Search

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]

Introduction: There is strong evidence for the use of corticosteroid in the management of severe coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). However, there is still uncertainty about the timing of corticosteroids. We undertook a modified Delphi study to develop expert consensus statements on the early identification of a subset of patients from non-severe COVID-19 who may benefit from using corticosteroids. Methods: A modified Delphi was conducted with two anonymous surveys between April 30, 2021, and May 3, 2021. An expert panel of 35 experts was selected and invited to participate through e-mail. The consensus was defined as >70% votes in multiple-choice questions (MCQ) on Likert-scale type statements, while strong consensus as >90% votes in MCQ or >50% votes for "very important" on Likert-scale questions in the final round. Results: Twenty experts completed two rounds of the survey. There was strong consensus for the increased work of breathing (95%), a positive six-minute walk test (90%), thorax computed tomography severity score of >14/25 (85%), new-onset organ dysfunction (using clinical or biochemical criteria) (80%), and C-reactive protein >5 times the upper limit of normal (70%) as the criteria for patients' selection. The experts recommended using oral or intravenous (IV) low-dose corticosteroids (the equivalent of 6 mg/day dexamethasone) for 5--10 days and monitoring of oxygen saturation, body temperature, clinical scoring system, blood sugar, and inflammatory markers for any "red-flag" signs. Conclusion: The experts recommended against indiscriminate use of corticosteroids in mild to moderate COVID-19 without the signs of clinical worsening. Oral or IV low-dose corticosteroids (the equivalent of 6 mg/day dexamethasone) for 5--10 days are recommended for patients with features of disease progression based on clinical, biochemical, or radiological criteria after 5 days from symptom onset under close monitoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) in the last few months has disrupted the healthcare system globally. The objective of this study is to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the psychological and emotional well-being of healthcare workers (HCWs). Materials and methods: We conducted an online, cross-sectional, multinational survey, assessing the anxiety (using Generalized Anxiety Disorder [GAD-2] and GAD-7), depression (using Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression), and insomnia (using Insomnia Severity Index), among HCWs across India, the Middle East, and North America. We used univariate and bivariate logistic regression to identify risk factors for psychological distress. Results: The prevalence of clinically significant anxiety, depression, and insomnia were 41.4, 48.0, and 31.3%, respectively. On bivariate logistic regression, lack of social or emotional support to HCWs was independently associated with anxiety [odds ratio (OR), 3.81 (2.84-3.90)], depression [OR, 6.29 (4.50-8.79)], and insomnia [OR, 3.79 (2.81-5.110)]. Female gender and self-COVID-19 were independent risk factors for anxiety [OR, 3.71 (1.53-9.03) and 1.71 (1.23-2.38)] and depression [OR, 1.72 (1.27-2.31) and 1.62 (1.14-2.30)], respectively. Frontliners were independently associated with insomnia [OR, 1.68 (1.23-2.29)]. Conclusion: COVID-19 pandemic has a high prevalence of anxiety, depression, and insomnia among HCWs. Female gender, frontliners, self- COVID-19, and absence of social or emotional support are the independent risk factors for psychological distress. [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]

Sepsis poses a significant global health challenge in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Several aspects of sepsis management recommended in international guidelines are often difficult or impossible to implement in resource-limited settings (RLS) due to issues related to cost, infrastructure, or lack of trained healthcare workers. The Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine (ISCCM) drafted a position statement for the management of sepsis in RLS focusing on India, facilitated by a task force of 18 intensivists using a Delphi process, to achieve consensus on various aspects of sepsis management which are challenging to implement in RLS. The process involved a comprehensive literature review, controlled feedback, and four iterative surveys conducted between 21 August 2023 and 21 September 2023. The domains addressed in the Delphi process included the need for a position statement, challenges in sepsis management, considerations for diagnosis, patient management while awaiting an intensive care unit (ICU) bed, and treatment of sepsis and septic shock in RLS. Consensus was achieved when 70% or more of the task force members voted either for or against statements using a Likert scale or a multiple-choice question (MCQ). The Delphi process with 100% participation of Task Force members in all rounds, generated consensus in 32 statements (91%) from which 20 clinical practice statements were drafted for the management of sepsis in RLS. The clinical practice statements will complement the existing international guidelines for the management of sepsis and provide valuable insights into tailoring sepsis interventions in the context of RLS, contributing to the global discourse on sepsis management. Future international guidelines should address the management of sepsis in RLS., How to Cite This Article: Juneja D, Nasa P, Chanchalani G, Cherian A, Jagiasi BG, Javeri Y, et al . The Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine Position Statement on the Management of Sepsis in Resource-limited Settings. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(S2):S4-S19., Competing Interests: Source of support: Nil Conflict of interest: None, (Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).)

How to cite this article: Khilnani GC, Tiwari P, Mittal S, Kulkarni AP, Chaudhry D, Zirpe KG, et al. Guidelines for Antibiotics Prescription in Critically Ill Patients. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(S2):S104-S216., Competing Interests: Source of support: Nil Conflict of interest: None, (Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).)