EPidemiology, clinical characteristics and Outcomes of 4546 adult admissions to high-dependency and intensive care units in Kenya (EPOK): a multicentre registry-based observational study.

Objective: to describe clinical, management and outcome features of critically ill patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) and high dependency units (HDUs) in Kenya. Design: prospective registry-based observational study. Setting: three HDUs and eight ICUs in Kenya. Patients: consecutive adult patients admitted between January 2021 and June 2022. Interventions: none. Measurements and main results: data was entered in a cloud based platform using a common data model. Study endpoints included case mix variables, management features and patient centred outcomes. Patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were reported separately. Of the 3892/4546 patients without COVID-19, 2445 patients (62.8%) were from HDUs and 1447 (37.2%) from ICUs. Patients had a median age of 53 years (interquartile range [IQR] 38-68), with HDU patients being older but with a lower severity (APACHE II 6 [3-9] in HDUs vs 12 [7-17] in ICUs; p<0.001). One out of four patients were postoperative with 604 (63.4%) receiving emergency surgery. Readmission rate was 4.8%. Hypertension and diabetes were prevalent comorbidities, with a 4.0% HIV/AIDS rate. Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) was applied in 3.4% in HDUs vs. 47.6% in ICUs (P<0.001), with a duration of 7 days (IQR 3-21). There was a similar use of renal replacement therapy (4.0% vs. 4.7%; P<0.001). Vasopressor use was infrequent while half of patients received antibiotics. Average length of stay was 2 days (IQR 1-5). Crude HDU mortality rate was 6.5% in HDUs versus 30.5% in the ICUs (P<0.001). Of the 654 COVID-19 admissions, most were admitted in ICUs (72.3%) with a 33.2% mortality. Conclusions: We provide the first multicenter observational cohort study from an African ICU national registry. Distinct management features and outcomes characterise HDU from ICU patients. Study registration: Clinicaltrials.gov (reference number NCT05456217, date of registration 07 Nov 2022).

Organisation, staffing and resources of critical care units in Kenya.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the organisation, staffing patterns and resources available in critical care units in Kenya. The secondary objective was to explore variations between units in the public and private sectors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online cross-sectional survey was used to collect data on organisational characteristics (model of care, type of unit, quality- related activities, use of electronic medical records and participation in the national ICU registry), staffing and available resources for monitoring, ventilation and general critical care. RESULTS: The survey included 60 of 75 identified units (80% response rate), with 43% (n = 23) located in government facilities. A total of 598 critical care beds were reported with a median of 6 beds (interquartile range [IQR] 5-11) per unit, with 26% beds (n = 157) being non functional. The proportion of ICU beds to total hospital beds was 3.8% (IQR 1.9-10.4). Most of the units (80%, n = 48) were mixed/general units with an open model of care (60%, n = 36). Consultants-in-charge were mainly anesthesiologists (69%, n = 37). The nurse-to-bed ratio was predominantly 1:2 with half of the nurses formally trained in critical care. Most units (83%, n = 47) had a dedicated ventilator for each bed, however 63% (n = 39) lacked high flow nasal therapy. While basic multiparametric monitoring was ubiquitous, invasive blood pressure measurement capacity was low (3% of beds, IQR 0-81%), and capnography moderate (31% of beds, IQR 0-77%). Blood gas analysers were widely available (93%, n = 56), with 80% reported as functional. Differences between the public and private sector were narrow. CONCLUSION: This study shows an established critical care network in Kenya, in terms of staffing density, availability of basic monitoring and ventilation resources. The public and private sector are equally represented albeit with modest differences. Potential areas for improvement include training, use of invasive blood pressure and functionality of blood gas analysers.

Pragmatic Recommendations for the Management of COVID-19 Patients with Shock in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

As some patients infected with the novel coronavirus progress to critical illness, a subset will eventually develop shock. High-quality data on management of these patients are scarce, and further investigation will provide valuable information in the context of the pandemic. A group of experts identify a set of pragmatic recommendations for the care of patients with SARS-CoV-2 and shock in resource-limited environments. We define shock as life-threatening circulatory failure that results in inadequate tissue perfusion and cellular dysoxia/hypoxia, and suggest that it can be operationalized via clinical observations. We suggest a thorough evaluation for other potential causes of shock and suggest against indiscriminate testing for coinfections. We suggest the use of the quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) as a simple bedside prognostic score for COVID-19 patients and point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) to evaluate the etiology of shock. Regarding fluid therapy for the treatment of COVID-19 patients with shock in low-middle-income countries, we favor balanced crystalloids and recommend using a conservative fluid strategy for resuscitation. Where available and not prohibited by cost, we recommend using norepinephrine, given its safety profile. We favor avoiding the routine use of central venous or arterial catheters, where availability and costs are strong considerations. We also recommend using low-dose corticosteroids in patients with refractory shock. In addressing targets of resuscitation, we recommend the use of simple bedside parameters such as capillary refill time and suggest that POCUS be used to assess the need for further fluid resuscitation, if available.

Pragmatic Recommendations for Therapeutics of Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

The therapeutic options for COVID-19 patients are currently limited, but numerous randomized controlled trials are being completed, and many are on the way. For COVID-19 patients in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), we recommend against using remdesivir outside of a clinical trial. We recommend against using hydroxychloroquine ± azithromycin or lopinavir-ritonavir. We suggest empiric antimicrobial treatment for likely coinfecting pathogens if an alternative infectious cause is likely. We suggest close monitoring without additional empiric antimicrobials if there are no clinical or laboratory signs of other infections. We recommend using oral or intravenous low-dose dexamethasone in adults with COVID-19 disease who require oxygen or mechanical ventilation. We recommend against using dexamethasone in patients with COVID-19 who do not require supplemental oxygen. We recommend using alternate equivalent doses of steroids in the event that dexamethasone is unavailable. We also recommend using low-dose corticosteroids in patients with refractory shock requiring vasopressor support. We recommend against the use of convalescent plasma and interleukin-6 inhibitors, such as tocilizumab, for the treatment of COVID-19 in LMICs outside of clinical trials.

The history of critical care in Kenya.

Critical care is a young specialty in Kenya. From its humble beginnings in the 1960s to present day Kenya, the bulk of this service has largely been provided by anaesthetists. We provide a detailed account of the growth and development of this specialty in our country, the attempts made by our people to grow this service within our borders and the vital role our international partners have played throughout this process. We also share a selection of our successes over the years, the challenges we have faced and our aspirations as we look to the future.

Worldwide Survey of the "Assessing Pain, Both Spontaneous Awakening and Breathing Trials, Choice of Drugs, Delirium Monitoring/Management, Early Exercise/Mobility, and Family Empowerment" (ABCDEF) Bundle.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the knowledge and use of the Assessment, prevention, and management of pain; spontaneous awakening and breathing trials; Choice of analgesia and sedation; Delirium assessment; Early mobility and exercise; and Family engagement and empowerment (ABCDEF) bundle to implement the Pain, Agitation, Delirium guidelines. DESIGN: Worldwide online survey. SETTING: Intensive care. INTERVENTION: A cross-sectional online survey using the Delphi method was administered to intensivists worldwide, to assess the knowledge and use of all aspects of the ABCDEF bundle. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 1,521 respondents from 47 countries, 57% had implemented the ABCDEF bundle, with varying degrees of compliance across continents. Most of the respondents (83%) used a scale to evaluate pain. Spontaneous awakening trials and spontaneous breathing trials are performed in 66% and 67% of the responder ICUs, respectively. Sedation scale was used in 89% of ICUs. Delirium monitoring was implemented in 70% of ICUs, but only 42% used a validated delirium tool. Likewise, early mobilization was "prescribed" by most, but 69% had no mobility team and 79% used no formal mobility scale. Only 36% of the respondents assessed ICU-acquired weakness. Family members were actively involved in 67% of ICUs; however, only 33% used dedicated staff to support families and only 35% reported that their unit was open 24 hr/d for family visits. CONCLUSIONS: The current implementation of the ABCDEF bundle varies across individual components and regions. We identified specific targets for quality improvement and adoption of the ABCDEF bundle. Our data reflect a significant but incomplete shift toward patient- and family-centered ICU care in accordance with the Pain, Agitation, Delirium guidelines.

Current challenges in the management of sepsis in ICUs in resource-poor settings and suggestions for the future.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a major reason for intensive care unit (ICU) admission, also in resource-poor settings. ICUs in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face many challenges that could affect patient outcome. AIM: To describe differences between resource-poor and resource-rich settings regarding the epidemiology, pathophysiology, economics and research aspects of sepsis. We restricted this manuscript to the ICU setting even knowing that many sepsis patients in LMICs are treated outside an ICU. FINDINGS: Although many bacterial pathogens causing sepsis in LMICs are similar to those in high-income countries, resistance patterns to antimicrobial drugs can be very different; in addition, causes of sepsis in LMICs often include tropical diseases in which direct damaging effects of pathogens and their products can sometimes be more important than the response of the host. There are substantial and persisting differences in ICU capacities around the world; not surprisingly the lowest capacities are found in LMICs, but with important heterogeneity within individual LMICs. Although many aspects of sepsis management developed in rich countries are applicable in LMICs, implementation requires strong consideration of cost implications and the important differences in resources. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing both disease-specific and setting-specific factors is important to improve performance of ICUs in LMICs. Although critical care for severe sepsis is likely cost-effective in LMIC setting, more detailed evaluation at both at a macro- and micro-economy level is necessary. Sepsis management in resource-limited settings is a largely unexplored frontier with important opportunities for research, training, and other initiatives for improvement.

Haemodynamic assessment and support in sepsis and septic shock in resource-limited settings.

Background: Recommendations for haemodynamic assessment and support in sepsis and septic shock in resource-limited settings are largely lacking. Methods: A task force of six international experts in critical care medicine, all of them members of the Global Intensive Care Working Group of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and with extensive bedside experience in resource-limited intensive care units, reviewed the literature and provided recommendations regarding haemodynamic assessment and support, keeping aspects of efficacy and effectiveness, availability and feasibility and affordability and safety in mind. Results: We suggest using capillary refill time, skin mottling scores and skin temperature gradients; suggest a passive leg raise test to guide fluid resuscitation; recommend crystalloid solutions as the initial fluid of choice; recommend initial fluid resuscitation with 30 ml/kg in the first 3 h, but with extreme caution in settings where there is a lack of mechanical ventilation; recommend against an early start of vasopressors; suggest starting a vasopressor in patients with persistent hypotension after initial fluid resuscitation with at least 30 ml/kg, but earlier when there is lack of vasopressors and mechanical ventilation; recommend using norepinephrine (noradrenaline) as a first-line vasopressor; suggest starting an inotrope with persistence of plasma lactate >2 mmol/L or persistence of skin mottling or prolonged capillary refill time when plasma lactate cannot be measured, and only after initial fluid resuscitation; suggest the use of dobutamine as a first-line inotrope; recommend administering vasopressors through a central venous line and suggest administering vasopressors and inotropes via a central venous line using a syringe or infusion pump when available. Conclusion: Recommendations for haemodynamic assessment and support in sepsis and septic shock in resource-limited settings have been developed by a task force of six international experts in critical care medicine with extensive practical experience in resource-limited settings.