Association Between Tracheostomy and Functional, Neuropsychological, and Healthcare Utilization Outcomes in the RECOVER Cohort.

Tracheostomy is commonly performed in critically ill patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation (MV). We evaluated the outcomes of tracheostomy in patients who received greater than or equal to 1 week MV and were followed for 1 year. DESIGN: In this secondary analysis of a prospective observational study, we compared outcomes in tracheostomy versus nontracheostomy patients. Outcomes post ICU included Functional Independence Measure (FIM) subscales, 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), Short Form 36 (SF36), Medical Research Council (MRC) Scale, pulmonary function tests (PFTs), Impact of Event Scale (IES), Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II), and vital status and disposition. SETTING: Nine University affiliated ICUs in Canada. PATIENTS: Medical/surgical patients requiring MV for 7 or more days who were enrolled in the Towards RECOVER Study. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 398 ICU survivors, 193 (48.5%) received tracheostomy, on median ICU day 14 (interquartile range [IQR], 8-0 d). Patients with tracheostomy were older, had similar severity of illness, had longer MV duration and ICU and hospital stays, and had higher risk of ICU readmission (odds ratio [OR], 1.9; 95% CI, 1.0-3.2) and hospital mortality (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-6.1), but not 1-year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.41; 95% CI, 0.88-1.2). Over 1 year, tracheostomy patients had lower FIM-Total (7.7 points; 95% CI, 2.2-13.2); SF36, IES, and BDI-II were similar. From 3 months, tracheostomy patients had 12% lower 6MWT (p = 0.0008) and lower MRC score (3.4 points; p = 0.006). Most PFTs were 5-8% lower in the tracheostomy group. Tracheostomy patients had similar specialist visits (rate ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.28-2.4) and hospital readmissions (OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.54-1.3) but were less likely to be at home at hospital discharge and 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received tracheostomy had more ICU and hospital care and higher hospital mortality compared with patients who did not receive a tracheostomy. In 1 year follow-up, tracheostomy patients required a higher daily burden of care, expressed by FIM.

The standard of care of patients with ARDS: ventilatory settings and rescue therapies for refractory hypoxemia.

PURPOSE: Severe ARDS is often associated with refractory hypoxemia, and early identification and treatment of hypoxemia is mandatory. For the management of severe ARDS ventilator settings, positioning therapy, infection control, and supportive measures are essential to improve survival. METHODS AND RESULTS: A precise definition of life-threating hypoxemia is not identified. Typical clinical determinations are: arterial partial pressure of oxygen < 60 mmHg and/or arterial oxygenation < 88 % and/or the ratio of PaO2/FIO2 < 100. For mechanical ventilation specific settings are recommended: limitation of tidal volume (6 ml/kg predicted body weight), adequate high PEEP (>12 cmH2O), a recruitment manoeuvre in special situations, and a 'balanced' respiratory rate (20-30/min). Individual bedside methods to guide PEEP/recruitment (e.g., transpulmonary pressure) are not (yet) available. Prone positioning [early (≤ 48 hrs after onset of severe ARDS) and prolonged (repetition of 16-hr-sessions)] improves survival. An advanced infection management/control includes early diagnosis of bacterial, atypical, viral and fungal specimen (blood culture, bronchoalveolar lavage), and of infection sources by CT scan, followed by administration of broad-spectrum anti-infectives. Neuromuscular blockage (Cisatracurium ≤ 48 hrs after onset of ARDS), as well as an adequate sedation strategy (score guided) is an important supportive therapy. A negative fluid balance is associated with improved lung function and the use of hemofiltration might be indicated for specific indications. CONCLUSIONS: A specific standard of care is required for the management of severe ARDS with refractory hypoxemia.

Intraoperative hemodynamic monitoring during organ transplantation: what is new?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To highlight the recent developments in hemodynamic monitoring during liver and lung transplantation. RECENT FINDINGS: Even though a consensus on intraoperative hemodynamic monitoring is still lacking, the most frequently monitoring tool used is the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC). The filling pressures are widely accepted as not being able to accurately define cardiac preload. On the contrary, the use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE), although it is operator dependent and requires a prolonged training, is increasing during the intraoperative period to directly evaluate the cardiovascular function. New frontiers have been opened by the transpulmonary thermodilution: intrathoracic blood volume has been shown to have a better correlation with preload than the filling pressures. The advanced modified PAC permits evaluation of the right heart function and preload. Recently, right ventricular end diastolic volume has been shown to correlate better with preload than the filling pressures and also the left ventricular end diastolic area. SUMMARY: The PAC still represents the most used intraoperative hemodynamic monitoring technique. TEE is increasing in popularity. Recent studies demonstrate that volumetric monitoring conducted with transpulmonary thermodilution and advanced volumetric PAC give good definition of preload and should be implemented in clinical practice.