Atrial Fibrillation (AFIB) in the ICU: Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes: The International AFIB-ICU Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the incidence, risk factors, and outcomes of atrial fibrillation (AF) in the ICU and to describe current practice in the management of AF. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective, inception cohort study. SETTING: Forty-four ICUs in 12 countries in four geographical regions. SUBJECTS: Adult, acutely admitted ICU patients without a history of persistent/permanent AF or recent cardiac surgery were enrolled; inception periods were from October 2020 to June 2021. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We included 1,423 ICU patients and analyzed 1,415 (99.4%), among whom 221 patients had 539 episodes of AF. Most (59%) episodes were diagnosed with continuous electrocardiogram monitoring. The incidence of AF was 15.6% (95% CI, 13.8-17.6), of which newly developed AF was 13.3% (11.5-15.1). A history of arterial hypertension, paroxysmal AF, sepsis, or high disease severity at ICU admission was associated with AF. Used interventions to manage AF were fluid bolus 19% (95% CI 16-23), magnesium 16% (13-20), potassium 15% (12-19), amiodarone 51% (47-55), beta-1 selective blockers 34% (30-38), calcium channel blockers 4% (2-6), digoxin 16% (12-19), and direct current cardioversion in 4% (2-6). Patients with AF had more ischemic, thromboembolic (13.6% vs 7.9%), and severe bleeding events (5.9% vs 2.1%), and higher mortality (41.2% vs 25.2%) than those without AF. The adjusted cause-specific hazard ratio for 90-day mortality by AF was 1.38 (95% CI, 0.95-1.99). CONCLUSIONS: In ICU patients, AF occurred in one of six and was associated with different conditions. AF was associated with worse outcomes while not statistically significantly associated with 90-day mortality in the adjusted analyses. We observed variations in the diagnostic and management strategies for AF.

A 30-day Survival and Safety of Percutaneous Tracheostomy in Moderate-to-severe COVID-19 Pneumonia Patients: A Single-center Experience.

Aims and objectives: In coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia, guidelines on timing and method of tracheostomy are evolving. The aim of the study was to analyze the outcomes of moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia patients who required tracheostomy and the safety with regard to the risk of transmission to the healthcare workers. Materials and methods: We retrospectively analyzed 30-day survival outcome of a total of 70 moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia patients on a ventilator, wherein tracheostomy was performed only in 28 (tracheostomy group), and the remaining were with endotracheal intubation beyond 7 days (non-tracheostomy group). Besides demographics, comorbidities and clinical data including 30-day survival and complications of tracheostomy were analyzed in both groups with respect to the timing of tracheostomy from the day of intubation. Healthcare workers were monitored for COVID-19 symptoms by carrying out periodical COVID tests. Results: The 30-day survival of the tracheostomy group was 75% as compared to 26.2% of the non-tracheostomy group. The majority of the patients (71.4%) had severe disease with PaO2/FiO2 (P/F ratio) <100. The first wave showed an 80% (4/5) while the second wave 100% (8/8) thirty days survival in the tracheostomy group performed before 13 days. All patients during the second wave underwent tracheostomy before 13 days with a median of 12th day from the day of intubation. These tracheostomies were performed percutaneously at the bedside, without any major complications and no transmission of disease to healthcare workers. Conclusion: Early percutaneous tracheostomy within 13 days of intubation demonstrated a good 30-day survival rate in severe COVID-19 pneumonia patients. How to cite this article: Shah M, Bhatuka N, Shalia K, Patel M. A 30-day Survival and Safety of Percutaneous Tracheostomy in Moderate-to-severe COVID-19 Pneumonia Patients: A Single-center Experience. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(10):1120-1125.

Clinical Profile of Patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection Developing Pulmonary Barotrauma on Mechanical Ventilation.

Background: There is limited information on clinical profile and outcomes of patients on mechanical ventilation (MV) who developed pulmonary barotrauma (PBT) in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Patients and methods: In a retrospective observational study, all SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia patients admitted from March 28, 2020, to August 31, 2020, at Sir HN Reliance Foundation Hospital and Research Center and Seven Hills Hospital (Reliance Facility), Mumbai, India, of 18 years and above on MV and developed PBT, were included. Results: A total of 14 SARS-CoV-2 patients of 45 on MV (31.0%) developed PBT of 1,029 hospitalized. All patients were male and divided as per admission into PaO2/FiO2 (P/F) ≤100 (median 80) and P/F >100 (median 222) group. Pneumothorax developed in seven and six cases of P/F ≤100 and P/F >100 groups, respectively. Three patients in each group developed subcutaneous emphysema, while four developed pneumomediastinum in P/F >100 group. Twelve patients (7, P/F ≤100, and 5, P/F >100) were on invasive, while two (P/F >100) were on noninvasive MV. The mean P/F on the day of PBT was reduced by 27.5 and 65.3%, while peak inspiratory pressure was elevated with a median of 36 and 28 cm H2O in P/F ≤100 and P/F >100 groups, respectively. The median highest tidal volume (420 mL), positive-end expiratory pressure (8 vs 6 cm H2O) on the day of PBT, and length of hospital stay (11 vs 25 days) did not differ between two groups. Survival was 28.6% (4/14). Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 patients requiring MV with PBT had poor outcomes. Clinicians should be vigilant about the diagnosis of PBT. How to cite this article: Kargirwar KV, Rathod D, Kumar V, Patel M, Shah M, Choudhury H, et al. Clinical Profile of Patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection Developing Pulmonary Barotrauma on Mechanical Ventilation. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(5):613-618.

Corona, Acute Ischemic Stroke, Malignant Cerebral Edema, and Hemo-adsorption: A Case Report.

Background: COVID-19 infection can be associated with systemic hyperinflammation, hypercoagulable state, vasculitis, and cardiomyopathy leading to multiorgan failure. Use of extracorporeal blood purification has been shown to mitigate the cytokine storm, improving hemodynamic stability and pulmonary function. Case summary: We report a case of a young patient with malignant cerebral edema due to acute cerebrovascular accident, with COVID-19. He was taken up for life-saving decompression craniotomy amidst the cytokine storm and multiorgan failure, and was treated with steroids, antibiotics, and Cytosorb® therapy for the cytokine storm. IL-6 and PCT levels were reduced by 99.5 and 98.6%, respectively. Vasopressors were stopped on day 4 and successfully weaned off ventilator support by 2 weeks of tracheostomy. He was de-cannulated and discharged neurologically stable on day 32. Conclusion: Timely detection of COVID-19 and anti-inflammatory and hemo-adsorption measures may be helpful in modulating cytokine storm, thereby reducing morbidity and mortality. How to cite this article: Shah M, Kaidawala Z, Shah A, Desphande R. Corona, Acute Ischemic Stroke, Malignant Cerebral Edema, and Hemo-adsorption: A Case Report. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(2):235-238.

Effect of 12 mg vs 6 mg of Dexamethasone on the Number of Days Alive Without Life Support in Adults With COVID-19 and Severe Hypoxemia: The COVID STEROID 2 Randomized Trial.

Importance: A daily dose with 6 mg of dexamethasone is recommended for up to 10 days in patients with severe and critical COVID-19, but a higher dose may benefit those with more severe disease. Objective: To assess the effects of 12 mg/d vs 6 mg/d of dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia. Design, Setting, and Participants: A multicenter, randomized clinical trial was conducted between August 2020 and May 2021 at 26 hospitals in Europe and India and included 1000 adults with confirmed COVID-19 requiring at least 10 L/min of oxygen or mechanical ventilation. End of 90-day follow-up was on August 19, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized 1:1 to 12 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 503) or 6 mg/d of intravenous dexamethasone (n = 497) for up to 10 days. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive without life support (invasive mechanical ventilation, circulatory support, or kidney replacement therapy) at 28 days and was adjusted for stratification variables. Of the 8 prespecified secondary outcomes, 5 are included in this analysis (the number of days alive without life support at 90 days, the number of days alive out of the hospital at 90 days, mortality at 28 days and at 90 days, and ≥1 serious adverse reactions at 28 days). Results: Of the 1000 randomized patients, 982 were included (median age, 65 [IQR, 55-73] years; 305 [31%] women) and primary outcome data were available for 971 (491 in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 480 in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group). The median number of days alive without life support was 22.0 days (IQR, 6.0-28.0 days) in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group and 20.5 days (IQR, 4.0-28.0 days) in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted mean difference, 1.3 days [95% CI, 0-2.6 days]; P = .07). Mortality at 28 days was 27.1% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 32.3% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.86 [99% CI, 0.68-1.08]). Mortality at 90 days was 32.0% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 37.7% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.87 [99% CI, 0.70-1.07]). Serious adverse reactions, including septic shock and invasive fungal infections, occurred in 11.3% in the 12 mg of dexamethasone group vs 13.4% in the 6 mg of dexamethasone group (adjusted relative risk, 0.83 [99% CI, 0.54-1.29]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and severe hypoxemia, 12 mg/d of dexamethasone compared with 6 mg/d of dexamethasone did not result in statistically significantly more days alive without life support at 28 days. However, the trial may have been underpowered to identify a significant difference. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04509973 and ctri.nic.in Identifier: CTRI/2020/10/028731.

The Ethics of Telemedicine

Improvement in telecommunication technology, the widespread access to this technology across all socioeconomic categories, and the need to leverage health care provider access has resulted in telemedicine's rapid growth.1'3 This is particularly true for orthopedic surgery. [...]telemedicine will play an increasingly important role in our profession. The purpose of this report is to examine these issues using the ethical and legal principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, justice, and primacy of patient interest in order to gain a better understanding of how telemedicine can be used to provide care within the ethical and legal boundaries of medicine. Mill opined that individual rights to happiness may be limited when it is for the good of society.5 Clearly, allowing patients unfettered access to providers when doing so would endanger those providers and other patients, would harm society. [...]we are well within ethical bounds to insist that patients who pose a risk to others by horizontal disease transmission seek routine medical care via telemedicine.