Stollings, Joanna L.

RATIONALE: Critically ill adults are at risk for a variety of distressing and consequential symptoms both during and after an ICU stay. Management of these symptoms can directly influence outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The objective was to update and expand the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s 2018 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU. PANEL DESIGN: The interprofessional inclusive guidelines task force was composed of 24 individuals including nurses, physicians, pharmacists, physiotherapists, psychologists, and ICU survivors. The task force developed evidence-based recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Conflict-of-interest policies were strictly followed in all phases of the guidelines, including task force selection and voting. METHODS: The task force focused on five main content areas as they pertain to adult ICU patients: anxiety (new topic), agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption. Using the GRADE approach, we conducted a rigorous systematic review for each population, intervention, control, and outcome question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, assessed the quality of evidence, and then performed the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations. RESULTS: The task force issued five statements related to the management of anxiety, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adults admitted to the ICU. In adult patients admitted to the ICU, the task force issued conditional recommendations to use dexmedetomidine over propofol for sedation, provide enhanced mobilization/rehabilitation over usual mobilization/rehabilitation, and administer melatonin. The task force was unable to issue recommendations on the administration of benzodiazepines to treat anxiety, and the use of antipsychotics to treat delirium. CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines task force provided recommendations for pharmacologic management of agitation/sedation and sleep, and nonpharmacologic management of immobility in critically ill adults. These recommendations are intended for consideration along with the patient’s clinical status.

Background: After critical illness, new or worsening impairments in physical, cognitive, and/or mental health function are common among patients who have survived. Who should be screened for long-term impairments, what tools to use, and when remain unclear. Objectives: Provide pragmatic recommendations to clinicians caring for adult survivors of critical illness related to screening for postdischarge impairments. Participants: Thirty-one international experts in risk-stratification and assessment of survivors of critical illness, including practitioners involved in the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Thrive Post-ICU Collaboratives, survivors of critical illness, and clinical researchers. Design: Society of Critical Care Medicine consensus conference on post-intensive care syndrome prediction and assessment, held in Dallas, in May 2019. A systematic search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library was conducted in 2018 and updated in 2019 to complete an original systematic review and to identify pre-existing systematic reviews. Meeting Outcomes: We concluded that existing tools are insufficient to reliably predict post-intensive care syndrome. We identified factors before (e.g., frailty, preexisting functional impairments), during (e.g., duration of delirium, sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome), and after (e.g., early symptoms of anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder) critical illness that can be used to identify patients at high-risk for cognitive, mental health, and physical impairments after critical illness in whom screening is recommended. We recommend serial assessments, beginning within 2–4 weeks of hospital discharge, using the following screening tools: Montreal Cognitive Assessment test; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; Impact of Event Scale-Revised (post-traumatic stress disorder); 6-minute walk; and/or the EuroQol-5D-5L, a health-related quality of life measure (physical function). Conclusions: Beginning with an assessment of a patient’s pre-ICU functional abilities at ICU admission, clinicians have a care coordination strategy to identify and manage impairments across the continuum. As hospital discharge approaches, clinicians should use brief, standardized assessments and compare these results to patient’s pre-ICU functional abilities (“functional reconciliation”). We recommend serial assessments for post-intensive care syndrome-related problems continue within 2–4 weeks of hospital discharge, be prioritized among high-risk patients, using the identified screening tools to prompt referrals for services and/or more detailed assessments.

Objectives: Data are lacking regarding implementation of novel strategies such as follow-up clinics and peer support groups, to reduce the burden of postintensive care syndrome. We sought to discover enablers that helped hospital-based clinicians establish post-ICU clinics and peer support programs, and identify barriers that challenged them. Design: Qualitative inquiry. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to organize and analyze data. Setting: Two learning collaboratives (ICU follow-up clinics and peer support groups), representing 21 sites, across three continents. Subjects: Clinicians from 21 sites. Measurement and Main Results: Ten enablers and nine barriers to implementation of “ICU follow-up clinics” were described. A key enabler to generate support for clinics was providing insight into the human experience of survivorship, to obtain interest from hospital administrators. Significant barriers included patient and family lack of access to clinics and clinic funding. Nine enablers and five barriers to the implementation of “peer support groups” were identified. Key enablers included developing infrastructure to support successful operationalization of this complex intervention, flexibility about when peer support should be offered, belonging to the international learning collaborative. Significant barriers related to limited attendance by patients and families due to challenges in creating awareness, and uncertainty about who might be appropriate to attend and target in advertising. Conclusions: Several enablers and barriers to implementing ICU follow-up clinics and peer support groups should be taken into account and leveraged to improve ICU recovery. Among the most important enablers are motivated clinician leaders who persist to find a path forward despite obstacles.

BackgroundClinician preferences and practices regarding appropriate vasopressin use in light of its increased acquisition cost secondary to rebranding has not been evaluated or described since the most recent iteration of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guideline was published.ObjectiveTo assess vasopressin cost containment initiatives and pharmacists' opinions regarding appropriate vasopressin use.MethodsA scenario‐based survey was distributed to critical care and emergency medicine pharmacists. Responses were characterized using frequency and descriptive statistics. Categorical variables between those who implemented changes (Vasopressin Cost Consideration) and those who did not (Usual Care) were compared using chi‐square or Fisher's exact tests. McNemar's test was used to compare responses in clinical scenarios between Vasopressin Cost Consideration and Usual Care groups.ResultsAmong 1757 pharmacists surveyed, 200 (11.3%) responded. When respondents considered vasopressin cost and evidence (vs evidence alone), fewer respondents would use vasopressin adjunctively with norepinephrine (21% vs 26.6%, P = 0.031), to raise mean arterial pressure compared with epinephrine (65.2% vs 72.3%, P = 0.012), or to reduce norepinephrine infusion rates (71.4% vs 81.4%, P < 0.001), but would use with steroids (62.4% vs 28.3%, P < 0.001). Most (72%) respondents had implemented vasopressin cost containment and/or education initiatives. The Vasopressin Cost Consideration group respondents were more likely to initiate vasopressin at 0.03 units/minute without titrating (47.9% vs 33.9%, P = 0.045).ConclusionSince vasopressin was generically rebranded, most institutions have implemented at least one initiative to reduce vasopressin use and/or educate clinicians about its appropriate use. When vasopressin acquisition costs were considered, pharmacists recommended its use less frequently, particularly in clinical scenarios where its use is controversial.

Objective: To summarize published data regarding the steps of rapid-sequence intubation (RSI); review premedications, induction agents, neuromuscular blockers (NMB), and studies supporting use or avoidance; and discuss the benefits and deficits of combinations of induction agents and NMBs used when drug shortages occur. Data Source: A search of Medline databases (1966–October 2013) was conducted. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Databases were searched using the terms rapid-sequence intubation, fentanyl, midazolam, atropine, lidocaine, phenylephrine, ketamine, propofol, etomidate thiopental, succinylcholine, vecuronium, atracurium, and rocuronium. Citations from publications were reviewed for additional references. Data Synthesis: Data were reviewed to support the use or avoidance of premedications, induction agents, and paralytics and combinations to consider when drug shortages occur. Conclusions: RSI is used to secure a definitive airway in often uncooperative, nonfasted, unstable, and/or critically ill patients. Choosing the appropriate premedication, induction drug, and paralytic will maximize the success of tracheal intubation and minimize complications.

Background: Little guidance exists on effective management of postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) following noncardiac, nonthoracic (NCNT) surgery. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to identify whether a difference exists between intravenous (IV) metoprolol and diltiazem when used to achieve hemodynamically stable rate control in POAF following NCNT surgery. Methods: This retrospective cohort study examined critically ill adult surgical patients experiencing POAF with rapid ventricular response. Inclusion in the metoprolol or diltiazem treatment group was determined by the initial rate control agent chosen by the prescriber. The primary end point was hemodynamically stable rate control, defined by heart rate (HR) <110 beats/min and blood pressure >90 mm Hg, maintained for 6 hours. Main Results: Patients on metoprolol (n = 66) and diltiazem (n = 55) were similar in age, comorbidities, surgical procedure distribution, acuity of illness, and home rate and rhythm control medications continued during hospitalization; 76% of diltiazem-treated patients achieved hemodynamically stable rate control, compared with only 53% of those receiving metoprolol ( P = .005). Safety end points were similar between groups, including the portion requiring a new vasopressor or fluid bolus for hemodynamic support. Conclusions: In NCNT surgery, patients with POAF, IV diltiazem more effectively controlled HR and hemodynamics compared with metoprolol. Results warrant further research into optimal medical management of POAF in this population using these 2 agents.