Search

Objectives: To safely expand and adapt the normal workings of a large critical care unit in response to the COVID-19 pandemic., Methods: In April 2020, UK health systems were challenged to expand critical care capacity rapidly during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic so that they could accommodate patients with respiratory and multiple organ failure. Here, we describe the preparation and adaptive responses of a large critical care unit to the oncoming burden of disease. Our changes were similar to the revolution in manufacturing brought about by 'Long Shops' of 1853 when Richard Garrett and Sons of Leiston started mass manufacture of traction engines. This innovation broke the whole process into smaller parts and increased productivity. When applied to COVID-19 preparations, an assembly line approach had the advantage that our ICU became easily scalable to manage an influx of additional staff as well as the increase in admissions. Healthcare professionals could be replaced in case of absence and training focused on a smaller number of tasks., Results: Compared with the equivalent period in 2019, the ICU provided 30.9% more patient days (2599 to 3402), 1845 of which were ventilated days (compared with 694 in 2019, 165.8% increase) while time from first referral to ICU admission reduced from 193.8±123.8 min (±SD) to 110.7±76.75 min (±SD). Throughout, ICU maintained adequate capacity and also accepted patients from neighbouring hospitals. This was done by managing an additional 205 doctors (70% increase), 168 nurses who had previously worked in ICU and another 261 nurses deployed from other parts of the hospital (82% increase).Our large tertiary hospital ensured a dedicated non-COVID ICU was staffed and equipped to take regional emergency referrals so that those patients requiring specialist surgery and treatment were treated throughout the COVID-19 pandemic., Conclusions: We report how the challenge of managing a huge influx of patients and redeployed staff was met by deconstructing ICU care into its constituent parts. Although reported from the largest colocated ICU in the UK, we believe that this offers solutions to ICUs of all sizes and may provide a generalisable model for critical care pandemic surge planning., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: In various medical and surgical conditions, research has found that centers with higher patient volumes have better outcomes. This relationship has not previously been explored for status epilepticus. This study sought to examine whether centers that see higher volumes of patients with status epilepticus have lower in-hospital mortality than low-volume centers., Design: Cohort study, using 2010-2015 data from the nationwide Case Mix Programme database of the U.K.'s Intensive Care National Audit and Research Centre., Setting: Greater than 90% of ICUs in United Kingdom, Wales, and Northern Ireland., Patients: Twenty-thousand nine-hundred twenty-two adult critical care admissions with a primary or secondary diagnosis of status epilepticus or prolonged seizure., Interventions: Annual hospital status epilepticus admission volume., Measurements and Main Results: We used multiple logistic regression to evaluate the association between hospital annual status epilepticus admission volume and in-hospital mortality. Hospital volume was modeled as a nonlinear variable using restricted cubic splines, and generalized estimating equations with robust SEs were used to account for clustering by institution. There were 2,462 in-hospital deaths (11.8%). There was no significant association between treatment volume and in-hospital mortality for status epilepticus (p = 0.54). This conclusion was unchanged across a number of subgroup and sensitivity analyses, although we lacked data on seizure duration and medication use. Secondary analyses suggest that many high-risk patients were already transferred from low- to high-volume centers., Conclusions: We find no evidence that higher volume centers are associated with lower mortality in status epilepticus overall. It is likely that national guidelines and local pathways in the United Kingdom allow efficient patient transfer from smaller centers like district general hospitals to provide satisfactory patient care in status epilepticus. Future research using more granular data should explore this association for the subgroup of patients with refractory and superrefractory status epilepticus.

Objectives: We hypothesized that intensivists unfamiliar with an ICU team and the context of that ICU would affect patient outcomes. We examined differences in mortality when ICU patients were admitted under intensivists routinely working in that ICU and compared with those admitted by intensivists familiar with an ICU elsewhere in the same hospital., Design, Settings, and Patients: A 5-year natural experimental crossover study involving patients admitted to four ICUs in a large U.K. teaching hospital., Interventions: During a period of service reconfiguration, intensivists routinely rostered to work in one ICU worked in another of the hospital's four ICUs. "Home" intensivists were those who continued to work in their usual ICU; "visitor" intensivists were those who delivered care in an unfamiliar ICU. Patient data were obtained from electronic patient records to provide analysis on sex, age, admission Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, date and time of admission, and admission type (elective, transfer, or unplanned)., Measurements and Main Results: We analyzed 9,981 admissions to four separate ICUs over a 5-year period. In total, 34.5% of patients were admitted by intensivists working in nonfamiliar surroundings. Visitor intensivists admitted patients with similar age and gender distributions but with greater physiologic derangement (mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, 4.1 ± 2.8 vs 3.9 ± 2.8; p < 0.001) than home intensivists. Overall ICU mortality rates were higher in visitor intensivists, albeit not significantly so (11.5% vs 10.2%; p = 0.052). However, when the ICUs were analyzed separately, visitor mortality rates were found to be significantly higher than for home intensivists in two of the four ICUs (p = 0.017, 0.006). A multivariable analysis adjusting for confounding factors and the clustering of consultants revealed that the overall mortality rate was significantly higher for visitors (odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.02-1.37; p = 0.024). A significant interaction between the ICU and visitor status was also detected (p = 0.046), with the visitor effect remaining significant in the two ICUs identified previously (both p = 0.009)., Conclusions: Visitor intensivists in some ICUs were associated with higher mortality. The reasons are unknown but could relate to intensivists' practices, unfamiliarity with the patients, or the interaction with the interprofessional team.

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) affects up to 20% of critically ill patients and induces significant antibiotic prescription pressure, accounting for half of all antibiotic use in the ICU. VAP significantly increases hospital length of stay and healthcare costs yet is also associated with long-term morbidity and mortality. The diagnosis of VAP continues to present challenges and pitfalls for the currently available clinical, radiological and microbiological diagnostic armamentarium. Biomarkers and artificial intelligence offer an innovative potential direction for ongoing future research. In this Review, we summarise the pathobiological heterogeneity and diagnostic challenges associated with VAP. Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a nosocomial infection that significantly affects critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). This review presents the diagnostic challenges associated with VAP in ICU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Key Points: Question: Does β-blockade for up to 14 days with landiolol reduce organ failure as measured by the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score for critically ill patients with tachycardia and septic shock treated with high-dose norepinephrine for more than 24 hours? Findings: In this randomized clinical trial enrolling 126 patients with tachycardia and established septic shock (treated with norepinephrine for >24 hours), the administration of landiolol intravenously to reduce heart rate to less than 95/min compared with standard care did not significantly decrease organ failure as measured by the mean SOFA score (8.8 vs 8.1, respectively) in the 14 days after randomization. Meaning: These results do not support the use of landiolol for managing patients with tachycardia treated with norepinephrine for established septic shock. Importance: Patients with septic shock undergo adrenergic stress, which affects cardiac, immune, inflammatory, and metabolic pathways. β-Blockade may attenuate the adverse effects of catecholamine exposure and has been associated with reduced mortality. Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of landiolol in patients with tachycardia and established septic shock requiring prolonged (>24 hours) vasopressor support. Design, Setting, and Participants: An open-label, multicenter, randomized trial involving 126 adults (≥18 years) with tachycardia (heart rate ≥95/min) and established septic shock treated for at least 24 hours with continuous norepinephrine (≥0.1 μg/kg/min) in 40 UK National Health Service intensive care units. The trial ran from April 2018 to December 2021, with early termination in December 2021 due to a signal of possible harm. Intervention: Sixty-three patients were randomized to receive standard care and 63 to receive landiolol infusion. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score from randomization through 14 days. Secondary outcomes included mortality at days 28 and 90 and the number of adverse events in each group. Results: The trial was stopped prematurely on the advice of the independent data monitoring committee because it was unlikely to demonstrate benefit and because of possible harm. Of a planned 340 participants, 126 (37%) were enrolled (mean age, 55.6 years [95% CI, 52.7 to 58.5 years]; 58.7% male). The mean (SD) SOFA score in the landiolol group was 8.8 (3.9) compared with 8.1 (3.2) in the standard care group (mean difference [MD], 0.75 [95% CI, −0.49 to 2.0]; P =.24). Mortality at day 28 after randomization in the landiolol group was 37.1% (23 of 62) and 25.4% (16 of 63) in the standard care group (absolute difference, 11.7% [95% CI, −4.4% to 27.8%]; P =.16). Mortality at day 90 after randomization was 43.5% (27 of 62) in the landiolol group and 28.6% (18 of 63) in the standard care group (absolute difference, 15% [95% CI, −1.7% to 31.6%]; P =.08). There were no differences in the number of patients having at least one adverse event. Conclusion and Relevance: Among patients with septic shock with tachycardia and treated with norepinephrine for more than 24 hours, an infusion of landiolol did not reduce organ failure measured by the SOFA score over 14 days from randomization. These results do not support the use of landiolol for managing tachycardia among patients treated with norepinephrine for established septic shock. Trial Registration: EU Clinical Trials Register Eudra CT: 2017-001785-14; isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN12600919 This clinical trial assesses whether landiolol for patients with tachycardia and established septic shock requiring prolonged vasopressor support reduces the risk of organ failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A recent systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs of early vs late tracheostomy in mechanically ventilated patients suggest that early tracheostomy reduces the duration of ICU stay and mechanical ventilation, but does not reduce short-term mortality or ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Meta-analysis of randomised trials is typically performed using a frequentist approach, and although reporting confidence intervals, interpretation is usually based on statistical significance. To provide a robust basis for clinical decision-making, we completed the search used from the previous review and analysed the data using Bayesian methods to estimate posterior probabilities of the effect of early tracheostomy on clinical outcomes.Methods: The search was completed for RCTS comparing early vs late tracheostomy in the databases PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library in June 2022. Effect estimates and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for the outcomes short-term mortality, VAP, duration of ICU stay, and mechanical ventilation. A Bayesian meta-analysis was performed with uninformative priors. Risk ratios (RRs) and standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% credible intervals were reported alongside posterior probabilities for any benefit (RR<1; SMD<0), a small benefit (number needed to treat, 200; SMD<-0.5), or modest benefit (number needed to treat, 100; SMD<-1).Results: Nineteen RCTs with 3508 patients were included. Comparing patients with early vs late tracheostomy, the posterior probabilities for any benefit, small benefit, and modest benefit, respectively, were: 99%, 99%, and 99% for short-term mortality; 94%, 78%, and 51% for VAP; 97%, 43%, and 1% for duration of mechanical ventilation; and 97%, 75%, and 27% and for length of ICU stay.Conclusions: Bayesian meta-analysis suggests a high probability that early tracheostomy compared with delayed tracheostomy has at least some benefit across all clinical outcomes considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Dysregulated inflammation is associated with poor outcomes in COVID-19. We aimed to assess the efficacy of namilumab (a granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor inhibitor) and infliximab (a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor) in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, to prioritise agents for phase 3 trials. In this randomised, multicentre, multi-arm, multistage, parallel-group, open-label, adaptive, phase 2, proof-of-concept trial (CATALYST), we recruited patients (aged ≥16 years) admitted to hospital with COVID-19 pneumonia and C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations of 40 mg/L or greater, at nine hospitals in the UK. Participants were randomly assigned with equal probability to usual care or usual care plus a single intravenous dose of namilumab (150 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg). Randomisation was stratified by care location within the hospital (ward vs intensive care unit [ICU]). Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was improvement in inflammation, measured by CRP concentration over time, analysed using Bayesian multilevel models. This trial is now complete and is registered with ISRCTN, 40580903. Between June 15, 2020, and Feb 18, 2021, we screened 299 patients and 146 were enrolled and randomly assigned to usual care (n=54), namilumab (n=57), or infliximab (n=35). For the primary outcome, 45 patients in the usual care group were compared with 52 in the namilumab group, and 29 in the usual care group were compared with 28 in the infliximab group. The probabilities that the interventions were superior to usual care alone in reducing CRP concentration over time were 97% for namilumab and 15% for infliximab; the point estimates for treatment–time interactions were –0·09 (95% CI –0·19 to 0·00) for namilumab and 0·06 (–0·05 to 0·17) for infliximab. 134 adverse events occurred in 30 (55%) of 55 patients in the namilumab group compared with 145 in 29 (54%) of 54 in the usual care group. 102 adverse events occurred in 20 (69%) of 29 patients in the infliximab group compared with 112 in 17 (50%) of 34 in the usual care group. Death occurred in six (11%) patients in the namilumab group compared with ten (19%) in the usual care group, and in four (14%) in the infliximab group compared with five (15%) in the usual care group. Namilumab, but not infliximab, showed proof-of-concept evidence for reduction in inflammation—as measured by CRP concentration—in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Namilumab should be prioritised for further investigation in COVID-19. Medical Research Council. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Patients with severe coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have complex organ support needs that necessitate prolonged stays in the intensive care unit (ICU), likely to result in a high incidence of neuromuscular weakness and loss of well-being. Early and structured rehabilitation has been associated with improved outcomes for patients requiring prolonged periods of mechanical ventilation, but at present no data are available to describe similar interventions or outcomes in COVID-19 populations.Objectives: To describe the demographics, clinical status, level of rehabilitation, and mobility status at ICU discharge of patients with COVID-19.Methods: Adults admitted to the ICU with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and mechanically ventilated for >24 hours were included. Rehabilitation status was measured daily using the Manchester Mobility Score to identify the time taken to first mobilize (defined as sitting on the edge of the bed or higher) and highest level of mobility achieved at ICU discharge.Results: A total of n = 177 patients were identified, of whom n = 110 survived to ICU discharge and were included in the subsequent analysis. While on ICU, patients required prolonged periods of mechanical ventilation (mean 19 ± 10 d), most received neuromuscular blockade (90%) and 67% were placed in the prone position on at least one occasion. The mean ± standard deviation time to first mobilize was 14 ± 7 days, with a median Manchester Mobility Score at ICU discharge of 5 (interquartile range: 4-6), which represents participants able to stand and step around to a chair with or without assistance. Time to mobilize was significantly longer in those with higher body mass index (P < 0.001), and older patients (P = 0.012) and those with more comorbidities (P = 0.017) were more likely to require further rehabilitation after discharge.Conclusions: The early experience of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom resembles the experience in other countries, with high acuity of illness and prolonged period of mechanical ventilation required for those patients admitted to the ICU. Although the time to commence rehabilitation was delayed owing to this severity of illness, rehabilitation was possible within the ICU and led to increased levels of mobility from waking before ICU discharge.Clinical trial registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04396197). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]