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.

Objective. Describe continuous infusion (CI) ketamine practices in pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) and evaluate its effect on pain/sedation scores, exposure to analgesics/sedatives, and adverse effects (AEs). Methods. Multicenter, retrospective, observational study in children <18 years who received CI ketamine between 2014 and 2017. Time spent in goal pain/sedation score range and daily cumulative doses of analgesics/sedatives were compared from the 24 hours (H) prior to CI ketamine to the first 24H and 25−48H of the CI. Adverse effects were collected over the first 7 days of CI ketamine. Results. Twenty‐four patients from 4 PICUs were included; median (IQR) age 7 (1‐13.25) years, 54% female (n = 13), 92% intubated (n = 22), 25% on CI vasopressors (n = 6), and 33% on CI paralytics (n = 8). Ketamine indications were analgesia/sedation (n = 21, 87.5%) and status epilepticus (n = 3, 12.5%). Median starting dose was 0.5 (0.48–0.70) mg/kg/hr and continued for a median of 2.4 (1.3–4.4) days. There was a significant difference in mean proportion of time spent within goal pain score range (24H prior: 74% ± 14%, 0–24H: 85% ± 10%, and 25−48H: 72% ± 20%; p = 0.014). A significant reduction in median morphine milligram equivalents (MME) was seen (24H prior: 58 (8–195) mg vs. 0–24H: 4 (0–69) mg and p = 0.01), but this was not sustained (25−48H: 24 (2–246) mg and p = 0.29). Common AEs were tachycardia (63%), hypotension (54%), secretions/suctioning (29%), and emergence reactions (13%). Conclusions. Ketamine CI improved time in goal pain score range and significantly reduced MME, but this was not sustained. Larger prospective studies are needed in the pediatric population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Society of Critical Care Medicine Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Pain, Agitation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep recommend protocolized non-pharmacologic sleep improvement. Pharmacologic interventions are frequently initiated to promote sleep but the evidence supporting these strategies remains controversial. Purpose: To systematically search and synthesize evidence evaluating pharmacologic sleep promotion modalities in critically ill adults. Methods: A rapid systematic review protocol was used to search Medline, Cochrane Library, and Embase for reports published through October 2022. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and before-and-after cohort studies evaluating pharmacologic modalities intended to improve sleep in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Sleep-related endpoints were the primary outcome of interest. Study and patient characteristics and relevant safety and non-sleep outcome data were also collected. The Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias or Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions were used to assess the risk of bias for all included studies. Results: Sixteen studies (75% RCTs) enrolling 2573 patients were included; 1207 patients were allocated to the pharmacologic sleep intervention. Most studies utilized dexmedetomidine (7/16; total n = 505 patients) or a melatonin agonist (6/16; total n = 592 patients). Only half of the studies incorporated a sleep promotion protocol as standard of care. Most (11/16, 68.8%) studies demonstrated a significant improvement in ≥1 sleep endpoint (n = 5 dexmedetomidine, n = 3 melatonin agonists, n = 2 propofol/benzodiazepines). Risk of bias was generally low for RCTs and moderate-severe for cohort studies. Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine and melatonin agonists are the most studied pharmacologic sleep promotion modalities, but current evidence does not support their routine administration in the ICU to improve sleep. Future RCTs evaluating pharmacologic modalities for ICU sleep should consider patients' baseline and ICU risks for disrupted sleep, incorporate a non-pharmacologic sleep improvement protocol, and evaluate the effect of these medication interventions on circadian rhythm, physiologic sleep, patient-perceived sleep quality, and delirium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) presents as an acute inflammatory lung injury characterized by refractory hypoxemia and non-cardiac pulmonary edema. An estimated 10% of patients in the intensive care unit and 25% of those who are mechanically ventilated are diagnosed with ARDS. Increased awareness is warranted as mortality rates remain high and delays in diagnosing ARDS are common. The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the importance of understanding ARDS management. Treatment of ARDS can be challenging due to the complexity of the disease state and conflicting existing evidence. Therefore, it is imperative that pharmacists understand both pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic treatment strategies to optimize patient care. This narrative review provides a critical evaluation of current literature describing management practices for ARDS. A review of treatment modalities and supportive care strategies will be presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Persons living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (PWH) on antiretroviral therapy (ART) are frequently admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Persons living with HIV on ART may be at higher risk for potential drug–drug interactions (pDDIs) due to polypharmacy in the ICU. We determined the prevalence of pDDI with ART in critically ill PWH. Objectives: The primary outcome was prevalence of pDDI between ART and ICU medications. Secondary outcomes included pDDI per ICU admission, pDDI severity, ICU, and hospital length of stay (LOS). Methods: A single-center, retrospective cohort evaluating PWH ≥ 18 years old admitted to the ICU for > 24 hours who received ART during ICU admission, between January 2013 and 2015 at a tertiary care hospital in the United States. Each ICU admission was counted as a separate encounter. Medication databases and chart review were used to identify pDDI. Results: We included 77 PWH encounters; mean age was 55 ± 9 years and 65% were male. We identified 208 pDDIs among 53/77 (68.8%), with a mean 4 ± 2 pDDI per ICU admission. Antipsychotics (20%), analgesics (20%), and anti-lipemics (11%) were the most common ICU medications with ART-related pDDI. Of the pDDI, 64% were major, 24% moderate, and 12% contraindicated. Median ICU and hospital LOS were 4 days (IQR: 3–5) and 11 days (IQR: 7–31), respectively. Conclusion: Most PWH had at least one pDDI during ICU admission. Collaborations among pharmacists, intensivists, and infectious disease/HIV specialists to develop effective, actionable strategies, such as electronic health record alerts, could reduce pDDIs for PWH on ART in the ICU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data regarding the use of corticosteroids for treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are conflicting. As the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic progresses, more literature supporting the use of corticosteroids for COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 ARDS have emerged. Glucocorticoids are proposed to attenuate the inflammatory response and prevent progression to the fibroproliferative phase of ARDS through their multiple mechanisms and anti‐inflammatory properties. The purpose of this systematic review was to comprehensively evaluate the literature surrounding corticosteroid use in ARDS (non‐COVID‐19 and COVID‐19) in addition to a narrative review of clinical considerations of corticosteroid use in these patient populations. OVID Medline and EMBASE were searched. Randomized controlled trials evaluating the use of corticosteroids for COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 ARDS in adult patients on mortality outcomes were included. Risk of bias was assessed with the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. There were 388 studies identified, 15 of which met the inclusion criteria that included a total of 8877 patients. The studies included in our review reported a mortality benefit in 6/15 (40%) studies with benefit being seen at varying time points of mortality follow‐up (ICU survival, hospital, and 28 and 60 days) in the COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 ARDS studies. The two non‐COVID19 trials assessing lung injury score improvements found that corticosteroids led to significant improvements with corticosteroid use. The number of mechanical ventilation‐free days significantly were found to be increased with the use of corticosteroids in all four studies that assessed this outcome. Corticosteroids are associated with improvements in mortality and ventilator‐free days in critically ill patients with both COVID‐19 and non‐COVID‐19 ARDS, and evidence suggests their use should be encouraged in these settings. However, due to substantial differences in the corticosteroid regimens utilized in these trials, questions still remain regarding the optimal corticosteroid agent, dose, and duration in patients with ARDS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Opioids are one of the high-risk medication classes that are administered to critically ill patients during their intensive care unit (ICU) stay. However, little attention has been given to inpatient opioid prescribing practices, especially in critically ill patients. The purpose of our study was to characterize opioid prescribing practices across 2 transitions of care during an inpatient hospital stay: medical ICU (MICU)/intermediate care unit (IMC) to floor and floor to hospital discharge and identify potential patient-specific factors that impact opioid continuation. Methods: This is a retrospective cohort study evaluating opioid-naive adult patients with new opioid therapy initiated in MICU/IMC at a tertiary care academic medical center from December 1, 2016, to November 30, 2017. Opioid continuation rate was assessed twice: transition 1 (MICU/IMC to floor) and transition 2 (floor to hospital discharge). Results: In total, 112 opioid-naive patients with initial opioid administration in the MICU/IMC were included. Opioid therapy was continued in 56.1% (37/66) at transition 1 and 56.8% of patients (21/37) at transition 2. Patients with opioids continued at transition 1 had a longer hospital length of stay compared to those not continued on opioids, 22 (interquartile range [IQR] 11-36) vs 8 (IQR 6-14; P = .0004). Among the patients continued on opioids at hospital discharge, intubation during hospital stay and cumulative opioid dosage were greater than those not continued on opioids (17 [80.9%] vs 7 [43.8%], P = .019; and 3482 mcg [IQR 1690-9530] vs 732.5 mcg [IQR 187.5-1360.9], P = .0018, respectively). Conclusions: Opioid-naive patients receiving opioid therapy in the MICU/IMC had a continuation rate of >56% during transitions of care, including hospital discharge. Factors that contributed to the continuation of opioids at transitions of care included longer hospital length of stay, intubation, and cumulative hospital opioid dosage. These findings may help to provide health systems with guidance on targeted opioid stewardship programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vasodilatory shock is a serious medical condition that increases the morbidity and mortality of perioperative and critically ill patients. Norepinephrine is an established first-line therapy for this condition, but at high doses, it may lead to diminishing returns. Oftentimes, secondary noncatecholamine agents are required in those whose hypotension persists. Angiotensin II and vasopressin are both noncatecholamine agents available for the treatment of hypotension in vasodilatory shock. They have distinct modes of action and unique pharmacologic properties when compared to norepinephrine. Angiotensin II and vasopressin have shown promise in certain subsets of the population, such as those with acute kidney injury, high Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores, or those receiving cardiac surgery. Any benefit from these drugs must be weighed against the risks, as overall mortality has not been shown to decrease mortality in the general population. The aims of this narrative review are to provide insight into the historical use of noncatecholamine vasopressors and to compare and contrast their unique modes of action, physiologic rationale for administration, efficacy, and safety profiles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]