An update of the effects of vitamins D and C in critical illness.

Many critically ill patients are vitamin D and vitamin C deficient and the current international guidelines state that hypovitaminoses should be compensated. However, uncertainty about optimal dosage, timing and indication exists in clinical routine, mainly due to the conflicting evidence. This narrative review discusses both micronutrients with regards to pathophysiology, clinical evidence of benefits, potential risks, and guideline recommendations. Evidence generated from the most recent clinical trials are summarized and discussed. In addition, pragmatic tips for the application of these vitamins in the clinical routine are given. The supplementations of vitamin D and C represent cost-effective and simple interventions with excellent safety profiles. Regarding vitamin D, critically ill individuals require a loading dose to improve 25(OH)D levels within a few days, followed by a daily or weekly maintenance dose, usually higher doses than healthy individuals are needed. For vitamin C, dosages of 100-200 mg/d are recommended for patients receiving parenteral nutrition, but needs may be as high as 2-3 g/d in acutely ill patients.

Family support in intensive care units during COVID-19 visit ban: A multinational Delphi Study during first COVID-19 wave.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed opinions and experiences of healthcare professionals, former patients and family members during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic and focuses on challenges in family-centred care for intensive care unit patients and affected families. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY/DESIGN: A two-round modified Delphi process assessed the opinions and experiences of experts such as healthcare professionals, former patients and their families (n = 151). SETTING: This study was conducted across four countries in Europe. RESULTS: In total, 121 participants (response rate 80.13%) answered the first Delphi round; the second was answered by 131 participants (response rate 86.75%). Participants perceived family support in the intensive care unit as highly important during the COVID-19 pandemic. Enabling contact amongst patients, families and clinicians is regarded as essential to build hope and confidence in the treatment and the recovery process. The extraordinary situation led to the implementation of new communication structures such as video calls and websites. CONCLUSION: A consensus was reached between healthcare professionals that virtual contact is essential for patients with COVID-19 and their families during visit restrictions. This should be done to establish confidence in the treatment.

[Ways of supporting relatives in intensive care units : Overview and update]. / Angehörigenbetreuung auf Intensivstationen : Übersicht und Update.

BACKGROUND: Relatives of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) face a challenging situation: they often experience an existential crisis with great emotional stress and at the same time they are often actively involved in therapeutic decisions. The visiting restrictions of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have created new challenges in providing support to relatives. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this work is to present current and new developments in supporting relatives of critically ill patients in the form of a narrative review. RESULTS: In recent years, numerous new approaches and projects to support relatives have been developed. They can be assigned to the following six areas: 1) presence of relatives in the ICU, 2) proactive involvement in care, 3) structured communication/information and online offers, 4) multidisciplinary cooperation, 5) organizational management and 6) follow-up offers. The evidence and the current implementation status of these measures are very heterogeneous internationally and nationally. CONCLUSIONS: Measures for providing support for ICU relatives are diverse. Some can even be implemented despite visit bans. Recent digital developments enable virtual visits and a better exchange of information between the ICU team and relatives.

Vitamin D in critical care: where are we now and what is next?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize the recent evidence on the role of vitamin D deficiency in critically ill patients and emerging data claiming a role of vitamin D in COVID-19. RECENT FINDINGS: Vitamin D is a strong predictor for worse outcomes in critically ill patients, and as well in COVID-19. The vitamin D content in typical nutrition regimes is lower than what is recommended for the general population. Although its supplementation has been shown to reduce respiratory tract infections, asthma exacerbations and mortality risk in noncritically ill patients, its role in the acute setting is not yet clear. Several small intervention trials have shown interesting results in COVID-19, and larger studies are ongoing. SUMMARY: Although research on this topic is still ongoing, it appears reasonable to recommend at least the standard vitamin dose for the healthy population (600--800 IU of native vitamin D3). Many questions remain on the actual role, the best metabolite, regime, and so forth. However, the role for vitamin D in bone health is clear. Elderly ICU survivors have a high risk for osteoporosis/fractures, so at least in this population, an optimal vitamin D status should be targeted.

Micronutrients in Sepsis and COVID-19: A Narrative Review on What We Have Learned and What We Want to Know in Future Trials.

Sepsis remains the leading cause of mortality in hospitalized patients, contributing to 1 in every 2-3 deaths. From a pathophysiological view, in the recent definition, sepsis has been defined as the result of a complex interaction between host response and the infecting organism, resulting in life-threatening organ dysfunction, depending on microcirculatory derangement, cellular hypoxia/dysoxia driven by hypotension and, potentially, death. The high energy expenditure driven by a high metabolic state induced by the host response may rapidly lead to micronutrient depletion. This deficiency can result in alterations in normal energy homeostasis, free radical damage, and immune system derangement. In critically ill patients, micronutrients are still relegated to an ancillary role in the whole treatment, and always put in a second-line place or, frequently, neglected. Only some micronutrients have attracted the attention of a wider audience, and some trials, even large ones, have tested their use, with controversial results. The present review will address this topic, including the recent advancement in the study of vitamin D and protocols based on vitamin C and other micronutrients, to explore an update in the setting of sepsis, gain some new insights applicable to COVID-19 patients, and to contribute to a pathophysiological definition of the potential role of micronutrients that will be helpful in future dedicated trials.

Vitamin D deficiency in critically ill COVID-19 ARDS patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Vitamin D's pleiotropic effects include immune modulation, and its supplementation has been shown to prevent respiratory tract infections. The effectivity of vitamin D as a therapeutic intervention in critical illness remains less defined. The current study analyzed clinical and immunologic effects of vitamin D levels in patients suffering from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: This was a single-center retrospective study in patients receiving intensive care with a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 ARDS. 25-hydroxyvitamin D and 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D serum levels, pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines and immune cell subsets were measured on admission as well as after 10-15 days. Clinical parameters were extracted from the patient data management system. Standard operating procedures included the daily administration of vitamin D3 via enteral feeding. RESULTS: A total of 39 patients with COVID-19 ARDS were eligible, of which 26 were included in this study as data on vitamin D status was available. 96% suffered from severe COVID-19 ARDS. All patients without prior vitamin D supplementation (n = 22) had deficient serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Vitamin D supplementation resulted in higher serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D but not did not increase 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D levels after 10-15 days. Clinical parameters did not differ between patients with sufficient or deficient levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D. Only circulating plasmablasts were higher in patients with 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels ≥30 ng/ml (p = 0.029). Patients with 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D levels below 20 pg/ml required longer mechanical ventilation (p = 0.045) and had a worse acute physiology and chronic health evaluation (APACHE) II score (p = 0.048). CONCLUSION: The vast majority of COVID-19 ARDS patients had vitamin D deficiency. 25-hydroxyvitamin D status was not related to changes in clinical course, whereas low levels of 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D were associated with prolonged mechanical ventilation and a worse APACHE II score.

Personal protective equipment and intensive care unit healthcare worker safety in the COVID-19 era (PPE-SAFE): An international survey.

PURPOSE: To survey healthcare workers (HCW) on availability and use of personal protective equipment (PPE) caring for COVID-19 patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). MATERIALS AND METHOD: A web-based survey distributed worldwide in April 2020. RESULTS: We received 2711 responses from 1797 (67%) physicians, 744 (27%) nurses, and 170 (6%) Allied HCW. For routine care, most (1557, 58%) reportedly used FFP2/N95 masks, waterproof long sleeve gowns (1623; 67%), and face shields/visors (1574; 62%). Powered Air-Purifying Respirators were used routinely and for intubation only by 184 (7%) and 254 (13%) respondents, respectively. Surgical masks were used for routine care by 289 (15%) and 47 (2%) for intubations. At least one piece of standard PPE was unavailable for 1402 (52%), and 817 (30%) reported reusing single-use PPE. PPE was worn for a median of 4 h (IQR 2, 5). Adverse effects of PPE were associated with longer shift durations and included heat (1266, 51%), thirst (1174, 47%), pressure areas (1088, 44%), headaches (696, 28%), Inability to use the bathroom (661, 27%) and extreme exhaustion (492, 20%). CONCLUSIONS: HCWs reported widespread shortages, frequent reuse of, and adverse effects related to PPE. Urgent action by healthcare administrators, policymakers, governments and industry is warranted.