Search

Background: Sleep and circadian disruption (SCD) is common and severe in the ICU. On the basis of rigorous evidence in non-ICU populations and emerging evidence in ICU populations, SCD is likely to have a profound negative impact on patient outcomes. Thus, it is urgent that we establish research priorities to advance understanding of ICU SCD. Methods: We convened a multidisciplinary group with relevant expertise to participate in an American Thoracic Society Workshop. Workshop objectives included identifying ICU SCD subtopics of interest, key knowledge gaps, and research priorities. Members attended remote sessions from March to November 2021. Recorded presentations were prepared and viewed by members before Workshop sessions. Workshop discussion focused on key gaps and related research priorities. The priorities listed herein were selected on the basis of rank as established by a series of anonymous surveys. Results: We identified the following research priorities: establish an ICU SCD definition, further develop rigorous and feasible ICU SCD measures, test associations between ICU SCD domains and outcomes, promote the inclusion of mechanistic and patient-centered outcomes within large clinical studies, leverage implementation science strategies to maximize intervention fidelity and sustainability, and collaborate among investigators to harmonize methods and promote multisite investigation. Conclusions: ICU SCD is a complex and compelling potential target for improving ICU outcomes. Given the influence on all other research priorities, further development of rigorous, feasible ICU SCD measurement is a key next step in advancing the field.

IntroductionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused >3.5 million deaths worldwide and affected >160 million people. At least twice as many have been infected but remained asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic. COVID-19 includes central nervous system manifestations mediated by inflammation and cerebrovascular, anoxic, and/or viral neurotoxicity mechanisms. More than one third of patients with COVID-19 develop neurologic problems during the acute phase of the illness, including loss of sense of smell or taste, seizures, and stroke. Damage or functional changes to the brain may result in chronic sequelae. The risk of incident cognitive and neuropsychiatric complications appears independent from the severity of the original pulmonary illness. It behooves the scientific and medical community to attempt to understand the molecular and/or systemic factors linking COVID-19 to neurologic illness, both short and long term.MethodsThis article describes what is known so far in terms of links among COVID-19, the brain, neurological symptoms, and Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias. We focus on risk factors and possible molecular, inflammatory, and viral mechanisms underlying neurological injury. We also provide a comprehensive description of the Alzheimer's Association Consortium on Chronic Neuropsychiatric Sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (CNS SC2) harmonized methodology to address these questions using a worldwide network of researchers and institutions.ResultsSuccessful harmonization of designs and methods was achieved through a consensus process initially fragmented by specific interest groups (epidemiology, clinical assessments, cognitive evaluation, biomarkers, and neuroimaging). Conclusions from subcommittees were presented to the whole group and discussed extensively. Presently data collection is ongoing at 19 sites in 12 countries representing Asia, Africa, the Americas, and Europe.DiscussionThe Alzheimer's Association Global Consortium harmonized methodology is proposed as a model to study long-term neurocognitive sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection.Key pointsThe following review describes what is known so far in terms of molecular and epidemiological links among COVID-19, the brain, neurological symptoms, and AD and related dementias (ADRD)The primary objective of this large-scale collaboration is to clarify the pathogenesis of ADRD and to advance our understanding of the impact of a neurotropic virus on the long-term risk of cognitive decline and other CNS sequelae. No available evidence supports the notion that cognitive impairment after SARS-CoV-2 infection is a form of dementia (ADRD or otherwise). The longitudinal methodologies espoused by the consortium are intended to provide data to answer this question as clearly as possible controlling for possible confounders. Our specific hypothesis is that SARS-CoV-2 triggers ADRD-like pathology following the extended olfactory cortical network (EOCN) in older individuals with specific genetic susceptibility.The proposed harmonization strategies and flexible study designs offer the possibility to include large samples of under-represented racial and ethnic groups, creating a rich set of harmonized cohorts for future studies of the pathophysiology, determinants, long-term consequences, and trends in cognitive aging, ADRD, and vascular disease.We provide a framework for current and future studies to be carried out within the Consortium. and offers a "green paper" to the research community with a very broad, global base of support, on tools suitable for low- and middle-income countries aimed to compare and combine future longitudinal data on the topic.The Consortium proposes a combination of design and statistical methods as a means of approaching causal inference of the COVID-19 neuropsychiatric sequelae. We expect that deep phenotyping of neuropsychiatric sequelae may provide a series of candidate syndromes with phenomenological and biological characterization that can be further explored. By generating high-quality harmonized data across sites we aim to capture both descriptive and, where possible, causal associations.

ObjectivesClinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of sedative medication use in critically ill adults undergoing mechanical ventilation differ considerably in their methodological approach. This heterogeneity impedes the ability to compare results across studies. The Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research Recommendations convened a meeting of multidisciplinary experts to develop recommendations for key methodologic elements of sedation trials in the ICU to help guide academic and industry clinical investigators.DesignA 2-day in-person meeting was held in Washington, DC, on March 28-29, 2019, followed by a three-round, online modified Delphi consensus process.ParticipantsThirty-six participants from academia, industry, and the Food and Drug Administration with expertise in relevant content areas, including two former ICU patients attended the in-person meeting, and the majority completed an online follow-up survey and participated in the modified Delphi process.Measurements and main resultsThe final recommendations were iteratively refined based on the survey results, participants' reactions to those results, summaries written by panel moderators, and a review of the meeting transcripts made from audio recordings. Fifteen recommendations were developed for study design and conduct, subject enrollment, outcomes, and measurement instruments. Consensus recommendations included obtaining input from ICU survivors and/or their families, ensuring adequate training for personnel using validated instruments for assessments of sedation, pain, and delirium in the ICU environment, and the need for methodological standardization.ConclusionsThese recommendations are intended to assist researchers in the design, conduct, selection of endpoints, and reporting of clinical trials involving sedative medications and/or sedation protocols for adult ICU patients who require mechanical ventilation. These recommendations should be viewed as a starting point to improve clinical trials and help reduce methodological heterogeneity in future clinical trials.

BackgroundThrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19.MethodsIn an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge.ResultsThe trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio

BackgroundThrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19.MethodsIn this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level.ResultsThe trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis.ConclusionsIn noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).

BackgroundThrombosis and inflammation may contribute to morbidity and mortality among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation would improve outcomes in critically ill patients with Covid-19.MethodsIn an open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, randomized clinical trial, critically ill patients with severe Covid-19 were randomly assigned to a pragmatically defined regimen of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis in accordance with local usual care. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge.ResultsThe trial was stopped when the prespecified criterion for futility was met for therapeutic-dose anticoagulation. Data on the primary outcome were available for 1098 patients (534 assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and 564 assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis). The median value for organ support-free days was 1 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and was 4 (interquartile range, -1 to 16) among the patients assigned to usual-care thromboprophylaxis (adjusted proportional odds ratio, 0.83; 95% credible interval, 0.67 to 1.03; posterior probability of futility [defined as an odds ratio

BackgroundThrombosis and inflammation may contribute to the risk of death and complications among patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). We hypothesized that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation may improve outcomes in noncritically ill patients who are hospitalized with Covid-19.MethodsIn this open-label, adaptive, multiplatform, controlled trial, we randomly assigned patients who were hospitalized with Covid-19 and who were not critically ill (which was defined as an absence of critical care-level organ support at enrollment) to receive pragmatically defined regimens of either therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin or usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale that combined in-hospital death (assigned a value of -1) and the number of days free of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support up to day 21 among patients who survived to hospital discharge. This outcome was evaluated with the use of a Bayesian statistical model for all patients and according to the baseline d-dimer level.ResultsThe trial was stopped when prespecified criteria for the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation were met. Among 2219 patients in the final analysis, the probability that therapeutic-dose anticoagulation increased organ support-free days as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 98.6% (adjusted odds ratio, 1.27; 95% credible interval, 1.03 to 1.58). The adjusted absolute between-group difference in survival until hospital discharge without organ support favoring therapeutic-dose anticoagulation was 4.0 percentage points (95% credible interval, 0.5 to 7.2). The final probability of the superiority of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation over usual-care thromboprophylaxis was 97.3% in the high d-dimer cohort, 92.9% in the low d-dimer cohort, and 97.3% in the unknown d-dimer cohort. Major bleeding occurred in 1.9% of the patients receiving therapeutic-dose anticoagulation and in 0.9% of those receiving thromboprophylaxis.ConclusionsIn noncritically ill patients with Covid-19, an initial strategy of therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support as compared with usual-care thromboprophylaxis. (ATTACC, ACTIV-4a, and REMAP-CAP ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT04372589, NCT04505774, NCT04359277, and NCT02735707.).

PurposeTo study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).MethodsCritically ill adults with COVID-19 were randomized to receive lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, combination therapy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine or no antiviral therapy (control). The primary endpoint was an ordinal scale of organ support-free days. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model and expressed treatment effects as an adjusted odds ratio (OR) where an OR > 1 is favorable.ResultsWe randomized 694 patients to receive lopinavir-ritonavir (n = 255), hydroxychloroquine (n = 50), combination therapy (n = 27) or control (n = 362). The median organ support-free days among patients in lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and combination therapy groups was 4 (- 1 to 15), 0 (- 1 to 9) and-1 (- 1 to 7), respectively, compared to 6 (- 1 to 16) in the control group with in-hospital mortality of 88/249 (35%), 17/49 (35%), 13/26 (50%), respectively, compared to 106/353 (30%) in the control group. The three interventions decreased organ support-free days compared to control (OR [95% credible interval]: 0.73 [0.55, 0.99], 0.57 [0.35, 0.83] 0.41 [0.24, 0.72]), yielding posterior probabilities that reached the threshold futility (≥ 99.0%), and high probabilities of harm (98.0%, 99.9% and > 99.9%, respectively). The three interventions reduced hospital survival compared with control (OR [95% CrI]: 0.65 [0.45, 0.95], 0.56 [0.30, 0.89], and 0.36 [0.17, 0.73]), yielding high probabilities of harm (98.5% and 99.4% and 99.8%, respectively).ConclusionAmong critically ill patients with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, or combination therapy worsened outcomes compared to no antiviral therapy.

ObjectivesABCDEF bundle implementation in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is associated with dose dependent improvements in patient outcomes. The objective was to compare nurse attitudes about the ABCDEF bundle to self-reported adherence to bundle components.Research methodology/designCross-sectional study.SettingNurses providing direct patient care in 28 ICUs within 18 hospitals across the United States.Main outcome measures53-item survey of attitudes and practice of the ABCDEF bundle components was administered between November 2011 and August 2015 (n = 1661).ResultsWe did not find clinically significant correlations between nurse attitudes and adherence to Awakening trials, Breathing trials, and sedation protocol adherence (rs = 0.05-0.28) or sedation plan discussion during rounds and Awakening and Breathing trial Coordination (rs = 0.19). Delirium is more likely to be discussed during rounds when ICU physicians and nurse managers facilitate delirium reduction (rs = 0.27-0.36). Early mobilization is more likely to occur when ICU physicians, nurse managers, staffing, equipment, and the ICU environment facilitate early mobility (rs = 0.36-0.47). Physician leadership had the strongest correlation with reporting an ICU environment that facilitates ABCDEF bundle implementation (rs = 0.63-0.74).ConclusionsNurse attitudes about bundle implementation did not predict bundle adherence. Nurse manager and physician leadership played a large role in creating a supportive ICU environment.

BackgroundThere are conflicting data on the effects of antipsychotic medications on delirium in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsIn a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium to receive intravenous boluses of haloperidol (maximum dose, 20 mg daily), ziprasidone (maximum dose, 40 mg daily), or placebo. The volume and dose of a trial drug or placebo was halved or doubled at 12-hour intervals on the basis of the presence or absence of delirium, as detected with the use of the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU, and of side effects of the intervention. The primary end point was the number of days alive without delirium or coma during the 14-day intervention period. Secondary end points included 30-day and 90-day survival, time to freedom from mechanical ventilation, and time to ICU and hospital discharge. Safety end points included extrapyramidal symptoms and excessive sedation.ResultsWritten informed consent was obtained from 1183 patients or their authorized representatives. Delirium developed in 566 patients (48%), of whom 89% had hypoactive delirium and 11% had hyperactive delirium. Of the 566 patients, 184 were randomly assigned to receive placebo, 192 to receive haloperidol, and 190 to receive ziprasidone. The median duration of exposure to a trial drug or placebo was 4 days (interquartile range, 3 to 7). The median number of days alive without delirium or coma was 8.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6 to 9.9) in the placebo group, 7.9 (95% CI, 4.4 to 9.6) in the haloperidol group, and 8.7 (95% CI, 5.9 to 10.0) in the ziprasidone group (P=0.26 for overall effect across trial groups). The use of haloperidol or ziprasidone, as compared with placebo, had no significant effect on the primary end point (odds ratios, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.64 to 1.21] and 1.04 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.48], respectively). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to the secondary end points or the frequency of extrapyramidal symptoms.ConclusionsThe use of haloperidol or ziprasidone, as compared with placebo, in patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium in the ICU did not significantly alter the duration of delirium. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the VA Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center; MIND-USA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01211522 .).

The article presents a study which tested the hypothesis that the hyperinflammatory subphenotype is associated with worse acute brain dysfunction in patients who are in mechanically ventilated intensive care units (ICUs). Topics include baseline characteristics of the overall cohort and by subphenotype, associations between hyperinflammatory subphenotype and acute brain dysfunction and death, and strengths of the study.

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is one of the most demanding conditions in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Management of analgesia and sedation in ARDS is particularly challenging. An expert panel was convened to produce a 'state-of-the-art' article to support clinicians in the optimal management of analgesia/sedation in mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS, including those with COVID-19. Current ICU analgesia/sedation guidelines promote analgesia first and minimization of sedation, wakefulness, delirium prevention and early rehabilitation to facilitate ventilator and ICU liberation. However, these strategies cannot always be applied to patients with ARDS who sometimes require deep sedation and/or paralysis. Patients with severe ARDS may be under-represented in analgesia/sedation studies and currently recommended strategies may not be feasible. With lightened sedation, distress-related symptoms (e.g., pain and discomfort, anxiety, dyspnea) and patient-ventilator asynchrony should be systematically assessed and managed through interprofessional collaboration, prioritizing analgesia and anxiolysis. Adaptation of ventilator settings (e.g., use of a pressure-set mode, spontaneous breathing, sensitive inspiratory trigger) should be systematically considered before additional medications are administered. Managing the mechanical ventilator is of paramount importance to avoid the unnecessary use of deep sedation and/or paralysis. Therefore, applying an 'ABCDEF-R' bundle (R = Respiratory-drive-control) may be beneficial in ARDS patients. Further studies are needed, especially regarding the use and long-term effects of fast-offset drugs (e.g., remifentanil, volatile anesthetics) and the electrophysiological assessment of analgesia/sedation (e.g., electroencephalogram devices, heart-rate variability, and video pupillometry). This review is particularly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic given drug shortages and limited ICU-bed capacity., Author(s): Gerald Chanques [sup.1] [sup.2], Jean-Michel Constantin [sup.3], John W. Devlin [sup.4] [sup.5], E. Wesley Ely [sup.6] [sup.7] [sup.8], Gilles L. Fraser [sup.9], Céline Gélinas [sup.10], Timothy D. Girard [sup.11], [...]

Abstract Introduction Benzodiazepines and α2 adrenoceptor agonists exert opposing effects on innate immunity and mortality in animal models of infection. We hypothesized that sedation with dexmedetomidine (an α2 adrenoceptor agonist), as compared with lorazepam (a benzodiazepine), would provide greater improvements in clinical outcomes among septic patients than among non-septic patients. Methods In this a priori-determined subgroup analysis of septic vs non-septic patients from the MENDS double-blind randomized controlled trial, adult medical/surgical mechanically ventilated patients were randomized to receive dexmedetomidine-based or lorazepam-based sedation for up to 5 days. Delirium and other clinical outcomes were analyzed comparing sedation groups, adjusting for clinically relevant covariates as well as assessing interactions between sedation group and sepsis. Results Of the 103 patients randomized, 63 (31 dexmedetomidine; 32 lorazepam) were admitted with sepsis and 40 (21 dexmedetomidine; 19 lorazepam) without sepsis. Baseline characteristics were similar between treatment groups for both septic and non-septic patients. Compared with septic patients who received lorazepam, the dexmedetomidine septic patients had 3.2 more delirium/coma-free days (DCFD) on average (95% CI for difference, 1.1 to 4.9), 1.5 (-0.1, 2.8) more delirium-free days (DFD) and 6 (0.3, 11.1) more ventilator-free days (VFD). The beneficial effects of dexmedetomidine were more pronounced in septic patients than in non-septic patients for both DCFDs and VFDs (P-value for interaction = 0.09 and 0.02 respectively). Additionally, sedation with dexmedetomidine, compared with lorazepam, reduced the daily risk of delirium [OR, CI 0.3 (0.1, 0.7)] in both septic and non-septic patients (P-value for interaction = 0.94). Risk of dying at 28 days was reduced by 70% [hazard ratio 0.3 (0.1, 0.9)] in dexmedetomidine patients with sepsis as compared to the lorazepam patients; this reduction in death was not seen in non-septic patients (P-value for interaction = 0.11). Conclusions In this subgroup analysis, septic patients receiving dexmedetomidine had more days free of brain dysfunction and mechanical ventilation and were less likely to die than those that received a lorazepam-based sedation regimen. These results were more pronounced in septic patients than in non-septic patients. Prospective clinical studies and further preclinical mechanistic studies are needed to confirm these results. Trial Registration NCT00095251.