Elizabeth L. Daugherty

Abdominal compartment syndrome is common in medical intensive care unit patients receiving large-volume resuscitation.

Intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) have been well described in surgical patients. Large-volume resuscitation is thought to be a risk factor for IAH/ACS in this group. However, little is known of the incidence of IAH/ACS in critically ill medical patients. The authors aim to ascertain the incidence of ACS in critically ill medical patients receiving large-volume resuscitation. Over an 8-month study period, the authors performed a prospective cohort study of medical intensive care unit (ICU) patients with a minimum net positive fluid balance of 5 L within the preceding 24 hours. The primary outcome of interest is the development of ACS, defined as an intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) ≥20 mm Hg associated with new organ dysfunction. IAP was measured by transducing bladder pressure and was recorded along with fluid balance at enrollment and every 12 hours thereafter up to 96 hours. The setting is a medical ICU at a major university hospital. Of the 468 medical ICU admissions screened, 40 (8.5%) were identified who met the 24-hour fluid balance inclusion criterion. Upon enrollment, this cohort had a mean Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 23 and a median positive fluid balance of 6.9 L. Thirty-four of the 40 study patients (85%) had intra-abdominal hypertension (IAP ≥12 mm Hg). During the study period, 13 of the 40 (33%) patients developed IAP ≥20 mm Hg and 10 (25%) met the criteria for ACS. None underwent laparotomy. ACS is frequently found in critically ill medical patients receiving large-volume resuscitation. The clinical significance of this finding remains unclear. However, routine monitoring of IAP should be considered in medical patients with a 5-L net positive fluid balance in 24 hours. Future studies are warranted to evaluate clinical outcomes of medical patients with ACS and risk factors for its development.

Mass casualty respiratory failure

Purpose of reviewThe severe acute respiratory syndrome epidemic of 2002–2003, recent natural catastrophes, burgeoning concerns regarding intentional catastrophes, and the looming threat of an influenza pandemic have focused attention on large-scale, survivable respiratory failure. In this article, we review appropriate medical equipment, treatment space, and strategies to augment health professional staff in response to a massive increase in need for sustained critical care. Recent findingsThere is insufficient modern healthcare experience with mass casualty respiratory failure to develop evidence-based preparedness efforts. For this reason, initial efforts to augment critical care capability in response to disasters have relied on extrapolation from the routine critical care knowledge base, military medicine, critical care transport, and expert opinion. We review recently published documents on augmenting supplies of positive pressure ventilation equipment, ongoing projects for increasing health professional staff, and infection control issues during epidemics. SummaryMass casualty respiratory failure remains a largely unstudied field, but we believe informed decisions about equipment stockpiling and use, the development of creative operational concepts to increase staffing, and the careful implementation of rational infection control practices can lay a foundation for an appropriate response until additional data become available.

Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: Overdiagnosis and Treatment Are Common in Medical and Surgical Intensive Care Units

OBJECTIVE Diagnosing ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is difficult, and misdiagnosis can lead to unnecessary and prolonged antibiotic treatment. We sought to quantify and characterize unjustified antimicrobial use for VAP and identify risk factors for continuation of antibiotics in patients without VAP after 3 days. METHODS Patients suspected of having VAP were identified in 6 adult intensive care units (ICUs) over 1 year. A multidisciplinary adjudication committee determined whether the ICU teams VAP diagnosis and therapy were justified, using clinical, microbiologic, and radiographic data at diagnosis and on day 3. Outcomes included the proportion of VAP events misdiagnosed as and treated for VAP on days 1 and 3 and risk factors for the continuation of antibiotics in patients without VAP after day 3. RESULTS Two hundred thirty-one events were identified as possible VAP by the ICUs. On day 1, 135 (58.4%) of them were determined to not have VAP by the committee. Antibiotics were continued for 120 (76%) of 158 events without VAP on day 3. After adjusting for acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score and requiring vasopressors on day 1, sputum culture collection on day 3 was significantly associated with antibiotic continuation in patients without VAP. Patients without VAP or other infection received 1,183 excess days of antibiotics during the study. CONCLUSIONS Overdiagnosis and treatment of VAP was common in this study and led to 1,183 excess days of antibiotics in patients with no indication for antibiotics. Clinical differences between non-VAP patients who had antibiotics continued or discontinued were minimal, suggesting that clinician preferences and behaviors contribute to unnecessary prescribing.

Survey study of the knowledge, attitudes, and expected behaviors of critical care clinicians regarding an influenza pandemic.

OBJECTIVE Intensive care units (ICUs) are potential high-risk areas for the transmission of respiratory viruses such as influenza. An influenza pandemic is expected to result in a dramatic surge of critically ill patients, and ICU healthcare workers (HCW) are likely to be at high risk of infection. OBJECTIVE To characterize the knowledge, attitudes, and expected behaviors of ICU HCWs concerning the risk of and response to an influenza pandemic. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS, AND SETTING A survey was distributed to 292 HCWs (ie, internal medicine house staff, pulmonary and critical care fellows and faculty members, nurses, and respiratory care professionals) at 2 hospitals in Baltimore, Maryland. RESULTS Of the 292 HCWs, 256 (88%) completed the survey. Just over one-half of the respondents believed there is at least a 45% chance of an influenza pandemic within the next 5 years. However, only 41% reported knowing how to protect themselves during an outbreak. Despite this common belief that a pandemic is likely in the near future, 59% of those surveyed reported only minimal knowledge of the risks of and protective strategies for an influenza pandemic, and 20% reported being unlikely to report to work during a pandemic or being unsure about whether they would do so. The odds of reporting to work varied on the basis of race and responsibility for child care. CONCLUSIONS ICU HCWs reported having minimal knowledge concerning the risk of and response to an influenza pandemic, even though more that one-half of HCWs expect that a pandemic will occur in the near future. This finding in a high-risk setting is of concern, given that lack of knowledge among HCWs may result in increased nosocomial transmission to HCWs and patients. Interventions to improve knowledge of pandemics and understanding of risks among ICU HCWs are essential.

Infection control in mass respiratory failure: preparing to respond to H1N1.

The first hints of a global public health crisis emerged with the identification of a new strain of H1N1 influenza A in March and April 2009 in Mexico City. By June 11, the World Health Organization had declared the outbreak of 2009 H1N1 a global pandemic. Now, with the continued growing presence of 2009 H1N1 on the global scene, much attention has been focused on the key role of personal protective equipment in healthcare infection control. Much less emphasis has been placed on specific interventions that may minimize the increased infectious risk commonly associated with critical care delivery. Given the frequency of high-risk respiratory procedures such as intubation and delivery of aerosolized medications in the intensive care unit, the delivery of critical care presents unique infection control challenges and unique opportunities to augment usual infection control practice with specific source-control efforts. Here, we summarize data regarding risks to critical care healthcare workers from previous respiratory virus outbreaks, discuss findings from the early 2009 H1N1 experience that suggest reasons for increased concern for those delivering critical care, and review best available evidence regarding strategies for source control in respiratory and critical care delivery.

Safety Culture and Hand Hygiene: Linking Attitudes to Behavior

Author(s): Elizabeth Lee Daugherty, MD, MPH; Lori A. Paine, RN, MS; Lisa L. Maragakis, MD, MPH; J. Bryan Sexton, PhD; Cynthia S. Rand, PhD Source: Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology, Vol. 33, No. 12 (December 2012), pp. 1280-1282 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/668432 . Accessed: 14/06/2014 19:51

Preparing your intensive care unit to respond in crisis: considerations for critical care clinicians.

Objective:In recent years, healthcare disaster planning has grown from its early place as an occasional consideration within the manuals of emergency medical services and emergency department managers to a rapidly growing field, which considers continuity of function, surge capability, and process changes across the spectrum of healthcare delivery. A detailed examination of critical care disaster planning was undertaken in 2007 by the Task Force for Mass Critical Care of the American College of Chest Physicians Critical Care Collaborative Initiative. We summarize the Task Force recommendations and available updated information to answer a fundamental question for critical care disaster planners: What is a prepared intensive care unit and how do I ensure my units readiness? Data Sources:Database searches and review of relevant published literature. Data Synthesis:Preparedness is essential for successful response, but because intensive care units face many competing priorities, without defining “preparedness for what,” the task can seem overwhelming. Intensive care unit disaster planners should, therefore, along with the entire hospital, participate in a hospital or regionwide planning process to 1) identify critical care response vulnerabilities; and 2) clarify the hazards for which their community is most at risk. The process should inform a comprehensive written preparedness plan targeting the most worrisome scenarios and including specific guidance on 1) optimal use of space, equipment, and staffing for delivery of critical care to significantly increased patient volumes; 2) allocation of resources for provision of essential critical care services under conditions of absolute scarcity; 3) intensive care unit evacuation; and 4) redundant internal communication systems and means for timely data collection. Conclusion:Critical care disaster planners have a complex, challenging task. Experienced planners will agree that no disaster response is perfect, but careful planning will enable the prepared intensive care unit to respond effectively in times of crisis.

Recognition and importance of forced exhalation on the measurement of intraabdominal pressure: A subgroup analysis from a prospective cohort study on the incidence of abdominal compartment syndrome in medical patients

Intraabdominal pressure is measured conventionally at end-expiration; however, the significance of forced exhalation on this measurement has not been evaluated previously. Using data from a previous prospective cohort study of the incidence of intraabdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome in medical intensive care unit patients, the authors evaluated 65 strip-chart recordings obtained from 28 patients who had measurements of intraabdominal pressure and airway pressures taken simultaneously. Forced exhalation was identified by a rise in intraabdominal pressure during exhalation. Forced exhalation was observed in 4 patients; with a mean intraabdominal pressure increase of 14.3 ± 1.3 mm Hg at end-exhalation, compared with a decrease of −2.5 ± 1.2 mm Hg in 24 patients without forced exhalation and absolute pressures of 28.0 ± 6.6 versus 13.8 ± 3.9 mm Hg (P < .001). However, there was no difference in end-inspiratory values. Forced exhalation is not uncommon in acutely ill, mechanically ventilated medical intensive care unit patients and may increase intraabdominal pressure significantly to values that exceed the diagnostic threshold for abdominal compartment syndrome.

Infection Control in Mass-Casualty Respiratory Care: Research Needs and Future Directions

During the Singapore SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome) outbreak, Khoo et al implemented a sensible approach to protecting patients and clinicians from nosocomial infection by the SARS coronavirus, and in this issue of the Journal they report on their strategy’s impact on clinical outcomes.1 Khoo et al draw attention to the many gaps in our understanding of infection-control during respiratory-care interventions. Research on prevention of nosocomial infections has largely focused on hand hygiene, device-related infections, and clinician vaccination.2-5 Although those infectioncontrol measures are important, a solid evidence base regarding respiratory-care-related infection control must be generated to improve our understanding of how to minimize transmission of pathogens when treating respiratory conditions.