IntroductionDelirium is a frequent form of acute brain dysfunction in critically ill patients, and several detection tools for it have been developed for use in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). The objective of this study is to evaluate the current evidence on the accuracy of the Confusion Assessment Method for Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) and the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist (ICDSC) for the diagnosis of delirium in critically ill patients.MethodsA systematic review was conducted to identify articles on the evaluation of the CAM-ICU and the ICDSC in ICU patients. A MEDLINE, SciELO, CINAHL and EMBASE databases search was performed for articles published in the English language, involving adult populations and comparing these diagnostic tools with the gold standard, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) criteria. Results were summarized by meta-analysis. The QUADAS scale was used to assess the quality of the studies.ResultsNine studies evaluating the CAM-ICU (including 969 patients) and four evaluating the ICDSC (n = 361 patients) were included in the final analysis. The pooled sensitivity of the CAM-ICU was 80.0% (95% confidence interval (CI): 77.1 to 82.6%), and the pooled specificity was 95.9% (95% CI: 94.8 to 96.8%). The diagnostic odds ratio was 103.2 (95% CI: 39.6 to 268.8). The pooled area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was 0.97. The pooled sensitivity of the ICDSC was 74% (95% CI: 65.3 to 81.5%), and the pooled specificity was 81.9% (95% CI: 76.7 to 86.4%). The diagnostic odds ratio was 21.5 (95% CI: 8.51 to 54.4). The AUC was 0.89.ConclusionsThe CAM-ICU is an excellent diagnostic tool in critically ill ICU patients, whereas the ICDSC has moderate sensitivity and good specificity. The available data suggest that both CAM-ICU and the ICDSC can be used as a screening tool for the diagnosis of delirium in critically ill patients.

IntroductionNebulized antibiotics are a promising new treatment option for ventilator-associated pneumonia. However, more evidence of the benefit of this therapy is required.MethodsThe Medline, Scopus, EMBASE, Biological Abstracts, CAB Abstracts, Food Science and Technology Abstracts, CENTRAL, Scielo and Lilacs databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials or matched observational studies that compared nebulized antibiotics with or without intravenous antibiotics to intravenous antibiotics alone for ventilator-associated pneumonia treatment. Two reviewers independently collected data and assessed outcomes and risk of bias. The primary outcome was clinical cure. Secondary outcomes were microbiological cure, ICU and hospital mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay and adverse events. A mixed-effect model meta-analysis was performed. Trial sequential analysis was used for the main outcome of interest.ResultsTwelve studies were analyzed, including six randomized controlled trials. For the main outcome analysis, 812 patients were included. Nebulized antibiotics were associated with higher rates of clinical cure (risk ratio (RR) = 1.23; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.05 to 1.43; I2 = 34%; D2 = 45%). Nebulized antibiotics were not associated with microbiological cure (RR = 1.24; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.62; I2 = 62.5), mortality (RR = 0.90; CI 95%, 0.76 to 1.08; I2 = 0%), duration of mechanical ventilation (standardized mean difference = −0.10 days; 95% CI, −1.22 to 1.00; I2 = 96.5%), ICU length of stay (standardized mean difference = 0.14 days; 95% CI, −0.46 to 0.73; I2 = 89.2%) or renal toxicity (RR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.57; I2 = 15.6%). Regarding the primary outcome, the number of patients included was below the information size required for a definitive conclusion by trial sequential analysis; therefore, our results regarding this parameter are inconclusive.ConclusionsNebulized antibiotics seem to be associated with higher rates of clinical cure in the treatment of ventilator-associated pneumonia. However, the apparent benefit in the clinical cure rate observed by traditional meta-analysis does not persist after trial sequential analysis. Additional high-quality studies on this subject are highly warranted.Trial registration numberCRD42014009116. Registered 29 March 2014Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-015-0868-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundMemory gaps in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors are associated with psychiatric disorders. The ICU diaries improve the patient’s factual memory of the ICU, but it is not clear if they reduce the incidence of psychiatric disorders in patients and relatives after hospital discharge. The aim of this study is to evaluate the literature on the effect of ICU diaries for patients admitted in ICU and their relatives.MethodsTwo authors independently searched the online databases PubMed, OVID, Embase, EBSCO host, and PsycINFO from inception to July 2019. Studies were included if the intervention group (ICU diary) was compared with a group with no diaries and the sample was comprised patients ≥ 18 years old admitted in the ICU for more than 24 h and their relatives. Randomized clinical trials, observational studies, letter with original data, and abstracts were included, irrespective of the language. The search was not limited by any specific outcome. Review articles, commentaries, editorials, and studies without a control group were excluded. Structured tools were used to assess the methodological quality (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I)” for cohort studies and the “Cochrane Risk of Bias tool” for included RCTs and before/after studies). A random-effects model was employed considering the anticipated variability between the studies.ResultsSeven hundred eighty-five titles were identified for screening. Two additional studies were selected after a reference search, and after a full-text review, a total of 12 studies were included. When pooling the results, ICU diary was associated with lower risk of depression (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23–0.75) and better quality of life (10.3 points higher in SF-36 general health score, 95% CI 0.79–19.8), without a decrease in anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). For the relatives receiving an ICU diary, there was no difference in the incidence of PTSD, anxiety, or depression.Conclusion and relevanceThis systematic review and meta-analysis supports the use of ICU diaries to reduce the risk of depression and preserve the quality of life of patients after ICU admission. ICU diaries do not seem to have any beneficial effect on the relatives of the patients.Trial registrationPROSPERO, CRD42019136639

Introduction Noninvasive ventilation is a safe and eff ective method to treat acute respiratory failure, minimizing the respiratory workload and oxygenation. Few studies compare the effi cacy of diff erent types of noninvasive ventilation interfaces and their adaptation. Objective To identify the most frequently noninvasive ventilation interfaces used and eventual problems related to their adaptation in critically ill patients. Methods We conducted an observational study, with patients older than 18 years old admitted to the intensive care and step-down units of the Albert Einstein Jewish Hospital that used noninvasive ventilation. We collected data such as reason to use noninvasive ventilation, interface used, scheme of noninvasive ventilation used (continuously, periods or nocturnal use), adaptation, and reasons for nonadaptation. Results We evaluated 245 patients with a median age of 82 years (range of 20 to 107 years). Acute respiratory failure was the most frequent cause of noninvasive ventilation used (71.3%), followed by pulmonary expansion (10.24%), after mechanical ventilation weaning (6.14%) and sleep obstructive apnea (8.6%). The most frequently used interface was total face masks (74.7%), followed by facial masks in 24.5% of the patients, and 0.8% used performax masks. The use of noninvasive ventilation for periods (82.4%) was the most common scheme of use, with 10.6% using it continuously and 6.9% during the nocturnal period only. Interface adaptation occurred in 76% of the patients; the 24% that did not adapt had their interface changed to improve adaptation afterwards. The total face mask had 75.5% of interface adaptation, the facial mask had 80% and no adaptation occurred in patients that used the performax mask. The face format was the most frequent cause of nonadaptation in 30.5% of the patients, followed by patient's related discomfort (28.8%), air leaking (27.7%), claustrophobia (18.6%), noncollaborative patient (10.1%), patient agitation (6.7%), facial trauma or lesion (1.7%), type of mask fi xation (1.7%), and 1.7% patients with other causes. Conclusion Acute respiratory failure was the most frequent reason for noninvasive ventilation use, with the total face mask being the most frequent interface used. The most common causes of interface nonadaptation were face format, patient-related discomfort and air leaking, showing improvement of adaptation after changing the interface used. P2 Exercise training reduces oxidative damage in skeletal muscle of septic rats

ObjectiveTo identify scales that can establish a quantitative assessment of delirium symptoms in critically ill patients through a systematic review. MethodsStudies that evaluated delirium stratification scales in patients hospitalized in intensive care units were selected in a search performed in the MedLine database. Validation studies of these scales and their target patient populations were analyzed, and we identified the examiner and the signs and symptoms evaluated. In addition, the duration of the application and the sensitivity and specificity of each scale were assessed. ResultsSix scales were identified: the Delirium Detection Score, the Cognitive Test of Delirium, the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale, the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist, The Neelon and Champagne Confusion Scale and the Delirium Rating Scale-Revised-98. ConclusionThe scales identified allow the stratification and monitoring of critically ill patients with delirium. Among the six scales, the most studied and best suited for use in the intensive care units was the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist.

Background Since the publication of the 2018 Clinical Guidelines about sedation, analgesia, delirium, mobilization, and sleep deprivation in critically ill patients, no evaluation and adequacy assessment of these recommendations were studied in an international context. This survey aimed to investigate these current practices and if the COVID-19 pandemic has changed them. Methods This study was an open multinational electronic survey directed to physicians working in adult intensive care units (ICUs), which was performed in two steps: before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results We analyzed 1768 questionnaires and 1539 (87%) were complete. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, we received 1476 questionnaires and 292 were submitted later. The following practices were observed before the pandemic: the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) (61.5%), the Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) (48.2%), the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) (76.6%), and the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) (66.6%) were the most frequently tools used to assess pain, sedation level, and delirium, respectively; midazolam and fentanyl were the most frequently used drugs for inducing sedation and analgesia (84.8% and 78.3%, respectively), whereas haloperidol (68.8%) and atypical antipsychotics (69.4%) were the most prescribed drugs for delirium treatment; some physicians regularly prescribed drugs to induce sleep (19.1%) or ordered mechanical restraints as part of their routine (6.2%) for patients on mechanical ventilation; non-pharmacological strategies were frequently applied for pain, delirium, and sleep deprivation management. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the intensive care specialty was independently associated with best practices. Moreover, the mechanical ventilation rate was higher, patients received sedation more often (94% versus 86.1%, p < 0.001) and sedation goals were discussed more frequently in daily rounds. Morphine was the main drug used for analgesia (77.2%), and some sedative drugs, such as midazolam, propofol, ketamine and quetiapine, were used more frequently. Conclusions Most sedation, analgesia and delirium practices were comparable before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. During the pandemic, the intensive care specialty was a variable that was independently associated with the best practices. Although many findings are in accordance with evidence-based recommendations, some practices still need improvement.

No abstract

Objective: We aimed to identify which set of components differentiates the ICU diaries that were effective in reducing psychologic symptoms after critical illness. Data Sources: We searched the online databases MEDLINE, OVID, Embase, and EBSCOhost from inception to December 2021. Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the ICU diary were included, irrespective of the language, with samples of adult patients (≥ 18 yr old) and/or their relatives hospitalized in an ICU for more than 24 hours. Two qualitative syntheses on patients’ and healthcare providers’ perceptions on the ICU diary were included. Data Extraction: Four findings were extracted from the qualitative synthesis of patients’ perspectives on the ICU diary. From the RCTs, we extracted the components of the ICU diary and whether the patients were ventilated for at least 3 days. We reported the outcome as effective or not, regardless of the psychiatric symptoms and diagnostic tools used for evaluation. We built a matrix in which each column represented a recommendation for an intervention component derived from the qualitative review, and each row represented whether the components of an individual trial’s intervention matched any of the recommendations. Data Synthesis: Eight RCTs were included in the final analysis. The sample of five studies consisted of patients under mechanical ventilation (MV) for at least 3 days. Two were positive trials. Three RCTs included family members, and two of those were positive trials. CONCLUSIONS: For patients under MV for at least 3 days, the ICU diaries that were effective in preventing psychiatric symptoms after critical illness were written by the ICU staff, delivered after hospital discharge, and read with a healthcare professional in order to better understand the diary and the ICU stay. For family members, the presence of photographs was the only characteristic identified a successful ICU diary.