An international tool to measure perceived stressors in intensive care units: the PS-ICU scale.

Background The intensive care unit is increasingly recognized as a stressful environment for healthcare professionals. This context has an impact on the health of these professionals but also on the quality of their personal and professional life. However, there is currently no validated scale to measure specific stressors perceived by healthcare professionals in intensive care. The aim of this study was to construct and validate in three languages a perceived stressors scale more specific to intensive care units (ICU). Results We conducted a three-phase study between 2016 and 2019: (1) identification of stressors based on the verbatim of 165 nurses and physicians from 4 countries (Canada, France, Italy, and Spain). We identified 99 stressors, including those common to most healthcare professions (called generic), as well as stressors more specific to ICU professionals (called specific); (2) item elaboration and selection by a panel of interdisciplinary experts to build a provisional 99-item version of the scale. This version was pre-tested with 70 professionals in the 4 countries and enabled us to select 50 relevant items; (3) test of the validity of the scale in 497 ICU healthcare professionals. Factor analyses identified six dimensions: lack of fit with families and organizational functioning; patient- and family-related emotional load; complex/at risk situations and skill-related issues; workload and human resource management issues; difficulties related to team working; and suboptimal care situations. Correlations of the PS-ICU scale with a generic stressors measure (i.e., the Job Content Questionnaire) tested its convergent validity, while its correlations with the Maslach Burnout Inventory-HSS examined its concurrent validity. We also assessed the test–retest reliability of PS-ICU with intraclass correlation coefficients. Conclusions The perceived stressors in intensive care units (PS-ICU) scale have good psychometric properties in all countries. It includes six broad dimensions covering generic or specific stressors to ICU, and thus, enables the identification of work situations that are likely to generate high levels of stress at the individual and unit levels. For future studies, this tool will enable the implementation of targeted corrective actions on which intervention research can be based. It also enables national and international comparisons of stressors’ impact.post-print925 K

No effect of epoprostenol on right ventricular diameter in patients with acute pulmonary embolism: a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Right ventricular dilatation in the setting of acute pulmonary embolism is associated with an adverse prognosis. Treatment with a pulmonary vasodilator has never been studied systematically. We evaluated the effect of epoprostenol on right ventricular diameter and function in patients with acute pulmonary embolism and right ventricular dilatation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In a randomized, single-blind study, 14 patients with acute pulmonary embolism received epoprostenol or placebo infusion for 24 hours on top of conventional treatment. Effects on right ventricular end-diastolic diameter, systolic pulmonary artery pressure, right ventricle fractional area changeand tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion were assessed by serial echocardiography. Furthermore Troponin T and NT-proBNP were measured serially.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Compared to placebo, epoprostenol was associated with a relative change from baseline in right ventricular end-diastolic diameter of +2% after 2.5 hours and -8% after 24 hours. Epoprostenol did not have a significant effect on systolic pulmonary artery pressure, right ventricular fractional area change and tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, nor on biochemical parameters.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>In patients with acute pulmonary embolism and right ventricular overload, treatment with epoprostenol did not improve right ventricular dilatation or any other measured variables of right ventricular overload.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p><it>Registration</it>: URL: NCT01014156</p> <p><it>Medical ethical committee</it>: Medisch-ethische toetsingscommissie (METc) from the VUmc (free university medical centre)</p

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains controversial. METHODS: In an international clinical trial, we randomly assigned patients with very severe ARDS, as indicated by one of three criteria - a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen (Pao) to the fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio) of less than 50 mm Hg for more than 3 hours; a Pao:Fio of less than 80 mm Hg for more than 6 hours; or an arterial blood pH of less than 7.25 with a partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide of at least 60 mm Hg for more than 6 hours - to receive immediate venovenous ECMO (ECMO group) or continued conventional treatment (control group). Crossover to ECMO was possible for patients in the control group who had refractory hypoxemia. The primary end point was mortality at 60 days. RESULTS: At 60 days, 44 of 124 patients (35%) in the ECMO group and 57 of 125 (46%) in the control group had died (relative risk, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 1.04; P=0.09). Crossover to ECMO occurred a mean (±SD) of 6.5±9.7 days after randomization in 35 patients (28%) in the control group, with 20 of these patients (57%) dying. The frequency of complications did not differ significantly between groups, except that there were more bleeding events leading to transfusion in the ECMO group than in the control group (in 46% vs. 28% of patients; absolute risk difference, 18 percentage points; 95% CI, 6 to 30) as well as more cases of severe thrombocytopenia (in 27% vs. 16%; absolute risk difference, 11 percentage points; 95% CI, 0 to 21) and fewer cases of ischemic stroke (in no patients vs. 5%; absolute risk difference, -5 percentage points; 95% CI, -10 to -2). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with very severe ARDS, 60-day mortality was not significantly lower with ECMO than with a strategy of conventional mechanical ventilation that included ECMO as rescue therapy. (Funded by the Direction de la Recherche Clinique et du Développement and the French Ministry of Health; EOLIA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01470703 .)

Management of KPC-Producing Klebsiella pneumoniae Infections

Klebsiella pneumoniae carbapenemase (KPC)-producing K. pneumoniae (KPC-KP) has become one of the most important contemporary pathogens, especially in endemic areas

A922 Sequential measurement of 1 hour creatinine clearance (1-CRCL) in critically ill patients at risk of acute kidney injury (AKI)

Meeting abstrac

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome associated with COVID-19: An Emulated Target Trial Analysis.

RATIONALE: Whether COVID patients may benefit from extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) compared with conventional invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) remains unknown. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the effect of ECMO on 90-Day mortality vs IMV only Methods: Among 4,244 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 included in a multicenter cohort study, we emulated a target trial comparing the treatment strategies of initiating ECMO vs. no ECMO within 7 days of IMV in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (PaO2/FiO2 <80 or PaCO2 ≥60 mmHg). We controlled for confounding using a multivariable Cox model based on predefined variables. MAIN RESULTS: 1,235 patients met the full eligibility criteria for the emulated trial, among whom 164 patients initiated ECMO. The ECMO strategy had a higher survival probability at Day-7 from the onset of eligibility criteria (87% vs 83%, risk difference: 4%, 95% CI 0;9%) which decreased during follow-up (survival at Day-90: 63% vs 65%, risk difference: -2%, 95% CI -10;5%). However, ECMO was associated with higher survival when performed in high-volume ECMO centers or in regions where a specific ECMO network organization was set up to handle high demand, and when initiated within the first 4 days of MV and in profoundly hypoxemic patients. CONCLUSIONS: In an emulated trial based on a nationwide COVID-19 cohort, we found differential survival over time of an ECMO compared with a no-ECMO strategy. However, ECMO was consistently associated with better outcomes when performed in high-volume centers and in regions with ECMO capacities specifically organized to handle high demand. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)