Convulsive status epilepticus management in adults and children: Report of the Working Group of the Polish Society of Epileptology

Introduction The Working Group was established at the initiative of the General Board of the Polish Society of Epileptology (PSE) to develop an expert position on the treatment of convulsive status epilepticus (SE) in adults and children in Poland. Generalized convulsive SE is the most common form and also represents the greatest threat to life, highlighting the importance of the choice of appropriate therapeutic treatment. Aim of guideline We present the therapeutic options separately for treatment during the early preclinical (>5–30min), established (30–60min), and refractory (>60min) SE phases. This division is based on time and response to AEDs, and indicates a practical approach based on pathophysiological data. Results Benzodiazepines (BZD) are the first-line drugs. In cases of ineffective first-line treatment and persistence of the seizure, the use of second-line treatment: phenytoin, valproic acid or phenobarbital is required. SE that persists after the administration of benzodiazepines and phenytoin or another second-line AED at appropriate doses is defined as refractory and drug resistant and requires treatment in the intensive care unit (ICU). EEG monitoring is essential during therapy at this stage. Anesthesia is typically continued for an initial period of 24h followed by a slow reversal and is re-established if seizures recur. Anesthesia is usually administered either to the level of the “burst suppression pattern” or to obtain the “EEG suppression” pattern. Conclusions Experts agree that close and early cooperation with a neurologist and anesthetist aiming to reduce the risk of pharmacoresistant cases is an extremely important factor in the treatment of patients with SE. This report has educational, practical and organizational aspects, outlining a standard plan for SE management in Poland that will improve therapeutic efficacy

Dysphagia in Intensive Care Evaluation (DICE): An International Cross-Sectional Survey.

Dysphagia occurs commonly in the intensive care unit (ICU). Despite the clinical relevance, there is little worldwide research on prevention, assessment, evaluation, and/or treatment of dysphagia for ICU patients. We aimed to gain insight into this international knowledge gap. We conducted a multi-center, international online cross-sectional survey of adult ICUs. Local survey distribution champions were recruited through professional and personal networks. The survey was administered from November 2017 to June 2019 with three emails and a final telephone reminder. Responses were received from 746 ICUs (26 countries). In patients intubated > 48 h, 17% expected a > 50% chance that dysphagia would develop. This proportion increased to 43% in patients intubated > 7 days, and to 52% in tracheotomized patients. Speech-language pathologist (SLP) consultation was available in 66% of ICUs, only 4% reported a dedicated SLP. Although 66% considered a routine post-extubation dysphagia protocol important, most (67%) did not have a protocol. Few ICUs routinely assessed for dysphagia after 48 h of intubation (30%) or tracheostomy (41%). A large proportion (46%) used water swallow screening tests to determine aspiration, few (8%) used instrumental assessments (i.e., flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing). Swallowing exercises were used for dysphagia management by 30% of ICUs. There seems to be limited awareness among ICU practitioners that patients are at risk of dysphagia, particularly as ventilation persists, protocols, routine assessment, and instrumental assessments are generally not used. We recommend the development of a research agenda to increase the quality of evidence and ameliorate the implementation of evidence-based dysphagia protocols by dedicated SLPs

Pain distress : the negative emotion associated with procedures in ICU patients

The intensity of procedural pain in intensive care unit (ICU) patients is well documented. However, little is known about procedural pain distress, the psychological response to pain. Post hoc analysis of a multicenter, multinational study of procedural pain. Pain distress was measured before and during procedures (0-10 numeric rating scale). Factors that influenced procedural pain distress were identified by multivariable analyses using a hierarchical model with ICU and country as random effects. A total of 4812 procedures were recorded (3851 patients, 192 ICUs, 28 countries). Pain distress scores were highest for endotracheal suctioning (ETS) and tracheal suctioning, chest tube removal (CTR), and wound drain removal (median [IQRs] = 4 [1.6, 1.7]). Significant relative risks (RR) for a higher degree of pain distress included certain procedures: turning (RR = 1.18), ETS (RR = 1.45), tracheal suctioning (RR = 1.38), CTR (RR = 1.39), wound drain removal (RR = 1.56), and arterial line insertion (RR = 1.41); certain pain behaviors (RR = 1.19-1.28); pre-procedural pain intensity (RR = 1.15); and use of opioids (RR = 1.15-1.22). Patient-related variables that significantly increased the odds of patients having higher procedural pain distress than pain intensity were pre-procedural pain intensity (odds ratio [OR] = 1.05); pre-hospital anxiety (OR = 1.76); receiving pethidine/meperidine (OR = 4.11); or receiving haloperidol (OR = 1.77) prior to the procedure. Procedural pain has both sensory and emotional dimensions. We found that, although procedural pain intensity (the sensory dimension) and distress (the emotional dimension) may closely covary, there are certain factors than can preferentially influence each of the dimensions. Clinicians are encouraged to appreciate the multidimensionality of pain when they perform procedures and use this knowledge to minimize the patient's pain experience.Peer reviewe