Worldwide Survey of the "Assessing Pain, Both Spontaneous Awakening and Breathing Trials, Choice of Drugs, Delirium Monitoring/Management, Early Exercise/Mobility, and Family Empowerment" (ABCDEF) Bundle

OBJECTIVES: To assess the knowledge and use of the Assessment, prevention, and management of pain; spontaneous awakening and breathing trials; Choice of analgesia and sedation; Delirium assessment; Early mobility and exercise; and Family engagement and empowerment (ABCDEF) bundle to implement the Pain, Agitation, Delirium guidelines. DESIGN: Worldwide online survey. SETTING: Intensive care. INTERVENTION: A cross-sectional online survey using the Delphi method was administered to intensivists worldwide, to assess the knowledge and use of all aspects of the ABCDEF bundle. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 1,521 respondents from 47 countries, 57% had implemented the ABCDEF bundle, with varying degrees of compliance across continents. Most of the respondents (83%) used a scale to evaluate pain. Spontaneous awakening trials and spontaneous breathing trials are performed in 66% and 67% of the responder ICUs, respectively. Sedation scale was used in 89% of ICUs. Delirium monitoring was implemented in 70% of ICUs, but only 42% used a validated delirium tool. Likewise, early mobilization was "prescribed" by most, but 69% had no mobility team and 79% used no formal mobility scale. Only 36% of the respondents assessed ICU-acquired weakness. Family members were actively involved in 67% of ICUs; however, only 33% used dedicated staff to support families and only 35% reported that their unit was open 24 hr/d for family visits. CONCLUSIONS: The current implementation of the ABCDEF bundle varies across individual components and regions. We identified specific targets for quality improvement and adoption of the ABCDEF bundle. Our data reflect a significant but incomplete shift toward patient- and family-centered ICU care in accordance with the Pain, Agitation, Delirium guidelines

Haemodynamic assessment and support in sepsis and septic shock in resource-limited settings

Background Recommendations for haemodynamic assessment and support in sepsis and septic shock in resource-limited settings are largely lacking. Methods A task force of six international experts in critical care medicine, all of them members of the Global Intensive Care Working Group of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and with extensive bedside experience in resource-limited intensive care units, reviewed the literature and provided recommendations regarding haemodynamic assessment and support, keeping aspects of efficacy and effectiveness, availability and feasibility and affordability and safety in mind. Results We suggest using capillary refill time, skin mottling scores and skin temperature gradients; suggest a passive leg raise test to guide fluid resuscitation; recommend crystalloid solutions as the initial fluid of choice; recommend initial fluid resuscitation with 30 ml/kg in the first 3 h, but with extreme caution in settings where there is a lack ofmechanical ventilation; recommend against an early start of vasopressors; suggest starting a vasopressor in patients with persistent hypotension after initial fluid resuscitation with at least 30ml/kg, but earlier when there is lack of vasopressors and mechanical ventilation; recommend using norepinephrine (noradrenaline) as a first-line vasopressor; suggest starting an inotrope with persistence of plasma lactate &gt;2 mmol/L or persistence of skin mottling or prolonged capillary refill time when plasma lactate cannot be measured, and only after initial fluid resuscitation; suggest the use of dobutamine as a first-line inotrope; recommend administering vasopressors through a central venous line and suggest administering vasopressors and inotropes via a central venous line using a syringe or infusion pump when available. Conclusion Recommendations for haemodynamic assessment and support in sepsis and septic shock in resource-limited settings have been developed by a task force of six international experts in critical care medicine with extensive practical experience in resource-limited settings.</p

Pragmatic recommendations for the management of COVID-19 patients with shock in low- and middle-income countries

As some patients infected with the novel coronavirus progress to critical illness, a subset will eventually develop shock. High-quality data on management of these patients are scarce, and further investigation will provide valuable information in the context of the pandemic. A group of experts identify a set of pragmatic recommendations for the care of patients with SARS-CoV-2 and shock in resource-limited environments. We define shock as life-threatening circulatory failure that results in inadequate tissue perfusion and cellular dysoxia/hypoxia, and suggest that it can be operationalized via clinical observations. We suggest a thorough evaluation for other potential causes of shock and suggest against indiscriminate testing for coinfections. We suggest the use of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) as a simple bedside prognostic score for COVID-19 patients and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) to evaluate the etiology of shock. Regarding fluid therapy for the treatment of COVID-19 patients with shock in low-middle–income countries, we favor balanced crystalloids and recommend using a conservative fluid strategy for resuscitation. Where available and not prohibited by cost, we recommend using norepinephrine, given its safety profile. We favor avoiding the routine use of central venous or arterial catheters, where availability and costs are strong considerations. We also recommend using low-dose corticosteroids in patients with refractory shock. In addressing targets of resuscitation, we recommend the use of simple bedside parameters such as capillary refill time and suggest that POCUS be used to assess the need for further fluid resuscitation, if available

Current challenges in the management of sepsis in ICUs in resource–poor settings and suggestions for the future

Sepsis is a major reason for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, also in resource–poor settings. ICUs in low– and middle–income countries (LMICs) face many challenges that could affect patient outcome. The aim of this review is to describe differences between resource–poor and resource–rich settings regarding the epidemiology, pathophysiology, economics and research aspects of sepsis. We restricted this manuscript to the ICU setting even knowing that many sepsis patients in LMICs are treated outside an ICU. Although many bacterial pathogens causing sepsis in LMICs are similar to those in high–income countries, resistance patterns to antimicrobial drugs can be very different; in addition, causes of sepsis in LMICs often include tropical diseases in which direct damaging effects of pathogens and their products can sometimes be more important than the response of the host. There are substantial and persisting differences in ICU capacities around the world; not surprisingly the lowest capacities are found in LMICs, but with important heterogeneity within individual LMICs. Although many aspects of sepsis management developed in rich countries are applicable in LMICs, implementation requires strong consideration of cost implications and the important differences in resources. Addressing both disease–specific and setting–specific factors is important to improve performance of ICUs in LMICs. Although critical care for severe sepsis is likely cost–effective in LMIC setting, more detailed evaluation at both at a macro– and micro–economy level is necessary. Sepsis management in resource–limited settings is a largely unexplored frontier with important opportunities for research, training, and other initiatives for improvement

Current challenges in the management of sepsis in ICUs in resource–poor settings and suggestions for the future

Sepsis is a major reason for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, also in resource–poor settings. ICUs in low– and middle–income countries (LMICs) face many challenges that could affect patient outcome. The aim of this review is to describe differences between resource–poor and resource–rich settings regarding the epidemiology, pathophysiology, economics and research aspects of sepsis. We restricted this manuscript to the ICU setting even knowing that many sepsis patients in LMICs are treated outside an ICU. Although many bacterial pathogens causing sepsis in LMICs are similar to those in high–income countries, resistance patterns to antimicrobial drugs can be very different; in addition, causes of sepsis in LMICs often include tropical diseases in which direct damaging effects of pathogens and their products can sometimes be more important than the response of the host. There are substantial and persisting differences in ICU capacities around the world; not surprisingly the lowest capacities are found in LMICs, but with important heterogeneity within individual LMICs. Although many aspects of sepsis management developed in rich countries are applicable in LMICs, implementation requires strong consideration of cost implications and the important differences in resources. Addressing both disease–specific and setting–specific factors is important to improve performance of ICUs in LMICs. Although critical care for severe sepsis is likely cost–effective in LMIC setting, more detailed evaluation at both at a macro– and micro–economy level is necessary. Sepsis management in resource–limited settings is a largely unexplored frontier with important opportunities for research, training, and other initiatives for improvement

Current challenges in the management of sepsis in ICUs in resource-poor settings and suggestions for the future

Background: Sepsis is a major reason for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, also in resource-poor settings. ICUs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face many challenges that could affect patient outcome. Aim: To describe differences between resource-poor and resource-rich settings regarding the epidemiology, pathophysiology, economics and research aspects of sepsis. We restricted this manuscript to the ICU setting even knowing that many sepsis patients in LMICs are treated outside an ICU. Findings: Although many bacterial pathogens causing sepsis in LMICs are similar to those in high-income countries, resistance patterns to antimicrobial drugs can be very different; in addition, causes of sepsis in LMICs often include tropical diseases in which direct damaging effects of pathogens and their products can sometimes be more important than the response of the host. There are substantial and persisting differences in ICU capacities around the world; not surprisingly the lowest capacities are found in LMICs, but with important heterogeneity within individual LMICs. Although many aspects of sepsis management developed in rich countries are applicable in LMICs, implementation requires strong consideration of cost implications and the important differences in resources. Conclusions: Addressing both disease-specific and setting-specific factors is important to improve performance of ICUs in LMICs. Although critical care for severe sepsis is likely cost-effective in LMIC setting, more detailed evaluation at both at a macro- and micro-economy level is necessary. Sepsis management in resource-limited settings is a largely unexplored frontier with important opportunities for research, training, and other initiatives for improvement