Epidemiology, management, and outcomes of sepsis in ICUs among countries of differing national wealth across Asia

Rationale: Directly comparative data on sepsis epidemiology and sepsis bundle implementation in countries of differing national wealth remain sparse. Objectives: To evaluate across countries/regions of differing income status in Asia 1) the prevalence, causes, and outcomes of sepsis as a reason for ICU admission and 2) sepsis bundle (antibiotic administration, blood culture, and lactate measurement) compliance and its association with hospital mortality. Methods: A prospective point prevalence study was conducted among 386 adult ICUs from 22 Asian countries/regions. Adult ICU participants admitted for sepsis on four separate days (representing the seasons of 2019) were recruited. Measurements and Main Results: The overall prevalence of sepsis in ICUs was 22.4% (20.9%, 24.5%, and 21.3% in low- income countries/regions [LICs]/lower middle-income countries/ regions [LMICs], upper middle-income countries/regions, and high-income countries/regions [HICs], respectively; P , 0.001). Patients were younger and had lower severity of illness in LICs/ LMICs. Hospital mortality was 32.6% and marginally significantly higher in LICs/LMICs than HICs on multivariable generalized mixed model analysis (adjusted odds ratio, 1.84; 95% confidence interval, 1.00–3.37; P = 0.049). Sepsis bundle compliance was 21.5% at 1 hour (26.0%, 22.1%, and 16.2% in LICs/LMICs, upper middle-income countries/regions, and HICs, respectively; P , 0.001) and 36.6% at 3 hours (39.3%, 32.8%, and 38.5%, respectively; P = 0.001). Delaying antibiotic administration beyond 3 hours was the only element independently associated with increased mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 2.53; 95% confidence interval, 2.07–3.08; P , 0.001). Conclusions: Sepsis is a common cause of admission to Asian ICUs. Mortality remains high and is higher in LICs/LMICs after controlling for confounders. Sepsis bundle compliance remains low. Delaying antibiotic administration beyond 3 hours from diagnosis is associated with increased mortality

New-onset atrial fibrillation in the intensive care unit : Protocol for an international inception cohort study (AFIB-ICU)

Introduction New-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is frequently observed in critically ill patients and may be associated with prolonged hospital stay and increased mortality. Considerable variation exists in the reported frequencies of NOAF due to the lack of a standardised definition and detection method. Importantly, there are limited data on NOAF in the intensive care unit (ICU). Thus, we aim to provide contemporary epidemiological data on NOAF in the ICU. Methods and Analysis We have designed an international inception cohort study including at least 1,000 consecutive adult patients acutely admitted to the ICU without prior history of persistent or permanent AF. We will present data on the incidence, risk factors, used management strategies and outcomes of NOAF. We will register data daily during stay in the ICU for a maximum of 90 days after admission. The incidence of NOAF and management strategies used will be presented descriptively, and we will use Cox regression analyses including competing risk analyses to assess risk factors for NOAF and any association with 90-day mortality. Conclusion The outlined international AFIB-ICU inception cohort study will provide contemporary data on the incidence, risk factors, used management strategies and outcomes of NOAF in adult ICU patients. Ethics and dissemination This observational study poses no risk to the included patients. All participating sites will obtain relevant approvals according to national laws before patient enrollment. Funding sources will have no influence on data handling, analyses or writing of the manuscript. The study report(s) will be submitted to an international peer-reviewed journal.Peer reviewe

Family centeredness of care:a cross-sectional study in intensive care units part of the European society of intensive care medicine

Purpose: To identify key components and variations in family-centered care practices. Methods: A cross-sectional study, conducted across ESICM members. Participating ICUs completed a questionnaire covering general ICU characteristics, visitation policies, team-family interactions, and end-of-life decision-making. The primary outcome, self-rated family-centeredness, was assessed using a visual analog scale. Additionally, respondents completed the Maslach Burnout Inventory and the Ethical Decision Making Climate Questionnaire to capture burnout dimensions and assess the ethical decision-making climate. Results: The response rate was 53% (respondents from 359/683 invited ICUs who actually open the email); participating healthcare professionals (HCPs) were from Europe (62%), Asia (9%), South America (6%), North America (5%), Middle East (4%), and Australia/New Zealand (4%). The importance of family-centeredness was ranked high, median 7 (IQR 6–8) of 10 on VAS. Significant differences were observed across quartiles of family centeredness, including in visitation policies availability of a waiting rooms, family rooms, family information leaflet, visiting hours, night visits, sleep in the ICU, and in team-family interactions, including daily information, routine day-3 conference, and willingness to empower nurses and relatives. Higher family centeredness correlated with family involvement in rounds, participation in patient care and end-of-life practices. Burnout symptoms (41% of respondents) were negatively associated with family-centeredness. Ethical climate and willingness to empower nurses were independent predictors of family centeredness. Conclusions: This study emphasizes the need to prioritize healthcare providers’ mental health for enhanced family-centered care. Further research is warranted to assess the impact of improving the ethical climate on family-centeredness.</p

an international survey before and during the COVID-19 pandemic

Funding Information: The Société Française d’Anesthésie et de Réanimation (SFAR), Sociedad Española de Medicina Intensiva, Crítica y Unidades Coronarias (SEMICYUC), Sociedad Argentina de Terapia Intensiva (SATI), Sociedad Chilena de Medicina Intensiva (SOCHIMI), Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira (AMIB-Net) and the Brazilian Research in Intensive Care Network (BricNet) supported this survey. We would also like to thank our friend Tiago Rocha for making the amazing logo for this study. This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior—Brazil (CAPES)—Finance Code 001. Publisher Copyright: © 2022, The Author(s).Background: Since the publication of the 2018 Clinical Guidelines about sedation, analgesia, delirium, mobilization, and sleep deprivation in critically ill patients, no evaluation and adequacy assessment of these recommendations were studied in an international context. This survey aimed to investigate these current practices and if the COVID-19 pandemic has changed them. Methods: This study was an open multinational electronic survey directed to physicians working in adult intensive care units (ICUs), which was performed in two steps: before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: We analyzed 1768 questionnaires and 1539 (87%) were complete. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, we received 1476 questionnaires and 292 were submitted later. The following practices were observed before the pandemic: the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (61.5%), the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) (48.2%), the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) (76.6%), and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) (66.6%) were the most frequently tools used to assess pain, sedation level, and delirium, respectively; midazolam and fentanyl were the most frequently used drugs for inducing sedation and analgesia (84.8% and 78.3%, respectively), whereas haloperidol (68.8%) and atypical antipsychotics (69.4%) were the most prescribed drugs for delirium treatment; some physicians regularly prescribed drugs to induce sleep (19.1%) or ordered mechanical restraints as part of their routine (6.2%) for patients on mechanical ventilation; non-pharmacological strategies were frequently applied for pain, delirium, and sleep deprivation management. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the intensive care specialty was independently associated with best practices. Moreover, the mechanical ventilation rate was higher, patients received sedation more often (94% versus 86.1%, p < 0.001) and sedation goals were discussed more frequently in daily rounds. Morphine was the main drug used for analgesia (77.2%), and some sedative drugs, such as midazolam, propofol, ketamine and quetiapine, were used more frequently. Conclusions: Most sedation, analgesia and delirium practices were comparable before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the intensive care specialty was a variable that was independently associated with the best practices. Although many findings are in accordance with evidence-based recommendations, some practices still need improvement.publishersversionpublishe

Prognostic evaluation of quick sequential organ failure assessment score in ICU patients with sepsis across different income settings

Background There is conflicting evidence on association between quick sequential organ failure assessment (qSOFA) and sepsis mortality in ICU patients. The primary aim of this study was to determine the association between qSOFA and 28-day mortality in ICU patients admitted for sepsis. Association of qSOFA with early (3-day), medium (28-day), late (90-day) mortality was assessed in low and lower middle income (LLMIC), upper middle income (UMIC) and high income (HIC) countries/regions. Methods This was a secondary analysis of the MOSAICS II study, an international prospective observational study on sepsis epidemiology in Asian ICUs. Associations between qSOFA at ICU admission and mortality were separately assessed in LLMIC, UMIC and HIC countries/regions. Modified Poisson regression was used to determine the adjusted relative risk (RR) of qSOFA score on mortality at 28 days with adjustments for confounders identified in the MOSAICS II study. Results Among the MOSAICS II study cohort of 4980 patients, 4826 patients from 343 ICUs and 22 countries were included in this secondary analysis. Higher qSOFA was associated with increasing 28-day mortality, but this was only observed in LLMIC (p < 0.001) and UMIC (p < 0.001) and not HIC (p = 0.220) countries/regions. Similarly, higher 90-day mortality was associated with increased qSOFA in LLMIC (p < 0.001) and UMIC (p < 0.001) only. In contrast, higher 3-day mortality with increasing qSOFA score was observed across all income countries/regions (p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis showed that qSOFA remained associated with 28-day mortality (adjusted RR 1.09 (1.00–1.18), p = 0.038) even after adjustments for covariates including APACHE II, SOFA, income country/region and administration of antibiotics within 3 h. Conclusions qSOFA was independently associated with 28-day mortality in ICU patients admitted for sepsis. In LLMIC and UMIC countries/regions, qSOFA was associated with early to late mortality but only early mortality in HIC countries/regions

Multinational prospective cohort study of rates and risk factors for ventilator-associated pneumonia over 24 years in 42 countries of Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and the Middle East: Findings of the International Nosocomial Infection Control Consortium (INICC)

Objective: Rates of ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) are several times above those of high-income countries. The objective of this study was to identify risk factors (RFs) for VAP cases in ICUs of LMICs. Design: Prospective cohort study. Setting: This study was conducted across 743 ICUs of 282 hospitals in 144 cities in 42 Asian, African, European, Latin American, and Middle Eastern countries. Participants: The study included patients admitted to ICUs across 24 years. Results: In total, 289,643 patients were followed during 1,951,405 patient days and acquired 8,236 VAPs. We analyzed 10 independent variables. Multiple logistic regression identified the following independent VAP RFs: male sex (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.22; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.28; P <.0001); longer length of stay (LOS), which increased the risk 7% per day (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.07-1.08; P <.0001); mechanical ventilation (MV) utilization ratio (aOR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.23-1.31; P <.0001); continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), which was associated with the highest risk (aOR, 13.38; 95% CI, 11.57-15.48; P <.0001)Revisión por pare

Early mobilisation in critically ill COVID-19 patients: a subanalysis of the ESICM-initiated UNITE-COVID observational study

Background Early mobilisation (EM) is an intervention that may improve the outcome of critically ill patients. There is limited data on EM in COVID-19 patients and its use during the first pandemic wave. Methods This is a pre-planned subanalysis of the ESICM UNITE-COVID, an international multicenter observational study involving critically ill COVID-19 patients in the ICU between February 15th and May 15th, 2020. We analysed variables associated with the initiation of EM (within 72 h of ICU admission) and explored the impact of EM on mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay, as well as discharge location. Statistical analyses were done using (generalised) linear mixed-effect models and ANOVAs. Results Mobilisation data from 4190 patients from 280 ICUs in 45 countries were analysed. 1114 (26.6%) of these patients received mobilisation within 72 h after ICU admission; 3076 (73.4%) did not. In our analysis of factors associated with EM, mechanical ventilation at admission (OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.25, 0.35; p = 0.001), higher age (OR 0.99; 95% CI 0.98, 1.00; p ≤ 0.001), pre-existing asthma (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.73, 0.98; p = 0.028), and pre-existing kidney disease (OR 0.84; 95% CI 0.71, 0.99; p = 0.036) were negatively associated with the initiation of EM. EM was associated with a higher chance of being discharged home (OR 1.31; 95% CI 1.08, 1.58; p = 0.007) but was not associated with length of stay in ICU (adj. difference 0.91 days; 95% CI − 0.47, 1.37, p = 0.34) and hospital (adj. difference 1.4 days; 95% CI − 0.62, 2.35, p = 0.24) or mortality (OR 0.88; 95% CI 0.7, 1.09, p = 0.24) when adjusted for covariates. Conclusions Our findings demonstrate that a quarter of COVID-19 patients received EM. There was no association found between EM in COVID-19 patients' ICU and hospital length of stay or mortality. However, EM in COVID-19 patients was associated with increased odds of being discharged home rather than to a care facility. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04836065 (retrospectively registered April 8th 2021)