Thromboprophylaxis practices in neurocritical care-A cross-sectional survey among neurocritical care practitioners.

Background and Aims: Thromboprophylaxis practice patterns are quite diverse in neurocritical care patients. The risk of venous thromboembolism remains high in this group due to prolonged immobilised status, extended length of stay and multiple comorbidities. The aim was to comprehend the thromboprophylaxis practices among neurocritical care practitioners in India. Methods: The cross-sectional online questionnaire-based survey was undertaken among the neurocritical care practitioners. Two investigators framed two sets of 15 questions in the first stage and reviewed them with experts. In the second stage, a set of 22 questions was prepared by a third investigator and pretested among ten experts. The questions were emailed to the participants with a link to the survey. The responses were analysed using Statistical Package For The Social Sciences software. Results: Of the 185 responses, 53% reported that thromboprophylaxis is practised less often in neurocritical care than in general critical care. The usage of pharmacoprophylaxis among neurosurgical cases, traumatic brain injuries and brain strokes varies widely. There was a preference to use pharmacoprophylaxis in patients with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) below nine among many (68.2%), and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) was the preferred choice in such cases. The reluctance to use heparin because of fear of bleed was high (82%). Most (78.9%) believed pharmacoprophylaxis could reduce venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) and mortality. Conclusion: Thromboprophylaxis practices among neurocritical care patients remain quite heterogeneous. There is a dilemma in patients with intracranial haemorrhagic lesions regarding pharmacoprophylaxis.

Effects of Delayed Initiation of End-of-life Care in Terminally Ill Intensive Care Unit Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Early initiation of end-of-life (EOL) care in terminally ill patients can reduce the administration of unnecessary medications, minimize laboratory and radiological investigations, and avoid procedures that can provoke untoward complications without substantial benefits. This retrospective observational study was performed to compare early vs late initiation of EOL care in terminally ill ICU patients after the recognition of treatment futility. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The medical records of all patients who were considered to be terminally ill any time after ICU admission between January 2014 and December 2018 were extracted from the ICU database. The patients who were recognized for treatment futility were eligible for inclusion. The patients who were already on EOL care prior to the ICU admission or whose diagnosis was unconfirmed were excluded from the study. The treatment futility was a subjective decision jointly undertaken by the primary physician and the intensivist based upon the disease stage and the available therapeutic options. The commencement of EOL care after recognition of treatment futility was divided into (a) early group (EG)-within 48 hours of decision of treatment futility and (b) late group (LG)-after 48 hours of recognition of treatment futility. Both the groups were compared for (a) ICU mortality, (b) length of ICU stay, (c) number of antibiotic-free days, (d) number of ventilator-free days, (e) number of medical and/or surgical interventions (insertion of central lines, drains, IABP, etc.), (f) number of blood and radiological investigations, and (g) satisfaction level of family members. RESULTS: Out of 107 terminally ill patients with diagnosis of treatment futility, 64 patients (59.8%) underwent early initiation of EOL against delayed initiation in 43 (40.2%) patients (1.3 ± 0.4 days vs 5.1 ± 1.6 days; p = 0.01). The patients in the late initiation group were younger in age (49 ± 3.6 years vs 66 ± 5.3 years; p = 0.03). The number of antibiotic-free days was higher in the early initiation group (12 ± 5.2 days vs 6 ± 7.5; p = 0.02). The number of medical and surgical interventions was lesser in the early initiation group (3.0 ± 0.7 episodes vs 12 ± 3.9 episodes; p = 0.007). The late initiation of EOL was caused by prognostic dilemma (30.2%), reluctance of the family members (44.1%), ambivalence of the primary physician (18.6%), and hesitancy of the intensivist (6.9%). The satisfaction level of the family members was similar in both the groups. CONCLUSION: We conclude that delayed initiation of EOL care in terminally ill ICU patients after recognition of treatment futility can increase the antibiotic usage and medical and/or surgical interventions with no effect on the satisfaction level of the family members. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Choudhuri AH, Sharma A, Uppal R. Effects of Delayed Initiation of End-of-life Care in Terminally Ill Intensive Care Unit Patients. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(6):404-408.

Epidemiology of Multidrug Resistant Infections after Inter-ICU Transfer in India.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) are often infected with multidrug resistant (MDR) organisms. When they are transferred to other ICUs, they can expand the reservoir of MDR organisms and pose a threat to the infection control program. The present observational study was undertaken to describe the epidemiology and compare the outcome of MDR and non-MDR infections after inter ICU patient transfer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted in a cohort of 134 consecutive admitted patients in a tertiary care ICU from other ICUs. The primary objective was to measure the prevalence of MDR and non-MDR infections. The secondary objective was to compare the outcome between MDR and non-MDR group and identify the factors independently associated with mortality for each group. RESULTS: Among 134 patients, 89 had infections (66.4%) and in 29 (21.6%) were due to MDR organisms. The most common organism was Klebsiella in the MDR and E. coli in the non-MDR group. There was no difference between the groups in mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation and length of ICU stay. The duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay >7 days was independently associated with mortality in the MDR group. No association was found in the non-MDR group. CONCLUSION: The study demonstrates a high prevalence of MDR infections after inter ICU transfer. There is no difference in outcome between the groups, but the mortality in the MDR group is independently associated with a longer duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Choudhuri AH, Ahuja B, Biswas PS, Uppal R. Epidemiology of Multidrug Resistant Infections after Inter-ICU Transfer in India. Indian Journal of Critical Care Medicine, January 2019;23(1):1-6.

Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: When to hold the breath?

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is the most common infection in mechanically ventilated patients, and carries the highest mortality. An early diagnosis and definitive management not only reduces the overall mortality, but also brings down the burden of health care to the patient by reducing the cost, length of Intensive Care Unit (ICU) stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and so on. Out of the various scoring systems, the Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score (CPIS) calculation for VAP has a good sensitivity (72%) and specificity (85%) and the targeted antibiotic therapy in the appropriate dosage is found to be more beneficial than empirical treatment. Although controversies persist on several issues, preventive strategies like head elevation by 30 degrees, cuff pressure monitoring, avoidance of sedatives and muscle relaxants, and so on, have been found to reduce the occurrence of VAP.