As coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) spreads across the world, the intensive care unit (ICU) community must prepare for the challenges associated with this pandemic. Streamlining of workflows for rapid diagnosis and isolation, clinical management, and infection prevention will matter not only to patients with COVID-19, but also to health-care workers and other patients who are at risk from nosocomial transmission. Management of acute respiratory failure and haemodynamics is key. ICU practitioners, hospital administrators, governments, and policy makers must prepare for a substantial increase in critical care bed capacity, with a focus not just on infrastructure and supplies, but also on staff management. Critical care triage to allow the rationing of scarce ICU resources might be needed. Researchers must address unanswered questions, including the role of repurposed and experimental therapies. Collaboration at the local, regional, national, and international level offers the best chance of survival for the critically ill.

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is carried out using an air/oxygen blender, active humidifier, single heated tube, and nasal cannula. Able to deliver adequately heated and humidified medical gas at flows up to 60 L/min, it is considered to have a number of physiological advantages compared with other standard oxygen therapies, including reduced anatomical dead space, PEEP, constant F IO 2 , and good humidification. Although few large randomized clinical trials have been performed, HFNC has been gaining attention as an alternative respiratory support for critically ill patients. Published data are mostly available for neonates. For critically ill adults, however, evidence is uneven because the reports cover various subjects with diverse underlying conditions, such as hypoxemic respiratory failure, exacerbation of COPD, postextubation, preintubation oxygenation, sleep apnea, acute heart failure, and conditions entailing do-not-intubate orders. Even so, across the diversity, many published reports suggest that HFNC decreases breathing frequency and work of breathing and reduces the need for respiratory support escalation. Some important issues remain to be resolved, such as definitive indications for HFNC and criteria for timing the starting and stopping of HFNC and for escalating treatment. Despite these issues, HFNC has emerged as an innovative and effective modality for early treatment of adults with respiratory failure with diverse underlying diseases.

High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy comprises an air/oxygen blender, an active humidifier, a single heated circuit, and a nasal cannula. It delivers adequately heated and humidified medical gas at up to 60 L/min of flow and is considered to have a number of physiological effects: reduction of anatomical dead space, PEEP effect, constant fraction of inspired oxygen, and good humidification. While there have been no big randomized clinical trials, it has been gaining attention as an innovative respiratory support for critically ill patients.Most of the available data has been published in the neonatal field. Evidence with critically ill adults are poor; however, physicians apply it to a variety of patients with diverse underlying diseases: hypoxemic respiratory failure, acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, post-extubation, pre-intubation oxygenation, sleep apnea, acute heart failure, patients with do-not-intubate order, and so on. Many published reports suggest that HFNC decreases breathing frequency and work of breathing and reduces needs of escalation of respiratory support in patients with diverse underlying diseases.Some important issues remain to be resolved, such as its indication, timing of starting and stopping HFNC, and escalating treatment. Despite these issues, HFNC oxygen therapy is an innovative and effective modality for the early treatment of adults with respiratory failure with diverse underlying diseases.

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.

Objective: To assess the number of adult critical care beds in Asian countries and regions in relation to population size. Design: Cross-sectional observational study. Setting: Twenty-three Asian countries and regions, covering 92.1% of the continent’s population. Participants: Ten low-income and lower-middle–income economies, five upper-middle–income economies, and eight high-income economies according to the World Bank classification. Interventions: Data closest to 2017 on critical care beds, including ICU and intermediate care unit beds, were obtained through multiple means, including government sources, national critical care societies, colleges, or registries, personal contacts, and extrapolation of data. Measurements and Main Results: Cumulatively, there were 3.6 critical care beds per 100,000 population. The median number of critical care beds per 100,000 population per country and region was significantly lower in low- and lower-middle–income economies (2.3; interquartile range, 1.4–2.7) than in upper-middle–income economies (4.6; interquartile range, 3.5–15.9) and high-income economies (12.3; interquartile range, 8.1–20.8) (p = 0.001), with a large variation even across countries and regions of the same World Bank income classification. This number was independently predicted by the World Bank income classification on multivariable analysis, and significantly correlated with the number of acute hospital beds per 100,000 population (r 2 = 0.19; p = 0.047), the universal health coverage service coverage index (r 2 = 0.35; p = 0.003), and the Human Development Index (r 2 = 0.40; p = 0.001) on univariable analysis. Conclusions: Critical care bed capacity varies widely across Asia and is significantly lower in low- and lower-middle–income than in upper-middle–income and high-income countries and regions.

IntroductionThe optimal timing of tracheotomy in critically ill patients remains a topic of debate. We performed a systematic review to clarify the potential benefits of early versus late tracheotomy.MethodsWe searched PubMed and CENTRAL for randomized controlled trials that compared outcomes in patients managed with early and late tracheotomy. A random-effects meta-analysis, combining data from three a priori-defined categories of timing of tracheotomy (within 4 versus after 10 days, within 4 versus after 5 days, within 10 versus after 10 days), was performed to estimate the weighted mean difference (WMD) or odds ratio (OR).ResultsOf the 142 studies identified in the search, 12, including a total of 2,689 patients, met the inclusion criteria. The tracheotomy rate was significantly higher with early than with late tracheotomy (87 % versus 53 %, OR 16.1 (5.7-45.7); p <0.01). Early tracheotomy was associated with more ventilator-free days (WMD 2.12 (0.94, 3.30), p <0.01), a shorter ICU stay (WMD -5.14 (-9.99, -0.28), p = 0.04), a shorter duration of sedation (WMD -5.07 (-10.03, -0.10), p <0.05) and reduced long-term mortality (OR 0.83 (0.69-0.99), p = 0.04) than late tracheotomy.ConclusionsThis updated meta-analysis reveals that early tracheotomy is associated with higher tracheotomy rates and better outcomes, including more ventilator-free days, shorter ICU stays, less sedation, and reduced long-term mortality, compared to late tracheotomy.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-015-1138-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IntroductionFever is frequently observed in critically ill patients. An independent association of fever with increased mortality has been observed in non-neurological critically ill patients with mixed febrile etiology. The association of fever and antipyretics with mortality, however, may be different between infective and non-infective illness.MethodsWe designed a prospective observational study to investigate the independent association of fever and the use of antipyretic treatments with mortality in critically ill patients with and without sepsis. We included 1,425 consecutive adult critically ill patients (without neurological injury) requiring > 48 hours intensive care admitted in 25 ICUs. We recorded four-hourly body temperature and all antipyretic treatments until ICU discharge or 28 days after ICU admission, whichever occurred first. For septic and non-septic patients, we separately assessed the association of maximum body temperature during ICU stay (MAXICU) and the use of antipyretic treatments with 28-day mortality.ResultsWe recorded body temperature 63,441 times. Antipyretic treatment was given 4,863 times to 737 patients (51.7%). We found that treatment with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or acetaminophen independently increased 28-day mortality for septic patients (adjusted odds ratio: NSAIDs: 2.61, P = 0.028, acetaminophen: 2.05, P = 0.01), but not for non-septic patients (adjusted odds ratio: NSAIDs: 0.22, P = 0.15, acetaminophen: 0.58, P = 0.63). Application of physical cooling did not associate with mortality in either group. Relative to the reference range (MAXICU 36.5°C to 37.4°C), MAXICU ≥ 39.5°C increased risk of 28-day mortality in septic patients (adjusted odds ratio 8.14, P = 0.01), but not in non-septic patients (adjusted odds ratio 0.47, P = 0.11).ConclusionsIn non-septic patients, high fever (≥ 39.5°C) independently associated with mortality, without association of administration of NSAIDs or acetaminophen with mortality. In contrast, in septic patients, administration of NSAIDs or acetaminophen independently associated with 28-day mortality, without association of fever with mortality. These findings suggest that fever and antipyretics may have different biological or clinical or both implications for patients with and without sepsis.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00940654