scholarly journals Expert consensus on prevention and control of COVID-19 in the neurological intensive care unit (first edition)

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 242-249
Author(s):  
Furong Wang ◽  
Jingyi Liu ◽  
Ping Zhang ◽  
Wen Jiang ◽  
Le Zhang ◽  
...  

During the COVID-19 epidemic, the treatment of critically ill patients has been increasingly difficult and challenging. During the epidemic, some patients with neurological diseases also have COVID-19, which could be misdiagnosed and cause silent transmission and nosocomial infection. Such risk is high in a neurological intensive care unit (NCU). Therefore, prevention and control of epidemic in critically ill patients is of utmost importance. The principle of NCU care should include comprehensive screening and risk assessment, weighing risk against benefits and reducing the risk of COVID-19 transmission while treating patients as promptly as possible.

2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 190-196
Author(s):  
Kirill Y. Krylov ◽  
Ivan A. Savin ◽  
Sergey V. Sviridov ◽  
Irina V. Vedenina ◽  
Marina V. Petrova ◽  
...  

Critically ill patients often develop hyperglycemia because of the metabolic response to trauma and stress. In response to any form of damage to the organism, it reacts by increasing its own glucose production which subsequently causes hyperglycemia. This adaptive reaction of the organism is directed to aid in the rapid restoration after the damage. Therefore, glucose is an indispensable substrate in the critically ill which aids the reparation process. Severe and persistent hyperglycemia is associated with unfavorable outcomes and is considered to be an independent predictor of in-hospital mortality. The discussion remains on whether hyperglycemia is just a marker of increased stress which makes it a surrogate indicator of disease severity or if it is the reason for the unfavorable outcome. A few years ago, several published articles suggested that a tight glycemic control within the normal range improves treatment outcome. Over time, researchers have changed their point of view and currently there is a discussion on this matter in the scientific literatures. At the same time, the question of what glycemic level should be maintained for patients in the Neurological Intensive Care Unit is a matter of discussion. In this review, the authors analyzed the latest guidelines on treatment of critical patients with neurosurgical and neurological pathologies, specifically the glycemic control in this category of patients.


2011 ◽  
Vol 20 (5) ◽  
pp. 364-375 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill Cox

BackgroundPressure ulcers are one of the most underrated conditions in critically ill patients. Despite the introduction of clinical practice guidelines and advances in medical technology, the prevalence of pressure ulcers in hospitalized patients continues to escalate. Currently, consensus is lacking on the most important risk factors for pressure ulcers in critically ill patients, and no risk assessment scale exclusively for pressure ulcers in these patients is available.ObjectiveTo determine which risk factors are most predictive of pressure ulcers in adult critical care patients. Risk factors investigated included total score on the Braden Scale, mobility, activity, sensory perception, moisture, friction/shear, nutrition, age, blood pressure, length of stay in the intensive care unit, score on the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, vasopressor administration, and comorbid conditions.MethodsA retrospective, correlational design was used to examine 347 patients admitted to a medical-surgical intensive care unit from October 2008 through May 2009.ResultsAccording to direct logistic regression analyses, age, length of stay, mobility, friction/shear, norepinephrine infusion, and cardiovascular disease explained a major part of the variance in pressure ulcers.ConclusionCurrent risk assessment scales for development of pressure ulcers may not include risk factors common in critically ill adults. Development of a risk assessment model for pressure ulcers in these patients is warranted and could be the foundation for development of a risk assessment tool.


TH Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 05 (02) ◽  
pp. e134-e138
Author(s):  
Anke Pape ◽  
Jan T. Kielstein ◽  
Tillman Krüger ◽  
Thomas Fühner ◽  
Reinhard Brunkhorst

AbstractThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has a serious impact on health and economics worldwide. Even though the majority of patients present with moderate and mild symptoms, yet a considerable portion of patients need to be treated in the intensive care unit. Aside from dexamethasone, there is no established pharmacological therapy. Moreover, some of the currently tested drugs are contraindicated for special patient populations like remdesivir for patients with severely impaired renal function. On this background, several extracorporeal treatments are currently explored concerning their potential to improve the clinical course and outcome of critically ill patients with COVID-19. Here, we report the use of the Seraph 100 Microbind Affinity filter, which is licensed in the European Union for the removal of pathogens. Authorization for emergency use in patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit with confirmed or imminent respiratory failure was granted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on April 17, 2020.A 53-year-old Caucasian male with a severe COVID-19 infection was treated with a Seraph Microbind Affinity filter hemoperfusion after clinical deterioration and commencement of mechanical ventilation. The 70-minute treatment at a blood flow of 200 mL/minute was well tolerated, and the patient was hemodynamically stable. The hemoperfusion reduced D-dimers dramatically.This case report suggests that the use of Seraph 100 Microbind Affinity filter hemoperfusion might have positive effects on the clinical course of critically ill patients with COVID-19. However, future prospective collection of data ideally in randomized trials will have to confirm whether the use of Seraph 100 Microbind Affinity filter hemoperfusion is an option of the treatment for COVID-19.


2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephana J. Moss ◽  
Krista Wollny ◽  
Therese G. Poulin ◽  
Deborah J. Cook ◽  
Henry T. Stelfox ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Informal caregivers of critically ill patients in intensive care unit (ICUs) experience negative psychological sequelae that worsen after death. We synthesized outcomes reported from ICU bereavement interventions intended to improve informal caregivers’ ability to cope with grief. Data sources MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO from inception to October 2020. Study selection Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of bereavement interventions to support informal caregivers of adult patients who died in ICU. Data extraction Two reviewers independently extracted data in duplicate. Narrative synthesis was conducted. Data synthesis Bereavement interventions were categorized according to the UK National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence three-tiered model of bereavement support according to the level of need: (1) Universal information provided to all those bereaved; (2) Selected or targeted non-specialist support provided to those who are at-risk of developing complex needs; and/or (3) Professional specialist interventions provided to those with a high level of complex needs. Outcome measures were synthesized according to core outcomes established for evaluating bereavement support for adults who have lost other adults to illness. Results Three studies of ICU bereavement interventions from 31 ICUs across 26 hospitals were included. One trial examining the effect of family presence at brain death assessment integrated all three categories of support but did not report significant improvement in emotional or psychological distress. Two other trials assessed a condolence letter intervention, which did not decrease grief symptoms and may have increased symptoms of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder, and a storytelling intervention that found no significant improvements in anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress, or complicated grief. Four of nine core bereavement outcomes were not assessed anytime in follow-up. Conclusions Currently available trial evidence is sparse and does not support the use of bereavement interventions for informal caregivers of critically ill patients who die in the ICU.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document