A world-wide study on delirium assessments and presence of protocols.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a common complication of older people in hospitals, rehabilitation and long-term facilities. OBJECTIVE: To assess the worldwide use of validated delirium assessment tools and the presence of delirium management protocols. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of a worldwide one-day point prevalence study on World Delirium Awareness Day, 15 March 2023. SETTING: Cross-sectional online survey including hospitals, rehabilitation and long-term facilities. METHODS: Participating clinicians reported data on delirium, the presence of protocols, delirium assessments, delirium-awareness interventions, non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions, and ward/unit-specific barriers. RESULTS: Data from 44 countries, 1664 wards/units and 36 048 patients were analysed. Validated delirium assessments were used in 66.7% (n = 1110) of wards/units, 18.6% (n = 310) used personal judgement or no assessment, and 10% (n = 166) used other assessment methods. A delirium management protocol was reported in 66.8% (n = 1094) of wards/units. The presence of protocols for delirium management varied across continents, ranging from 21.6% (on 21/97 wards/units) in Africa to 90.4% (235/260) in Australia, similar to the use of validated delirium assessments with 29.6% (29/98) in Africa to 93.5% (116/124) in North America. Wards/units with a delirium management protocol [n = 1094/1664, 66.8%] were more likely to use a validated delirium test than those without a protocol [odds ratio 6.97 (95% confidence interval 5.289-9.185)]. The presence of a delirium protocol increased the chances for valid delirium assessment and, likely, evidence-based interventions. CONCLUSION: Wards/units that reported the presence of delirium management protocols had a higher probability of using validated delirium assessments tools to assess for delirium.

Closed-loop oxygen control for critically ill patients--A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The impact of closed-loop control systems to titrate oxygen flow in critically ill patients, including their effectiveness, efficacy, workload and safety, remains unclear. This systematic review investigated the utilization of closed-loop oxygen systems for critically ill patients in comparison to manual oxygen titration systems focusing on these topics. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A search was conducted across several databases including MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, LOVE, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization on March 3, 2022, with subsequent updates made on June 27, 2023. Evidence databases were searched for randomized clinical parallel or crossover studies investigating closed-loop oxygen control systems for critically ill patients. This systematic review and meta-analysis was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis guidelines. The analysis was conducted using Review Manager software, adopting the mean difference or standardized mean difference with a 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for continuous variables or risk ratio with 95% CI for dichotomous outcomes. The main outcome of interest was the percentage of time spent in the peripheral arterial oxygen saturation target. Secondary outcomes included time for supplemental oxygen weaning, length of stay, mortality, costs, adverse events, and workload of healthcare professional. A total of 37 records from 21 studies were included in this review with a total of 1,577 participants. Compared with manual oxygen titration, closed-loop oxygen control systems increased the percentage of time in the prescribed SpO2 target, mean difference (MD) 25.47; 95% CI 19.7, 30.0], with moderate certainty of evidence. Current evidence also shows that closed-loop oxygen control systems have the potential to reduce the percentage of time with hypoxemia (MD -0.98; 95% CI -1.68, -0.27) and healthcare workload (MD -4.94; 95% CI -7.28, -2.61) with low certainty of evidence. CONCLUSION: Closed-loop oxygen control systems increase the percentage of time in the preferred SpO2 targets and may reduce healthcare workload. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42022306033.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit during the first and second waves of the pandemic in Brazil: a single-center retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to intensive care units during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: In this retrospective single-center cohort study, data were retrieved from the Epimed Monitor System; all adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit between March 4, 2020, and October 1, 2021, were included in the study. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to the intensive care unit of a quaternary private hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, during the first (May 1, 2020, to August 31, 2020) and second (March 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021) waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: In total, 1,427 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to the intensive care unit during the first (421 patients) and second (1,006 patients) waves. Compared with the first wave group [median (IQR)], the second wave group was younger [57 (46-70) versus 67 (52-80) years; p<0.001], had a lower SAPS 3 Score [45 (42-52) versus 49 (43-57); p<0.001], lower SOFA Score on intensive care unit admission [3 (1-6) versus 4 (2-6); p=0.018], lower Charlson Comorbidity Index [0 (0-1) versus 1 (0-2); p<0.001], and were less frequently frail (10.4% versus 18.1%; p<0.001). The second wave group used more noninvasive ventilation (81.3% versus 53.4%; p<0.001) and high-flow nasal cannula (63.2% versus 23.0%; p<0.001) during their intensive care unit stay. The intensive care unit (11.3% versus 10.5%; p=0.696) and in-hospital mortality (12.3% versus 12.1%; p=0.998) rates did not differ between both waves. CONCLUSION: In the first and second waves, patients with severe COVID-19 exhibited similar mortality rates and need for invasive organ support, despite the second wave group being younger and less severely ill at the time of intensive care unit admission.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit during the first and second waves of the pandemic in Brazil: a single-center retrospective cohort study

ABSTRACT Objective To describe and compare the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to intensive care units during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods In this retrospective single-center cohort study, data were retrieved from the Epimed Monitor System; all adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit between March 4, 2020, and October 1, 2021, were included in the study. We compared the clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients admitted to the intensive care unit of a quaternary private hospital in São Paulo, Brazil, during the first (May 1, 2020, to August 31, 2020) and second (March 1, 2021, to June 30, 2021) waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Results In total, 1,427 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to the intensive care unit during the first (421 patients) and second (1,006 patients) waves. Compared with the first wave group [median (IQR)], the second wave group was younger [57 (46-70) versus 67 (52-80) years; p<0.001], had a lower SAPS 3 Score [45 (42-52) versus 49 (43-57); p<0.001], lower SOFA Score on intensive care unit admission [3 (1-6) versus 4 (2-6); p=0.018], lower Charlson Comorbidity Index [0 (0-1) versus 1 (0-2); p<0.001], and were less frequently frail (10.4% versus 18.1%; p<0.001). The second wave group used more noninvasive ventilation (81.3% versus 53.4%; p<0.001) and high-flow nasal cannula (63.2% versus 23.0%; p<0.001) during their intensive care unit stay. The intensive care unit (11.3% versus 10.5%; p=0.696) and in-hospital mortality (12.3% versus 12.1%; p=0.998) rates did not differ between both waves. Conclusion In the first and second waves, patients with severe COVID-19 exhibited similar mortality rates and need for invasive organ support, despite the second wave group being younger and less severely ill at the time of intensive care unit admission.

Closed-loop oxygen control for patients with hypoxaemia during hospitalisation: a living systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Oxygen is the most common drug used in critical care patients to correct episodes of hypoxaemia. The adoption of new technologies in clinical practice, such as closed-loop systems for an automatic oxygen titration, may improve outcomes and reduce the healthcare professionals' workload at the bedside; however, certainty of the evidence regarding the safety and benefits still remains low. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness, efficacy and safety of the closed-loop oxygen control for patients with hypoxaemia during the hospitalisation period by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL and LOVE evidence databases will be searched. Randomised controlled trials and cross-over studies investigating the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparator and Outcome) framework will be included. The primary outcomes will be the time in the peripheral oxygen saturation target. Secondary outcomes will include time for oxygen weaning time; length of stay; costs; adverse events; mortality; healthcare professionals' workload, and percentage of time with hypoxia and hyperoxia. Two reviewers will independently screen and extract data and perform quality assessment of included studies. The Cochrane risk of bias tool will be used to assess risk of bias. The RevMan V.5.4 software will be used for statistical analysis. Heterogeneity will be analysed using I2 statistics. Mean difference or standardised mean difference with 95% CI and p value will be used to calculate treatment effect for outcome variables. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required because this systematic review and meta-analysis is based on previously published data. Final results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant conferences and events. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022306033.

Analysis of mobility level of COVID-19 patients undergoing mechanical ventilation support: A single center, retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients frequently require mechanical ventilation (MV) and undergo prolonged periods of bed rest with restriction of activities during the intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Our aim was to address the degree of mobilization in critically ill patients with COVID-19 undergoing to MV support. METHODS: Retrospective single-center cohort study. We analyzed patients' mobility level, through the Perme ICU Mobility Score (Perme Score) of COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. The Perme Mobility Index (PMI) was calculated [PMI = ΔPerme Score (ICU discharge-ICU admission)/ICU length of stay], and patients were categorized as "improved" (PMI > 0) or "not improved" (PMI ≤ 0). Comparisons were performed with stratification according to the use of MV support. RESULTS: From February 2020, to February 2021, 1,297 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to the ICU and assessed for eligibility. Out of those, 949 patients were included in the study [524 (55.2%) were classified as "improved" and 425 (44.8%) as "not improved"], and 396 (41.7%) received MV during ICU stay. The overall rate of patients out of bed and able to walk ≥ 30 meters at ICU discharge were, respectively, 526 (63.3%) and 170 (20.5%). After adjusting for confounders, independent predictors of improvement of mobility level were frailty (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.29-0.94; p = 0.03); SAPS III Score (OR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.57-0.99; p = 0.04); SOFA Score (OR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.43-0.78; p < 0.001); use of MV after the first hour of ICU admission (OR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.17-0.99; p = 0.04); tracheostomy (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.30-0.95; p = 0.03); use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (OR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.05-0.8; p = 0.03); neuromuscular blockade (OR: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.3-0.95; p = 0.03); a higher Perme Score at admission (OR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.28-0.43; p < 0.001); palliative care (OR: 0.05; 95% CI: 0.01-0.16; p < 0.001); and a longer ICU stay (OR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.61-0.97; p = 0.04) were associated with a lower chance of mobility improvement, while non-invasive ventilation within the first hour of ICU admission and after the first hour of ICU admission (OR: 2.45; 95% CI: 1.59-3.81; p < 0.001) and (OR: 2.25; 95% CI: 1.56-3.26; p < 0.001), respectively; and vasopressor use (OR: 2.39; 95% CI: 1.07-5.5; p = 0.03) were associated with a higher chance of mobility improvement. CONCLUSION: The use of MV reduced mobility status in less than half of critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Telerehabilitation improves physical function and reduces dyspnoea in people with COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 conditions: a systematic review.

QUESTION: How effective and safe is telerehabilitation for people with COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 conditions? DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised trials. PARTICIPANTS: People with COVID-19 and post-COVID-19 conditions. INTERVENTION: Any type of telerehabilitation. OUTCOME MEASURES: Satisfaction, quality of life, adverse events, adherence to telerehabilitation, dyspnoea, functional performance, readmissions, mortality, pulmonary function and level of independence. RESULTS: Database searches retrieved 2,962 records, of which six trials with 323 participants were included in the review. Breathing exercises delivered via telerehabilitation improved 6-minute walk distance (MD 101 m, 95% CI 61 to 141; two studies), 30-second sit-to-stand test performance (MD 2.2 repetitions, 95% CI 1.5 to 2.8; two studies), Multidimensional Dyspnoea-12 questionnaire scores (MD -6, 95% CI -7 to -5; two studies) and perceived effort on the 0-to-10 Borg scale (MD -2.8, 95% CI -3.3 to -2.3; two studies), with low certainty of evidence. Exercise delivered via telerehabilitation improved 6-minute walk distance (MD 62 m, 95% CI 42 to 82, four studies), 30-second sit-to-stand test performance (MD 2.0 repetitions, 95% CI 1.3 to 2.7; two studies) and Multidimensional Dyspnoea-12 scores (MD -1.8, 95% CI -2.5 to -1.1; one study), with low certainty of evidence. Adverse events were almost all mild or moderate and occurred with similar frequency in the telerehabilitation group (median 0 per participant, IQR 0 to 2.75) as in the control group (median 0 per participant, IQR 0 to 2); Hodges-Lehmann median difference 0 (95% CI 0 to 0), with low certainty of evidence. CONCLUSION: Telerehabilitation may improve functional capacity, dyspnoea, performance and physical components of quality of life and does not substantially increase adverse events. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021271049.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit during the first year of the pandemic in Brazil: a single center retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe clinical characteristics, resource use, outcomes, and to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit. METHODS: Retrospective single-center cohort study conducted at a private hospital in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. All consecutive adult (≥18 years) patients admitted to the intensive care unit, between March 4, 2020 and February 28, 2021 were included in this study. Patients were categorized between survivors and non-survivors according to hospital discharge. RESULTS: During the study period, 1,296 patients [median (interquartile range) age: 66 (53-77) years] with COVID-19 were admitted to the intensive care unit. Out of those, 170 (13.6%) died at hospital (non-survivors) and 1,078 (86.4%) were discharged (survivors). Compared to survivors, non-survivors were older [80 (70-88) versus 63 (50-74) years; p<0.001], had a higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 [59 (54-66) versus 47 (42-53) points; p<0.001], and presented comorbidities more frequently. During the intensive care unit stay, 56.6% of patients received noninvasive ventilation, 32.9% received mechanical ventilation, 31.3% used high flow nasal cannula, 11.7% received renal replacement therapy, and 1.5% used extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Independent predictors of in-hospital mortality included age, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, Charlson Comorbidity Index, need for mechanical ventilation, high flow nasal cannula, renal replacement therapy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. CONCLUSION: Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit exhibited a considerable morbidity and mortality, demanding substantial organ support, and prolonged intensive care unit and hospital stay.

The Perme Mobility Index: A new concept to assess mobility level in patients with coronavirus (COVID-19) infection.

INTRODUCTION: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak is evolving rapidly worldwide. Data on the mobility level of patients with COVID-19 in the intensive care unit (ICU) are needed. OBJECTIVE: To describe the mobility level of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU and to address factors associated with mobility level at the time of ICU discharge. METHODS: Single center, retrospective cohort study. Consecutive patients admitted to the ICU with confirmed COVID-19 infection were analyzed. The mobility status was assessed by the Perme Score at admission and discharge from ICU with higher scores indicating higher mobility level. The Perme Mobility Index (PMI) was calculated [PMI = ΔPerme Score (ICU discharge-ICU admission)/ICU length of stay]. Based on the PMI, patients were divided into two groups: "Improved" (PMI > 0) and "Not improved" (PMI ≤ 0). RESULTS: A total of 136 patients were included in this analysis. The hospital mortality rate was 16.2%. The Perme Score improved significantly when comparing ICU discharge with ICU admission [20.0 (7-28) points versus 7.0 (0-16) points; P < 0.001]. A total of 88 patients (64.7%) improved their mobility level during ICU stay, and the median PMI of these patients was 1.5 (0.6-3.4). Patients in the improved group had a lower duration of mechanical ventilation [10 (5-14) days versus 15 (8-24) days; P = 0.021], lower hospital length of stay [25 (12-37) days versus 30 (11-48) days; P < 0.001], and lower ICU and hospital mortality rate. Independent predictors for mobility level were lower age, lower Charlson Comorbidity Index, and not having received renal replacement therapy. CONCLUSION: Patients' mobility level was low at ICU admission; however, most patients improved their mobility level during ICU stay. Risk factors associated with the mobility level were age, comorbidities, and use of renal replacement therapy.

Clinical characteristics and outcomes of COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit during the first year of the pandemic in Brazil: a single center retrospective cohort study / Características clínicas e desfechos de pacientes com COVID-19 admitidos em unidade de terapia intensiva durante o primeiro ano de pandemia no Brasil: um estudo de coorte retrospectivo em centro único

ABSTRACT Objective: To describe clinical characteristics, resource use, outcomes, and to identify predictors of in-hospital mortality of patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit. Methods: Retrospective single-center cohort study conducted at a private hospital in São Paulo (SP), Brazil. All consecutive adult (≥18 years) patients admitted to the intensive care unit, between March 4, 2020 and February 28, 2021 were included in this study. Patients were categorized between survivors and non-survivors according to hospital discharge. Results: During the study period, 1,296 patients [median (interquartile range) age: 66 (53-77) years] with COVID-19 were admitted to the intensive care unit. Out of those, 170 (13.6%) died at hospital (non-survivors) and 1,078 (86.4%) were discharged (survivors). Compared to survivors, non-survivors were older [80 (70-88) versus 63 (50-74) years; p<0.001], had a higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 [59 (54-66) versus 47 (42-53) points; p<0.001], and presented comorbidities more frequently. During the intensive care unit stay, 56.6% of patients received noninvasive ventilation, 32.9% received mechanical ventilation, 31.3% used high flow nasal cannula, 11.7% received renal replacement therapy, and 1.5% used extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Independent predictors of in-hospital mortality included age, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, Charlson Comorbidity Index, need for mechanical ventilation, high flow nasal cannula, renal replacement therapy, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support. Conclusion: Patients with severe COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit exhibited a considerable morbidity and mortality, demanding substantial organ support, and prolonged intensive care unit and hospital stay.

RESUMO Objetivo: Descrever características clínicas, uso de recursos e desfechos e identificar preditores de mortalidade intra-hospitalar de pacientes com COVID-19 admitidos na unidade de terapia intensiva. Métodos: Estudo de coorte retrospectivo, em centro único, realizado em um hospital privado localizado em São Paulo (SP). Pacientes adultos (≥18 anos) admitidos consecutivamente na unidade de terapia intensiva, entre 4 de março de 2020 a 28 de fevereiro de 2021, foram incluídos neste estudo. Os pacientes foram classificados como sobreviventes e não sobreviventes, de acordo com a alta hospitalar. Resultados: Durante o período do estudo, 1.296 pacientes [mediana (intervalo interquartil) de idade: 66 (53-77) anos] com COVID-19 foram admitidos na unidade de terapia intensiva. Destes, 170 (13,6%) pacientes morreram no hospital (não sobreviventes), e 1.078 (86,4%) receberam alta hospitalar (sobreviventes). Comparados aos sobreviventes, os não sobreviventes eram mais idosos [80 (70-88) versus 63 (50-74) anos; p<0,001], apresentavam pontuação mais alta no sistema prognóstico Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 [59 (54-66) versus 47 (42-53); pontos p<0,001] e tinham mais comorbidades. Durante a internação na unidade de terapia intensiva, 56,6% dos pacientes usaram ventilação não invasiva, 32,9% usaram ventilação mecânica invasiva, 31,3% usaram cateter nasal de alto fluxo, 11,7% foram submetidos à terapia renal substitutiva, e 1,5% usou oxigenação por membrana extracorpórea. Os preditores independentes de mortalidade intra-hospitalar foram idade, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, Índice de Comorbidade de Charlson, necessidade de ventilação mecânica, uso de cateter nasal de alto fluxo, uso de terapia renal substitutiva e suporte por oxigenação por membrana extracorpórea. Conclusão: Pacientes com quadros graves da COVID-19 admitidos na unidade de terapia intensiva apresentaram considerável mortalidade e morbidade, com alta demanda de terapia de suporte e internação prolongada em unidade de terapia intensiva e hospitalar.

Intensive support recommendations for critically-ill patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection.

In December 2019, a series of patients with severe pneumonia were identified in Wuhan, Hubei province, China, who progressed to severe acute respiratory syndrome and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Subsequently, COVID-19 was attributed to a new betacoronavirus, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Approximately 20% of patients diagnosed as COVID-19 develop severe forms of the disease, including acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, severe acute respiratory syndrome, acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute renal failure and require intensive care. There is no randomized controlled clinical trial addressing potential therapies for patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection at the time of publishing these treatment recommendations. Therefore, these recommendations are based predominantly on the opinion of experts (level C of recommendation).

Intensive support recommendations for critically-ill patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection / Recomendações de suporte intensivo para pacientes graves com infecção suspeita ou confirmada pela COVID-19

ABSTRACT In December 2019, a series of patients with severe pneumonia were identified in Wuhan, Hubei province, China, who progressed to severe acute respiratory syndrome and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Subsequently, COVID-19 was attributed to a new betacoronavirus, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Approximately 20% of patients diagnosed as COVID-19 develop severe forms of the disease, including acute hypoxemic respiratory failure, severe acute respiratory syndrome, acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute renal failure and require intensive care. There is no randomized controlled clinical trial addressing potential therapies for patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection at the time of publishing these treatment recommendations. Therefore, these recommendations are based predominantly on the opinion of experts (level C of recommendation).

RESUMO Em dezembro de 2019, uma série de pacientes com pneumonia grave foi identificada em Wuhan, província de Hubei, na China. Esses pacientes evoluíram para síndrome respiratória aguda grave e síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo. Posteriormente, a COVID-19 foi atribuída a um novo betacoronavírus, o coronavírus da síndrome respiratória aguda grave 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Cerca de 20% dos pacientes com diagnóstico de COVID-19 desenvolvem formas graves da doença, incluindo insuficiência respiratória aguda hipoxêmica, síndrome respiratória aguda grave, síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo e insuficiência renal aguda e requerem admissão em unidade de terapia intensiva. Não há nenhum ensaio clínico randomizado controlado que avalie potenciais tratamentos para pacientes com infecção confirmada pela COVID-19 no momento da publicação destas recomendações de tratamento. Dessa forma, essas recomendações são baseadas predominantemente na opinião de especialistas (grau de recomendação de nível C).