Burnout and Brownout in Intensive Care Physicians in the Era of COVID-19: A Qualitative Study.

The health crisis has had a strong impact on intensive care units. The objective of this study was to investigate the experience of resuscitation physicians during the COVID-19 health crisis to understand the associated determinants of quality of life, burnout, and brownout. This qualitative, longitudinal study covered two periods (T1, February 2021, and T2, May 2021). The data were collected in individual semi-directed interviews with 17 intensive care physicians (ICPs) (T1). Nine of the latter also participated in a second interview (T2). The data were examined using grounded theory analysis. We identified a multiplication of burnout and brownout indicators and factors already known in intensive care. In addition, burnout and brownout indicators and factors specific to the COVID-19 crisis were added. The evolution of professional practices has disrupted the professional identity, the meaning of work, and the boundaries between private and professional life, leading to a brownout and blur-out syndrome. The added value of our study lies in identifying the positive effects of the crisis in the professional domain. Our study revealed indicators and factors of burnout and brownout associated with the crisis among ICPs. Finally, it highlights the beneficial effects of the COVID-19 crisis on work.

Awake prone positioning in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure.

Awake prone positioning (APP) of patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure gained considerable attention during the early phases of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, reports of APP were limited to case series in patients with influenza and in immunocompromised patients, with encouraging results in terms of tolerance and oxygenation improvement. Prone positioning of awake patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure appears to result in many of the same physiological changes improving oxygenation seen in invasively ventilated patients with moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. A number of randomised controlled studies published on patients with varying severity of COVID-19 have reported apparently contrasting outcomes. However, there is consistent evidence that more hypoxaemic patients requiring advanced respiratory support, who are managed in higher care environments and who can be prone for several hours, benefit most from APP use. We review the physiological basis by which prone positioning results in changes in lung mechanics and gas exchange and summarise the latest evidence base for APP primarily in COVID-19. We examine the key factors that influence the success of APP, the optimal target populations for APP and the key unknowns that will shape future research.

Delivery of high flow oxygen through nasal vs. tracheal cannulas: A bench study.

Background: The use of high flow oxygen therapy (HFOT) has significantly escalated during the COVID-19 pandemic. HFOT can be delivered through both dedicated devices and ICU ventilators. HFOT can be administered to a patient via a nasal cannula (NC). In intubated patients, a tracheal cannula (TC) is used instead. In this study, we aim to compare the work of breathing (WOB) using a TC or NC and to explore whether differences exist among HFOT devices. Methods: Seven HFOT devices (three dedicated and four ICU ventilators) were connected to a manikin head (Laerdal Medical) through a NC (Optiflow 3S, large size, Fisher and Paykel Healthcare) or a TC (OPT 970 Optiflow+, Fisher and Paykel Healthcare). Each device was also attached to a manikin head that was connected to a lung simulator (ASL5000, Ingmar Medical), set at 40 ml/cmH2O compliance, 10 cmH2O/L/s resistance, and sinusoidal inspiratory effort (muscular pressure 10 cmH2O, rate 30 breaths/min). HFOT was delivered at 40 L/min and at 21% inspired oxygen fraction. The total WOB per breath and its resistive and elastic components were automatically analyzed breath by breath over the last 20 breaths by using Campbell's diagram. Results: The WOB and its resistive and elastic components were significantly lower with the TC than with the NC for every device, and systematically lower with the reference device than with others. These differences were, however, very small and may be not clinically relevant. Conclusion: The WOB is lower with the TC than with the NC and with the reference device, compared with the most recent devices.

Delivery of high flow oxygen through nasal vs. tracheal cannulas: A bench study

Background The use of high flow oxygen therapy (HFOT) has significantly escalated during the COVID-19 pandemic. HFOT can be delivered through both dedicated devices and ICU ventilators. HFOT can be administered to a patient via a nasal cannula (NC). In intubated patients, a tracheal cannula (TC) is used instead. In this study, we aim to compare the work of breathing (WOB) using a TC or NC and to explore whether differences exist among HFOT devices. Methods Seven HFOT devices (three dedicated and four ICU ventilators) were connected to a manikin head (Laerdal Medical) through a NC (Optiflow 3S, large size, Fisher and Paykel Healthcare) or a TC (OPT 970 Optiflow+, Fisher and Paykel Healthcare). Each device was also attached to a manikin head that was connected to a lung simulator (ASL5000, Ingmar Medical), set at 40 ml/cmH2O compliance, 10 cmH2O/L/s resistance, and sinusoidal inspiratory effort (muscular pressure 10 cmH2O, rate 30 breaths/min). HFOT was delivered at 40 L/min and at 21% inspired oxygen fraction. The total WOB per breath and its resistive and elastic components were automatically analyzed breath by breath over the last 20 breaths by using Campbell's diagram. Results The WOB and its resistive and elastic components were significantly lower with the TC than with the NC for every device, and systematically lower with the reference device than with others. These differences were, however, very small and may be not clinically relevant. Conclusion The WOB is lower with the TC than with the NC and with the reference device, compared with the most recent devices.

Airway Closure and Expiratory Flow Limitation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is mostly characterized by the loss of aerated lung volume associated with an increase in lung tissue and intense and complex lung inflammation. ARDS has long been associated with the histological pattern of diffuse alveolar damage (DAD). However, DAD is not the unique pathological figure in ARDS and it can also be observed in settings other than ARDS. In the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related ARDS, the impairment of lung microvasculature has been pointed out. The airways, and of notice the small peripheral airways, may contribute to the loss of aeration observed in ARDS. High-resolution lung imaging techniques found that in specific experimental conditions small airway closure was a reality. Furthermore, low-volume ventilator-induced lung injury, also called as atelectrauma, should involve the airways. Atelectrauma is one of the basic tenet subtending the use of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) set at the ventilator in ARDS. Recent data revisited the role of airways in humans with ARDS and provided findings consistent with the expiratory flow limitation and airway closure in a substantial number of patients with ARDS. We discussed the pattern of airway opening pressure disclosed in the inspiratory volume-pressure curves in COVID-19 and in non-COVID-19 related ARDS. In addition, we discussed the functional interplay between airway opening pressure and expiratory flow limitation displayed in the flow-volume curves. We discussed the individualization of the PEEP setting based on these findings.

A Bench Comparison of the Effect of High-Flow Oxygen Devices on Work of Breathing.

BACKGROUND: Oxygen therapy via high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) has been extensively used during the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of devices has also increased. We conducted this study to answer the following questions: Do HFNC devices differ from the original device for work of breathing (WOB) and generated PEEP? METHODS: Seven devices were tested on ASL 5000 lung model. Compliance was set to 40 mL/cm H2O and resistance to 10 cm H2O/L/s. The devices were connected to a manikin head via a nasal cannula with FIO2 set at 0.21. The measurements were performed at baseline (manikin head free of nasal cannula) and then with the cannula and the device attached with oxygen flow set at 20, 40, and 60 L/min. WOB and PEEP were assessed at 3 simulated inspiratory efforts (-5, -10, -15 cm H2O muscular pressure) and at 2 breathing frequencies (20 and 30 breaths/min). Data were expressed as median (first-third quartiles) and compared with nonparametric tests to the Optiflow device taken as reference. RESULTS: Baseline WOB and PEEP were comparable between devices. Over all the conditions tested, WOB was 4.2 (1.0-9.4) J/min with the reference device, and the relative variations from it were 0, -3 (2-4), 1 (0-1), -2 (1-2), -1 (1-2), and -1 (1-2)% with Airvo 2, G5, HM80, T60, V500, and V60 Plus devices, respectively, (P < .05 Kruskal-Wallis test). PEEP was 0.9 (0.3-1.5) cm H2O with Optiflow, and the relative differences were -28 (22-33), -41 (38-46), -30 (26-36), -31 (28-34), -37 (32-42), and -24 (21-34)% with Airvo 2, G5, HM80, T60, V500, and V60 Plus devices, respectively, (P < .05 Kruskal-Wallis test). CONCLUSIONS: WOB was marginally higher and PEEP marginally lower with devices as compared to the reference device.

Lung ultrasound response to awake prone positioning predicts the need for intubation in patients with COVID-19 induced acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Awake prone positioning (APP) reduces the intubation rate in COVID-19 patients treated by high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC). However, the lung aeration response to APP has not been addressed. We aimed to explore the lung aeration response to APP by lung ultrasound (LUS). METHODS: This two-center, prospective, observational study enrolled patients with COVID-19-induced acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated by HFNC and APP. LUS score was recorded 5-10 min before, 1 h after APP, and 5-10 min after supine in the first APP session within the first three days. The primary outcome was LUS score changes in the first three days. Secondary outcomes included changes in SpO2/FiO2 ratio, respiratory rate and ROX index (SpO2/FiO2/respiratory rate) related to APP, and the rate of treatment success (patients who avoided intubation). RESULTS: Seventy-one patients were enrolled. LUS score decreased from 20 (interquartile range [IQR] 19-24) to 19 (18-21) (p < 0.001) after the first APP session, and to 19 (18-21) (p < 0.001) after three days. Compared to patients with treatment failure (n = 20, 28%), LUS score reduction after the first three days in patients with treatment success (n = 51) was greater (- 2.6 [95% confidence intervals - 3.1 to - 2.0] vs 0 [- 1.2 to 1.2], p = 0.001). A decrease in dorsal LUS score > 1 after the first APP session was associated with decreased risk for intubation (Relative risk 0.25 [0.09-0.69]). APP daily duration was correlated with LUS score reduction in patients with treatment success, especially in dorsal lung zones (r = - 0.76; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and treated by HFNC, APP reduced LUS score. The reduction in dorsal LUS scores after APP was associated with treatment success. The longer duration on APP was correlated with greater lung aeration. Trial registration This study was prospectively registered on clinicaltrials.gov on April 22, 2021. Identification number NCT04855162 .

Prone Positioning and Neuromuscular Blocking Agents as Adjunctive Therapies in Mechanically Ventilated Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBAs) and prone position (PP) are two major adjunctive therapies that can improve outcome in moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. NMBA should be used once lung-protective mechanical ventilation has been set, for 48 hours or less and as a continuous intravenous infusion. PP should be used as early as possible for long sessions; in COVID-19 its use has exploded. In nonintubated patients, PP might reduce the rate of intubation but not mortality. The goal of this article is to perform a narrative review on the pathophysiological rationale, the clinical effects, and the clinical use and recommendations of both NMBA and PP.

Prone Position in COVID-19 and -COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: An International Multicenter Observational Comparative Study.

OBJECTIVES: Prone position is used in acute respiratory distress syndrome and in coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, it is unclear how responders may be identified and whether an oxygenation response improves outcome. The objective of this study was to quantify the response to prone position, describe the differences between coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and explore variables associated with survival. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational, multicenter, international cohort study. SETTING: Seven ICUs in Italy, United Kingdom, and France. PATIENTS: Three hundred seventy-six adults (220 coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome and 156 acute respiratory distress syndrome). INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Preproning, a greater proportion of coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients had severe disease (53% vs 40%), worse Pao2/Fio2 (13.0 kPa [interquartile range, 10.5-15.5 kPa] vs 14.1 kPa [interquartile range, 10.5-18.6 kPa]; p = 0.017) but greater compliance (38 mL/cm H2O [interquartile range, 27-53 mL/cm H2O] vs 31 mL/cm H2O [interquartile range, 21-37 mL/cm H2O]; p < 0.001). Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome had a longer median time from intubation to prone position (2.0 d [interquartile range, 0.7-5.0 d] vs 1.0 d [interquartile range, 0.5-2.9 d]; p = 0.03). The proportion of responders, defined by an increase in Pao2/Fio2 greater than or equal to 2.67 kPa (20 mm Hg), upon proning, was similar between acute respiratory distress syndrome and coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome (79% vs 76%; p = 0.5). Responders had earlier prone position (1.4 d [interquartile range, 0.7-4.2 d] vs 2.5 d [interquartile range, 0.8-6.2 d]; p = 0.06)]. Prone position less than 24 hours from intubation achieved greater improvement in oxygenation (11 kPa [interquartile range, 4-21 kPa] vs 7 kPa [interquartile range, 2-13 kPa]; p = 0.002). The variables independently associated with the "responder" category were Pao2/Fio2 preproning (odds ratio, 0.89 kPa-1 [95% CI, 0.85-0.93 kPa-1]; p < 0.001) and interval between intubation and proning (odds ratio, 0.94 d-1 [95% CI, 0.89-0.99 d-1]; p = 0.019). The overall mortality was 45%, with no significant difference observed between acute respiratory distress syndrome and coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome. Variables independently associated with mortality included age (odds ratio, 1.03 yr-1 [95% CI, 1.01-1.05 yr-1]; p < 0.001); interval between hospital admission and proning (odds ratio, 1.04 d-1 [95% CI, 1.002-1.084 d-1]; p = 0.047); and change in Pao2/Fio2 on proning (odds ratio, 0.97 kPa-1 [95% CI, 0.95-0.99 kPa-1]; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Prone position, particularly when delivered early, achieved a significant oxygenation response in ~80% of coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome, similar to acute respiratory distress syndrome. This response was independently associated with improved survival.

Feasibility of non-invasive respiratory drive and breathing pattern evaluation using CPAP in COVID-19 patients.

PURPOSE: Increased respiratory drive and respiratory effort are major features of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) and might help to predict the need for intubation. We aimed to explore the feasibility of a non-invasive respiratory drive evaluation and describe how these parameters may help to predict the need for intubation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study. All consecutive patients with COVID-19-related AHRF requiring high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) were screened for inclusion. Physiologic data (including: occlusion pressure (P0.1), tidal volume (Vt), inspiratory time (Ti), peak and mean inspiratory flow (Vt/Ti)) were collected during a short continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) session. Measurements were repeated once, 12-24 h later. RESULTS: Measurements were completed in 31 patients after the screening of 45 patients (70%). P0.1 was high (4.4 [2.7-5.1]), but it was not significantly higher in patients who were intubated. The Vt (p = .006), Vt/Ti (p = .019), minute ventilation (p = .006), and Ti/Ttot (p = .003) were higher among intubated patients compared to non-intubated patients. Intubated patients had a significant increase in their diaphragm thickening fraction, Vt, and Vt/Ti over time. CONCLUSIONS: Non-invasive assessment of respiratory drive was feasible in patients with AHRF and showed an increased P0.1, although it was not predictive of intubation.

Awake prone positioning for non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Awake prone positioning has been broadly utilised for non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, but the results from published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the past year are contradictory. We aimed to systematically synthesise the outcomes associated with awake prone positioning, and evaluate these outcomes in relevant subpopulations. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, two independent groups of researchers searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, MedRxiv, BioRxiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs and observational studies (with a control group) of awake prone positioning in patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure published in English from Jan 1, 2020, to Nov 8, 2021. We excluded trials that included patients intubated before or at enrolment, paediatric patients (ie, younger than 18 years), or trials that did not include the supine position in the control group. The same two independent groups screened studies, extracted the summary data from published reports, and assessed the risk of bias. We used a random-effects meta-analysis to pool individual studies. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty and quality of the evidence. The primary outcome was the reported cumulative intubation risk across RCTs, and effect estimates were calculated as risk ratios (RR;95% CI). The analysis was primarily conducted on RCTs, and observational studies were used for sensitivity analyses. No serious adverse events associated with awake prone positioning were reported. The study protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021271285. FINDINGS: A total of 1243 studies were identified, we assessed 138 full-text articles and received the aggregated results of three unpublished RCTs; therefore, after exclusions, 29 studies were included in the study. Ten were RCTs (1985 patients) and 19 were observational studies (2669 patients). In ten RCTs, awake prone positioning compared with the supine position significantly reduced the need for intubation in the overall population (RR 0·84 [95% CI 0·72-0·97]). A reduced need for intubation was shown among patients who received advanced respiratory support (ie, high-flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation) at enrolment (RR 0·83 [0·71-0·97]) and in intensive care unit (ICU) settings (RR 0·83 [0·71-0·97]) but not in patients receiving conventional oxygen therapy (RR 0·87 [0·45-1·69]) or in non-ICU settings (RR 0·88 [0·44-1·76]). No obvious risk of bias and publication bias was found among the included RCTs for the primary outcome. INTERPRETATION: In patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, awake prone positioning reduced the need for intubation, particularly among those requiring advanced respiratory support and those in ICU settings. Awake prone positioning should be used in patients who have acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and require advanced respiratory support or are treated in the ICU. FUNDING: OpenAI, Rice Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, and Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

Airway Closure and Expiratory Flow Limitation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is mostly characterized by the loss of aerated lung volume associated with an increase in lung tissue and intense and complex lung inflammation. ARDS has long been associated with the histological pattern of diffuse alveolar damage (DAD). However, DAD is not the unique pathological figure in ARDS and it can also be observed in settings other than ARDS. In the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related ARDS, the impairment of lung microvasculature has been pointed out. The airways, and of notice the small peripheral airways, may contribute to the loss of aeration observed in ARDS. High-resolution lung imaging techniques found that in specific experimental conditions small airway closure was a reality. Furthermore, low-volume ventilator-induced lung injury, also called as atelectrauma, should involve the airways. Atelectrauma is one of the basic tenet subtending the use of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) set at the ventilator in ARDS. Recent data revisited the role of airways in humans with ARDS and provided findings consistent with the expiratory flow limitation and airway closure in a substantial number of patients with ARDS. We discussed the pattern of airway opening pressure disclosed in the inspiratory volume-pressure curves in COVID-19 and in non-COVID-19 related ARDS. In addition, we discussed the functional interplay between airway opening pressure and expiratory flow limitation displayed in the flow-volume curves. We discussed the individualization of the PEEP setting based on these findings.

Infection control in the intensive care unit: expert consensus statements for SARS-CoV-2 using a Delphi method.

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, health-care workers and uninfected patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 as a result of transmission from infected patients and health-care workers. In the absence of high-quality evidence on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, clinical practice of infection control and prevention in ICUs varies widely. Using a Delphi process, international experts in intensive care, infectious diseases, and infection control developed consensus statements on infection control for SARS-CoV-2 in an ICU. Consensus was achieved for 31 (94%) of 33 statements, from which 25 clinical practice statements were issued. These statements include guidance on ICU design and engineering, health-care worker safety, visiting policy, personal protective equipment, patients and procedures, disinfection, and sterilisation. Consensus was not reached on optimal return to work criteria for health-care workers who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 or the acceptable disinfection strategy for heat-sensitive instruments used for airway management of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Well designed studies are needed to assess the effects of these practice statements and address the remaining uncertainties.

Prone position in COVID 19-associated acute respiratory failure.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Prone position has been widely used in the COVID-19 pandemic, with an extension of its use in patients with spontaneous breathing ('awake prone'). We herein propose a review of the current literature on prone position in mechanical ventilation and while spontaneous breathing in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia or COVID-19 ARDS. RECENT FINDINGS: A literature search retrieved 70 studies separating whether patient was intubated (24 studies) or nonintubated (46 studies). The outcomes analyzed were intubation rate, mortality and respiratory response to prone. In nonintubated patient receiving prone position, the main finding was mortality reduction in ICU and outside ICU setting. SUMMARY: The final results of the several randomized control trials completed or ongoing are needed to confirm the trend of these results. In intubated patients, observational studies showed that responders to prone in terms of oxygenation had a better survival than nonresponders.