A national survey of the mangement of delirium in UK intensive care units

Background: Delirium is an acute organ dysfunction common amongst patients treated in intensive care units. The associated morbidity and mortality are known to be substantial. Previous surveys have described which screening tools are used to diagnose delirium and which medications are used to treat delirium, but these data are not available for the United Kingdom. Aim: This survey aimed to describe the UK management of delirium by consultant intensivists. Additionally, knowledge and attitudes towards management of delirium were sought. The results will inform future research in this area. Methods: A national postal survey of members of the UK Intensive Care Society was performed. A concise two page questionnaire survey was sent, with a second round of surveys sent to non-respondents after 6 weeks. The questionnaire was in tick-box format. Results: Six hundred and eighty-one replies were received from 1308 questionnaires sent, giving a response rate of 52%. Twenty-five percent of respondents routinely screen for delirium, but of these only 55% use a screening tool validated for use in intensive care. The majority (80%) of those using a validated instrument used the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit. Hyperactive delirium is treated pharmacologically by 95%; hypoactive delirium is treated pharmacologically by 25%, with haloperidol the most common agent used in both. Over 80% of respondents agreed that delirium prolongs mechanical ventilation and hospital stay and requires active treatment. Conclusions: This UK survey demonstrates screening for delirium is sporadic. Pharmacological treatment is usually with haloperidol in spite of the limited evidence to support this practice. Hypoactive delirium is infrequently treated pharmacologically.

Exercise rehabilitation following intensive care unit discharge for recovery from critical illness

Background: Skeletal muscle wasting and weakness are significant complications of critical illness, associated with the degree of illness severity and periods of reduced mobility during mechanical ventilation. They contribute to the profound physical and functional deficits observed in survivors. These impairments may persist for many years following discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU) and may markedly influence health-related quality of life. Rehabilitation is a key strategy in the recovery of patients following critical illness. Exercise based interventions are aimed at targeting this muscle wasting and weakness. Physical rehabilitation delivered during ICU admission has been systematically evaluated and shown to be beneficial. However its effectiveness when initiated after ICU discharge has yet to be established. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of exercise rehabilitation programmes, initiated after ICU discharge, on functional exercise capacity and health-related quality of life in adult ICU survivors who have been mechanically ventilated for more than 24 hours. Search methods:We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), OvidSP MEDLINE, Ovid SP EMBASE, and CINAHL via EBSCO host to 15th May 2014. We used a specific search strategy for each database. This included synonyms for ICU and critical illness, exercise training and rehabilitation. We searched the reference lists of included studies and contacted primary authors to obtain further information regarding potentially eligible studies. We also searched major clinical trials registries (Clinical Trials and Current Controlled Trials) and the personal libraries of the review authors. We applied no language or publication restriction. We reran the search in February 2015. We will deal with any studies of interest when we update the review.  Selection criteria:We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that compared an exercise interventioninitiated after ICU discharge to any other intervention or a control or ‘usual care’ programme in adult (≥18years) survivors ofcritical illness. Data collection and analysis:We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Main results:We included six trials (483 adult ICU participants). Exercise-based interventions were delivered on the ward in two studies; both onthe ward and in the community in one study; and in the community in three studies. The duration of the intervention varied according to the length of stay in hospital following ICU discharge (up to a fixed duration of 12 weeks).Risk of bias was variable for all domains across all trials. High risk of bias was evident in all studies for performance bias, although blinding of participants and personnel in therapeutic rehabilitation trials can be pragmatically challenging. Low risk of bias was at least 50% for all other domains across all trials, although high risk of bias was present in one study for random sequence generation (selection bias), incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) and other sources. Risk of bias was unclear for remaining studies across the domains.All six studies measured effect on the primary outcome of functional exercise capacity, although there was wide variability in natureof intervention, outcome measures and associated metrics, and data reporting. Overall quality of the evidence was very low. Only two studies using the same outcome measure for functional exercise capacity, had the potential for pooling of data and assessment of heterogeneity. On statistical advice, this was considered inappropriate to perform this analysis and study findings were therefore qualitatively described. Individually, three studies reported positive results in favour of the intervention. A small benefit (versus. control)was evident in anaerobic threshold in one study (mean difference, MD (95% confidence interval, CI), 1.8 mlO2/kg/min (0.4 to 3.2),P value = 0.02), although this effect was short-term, and in a second study, both incremental (MD 4.7 (95% CI 1.69 to 7.75) Watts, P value = 0.003) and endurance (MD 4.12 (95% CI 0.68 to 7.56) minutes, P value = 0.021) exercise testing demonstrated improvement.Finally self-reported physical function increased significantly following a rehabilitation manual (P value = 0.006). Remaining studies found no effect of the intervention.Similar variability in with regard findings for the primary outcome of health-related quality of life were also evident. Only two studies evaluated this outcome. Following statistical advice, these data again were considered inappropriate for pooling to determine overall effect and assessment of heterogeneity. Qualitative description of findings was therefore undertaken. Individually, neither study reported differences between intervention and control groups for health-related quality of life as a result of the intervention. Overall quality of the evidence was very low.Mortality was reported by all studies, ranging from 0% to 18.8%. Only one non-mortality adverse event was reported across all patients in all studies (a minor musculoskeletal injury). Withdrawals, reported in four studies, ranged from 0% to 26.5% in control groups,and 8.2% to 27.6% in intervention groups. Loss to follow-up, reported in all studies, ranged from 0% to 14% in control groups, and 0% to 12.5% in intervention groups. Authors’ conclusions:We are unable, at this time, to determine an overall effect on functional exercise capacity, or health-related quality of life, of an exercise based intervention initiated after ICU discharge in survivors of critical illness. Meta-analysis of findings was not appropriate. This was due to insufficient study number and data. Individual study findings were inconsistent. Some studies reported a beneficial effect of the intervention on functional exercise capacity, and others not. No effect was reported on health-related quality of life. Methodological rigour was lacking across a number of domains influencing quality of the evidence. There was also wide variability in the characteristics of interventions, outcome measures and associated metrics, and data reporting.If further trials are identified, we may be able to determine the effect of exercise-based interventions following ICU discharge, on functional exercise capacity and health-related quality of life in survivors of critical illness.

The implausibility of ‘usual care’ in an open system: sedation and weaning practices in Paediatric Intensive Care Units (PICUs) in the United Kingdom (UK).

Background
The power of the randomised controlled trial depends upon its capacity to operate in a closed system whereby the intervention is the only causal force acting upon the experimental group and absent in the control group, permitting a valid assessment of intervention efficacy. Conversely, clinical arenas are open systems where factors relating to context, resources, interpretation and actions of individuals will affect implementation and effectiveness of interventions. Consequently, the comparator (usual care) can be difficult to define and variable in multi-centre trials. Hence outcomes cannot be understood without considering usual care and factors that may affect implementation and impact on the intervention.

Methods
Using a fieldwork approach, we describe PICU context, ‘usual’ practice in sedation and weaning from mechanical ventilation, and factors affecting implementation prior to designing a trial involving a sedation and ventilation weaning intervention. We collected data from 23 UK PICUs between June and November 2014 using observation, individual and multi-disciplinary group interviews with staff.

Results
Pain and sedation practices were broadly similar in terms of drug usage and assessment tools. Sedation protocols linking assessment to appropriate titration of sedatives and sedation holds were rarely used (9 % and 4 % of PICUs respectively). Ventilator weaning was primarily a medical-led process with 39 % of PICUs engaging senior nurses in the process: weaning protocols were rarely used (9 % of PICUs). Weaning methods were variably based on clinician preference. No formal criteria or use of spontaneous breathing trials were used to test weaning readiness. Seventeen PICUs (74 %) had prior engagement in multi-centre trials, but limited research nurse availability. Barriers to previous trial implementation were intervention complexity, lack of belief in the evidence and inadequate training. Facilitating factors were senior staff buy-in and dedicated research nurse provision.

Conclusions
We examined and identified contextual and organisational factors that may impact on the implementation of our intervention. We found usual practice relating to sedation, analgesia and ventilator weaning broadly similar, yet distinctively different from our proposed intervention, providing assurance in our ability to evaluate intervention effects. The data will enable us to develop an implementation plan; considering these factors we can more fully understand their impact on study outcomes.

Epidemiology, Patterns of Care, and Mortality for Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Intensive Care Units in 50 Countries

Importance Limited information exists about the epidemiology, recognition, management, and outcomes of patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Objectives To evaluate intensive care unit (ICU) incidence and outcome of ARDS and to assess clinician recognition, ventilation management, and use of adjuncts—for example prone positioning—in routine clinical practice for patients fulfilling the ARDS Berlin Definition.

Design, Setting, and Participants The Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure (LUNG SAFE) was an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients undergoing invasive or noninvasive ventilation, conducted during 4 consecutive weeks in the winter of 2014 in a convenience sample of 459 ICUs from 50 countries across 5 continents.

Exposures Acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was ICU incidence of ARDS. Secondary outcomes included assessment of clinician recognition of ARDS, the application of ventilatory management, the use of adjunctive interventions in routine clinical practice, and clinical outcomes from ARDS.

Results Of 29 144 patients admitted to participating ICUs, 3022 (10.4%) fulfilled ARDS criteria. Of these, 2377 patients developed ARDS in the first 48 hours and whose respiratory failure was managed with invasive mechanical ventilation. The period prevalence of mild ARDS was 30.0% (95% CI, 28.2%-31.9%); of moderate ARDS, 46.6% (95% CI, 44.5%-48.6%); and of severe ARDS, 23.4% (95% CI, 21.7%-25.2%). ARDS represented 0.42 cases per ICU bed over 4 weeks and represented 10.4% (95% CI, 10.0%-10.7%) of ICU admissions and 23.4% of patients requiring mechanical ventilation. Clinical recognition of ARDS ranged from 51.3% (95% CI, 47.5%-55.0%) in mild to 78.5% (95% CI, 74.8%-81.8%) in severe ARDS. Less than two-thirds of patients with ARDS received a tidal volume 8 of mL/kg or less of predicted body weight. Plateau pressure was measured in 40.1% (95% CI, 38.2-42.1), whereas 82.6% (95% CI, 81.0%-84.1%) received a positive end-expository pressure (PEEP) of less than 12 cm H2O. Prone positioning was used in 16.3% (95% CI, 13.7%-19.2%) of patients with severe ARDS. Clinician recognition of ARDS was associated with higher PEEP, greater use of neuromuscular blockade, and prone positioning. Hospital mortality was 34.9% (95% CI, 31.4%-38.5%) for those with mild, 40.3% (95% CI, 37.4%-43.3%) for those with moderate, and 46.1% (95% CI, 41.9%-50.4%) for those with severe ARDS.

Conclusions and Relevance Among ICUs in 50 countries, the period prevalence of ARDS was 10.4% of ICU admissions. This syndrome appeared to be underrecognized and undertreated and associated with a high mortality rate. These findings indicate the potential for improvement in the management of patients with ARDS.

Alpha-2 agonists for sedation of mechanically ventilated adults in intensive care units: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Care of critically ill patients in intensive care units (ICUs) often requires potentially invasive or uncomfortable procedures, such as mechanical ventilation (MV). Sedation can alleviate pain and discomfort, provide protection from stressful or harmful events, prevent anxiety and promote sleep. Various sedative agents are available for use in ICUs. In the UK, the most commonly used sedatives are propofol (Diprivan(®), AstraZeneca), benzodiazepines [e.g. midazolam (Hypnovel(®), Roche) and lorazepam (Ativan(®), Pfizer)] and alpha-2 adrenergic receptor agonists [e.g. dexmedetomidine (Dexdor(®), Orion Corporation) and clonidine (Catapres(®), Boehringer Ingelheim)]. Sedative agents vary in onset/duration of effects and in their side effects. The pattern of sedation of alpha-2 agonists is quite different from that of other sedatives in that patients can be aroused readily and their cognitive performance on psychometric tests is usually preserved. Moreover, respiratory depression is less frequent after alpha-2 agonists than after other sedative agents.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review to evaluate the comparative effects of alpha-2 agonists (dexmedetomidine and clonidine) and propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam and lorazepam) in mechanically ventilated adults admitted to ICUs.

DATA SOURCES: We searched major electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE without revisions, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) from 1999 to 2014.

METHODS: Evidence was considered from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dexmedetomidine with clonidine or dexmedetomidine or clonidine with propofol or benzodiazepines such as midazolam, lorazepam and diazepam (Diazemuls(®), Actavis UK Limited). Primary outcomes included mortality, duration of MV, length of ICU stay and adverse events. One reviewer extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included trials. A second reviewer cross-checked all the data extracted. Random-effects meta-analyses were used for data synthesis.

RESULTS: Eighteen RCTs (2489 adult patients) were included. One trial at unclear risk of bias compared dexmedetomidine with clonidine and found that target sedation was achieved in a higher number of patients treated with dexmedetomidine with lesser need for additional sedation. The remaining 17 trials compared dexmedetomidine with propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam or lorazepam). Trials varied considerably with regard to clinical population, type of comparators, dose of sedative agents, outcome measures and length of follow-up. Overall, risk of bias was generally high or unclear. In particular, few trials blinded outcome assessors. Compared with propofol or benzodiazepines (midazolam or lorazepam), dexmedetomidine had no significant effects on mortality [risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.85 to 1.24, I (2) = 0%; p = 0.78]. Length of ICU stay (mean difference -1.26 days, 95% CI -1.96 to -0.55 days, I (2) = 31%; p = 0.0004) and time to extubation (mean difference -1.85 days, 95% CI -2.61 to -1.09 days, I (2) = 0%; p < 0.00001) were significantly shorter among patients who received dexmedetomidine. No difference in time to target sedation range was observed between sedative interventions (I (2) = 0%; p = 0.14). Dexmedetomidine was associated with a higher risk of bradycardia (RR 1.88, 95% CI 1.28 to 2.77, I (2) = 46%; p = 0.001).

LIMITATIONS: Trials varied considerably with regard to participants, type of comparators, dose of sedative agents, outcome measures and length of follow-up. Overall, risk of bias was generally high or unclear. In particular, few trials blinded assessors.

CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the use of clonidine in ICUs is very limited. Dexmedetomidine may be effective in reducing ICU length of stay and time to extubation in critically ill ICU patients. Risk of bradycardia but not of overall mortality is higher among patients treated with dexmedetomidine. Well-designed RCTs are needed to assess the use of clonidine in ICUs and identify subgroups of patients that are more likely to benefit from the use of dexmedetomidine.

STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014014101.

FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. The Health Services Research Unit is core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorates.