Category: Procedures

Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 Guidelines - Short Summary

22/3/2020

The European Society of Intensive Care Medicine ESICM and the Society of Critical Care Medicine SCCM have been very efficient in providing us health care workers with a guideline manuscript giving recommendations on the treatment of COVID-19 patients in a critical care setting. It is imperative to keep in mind that research is moving forward very quickly in these times and changes to these recommendations are likely to occur.

A collection of many reliable OPEN ACCESS platforms on SARS-CoV-2 can be found on www.foam.education.

Infection Control

When performing aerosol-generating procedures on patients with COVID-19 in the ICU, fitted respirator masks (N95 respirators, FFP2) should be used (in combination with full Personal Protective Equipement PPE)

Aerosol-generating procedures on ICU patients with COVID-19 should be performed in a negative pressure room

During usual care for non-ventilated and non-aerosol-generating procedures on mechanically ventilated (closed circuit) patients surgical masks are adequate

For endotracheal intubation video-guided laryngoscopy should be used, if available

In intubated and mechanically ventilated patients, endotracheal aspirates should be used for diagnostic testing

Supportive Care

In COVID-19 patients with shock, dynamic parameters like skin temperature, capillary refilling time, and/or serum lactate measurement should be used in order to assess fluid responsiveness

For the acute resuscitation of adults with COVID-19, a conservative over a liberal fluid strategy is recommended

For the acute resuscitation of adults cristalloids should be used - avoid colloids!

Buffered/balanced crystalloids should be used over unbalanced crystalloids

Do NOT use hydroxyethyl starches!

Do NOT use gelatins!

Do NOT use dextrans!

Avoid the routine use of albumin for initial resuscitation!

In shock use norepinephrine/ noradrenaline as the first-line vasoactive agent

The use of dopamine is NOT recommended

Add vasopressin, if target MAP cannot be reached

Titrate vasoactive agents to target a MAP of 60-65 mmHg, rather than higher MAP targets

For patients in shock and with evidence of cardiac dysfunction and persistent hypoperfusion despite fluid resuscitation and norepinephrine, adding dobutamine should be used

For persistent shock despite all these measures, low-dose corticosteroids should be tried

Ventilatory Support

Keep peripheral saturation SpO2 above 90% with supplemental oxygen

There is NO need for supplemental oxygen with SpO2 above 96%

In acute hypoxemic respiratory failure despite conventional oxygen therapy, high-flow nasal cannulas (HFNC or High-Flow) should be used next

High-Flow should be used over non-invasive ventilation (NIV)

If High-Flow is not available and there is no urgent need for endotracheal intubation, NIV with close monitoring can be tried

In the event of worsening respiratory status, early endotracheal intubation should be performed

In mechanically ventilated patients, low-tidal volume ventilation should be used: 4 to 8 ml/kg

In mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS targeting plateau pressures (Pplat) of < 30 cm H2O should be aimed for

In patients with moderate to severe ARDS, a high-PEEP strategy should be used (PEEP >10cmH2O). Patients have to be monitored for potential barotrauma

NOTE by Crit.Cloud:

The strategy for high PEEP levels in general is currently discussed controversially. Observations in our own unit showed, that high PEEP levels tend to impaire compliance and therefor the quality of ventilation. Read also: "Less is More" in mechanical ventilatio, Gattinoni L. et al. Intensive Care Med (2020) 46:780-782

Patients with ARDS should receive a conservative/restrictive fluid strategy

In moderate to severe ARDS, prone positioning for 12-16 hours is recommended

To facilitate lung protective ventilation in moderate to severe ARDS, intermittent boluses of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) should be used first

In the event of persistent ventilator dyssynchrony, the need for ongoing deep sedation, prone ventilation, or persistently high plateau pressures, a continuous NMBA infusion for up to 48 hours should be used next

Do NOT use inhaled nitric oxide in COVID-19 patients with ARDS routinely

In severe ARDS and hypoxemia despite optimising ventilation and other rescue strategies, a trial of inhaled pulmonary vasodilator as a rescue therapy can be considered; if no rapid improvement in oxygenation is observed, the treatment should be tapered off

If hypoxemia persists despite optimising ventilation, recruitment manoeuvres should be applied

If recruitment manoeuvres are used, DO NOT use staircase (incremental PEEP) recruitment manoeuvres

If all these measures fail, the patient should be considered for venovenous ECMO

COVID-19 Therapy

In mechanically ventilated patients WITHOUT ARDS, systemic corticosteroids should NOT be used routinely

In contrast, mechanically ventilated patients WITH ARDS, the use of systemic corticosteroids is recommended

Mechanically ventilated patients with respiratory failure should be treated with empiric antimicrobials/antibacterial agents

Critically ill patients with fever should be treated with paracetamol (acetominophen) for temperature control

In critically ill patients standard intravenous immunoglobulins (IVIG) should NOT be used routinely

Also, the routine use of convalescent plasma is NOT recommended

The routine use of lopinavir/ritonavir (Kaletra®) is NOT recommended

Currently, there is insufficient evidence to issue a recommendation on the use of other antiviral agents in critically ill adults with COVID-19

Currently, there is insufficient evidence to issue a recommendation on the use of recombinant interferons (rIFNs); chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine; tocilizumab (humanised immunoglobulin)

Direct Download of the pdf file:

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Guidelines on the Management of Critically Ill Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) by ESICM and SCCM

2 Comments

7 Reasons for the Use Vasopressors through Peripheral Catheters

16/12/2019

Teaching in medical school and opinions in literature are in agreement: The application of vasopressors requires central venous access. The reason for this are concerns that vasopressors given over a peripheral venous catheter (PCV) may cause phlebitis or even worse necrosis or ischemia through extravasation.

While irritation of a peripheral vein is often observed with the administration of drugs like potassium or amiodarone, this usually is not the case with the application of, e.g. norepinephrine. Besides, it is essential to keep in mind that the insertion of a central venous catheter (CVC) is technically demanding and takes a certain amount of time when performed correctly. The procedure is also associated with potentially dangerous complications that might be hazardous to the patient.

Therefore a fundamental question arises:

Do all patients that require vasopressors need a central venous catheter?

What about the peripheral access (PVC) - Any dangers there?

Study #1

In 2015 Cardenas-Garcia et al. have published a

open-label, single-centre trial

in which they treated

a total of 734 patients with the vasopressors noradrenaline (506), dobutamine (101 and phenylephrine 176 via peripheral access only.

The average duration of infusion was 49 hours.

They found

extravasation in only 2% of all patients without any further tissue injury following treatment with local phentolamine injection and nitroglycerin paste.

These findings indicate that:

Correctly applied vasopressors via a peripheral line are safe, even if given over several hours
Complications like extravasation are generally rare and are unlikely to cause any further harm

J Hosp Med. 2015 Sep;10(9):581-5. doi: 10.1002/jhm.2394. Epub 2015 May 26.

Study #2

In 2015 Loubani et al. performed a systematic review of extravasation and local tissue injury from the administration of vasopressors through peripheral intravenous catheters and central venous catheters. They looked at

Local tissue injury close to the infusion site
Extravasation of a vasopressor into surrounding tissue or a body cavity
Major disability of the patient

An excellent summary of this study can be found on REBELEM, who correctly states that this review was only for complications from administration of vasopressor, and not a review of the frequency of complications (i.e. instances where no complications occurred).

This review shows nicely though that

Most complications concerned peripheral IV-lines distal to the antecubital or popliteal fossae, and
Almost all occurred in infusions running for more than 4 hours

J Crit Care. 2015 Jun;30(3):653.e9-17. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2015.01.014. Epub 2015 Jan 22

Study #3

In 2017 Lewis at al. performed a retrospective chart review of 202 patients who received vasopressors through a PVL. The primary vasopressors used were norepinephrine and phenylephrine. The most common PVL sites used were the forearm and antecubital fossa. The incidence of extravasation was 4%. All of the events were managed conservatively; none required an antidote or surgical management. Although with many limitations to this review, there is further evidence indicating:

Extravasation seems to be a rather rare complication and again did not result in any further harm for the patient

J Intensive Care Med. 2017 Jan 1:885066616686035.

Study #4

In 2018 Medlej et al. tried to determine the incidence of complications of running vasopressors through PIVs in patients with circulatory shock in a prospective, observational trial. Again, REBELEM has nicely summarized this rather small trial. It is another small indicator that:

In patients with shock, the use of peripheral vasopressors (noradrenaline and dopamine) in a large bore PVC at a proximal site for less than 4 hours is safe!

J Emerg Med. 2018 Jan;54(1):47-53.

Well, how do PVC's compare to CVC's then?

Study #5

In 2018 Ricard JD et al. performed a

Multicenter, controlled, parallel-group, open-label randomized trial

in which

Patients were randomized to receive central venous catheters (135 patients) or peripheral venous catheters (128 patients) as initial venous access.

The primary endpoint was the rate of major catheter-related complications within 28 days.

They found significantly more PVC-related complications per patient when only treated with peripheral lines compared to patients that received at least one CVC.

And they concluded: "central venous catheters should preferably be inserted: a strategy associated with less major complications"

REALLY? Hold on! - let's have a close look at those 'major complications, the PRIMARY endpoint of this study!

Although going through this article several times, it remains difficult to understand how PVC insertion difficulties are comparable major complications.
First of all, difficult venous access is one of the indications for the insertion of a CVC, not its complication. Patients were randomly allocated in a one-to-one ratio to receive a CVC or a PVC. So how can difficult peripheral access be a complication when going for central access directly?

Also, there is considerable doubt whether the occurrence of a pneumothorax can be used to compare complications of these two procedures!

However, when eliminating difficult peripheral access as an indication, there is not much left to say PVCs are associated with more complications than CVCs. Moreover, most clinicians will agree that catheter infections in PVCs are less problematic than when occurring in CVCs.

Given these considerations, it seems safe to say:

In critically ill patients peripheral access can be tricky indeed
PVCs might be associated with more frequent local erythema and extravasation of fluids
Good to know: peripheral access is not associated with more pneumothoraces ; )

Crit Care Med. 2013 Sep;41(9):2108-15

2019 - More Evidence Keeps Rolling In!

Study #6

Tian et al. have performed a

Systematic review

in order to assess

the frequency of complications associated with the delivery of vasopressors via PVCs.

They included

Studies of continuous infusions of vasopressor medications (noradrenaline, adrenaline, metaraminol, phenylephrine, dopamine and vasopressin) delivered via a PiVCs that included at least 20 patients. This resulted in seven observational studies (only) with a total of 1384 patients.

They found that

Extravasation occurred in 3.4% (95% CI 2.5-4.7%) of patients. There were no reported episodes of tissue necrosis or limb ischaemia. All extravasation events were successfully managed conservatively or with vasodilatory medications.

Extravasation seems to be an issue with PVCs, but there is no further information on the size or location of the peripheral line.
Again, no serious side effects were reported, indicating that peripherally administered vasopressors are safe over all when given for a limited duration.

Emerg Med Australas. 2019 Nov 7.

Study #7

Pancaro et al. published

a retrospective cohort study

in which identified

14'385 surgical patients who received peripheral norepinephrine infusions perioperatively with a concentration of 20 µg/mL (a rather low concentration)

They found

Extravasation of norepinephrine in only 5 patients and there where zero related complications requiring surgical or medical intervention. The median time of norepinephrine infusion among these patients was 20 minutes.

This is a fairly good indicator that:

Giving vasopressors through PVC for a limited duration is safe

Extravasation might actually be harmless when applied in rather lower contentrations

Anesthesia & Analgesia. SEPTEMBER 27, 2019

Giving the current evidence available, it seems appropriate to conclude:

The need for vasopressors itself is not a mandatory indication for central venous access

Vasopressors can be safely given through a peripheral venous catheter
- This is especially true when used for a limited time (e.g. less than 4 hours) and when applied in rather lower concentrations.

In the critically ill central venous access will inevitably still be required (advantage of multiple lumens, difficult peripheral access, other drugs that do entitle the use of a CVC etc.)

Manage Critical Bleedings in Anticoagulated Patients like a Pro!

5/12/2018

Anticoagulated patients are common, and the amount of available oral anticoagulants is becoming more diverse and confusing. Anticoagulation is the cornerstone in the treatment of thrombosis and thromboembolic complications in a variety of diseases. Lixiana, Pradaxa, Eliquis and Xarelto are some of these pretty-sounding drugs that many doctors know but find it difficult to keep up.

So if you work in an emergency room, anaesthesia or intensive care, there's a good chance you will be facing an anticoagulant patient with potentially critical bleeding that could require urgent treatment... And this leaves you with the following questions:

- What is a critical bleed (apart from obvious massive bleeding)? Does this bleeding need imminent reversal?

- Do I need any laboratory testing before?

- What treatment should I actually give the patient?

If you do not have a guideline in your institution, it may be time to create one, and the following publication is indeed very useful for this purpose!

The 2017 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Management of Bleeding in Patients on Oral Anticoagulants very nicely summarises current evidence and expert opinion on these issues. But the very best are their excellent figures, providing all the answers you need: simple and very understandable!

What is a Critical Bleeding?

Do I Need any Laboratory Tests Before?

What Treatment Should I Give the Patient for Reversal?

2017 ACC Expert Consensus Decision Pathway on Management of Bleeding in Patients on Oral Anticoagulants, Volume 70, Issue 24, December 2017

Intraoperative Ketamine: A Big Hooray for Special K?

3/6/2017

Postoperative pain and delirium is a common concern and currently approached by different interventions. There is some evidence suggesting that ketamine given intra-operatively might have an influence on postoperative pain and delirium. Some anaesthetists commonly give a single dose of ketamine intra-operatively for exactly this reason.

Thumbs up for Ket

Ketamine has kept its fascination in various settings, from retrieval medicine onto the the care of critically ill patients in the ICU. Ketamine reduces postoperative markers of inflammation, is a rapid-acting antidepressant drug with an effect lasting for several days and might have neuroprotective properties.

Ketamine also has become increasingly popular as an adjunct to other sedatives in the ICU. There is evidence showing that ketamine used in the ICU has the potential to reduce cumulative opioid consumption after surgery (Asad E. et al. J Intensive Care Med December 8 2015 ).

Even better: It does not cause any kidney injuries, preserves laryngeal protective reflexes, lower airway resistance and much more...

And: Ketamine is cheap and has been used safely for over 50 years by anaesthetists!

The Dark Side of Ket

But there's the other side of ketamine making all of this a little more complicated. After all, Ketamine is a psychoactive drug and has well known hallucinogenic properties. Developed in the 1960s as a dissociative anaesthetic agent it started to appear on the street in the early 1970s and made its way to the 1980s as Special K, Acid and Super C (Dotson JW et al. J of Drug Abuse, Vol 25, Issue 4, 1995).

From a medical point of view there are some worries that these psychotomimetic effects, which are of concern in the critically ill patient, might predispose to delirium (Erstad BL, J Crit Care, Oct 2016, Vol 35, p 145-149).

The PODCAST Trial

On the background of all this facts this trial revealed some interesting findings. Avidan et al. performed a

multicentre, international randomised trial

in which they randomly assigned

672 patients undergoing major cardiac and non-cardiac surgery under general anaethesia

into three groups to either receive a bolus of

placebo (normal saline), low-dose ketamine (0·5 mg/kg), or high dose ketamine (1·0 mg/kg) after induction of anaesthesia, before surgical incision.

Participants, clinicians, and investigators were blinded to group assignment. They found

NO difference in in the incidence of postoperative delirium among these groups

but

significantly more postoperative hallucinations and nightmares with increasing ketamine doses compared to placebo

This trial seems well performed with an acceptable sample size. The application of a single dose of ketamine before surgery neither prevented delirium nor induced it. With this sample size it seems safe to say that even if ketamine does prevent delirium, its effect would be rather small.

Furthermore, postoperative pain was not influenced by giving a single dose of ketamine and this is in contrast to previous findings and current guidelines. Importantly, most of the previous studies are smaller than this trial, making these findings remarkable.

But what really drew my attention was the fact that the appearance of hallucinations and night-mares was increased for at least 3 days after surgery.

So if ketamine has no influence on postoperative delirium or pain but does induce hallucinations and nightmares, even 3 days after surgery, current guidelines might have to be revised.

The Bottom Line

- The application of a subanaesthetic dose of ketamine during surgery to tackle postoperative pain and delirium does not seem to be as effective as previously assumed

- The usage of ketamine in this setting even seems to have undesirable side-effects like hallucinations and nightmare - and this effect might even last for up to 3 days!

- This trial provides good reasons to look for other options to prevent postoperative delirium!

(Like dexmedetomidine? The answer to this question has just been answered: READ HERE!)

Avidan MS et al. The Lancet, May 30th 2017

Guiding Fluid Therapy with Your Ultrasound

27/4/2016

Fluids are one of the cornerstones in the treatment of patients with shock. But with any drug applied, also fluids can harm if given inappropriately! While inadequate fluid resuscitation might result in tissue hypoperfusion and worsening of end-organ function, to much fluid might lead to problems like pulmonary oedema and finally increased mortality. Many measures are used in clinical practice, but most of them lack specificity and are not very representative as a sole marker. One of the better methods to evaluate fluid requirements is the use of dynamic measures that estimate the change in cardiac output (CO) in response to a fluid bolus.

In this regard the use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has become increasingly attractive in order to use basic critical care ultrasound to asses the need of fluids in a specific clinical setting. Lee at al. have now looked at the sonographic assessment of the inferior vena cava and lung ultrasound in order to quite fluid therapy in intensive care. By taking into account current evidence they have produced an algorithm using these measures to help guiding fluid therapy.

As with any measurement in critically ill patients the pathophysiologic cause of shock must be taken into account. The algorithm presented here seems to work best in patients in hypovolemic shock. To fully understand the following algorithm and its limitations we recommend to read the open access article (see link below).

In conclusion:
The algorithm provided is a helpful tool to help assess the need of fluids in a simple and quick manner.

Lee C et al. J of Crit Care 31 (2016) 96-100 OPEN ACCESS

Analgosedation with Ketamine in the ICU: What is the Evidence?

28/12/2015

Ketamine's success seems unstoppable:
+++ Anaesthesiologists are opening private clinics for off-label infusions of ketamine for depression http://bit.ly/1IGYTcI +++ Dr. Jim Roberts says #ketamine is an ideal treatment for excited #delirium: http://emn.online/Dec15InFocus +++ Major #ketamine treatment trial to start in 2016 http://m.huffpost.com/au/entry/8501942 +++ More impressed every day with low dose ketamine for pain management! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgckjVVBb48 ...

Intravenous ketamine is also used in critical care units and to my knowledge most clinicians use ketamine as an adjunct to other sedatives. This might be for patients on mechanical ventilation, intubation procedures or simply as an additive to a patient-controlled analgesia pump. I personally think ketamine is one of the essentials in ICU's, but what does the evidence say.

Asad et al. have performed a systematic review on the usage of ketamine as a continuous infusion (>24h) in intensive care patients. The aim was to find evidence in favour for the utilisation of ketamine in the ICU.

As a result of this review - current evidence suggests that:

- In critically ill postoperative patients ketamine has the potential to reduce the cumulative morphine consumption at 48h compared to morphine only

- Several trials show the potential safety of ketamine in regards of cerebral haemodynamics in patients with traumatic brain injury, improved gastrointestinal motility and decreased vasopressor requirements

- One observational study and case reports suggest that ketamine is safe, effective and may have a role in patients who are refractory to other therapies

Our conclusion: THUMBS UP for ketamine in the ICU

Asad E. et al. J Intensive Care Med December 8, 2015

What is Better in ARDS: Pressure Controlled or Volume Controlled Ventilation?

28/12/2015

A good question, but do you actually know. Most ICU's have their standard modes of ventilation and we are busy enough concentrating on the wright PEEP, the perfect tidal volume or prone positioning the patient. But does the mode of ventilation actually have an impact on the outcome? Chacko et al. had a look at exactly this question and performed a systematic review on this topic:

- Early mortality: There is only some moderate-quality evidence suggesting that pressure controlled ventilation might be of benefit, although this was not observed in the long term follow-up!

- Duration of mechanical ventilation: no apparent difference between pressure- and volume-controlled ventilation

- ICU length of stay: no apparent difference between pressure- and volume-controlled ventilation

- incidence of barotrauma: no apparent difference between pressure- and volume-controlled ventilation

- Extrapulmonary organ failure: One underpowered study in favour of pressure controlled ventilation

- Infective complications, Quality of life: To this date no studies available

Conclusion: Current evidence shows no difference between pressure controlled and volume controlled ventilation in ARDS.

Cochrane, Clinical Answers OPEN ACCESS

Chacko B, Peter JV, Tharyan P, John G, Jeyaseelan L. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD008807. OPEN ACCESS

Don't Throw Away your Cooling Devices!

20/8/2015

When performing a kidney transplantation nowadays up to 50% of recipients developed a delayed graft function which is defined as the need of dialysis within seven days. The authors of this recently published NEJM-article asked themselves whether mild hypothermia might influence outcome in this regard.

In order to answer this question the investigators assigned organ donors after declaration of death according to neurologic criteria into two groups. They were either treated with mild hypothermia (34 to 35°C) or with normothermia (36.5 to 37.5°C). The target temperature was maintained until the patients were transferred to theatre for transplantation.

Primary outcome of this trial was delayed graft function among recipients. Secondary outcomes included the rates of individual organs transplanted into each treatment group at the total number of organs transplanted from each donor.

This trial had to be stopped early as an interim analysis showed significant efficacy of mild hypothermia. Up to this point a total of 572 patients received a kidney transplant (285 in the hypothermia group and 287 in the normothermia group). 28% of recipients in the hypothemia group developed delayed graft function compared to 39% in the normothermia group.

The authors therefore conclude that mild hypothermia significantly reduces the rate of delayed graft functions among recipients.

This study suggests that potential organ donors after declaration of death according to neurologic criteria should be treated with mild hypothermia.

Intensive care units that continue to treat patients with mild hypothermia after cardiac arrest might have two rewarm their patients for the diagnosis of neurological death before re-cooling them for organ transplantation

Anyhow, it seems reasonable not to get rid of your cooling devices!

Read more about the controversies of hypothermia in the ICU:

The Targeted Temperature Management Trial: Nielsen N, et al. New Engl J Med. 2013 Dec;369(23):2197-206

The 2 trials that introduced therapeutic hypothermia into ICU practice:
The Hypothermia After Cardiac Arrest Study Group, Holzer at al. New Engl J Med. 2002 Feb;346(8):549-556

Bernard S.A. et al. New Engl J Med. 2002 Feb;346(8):557-563

Review article on therapeutic hypothermia for non-VF/VT cardiac arrest:
Sandroni S. et al. Crit Care Med; 2013;17:215

Pyrexia and neurological outcome:
Leary M. et al. Resuscitation. 2013 Aug;84(8):1056-61

BIJC post on: The Effect of Pre-Hospital Cooling: Rather Worrying Results

New British Guidelines for Haematological Management of Major Haemorrhage

1/8/2015

Beverley Hunt at al. have just published an excellent practical guideline for the haematological management of major haemorrhage which also serves a a great educational review on this topic... an excellent piece of work!

The authors look at this topic point for point and review current literature in an easy to understand sort of manor. They define major blood loss when it leads to a heart rte of >110/Min or a systolic blood pressure of less than 90mmHg, or simply said: when bleeding becomes haemodynamic relevant. In general it is recommended to have a major haemorrhage protocol at hand (1D) and all staff should be trained to recognise major blood loss early (1D).

Here's a summary of the recommendations made by the British Committee for Standards in Haematology (BCSH):

In Major Haemorrhage....

Red Blood Cells RBC
- Hospitals must be prepared to provide emergency Group 0 red cells and group specific red cells (1C)
- Patients must have correctly labelled samples taken before administration of emergency Group 0 blood (1C)
- There is NO indication to request 'fresh' or 'young' red cells (under 7d of storage, 2B)
- Note: The optimum target haemoglobin concentration (Hb) in this clinical setting in general is NOT established. Current literature shows a tendency towards restriction towards 70-90g/L, but the BCSH makes no recommendations therefore (see blow)

Cell Salvage (e.g. cell saver)
- 24h access to cell salvage should be available in cardiac, obstetric, trauma and vascular centres (2b)

Haemostatic Monitoring
- Use haemostatic tests regularly during haemorrhage, every 30-60min, depending on severity of blood loss (1C)
- Measure platelet count, PT, aPTT (1C)
- Note: The BCSG does not recommend TEG and ROTEM at this stage

Fresh Frozen Plasma FFP
- Use FFP in a 1:2 ratio with RBC initially (2C)
- Once bleeding is under control administer FFP when PT and/or aPTT is >1.5 times normal (recommended dose 15-20ml/kg, 2C)
- The use of FFP should not delay fibrinogen supplementation if necessary (2C)

Fibrinogen
- Supplement fibrinogen when levels fall below 1.5g/L

Prothrombin Complex Concentrates PCC
- Do not use PCC

Platelets
- Keep the platelet count >50 x 10^9/L (1B)
- If bleeding persists give platelets if count falls below 100 x 10^9/L (2C)

Tranexamic Acid TA
- Give tranexamic acid as soon as possible to patients with, or at risk of major haemorrhage (Recommended dose: 1g IV over 10min, followed by 1g IV over 8h, 1A)
- Note: TA has no known adverse effects
- Note: Aprotinin is not recommended

Recombinant Activated Factor VIIa (Novo Seven)
- Do not use

Specific Clinical Situations

Obstetrics
- Fibrinogen levels increase during pregnancy to 4-6g/L
- In major obstetric haemorrhage fibrinogen should be given when levels are <2.0g/L (1B)

GI-Bleed
- Use restrictive strategy for RBC transfusion is recommended in most patients (1A)

Trauma
- Transfuse adult trauma patients empirically with a 1:1 ratio of FFP : RBC (1B)
- Consider early use of platelets (1B)
- Give tranexamic acid as soon as possible (Dose 1g over 10min and then 1g over 8h, 1A)

Prevention of Bleeding in High-Risk Surgery
- Use tranexamic acid (Dose 1g over 10min and then 1g over 8h, 1B)

Hunt B et al. British J Haemat, July 6 2015

Read more HERE:

Great Review on Transfusion, Thrombosis and Bleeding Management

Restricitve Transfusion Threshold in Sepsis, the TRISS Trial

Transfusion: Harmful for Patients Undergoing PCI?

Oxygen in Acute Myocardial Infarction: Challenging the Next Medical Automatism

30/7/2015

A number of things we do for patients in the ICU we simply do... because it has been always done. Maybe because it seems to make sense or because we were simply taught to do so. One of these treatments is the application of oxygen to patients suffering of myocardial infarction. But in fact the impact of this measure is not that well established and we know that high concentrations of oxygen can actually be harmful. Some previous studies suggest possible increase in myocardial injury.

Stub et al. therefore performed a multicenter, prospective, randomised controlled trial comparing oxygen (8 L/min) with no supplemental oxygen in patients with STEMI diagnosed on paramedic 12-lead electrocardiogram. They finally included 441 patients into their study.

Their primary endpoint was evaluation of infarction size assessed by the cardiac enzymes troponin (cTnI) and creatine kinase (CK). While troponin levels did not differ there was a significant difference in the mean peak CK levels, being higher in the group with oxygen applied. By looking at the secondary endpoints they also found an increase in the rate of recurrent myocardial infarctions and in the frequency of cardiac arrhythmia among the oxygen group. Finally at 6-months the oxygen group had an increase in myocardial infarct size on cardiac MRI.

They conclude that patients with myocardial infarction but without hypoxemia may actually not benefit of supplemental oxygen therapy.

Time to question our automatisms when treating patients.

Stub et al. Circulation. 2015 Jun 16;131(24):2143-50.

Another Hole in the Ballon (-Pump)!

7/5/2015

In the late 1960's the technology of counter-pulsation by using an intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) was introduced into clinical work. Based on the principle of diastolic inflation and systolic deflation, IABP counter-pulsation improves diastolic coronary artery blood flow and decreases left ventricular afterload. Up to the year 2009, 2012 respectively, the usage of an IABP in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock was considered a class IC recommendation (reminder: levels of evidence).

Since then a couple of well conducted, larger trials have failed to show a positive impact of IABP especially on mortality. In regards of the most recent meta-analysis in JAMA we provide a short overview of the most important publications. It's interesting to see that the balloons undermining started with a meta-analysis and for the the time being ends with one.

Stitch no.1

The first notable hole in the ballon was caused by Sjauw et al.'s systematic review and meta-analysis in the European Heart Journal in 2009. Their pooled randomized data consisting of two separate meta-analyses did not support the use of an IABP in patients with high risk STEMI. They concluded that there is insufficient evidence endorsing the current guideline recommendation for the use of IABP therapy in the setting of STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock.

This publication was one of the main reasons for the expert panel of the European Society of Cardiology to change the recommendation (ESC Guidelines 2012) to use an IABP in patients with STEMI from IC to IIB.

Stitch 2 and 3

In the same year 2012 Thiele et al. published their first IABP-SHOCK II results in the NEJM. Their
randomized, prospective, open-label, multicenter trial showed no reduction in the 30-day mortality compared to the best available medical therapy alone in patients with myocardial infarction-induced cardiogenic shock and planned early revascularization (PCI or CABG).

One year later the IABP-SHOCK II investigators published their final 12-months results in The Lancet. They came to the final conclusion that in patients undergoing early revascularization for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock, IABP did not reduce 12-month all-cause mortality.

Stitch no. 4

In 2013 Ranucci at al. presented the results of their single-center prospective randomized controlled trial looking at the usage of a preoperative IABP in high-risk patients undergoing surgical coronary revascularization. By looking at a total of 110 patients with an ejection fraction below 35% and no hemodynamic instability there was no improvement in outcome when inserting an IABP preoperatively.

Preliminary Final Stitch

So finally Ahmad and his team decided to assess IABP efficacy in acute myocardial infarction by performing an updated meta-analysis. Main outcome was 30-day mortality. They included 12 eligible RCTs randomizing 2123 patients and found no improvement in mortality among patients with acute myocardial infarction... regardless of whether patients had cardiogenic shock or not!
A look at another 15 eligible observational studies with a total of 15 530 patients showed basically conflicting results which was explained by the differences between studies in the balance of risk factors between IABP and non-IABP groups.

It seems that the IABP fails to show its assumed efficacy in patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock, especially when early revascularization (PCI or CABG) is available.

As a general consideration and also when no early revascularisation is available the use of another left-ventricular assist device like the Impella pump might prove to be a good and easy to use alternative (see blow).

Sjauw KD et al. Eur Heart J 30: 459-468

ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J 33: 2569-2619 OPEN ACCESS

Thiele et al. N Engl J Med 2012; 367:1287-1296 OPEN ACCESS

Thiele et al. The Lancet, Volume 382, Issue 9905, Pages 1638 – 1645

Crit Care Med. 2013 Nov;41(11):2476-83

JAMA Intern Med. Published online March 30, 2015

Short film on the principle of the Impella pump 2.5. Bare in mind that this device can actually be easily inserted in the environment of ICU and positioned by using transthoracic echo TTE.

Subglottic Suctioning Prevents Harm in the Long-Term Intubated Patient - So Do it!

5/3/2015

Microbiologically confirmed ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) or ventilator-associated conditions (VAC, e.g. worsening oxygenation) in intubated patients remains a major concern in ICU's. VAP is defined as a hospital-acquired pneumonia which develops within 48-72 hours after endotracheal intubation.
To prevent this complication ICU's uniformly have adapted the VAP-bundle, a bunch of measures aiming to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia. Unfortunately the evidence of the VAP-bundle is not as robust as one might think it is. Here's the evidence of some elements of the VAP bundle:

- Elevation of the head to bed 45° (low evidence)
- Daily sedation interruptions (the impact on reducing VAP has not been shown so far)
- Daily oral chlorhexidine rinses (low evidence)

... it's most likely the combination of measures that is of benefit to the patient... hopefully! But hold on, there is another intervention that finally brings quite some evidence with it!

Active suctioning of the subglottic area, where nasal-oral secretions gather and create a rich culture medium for all sorts of micro-organisms, also aims to reduce the incidence of VAP. In contrast to the classical VAP-bundle the evidence here is strongly in favour for these devices!
In 2005 four registrars in cardiothoracic surgery looked into this topic and summarised their efforts online on Best Evidence Topics, best bets.org. In this blog they review 13 relevant articles on the use of subglottic suctioning and conclude: subglottic suction significantly reduces the incidence of VAP in high risk patients - which means a NNT of 8 if ventilated for more than 3 days. They also mention that this measure is cost effective, despite the more expensive tubes.

In the same year Dezfulian et al. presented a systematic meta-analysis of randomized trials in the American Journal of Medicine. They ended up with 5 studies including 869 patients. They also came to the conclusion that subglottic secretion drainage is effective in preventing VAP in patients expected to be ventilated for more than 72 hours.

In 2011 Hallais et al. looked into the issue of cost-effectiveness with a cost-benefit analysis. Even when assuming the most pessimistic scenario of VAP incidence and costs the replacement of conventional ventilation with continuous subglottic suctioning would still be cost-effective.

In 2011 Muscedere et al. published an 'official' review article in Critical Care Medicine and also ended up with 13 randomised clinical trial, most of them the same 'BestBETs' had already identified 6 years before. It is therefore not surprising to see that they also found a highly significant reduction in VAP. They were also able to demonstrate a reduction in ICU length of stay and duration of mechanical ventilation, although the strength of this association was weakened by heterogeneity of study results.

We finally would like to mention the latest randomised controlled trial on this topic which was published in Critical Care Medicine this January 2015. Damas et al. randomly assigned 352 patients to either receive subglottic suctioning or not. Again sublottic suctioning significantly reduced VAP prevalence and therefore also antibiotic use.

At least we have identified one area in critical care where an impressive pile of evidence supporting the use of subglottic suctioning in long-term intubated patients is present... and even better: cost-effective analyses also come out in great favour for this measure!

Take-home message: Subglottic suctioning does prevent VAP in patients likely to be ventilated more than (48-) 72 hours and should be used in these situations.

Review BestBETs 2005

Dezfulian C et al. Am J Med. 2005 Jan;118(1):11-8

Hallais C. et al. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011 Feb;32(2):131-5

Muscedere J et al. Crit Care Med. 2011 Vol. 39, No. 8

Damas P et al. Crit Care Med. 2015 Jan;43(1):22-30

Little Christmas Present: Open Access 'Anaesthesia' Supplement on Transfusion, Thrombosis and Bleeding Management

27/12/2014

'Anaesthesia', the Journal of the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland have published an Open Access Supplement on various aspects of Transfusion, Thrombosis and Bleeding Management. This is an excellent opportunity to update your knowledge in this field and actually compulsory for anyone involved actively in critical care.

The supplement consists of multiple review articles which are kept nice and short and are perfect for reading in between...
In Conclusion: Reading highly recommended!

On following website you can find a list of all articles including links to the full text:

Anaesthesia, Vol. 70, Issue Supplement s1, January 2015: Transfusion, Thrombosis and Bleeding Management

How and When to Use Platelets: A Clinical Guideline by the AABB

18/11/2014

Platelets are used in critical to either prevent or treat bleeding. The problem is that despite all the research and studies we still don't know that much on the best way to clinically use platelets... and they are tricky indeed:

- Platelets must be stored at room temperature
- Because of the risk of bacterial growth the shelf life of platelet units is only 5 days
- Maintaining a constant pool of platelets for clinical work is extremely difficult and resource-intensive
- Transfusion related risks are notable (e.g. febrile reaction 1/14, allergic reactions 1/50, bacterial sepsis 1/75'000)

When it comes to their usage intensivists often have a different approach than haematologists and guidelines mostly vary from hospital to hospital, from country to country. However, instead of searching all the literature yourself you might consider reading the article by Kaufman RM et al. published just this month in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
A panel of 21 specialists, covering almost all areas of medicine involved in handling platelets, performed a systematic review by looking up publications from 1900 to 2013. From 1024 identified studies, 17 RCTs and 53 observational studies were included in the review. The result of their work are guidelines on the use of platelets including their grade of recommendation. Short:

- Platelets should be transfused prophylactically to reduce the risk for spontaneous bleeding in hospitalized adult patients with therapy-induced hypo proliferative thrombocytopenia < 10 x 109 cells/L (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-quality evidence)

- Platelets should be transfused prophylactically for patients having elective central venous catheter placement with a platelet count less than 20 × 109 cells/L (Grade: weak recommendation; low-quality evidence)

- Prophylactic platelet transfusion is recommended for patients having elective diagnostic lumbar puncture with a platelet count less than 50 × 109 cells/L (Grade: weak recommendation; very low-quality evidence)

- Prophylactic platelet transfusion is recommended for patients having major elective nonneuraxial surgery with a platelet count less than 50 × 109 cells/L (Grade: weak recommendation; very low-quality evidence)

- Routine prophylactic platelet transfusion for patients who are nonthrombocytopenic and have cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is NOT recommended. Platelet transfusion for patients having CPB who exhibit perioperative bleeding with thrombocytopenia and/or evidence of platelet dysfunction is NOT recommended (Grade: weak recommendation; very low-quality evidence)

- Recommendations for or against platelet transfusion for patients receiving antiplatelet therapy who have intracranial hemorrhage (traumatic or spontaneous) cannot be made (Grade: uncertain recommendation; very low-quality evidence)

It is remarkable to see that after a century of intense research we are left with some moderate-quality evidence and lots of low quality evidence and therefore weak recommendations. I guess guidelines will continue to vary from doctor to doctor, hospital to hospital... country to country.

Kaufman RM et al. Ann Intern Med, Nov 11, 2014: Open access article

Unexpected Review Finding: Ultrasound Guided Thoracocentesis Does Not Reduce the Incidence of Pneumothoraces

20/6/2014

Thoracocentesis is a procedure often used to further determine pleural effusions. This commonly performed procedure may lead to complications including the development of a pneumothorax. Wilcox et al. performed a systematic review in JAMA of current literature to answer following two questions: 1. What are the most accurate diagnostic indicators to diagnose an exsudate? and 2. What are the most common adverse side effects and factors affecting them?
48 studies were included to answer the first question, while 37 studies were used to approach question number 2.

In conclusion:
- Light's criteria, pleural fluid cholesterol (<55 mg/dl) and pleural fluid LDH (>200 U/L) levels, and the pleural fluid cholesterol to serum cholesterol ratio (> 0.3) are the best diagnostic indicators for pleural exsudates

- Pneumothorax was the most common complication of thoracocetesis (incidence 6%). Chest tube placement was needed in 2% of all procedures. And most impressive: Ultrasound skin marking by a radiologist or ultrasound-guided thoracocentesis were not associated with a decrease in pneumothorax events.

... would you abandon the ultrasound?

Wilcox et al. JAMA, June 18, 2014, Vol 311, No. 23

<<Previous

Reviews and Summaries

Infection Control

Supportive Care

Ventilatory Support

COVID-19 Therapy

What about the peripheral access (PVC) - Any dangers there?

​Study #1

​Study #2

​Study #3

​Study #4

​Well, how do PVC's compare to CVC's then?

​Study #5

​2019 - More Evidence Keeps Rolling In!​

Study #6

​Study #7

What is a Critical Bleeding?

​Do I Need any Laboratory Tests Before?

​What Treatment Should I Give the Patient for Reversal?

Search

​Translate

Categories

Archives

Author

ABOUT US

SEARCH US

CONTACT US

FOLLOW US

TRUST US

TWEET US