Study of Colistin Resistant Gram Negative Organism in Hospitalized Patients: A Retrospective Study.

Background: Intensive care units have become hotspots for antimicrobial resistance, particularly concerning colistin resistance, posing a threat of untreatable infections. Aim: This study aims to analyze the epidemiological and clinical aspects of patients carrying colistin-resistant organisms. It focuses on identifying risk factors, the microbiological profile, susceptibility patterns, and treatment outcomes. Materials and methods: Isolates with colistin MIC >2 µg/mL, identified via BD PHOENIX, were subjected to colistin broth disc elution testing (as per CLSI guidelines) in our Microbiology Department between January and December 2022. Results: Among the 30 patients, colistin-resistant gram-negative isolates were found predominantly in blood cultures (50%), followed by ET/TT cultures (23.3%), urine cultures (10%), and other sites (16.7%). Klebsiella pneumoniae was the most common organism (80%), showing the highest sensitivity to Ceftazidime-avibactam + Aztreonam (CAZ-AVI + ATM) (76.7%). Of these patients, 66.7% recovered and were discharged, while 33.3% succumbed during hospitalization despite treatment. Conclusion: The study underscores a notable presence of colistin-resistant gram-negative isolates, predominantly in blood cultures, with K. pneumoniae being predominant. The combination of CAZ-AVI + ATM exhibited the highest sensitivity. However, the mortality rate of 33.3% despite sensitive antibiotic treatment highlights the urgency for ongoing vigilance and research to combat colistin-resistant infections and improve patient outcomes. How to cite this article: Diwane D, Rajhans PA, Jog SA, Dalvi M. Study of Colistin Resistant Gram Negative Organism in Hospitalized Patients: A Retrospective Study. Indian J Crit Care Med 2024;28(3):286-289.

Mottling in Septic Shock: Ethnicity and Skin Color Matter.

Background: Skin mottling as a clinical perfusion marker in septic shock is significantly associated with severity and outcome in white-skinned population and its validity as a clinical sign in dark-skinned population is not known. The objectives of this study were to evaluate mottling in septic shock in the Indian ethnic population who has different skin color as compared to the white-skinned population and to assess mottling as an outcome predictor with capillary refill time (CRT) and other biochemical parameters which are the established clinical markers of perfusion in septic shock. Materials and methods: We conducted a prospective observational study of patients with skin color categories 21-34 on the von Luschan scale or Fitzprick type IV-VI who had septic shock needing a high dose of norepinephrine ≥0.2 µg/kg/min after fluid optimization. The study was conducted in a mixed medical-surgical ICU over 12 months. Two blinded experts (a Dermatologist and a plastic surgeon) independently classified the skin type, validated the occurrence of mottling, and scored mottling in our patients. We recorded the demographics, hemodynamic variables, and mottling score and observed the incidence of mottling and its correlation with predictors of the severity of septic shock. We also compared CRT, arterial lactate, central venous oxygen saturation, and venoarterial PCO2 gap with occurrence of mottling in septic shock patients. Results: We included 108 patients with age 61 ± 16 years. Mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores at enrolment were 10.3-21.9, respectively. Incidence of mottling was 20.3% (22/108). CRT >3 seconds was observed in 50.9% (55/108). Development of mottling was significantly associated with 90-day mortality; 20/22 (90.9%) patients died in the mottling group versus 58/86 (65.1%) in the non-mottling group (p = 0.028). Capillary refill time >3 seconds did not corelate with mortality; 40/55 (72.7%) Patients with CRT >3 seconds died versus 32/53 (60.4%) patients died in CRT ≤3 seconds group. Occurrence of mottling could predict mortality; positive predictive value of 90.9% which was comparable to positive predictive value of lactate levels >4 mmol/L, i.e., 94.1%. Conclusion: The incidence of mottling in septic shock is much less in patients of Indian ethnicity with brown skin color than in white-skinned population. Occurrence of mottling and not delayed CRT, is a better predictor of outcome in this setting. How to cite this article: Jog SA, Narasimhan VL, Rajhans PA, Akole PV, Pawar B, Bhurke B, et al. Mottling in Septic Shock: Ethnicity and Skin Color Matter. Indian J Crit Care Med 2023;27(12):902-909.

Co-infection and ICU-acquired infection in COIVD-19 ICU patients: a secondary analysis of the UNITE-COVID data set.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic presented major challenges for critical care facilities worldwide. Infections which develop alongside or subsequent to viral pneumonitis are a challenge under sporadic and pandemic conditions; however, data have suggested that patterns of these differ between COVID-19 and other viral pneumonitides. This secondary analysis aimed to explore patterns of co-infection and intensive care unit-acquired infections (ICU-AI) and the relationship to use of corticosteroids in a large, international cohort of critically ill COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This is a multicenter, international, observational study, including adult patients with PCR-confirmed COVID-19 diagnosis admitted to ICUs at the peak of wave one of COVID-19 (February 15th to May 15th, 2020). Data collected included investigator-assessed co-infection at ICU admission, infection acquired in ICU, infection with multi-drug resistant organisms (MDRO) and antibiotic use. Frequencies were compared by Pearson's Chi-squared and continuous variables by Mann-Whitney U test. Propensity score matching for variables associated with ICU-acquired infection was undertaken using R library MatchIT using the "full" matching method. RESULTS: Data were available from 4994 patients. Bacterial co-infection at admission was detected in 716 patients (14%), whilst 85% of patients received antibiotics at that stage. ICU-AI developed in 2715 (54%). The most common ICU-AI was bacterial pneumonia (44% of infections), whilst 9% of patients developed fungal pneumonia; 25% of infections involved MDRO. Patients developing infections in ICU had greater antimicrobial exposure than those without such infections. Incident density (ICU-AI per 1000 ICU days) was in considerable excess of reports from pre-pandemic surveillance. Corticosteroid use was heterogenous between ICUs. In univariate analysis, 58% of patients receiving corticosteroids and 43% of those not receiving steroids developed ICU-AI. Adjusting for potential confounders in the propensity-matched cohort, 71% of patients receiving corticosteroids developed ICU-AI vs 52% of those not receiving corticosteroids. Duration of corticosteroid therapy was also associated with development of ICU-AI and infection with an MDRO. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe COVID-19 in the first wave, co-infection at admission to ICU was relatively rare but antibiotic use was in substantial excess to that indication. ICU-AI were common and were significantly associated with use of corticosteroids. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04836065 (retrospectively registered April 8th 2021).

Noninvasive Respiratory Assist Devices in the Management of COVID-19-related Hypoxic Respiratory Failure: Pune ISCCM COVID-19 ARDS Study Consortium (PICASo).

Objective: To determine whether high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) or noninvasive ventilator (NIV) can avoid invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) in COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ADRS), and the outcome predictors of these modalities. Design: Multicenter retrospective study conducted in 12 ICUs in Pune, India. Patients: Patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who had PaO2/FiO2 ratio <150 and were treated with HFNO and/or NIV. Intervention: HFNO and/or NIV. Measurements: The primary outcome was to assess the need of IMV. Secondary outcomes were death at Day 28 and mortality rates in different treatment groups. Main results: Among 1,201 patients who met the inclusion criteria, 35.9% (431/1,201) were treated successfully with HFNO and/or NIV and did not require IMV. About 59.5% (714/1,201) patients needed IMV for the failure of HFNO and/or NIV. About 48.3, 61.6, and 63.6% of patients who were treated with HFNO, NIV, or both, respectively, needed IMV. The need of IMV was significantly lower in the HFNO group (p <0.001). The 28-day mortality was 44.9, 59.9, and 59.6% in the patients treated with HFNO, NIV, or both, respectively (p <0.001). On multivariate regression analysis, presence of any comorbidity, SpO2 <90%, and presence of nonrespiratory organ dysfunction were independent and significant determinants of mortality (p <0.05). Conclusions: During COVID-19 pandemic surge, HFNO and/or NIV could successfully avoid IMV in 35.5% individuals with PO2/FiO2 ratio <150. Those who needed IMV due to failure of HFNO or NIV had high (87.5%) mortality. How to cite this article: Jog S, Zirpe K, Dixit S, Godavarthy P, Shahane M, Kadapatti K, et al. Noninvasive Respiratory Assist Devices in the Management of COVID-19-related Hypoxic Respiratory Failure: Pune ISCCM COVID-19 ARDS Study Consortium (PICASo). Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(7):791-797.

ISCCM Guidelines for Hemodynamic Monitoring in the Critically Ill.

Hemodynamic assessment along with continuous monitoring and appropriate therapy forms an integral part of management of critically ill patients with acute circulatory failure. In India, the infrastructure in ICUs varies from very basic facilities in smaller towns and semi-urban areas, to world-class, cutting-edge technology in corporate hospitals, in metropolitan cities. Surveys and studies from India suggest a wide variation in clinical practices due to possible lack of awareness, expertise, high costs, and lack of availability of advanced hemodynamic monitoring devices. We, therefore, on behalf of the Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine (ISCCM), formulated these evidence-based guidelines for optimal use of various hemodynamic monitoring modalities keeping in mind the resource-limited settings and the specific needs of our patients. When enough evidence was not forthcoming, we have made recommendations after achieving consensus amongst members. Careful integration of clinical assessment and critical information obtained from laboratory data and monitoring devices should help in improving outcomes of our patients. How to cite this article: Kulkarni AP, Govil D, Samavedam S, Srinivasan S, Ramasubban S, Venkataraman R, et al. ISCCM Guidelines for Hemodynamic Monitoring in the Critically Ill. Indian J Crit Care Med 2022;26(S2):S66-S76.

Intravenous Methylene Blue as a Rescue Therapy in the Management of Refractory Hypoxia in COVID-19 ARDS Patients: A Case Series.

Objectives: To describe the clinical outcomes of hypoxic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients treated with intravenous methylene blue (MB) in a tertiary care hospital. Materials and methods: We conducted a case series of 50 patients with hypoxic COVID-19 treated with intravenous MB admitted to our hospital between June 01 and September 10, 2020. Intravenous MB was administered as rescue therapy in dosage of 1 mg/kg body weight, with a maximum of five doses, to patients with high oxygen requirements (SpO2/FiO2 <200) apart from the standard of care after obtaining G6PD levels. Data were abstracted from multiple electronic data sources or patient charts to provide information on patient characteristics, clinical and laboratory variables and outcomes. Results: The median age of the patients was 53.3 (range 25-74 years) and most patients (74%) were men. About 68% of patients had pre-existing comorbidity. Median SpO2/FiO2 ratio progressively improved from 132.5 (predose) to 284 before the terminal event (death or discharge), ventilator-free days, and decrease in the proinflammatory biochemical parameter was significantly higher after the second dose of MB. A total of six patients out of 50 required invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Thirty patients were discharged with a recovery rate of 60%, while 20 patients succumbed to the illness. There was no major side effect or adverse event reported in any of the patients. Conclusion: MB due to its polypharmacological action against SARS-CoV-2, an inexpensive and widely available drug with minimal side effects, has a significant potential in the treatment of COVID-19. How to cite this article: Mahale N, Godavarthy P, Marreddy S, Gokhale SD, Funde P, Rajhans PA, et al. Intravenous Methylene Blue as a Rescue Therapy in the Management of Refractory Hypoxia in COVID-19 ARDS Patients: A Case Series. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(8):934-938.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Research Opportunities for Infection and Blood Purification Therapies.

Patients with infection can develop sepsis, and their mortality can be high. An important aspect in the treatment of sepsis is adequate management of the infection. DATA SOURCES: Using a modified Delphi approach, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign research committee recently published a series of 26 priorities for sepsis and septic shock. STUDY SELECTION: Task force members with specific expertise were tasked with generating expanded reviews for all infection questions and a subset of adjunctive therapy questions from the larger list of sepsis priorities. Each question was addressed by one of the six task force members. DATA EXTRACTION: In-depth reviews were then edited by the group as a whole, with added input from the committee cochairs. DATA SYNTHESIS: Six questions were addressed: 1) should empiric antibiotic combination therapy be used in sepsis or septic shock? 2) does optimization of antimicrobial pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics impact patient outcomes in sepsis? 3) should viral reactivation resulting from sepsis-induced immunosuppression be treated with antiviral therapy in critically ill septic patients? 4) should rapid diagnostic tests be implemented in clinical practice? 5) what is the role of lung-protective ventilation in sepsis patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome? and 6) how do we determine the efficacy of "blood purification" therapies such as endotoxin absorbers, cytokine absorbers, and plasmapheresis. CONCLUSIONS: The research committee members for the Surviving Sepsis Campaign aimed to explore research questions in order to provide existing evidence and highlight areas of uncertainty and future directions.

The Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Research Priorities for Coronavirus Disease 2019 in Critical Illness.

OBJECTIVES: To identify research priorities in the management, pathophysiology, and host response of coronavirus disease 2019 in critically ill patients. DESIGN: The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 17 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine, was virtually convened during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The committee iteratively developed the recommendations and subsequent document. METHODS: Each committee member submitted a list of what they believed were the most important priorities for coronavirus disease 2019 research. The entire committee voted on 58 submitted questions to determine top priorities for coronavirus disease 2019 research. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 13 priorities for coronavirus disease 2019. Of these, the top six priorities were identified and include the following questions: 1) Should the approach to ventilator management differ from the standard approach in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure?, 2) Can the host response be modulated for therapeutic benefit?, 3) What specific cells are directly targeted by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and how do these cells respond?, 4) Can early data be used to predict outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 and, by extension, to guide therapies?, 5) What is the role of prone positioning and noninvasive ventilation in nonventilated patients with coronavirus disease?, and 6) Which interventions are best to use for viral load modulation and when should they be given? CONCLUSIONS: Although knowledge of both biology and treatment has increased exponentially in the first year of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, significant knowledge gaps remain. The research priorities identified represent a roadmap for investigation in coronavirus disease 2019.

Current Approaches to COVID-19: Therapy and Prevention.

The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected millions of people worldwide. As our understanding of the disease is evolving, our approach to the patient management is also changing swiftly. Available new evidence is helping us take radical decisions in COVID-19 management. We searched for inclusion of the published literature on treatment of COVID-19 from around the globe. All relevant evidences available till the time of submission of this article were briefly discussed. Once advised as blanket therapy for all patients, recent reports of hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin indicated no potential benefit and use of such combination may increase the risk of arrhythmias. Clinical evidence with newer antivirals such as remdesivir and favipiravir is promising that can hasten the patient recovery and reduce the mortality. With steroids, evidence is much clear in that it should be used in low dose and for short period not extending beyond 7 days in moderate to severe hospitalized patients. Low-molecular-weight heparin should be initiated in all hospitalized COVID-19 patients and dose should be based on the coagulation profile and risk of thromboembolism. Immunomodulatory drugs such tocilizumab may be considered for severe and critically ill patients to improve the outcomes. Though ulinastatin can be a potential alternative immunomodulator, there is lack of clinical evidence on its usage in COVID-19. Convalescent plasma therapy can be potentially lifesaving in critically ill patients. However, there is need to generate further evidence with various such therapies. Though availability of a potent vaccine is awaited, current treatment of COVID-19 is based on available therapies, which is guided by the evidence. In this review, we discuss the potential treatments available around the globe with current evidence on each of such treatments. How to cite this article: Dixit SB, Zirpe KG, Kulkarni AP, Chaudhry D, Govil D, Mehta Y, et al. Current Approaches to COVID-19: Therapy and Prevention. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(9):838-846.

The role for high flow nasal cannula as a respiratory support strategy in adults: a clinical practice guideline.

PURPOSE: High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is a relatively recent respiratory support technique which delivers high flow, heated and humidified controlled concentration of oxygen via the nasal route. Recently, its use has increased for a variety of clinical indications. To guide clinical practice, we developed evidence-based recommendations regarding use of HFNC in various clinical settings. METHODS: We formed a guideline panel composed of clinicians, methodologists and experts in respiratory medicine. Using GRADE, the panel developed recommendations for four actionable questions. RESULTS: The guideline panel made a strong recommendation for HFNC in hypoxemic respiratory failure compared to conventional oxygen therapy (COT) (moderate certainty), a conditional recommendation for HFNC following extubation (moderate certainty), no recommendation regarding HFNC in the peri-intubation period (moderate certainty), and a conditional recommendation for postoperative HFNC in high risk and/or obese patients following cardiac or thoracic surgery (moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: This clinical practice guideline synthesizes current best-evidence into four recommendations for HFNC use in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure, following extubation, in the peri-intubation period, and postoperatively for bedside clinicians.

Preparedness of Acute Care Facility and a Hospital for COVID-19 Pandemic: What We Did!

BACKGROUND AND AIM: India is facing the pandemic of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) just like the whole world. The private sector is the backbone of a healthcare facility in India. Presently, only a few major hospitals in the country are actively dealing with the COVID-19 patients while others are facing troubles due to lack of manpower, management, and required experience to face the pandemic. Despite the lockdown, the cases are ever increasing and each and every hospital in the country should be prepared to face this pandemic the world has never seen before. As one of the largest multispecialty hospitals and a designated COVID center, we have developed and adopted some strategies for better preparedness to face the surge of this pandemic. We would like to share our experience and hope that the strategies laid down and adopted by us will help many other acute care facilities in many parts of India. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Different strategies are adopted to deal with the crisis situation of the COVID-19 pandemic. Our adopted strategies were directed to mitigate the challenges of administration, hospital space organization, management of staff and supplies, maintenance of standard of care, and specific COVID care and ethics during this pandemic. RESULTS: Based on strategies adopted by us, we feel more confident and prepared to deal with COVID-19 pandemic. CONCLUSION: Our approach for preparing for the COVID-19 pandemic may not be the best one but we believe that the basic managerial principles we adopted will guide many other institutions to find their path in tackling the pandemic in the best possible way. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Jog S, Kelkar D, Bhat M, Patwardhan S, Godavarthy P, Dhundi U, et al. Preparedness of Acute Care Facility and a Hospital for COVID-19 Pandemic: What We Did! Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(6):385-392.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula Compared With Conventional Oxygen Therapy or Noninvasive Ventilation Immediately Postextubation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Reintubation after failed extubation is associated with increased mortality and longer hospital length of stay. Noninvasive oxygenation modalities may prevent reintubation. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the safety and efficacy of high-flow nasal cannula after extubation in critically ill adults. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials comparing high-flow nasal cannula to other noninvasive methods of oxygen delivery after extubation in critically ill adults. DATA EXTRACTION: We included the following outcomes: reintubation, postextubation respiratory failure, mortality, use of noninvasive ventilation, ICU and hospital length of stay, complications, and comfort. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included eight randomized controlled trials (n = 1,594 patients). Compared with conventional oxygen therapy, high-flow nasal cannula decreased reintubation (relative risk, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.30-0.70; moderate certainty) and postextubation respiratory failure (relative risk, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.30-0.91; very low certainty), but had no effect on mortality (relative risk, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.57-1.52; moderate certainty), or ICU length of stay (mean difference, 0.05 d fewer; 95% CI, 0.83 d fewer to 0.73 d more; high certainty). High-flow nasal cannula may decrease use of noninvasive ventilation (relative risk, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.34-1.22; moderate certainty) and hospital length of stay (mean difference, 0.98 d fewer; 95% CI, 2.16 d fewer to 0.21 d more; moderate certainty) compared with conventional oxygen therapy, however, certainty was limited by imprecision. Compared with noninvasive ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula had no effect on reintubation (relative risk, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.86-1.57; low certainty), mortality (relative risk, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.82-1.53; moderate certainty), or postextubation respiratory failure (relative risk, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.48-1.41; very low certainty). High-flow nasal cannula may reduce ICU length of stay (moderate certainty) and hospital length of stay (moderate certainty) compared with noninvasive ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: High-flow nasal cannula reduces reintubation compared with conventional oxygen therapy, but not compared with noninvasive ventilation after extubation.

High-Flow Nasal Cannula in the Immediate Postoperative Period: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Studies have demonstrated that high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) prevents intubation in acute hypoxic respiratory failure when compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT). However, the data examining routine HFNC use in the immediate postoperative period are less clear. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is routine HFNC use superior to COT or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) use in preventing intubation in patients postoperatively? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We comprehensively searched databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science) to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effect of HFNC use with that of COT or NIV in the immediate postoperative period on reintubation, escalation of respiratory support, hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), postoperative hypoxemia, and treatment complications. We assessed individual study risk of bias (RoB) by using the revised Cochrane RoB 2 tool and rated certainty in outcomes by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. RESULTS: We included 11 RCTs enrolling 2,201 patients. Ten compared HFNC with COT and one with NIV. Compared with COT use, HFNC use in the postoperative period was associated with a lower reintubation rate (relative risk [RR], 0.32; 95% CI, 0.12-0.88; absolute risk reduction [ARR], 2.9%; moderate certainty) and decreased escalation of respiratory support (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.31-0.94; ARR, 5.8%; very low certainty). Post hoc subgroup analysis suggested that this effect was driven by patients who were obese and/or at high risk (subgroup differences, P = .06). We did not find differences in any of the other stated outcomes between HFNC and COT. HFNC was also no different from NIV in reintubation rate, respiratory therapy failure, or ICU LOS. INTERPRETATION: With evidence of moderate certainty, prophylactic HFNC reduces reintubation and escalation of respiratory support compared with COT in the immediate postoperative period after cardiothoracic surgery. This effect is likely driven by patients who are at high risk and/or obese. These findings support postoperative prophylactic HFNC use in the patients who are at high risk and/or obese undergoing cardiothoracic surgery.

ISCCM Guidelines for the Use of Non-invasive Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Failure in Adult ICUs.

A. ACUTE HYPERCAPNIC RESPIRATORY FAILURE A1. Acute Exacerbation of COPD: Recommendations: NIV should be used in management of acute exacerbation of COPD in patients with acute or acute-on-chronic respiratory acidosis (pH = 7.25-7.35). (1A) NIV should be attempted in patients with acute exacerbation of COPD (pH <7.25 & PaCO2 ≥ 45) before initiating invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) except in patients requiring immediate intubation. (2A). Lower the pH higher the chance of failure of NIV. (2B) NIV should not to be used routinely in normo- or mildly hyper-capneic patients with acute exacerbation of COPD, without acidosis (pH > 7.35). (2B) A2. NIV in ARF due to Chest wall deformities/Neuromuscular diseases: Recommendations: NIV may be used in patients of ARF due to chest wall deformity/Neuromuscular diseases. (PaCO2 ≥ 45) (UPP) A3. NIV in ARF due to Obesity hypoventilation syndrome (OHS): Recommendations: NIV may be used in AHRF in OHS patients when they present with acute hypercapnic or acute on chronic respiratory failure (pH 45). (3B) NIV/CPAP may be used in obese, hypercapnic patients with OHS and/or right heart failure in the absence of acidosis. (UPP) B. NIV IN ACUTE HYPOXEMIC RESPIRATORY FAILURE: B1. NIV in Acute Cardiogenic Pulmonary Oedema: Recommendations: NIV is recommended in hospital patients with ARF, due to Cardiogenic pulmonary edema. (1A). NIV should be used in patients with acute heart failure/ cardiogenic pulmonary edema, right from emergency department itself. (1B) Both CPAP and BiPAP modes are safe and effective in patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema. (1A). However, BPAP (NIV-PS) should be preferred in cardiogenic pulmonary edema with hypercapnia. (3A) B2. NIV in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: Recommendations: NIV may be used over conventional oxygen therapy in mild early acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (P/F ratio <300 and >200 mmHg), under close supervision. (2B) We strongly recommend against a trial of NIV in patients with acute hypoxemic failure with P/F ratio <150. (2A) B3. NIV in ARF due to Chest Trauma: Recommendations: NIV may be used in traumatic flail chest along with adequate pain relief. (3B) B4. NIV in Immunocompromised Host: Recommendations: In Immunocompromised patients with early ARF, we may consider NIV over conventional oxygen. (2B). B5. NIV in Palliative Care: Recommendations: We strongly recommend use of NIV for reducing dyspnea in palliative care setting. (2A) B6. NIV in post-operative cases: Recommendations: NIV should be used in patients with post-operative acute respiratory failure. (2A) B6a. NIV in abdominal surgery: Recommendations: NIV may be used in patients with ARF following abdominal surgeries. (2A) B6b. NIV in bariatric surgery: Recommendations: NIV may be used in post-bariatric surgery patients with pre-existent OSA or OHS. (3A) B6c. NIV in Thoracic surgery: Recommendations: In cardiothoracic surgeries, use of NIV is recommended post operatively for acute respiratory failure to improve oxygenation and reduce chance of reintubation. (2A) NIV should not be used in patients undergoing esophageal surgery. (UPP) B6d. NIV in post lung transplant: Recommendations: NIV may be used for shortening weaning time and to avoid re-intubation following lung transplantation. (2B) B7. NIV during Procedures (ETI/Bronchoscopy/TEE/Endoscopy): Recommendations: NIV may be used for pre-oxygenation before intubation. (2B) NIV with appropriate interface may be used in patients of ARF during Bronchoscopy/Endoscopy to improve oxygenation. (3B) B8. NIV in Viral Pneumonitis ARDS: Recommendations: NIV cannot be considered as a treatment of choice for patients with acute respiratory failure with H1N1 pneumonia. However, it may be reasonable to use NIV in selected patients with single organ involvement, in a strictly controlled environment with close monitoring. (2B) B9. NIV and Acute exacerbation of Pulmonary Tuberculosis: Recommendations: Careful use of NIV in patients with acute Tuberculosis may be considered, with effective infection control precautions to prevent air-borne transmission. (3B) B10. NIV after planned extubation in high risk patients: Recommendation: We recommend that NIV may be used to wean high risk patients from invasive mechanical ventilation as it reduces re-intubation rate. (2B) B11. NIV for respiratory distress post extubation: Recommendations: We recommend that NIV therapy should not be used to manage respiratory distress post-extubation in high risk patients. (2B) C. APPLICATION OF NIV: Recommendation: Choice of mode should be mainly decided by factors like disease etiology and severity, the breathing effort by the patient and the operator familiarity and experience. (UPP) We suggest using flow trigger over pressure triggering in assisted modes, as it provides better patient ventilator synchrony. Especially in COPD patients, flow triggering has been found to benefit auto PEEP. (3B) D. MANAGEMENT OF PATIENT ON NIV: D1. Sedation: Recommendations: A non-pharmacological approach to calm the patient (Reassuring the patient, proper environment) should always be tried before administrating sedatives. (UPP) In patients on NIV, sedation may be used with extremely close monitoring and only in an ICU setting with lookout for signs of NIV failure. (UPP) E. EQUIPMENT: Recommendations: We recommend that portable bilevel ventilators or specifically designed ICU ventilators with non-invasive mode should be used for delivering Non-invasive ventilation in critically ill patients. (UPP) Both critical care ventilators with leak compensation and bi-level ventilators have been equally effective in decreasing the WOB, RR, and PaCO2. (3B) Currently, Oronasal mask is the most preferred interface for non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure. (3B) F. WEANING: Recommendations: We recommend that weaning from NIV may be done by a standardized protocol driven approach of the unit. (2B) How to cite this article: Chawla R, Dixit SB, Zirpe KG, Chaudhry D, Khilnani GC, Mehta Y, et al. ISCCM Guidelines for the Use of Non-invasive Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Failure in Adult ICUs. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(Suppl 1):S61-S81.

Moderate Certainty Evidence Suggests the Use of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Does Not Decrease Hypoxia When Compared With Conventional Oxygen Therapy in the Peri-Intubation Period: Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The role of high-flow nasal cannula during and before intubation is unclear despite a number of randomized clinical trials. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis examining the benefits of high-flow nasal cannula in the peri-intubation period. DATA SOURCES: We performed a comprehensive search of relevant databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science). STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized clinical trials that compared high-flow nasal cannula to other noninvasive oxygen delivery systems in the peri-intubation period. DATA EXTRACTION: Our primary outcome was severe desaturation (defined as peripheral oxygen saturation reading < 80% during intubation). Secondary outcomes included peri-intubation complications, apneic time, PaO2 before and after intubation, PaCO2 after intubation, ICU length of stay, and short-term mortality. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 10 randomized clinical trials (n = 1,017 patients). High-flow nasal cannula had no effect on the occurrence rate of peri-intubation hypoxemia (relative risk, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.68-1.42; 0.3% absolute risk reduction, moderate certainty), serious complications (relative risk, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.71-1.06), apneic time (mean difference, 10.3 s higher with high-flow nasal cannula; 95% CI, 11.0 s lower to 31.7 s higher), PaO2 measured after preoxygenation (mean difference, 3.6 mm Hg higher; 95% CI, 3.5 mm Hg lower to 10.7 mm Hg higher), or PaO2 measured after intubation (mean difference, 27.0 mm Hg higher; 95% CI, 13.2 mm Hg lower to 67.2 mm Hg higher), when compared with conventional oxygen therapy. There was also no effect on postintubation PaCO2, ICU length of stay, or 28-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-to-low certainty evidence that the use of high-flow nasal cannula likely has no effect on severe desaturation, serious complications, apneic time, oxygenation, ICU length of stay, or overall survival when used in the peri-intubation period when compared with conventional oxygen therapy.

A Retrospective Observational Study of Hypoxic COVID-19 Patients Treated with Immunomodulatory Drugs in a Tertiary Care Hospital.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the demographics and evaluate the clinical outcomes of hypoxic coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) patients treated with different immunomodulatory (IM) drugs in a resource-limited setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of these patients admitted to our hospital between March 22 and May 31, 2020. Data were abstracted from multiple electronic data sources or patient charts to provide information on patient characteristics, clinical, laboratory variables, and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 134 patients met the inclusion criteria and were followed up till June 7, 2020. The median age of the patients was 55.6 years (range 20-89 years) and 68% were men. At least one comorbidity was seen in 72% of the patients with diabetes (44%) and hypertension (46%) being the most common. At triage, fever (82%), shortness of breath (77%), and cough (61%) were the most common presenting symptoms. A PaO2/FiO2 ratio less than 300 was seen in 60%, and 4.5% required invasive mechanical ventilation within 72 hours of hospital admission. Five immunomodulatory agents (hydroxychloroquine, methylprednisolone, colchicine, etoricoxib, and tocilizumab) were administered in different combinations. Overall, in-hospital mortality was 26.9%, and 32% required mechanical ventilation. Around 69% of patients were discharged home. Five variables (SpO2, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, leucocytosis, lymphopenia, and creatinine) on admission were found to be significant in the patients who died. CONCLUSION: Our study provides the characteristics and outcomes of hypoxic COVID-19 patients treated with IM drugs in varied combination. Five independent variables were strong predictors of mortality. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Mahale N, Rajhans P, Godavarthy P, Narasimhan VL, Oak G, Marreddy S, et al. A Retrospective Observational Study of Hypoxic COVID-19 Patients Treated with Immunomodulatory Drugs in a Tertiary Care Hospital. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(11):1020-1027.

Fluid administration for acute circulatory dysfunction using basic monitoring: narrative review and expert panel recommendations from an ESICM task force.

An international team of experts in the field of fluid resuscitation was invited by the ESICM to form a task force to systematically review the evidence concerning fluid administration using basic monitoring. The work included a particular emphasis on pre-ICU hospital settings and resource-limited settings. The work focused on four main questions: (1) What is the role of clinical assessment to guide fluid resuscitation in shock? (2) What basic monitoring is required to perform and interpret a fluid challenge? (3) What defines a fluid challenge in terms of fluid type, ranges of volume, and rate of administration? (4) What are the safety endpoints during a fluid challenge? The expert panel found insufficient evidence to provide recommendations according to the GRADE system, and was only able to make recommendations for basic interventions, based on the available evidence and expert opinion. The panel identified significant gaps in the scientific evidence on fluid administration outside the ICU (excluding the operating theater). Globally, scientific communities and health care systems should address these critical gaps in evidence through research on how basic fluid administration in resource-rich and resource-limited settings can be improved for the benefit of patients and societies worldwide.