ABSTRACT
Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is a preventable complication of critical illness, and this guideline aims to convey a pragmatic approach to the problem. Guidelines have multiplied over the last decade, and their utility has become increasingly conflicted as the reader interprets all suggestions or recommendations as something that must be followed. The nuances of grade of recommendation vs level of evidence are often ignored, and the difference between a "we suggest" vs a "we recommend" is overlooked. There is a general unease among clinicians that failure to follow the guidelines translates to poor medical practice and legal culpability. We attempt to overcome these limitations by highlighting ambiguity when it occurs and refraining from dogmatic recommendations in the absence of robust evidence. Readers and practitioners may find the lack of specific recommendations unsatisfactory, but we believe that true ambiguity is better than inaccurate certainty. We have attempted to comply with the guidelines on how to create guidelines.1 And to overcome the poor compliance with these guidelines.2 Some observers have expressed concern that DVT prophylaxis guidelines may cause more harm than good.3 We have placed greater emphasis on large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with clinical end point and de-emphasized RCTs with surrogate end points and also de-emphasized hypothesis generating studies (observational studies, small RCTs, and meta-analysis of these studies). We have de-emphasized RCTs in non-intensive care unit populations like postoperative patients or those with cancer and stroke. We have also considered resource limitation settings and have avoided recommending costly and poorly proven therapeutic options. How to cite this article: Jagiasi BG, Chhallani AA, Dixit SB, Kumar R, Pandit RA, Govil D, et al. Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine Consensus Statement for Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in the Critical Care Unit. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(S2):S51-S65.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: There is strong evidence for the use of corticosteroid in the management of severe coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). However, there is still uncertainty about the timing of corticosteroids. We undertook a modified Delphi study to develop expert consensus statements on the early identification of a subset of patients from non-severe COVID-19 who may benefit from using corticosteroids. METHODS: A modified Delphi was conducted with two anonymous surveys between April 30, 2021, and May 3, 2021. An expert panel of 35 experts was selected and invited to participate through e-mail. The consensus was defined as >70% votes in multiple-choice questions (MCQ) on Likert-scale type statements, while strong consensus as >90% votes in MCQ or >50% votes for "very important" on Likert-scale questions in the final round. RESULTS: Twenty experts completed two rounds of the survey. There was strong consensus for the increased work of breathing (95%), a positive six-minute walk test (90%), thorax computed tomography severity score of >14/25 (85%), new-onset organ dysfunction (using clinical or biochemical criteria) (80%), and C-reactive protein >5 times the upper limit of normal (70%) as the criteria for patients' selection. The experts recommended using oral or intravenous (IV) low-dose corticosteroids (the equivalent of 6 mg/day dexamethasone) for 5-10 days and monitoring of oxygen saturation, body temperature, clinical scoring system, blood sugar, and inflammatory markers for any "red-flag" signs. CONCLUSION: The experts recommended against indiscriminate use of corticosteroids in mild to moderate COVID-19 without the signs of clinical worsening. Oral or IV low-dose corticosteroids (the equivalent of 6 mg/day dexamethasone) for 5-10 days are recommended for patients with features of disease progression based on clinical, biochemical, or radiological criteria after 5 days from symptom onset under close monitoring. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: How to cite this article: Nasa P, Chaudhry D, Govil D, Daga MK, Jain R, Chhallani AA, et al. Expert Consensus Statements on the Use of Corticosteroids in Non-severe COVID-19. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(11):1280-1285.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The impact of disruption to the care of non-coronavirus disease (COVID) patients (COVID collateral damage syndrome-CCDS) is largely unknown in resource-limited settings. We investigated CCDS as perceived by healthcare workers (HCWs) providing acute and critical care services in India. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A clinician and nurse codesigned and validated an internet-based survey, which was disseminated to HCWs using a multiple frame sampling technique. RESULTS: Responses were received from 468 HCWs (completion rate 84%); at the time of the survey, 48% were working in critical care, 41% aged 30-40 years, and 53% represented public institutions. Respondents perceived a decrease in service utilization and disruption to time-sensitive acute interventions (60.1% and 40.8%, respectively), with fear of infection (score, 63.0; standard deviation (SD), 31.8) and restrictions due to lockdown (61.4; SD 32.5) being cited as the causes of service disruption. Being overwhelmed or lack of protective equipment was perceived to contribute less to CCDS. Insistence on COVID test results X 2 (p = 0.02) and duty-avoidance (p < 0.01) was perceived as significant causes for CCDS by HCWs from private hospitals and those in leadership roles, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Fear of infection and the effect of lockdown were perceived as important contributors to CCDS resulting in disruption to services and decreased service utilization. Perceptions were influenced by HCWs' role and hospital organizational structure. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Tripathy S, Vijayaraghavan BKT, Panigrahi MK, Shetty AP, Haniffa R, Mishra RC, et al. Collateral Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Acute Care of Non-COVID Patients: An Internet-based Survey of Critical Care and Emergency Personnel. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(4):374-381.