COVID‐19: The Uninvited Guest in the Intensive Care Unit — Implications for Pharmacotherapy

Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155543/1/phar2394.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/155543/2/phar2394_am.pd

Key mechanisms by which post-ICU activities can improve in-ICU care: results of the international THRIVE collaboratives

Objective: To identify the key mechanisms that clinicians perceive improve care in the intensive care unit (ICU), as a result of their involvement in post-ICU programs. Methods: Qualitative inquiry via focus groups and interviews with members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s THRIVE collaborative sites (follow-up clinics and peer support). Framework analysis was used to synthesize and interpret the data. Results: Five key mechanisms were identified as drivers of improvement back into the ICU: (1) identifying otherwise unseen targets for ICU quality improvement or education programs—new ideas for quality improvement were generated and greater attention paid to detail in clinical care. (2) Creating a new role for survivors in the ICU—former patients and family members adopted an advocacy or peer volunteer role. (3) Inviting critical care providers to the post-ICU program to educate, sensitize, and motivate them—clinician peers and trainees were invited to attend as a helpful learning strategy to gain insights into post-ICU care requirements. (4) Changing clinician’s own understanding of patient experience—there appeared to be a direct individual benefit from working in post-ICU programs. (5) Improving morale and meaningfulness of ICU work—this was achieved by closing the feedback loop to ICU clinicians regarding patient and family outcomes. Conclusions: The follow-up of patients and families in post-ICU care settings is perceived to improve care within the ICU via five key mechanisms. Further research is required in this novel area

Enablers and Barriers to Implementing ICU Follow-Up Clinics and Peer Support Groups Following Critical Illness: The Thrive Collaboratives

OBJECTIVES: Data are lacking regarding implementation of novel strategies such as follow-up clinics and peer support groups, to reduce the burden of postintensive care syndrome. We sought to discover enablers that helped hospital-based clinicians establish post-ICU clinics and peer support programs, and identify barriers that challenged them. DESIGN: Qualitative inquiry. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to organize and analyze data. SETTING: Two learning collaboratives (ICU follow-up clinics and peer support groups), representing 21 sites, across three continents. SUBJECTS: Clinicians from 21 sites. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Ten enablers and nine barriers to implementation of "ICU follow-up clinics" were described. A key enabler to generate support for clinics was providing insight into the human experience of survivorship, to obtain interest from hospital administrators. Significant barriers included patient and family lack of access to clinics and clinic funding. Nine enablers and five barriers to the implementation of "peer support groups" were identified. Key enablers included developing infrastructure to support successful operationalization of this complex intervention, flexibility about when peer support should be offered, belonging to the international learning collaborative. Significant barriers related to limited attendance by patients and families due to challenges in creating awareness, and uncertainty about who might be appropriate to attend and target in advertising. CONCLUSIONS: Several enablers and barriers to implementing ICU follow-up clinics and peer support groups should be taken into account and leveraged to improve ICU recovery. Among the most important enablers are motivated clinician leaders who persist to find a path forward despite obstacles

Precision‐based approaches to delirium in critical illness: a narrative review

Delirium occurs in critical illness and is associated with poor clinical outcomes, having a longstanding impact on survivors. Understanding the complexity of delirium in critical illness and its deleterious outcome has expanded since early reports. Delirium is a culmination of predisposing and precipitating risk factors that result in a transition to delirium. Known risks range from advanced age, frailty, medication exposure or withdrawal, sedation depth, and sepsis. Because of its multifactorial nature, different clinical phenotypes, and potential neurobiological causes, a precise approach to reducing delirium in critical illness requires a broad understanding of its complexity. Refinement in the categorization of delirium subtypes or phenotypes (i.e., psychomotor classifications) requires attention. Recent advances in the association of clinical phenotypes with clinical outcomes expand our understanding and highlight potentially modifiable targets. Several delirium biomarkers in critical care have been examined, with disrupted functional connectivity being precise in detecting delirium. Recent advances reinforce delirium as an acute, and partially modifiable, brain dysfunction, and place emphasis on the importance of mechanistic pathways including cholinergic activity and glucose metabolism. Pharmacologic agents have been assessed in randomized controlled prevention and treatment trials, with a disappointing lack of efficacy. Antipsychotics remain widely used after “negative” trials, yet may have a role in specific subtypes. However, antipsychotics do not appear to improve clinical outcomes. Alpha-2 agonists perhaps hold greater potential for current use and future investigation. The role of thiamine appears promising, yet requires evidence. Looking forward, clinical pharmacists should prioritize the mitigation of predisposing and precipitating risk factors as able. Future research is needed within individual delirium psychomotor subtypes and clinical phenotypes to identify modifiable targets that hold the potential to improve not only delirium duration and severity, but long-term outcomes including cognitive impairment

Addressing the post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection: a multidisciplinary model of care

As of July 31, 2021, SARS-CoV-2 had infected almost 200 million people worldwide. The growing burden of survivorship is substantial in terms of the complexity of long-term health effects and the number of people affected. Persistent symptoms have been reported in patients with both mild and severe acute COVID-19, including those admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Early reports on the post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC) indicate that fatigue, dyspnoea, cough, headache, loss of taste or smell, and cognitive or mental health impairments are among the most common symptoms. These complex, multifactorial impairments across the domains of physical, cognitive, and mental health require a coordinated, multidisciplinary approach to management. Decades of research on the multifaceted needs of and models of care for patients with post-intensive care syndrome provide a framework for the development of PASC clinics to address the immediate needs of both hospitalised and non-hospitalised survivors of COVID-19. Such clinics could also provide a platform for rigorous research into the natural history of PASC and the potential benefits of therapeutic interventions

Variation in Fluid and Vasopressor Use in Shock With and Without Physiologic Assessment: A Multicenter Observational Study

ObjectivesTo characterize the association between the use of physiologic assessment (central venous pressure, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure, stroke volume variation, pulse pressure variation, passive leg raise test, and critical care ultrasound) with fluid and vasopressor administration 24 hours after shock onset and with in-hospital mortality.DesignMulticenter prospective cohort study between September 2017 and February 2018.SettingsThirty-four hospitals in the United States and Jordan.PatientsConsecutive adult patients requiring admission to the ICU with systolic blood pressure less than or equal to 90 mm Hg, mean arterial blood pressure less than or equal to 65 mm Hg, or need for vasopressor.InterventionsNone.Measurement and main resultsOf 1,639 patients enrolled, 39% had physiologic assessments. Use of physiologic assessment was not associated with cumulative fluid administered within 24 hours of shock onset, after accounting for baseline characteristics, etiology and location of shock, ICU types, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III, and hospital (beta coefficient, 0.04; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.15). In multivariate analysis, the use of physiologic assessment was associated with a higher likelihood of vasopressor use (adjusted odds ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.45-2.71) and higher 24-hour cumulative vasopressor dosing as norepinephrine equivalent (beta coefficient, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19-0.55). The use of vasopressor was associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.27-2.78). In-hospital mortality was not associated with the use of physiologic assessment (adjusted odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.63-1.18).ConclusionsThe use of physiologic assessment in the 24 hours after shock onset is associated with increased use of vasopressor but not with fluid administration