Intraosseous access in the resuscitation of patients with trauma: the good, the bad, the future.

The timely restoration of lost blood in hemorrhaging patients with trauma, especially those who are hemodynamically unstable, is of utmost importance. While intravenous access has traditionally been considered the primary method for vascular access, intraosseous (IO) access is gaining popularity as an alternative for patients with unsuccessful attempts. Previous studies have highlighted the higher success rate and easier training process associated with IO access compared with peripheral intravenous (PIV) and central intravenous access. However, the effectiveness of IO access in the early aggressive resuscitation of patients remains unclear. This review article aims to comprehensively discuss various aspects of IO access, including its advantages and disadvantages, and explore the existing literature on the clinical outcomes of patients with trauma undergoing resuscitation with IO versus intravenous access.

2024 Focused Update: Guidelines on Use of Corticosteroids in Sepsis, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, and Community-Acquired Pneumonia.

RATIONALE: New evidence is available examining the use of corticosteroids in sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP), warranting a focused update of the 2017 guideline on critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency. OBJECTIVES: To develop evidence-based recommendations for use of corticosteroids in hospitalized adults and children with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. PANEL DESIGN: The 22-member panel included diverse representation from medicine, including adult and pediatric intensivists, pulmonologists, endocrinologists, nurses, pharmacists, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines. We followed Society of Critical Care Medicine conflict of interest policies in all phases of the guideline development, including task force selection and voting. METHODS: After development of five focused Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) questions, we conducted systematic reviews to identify the best available evidence addressing each question. We evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach and formulated recommendations using the evidence-to-decision framework. RESULTS: In response to the five PICOs, the panel issued four recommendations addressing the use of corticosteroids in patients with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. These included a conditional recommendation to administer corticosteroids for patients with septic shock and critically ill patients with ARDS and a strong recommendation for use in hospitalized patients with severe CAP. The panel also recommended against high dose/short duration administration of corticosteroids for septic shock. In response to the final PICO regarding type of corticosteroid molecule in ARDS, the panel was unable to provide specific recommendations addressing corticosteroid molecule, dose, and duration of therapy, based on currently available evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The panel provided updated recommendations based on current evidence to inform clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders on the use of corticosteroids for sepsis, ARDS, and CAP.

Characteristics, Outcomes, and Trends of Patients With COVID-19-Related Critical Illness at a Learning Health System in the United States.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to surge in the United States and globally. OBJECTIVE: To describe the epidemiology of COVID-19-related critical illness, including trends in outcomes and care delivery. DESIGN: Single-health system, multihospital retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 5 hospitals within the University of Pennsylvania Health System. PATIENTS: Adults with COVID-19-related critical illness who were admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with acute respiratory failure or shock during the initial surge of the pandemic. MEASUREMENTS: The primary exposure for outcomes and care delivery trend analyses was longitudinal time during the pandemic. The primary outcome was all-cause 28-day in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were all-cause death at any time, receipt of mechanical ventilation (MV), and readmissions. RESULTS: Among 468 patients with COVID-19-related critical illness, 319 (68.2%) were treated with MV and 121 (25.9%) with vasopressors. Outcomes were notable for an all-cause 28-day in-hospital mortality rate of 29.9%, a median ICU stay of 8 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 17 days), a median hospital stay of 13 days (IQR, 7 to 25 days), and an all-cause 30-day readmission rate (among nonhospice survivors) of 10.8%. Mortality decreased over time, from 43.5% (95% CI, 31.3% to 53.8%) to 19.2% (CI, 11.6% to 26.7%) between the first and last 15-day periods in the core adjusted model, whereas patient acuity and other factors did not change. LIMITATIONS: Single-health system study; use of, or highly dynamic trends in, other clinical interventions were not evaluated, nor were complications. CONCLUSION: Among patients with COVID-19-related critical illness admitted to ICUs of a learning health system in the United States, mortality seemed to decrease over time despite stable patient characteristics. Further studies are necessary to confirm this result and to investigate causal mechanisms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

The REBOA Dissipation Curve: Training Starts to Wane at 6 Months in the Absence of Clinical REBOA Cases.

BACKGROUND: Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) is a low-frequency, high-acuity intervention. We hypothesized that REBOA-specific knowledge and comfort deteriorate significantly within 6 months of a formal training course if REBOA is not performed in the interim. METHODS: A comprehensive REBOA course was developed including didactics and hands-on practical simulation training. Baseline knowledge and comfort were assessed with a precourse objective test and a subjective self-assessment. REBOA knowledge and comfort were then re-assessed immediately postcourse and again at 6 months and 1 year. Performance trends were measured using paired Student's t and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. RESULTS: Thirteen participants were evaluated including trauma faculty (n = 10) and fellows (n = 3). Test scores improved significantly from precourse (72% ± 10% correct) to postcourse (88% ± 8%, p < 0.001). At 6 months, scores remained no different from postcourse (p = 0.126); at 1 year, scores decreased back to baseline (p = 0.024 from postcourse; 0.285 from precourse). Subjective comfort with femoral arterial line placement and REBOA improved with training (p = 0.044 and 0.003, respectively). Femoral arterial line comfort remained unchanged from postcourse at 6 months (p = 0.898) and 1 year (p = 0.158). However, subjective comfort with REBOA decreased relative to postcourse levels at 6 months (p = 0.009), driven primarily by participants with no clinical REBOA cases in the interim. CONCLUSIONS: A formal REBOA curriculum improves knowledge and comfort with critical aspects of this procedure. This knowledge persists at 6 months, though subjective comfort deteriorated among those without REBOA placement in the interim. REBOA refresher training should be considered at 6-month intervals in the absence of clinical REBOA cases. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE/STUDY TYPE: Level III, prognostic.

Association of an Emergency Department-embedded Critical Care Unit with Hospital Outcomes and Intensive Care Unit Use.

Rationale: A small but growing number of hospitals are experimenting with emergency department-embedded critical care units (CCUs) in an effort to improve the quality of care for critically ill patients with sepsis and acute respiratory failure (ARF).Objectives: To evaluate the potential impact of an emergency department-embedded CCU at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania among patients with sepsis and ARF admitted from the emergency department to a medical ward or intensive care unit (ICU) from January 2016 to December 2017.Methods: The exposure was eligibility for admission to the emergency department-embedded CCU, which was defined as meeting a clinical definition for sepsis or ARF and admission to the emergency department during the intervention period on a weekday. The primary outcome was hospital length of stay (LOS); secondary outcomes included total emergency department plus ICU LOS, hospital survival, direct admission to the ICU, and unplanned ICU admission. Primary interrupted time series analyses were performed using ordinary least squares regression comparing monthly means. Secondary retrospective cohort and before-after analyses used multivariable Cox proportional hazard and logistic regression.Results: In the baseline and intervention periods, 3,897 patients met the inclusion criteria for sepsis and 1,865 patients met the criteria for ARF. Among patients admitted with sepsis, opening of the emergency department-embedded CCU was not associated with hospital LOS (ß = -1.82 d; 95% confidence interval [CI], -4.50 to 0.87; P = 0.17 for the first month after emergency department-embedded CCU opening compared with baseline; ß = -0.26 d; 95% CI, -0.58 to 0.06; P = 0.10 for subsequent months). Among patients admitted with ARF, the emergency department-embedded CCU was not associated with a significant change in hospital LOS for the first month after emergency department-embedded CCU opening (ß = -3.25 d; 95% CI, -7.86 to 1.36; P = 0.15) but was associated with a 0.64 d/mo shorter hospital LOS for subsequent months (ß = -0.64 d; 95% CI, -1.12 to -0.17; P = 0.01). This result persisted among higher acuity patients requiring ventilatory support but was not supported by alternative analytic approaches. Among patients admitted with sepsis who did not require mechanical ventilation or vasopressors in the emergency department, the emergency department-embedded CCU was associated with an initial 9.9% reduction in direct ICU admissions in the first month (ß = -0.099; 95% CI, -0.153 to -0.044; P = 0.002), followed by a 1.1% per month increase back toward baseline in subsequent months (ß = 0.011; 95% CI, 0.003-0.019; P = 0.009). This relationship was supported by alternative analytic approaches and was not seen in ARF. No associations with emergency department plus ICU LOS, hospital survival, or unplanned ICU admission were observed among patients with sepsis or ARF.Conclusions: The emergency department-embedded CCU was not associated with clinical outcomes among patients admitted with sepsis or ARF. Among less sick patients with sepsis, the emergency department-embedded CCU was initially associated with reduced rates of direct ICU admission from the emergency department. Additional research is necessary to further evaluate the impact and utility of the emergency department-embedded CCU model.

The ED-SED Study: A Multicenter, Prospective Cohort Study of Practice Patterns and Clinical Outcomes Associated With Emergency Department SEDation for Mechanically Ventilated Patients.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize emergency department sedation practices in mechanically ventilated patients, and test the hypothesis that deep sedation in the emergency department is associated with worse outcomes. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective cohort study. SETTING: The emergency department and ICUs of 15 medical centers. PATIENTS: Mechanically ventilated adult emergency department patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All data involving sedation (medications, monitoring) were recorded. Deep sedation was defined as Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of -3 to -5 or Sedation-Agitation Scale of 2 or 1. A total of 324 patients were studied. Emergency department deep sedation was observed in 171 patients (52.8%), and was associated with a higher frequency of deep sedation in the ICU on day 1 (53.8% vs 20.3%; p < 0.001) and day 2 (33.3% vs 16.9%; p = 0.001), when compared to light sedation. Mean (SD) ventilator-free days were 18.1 (10.8) in the emergency department deep sedation group compared to 20.0 (9.8) in the light sedation group (mean difference, 1.9; 95% CI, -0.40 to 4.13). Similar results according to emergency department sedation depth existed for ICU-free days (mean difference, 1.6; 95% CI, -0.54 to 3.83) and hospital-free days (mean difference, 2.3; 95% CI, 0.26-4.32). Mortality was 21.1% in the deep sedation group and 17.0% in the light sedation group (between-group difference, 4.1%; odds ratio, 1.30; 0.74-2.28). The occurrence rate of acute brain dysfunction (delirium and coma) was 68.4% in the deep sedation group and 55.6% in the light sedation group (between-group difference, 12.8%; odds ratio, 1.73; 1.10-2.73). CONCLUSIONS: Early deep sedation in the emergency department is common, carries over into the ICU, and may be associated with worse outcomes. Sedation practice in the emergency department and its association with clinical outcomes is in need of further investigation.

Physiologic Considerations in Trauma Patients Undergoing Resuscitative Endovascular Balloon Occlusion of the Aorta.

Resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is a new procedure for adjunctive management of critically injured patients with noncompressible torso or pelvic hemorrhage who are in refractory hemorrhagic shock, ie, bleeding to death. The anesthesiologist plays a critical role in management of these patients, from initial evaluation in the trauma bay to definitive care in the operating room and the critical care unit. A comprehensive understanding of the effects of resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta is essential to making it an effective component of hemostatic resuscitation.