Search

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is increasingly being used to support patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure and cardiogenic shock. During the COVID-19 pandemic, consensus guidance recommended extracorporeal life support for patients with COVID-19-related cardiopulmonary disease refractory to optimal conventional therapy, prompting a substantial expansion in the use of this support modality. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was particularly integral to the bridging of COVID-19 patients to heart or lung transplantation. Limited human and physical resources precluded widespread utilization of mechanical support during the COVID-19 pandemic, necessitating careful patient selection and optimal management by expert healthcare teams for judicious extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use. This review outlines the evidence supporting the use of extracorporeal life support in COVID-19, describes the practice and outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19-related respiratory failure and cardiogenic shock, and proposes lessons learned for the implementation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to transplantation in future public health emergencies., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

With the growth of the older adult population, the number of older adults waitlisted for and undergoing kidney and liver transplantation has increased. Transplantation is an important and definitive treatment for this population. We present a contemporary review of the unique preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative issues that patients older than 65 y face when they undergo kidney or liver transplantation. We focus on geriatric syndromes that are common in older patients listed for kidney or liver transplantation including frailty, sarcopenia, and cognitive dysfunction; discuss important considerations for older transplant recipients, which may impact preoperative risk stratification; and describe unique challenges in intraoperative and postoperative management for older patients. Intraoperative challenges in the older adult include using evidence-based best anesthetic practices, maintaining adequate perfusion pressure, and using minimally invasive surgical techniques. Postoperative concerns include controlling acute postoperative pain; preventing cardiovascular complications and delirium; optimizing immunosuppression; preventing perioperative kidney injury; and avoiding nephrotoxicity and rehabilitation. Future studies are needed throughout the perioperative period to identify interventions that will improve patients' preoperative physiologic status, prevent postoperative medical complications, and improve medical and patient-centered outcomes in this vulnerable patient population., Competing Interests: M.A.M.-D. received speaking honoraria from Chiesi. M.E.N. is an elected member of the executive committee (or council) of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. The views presented are those of the author and do not represent the views of SCCM. The other authors declare no conflicts of interests., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: The author has disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.

While considerable literature exists with respect to clinical aspects of critical care anesthesiology (CCA) practice, few publications have focused on how anesthesiology-based critical care practices are organized and the challenges associated with the administration and management of anesthesiology critical care units. Currently, numerous challenges are affecting the sustainability of CCA practice, including decreased applications to fellowship positions and decreased reimbursement for critical care work. This review describes what is known about the subspecialty of CCA and leverages the experience of administrative leaders in adult critical care anesthesiologists in the United States to describe potential solutions., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this article., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Physicians with training in anesthesiology, emergency medicine, internal medicine, neurology, and surgery may gain board certification in critical care medicine upon completion of fellowship training. These clinicians often only spend a portion of their work effort in the ICU. Other work efforts that benefit an ICU infrastructure, but do not provide billing opportunities, include education, research, and administrative duties. For employed or contracted physicians, there is no singular definition of what constitutes an intensive care full-time equivalent (FTE). Nevertheless, hospitals often consider FTEs in assessing hiring needs, salary, and eligibility for benefits., Data Sources: Review of existing literature, expert opinion., Study Selection: Not applicable., Data Extraction: Not applicable., Data Synthesis: Not applicable., Conclusions: Understanding how an FTE is calculated, and the fraction of an FTE to be assigned to a particular cost center, is therefore important for intensivists of different specialties, as many employment models assign salary and benefits to a base specialty department and not necessarily the ICU., Competing Interests: Dr. Nurok serves as an advisor to Avant-garde Health, and he receives stock options for this role. Dr. Nunnally is a member of the Board of Regents of the American College of Critical Care Medicine. As such, he serves as an honorary member of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Council. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)

Importance: The spring 2020 surge of COVID-19 unprecedentedly strained ventilator supply in New York City, with many hospitals nearly exhausting available ventilators and subsequently seriously considering enacting crisis standards of care and implementing New York State Ventilator Allocation Guidelines (NYVAG). However, there is little evidence as to how NYVAG would perform if implemented., Objectives: To evaluate the performance and potential improvement of NYVAG during a surge of patients with respect to the length of rationing, overall mortality, and worsening health disparities., Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included intubated patients in a single health system in New York City from March through July 2020. A total of 20 000 simulations were conducted of ventilator triage (10 000 following NYVAG and 10 000 following a proposed improved NYVAG) during a crisis period, defined as the point at which the prepandemic ventilator supply was 95% utilized., Exposures: The NYVAG protocol for triage ventilators., Main Outcomes and Measures: Comparison of observed survival rates with simulations of scenarios requiring NYVAG ventilator rationing., Results: The total cohort included 1671 patients; of these, 674 intubated patients (mean [SD] age, 63.7 [13.8] years; 465 male [69.9%]) were included in the crisis period, with 571 (84.7%) testing positive for COVID-19. Simulated ventilator rationing occurred for 163.9 patients over 15.0 days, 44.4% (95% CI, 38.3%-50.0%) of whom would have survived if provided a ventilator while only 34.8% (95% CI, 28.5%-40.0%) of those newly intubated patients receiving a reallocated ventilator survived. While triage categorization at the time of intubation exhibited partial prognostic differentiation, 94.8% of all ventilator rationing occurred after a time trial. Within this subset, 43.1% were intubated for 7 or more days with a favorable SOFA score that had not improved. An estimated 60.6% of these patients would have survived if sustained on a ventilator. Revising triage subcategorization, proposed improved NYVAG, would have improved this alarming ventilator allocation inefficiency (25.3% [95% CI, 22.1%-28.4%] of those selected for ventilator rationing would have survived if provided a ventilator). NYVAG ventilator rationing did not exacerbate existing health disparities., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of intubated patients experiencing simulated ventilator rationing during the apex of the New York City COVID-19 2020 surge, NYVAG diverted ventilators from patients with a higher chance of survival to those with a lower chance of survival. Future efforts should be focused on triage subcategorization, which improved this triage inefficiency, and ventilator rationing after a time trial, when most ventilator rationing occurred.

Introduction: Cardiac arrest in the operating room is a rare but potentially life-threatening event with mortality rates of more than 50%. Contributing factors are often known, and the event is recognised rapidly as patients are usually under full monitoring. This guideline covers the perioperative period and is complementary to the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) guidelines., Material and Methods: The European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care and the European Society for Trauma and Emergency Surgery jointly nominated a panel of experts to develop guidelines for the recognition, treatment and prevention of cardiac arrest in the perioperative period. A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All searches were restricted to publications from 1980 to 2019 inclusive and to the English, French, Italian and Spanish languages. The authors also contributed individual, independent literature searches., Results: This guideline contains background information and recommendation for the treatment of cardiac arrest in the operating room environment, and addresses controversial topics such as open chest cardiac massage (OCCM), resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion (REBOA) and resuscitative thoracotomy, pericardiocentesis, needle decompression and thoracostomy., Conclusion: Successful prevention and management of cardiac arrest during anaesthesia and surgery requires anticipation, early recognition and a clear treatment plan. The ready availability of expert staff and equipment must also be taken into consideration. Success not only depends on medical knowledge, technical skills and a well organised team using crew resource management but also on an institutional safety culture embedded in everyday practice through continuous education, training and multidisciplinary co-operation., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care.)

Competing Interests: Dr. Kane-Gill holds an executive position and received funding from the Society of Critical Care Medicine, received grant funding from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK121730 and U01DK130010), the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (U54AT008909), she received support for article research from the National Institutes of Health; and the Jewish Healthcare Foundation. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest.

Heart and lung transplant recipients require care provided by clinicians from multiple different specialties, each contributing unique expertise and perspective. The period the patient spends in the intensive care unit is one of the most critical times in the perioperative trajectory. Various organizational models of intensive care exist, including those led by intensivists, surgeons, transplant cardiologists, and pulmonologists. Coordinating timely efficient intensive care is an essential and logistically difficult goal. The present work product of the American Society of Transplantation's Thoracic and Critical Care Community of Practice, Critical Care Task Force outlines operational guidelines and principles that may be applied in different organizational models to optimize the delivery of intensive care for the cardiothoracic organ recipient., (© 2023 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Despite the growing contributions of critical care anesthesiologists to clinical practice, research, and administrative leadership of intensive care units (ICUs), relatively little is known about the subspecialty-specific clinical practice environment. An understanding of contemporary clinical practice is essential to recognize the opportunities and challenges facing critical care anesthesia, optimize staffing patterns, assess sustainability and satisfaction, and strategically plan for future activity, scope, and training. This study surveyed intensivists who are members of the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists (SOCCA) to evaluate practice patterns of critical care anesthesiologists, including compensation, types of ICUs covered, models of overnight ICU coverage, and relationships between these factors. We hypothesized that variability in compensation and practice patterns would be observed between individuals., Methods: Board-certified critical care anesthesiologists practicing in the United States were identified using the SOCCA membership distribution list and invited to take a voluntary online survey between May and June 2021. Multiple-choice questions with both single- and multiple-select options were used for answers with categorical data, and adaptive questioning was used to clarify stem-based responses. Respondents were asked to describe practice patterns at their respective institutions and provide information about their demographics, salaries, effort in ICUs, as well as other activities., Results: A total of 490 participants were invited to take this survey, and 157 (response rate 32%) surveys were completed and analyzed. The majority of respondents were White (73%), male (69%), and younger than 50 years of age (82%). The cardiothoracic/cardiovascular ICU was the most common practice setting, with 69.5% of respondents reporting time working in this unit. Significant variability was observed in ICU practice patterns. Respondents reported spending an equal proportion of their time in clinical practice in the operating rooms and ICUs (median, 40%; interquartile range [IQR], 20%-50%), whereas a smaller proportion-primarily those who completed their training before 2009-reported administrative or research activities. Female respondents reported salaries that were $36,739 less than male respondents; however, this difference was not statistically different, and after adjusting for age and practice type, these differences were less pronounced (-$27,479.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], -$57,232.61 to $2273.03; P = .07)., Conclusions: These survey data provide a current snapshot of anesthesiology critical care clinical practice patterns in the United States. Our findings may inform decision-making around the initiation and expansion of critical care services and optimal staffing patterns, as well as provide a basis for further work that focuses on intensivist satisfaction and burnout., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2022 International Anesthesia Research Society.)

This paper aims to highlight how to reduce medication errors through the implementation of human factors science to the design features of medication containers. Despite efforts to employ automation for increased safety and decreased workload, medication administration in hospital wards is still heavily dependent on human operators (pharmacists, nurses, physicians, etc.). Improving this multi-step process requires its being studied and designed as an interface in a complex socio-technical system. Human factors engineering, also known as ergonomics, involves designing socio-technical systems to improve overall system performance, and reduces the risk of system, and in particular, operator, failures. The incorporation of human factors principles into the design of the work environment and tools that are in use during medication administration could improve this process. During periods of high workload, the cognitive effort necessary to work through a very demanding process may overwhelm even expert operators. In such conditions, the entire system should facilitate the human operator's high level of performance. Regarding medications, clinicians should be provided with as many perceptual cues as possible to facilitate medication identification. Neglecting the shape of the container as one of the features that differentiates between classes of medications is a lost opportunity to use a helpful characteristic, and medication administration failures that happen in the absence of such intentional design arise from "designer error" rather than "user error". Guidelines that define a container's shape for each class of medication would compel pharmaceutical manufacturers to be compatible and would eliminate the confusion that arises when a hospital changes the supplier of a given medication., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: See Disclosures at the end of the article.

Background: We proposed that the behaviors that demonstrate compassionate care in the intensive care unit (ICU) can be self-assessed and improved among ICU clinicians. Literature showing views of intensivists about their own compassionate care attitudes is missing., Methods: This was an observational, prospective, cross-sectional study. We surveyed clinicians who are members of professional societies of intensive care using the modified Schwartz Center Compassionate Care Scale® (SCCCS) about their self-reported compassionate care. A modified SCCCS instrument was disseminated via an email sent to the members of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine between March and June 2021., Results: Three hundred twenty-three clinicians completed the survey from a cohort of 1000 members who responded (32.3% response rate). The majority (54%) of respondents were male physicians of 49 (+ - 10 SD) years of age and 19 (12 + - SD) years in practice. The mean SCCCS was 88.5 (out of 100) with an average score of 8 for each question (out of 10), showing a high self-assessed physician rating of their compassionate care in the ICU. There was a positive association with age and years in practice with a higher score, especially for women ages 30-50 years (P = 0.03). Years in practice was also independently associated with greater compassion scores (p < 0.001). Lower scores were given to behaviors that reflect understanding perspectives of families and patients and showing caring and sensitivity. In contrast, the top scores were given to behaviors that included conducting family discussions and showing respect., Conclusion: Physicians in the ICU self-score high in compassionate care, especially if they are more experienced, female, and older. Self-identified areas that need improvement are the humanistic qualities requiring sensitivity, such as cognitive empathy, which involves perspective-taking, reflective listening, asking open-ended questions, and understanding the patient's context and worldview. These can be addressed in further clinical and ICU quality improvement initiatives., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objectives: To evaluate how key aspects of New York State Ventilator Allocation Guidelines (NYSVAG)-Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score criteria and ventilator time trials -might perform with respect to the frequency of ventilator reallocation and survival to hospital discharge in a simulated cohort of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) patients., Methods: Single center retrospective observational and simulation cohort study of 884 critically ill COVID-19 patients undergoing ventilator allocation per NYSVAG., Results: In total, 742 patients (83.9%) would have had their ventilator reallocated during the 11-day observation period, 280 (37.7%) of whom would have otherwise survived to hospital discharge if provided with a ventilator. Only 65 (18.1%) of the observed surviving patients would have survived by NYSVAG. Extending ventilator time trials from 2 to 5 days resulted in a 49.2% increase in simulated survival to discharge., Conclusions: In the setting of a protracted respiratory pandemic, implementation of NYSVAG or similar protocols could lead to a high degree of ventilator reallocation, including withdrawal from patients who might otherwise survive. Longer ventilator time trials might lead to improved survival for COVID-19 patients given their protracted respiratory failure. Further studies are needed to understand the survival of patients receiving reallocated ventilators to determine whether implementation of NYSVAG would improve overall survival.

Testing multiple treatments for heterogeneous (varying) effectiveness with respect to many underlying risk factors requires many pairwise tests; we would like to instead automatically discover and visualize patient archetypes and predictors of treatment effectiveness using multitask machine learning. In this paper, we present a method to estimate these heterogeneous treatment effects with an interpretable hierarchical framework that uses additive models to visualize expected treatment benefits as a function of patient factors (identifying personalized treatment benefits) and concurrent treatments (identifying combinatorial treatment benefits). This method achieves state-of-the-art predictive power for COVID-19 in-hospital mortality and interpretable identification of heterogeneous treatment benefits. We first validate this method on the large public MIMIC-IV dataset of ICU patients to test recovery of heterogeneous treatment effects. Next we apply this method to a proprietary dataset of over 3000 patients hospitalized for COVID-19, and find evidence of heterogeneous treatment effectiveness predicted largely by indicators of inflammation and thrombosis risk: patients with few indicators of thrombosis risk benefit most from treatments against inflammation, while patients with few indicators of inflammation risk benefit most from treatments against thrombosis. This approach provides an automated methodology to discover heterogeneous and individualized effectiveness of treatments., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Patients with infection can develop sepsis, and their mortality can be high. An important aspect in the treatment of sepsis is adequate management of the infection., Data Sources: Using a modified Delphi approach, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign research committee recently published a series of 26 priorities for sepsis and septic shock., Study Selection: Task force members with specific expertise were tasked with generating expanded reviews for all infection questions and a subset of adjunctive therapy questions from the larger list of sepsis priorities. Each question was addressed by one of the six task force members., Data Extraction: In-depth reviews were then edited by the group as a whole, with added input from the committee cochairs., Data Synthesis: Six questions were addressed: 1) should empiric antibiotic combination therapy be used in sepsis or septic shock? 2) does optimization of antimicrobial pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics impact patient outcomes in sepsis? 3) should viral reactivation resulting from sepsis-induced immunosuppression be treated with antiviral therapy in critically ill septic patients? 4) should rapid diagnostic tests be implemented in clinical practice? 5) what is the role of lung-protective ventilation in sepsis patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome? and 6) how do we determine the efficacy of "blood purification" therapies such as endotoxin absorbers, cytokine absorbers, and plasmapheresis., Conclusions: The research committee members for the Surviving Sepsis Campaign aimed to explore research questions in order to provide existing evidence and highlight areas of uncertainty and future directions., Competing Interests: No industry input was obtained in the committee’s previous identification of the research priorities or in their expanded description in this article. No industry representatives were involved at any point in the process, and no financial compensation or honoraria was received for participation on the committee. Each committee member provided a personal disclosure, and no attempt was made by the group to seek additional information on self-reported conflict of interest.Dr. Martin-Loeches received honoraria from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Gilead, and Aspen. Dr. Nunnally is Treasurer of the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists. Dr. Martin is the President of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. His institution received funding from the National Institutes of Health, Biomedical Advance Research and Development Authority, and Marcus Foundation, and he is a clinical research consultant to Regeneron and Beckman-Coulter. Dr. Kesecioglu is immediate past President of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Dr. De Backer is past President of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and has received consulting fees from Fresenius Kabi. Dr. Coopersmith is past President of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)

Objective: To identify priorities for administrative, epidemiologic and diagnostic research in sepsis., Design: As a follow-up to a previous consensus statement about sepsis research, members of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Committee, representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine addressed six questions regarding care delivery, epidemiology, organ dysfunction, screening, identification of septic shock, and information that can predict outcomes in sepsis., Methods: Six questions from the Scoring/Identification and Administration sections of the original Research Priorities publication were explored in greater detail to better examine the knowledge gaps and rationales for questions that were previously identified through a consensus process., Results: The document provides a framework for priorities in research to address the following questions: (1) What is the optimal model of delivering sepsis care?; (2) What is the epidemiology of sepsis susceptibility and response to treatment?; (3) What information identifies organ dysfunction?; (4) How can we screen for sepsis in various settings?; (5) How do we identify septic shock?; and (6) What in-hospital clinical information is associated with important outcomes in patients with sepsis?, Conclusions: There is substantial knowledge of sepsis epidemiology and ways to identify and treat sepsis patients, but many gaps remain. Areas of uncertainty identified in this manuscript can help prioritize initiatives to improve an understanding of individual patient and demographic heterogeneity with sepsis and septic shock, biomarkers and accurate patient identification, organ dysfunction, and ways to improve sepsis care.

Objectives: To identify research priorities in the management, pathophysiology, and host response of coronavirus disease 2019 in critically ill patients., Design: The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 17 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine, was virtually convened during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The committee iteratively developed the recommendations and subsequent document., Methods: Each committee member submitted a list of what they believed were the most important priorities for coronavirus disease 2019 research. The entire committee voted on 58 submitted questions to determine top priorities for coronavirus disease 2019 research., Results: The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 13 priorities for coronavirus disease 2019. Of these, the top six priorities were identified and include the following questions: 1) Should the approach to ventilator management differ from the standard approach in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure?, 2) Can the host response be modulated for therapeutic benefit?, 3) What specific cells are directly targeted by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and how do these cells respond?, 4) Can early data be used to predict outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 and, by extension, to guide therapies?, 5) What is the role of prone positioning and noninvasive ventilation in nonventilated patients with coronavirus disease?, and 6) Which interventions are best to use for viral load modulation and when should they be given?, Conclusions: Although knowledge of both biology and treatment has increased exponentially in the first year of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, significant knowledge gaps remain. The research priorities identified represent a roadmap for investigation in coronavirus disease 2019., Competing Interests: Dr. Deutschman is past president of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, is a scientific editor for Critical Care Medicine, and is a consultant for Enlivex and Lowell Therapeutics; his institution received funding from National Institute of General Medical Sciences; he received funding from the Society of Critical Care Medicine, Elsevier, Enlivex, Sage Therapeutics, and La Jolla Pharmaceuticals; and he received support for article research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Dr. Evans disclosed that she serves as the cochair of the Surviving Sepsis Committee and as the adult Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for the management of sepsis and septic shock. Dr. Ferrer received funding from MSD, Pfizer, and Gilead. Dr. Kesecioglu is president of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Dr. Kissoon is the pediatrics guidelines cochair of the Surviving Sepsis Committee. Dr. Martin-Loeches received honoraria from MSD, Gilead, and Aspen. Dr. Nunnally is Treasurer of the Society of Critical Care Anesthesiologists. Dr. Prescott is the sepsis lead for a Michigan statewide sepsis quality improvement initiative sponsored by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, and his institution received funding from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the NIH, and she disclosed government work. Dr. Rhodes is the adult guidelines cochair of the Surviving Sepsis Committee and a member of the Executive Committee. Dr. Talmor received speaking fees from Hamilton Medical, Clew, and Mindray. Dr. Tissieres is president of the European Society of Pediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care, is the pediatrics guidelines cochair of the Surviving Sepsis Committee, and has received consulting fees or research grant from Baxter, bioMerieux, Sanofi. Dr. DeBacker is past president of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and has received consulting fees from Fresenius Kabi. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All Rights Reserved.)

Background: This survey assessed satisfaction with the practice environment among physicians who have completed fellowship training in critical care medicine (CCM) as recognized by the American Board of Anesthesiology (and are members of the American Society of Anesthesiology) and evaluated the perceived effectiveness of training programs in preparing fellows for critical care practice., Methods: A cross-sectional online survey composed of 39 multiple choice and open-ended questions was administered between August and December 2018 to all members of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) who self-identified as being CCM trained. The survey instrument was developed and revised in an iterative fashion by ASA committee on CCM and the Society for Education in Anesthesia (SEA). Survey results were analyzed using a mixed-method approach., Results: Three hundred fifty-three of the 1400 anesthesiologists who self-identified to the ASA as having CCM training (25.2%) completed the survey. Most were men (72.3%), board certified in CCM (98.7%), and had practiced a median of 5 years. Half of the respondents rated their training as "excellent." A total of 70.6% described currently working in academic centers with 53.6% providing care in open surgical intensive care units (ICUs). Most anesthesiologist intensivists (75%) spend at least 25% of their clinical time providing ICU care (versus clinical anesthesia). A total of 89% of the respondents were involved in educational activities, 60% reported being in administrative leadership roles, and 37% engaged in scholarly activity. Areas of dissatisfaction included fatigue, lack of collegiality or respect, lack of research training, decreased job satisfaction, and burnout. Analysis suggested moderate levels of job satisfaction (49%), work-life balance (52%), and high levels of burnout (74%). A significant contributor to burnout was with a perception of lack of respect (P = .005) in the work environment. Burnout was not significantly associated with gender or duration of practice. Qualitative analysis of the open-ended responses also identified these 3 variables as major themes., Conclusions: This survey of CCM-trained anesthesiologists described a high rate of board certification, practice in academic settings, and participation in resident education. Areas of dissatisfaction with an anesthesia/critical care practice included burnout, work/life balance, and lack of respect. These results may increase recruitment of anesthesiologists into critical care and inform strategies to improve satisfaction with anesthesia critical care practice, fellowship training., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: See Disclosures at the end of the article., (Copyright © 2020 International Anesthesia Research Society.)

Anesthesiologists are uniquely positioned to facilitate emergent care of patients with sepsis in the perioperative setting. A subset of sepsis patients presents with surgical pathology. Emphasis is on timely intervention with source control, antibiotic therapy, and aggressive resuscitation. Ileus, aspiration, and cardiovascular collapse must be considered when inducing patients with sepsis. Dynamic fluid responsiveness may prove an effective tool in minimizing over-resuscitation. Assessment of circulatory failure and drug therapy involves an understanding of preload, afterload, and contractility. Timely, targeted resuscitation and early source control have persisted and remain fundamental to sepsis care., Competing Interests: Disclosure No financial disclosures., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Acute limb ischemia caused by peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) cannulation is associated with increased mortality. Early detection of limb hypoperfusion may lead to timely intervention and prevent irreversible muscle damage. Methods to determine the adequacy of tissue oxygenation in cannulated extremities include bedside physical examination, trending serum biochemical markers, and somatic near-infrared spectroscopy. To prevent ECMO-related limb ischemia events, interventions include the addition of distal antegrade perfusion catheters to the arterial ECMO canula, minimizing arterial cannula diameter, placing arterial and venous cannulae on opposite extremities, and adding a side-arm graft to the cannulated artery. If the limb develops early signs of ischemia, preventative measures such as distal perfusion catheter insertion or changing the location of the arterial cannula should be performed. Acute compartment syndrome requires emergency fasciotomy or amputation if the limb is unsalvageable. Opportunities for future research include improving monitoring technology and standardizing the use of the distal perfusion catheter., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is a novel cause of organ dysfunction in children, presenting as either coronavirus disease 2019 with sepsis and/or respiratory failure or a hyperinflammatory shock syndrome. Clinicians must now consider these diagnoses when evaluating children for septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign International Guidelines for the Management of Septic Shock and Sepsis-associated Organ Dysfunction in Children provide an appropriate framework for the early recognition and initial resuscitation of children with sepsis or septic shock caused by all pathogens, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. However, the potential benefits of select adjunctive therapies may differ from non-coronavirus disease 2019 sepsis.

Background: Ideal timing of postoperative β-blockers is unclear. We hypothesized that patients who do not receive β-blockers immediately after cardiac surgery would have increased in-hospital mortality (primary outcome) and postoperative hemodynamic, pulmonary, neurologic, or respiratory complications (secondary outcomes)., Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study evaluating patients who underwent cardiac surgery at our institution from January 1, 2013 to September 30, 2017. We compared outcomes between patients who received β-blockers by postoperative day (POD) 5 with outcomes in patients who did not receive β-blockers at any time or received them after POD 5. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to minimize confounding. Univariate logistic regression analyses were performed on the weighted sets using absent or delayed β-blockers as the independent variable and each outcome as dependent variables in separate analyses. A secondary analysis was performed in patients prescribed preoperative β-blockers. E-values were calculated for significant outcomes., Results: All results were confounder adjusted. Among patients presenting for cardiac surgery, not receiving β-blockers by POD 5 or at any time was not associated with the primary outcome in-hospital mortality, estimated odds ratio (OR; 99.5% confidence interval [CI]) of 1.6 (0.49-5.1), P = .28. Not receiving β-blockers by POD 5 or at any time was associated with postoperative atrial fibrillation, estimated OR (99.5% CI) of 1.5 (1.1-2.1), P < .001, and pulmonary complications, estimated OR (99.5% CI) of 3.0 (1.8-5.2), P < .001. E-values were 2.4 for postoperative atrial fibrillation and 5.6 for pulmonary complications. Among patients presenting for cardiac surgery taking preoperative β-blockers, not receiving β-blockers by POD 5 or at any time was not associated with the primary outcome mortality, with estimated OR (99.5% CI) of 1.3 (0.43-4.1), P = .63. In this subset, not receiving β-blockers by POD 5 or at any time was associated with increased adjusted ORs of postoperative atrial fibrillation (OR = 1.6; 99.5% CI, 1.1-2.4; P < .001) and postoperative pulmonary complications (OR = 2.8; 99.5% CI, 1.6-5.2; P < .001). Here, e-values were 2.7 for postoperative atrial fibrillation and 5.1 for pulmonary complications. For the sensitivity analyses for secondary outcomes, exposure and outcome periods overlap. Outcomes may have occurred before or after postoperative β-blocker administration., Conclusions: Among patients who undergo cardiac surgery, not receiving postoperative β-blockers within the first 5 days after cardiac surgery or at any time is not associated with in-hospital mortality and is associated with, but may not necessarily cause, postoperative atrial fibrillation and pulmonary complications.

This systematic review and meta-analysis addresses the efficacy and safety of nonopioid adjunctive analgesics for patients in the ICU., Data Sources: We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL Plus, and Web of Science., Study Selection: Two independent reviewers screened citations. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials comparing efficacy and safety of an adjuvant-plus-opioid regimen to opioids alone in adult ICU patients., Data Extraction: We conducted duplicate screening of citations and data abstraction., Data Synthesis: Of 10,949 initial citations, we identified 34 eligible trials. These trials examined acetaminophen, carbamazepine, clonidine, dexmedetomidine, gabapentin, ketamine, magnesium sulfate, nefopam, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (including diclofenac, indomethacin, and ketoprofen), pregabalin, and tramadol as adjunctive analgesics. Use of any adjuvant in addition to an opioid as compared to an opioid alone led to reductions in patient-reported pain scores at 24 hours (standard mean difference, -0.88; 95% CI, -1.29 to -0.47; low certainty) and decreased opioid consumption (in oral morphine equivalents over 24 hr; mean difference, 25.89 mg less; 95% CI, 19.97-31.81 mg less; low certainty). In terms of individual medications, reductions in opioid use were demonstrated with acetaminophen (mean difference, 36.17 mg less; 95% CI, 7.86-64.47 mg less; low certainty), carbamazepine (mean difference, 54.69 mg less; 95% CI, 40.39-to 68.99 mg less; moderate certainty), dexmedetomidine (mean difference, 10.21 mg less; 95% CI, 1.06-19.37 mg less; low certainty), ketamine (mean difference, 36.81 mg less; 95% CI, 27.32-46.30 mg less; low certainty), nefopam (mean difference, 70.89 mg less; 95% CI, 64.46-77.32 mg less; low certainty), nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (mean difference, 11.07 mg less; 95% CI, 2.7-19.44 mg less; low certainty), and tramadol (mean difference, 22.14 mg less; 95% CI, 6.67-37.61 mg less; moderate certainty)., Conclusions: Clinicians should consider using adjunct agents to limit opioid exposure and improve pain scores in critically ill patients., Competing Interests: Dr. Rochwerg is supported by a Hamilton Health Sciences Early Career Research Award. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)

Since the first recognition of a cluster of novel respiratory viral infections in China in late December 2019, intensivists in the United States have watched with growing concern as infections with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus-now named coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19)-have spread to hospitals in the United States. Because COVID-19 is extremely transmissible and can progress to a severe form of respiratory failure, the potential to overwhelm available critical care resources is high and critical care management of COVID-19 patients has been thrust into the spotlight. COVID-19 arrived in the United States in January and, as anticipated, has dramatically increased the usage of critical care resources. Three of the hardest-hit cities have been Seattle, New York City, and Chicago with a combined total of over 14,000 cases as of March 23, 2020.In this special article, we describe initial clinical impressions of critical care of COVID-19 in these areas, with attention to clinical presentation, laboratory values, organ system effects, treatment strategies, and resource management. We highlight clinical observations that align with or differ from already published reports. These impressions represent only the early empiric experience of the authors and are not intended to serve as recommendations or guidelines for practice, but rather as a starting point for intensivists preparing to address COVID-19 when it arrives in their community.

Background: Midline catheters (MCs) have arisen as alternatives to peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) for both general intravenous therapy and extended outpatient parenteral therapy. However, there is a lack of data concerning the safety of medication therapy through midline for extended durations. Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety of MCs for extended intravenous use. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study evaluating patients who received intravenous therapy through an MC at a tertiary care academic medical center. The primary end point was the incidence of composite catheter-related adverse events that included local events, catheter dislodgment, infiltration, catheter occlusion, catheter-related venous thromboembolism, extravasation, and line-associated infection. Results: A total of 82 MC placements and 50 PICC placements were included; 50 MCs were for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy, and 32 were for inpatient intravenous use. There were 21 complications per 1000 catheter-days in the outpatient group and 7 complications per 1000 catheter-days in the PICC group ( P = 0.91). The median time to complication in both groups was 8 days. The antimicrobial classes commonly associated with complications were cephalosporins, carbapenems, and penicillins. Conclusion and Relevance: Our results suggest that intravenous therapy with MCs is generally safe for prolonged courses that do not exceed 14 days as compared with PICC lines, which can be placed for months. There is still limited evidence for the use of MCs between 14 and 28 days of therapy. This study can help guide our selection of intravenous catheters for the purpose of outpatient antimicrobial therapy.

Objectives: To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for children (including infants, school-aged children, and adolescents) with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction., Design: A panel of 49 international experts, representing 12 international organizations, as well as three methodologists and three public members was convened. Panel members assembled at key international meetings (for those panel members attending the conference), and a stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in November 2018. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the chairs, co-chairs, methodologists, and group heads, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development process., Methods: The panel consisted of six subgroups: recognition and management of infection, hemodynamics and resuscitation, ventilation, endocrine and metabolic therapies, adjunctive therapies, and research priorities. We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or as a best practice statement. In addition, "in our practice" statements were included when evidence was inconclusive to issue a recommendation, but the panel felt that some guidance based on practice patterns may be appropriate., Results: The panel provided 77 statements on the management and resuscitation of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. Overall, six were strong recommendations, 49 were weak recommendations, and nine were best-practice statements. For 13 questions, no recommendations could be made; but, for 10 of these, "in our practice" statements were provided. In addition, 52 research priorities were identified., Conclusions: A large cohort of international experts was able to achieve consensus regarding many recommendations for the best care of children with sepsis, acknowledging that most aspects of care had relatively low quality of evidence resulting in the frequent issuance of weak recommendations. Despite this challenge, these recommendations regarding the management of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction provide a foundation for consistent care to improve outcomes and inform future research.

Objective: To explore cognitive strategies clinicians apply while performing a medication reconciliation task, handling incomplete and conflicting information., Background: Medication reconciliation is a method clinicians apply to find and resolve inconsistencies in patients' medications and medical conditions lists. The cognitive strategies clinicians use during reconciliation are unclear. Controlled lab experiments can explore how clinicians make sense of uncertain, missing, or conflicting information and therefore support the development of a human performance model. We hypothesize that clinicians apply varied cognitive strategies to handle this task and that profession and experience affect these strategies., Method: 130 clinicians participated in a tablet-based experiment conducted in a large American teaching hospital. They were asked to simulate medication reconciliation using a card sorting task (CaST) to organize medication and medical condition lists of a specific clinical case. Later on, they were presented with new information and were asked to add it to their arrangements. We quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed the ways clinicians arranged patient information., Results: Four distinct cognitive strategies were identified ("Conditions first": n = 76 clinicians, "Medications first": n = 7, "Crossover": n = 17, and "Alternating": n = 10). The strategy clinicians applied was affected by their experience ( p = .02) but not by their profession. At the appearance of new information, clinicians moved medication cards more frequently (75.2 movements vs. 49.6 movements, p < .001), suggesting that they match medications to medical conditions., Conclusion: Clinicians apply various cognitive strategies while reconciling medications and medical conditions., Application: Clinical information systems should support multiple cognitive strategies, allowing flexibility in organizing information.

Purpose of Review: Sepsis-3 guidelines have implications in a deeper understanding of the biopathology of the disease. Further, the review focuses on timely topics and new literature on fluid resuscitation, the value of steroids in sepsis, and new therapeutic options such as angiotensin II, vitamin C, and thiamine as well as the emerging role of procalcitonin (PCT) in managing antibiotics., Recent Findings: Traditional therapies such as type of crystalloid fluid administration and steroid therapy for sepsis are currently under re-evaluation. Angiotensin II is investigated for reversing vasodilatory shock. The role of capillary endothelium leak and cellular metabolism can be affected by vitamin C and thiamine levels. Biomarker level trends, specifically PCT, can aid clinical suspicion of infection., Summary: Sepsis-3 shifts the focus from a noninfectious inflammatory process and an emphasis on a dysregulated host response to infection. Hyperchloremic crystalloid resuscitation is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Steroid administration can reverse shock physiology; however, mortality benefits remain uncertain. Angiotensin II, vitamin C, and thiamine are novel treatment options that need further validation. PCT assays can help discern between infectious and noninfectious inflammation.

Objective: To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome and underlying causes of sepsis and septic shock., Design: A consensus committee of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine was convened at the annual meetings of both societies. Subgroups had teleconference and electronic-based discussion. The entire committee iteratively developed the entire document and recommendations., Methods: Each committee member independently gave their top five priorities for sepsis research. A total of 88 suggestions (ESM 1 - supplemental table 1) were grouped into categories by the committee co-chairs, leading to the formation of seven subgroups: infection, fluids and vasoactive agents, adjunctive therapy, administration/epidemiology, scoring/identification, post-intensive care unit, and basic/translational science. Each subgroup had teleconferences to go over each priority followed by formal voting within each subgroup. The entire committee also voted on top priorities across all subgroups except for basic/translational science., Results: The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 26 priorities for sepsis and septic shock. Of these, the top six clinical priorities were identified and include the following questions: (1) can targeted/personalized/precision medicine approaches determine which therapies will work for which patients at which times?; (2) what are ideal endpoints for volume resuscitation and how should volume resuscitation be titrated?; (3) should rapid diagnostic tests be implemented in clinical practice?; (4) should empiric antibiotic combination therapy be used in sepsis or septic shock?; (5) what are the predictors of sepsis long-term morbidity and mortality?; and (6) what information identifies organ dysfunction?, Conclusions: While the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines give multiple recommendations on the treatment of sepsis, significant knowledge gaps remain, both in bedside issues directly applicable to clinicians, as well as understanding the fundamental mechanisms underlying the development and progression of sepsis. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

Objective: To update and expand the 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the ICU., Design: Thirty-two international experts, four methodologists, and four critical illness survivors met virtually at least monthly. All section groups gathered face-to-face at annual Society of Critical Care Medicine congresses; virtual connections included those unable to attend. A formal conflict of interest policy was developed a priori and enforced throughout the process. Teleconferences and electronic discussions among subgroups and whole panel were part of the guidelines' development. A general content review was completed face-to-face by all panel members in January 2017., Methods: Content experts, methodologists, and ICU survivors were represented in each of the five sections of the guidelines: Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption). Each section created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome, and nonactionable, descriptive questions based on perceived clinical relevance. The guideline group then voted their ranking, and patients prioritized their importance. For each Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question, sections searched the best available evidence, determined its quality, and formulated recommendations as "strong," "conditional," or "good" practice statements based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation principles. In addition, evidence gaps and clinical caveats were explicitly identified., Results: The Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) panel issued 37 recommendations (three strong and 34 conditional), two good practice statements, and 32 ungraded, nonactionable statements. Three questions from the patient-centered prioritized question list remained without recommendation., Conclusions: We found substantial agreement among a large, interdisciplinary cohort of international experts regarding evidence supporting recommendations, and the remaining literature gaps in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. Highlighting this evidence and the research needs will improve Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) management and provide the foundation for improved outcomes and science in this vulnerable population.

Objectives: To describe novel guideline development strategies created and implemented as part of the Society of Critical Care Medicine's 2018 clinical practice guidelines for pain, agitation (sedation), delirium, immobility (rehabilitation/mobility), and sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults., Design: We involved critical illness survivors from start to finish, used and expanded upon Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology for making recommendations, identified evidence gaps, and developed communication strategies to mitigate challenges., Setting/subjects: Thirty-two experts from five countries, across five topic-specific sections; four methodologists, two medical librarians, four critical illness survivors, and two Society of Critical Care Medicine support staff., Interventions: Unique approaches included the following: 1) critical illness survivor involvement to help ensure patient-centered questions and recommendations; 2) qualitative and semiquantitative approaches for developing descriptive statements; 3) operationalizing a three-step approach to generating final recommendations; and 4) systematic identification of evidence gaps., Measurements and Main Results: Critical illness survivors contributed to prioritizing topics, questions, and outcomes, evidence interpretation, recommendation formulation, and article review to ensure that their values and preferences were considered in the guidelines. Qualitative and semiquantitative approaches supported formulating descriptive statements using comprehensive literature reviews, summaries, and large-group discussion. Experts (including the methodologists and guideline chairs) developed and refined guideline recommendations through monthly topic-specific section conference calls. Recommendations were precirculated to all members, presented to, and vetted by, most members at a live meeting. Final electronic voting provided links to all forest plots, evidence summaries, and "evidence to decision" frameworks. Written comments during voting captured dissenting views and were integrated into evidence to decision frameworks and the guideline article. Evidence gaps, reflecting clinical uncertainty in the literature, were identified during the evidence to decision process, live meeting, and voting and formally incorporated into all written recommendation rationales. Frequent scheduled "check-ins" mitigated communication gaps., Conclusions: Our multifaceted, interdisciplinary approach and novel methodologic strategies can help inform the development of future critical care clinical practice guidelines.