SYNOPSIS The ABCDEF bundle represents an evidence-based guide for clinicians to approach the organizational changes needed for optimizing ICU patient recovery and outcomes. The ABCDEF bundle includes: Assess, Prevent, and Manage Pain, Both Spontaneous Awakening Trials (SAT) and Spontaneous Breathing Trials (SBT), Choice of analgesia and sedation, Delirium: Assess, Prevent, and Manage, Early mobility and Exercise, and Family engagement and empowerment. In this chapter, we will review the core evidence and features behind the ABCDEF bundle. The bundle has individual components that are clearly defined, flexible to implement, and help empower multidisciplinary clinicians and families in the shared care of the critically ill. The ABCDEF bundle helps guide well-rounded patient care and optimal resource utilization resulting in more interactive ICU patients with better controlled pain, who can safely participate in higher-order physical and cognitive activities at the earliest point in their critical illness.

BackgroundManagement algorithms for adult severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) were omitted in later editions of the Brain Trauma Foundation’s sTBI Management Guidelines, as they were not evidence-based.MethodsWe used a Delphi-method-based consensus approach to address management of sTBI patients undergoing intracranial pressure (ICP) monitoring. Forty-two experienced, clinically active sTBI specialists from six continents comprised the panel. Eight surveys iterated queries and comments. An in-person meeting included whole- and small-group discussions and blinded voting. Consensus required 80% agreement. We developed heatmaps based on a traffic-light model where panelists’ decision tendencies were the focus of recommendations.ResultsWe provide comprehensive algorithms for ICP-monitor-based adult sTBI management. Consensus established 18 interventions as fundamental and ten treatments not to be used. We provide a three-tier algorithm for treating elevated ICP. Treatments within a tier are considered empirically equivalent. Higher tiers involve higher risk therapies. Tiers 1, 2, and 3 include 10, 4, and 3 interventions, respectively. We include inter-tier considerations, and recommendations for critical neuroworsening to assist the recognition and treatment of declining patients. Novel elements include guidance for autoregulation-based ICP treatment based on MAP Challenge results, and two heatmaps to guide (1) ICP-monitor removal and (2) consideration of sedation holidays for neurological examination.ConclusionsOur modern and comprehensive sTBI-management protocol is designed to assist clinicians managing sTBI patients monitored with ICP-monitors alone. Consensus-based (class III evidence), it provides management recommendations based on combined expert opinion. It reflects neither a standard-of-care nor a substitute for thoughtful individualized management.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-019-05805-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

In this multicenter cohort study, one or more post-intensive care syndrome problems were present in the majority of survivors, but co-occurring problems were present in only one out of four. Education was protective from post-intensive care syndrome problems and frailty predictive of the development of post-intensive care syndrome problems. Future studies are needed to understand better the heterogeneous subtypes of post-intensive care syndrome and to identify modifiable risk factors.

BACKGROUND There are conflicting data on the effects of antipsychotic medications on delirium in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium to receive intravenous boluses of haloperidol (maximum dose, 20 mg daily), ziprasidone (maximum dose, 40 mg daily), or placebo. The volume and dose of a trial drug or placebo was halved or doubled at 12-hour intervals on the basis of the presence or absence of delirium, as detected with the use of the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU, and of side effects of the intervention. The primary end point was the number of days alive without delirium or coma during the 14-day intervention period. Secondary end points included 30-day and 90-day survival, time to freedom from mechanical ventilation, and time to ICU and hospital discharge. Safety end points included extrapyramidal symptoms and excessive sedation. RESULTS Written informed consent was obtained from 1183 patients or their authorized representatives. Delirium developed in 566 patients (48%), of whom 89% had hypoactive delirium and 11% had hyperactive delirium. Of the 566 patients, 184 were randomly assigned to receive placebo, 192 to receive haloperidol, and 190 to receive ziprasidone. The median duration of exposure to a trial drug or placebo was 4 days (interquartile range, 3 to 7). The median number of days alive without delirium or coma was 8.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6 to 9.9) in the placebo group, 7.9 (95% CI, 4.4 to 9.6) in the haloperidol group, and 8.7 (95% CI, 5.9 to 10.0) in the ziprasidone group (P=0.26 for overall effect across trial groups). The use of haloperidol or ziprasidone, as compared with placebo, had no significant effect on the primary end point (odds ratios, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.64 to 1.21] and 1.04 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.48], respectively). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to the secondary end points or the frequency of extrapyramidal symptoms. CONCLUSIONS The use of haloperidol or ziprasidone, as compared with placebo, in patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium in the ICU did not significantly alter the duration of delirium. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the VA Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center; MIND-USA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01211522.)

National Institutes of Health and the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Background: Current guidelines for the treatment of adult severe traumatic brain injury (sTBI) consist of high-quality evidence reports, but they are no longer accompanied by management protocols, as these require expert opinion to bridge the gap between published evidence and patient care. We aimed to establish a modern sTBI protocol for adult patients with both intracranial pressure (ICP) and brain oxygen monitors in place. Methods:Our consensus working group consisted of 42 experienced and actively practicing sTBI opinion leaders from six continents. Having previously established a protocol for the treatment of patients with ICP monitoring alone, we addressed patients who have a brain oxygen monitor in addition to an ICP monitor. The management protocols were developed through a Delphi-method-based consensus approach and were finalized at an in-person meeting. Results:We established three distinct treatment protocols, each with three tiers whereby higher tiers involve therapies with higher risk. One protocol addresses the management of ICP elevation when brain oxygenation is normal. A second addresses management of brain hypoxia with normal ICP. The third protocol addresses the situation when both intracranial hypertension and brain hypoxia are present. The panel considered issues pertaining to blood transfusion and ventilator management when designing the different algorithms.

Synopsis Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is a leading cause of death and disability in trauma patients. As the primary injury cannot be undone, management strategies must therefore focus on preventing secondary injury by avoiding hypotension and hypoxia and maintaining appropriate cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP), which is a surrogate for cerebral blood flow (CBF). Cerebral perfusion pressure can be maintained by increasing mean arterial pressure (MAP), decreasing intracranial pressure (ICP), or both. MAP can be increased through a combination of pressors in the euvolemic state, although the ideal fluid in TBI patients is unknown. The goal should be euvolemia and avoidance of hypotension. Elevated intracranial pressure can be treated through an algorithmic approach utilization simple bedside maneuvers, hyperosmolar therapy, cerebral spinal fluid (CSF) drainage as well as pentobarbital coma and decompressive craniectomy in refractory cases. Mass lesions may require operative evacuation depending on size, exam findings, and ICP measurements. Although CPP may not be an ideal surrogate for cerebral blood flow and metabolic delivery, other modalities have not gained widespread use due to paucity of strong data. Other factors that deserve important consideration in the acute management of TBI patients are venous thromboembolism, stress ulcer, and seizure prophylaxis as well as nutritional and metabolic optimization.

No abstract