Journal of the Intensive Care Society最新文献

Background: COVID-19 has fundamentally changed all fields of health care. Intensive care nurses have been at the forefront of the pandemic facing the massive impact of the disease, both professionally and personally. This study investigated nurses' experiences of caring for isolated COVID-19 positive patients in the intensive care department during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study investigated how isolation affected the nurses themselves, how they related with their patients, and how isolation affected patient care in general.

Methods: The study was performed at a 20-bed university hospital intensive care department in Copenhagen, Denmark. COVID-19 positive patients were isolated or cohort isolated. A dedicated nurse cared for each isolated patient and wore full personal protective equipment. The study is based on in-depth phenomenological interviews with intensive care nurses conducted in summer 2020. The interviews were structured according to the principles of "Phenomenologically Grounded Qualitative Research." The data included observations from within the isolated patient rooms.

Findings: Six intensive care nurses participated in the study. The analysis documented following themes consistently reported by all nurses: (1) a general sense of uncanniness, (2) intense feelings of confinement and co-isolation, and (3) heightened senses of bodily objectification, including how nurses' experienced their patients and also themselves.

Conclusion: This is the first Scandinavian phenomenological study to focus on mapping the experiences of intensive care nurses during the extreme circumstances of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Further studies may explore long-term effects, such as psychiatric morbidity or psychological functioning in these individuals.

Background and aims: Sepsis is not only a leading cause of intensive care unit (ICU) admission but also one of the variables which affect outcomes of cancer patients. We aimed to assess the clinical characteristics, clinical course, mortality and risk factors associated with 30-day mortality in medical oncology patients admitted in a multi-disciplinary medical ICU.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of 435 consecutive cancer patients admitted in medical ICU over a 28 months period. Patients were divided into two groups based on the presence of sepsis at the time of ICU admission. Data regarding baseline patient characteristics, clinical and laboratory data, need for organ support and 30-day mortality were collected. Sepsis patients were further classified as 30-day survivors and non-survivors and risk factors for mortality in these patients were determined.

Results: Overall 30-day mortality was 57.8%. It was significantly higher in sepsis group patients (73.9%) as compared to non-sepsis patients (46.6%) (p < 0.001). Most common reason for ICU admission in non-sepsis group was respiratory distress (51.4%) followed by altered sensorium (28.4%). Presence of metastasis [odds ratio, OR: 3.89 (95% confidence interval, CI: 1.536-9.901)], high lactate [OR: 1.374 (95% CI: 1.024-1.843)] and need of invasive mechanical ventilator (IMV) support [OR: 7.634 (95% CI: 2.519-23.256)] or vasopressor support [OR: 3.268 (95% CI: 1.179-9.090)] were directly associated with 30-day mortality.

Conclusion: Critically ill cancer patients admitted with sepsis had high mortality. Presence of metastasis, high lactate and need of IMV or vasopressor support was associated with worse prognosis in cancer patients admitted with sepsis in ICU.

The concept of a focused ultrasound study to identify sources of haemodynamic instability has revolutionized patient care. Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) using transthoracic scanning protocols, such as FUSIC Heart, has empowered non-cardiologists to rapidly identify and treat the major causes of haemodynamic instability. There are, however, circumstances when a transoesphageal, rather than transthoracic approach, may be preferrable. Due to the close anatomical proximity between the oesophagus, stomach and heart, a transoesphageal echocardiogram (TOE) can potentially overcome many of the limitations encountered in patients with poor transthoracic ultrasound windows. These are typically patients with severe obesity, chest wall injuries, inability to lie in the left lateral decubitus position and those receiving high levels of positive airway pressure. In 2022, to provide all acute care practitioners with the opportunity to acquire competency in focused TOE, the Intensive Care Society (ICS) and Association of Anaesthetists (AA) launched a new accreditation pathway, known as Focused Transoesophageal Echo (fTOE). The aim of fTOE is to provide the practitioner with the necessary information to identify the aetiology of haemodynamic instability. Focused TOE can be taught in a shorter period of time than comprehensive and teaching programmes are achievable with support from cardiothoracic anaesthetists, intensivists and cardiologists. Registration for fTOE accreditation requires registration via the ICS website. Learning material include theoretical modules, clinical cases and multiple-choice questions. Fifty fTOE examinations are required for the logbook, and these must cover a range of pathology, including ventricular dysfunction, pericardial effusion, tamponade, pleural effusion and low preload. The final practical assessment may be undertaken when the supervisors deem the candidate's knowledge and skills consistent with that required for independent practice. After the practitioner has been accredited in fTOE, they must maintain knowledge and competence through relevant continuing medical education. Accreditation in fTOE represents a joint venture between the ICS and AA and is endorsed by Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesia and Critical care (ACTACC). The process is led by TOE experts, and represents a valuable expansion in the armamentarium of acute care practitioners to assess haemodynamically unstable patients.

The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and outcome of a neuropsychiatric evaluation protocol intended for adult intensive care unit survivors in a Danish regional hospital, in which a follow-up consultation was conducted 2 months after hospital discharge. Twenty-three participants were able to finalize the neuropsychiatric evaluation, and 20 (87%) among those were detected with neuropsychiatric manifestations, including cognitive impairment (n = 17; 74%) and fatigue (n = 17, 74%). This study finds a high prevalence of neuropsychiatric manifestations and fatigue, and evaluates a follow-up protocol for the ICU patient population.

Background: Oxygen is the commonest intervention provided to critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Despite this, it is unclear how much oxygen should be administered to patients in order to promote the best clinical outcomes and it has been suggested that a strategy of conservative oxygen therapy (COT) may be advantageous. We therefore sought to answer the question of whether COT versus usual or liberal oxygen therapy was beneficial to adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation on an intensive care unit (ICU) by performing a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods: Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials comparing COT to liberal or usual oxygen therapy strategies in acutely ill adults (aged ⩾18 years) admitted to an ICU, and reported an outcome of interest. Studies were excluded if they were limited to a specific single disease diagnosis. The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022308436). Risk of bias was assessed using a modified Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool. Effect estimates were pooled using a random effects model with the between study variance estimated using restricted maximum likelihood and standard errors calculated using the method of Hartung-Knapp/Sidik-Jonkman. Between study heterogeneity was quantified using the I² statistic. The certainty in the body of evidence was assessed using GRADE criteria.

Results: Nine eligible studies with 5727 participants fulfilled all eligibility criteria. Trials varied in their definitions of COT and liberal or usual oxygen therapy. The pooled estimate of risk ratio for 90 day mortality for COT versus comparator was 0.99 (95% confidence interval 0.88-1.12, 95% prediction interval 0.82-1.21). There was low heterogeneity among studies (I² = 22.4%). The finding that mortality was similar for patients managed with COT or usual/liberal oxygen therapy was graded as moderate certainty.

Conclusions: In critically ill adults admitted to an ICU, COT is neither beneficial nor harmful when compared to usual or liberal oxygen therapy. Trials to date have been inconsistent in defining both COT and liberal or usual oxygen therapy, which may have had an impact on the results of this meta-analysis. Future research should focus on unifying definitions and outcome measures.

Background: During the second wave of COVID-19 cases within Scotland, local evidence suggested that a large number of interhospital transfers occurred due to both physical capacity and staff shortages. Although there are inherent risks with transferring critically ill patients between hospitals, there are signals in the literature that mortality is not affected in COVID-19 patients when transferred between intensive care units. With a lack of evidence in the Scottish population, and as the greatest source of capacity transfers in our critical care network at that time, we sought to determine whether these transfers impacted on survival to hospital discharge.Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all patients admitted to our unit between the 1st October 2020 and the 31st March 2021 with a primary diagnosis of COVID-19 pneumonia. Patients were grouped according to whether they underwent an interhospital capacity transfer or not, either for unit shortage of beds or unit shortage of staff. The primary outcome measure was survival to ultimate hospital discharge, and secondary outcomes included total ventilator days and total intensive care unit length of stay. Baseline characteristic data were also collected for all patients. Survival data were entered into a backward stepwise logistic regression analysis that included transfer status, and coefficients transformed into odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals.Results: A total of 108 patients were included. Of these, 30 were transferred to another intensive care unit due to capacity issues at the base hospital. From the baseline characteristic data, age was significantly higher in those transferred out, while other characteristics were similar. Unadjusted mortality rates were 30.8% for those not transferred, and 40% for those transferred out. However, when entered into a logistic regression analysis to attempt to control for confounders in the baseline characteristics, being transferred had an odds ratio of 1.14 (95% confidence interval 0.43-3.1) for survival to hospital discharge. Total ventilator days and total ICU length of stay were both higher in the transferred patients.Conclusion: This unique study of COVID-19 patients transferred from a Scottish district general hospital did not show an association between transfer status and survival to hospital discharge. However, the study was likely underpowered to detect small differences. As the situation continues to evolve, a prospective regional multi-centre study may help to provide more robust findings.

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought with it a large number of challenges for healthcare professionals including intubation safety in out-of-theatre environments. An important aspect of this topic is the optimisation of a patient's head and neck position prior to laryngoscopy which can be challenging when a pillow cannot be located. As a result, the authors compared how well the sniffing position (35^o neck flexion and 15^o head extension) could be reached using pillows or other novel head supports. The resulting data demonstrated that a 1-litre pressure bag and two 1-litre saline bags achieved the most accurate position.

As clinicians working in critical care, it is our duty to provide all of our patients with the high-quality care they deserve, regardless of their gender identity. The transgender community continues to suffer discrimination from the media, politicians and general public. As healthcare workers we often pride ourselves on our ability to safely care for all patients. However, there remains a distinct lack of understanding surrounding the care of critically ill transgender patients. This is likely in part because the specific care of transgender patients is not included in the Faculty of Intensive Care Medicine's, Royal College of Anaesthetists', Royal College of Physician's, or Royal College of Emergency Medicine's curriculum. There are several important considerations relevant for transgender patients in critical care including anatomical changes to the airway, alterations to respiratory and cardiovascular physiology and management of hormone therapy. Alongside this, there are simple but important social factors that exist, such as the use of patient pronouns and ensuring admittance to correctly gendered wards. In this review we will address the key points relevant to the care of transgender patients in critical care and provide suggestions on how education on the subject may be improved.