Compliance with all of the evidence-based bundle metrics was not high. Patients whose care included compliance with all of these metrics had a 40% reduction in the odds of dying in hospital with the 3-h bundle and 36% for the 6-h bundle.

PurposeTo ascertain the relationship among early (first 48 h) deep sedation, time to extubation, delirium and long-term mortality.MethodsWe conducted a multicentre prospective longitudinal cohort study in 11 Malaysian hospitals including medical/surgical patients (n = 259) who were sedated and ventilated ≥24 h. Patients were followed from ICU admission up to 28 days in ICU with 4-hourly sedation and daily delirium assessments and 180-day mortality. Deep sedation was defined as Richmond Agitation Sedation Score (RASS) ≤−3.ResultsThe cohort had a mean (SD) age of 53.1 (15.9) years and APACHE II score of 21.3 (8.2) with hospital and 180-day mortality of 82 (31.7 %) and 110/237 (46.4 %). Patients were followed for 2,657 ICU days and underwent 13,836 RASS assessments. Midazolam prescription was predominant compared to propofol, given to 241 (93 %) versus 72 (28 %) patients (P < 0.0001) for 966 (39.6 %) versus 183 (7.5 %) study days respectively. Deep sedation occurred in (182/257) 71 % patients at first assessment and in 159 (61 %) patients and 1,658 (59 %) of all RASS assessments at 48 h. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression analysis adjusting for a priori assigned covariates including sedative agents, diagnosis, age, APACHE II score, operative, elective, vasopressors and dialysis showed that early deep sedation was independently associated with longer time to extubation [hazard ratio (HR) 0.93, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.89–0.97, P = 0.003], hospital death (HR 1.11, 95 % CI 1.05–1.18, P < 0.001) and 180-day mortality (HR 1.09, 95 % CI 1.04–1.15, P = 0.002), but not time to delirium (HR 0.98, P = 0.23). Delirium occurred in 114 (44 %) of patients.ConclusionIrrespective of sedative choice, early deep sedation was independently associated with delayed extubation and higher mortality, and thus was a potentially modifiable risk in interventional trials.

Objective To assess the knowledge and use of the ABCDEF bundle to implement the Pain, Agitation, Delirium (PAD) guidelines. Design Worldwide On-line Survey. Setting Intensive care. Intervention A cross-sectional online survey using the Delphi method was administered to intensivists worldwide, to assess the knowledge and use of all aspects of the ABCDEF bundle (Assessment, prevention and management of pain; spontaneous awakening and Breathing trials; Choice of analgesia and sedation; Delirium assessment; Early mobility and exercise and Family engagement and empowerment.) Measurement and Main Results There were 1521 respondents from 47 countries, 57% had implemented the ABCDEF bundle, with varying degrees of compliance across continents. Most of the respondents (83%) used a scale to evaluate pain. SATs and SBTs are performed in 66% and 67% of the responder ICUs respectively. Sedation scale was used in 89% of ICUs. Delirium monitoring was implemented in 70% of ICUs, but only 42% used a validated delirium tool. Likewise, early mobilization was “prescribed” by most but 69% had no mobility team and 79% used no formal mobility scale. Only 36% of the respondents assessed ICU acquired weakness. Family members were actively involved in 67% of ICUs, however only 33% used dedicated staff to support families and only 35% reported that their unit was open 24 hours/day for family visits. Conclusions The current implementation of the ABCDEF bundle varies across individual components and regions. We identified specific targets for quality improvement and adoption of the ABCDEF bundle. Our data reflect a significant but incomplete shift towards patient- and family-centered ICU care in accordance with the PAD guidelines.

Objectives To assess the compliance of Asian intensive care units and hospitals to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign's resuscitation and management bundles. Secondary objectives were to evaluate the impact of compliance on mortality and the organisational characteristics of hospitals that were associated with higher compliance.

for the ACME Study Investigators and the Asian Critical Care Clinical Trials Group IMPORTANCE Little data exist on end-of-life care practices in intensive care units (ICUs) in Asia. OBJECTIVE To describe physicians' attitudes toward withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments in end-of-life care and to evaluate factors associated with observed attitudes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Self-administered structured and scenario-based survey conducted among 1465 physicians (response rate, 59.6%) who manage patients in ICUs (May-December 2012) at 466 ICUs (response rate, 59.4%) in 16 Asian countries and regions.RESULTS For patients with no real chance of recovering a meaningful life, 1029 respondents (70.2%) reported almost always or often withholding whereas 303 (20.7%) reported almost always or often withdrawing life-sustaining treatments; 1092 respondents (74.5%) deemed withholding and withdrawal ethically different. The majority of respondents reported that vasopressors, hemodialysis, and antibiotics could usually be withheld or withdrawn in end-of-life care, but not enteral feeding, intravenous fluids, and oral suctioning. For severe hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy after cardiac arrest, 1201 respondents (82.0% [range between countries, 48.4%-100%]) would implement do-not-resuscitate orders, but 788 (53.8% [range, 6.1%-87.2%]) would maintain mechanical ventilation and start antibiotics and vasopressors if indicated. On multivariable analysis, refusal to implement do-not-resuscitate orders was more likely with physicians who did not value families' or surrogates' requests (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.67 [95% CI, 1.16-2.40]; P = .006), who were uncomfortable discussing end-of-life care (AOR, 2.38 [95% CI, 1.62-3.51]; P < .001), who perceived greater legal risk (AOR, 1.92 [95% CI, 1.26-2.94]; P = .002), and in low-to middle-income economies (AOR, 2.73 [95% CI, 1.56-4.76]; P < .001). Nonimplementation was less likely with physicians of Protestant (AOR, 0.36 [95% CI, 0.16-0.80]; P = .01) and Catholic (AOR, 0.22 [95% CI, 0.09-0.58]; P = .002) faiths, and when out-of-pocket health care expenditure increased (AOR, 0.98 per percentage of total health care expenditure [95% CI, 0.97-0.99]; P = .02). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEWhereas physicians in ICUs in Asia reported that they often withheld but seldom withdrew life-sustaining treatments at the end of life, attitudes and practice varied widely across countries and regions. Multiple factors related to country or region, including economic, cultural, religious, and legal differences, as well as personal attitudes, were associated with these variations. Initiatives to improve end-of-life care in Asia must begin with a thorough understanding of these factors.