Development of a Medium Care Unit Using an Inexperienced Respiratory Staff: Lessons Learned during the COVID-19 Pandemic

The different waves of the COVID-19 pandemic caused dramatic issues regarding the organization of care. In this context innovative solutions have to be developed in a timely manner to adapt to the organization of the care. The establishment of middle care (MC) units is a bright example of such an adaptation. A multidisciplinary MC team, including expert and non-expert respiratory health care personnel, was developed and trained to work in a COVID-19 MC unit. Important educational resources were set up to ensure rapid and effective training of the MC team, limiting the admission or delaying transfers to ICU and ensuring optimal management of palliative care. We conducted a retrospective analysis of patient data in the MC unit during the second COVID-19 wave in Belgium. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the feasibility of quickly developing an effective respiratory MC unit mixing respiratory expert and non-expert members from outside ICUs. The establishment of an MC unit during a pandemic is feasible and needed. MC units possibly relieve the pressure exerted on ICUs. A highly trained multidisciplinary team is key to ensuring the success of an MC unit during such kind of a pandemic.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Lactate production by the lungs in acute lung injury.

Arteriovenous differences in lactate (AVLAC) across the lungs are usually small and close to zero. However, it has recently been reported that the lungs can produce increased amounts of lactate in some patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The aim of this study was to evaluate lactate production in various types of acute lung injury requiring mechanical ventilation and hemodynamic monitoring. Since the differences involved are usually small, minor errors in lactate measurement could greatly influence AVLAC. Based on an analysis of these errors (see text for details), we averaged five arterial and venous samples for each measurement. We investigated 122 patients: 43 with acute lung injury (ALI), nine with cardiogenic pulmonary edema (CPE), 37 with bronchopneumonia (BPN), seven with single lung transplantation (LTX), and 26 with other causes of respiratory failure (OTHER). There was no difference in arterial lactate between the various groups. AVLAC was higher in patients with ALI than in the other groups (0.20+/-0.23 versus 0.07+/-0.11 mEq/L). In patients with ALI, AVLAC was proportional to the Murray's lung injury score (-0.032+/-0.032x; r = 0.46, p < 0.01). Lung lactate production was calculated as the product of the cardiac index times AVLAC and was significantly higher in patients with ALI than in the other groups (0.69+/-0.88 versus 0.19+/-0.30 mEq/min; p < 0.05). In patients with ALI, lung lactate production was inversely related to the PaO2/FIO2 (1.42 - 0.005x; r = 0.35, p < 0.05) but directly related to the venous admixture (-0.36 + 0.003x; r = 0.49, p < 0.01) and the lung injury score (-0.19 + 0.36x; r = 0.45, p < 0.01). Lung lactate production was not significantly related to arterial lactate levels. These data indicate that AVLAC and lung lactate production can be increased in patients with ARDS but remain within the normal range in other types of respiratory failure.Comparative StudyJournal Articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Role of non-invasive respiratory supports in COVID-19 acute respiratory failure patients with do not intubate orders

The current gold-standard treatment for COVID-19-related hypoxemic respiratory failure is invasive mechanical ventilation. However, do not intubate orders (DNI), prevent the use of this treatment in some cases. The aim of this study was to evaluate if non-invasive ventilatory supports can provide a good therapeutic alternative to invasive ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 infection and a DNI. Data were collected from four centres in three European countries. Patients with severe COVID-19 infection were included. We emulated a hypothetical target trial in which outcomes were compared in patients with a DNI order treated exclusively by non-invasive respiratory support with patients who could be intubated if necessary. We set up a propensity score and an inverse probability of treatment weighting to remove confounding by indication. Four-hundred patients were included: 270 were eligible for intubation and 130 had a DNI order. The adjusted risk ratio for death among patients eligible for intubation was 0.81 (95% CI 0.46 to 1.42). The median length of stay in acute care for survivors was similar between groups (18 (10–31) vs. (19 (13–23.5); p = 0.76). The use of non-invasive respiratory support is a good compromise for patients with severe COVID-19 and a do not intubate order

Determinants of procedural pain intensity in the intensive care unit: the Europain® study

Rationale:Intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergo several diagnostic and therapeutic procedures every day. The prevalence, intensity, and risk factors of pain related to these procedures are not well known. Objectives: To assess self-reported procedural pain intensity versus baseline pain, examine pain intensity differences across procedures, and identify risk factors for procedural pain intensity. Methods: Prospective, cross-sectional, multicenter, multinational study of pain intensity associated with 12 procedures. Data were obtained from 3,851 patients who underwent 4,812 procedures in 192 ICUs in 28 countries. Measurements andMain Results: Painintensity on a 0–10 numeric rating scale increased significantly from baseline pain during all procedures (P , 0.001). Chest tube removal, wound drain removal, and arterial line insertion were the three most painful procedures, with median pain scores of 5 (3–7), 4.5 (2–7), and 4 (2–6), respectively. By multivariate analysis, risk factors independently associated with greater procedural pain intensity were the specific procedure; opioid administration specifically for the procedure; preprocedural pain intensity; preprocedural pain distress; intensity of the worst pain on the same day, before the procedure; and procedure not performed by a nurse. A significant ICU effect was observed, with no visible effect of country because of its absorption by the ICU effect. Some of the risk factors became nonsignificant when each procedure was examined separately. Conclusions: Knowledge of risk factors for greater procedural pain intensity identified in this study may help clinicians select interventions that are needed to minimize procedural pain. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT 01070082)