Search

Objectives: Refractory hypoxemia can occur in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome from COVID-19 despite support with venovenous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Parallel ECMO circuits can be used to increase physiologic support. We report our clinical experience using ECMO circuits in parallel for select patients with persistent severe hypoxemia despite the use of a single ECMO circuit., Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome who received VV-ECMO with an additional circuit in parallel at Vanderbilt University Medical Center between March 1, 2020, and March 1, 2022. We report demographic characteristics and clinical characteristics including ECMO settings, mechanical ventilator settings, use of adjunctive therapies, and arterial blood gas results after initial cannulation, before and after receipt of a second ECMO circuit in parallel, and before removal of the circuit in parallel, and outcomes., Results: Of 84 patients with COVID-19 who received VV-ECMO during the study period, 22 patients (26.2%) received a circuit in parallel. The median duration of ECMO was 40.0 days (interquartile range, 31.6-53.1 days), of which 19.0 days (interquartile range, 13.0-33.0 days) were spent with a circuit in parallel. Of the 22 patients who received a circuit in parallel, 16 (72.7%) survived to hospital discharge and 6 (27.3%) died before discharge., Conclusions: In select patients, the additional use of an ECMO circuit in parallel can increase ECMO blood flow and improve oxygenation while allowing for lung-protective mechanical ventilation and excellent outcomes., (Copyright © 2022 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Hypotension is common during tracheal intubation of critically ill adults and increases the risk of cardiac arrest and death. Whether administering an intravenous fluid bolus to critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation prevents severe hypotension, cardiac arrest, or death remains uncertain., Objective: To determine the effect of fluid bolus administration on the incidence of severe hypotension, cardiac arrest, and death., Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial enrolled 1067 critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation with sedation and positive pressure ventilation at 11 intensive care units in the US between February 1, 2019, and May 24, 2021. The date of final follow-up was June 21, 2021., Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either a 500-mL intravenous fluid bolus (n = 538) or no fluid bolus (n = 527)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was cardiovascular collapse (defined as new or increased receipt of vasopressors or a systolic blood pressure <65 mm Hg between induction of anesthesia and 2 minutes after tracheal intubation, or cardiac arrest or death between induction of anesthesia and 1 hour after tracheal intubation). The secondary outcome was the incidence of death prior to day 28, which was censored at hospital discharge., Results: Among 1067 patients randomized, 1065 (99.8%) completed the trial and were included in the primary analysis (median age, 62 years [IQR, 51-70 years]; 42.1% were women). Cardiovascular collapse occurred in 113 patients (21.0%) in the fluid bolus group and in 96 patients (18.2%) in the no fluid bolus group (absolute difference, 2.8% [95% CI, -2.2% to 7.7%]; P = .25). New or increased receipt of vasopressors occurred in 20.6% of patients in the fluid bolus group compared with 17.6% of patients in the no fluid bolus group, a systolic blood pressure of less than 65 mm Hg occurred in 3.9% vs 4.2%, respectively, cardiac arrest occurred in 1.7% vs 1.5%, and death occurred in 0.7% vs 0.6%. Death prior to day 28 (censored at hospital discharge) occurred in 218 patients (40.5%) in the fluid bolus group compared with 223 patients (42.3%) in the no fluid bolus group (absolute difference, -1.8% [95% CI, -7.9% to 4.3%]; P = .55)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, administration of an intravenous fluid bolus compared with no fluid bolus did not significantly decrease the incidence of cardiovascular collapse., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03787732.

Importance: For critically ill adults undergoing emergency tracheal intubation, failure to intubate the trachea on the first attempt occurs in up to 20% of cases and is associated with severe hypoxemia and cardiac arrest. Whether using a tracheal tube introducer ("bougie") increases the likelihood of successful intubation compared with using an endotracheal tube with stylet remains uncertain., Objective: To determine the effect of use of a bougie vs an endotracheal tube with stylet on successful intubation on the first attempt., Design, Setting, and Participants: The Bougie or Stylet in Patients Undergoing Intubation Emergently (BOUGIE) trial was a multicenter, randomized clinical trial among 1102 critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation in 7 emergency departments and 8 intensive care units in the US between April 29, 2019, and February 14, 2021; the date of final follow-up was March 14, 2021., Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to use of a bougie (n = 556) or use of an endotracheal tube with stylet (n = 546)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was successful intubation on the first attempt. The secondary outcome was the incidence of severe hypoxemia, defined as a peripheral oxygen saturation less than 80%., Results: Among 1106 patients randomized, 1102 (99.6%) completed the trial and were included in the primary analysis (median age, 58 years; 41.0% women). Successful intubation on the first attempt occurred in 447 patients (80.4%) in the bougie group and 453 patients (83.0%) in the stylet group (absolute risk difference, -2.6 percentage points [95% CI, -7.3 to 2.2]; P = .27). A total of 58 patients (11.0%) in the bougie group experienced severe hypoxemia, compared with 46 patients (8.8%) in the stylet group (absolute risk difference, 2.2 percentage points [95% CI, -1.6 to 6.0]). Esophageal intubation occurred in 4 patients (0.7%) in the bougie group and 5 patients (0.9%) in the stylet group, pneumothorax was present after intubation in 14 patients (2.5%) in the bougie group and 15 patients (2.7%) in the stylet group, and injury to oral, glottic, or thoracic structures occurred in 0 patients in the bougie group and 3 patients (0.5%) in the stylet group., Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, use of a bougie did not significantly increase the incidence of successful intubation on the first attempt compared with use of an endotracheal tube with stylet., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03928925

Introduction: Intubation-related complications are less frequent when intubation is successful on the first attempt. The rate of first attempt success in the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) is typically less than 90%. The bougie, a semirigid introducer that can be placed into the trachea to facilitate a Seldinger-like technique of tracheal intubation and is typically reserved for difficult or failed intubations, might improve first attempt success. Evidence supporting its use, however, is from a single academic ED with frequent bougie use. Validation of these findings is needed before widespread implementation., Methods and Analysis: The BOugie or stylet in patients Undergoin g Intubation Emergently trial is a prospective, multicentre, non-blinded randomised trial being conducted in six EDs and six ICUs in the USA. The trial plans to enrol 1106 critically ill adults undergoing orotracheal intubation. Eligible patients are randomised 1:1 for the use of a bougie or use of an endotracheal tube with stylet for the first intubation attempt. The primary outcome is successful intubation on the first attempt. The secondary outcome is severe hypoxaemia, defined as an oxygen saturation less than 80% between induction until 2 min after completion of intubation. Enrolment began on 29 April 2019 and is expected to be completed in 2021., Ethics and Dissemination: The trial protocol was approved with waiver of informed consent by the Central Institutional Review Board at Vanderbilt University Medical Center or the local institutional review board at an enrolling site. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences., Trial Registration Number: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03928925)., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: Cardiovascular collapse is a common complication during tracheal intubation of critically ill adults. Whether administration of an intravenous fluid bolus prevents cardiovascular collapse during tracheal intubation remains uncertain. A prior randomised trial found fluid bolus administration to be ineffective overall but suggested potential benefit for patients receiving positive pressure ventilation during tracheal intubation., Methods and Analysis: The PREventing cardiovascular collaPse with Administration of fluid REsuscitation during Induction and Intubation (PREPARE II) trial is a prospective, multi-centre, non-blinded randomised trial being conducted in 13 academic intensive care units in the USA. The trial will randomise 1065 critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation with planned use of positive pressure ventilation (non-invasive ventilation or bag-mask ventilation) between induction and laryngoscopy to receive 500 mL of intravenous crystalloid or no intravenous fluid bolus. The primary outcome is cardiovascular collapse, defined as any of: systolic blood pressure <65 mm Hg, new or increased vasopressor administration between induction and 2 min after intubation, or cardiac arrest or death between induction and 1 hour after intubation. The primary analysis will be an unadjusted, intention-to-treat comparison of the primary outcome between patients randomised to fluid bolus administration and patients randomised to no fluid bolus administration using a χ 2 test. The sole secondary outcome is 28-day in-hospital mortality. Enrolment began on 1 February 2019 and is expected to conclude in June 2020., Ethics and Dissemination: The trial was approved by either the central institutional review board at Vanderbilt University Medical Center or the local institutional review board at each trial site. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences., Trial Registration Number: NCT03787732., 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.)

Background: The optimal securement method of endotracheal tubes is unknown but should prevent dislodgement while minimizing complications. The use of an endotracheal tube fastener might reduce complications among critically ill adults undergoing endotracheal intubation., Methods: In this pragmatic, single-center, randomized trial, critically ill adults admitted to the medical intensive care unit (MICU) and expected to require invasive mechanical ventilation for greater than 24 h were randomized to adhesive tape or endotracheal tube fastener at the time of intubation. The primary endpoint was a composite of any of the following: presence of lip ulcer, endotracheal tube dislodgement (defined as moving at least 2 cm), ventilator-associated pneumonia, or facial skin tears anytime between randomization and the earlier of death or 48 h after extubation. Secondary endpoints included duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU and in-hospital mortality., Results: Of 500 patients randomized over a 12-month period, 162 had a duration of mechanical ventilation less than 24 h and 40 had missing outcome data, leaving 153 evaluable patients randomized to tube fastener and 145 evaluable patients randomized to adhesive tape. Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. The primary endpoint occurred 13 times in 12 (7.8%) patients in the tube fastener group and 30 times in 25 (17.2%) patients in the adhesive tape group (p = 0.014) for an overall incidence of 22.0 versus 52.6 per 1000 ventilator days, respectively (p = 0.020). Lip ulcers occurred in 4 (2.6%) versus 11 (7.3%) patients, or an incidence rate of 6.5 versus 19.5 per 1000 patient ventilator days (p = 0.053) in the fastener and tape groups, respectively. The endotracheal tube was dislodged 7 times in 6 (3.9%) patients in the tube fastener group and 16 times in 15 (10.3%) patients in the tape group (p = 0.03), reflecting incidences of 11.9 and 28.1 per 1000 ventilator days, respectively. Facial skin tears were similar between the groups. Mechanical ventilation duration and ICU and hospital mortality did not differ., Conclusion: The use of the endotracheal tube fastener to secure the endotracheal tubes reduces the rate of a composite outcome that included lip ulcers, facial skin tears, or endotracheal tube dislodgement compared to adhesive tape., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03760510. Retrospectively registered on November 30, 2018.

Background: Acute care nurse practitioners (ACNPs) are increasingly being employed in ICUs to offset physician shortages, but no data exist about outcomes of critically ill patients continuously cared for by ACNPs., Methods: Prospective cohort study of all admissions to an adult medical ICU in an academic, tertiary-care center between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2013. The primary end point of 90-day survival was compared between patients cared for by ACNP and resident teams using Cox proportional hazards regression. Secondary end points included ICU and hospital mortality and ICU and hospital length of stay., Results: Among 9,066 admissions, there was no difference in 90-day survival for patients cared for by ACNP or resident teams (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.94; 95% CI, 0.85-1.04; P = .21). Although patients cared for by ACNPs had lower ICU mortality (6.3%) than resident team patients (11.6%; adjusted OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.94; P = .01), hospital mortality was not different (10.0% vs 15.9%; adjusted OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.73-1.03; P = .11). ICU length of stay was similar between the ACNP and resident teams (3.4 ± 3.5 days vs 3.7 ± 3.9 days [adjusted OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.93-1.1; P = .81]), but hospital length of stay was shorter for patients cared for by ACNPs (7.9 ± 11.2 days) than for resident patients (9.1 ± 11.2 days) (adjusted OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.95; P = .001)., Conclusion: Outcomes are comparable for critically ill patients cared for by ACNP and resident teams., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Demands for critical care services are increasing, but the supply of qualified physicians is not. Moreover, there are mounting national expectations for continuous on-site, senior providers and for adherence to quality and safety practices. In teaching institutions, manpower shortages are exacerbated by shrinking trainee duty hours, and there is a growing desire to recoup the revenue lost when a non-credentialed provider delivers a service. Increasingly, hospitalists and acute-care nurse practitioners (ACNPs) are meeting these needs. This article describes the development of an ACNP service in a university hospital medical intensive care unit (ICU) designed to improve the range and quality of services and faculty staffing when the ICU expanded from 22 to 34 beds without adding physicians. Eight ACNPs were hired and, over 9 months, received didactic, procedural, simulation center, and supervised patient care training. Progressive workload and graded responsibility were used to transition to a 24-hour, in-house, resident-independent, attending-supervised service, which now admits just under half of all patients (3.4 ± 1.3 patients/day), cares for approximately one-fourth of the unit's critically ill patients (6.0 ± 1.4 patients/day), and responds to medical rapid response team calls daily (1.5 ± 1.7 calls/day). Over the first 5 months of operation, work output in all categories continued to increase, with ACNPs documenting an average of 11.1 ± 2.7 activities per day (all data mean ± standard deviation). Acute-care nurse practitioners also provide 40% of the daily resident core lectures and a monthly staff nurse conference. Insufficient data exist at this time, however, to report accurate billing or collection results. Specific areas discussed within this article include service structure, hiring and training, implementation, scheduling, supervision, problems encountered, productivity, monitoring, and future plans.