Comparison of the Relationship Between SIMV and PRVC Ventilatory Modes on the Incidence of Asynchrony in Mechanically Ventilated Patients in the Intensive Care Unit: A Randomized Outcome-Assessor-Blinded Study

Patients with acute respiratory failure often require mechanical ventilation to reduce the work of breathing and improve gas exchange; however, this may exacerbate lung injury. Protective ventilation strategies, characterized by low tidal volumes (≤ 8mL/kg of predicted body weight) and limited plateau pressure below 30cmH2O, have shown improved outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, in the transition to spontaneous ventilation, it can be challenging to maintain tidal volume within protective levels, and it is unclear whether low tidal volumes during spontaneous ventilation impact patient outcomes. We developed a study protocol to estimate the prevalence of low tidal volume ventilation in the first 24 hours of spontaneous ventilation in patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure and its association with ventilator-free days and survival. We designed a multicenter, multinational, cohort study with a 28-day follow-up that will include patients with acute respiratory failure, defined as a partial oxygen pressure/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio < 300mmHg, in transition to spontaneous ventilation in intensive care units in Latin America. We plan to include 422 patients in ten countries. The primary outcomes are the prevalence of low tidal volume in the first 24 hours of spontaneous ventilation and ventilator-free days on day 28. The secondary outcomes are intensive care unit and hospital mortality, incidence of asynchrony and return to controlled ventilation and sedation. In this study, we will assess the prevalence of low tidal volume during spontaneous ventilation and its association with clinical outcomes, which can inform clinical practice and future clinical trials.

Who Should Supervise Respiratory Intensive Care Units?

Survival from critical illness has improved in recent years, leading to increased attention to the sequelae of such illness. Neuromuscular weakness in the intensive care unit (ICU) is common, persistent, and has significant public health implications. The differential diagnosis of weakness in the ICU is extensive and includes critical illness neuromyopathy. Prolonged immobility and bedrest lead to catabolism and muscle atrophy, and are associated with critical illness neuromyopathy and ICU-acquired weakness. Early mobilization therapy has been advocated as a mechanism to prevent ICU-acquired weakness. Early mobilization is safe and feasible in most ICU patients, and improves outcomes. Implementation of early mobilization therapy requires changes in ICU culture, including decreased sedation and bedrest. Various technologies exist to increase compliance with early mobilization programs. Drugs targeting muscle pathways to decrease atrophy and muscle-wasting are in development. Additional research on early mobilization in the ICU is needed.

Critical care, defined as the diagnosis and management of life-threatening conditions that require close or constant attention by a group of specially trained health professionals, is inherent to the practice of cardiovascular medicine. The demand for cardiovascular critical care is increasing with the aging of the population and is reflected by trends in the use of critical care in general.1 Between 2000 and 2005, although the total number of hospital beds in the United States declined by 4.2%, the number of critical care beds increased by 6.5% and the annual costs attributed to critical care increased by 44%, representing 13.4% of hospital costs.2 Projections for the next 15 years suggest that the need for critical care will increase markedly in the United States and globally.1,3–5 For example, in Canada, a 57% increase in the need for critical care beds is anticipated during that period.5 Concurrent with increases in demand, the medical demographics of general and cardiac critical care have evolved toward a patient population with an increasing number of comorbid medical conditions who require more prolonged and more technologically sophisticated invasive support. As a result, the delivery of critical care is advancing substantially in its complexity. Moreover, accumulating evidence has indicated that outcomes are better when critical care is provided by specially trained providers in a dedicated intensive care unit (ICU).6–9 In the context of this evolution, provision of optimal care in the contemporary cardiac ICU (CICU) presents a different set of challenges and requires an expanded set of skills compared with 10 years ago. Cardiovascular medicine has lagged behind other medical disciplines that have met the “critical care crisis”4 with ICU-focused innovations in organization, training, and quality improvement. Therefore, the American Heart Association Council on Cardiopulmonary, Critical …

Care for the critically ill cardiovascular patients and their families requires a unique environment that is structurally different from other clinical units. Coronary care units were introduced in the 1960s for the main purpose of prevention and prompt treatment of life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias related to acute myocardial infarction. Since then, major progress in cardiology in general and acute cardiac care, in particular, dictated a major change in the structure and organization of these units, symbolically expressed in the new title of ‘intensive cardiac care unit’. Contemporary intensive cardiac care units receive older and more complex patients, often with multiple comorbidities and diverse diagnoses. The modern intensive cardiac care unit incorporates sophisticated monitoring and up-to-date equipment to meet the changing needs of the patient with cardiovascular disease requiring critical care. The intensive cardiac care unit operates in the centre of the hospital’s cardiology service, receiving patients from the mobile care unit (directly or via an ST elevation myocardial infarction network), the emergency department, and other wards, including coronary, structural, and electrophysiology intervention laboratories and operating rooms. Patients are usually unstable and require immediate full attention by highly trained medical and nursing staff. The 2005 recommendations for the structure, organization, and operations of the intensive cardiac care unit were issued by Hasin et al. for the Working Group of Acute Cardiac Care of the European Society of Cardiology, which serves as basis for this chapter. The chapter will focus on the requirements for staffing, training, and accreditation, as well as the structure organization and equipment of the intensive and intermediate cardiac care units.

Systematic Intensive Respiratory Care

Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors for Acute Respiratory Failure Because of Non–small-Cell Lung Cancer Involvement in the ICU

To assess variations in case-mix-adjusted hospital and intensive care unit length of stay and to examine the relationship between intensive care unit and hospital stay. Retrospective cohort study. Sixty-nine intensive and cardiac care units in 23 U.S. hospitals during 2002 to 2008. Intensive care unit admissions (202,300) who met inclusion criteria. None. We obtained hospital and intensive care unit characteristics and patient demographic, clinical, diagnostic, and physiologic variables, mortality, and lengths of stay. We developed and validated a model to assess case-mix-adjusted hospital stay and modified and updated a previously validated model to assess adjusted intensive care unit stay. We used these models to compare observed and expected hospital and intensive care unit stay for each patient by calculating the observed minus expected length of stay. Mean observed intensive care unit stay was 4.33 days and mean predicted intensive care unit stay was 4.09 days (5.9-hr difference); mean observed hospital stay was 9.93 days and mean predicted hospital stay was 9.52 days (9.7-hr difference). Observed minus expected intensive care unit and hospital length of stay were significantly shorter (p < .01) at one intensive care unit and significantly longer (p < .01) at nine intensive care units. There was a correlation between hospital and intensive care unit observed minus expected length of stay across individuals (R2 = .40), which was much stronger across units (R2 = .76). Case-mix-adjusted benchmarks for hospital and intensive care unit stays reveal substantial differences in unit efficiency. Hospital and intensive care unit stays are strongly correlated at the patient and unit level, suggesting that there are causal factors common to both.

IntroductionProfessionals working in intensive and palliative care units, hence caring for patients at the end-of-life, are at risk of developing burnout. Workplace conditions are determinant factors to develop this syndrome among professionals providing end-of-life care.ObjectivesTo identify and compare burnout levels between professionals working in intensive and palliative care units; and to assess which workplace experiences are associated with burnout.MethodsA nationwide, multicentre quantitative comparative survey study was conducted in Portugal using the following instruments: Maslach Burnout Inventory–Human Services Survey, Questionnaire of workplace experiences and ethical decisions, and Questionnaire of socio-demographic and professional characteristics. A total of 355 professionals from 10 intensive care and 9 palliative care units participated in the survey. A series of univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed; odds ratio sidelong with 95% confidence intervals were calculated.Results27% of the professionals exhibited burnout. This was more frequent in intensive care units (OR = 2.525, 95% CI: 1.025–6.221, p = .006). Univariate regression analyses showed that higher burnout levels were significantly associated with conflicts, decisions to withhold/withdraw treatment, and implementing palliative sedation. When controlling for socio-demographic and educational characteristics, and setting (intensive care units versus palliative care units), higher burnout levels were significantly and positively associated with experiencing conflicts in the workplace. Having post-graduate education in intensive/palliative care was significantly but inversely associated to higher burnout levels.ConclusionsCompared to palliative care, working in intensive care units more than doubled the likelihood of exhibiting burnout. Experiencing conflicts (e.g., with patients and/or families, intra and/or inter-teams) was the most significant determinant of burnout and having post-graduate education in intensive/palliative care protected professionals from developing this syndrome. This highlights the need for promoting empowering workplace conditions, such as team empowerment and conflict management. Moreover, findings suggest the need for implementing quality improvement strategies and organizational redesign strategies aimed at integrating the philosophy, principles and practices of palliative care in intensive care units.

Are Unselected Risk Scores in the Cardiac Intensive Care Unit Needed?

The World Health Organisation (WHO) has established a maximum noise level of 40 decibels (dB) for an intensive care unit. The aim of this study was to compare the noise levels in 2 different intensive care units at a tertiary care centre. Using a cross-sectional design study, an analysis was made of the maximum noise level was within the intensive coronary care unit and intensive care unit using a digital meter. A measurement was made in 4 different points of each room, with 5minute intervals, for a period of 60minutes 7:30, 14:30, and 20:30. The means of the observations were compared with descriptive statistics and Mann-Whitney U. An analysis with Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to the mean noise level. The noise observed in the intensive care unit had a mean of 64.77±3.33dB (P=.08), which was similar to that in the intensive coronary care unit, with a mean of 60.20±1.58dB (P=.129). Around 25% or more of the measurements exceeded the level recommended by the WHO by up to 20 points. Noise levels measured in intensive care wards exceed the maximum recommended level for a hospital. It is necessary to design and implement actions for greater participation of health personnel in the reduction of environmental noise.

Keeping Patients Safe During Intrahospital Transport

The present survey aims to describe the intensive cardiac care unit organization and admission policies in Europe. A total of 228 hospitals (61% academic) from 27 countries participated in this survey. In addition to the organizational aspects of the intensive cardiac care units, including classification of the intensive cardiac care unit levels, data on the admission diagnoses were gathered from consecutive patients who were admitted during a two-day period. Admission policies were evaluated by comparing illness severity with the intensive cardiac care unit level. Gross national income was used to differentiate high-income countries (n=13) from middle-income countries (n=14). A total of 98% of the hospitals had an intensive cardiac care unit: 70% had a level 1 intensive cardiac care unit, 76% had a level 2 intensive cardiac care unit, 51% had a level 3 intensive cardiac care unit, and 60% of the hospitals had more than one intensive cardiac care unit level. High-income countries tended to have more level 3 intensive cardiac care units than middle-income countries (55% versus 41%, p=0.07). A total of 5159 admissions were scored on illness severity: 63% were low severity, 24% were intermediate severity, and 12% were high severity. Patients with low illness severity were predominantly admitted to level 1 intensive cardiac care units, whereas patients with high illness severity were predominantly admitted to level 2 and 3 intensive cardiac care units. A policy mismatch was observed in 12% of the patients; some patients with high illness severity were admitted to level 1 intensive cardiac care units, which occurred more often in middle-income countries, whereas some patients with low illness severity were admitted to level 3 intensive cardiac care units, which occurred more frequently in high-income countries. More than one-third of the admitted patients were considered intermediate or high risk. Although patients with higher illness severity were mostly admitted to high-level intensive cardiac care units, an admission policy mismatch was observed in 12% of the patients; this mismatch was partly related to insufficient logistic intensive cardiac care unit capacity.

Critical care is an expensive and limited resource in the United States. Estimates from more than a decade ago suggest that over $100 billion a year is spent on critical care services.1 Over the past two decades, the number of patients presenting to the Emergency Department (ED) requiring critical care services has increased at a much higher rate than the growth in overall ED volume.2,3 The proportion of ED patients requiring Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission has increased 75% over the first decade of the twenty-first century. In addition to the increase in the absolute number of patients requiring critical care admission, the ED length of stay for critically ill patients increased by 60 minutes. This resulted in a total nationwide increase in critical care provided in the ED by more than threefold. This disproportionate increase in critical care time reflects both the increase in critical care volume and the increase in ED boarding of critically ill patients. Data from 2008 reported the median boarding time for a patient waiting in the ED for an ICU bed was more than 5 hours, and 30% of patients waited more than 6 hours for an ICU bed.2,3 This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Psychiatric management of Patients in intensive care units.