Interhospital transport of the critically ill patient:Focus on the journey

Intensive care patiënten worden al tientallen jaren vervoerd. Of om gebruik te kunnen maken van aanvullende behandelmogelijkheden of bepaalde diagnostiek die niet beschikbaar is in het huidige ziekenhuis, of vanwege plaatsgebrek op de intensive care (IC) in het ziekenhuis waar de patiënt zich bevindt. De mobiele intensive care unit (MICU) is een speciaal, voor transport van IC patiënten, toegeruste ambulance met begeleiding van een IC dokter en IC verpleegkundige. Dit proefschrift gaat over de verschillende aspecten van het MICU transport. Het beoogt antwoord te geven op de volgende vragen: Klopt het dat een goed voorbereid, getraind transport team met de juiste uitrusting, de kritisch zieke patiënt beter vervoerd met minder incidenten? Wat voor soort incidenten treden op tijdens het transport van IC patiënten? Hoe moet een transport team getraind worden? Wat is de regionale impact van een MICU? Zijn er specifieke transport gerelateerde kwesties die van belang zijn

Cardiogenic shock due to probable SARS-CoV-2 myocarditis:a case report

BACKGROUND: Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, many case reports have been presented describing different cardiac symptoms due to the SARS-CoV-2 infection. However, severe cardiac failure due to COVID-19 seems to be rare.CASE SUMMARY: A 30-year-old woman presented with COVID-19 and cardiogenic shock due to a lymphocytic myocarditis. Since she deteriorated under treatment with inotropes, she was referred to our centre, and veno-arterial extracorporeal life support was started. Subsequently, the aortic valve only opened sporadically, and spontaneous contrast appeared in the left ventricle (LV), pointing towards difficulties with unloading LV. Therefore, an Impella for venting the LV was implanted. After 6 days of mechanical circulatory support, her heart function recovered. All support could be weaned, and 2 months later, she had made a full recovery.DISCUSSION: We presented a patient with severe cardiogenic shock due to an acute virus-negative lymphocytic myocarditis associated with a SARS-CoV-2 infection. Since the precise aetiology of SARS-CoV-2-related myocarditis remains to be elucidated and no virus could be detected in the heart, a causal relationship remains speculative.</p

ICU at home, with the use of mobile IC unit services:intensive care goes that extra mile

In this report we describe a patient with a long ICU stay because of severe Guillain Barré syndrome. Treatment was patient-centred and Mobile ICU facilities were used to facilitate an ICU at home for one day. Early focus on individual needs and wishes and close communication with and within ICU treatment teams can help to improve the long-term consequences of ICU admission. Research on which interventions are effective and most cost-effective need to be performed

A prolonged ICU stay after interhospital transport?

Transport of critically ill patients can be complicated [1-3]. Barratt and colleagues studied patients transferred for nonclinical reasons to evaluate the consequences of transportation [4]. Th ere was no diff erence in mortality but the ICU length of stay (LOS) increased by 3  days, which was explained as a negative impact of the transport on patient physiology. We disagree with this conclusion. First, by including only transports to level 3 ICUs the received level of care for transported patients will increase, introducing a bias. Second, the increase in LOS can be interpreted as a result of selection bias, because patients with a short expected LOS would often not be considered eligible for transport. Also, since there was no increase in mortality, which would have been expected with an increased LOS, we might be looking at a mortality reduction as a result of the transfer to a higher-level ICU. Th ird, Barrett and colleagues suggest that deterioration of patient physiology during transport is probably respon sible for the increase in LOS. However, the reported Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre scores before and after transport (although not validated for sequential patient assessments) do not support this assumption. Fourth, the method of transportation should have been included in this study. Specialised transport teams deliver patients with a better acute physiology compared with nonspecialised teams [2,5], making a need for regaining physiological stability unlikely. In conclusion, we congratulate Barratt and colleagues for their research. However, we think their conclusion is premature because multiple possible confounders were not taken into account

Quality of interhospital transport of the critically ill: impact of a Mobile Intensive Care Unit with a specialized retrieval team

Introduction: In order to minimize the additional risk of interhospital transport of critically ill patients, we started a mobile intensive care unit (MICU) with a specialized retrieval team, reaching out from our university hospital-based intensive care unit to our adherence region in March 2009. To evaluate the effects of this implementation, we performed a prospective audit comparing adverse events and patient stability during MICU transfers with our previous data on transfers performed by standard ambulance. Methods: All transfers performed by MICU from March 2009 until December 2009 were included. Data on 14 vital variables were collected at the moment of departure, arrival and 24 hours after admission. Variables before and after transfer were compared using the paired-sample T-test. Major deterioration was expressed as a variable beyond a predefined critical threshold and was analyzed using the McNemar test and the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test. Results were compared to the data of our previous prospective study on interhospital transfer performed by ambulance. Results: A total of 74 interhospital transfers of ICU patients over a 10-month period were evaluated. An increase of total number of variables beyond critical threshold at arrival, indicating a worsening of condition, was found in 38 percent of patients. Thirty-two percent exhibited a decrease of one or more variables beyond critical threshold and 30% showed no difference. There was no correlation between patient status at arrival and the duration of transfer or severity of disease. ICU mortality was 28%. Systolic blood pressure, glucose and haemoglobin were significantly different at arrival compared to departure, although significant values for major deterioration were never reached. Compared to standard ambulance transfers of ICU patients, there were less adverse events: 12.5% vs. 34%, which in the current study were merely caused by technical (and not medical) problems. Although mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) score was significantly higher, patients transferred by MICU showed less deterioration in pulmonary parameters during transfer than patients transferred by standard ambulance. Conclusions: Transfer by MICU imposes less risk to critically ill patients compared to transfer performed by standard ambulance and has, therefore, resulted in an improved quality of interhospital transport of ICU patients in the north-eastern part of the Netherlands