The story of critical care in Asia: a narrative review

Background Asia has more critically ill people than any other part of our planet. The aim of this article is to review the development of critical care as a specialty, critical care societies and education and research, the epidemiology of critical illness as well as epidemics and pandemics, accessibility and cost and quality of critical care, culture and end-of-life care, and future directions for critical care in Asia. Main body Although the first Asian intensive care units (ICUs) surfaced in the 1960s and the 1970s and specialisation started in the 1990s, multiple challenges still exist, including the lack of intensivists, critical care nurses, and respiratory therapists in many countries. This is aggravated by the brain drain of skilled ICU staff to high-income countries. Critical care societies have been integral to the development of the discipline and have increasingly contributed to critical care education, although critical care research is only just starting to take off through collaboration across groups. Sepsis, increasingly aggravated by multidrug resistance, contributes to a significant burden of critical illness, while epidemics and pandemics continue to haunt the continent intermittently. In particular, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has highlighted the central role of critical care in pandemic response. Accessibility to critical care is affected by lack of ICU beds and high costs, and quality of critical care is affected by limited capability for investigations and treatment in low- and middle-income countries. Meanwhile, there are clear cultural differences across countries, with considerable variations in end-of-life care. Demand for critical care will rise across the continent due to ageing populations and rising comorbidity burdens. Even as countries respond by increasing critical care capacity, the critical care community must continue to focus on training for ICU healthcare workers, processes anchored on evidence-based medicine, technology guided by feasibility and impact, research applicable to Asian and local settings, and rallying of governments for support for the specialty. Conclusions Critical care in Asia has progressed through the years, but multiple challenges remain. These challenges should be addressed through a collaborative approach across disciplines, ICUs, hospitals, societies, governments, and countries

Pain distress : the negative emotion associated with procedures in ICU patients

The intensity of procedural pain in intensive care unit (ICU) patients is well documented. However, little is known about procedural pain distress, the psychological response to pain. Post hoc analysis of a multicenter, multinational study of procedural pain. Pain distress was measured before and during procedures (0-10 numeric rating scale). Factors that influenced procedural pain distress were identified by multivariable analyses using a hierarchical model with ICU and country as random effects. A total of 4812 procedures were recorded (3851 patients, 192 ICUs, 28 countries). Pain distress scores were highest for endotracheal suctioning (ETS) and tracheal suctioning, chest tube removal (CTR), and wound drain removal (median [IQRs] = 4 [1.6, 1.7]). Significant relative risks (RR) for a higher degree of pain distress included certain procedures: turning (RR = 1.18), ETS (RR = 1.45), tracheal suctioning (RR = 1.38), CTR (RR = 1.39), wound drain removal (RR = 1.56), and arterial line insertion (RR = 1.41); certain pain behaviors (RR = 1.19-1.28); pre-procedural pain intensity (RR = 1.15); and use of opioids (RR = 1.15-1.22). Patient-related variables that significantly increased the odds of patients having higher procedural pain distress than pain intensity were pre-procedural pain intensity (odds ratio [OR] = 1.05); pre-hospital anxiety (OR = 1.76); receiving pethidine/meperidine (OR = 4.11); or receiving haloperidol (OR = 1.77) prior to the procedure. Procedural pain has both sensory and emotional dimensions. We found that, although procedural pain intensity (the sensory dimension) and distress (the emotional dimension) may closely covary, there are certain factors than can preferentially influence each of the dimensions. Clinicians are encouraged to appreciate the multidimensionality of pain when they perform procedures and use this knowledge to minimize the patient's pain experience.Peer reviewe

An international prospective study of INICC analyzing the incidence and risk factors for catheter-associated urinary tract infections in 235 ICUs across 8 Asian Countries

Background: Identify urinary catheter (UC)-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI) incidence and risk factors (RF) in 235 ICUs in 8 Asian countries: India, Malaysia, Mongolia, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. Methods: From January 1, 2014, to February 12, 2022, we conducted a prospective cohort study. To estimate CAUTI incidence, the number of UC days was the denominator, and CAUTI was the numerator. To estimate CAUTI RFs, we analyzed 11 variables using multiple logistic regression. Results: 84,920 patients hospitalized for 499,272 patient days acquired 869 CAUTIs. The pooled CAUTI rate per 1,000 UC-days was 3.08; for those using suprapubic-catheters (4.11); indwelling-catheters (2.65); trauma-ICU (10.55), neurologic-ICU (7.17), neurosurgical-ICU (5.28); in lower- middle-income countries (3.05); in upper-middle-income countries (1.71); at public-hospitals (5.98), at private-hospitals (3.09), at teaching-hospitals (2.04). The following variables were identified as CAUTI RFs: Age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.01; 95% CI = 1.01-1.02; P < .0001); female sex (aOR = 1.39; 95% CI = 1.21-1.59; P < .0001); using suprapubic-catheter (aOR = 4.72; 95% CI = 1.69-13.21; P < .0001); length of stay before CAUTI acquisition (aOR = 1.04; 95% CI = 1.04-1.05; P < .0001); UC and device utilization-ratio (aOR = 1.07; 95% CI = 1.01-1.13; P = .02); hospitalized at trauma-ICU (aOR = 14.12; 95% CI = 4.68-42.67; P < .0001), neurologic-ICU (aOR = 14.13; 95% CI = 6.63-30.11; P < .0001), neurosurgical-ICU (aOR = 13.79; 95% CI = 6.88-27.64; P < .0001); public-facilities (aOR = 3.23; 95% CI = 2.34-4.46; P < .0001). Discussion: CAUTI rate and risk are higher for older patients, women, hospitalized at trauma-ICU, neurologic-ICU, neurosurgical-ICU, and public facilities. All of them are unlikely to change. Conclusions: It is suggested to focus on reducing the length of stay and the Urinary catheter device utilization ratio, avoiding suprapubic catheters, and implementing evidence-based CAUTI prevention recommendations