Critical care science最新文献

Objective: To identify risk factors for nonresponse to prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19-associated severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and refractory hypoxemia in a tertiary care hospital in Colombia.

Methods: Observational study based on a retrospective cohort of mechanically ventilated patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome due to SARS-CoV-2 who underwent prone positioning due to refractory hypoxemia. The study considered an improvement ≥ 20% in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio after the first cycle of 16 hours in the prone position to be a 'response'. Nonresponding patients were considered cases, and responding patients were controls. We controlled for clinical, laboratory, and radiological variables.

Results: A total of 724 patients were included (58.67 ± 12.37 years, 67.7% males). Of those, 21.9% were nonresponders. Mortality was 54.1% for nonresponders and 31.3% for responders (p < 0.001). Variables associated with nonresponse were time from the start of mechanical ventilation to pronation (OR 1.23; 95%CI 1.10 - 1.41); preintubation PaO2/FiO2 ratio (OR 0.62; 95%CI 0.40 - 0.96); preprone PaO2/FiO2 ratio (OR 1.88. 95%CI 1.22 - 2.94); and radiologic multilobe consolidation (OR 2.12; 95%CI 1.33 - 3.33) or mixed pattern (OR 1.72; 95%CI 1.07 - 2.85) compared with a ground-glass pattern.

Conclusion: This study identified factors associated with nonresponse to prone positioning in patients with refractory hypoxemia and acute respiratory distress syndrome due to SARS-CoV-2 receiving mechanical ventilation. Recognizing such factors helps identify candidates for other rescue strategies, including more extensive prone positioning or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Further studies are needed to assess the consistency of these findings in populations with acute respiratory distress syndrome of other etiologies.

Objective: Evaluation of left ventricular systolic function using speckle tracking echocardiography is more sensitive than conventional echocardiographic measurement in detecting subtle left ventricular dysfunction in septic patients. Our purpose was to investigate the predictive significance of left ventricular global longitudinal strain in normotensive septic intensive care patients.

Methods: This observational, prospective cohort study included septic normotensive adults admitted to the intensive care unit between June 1, 2021, and August 31, 2021. Left ventricular systolic function was measured using speckle-tracking echocardiography within 24 hours of admission.

Results: One hundred fifty-two patients were enrolled. The intensive care unit mortality rate was 27%. Left ventricular global longitudinal strain was less negative, which indicated worse left ventricular function in non-survivors than survivors (median [interquartile range], -15.2 [-17.2 - -12.5] versus -17.3 [-18.8 - -15.5]; p < 0.001). The optimal cutoff value for left ventricular global longitudinal strain was -17% in predicting intensive care unit mortality (area under the curve, 0.728). Patients with left ventricular global longitudinal strain > -17% (less negative than -17%, which indicated worse left ventricular function) showed a significantly higher mortality rate (39.2% versus 13.7%; p < 0.001). According to multivariate analysis, left ventricular global longitudinal strain was an independent predictor of intensive care unit mortality [OR (95%CI), 1.326 (1.038 - 1.693); p = 0.024], along with invasive mechanical ventilation and Glasgow coma scale, APACHE II, and SOFA risk scores.

Conclusion: Impaired left ventricular global longitudinal strain is associated with mortality and provided predictive data in normotensive septic intensive care patients.

Objective: To assess factors associated with long-term neuropsychiatric outcomes, including biomarkers measured after discharge from the intensive care unit.

Methods: A prospective cohort study was performed with 65 intensive care unit survivors. The cognitive evaluation was performed through the Mini-Mental State Examination, the symptoms of anxiety and depression were evaluated using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and posttraumatic stress disorder was evaluated using the Impact of Event Scale-6. Plasma levels of amyloid-beta (1-42) [Aβ (1-42)], Aβ (1-40), interleukin (IL)-10, IL-6, IL-33, IL-4, IL-5, tumor necrosis factor alpha, C-reactive protein, and brain-derived neurotrophic factor were measured at intensive care unit discharge.

Results: Of the variables associated with intensive care, only delirium was independently related to the occurrence of long-term cognitive impairment. In addition, higher levels of IL-10 and IL-6 were associated with cognitive dysfunction. Only IL-6 was independently associated with depression. Mechanical ventilation, IL-33 levels, and C-reactive protein levels were independently associated with anxiety. No variables were independently associated with posttraumatic stress disorder.

Conclusion: Cognitive dysfunction, as well as symptoms of depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder, are present in patients who survive a critical illness, and some of these outcomes are associated with the levels of inflammatory biomarkers measured at discharge from the intensive care unit.

Echocardiography in critically ill patients has become essential in the evaluation of patients in different settings, such as the hospital. However, unlike for other matters related to the care of these patients, there are still no recommendations from national medical societies on the subject. The objective of this document was to organize and make available expert consensus opinions that may help to better incorporate echocardiography in the evaluation of critically ill patients. Thus, the Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, the Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, and the Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Hospitalar formed a group of 17 physicians to formulate questions relevant to the topic and discuss the possibility of consensus for each of them. All questions were prepared using a five-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined a priori as at least 80% of the responses between one and two or between four and five. The consideration of the issues involved two rounds of voting and debate among all participants. The 27 questions prepared make up the present document and are divided into 4 major assessment areas: left ventricular function, right ventricular function, diagnosis of shock, and hemodynamics. At the end of the process, there were 17 positive (agreement) and 3 negative (disagreement) consensuses; another 7 questions remained without consensus. Although areas of uncertainty persist, this document brings together consensus opinions on several issues related to echocardiography in critically ill patients and may enhance its development in the national scenario.

Objective: To evaluate the association between different intensive care units and levels of brain monitoring with outcomes in acute brain injury.

Methods: Patients with traumatic brain injury and subarachnoid hemorrhage admitted to intensive care units were included. Neurocritical care unit management was compared to general intensive care unit management. Patients managed with multimodal brain monitoring and optimal cerebral perfusion pressure were compared with general management patients. A good outcome was defined as a Glasgow outcome scale score of 4 or 5.

Results: Among 389 patients, 237 were admitted to the neurocritical care unit, and 152 were admitted to the general intensive care unit. Neurocritical care unit management patients had a lower risk of poor outcome (OR = 0.228). A subgroup of 69 patients with multimodal brain monitoring (G1) was compared with the remaining patients (G2). In the G1 and G2 groups, 59% versus 23% of patients, respectively, had a good outcome at intensive care unit discharge; 64% versus 31% had a good outcome at 28 days; 76% versus 50% had a good outcome at 3 months (p < 0.001); and 77% versus 58% had a good outcome at 6 months (p = 0.005). When outcomes were adjusted by SAPS II severity score, using good outcome as the dependent variable, the results were as follows: for G1 compared to G2, the OR was 4.607 at intensive care unit discharge (p < 0.001), 4.22 at 28 days (p = 0.001), 3.250 at 3 months (p = 0.001) and 2.529 at 6 months (p = 0.006). Patients with optimal cerebral perfusion pressure management (n = 127) had a better outcome at all points of evaluation. Mortality for those patients was significantly lower at 28 days (p = 0.001), 3 months (p < 0.001) and 6 months (p = 0.001).

Conclusion: Multimodal brain monitoring with autoregulation and neurocritical care unit management were associated with better outcomes and should be considered after severe acute brain injury.

Objective: To assess the outcome of extubation in COVID-19 patients and the use of noninvasive ventilation in the weaning process.

Methods: This retrospective, observational, single-center study was conducted in COVID-19 patients aged 18 years or older who were admitted to an intensive care unit between April 2020 and December 2021, placed under mechanical ventilation for more than 48 hours and progressed to weaning. Early extubation was defined as extubation without a spontaneous breathing trial and immediate use of noninvasive ventilation after extubation. In patients who underwent a spontaneous breathing trial, noninvasive ventilation could be used as prophylactic ventilatory assistance when started immediately after extubation (prophylactic noninvasive ventilation) or as rescue therapy in cases of postextubation respiratory failure (therapeutic noninvasive ventilation). The primary outcome was extubation failure during the intensive care unit stay.

Results: Three hundred eighty-four extubated patients were included. Extubation failure was observed in 107 (27.9%) patients. Forty-seven (12.2%) patients received prophylactic noninvasive ventilation. In 26 (6.8%) patients, early extubation was performed with immediate use of noninvasive ventilation. Noninvasive ventilation for the management of postextubation respiratory failure was administered to 64 (16.7%) patients.

Conclusion: We found that COVID-19 patients had a high rate of extubation failure. Despite the high risk of extubation failure, we observed low use of prophylactic noninvasive ventilation in these patients.