modes, as it provides better patient ventilator synchrony. Especially in COPD patients, flow triggering has been found to benefit auto PEEP. (3B) D. MANAGEMENT OF PATIENT ON NIV: D1. Sedation: Recommendations: A non-pharmacological approach to calm the patient (Reassuring the patient, proper environment) should always be tried before administrating sedatives. (UPP) In patients on NIV, sedation may be used with extremely close monitoring and only in an ICU setting with lookout for signs of NIV failure. (UPP) E. EQUIPMENT: Recommendations: We recommend that portable bilevel ventilators or specifically designed ICU ventilators with non-invasive mode should be used for delivering Non--invasive ventilation in critically ill patients. (UPP) Both critical care ventilators with leak compensation and bi-level ventilators have been equally effective in decreasing the WOB, RR, and PaCO2. (3B) Currently, Oronasal mask is the most preferred interface for non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure. (3B) F. WEANING: Recommendations: We recommend that weaning from NIV may be done by a standardized protocol driven approach of the unit. (2B) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a preventable complication of critical illness, and this guideline aims to convey a pragmatic approach to the problem. Guidelines have multiplied over the last decade, and their utility has become increasingly conflicted as the reader interprets all suggestions or recommendations as something that must be followed. The nuances of grade of recommendation vs level of evidence are often ignored, and the difference between a "we suggest" vs a "we recommend" is overlooked. There is a general unease among clinicians that failure to follow the guidelines translates to poor medical practice and legal culpability. We attempt to overcome these limitations by highlighting ambiguity when it occurs and refraining from dogmatic recommendations in the absence of robust evidence. Readers and practitioners may find the lack of specific recommendations unsatisfactory, but we believe that true ambiguity is better than inaccurate certainty. We have attempted to comply with the guidelines on how to create guidelines.1 And to overcome the poor compliance with these guidelines.2 Some observers have expressed concern that DVT prophylaxis guidelines may cause more harm than good.3 We have placed greater emphasis on large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with clinical end point and de-emphasized RCTs with surrogate end points and also de-emphasized hypothesis generating studies (observational studies, small RCTs, and meta-analysis of these studies). We have de-emphasized RCTs in non-intensive care unit populations like postoperative patients or those with cancer and stroke. We have also considered resource limitation settings and have avoided recommending costly and poorly proven therapeutic options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Background: Critically ill patients are frequently transported to various locations within the hospital for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes, which increases the risk of adverse events (AEs). This multicenter prospective observational study was undertaken to determine the incidence of AEs related to intrahospital transport, their severity, and their effects on patient outcomes. Patients and methods: We included consecutive unstable critically ill patients requiring intrahospital transport, across 15 Indian tertiary care centers over 5 months (October 11, 2022-February 20, 2023). Apart from the demographics and severity of illness, data related to transport itself, such as indications and destination, incidence of AEs, their category and treatment required, and patient outcomes, were recorded in a standard form. Results: Eight hundred and ninety-three patients were transported on 1065 occasions out of the intensive care unit (ICU). The mean (SD) acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score of the patients was 15.38 (±7.35). One hundred and two AEs occurred, wherein cardiovascular instability was the most common occurrence (31, 30.4%). Two patients had cardiac arrest immediately after transport. Acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II [odds ratio (OR): 1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI) - 1.00-1.05, p = 0.04], emergent transport (OR: 5.11, 95% CI - 3.32-7.88, p = 0.00), and team composition (OR: 5.34, 95% CI - 1.63-17.5, p = 0.00) during transport were found to be independent predictors of AEs. Conclusions: We found a high incidence of AEs during intrahospital transport of critically ill patients. These events were more common during emergent transports and when the patients were transported by doctors. Transport by itself was not related to ICU mortality. We feel that stabilization of the patients before transport and adherence to a standardized protocol may help in minimizing the AEs, thereby enhancing patient safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a wide gap between patients who need transplants and the organs that are available in India. Extending the standard donation criterion is certainly important to address the scarcity of organs for transplantation. Intensivists play a major role in the success of deceased donor organ transplants. Recommendations for deceased donor organ evaluation are not discussed in most intensive care guidelines. The purpose of this position statement is to establish current evidence-based recommendations for multiprofessional critical care staff in the evaluation, assessment, and selection of potential organ donors. These recommendations will give "real-world" criteria that are acceptable in the Indian context. The aim of this set of recommendations is to both increase the number and enhance the quality of transplantable organs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has very high rates of hospital-related transmission among healthcare workers (HCWs), mandating the need for careful intensive care unit (ICU) designing, optimization of staff resources, implementation of vigorous infection control practices, environmental disinfection, meticulous sample collection, and criteria for staff quarantine. Most of the ICUs are not designed to deal with airborne viral infections and require redesigning for the safety of HCWs and patients. Infection control practices related to the prevention of spread of COVD-19 are unique and are well described. The training of staff on infection control practices reduces the infection rate among HCWs significantly. Adequate staffing not only helps in infection control but also prevents burnout of the staff. In case of infection to HCW, the staff must be assessed systematically, and institute's infection control committee should guide for isolation period as well as return to work based upon standard recommendations. This article focuses on infection control and prevention measures required in ICU during the COVID-19 pandemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In a resource-limited country like India, rationing of scarce critical care resources might be required to ensure appropriate delivery of care to the critically ill patients suffering from COVID-19 infection. Most of these patients require critical care support because of respiratory failure or presence of multiorgan dysfunction syndrome. As there is no pharmacological therapy available, respiratory support in the form of supplemental oxygen, noninvasive ventilation, and invasive mechanical ventilation remains mainstay of care in intensive care units. As there is still dearth of direct evidence, most of the data are extrapolated from the experience gained from the management of general critical care patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has affected nearly all nations globally. The highly contagious nature of the disease puts the healthcare workers at high risk of acquiring infection, especially while handling airway and performing aerosol-generating procedures. The Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine, through this position paper, aims to provide guidance for safe airway management to all healthcare workers dealing with airway in COVID-19 patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Renal replacement therapy (RRT) is utilized for patients admitted with acute kidney injury and is becoming indispensable for the treatment of critically ill patients. In low middle income and developing country like India, the epidemiological date about the practices of RRT in various hospitals setups in India are lacking. Renal replacement therapy although is being widely practiced in India, however, is not uniform or standardized. Moreover, the use of RRT beyond traditional indications has not only increased but has shifted from the ambit of the nephrologist and has come under the charge of intensivists. Aims and objectives: The goal of the study was to record perceptions and current practices in RRT management among intensivists across Indian intensive care units (ICUs). Materials and methods: A questionnaire including questions about hospital and ICU settings, availability of RRT, manpower availability, and RRT management in critically ill patients was formed by an expert panel of ICU physicians. The questionnaire was circulated online to Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine (ISCCM) members in October 2019. Results: The facilities in government setups are scarce and undersupplied as compared to private or corporate setups in terms of ICU bed strength and availability of RRT. High cost of continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) makes their use restricted. Conclusion: Resources of RRT in our country are limited, more in government setup. Improvement of the existing resources, training of personnel, and making RRT affordable are the challenges that need to be overcome to judiciously utilize these services to benefit critically ill patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]