Critical care delivery across health care systems in low-income and low-middle-income country settings: A systematic review.

Background: Prior research has demonstrated that low- and low-middle-income countries (LLMICs) bear a higher burden of critical illness and have a higher rate of mortality from critical illness than high-income countries (HICs). There is a pressing need for improved critical care delivery in LLMICs to reduce this inequity. This systematic review aimed to characterise the range of critical care interventions and services delivered within LLMIC health care systems as reported in the literature. Methods: A search strategy using terms related to critical care in LLMICs was implemented in multiple databases. We included English language articles with human subjects describing at least one critical care intervention or service in an LLMIC setting published between 1 January 2008 and 1 January 2020. Results: A total of 1620 studies met the inclusion criteria. Among the included studies, 45% of studies reported on pediatric patients, 43% on adults, 23% on infants, 8.9% on geriatric patients and 4.2% on maternal patients. Most of the care described (94%) was delivered in-hospital, with the remainder (6.2%) taking place in out-of-hospital care settings. Overall, 49% of critical care described was delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians delivered critical care in 60% of the included studies. Additional critical care was delivered by general physicians (40%), as well as specialist physician trainees (22%), pharmacists (16%), advanced nursing or midlevel practitioners (8.9%), ambulance providers (3.3%) and respiratory therapists (3.1%). Conclusions: This review represents a comprehensive synthesis of critical care delivery in LLMIC settings. Approximately 50% of critical care interventions and services were delivered outside of a designated intensive care unit. Specialist physicians were the most common health care professionals involved in care delivery in the included studies, however generalist physicians were commonly reported to provide critical care interventions and services. This study additionally characterised the quality of the published evidence guiding critical care practice in LLMICs, demonstrating a paucity of interventional and cost-effectiveness studies. Future research is needed to understand better how to optimise critical care interventions, services, care delivery and costs in these settings. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42019146802.

Characteristics and Outcomes of Traumatic Cardiac Arrests in the Pan-Asian Resuscitation Outcomes Study.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about survival outcomes after traumatic cardiac arrest in Asia, or the association of Utstein factors with survival after traumatic cardiac arrests. This study aimed to describe the epidemiology and outcomes of traumatic cardiac arrests in Asia, and analyze Utstein factors associated with survival. METHODS: Traumatic cardiac arrest patients from 13 countries in the Pan-Asian Resuscitation Outcomes Study registry from 2009 to 2018 were analyzed. Multilevel logistic regression was performed to identify factors associated with the primary outcomes of survival to hospital discharge and favorable neurological outcome (Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) 1-2), and the secondary outcome of return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). RESULTS: There were 207,455 out-of-hospital cardiac arrest cases, of which 13,631 (6.6%) were trauma patients aged 18 years and above with resuscitation attempted and who had survival outcomes reported. The median age was 57 years (interquartile range 39-73), 23.0% received bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), 1750 (12.8%) had ROSC, 461 (3.4%) survived to discharge, and 131 (1.0%) had CPC 1-2. Factors associated with higher rates of survival to discharge and favorable neurological outcome were arrests witnessed by emergency medical services or private ambulances (survival to discharge adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 2.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.99-4.38; CPC 1-2 aOR = 2.57, 95% CI = 1.25-5.27), bystander CPR (survival to discharge aOR = 2.16; 95% CI 1.71-2.72; CPC 1-2 aOR = 4.98, 95% CI = 3.27-7.57), and initial shockable rhythm (survival to discharge aOR = 12.00; 95% CI = 6.80-21.17; CPC 1-2 aOR = 33.28, 95% CI = 11.39-97.23) or initial pulseless electrical activity (survival to discharge aOR = 3.98; 95% CI = 2.99-5.30; CPC 1-2 aOR = 5.67, 95% CI = 3.05-10.53) relative to asystole. CONCLUSIONS: In traumatic cardiac arrest, early aggressive resuscitation may not be futile and bystander CPR may improve outcomes.

Critical care service delivery across healthcare systems in low-income and low-middle-income countries: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Critical care in low-income and low-middle income countries (LLMICs) is an underdeveloped component of the healthcare system. Given the increasing growth in demand for critical care services in LLMICs, understanding the current capacity to provide critical care is imperative to inform policy on service expansion. Thus, our aim is to describe the provision of critical care in LLMICs with respect to patients, providers, location of care and services and interventions delivered. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science and EMBASE for full-text original research articles available in English describing critical care services that specify the location of service delivery and describe patients and interventions. We will restrict our review to populations from LLMICs (using 2016 World Bank classifications) and published from 1 January 2008 to 1 January 2020. Two-reviewer agreement will be required for both title/abstract and full text review stages, and rate of agreement will be calculated for each stage. We will extract data regarding the location of critical care service delivery, the training of the healthcare professionals providing services, and the illnesses treated according to classification by the WHO Universal Health Coverage Compendium. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Reviewed and exempted by the Stanford University Office for Human Subjects Research and IRB on 20 May 2020. The results of this review will be disseminated through scholarly publication and presentation at regional and international conferences. This review is designed to inform broader WHO, International Federation for Emergency Medicine and partner efforts to strengthen critical care globally. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019146802.