Introduction: Despite recommendations from professional societies and patient safety organizations, the majority of ICU patients worldwide are not routinely monitored for delirium, thus preventing timely prevention and management. The purpose of this systematic review is to summarize what types of implementation strategies have been tested to improve ICU clinicians’ ability to effectively assess, prevent and treat delirium and to evaluate the effect of these strategies on clinical outcomes. Method: We searched PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, Cochrane and CINAHL (January 2000 and April 2014) for studies on implementation strategies that included delirium-oriented interventions in adult ICU patients. Studies were suitable for inclusion if implementation strategies’ efficacy, in terms of a clinical outcome, or process outcome was described. Results: We included 21 studies, all including process measures, while 9 reported both process measures and clinical outcomes. Some individual strategies such as “audit and feedback” and “tailored interventions” may be important to establish clinical outcome improvements, but otherwise robust data on effectiveness of specific implementation strategies were scarce. Successful implementation interventions were frequently reported to change process measures, such as improvements in adherence to delirium screening with up to 92%, but relating process measures to outcome changes was generally not possible. In meta-analyses, reduced mortality and ICU length of stay reduction were statistically more likely with implementation programs that employed more (six or more) rather than less implementation strategies and when a framework was used that either integrated current evidence on pain, agitation and delirium management (PAD) or when a strategy of early awakening, breathing, delirium screening and early exercise (ABCDE bundle) was employed. Using implementation strategies aimed at organizational change, next to behavioral change, was also associated with reduced mortality. Conclusion: Our findings may indicate that multi-component implementation programs with a higher number of strategies targeting ICU delirium assessment, prevention and treatment and integrated within PAD or ABCDE bundle have the potential to improve clinical outcomes. However, prospective confirmation of these findings is needed to inform the most effective implementation practice with regard to integrated delirium management and such research should clearly delineate effective practice change from improvements in clinical outcomes.

Maintenance fluids in critically ill brain-injured patients are part of routine critical care. Both the amounts of fluid volumes infused and the type and tonicity of maintenance fluids are relevant in understanding the impact of fluids on the pathophysiology of secondary brain injuries in these patients. In this narrative review, current evidence on routine fluid management of critically ill brain-injured patients and use of haemodynamic monitoring is summarized. Pertinent guidelines and consensus statements on fluid management for brain-injured patients are highlighted. In general, existing guidelines indicate that fluid management in these neurocritical care patients should be targeted at euvolemia using isotonic fluids. A critical appraisal is made of the available literature regarding the appropriate amount of fluids, haemodynamic monitoring and which types of fluids should be administered or avoided and a practical approach to fluid management is elaborated. Although hypovolemia is bound to contribute to secondary brain injury, some more recent data have emerged indicating the potential risks of fluid overload. However, it is acknowledged that many factors govern the relationship between fluid management and cerebral blood flow and oxygenation and more research seems warranted to optimise fluid management and improve outcomes.

Accurate prediction of delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU) may facilitate efficient use of early preventive strategies and stratification of ICU patients by delirium risk in clinical research, but the optimal delirium prediction model to use is unclear. We compared the predictive performance and user convenience of the prediction model for delirium (PRE-DELIRIC) and early prediction model for delirium (E-PRE-DELIRIC) in ICU patients and determined the value of a two-stage calculation. This 7-country, 11-hospital, prospective cohort study evaluated consecutive adults admitted to the ICU who could be reliably assessed for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU or the Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist. The predictive performance of the models was measured using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Calibration was assessed graphically. A physician questionnaire evaluated user convenience. For the two-stage calculation we used E-PRE-DELIRIC immediately after ICU admission and updated the prediction using PRE-DELIRIC after 24 h. In total 2178 patients were included. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was significantly greater for PRE-DELIRIC (0.74 (95% confidence interval 0.71–0.76)) compared to E-PRE-DELIRIC (0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.66–0.71)) (z score of − 2.73 (p < 0.01)). Both models were well-calibrated. The sensitivity improved when using the two-stage calculation in low-risk patients. Compared to PRE-DELIRIC, ICU physicians (n = 68) rated the E-PRE-DELIRIC model more feasible. While both ICU delirium prediction models have moderate-to-good performance, the PRE-DELIRIC model predicts delirium better. However, ICU physicians rated the user convenience of E-PRE-DELIRIC superior to PRE-DELIRIC. In low-risk patients the delirium prediction further improves after an update with the PRE-DELIRIC model after 24 h. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02518646 . Registered on 21 July 2015.

General supportive and preventive measures in the intensive care management of traumatic brain injury (TBI) aim to prevent or limit secondary brain injury and optimize recovery. The aim of this survey was to assess and quantify variation in perceptions on intensive care unit (ICU) management of patients with TBI in European neurotrauma centers. We performed a survey as part of the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. We analyzed 23 questions focused on: 1) circulatory and respiratory management; 2) fever control; 3) use of corticosteroids; 4) nutrition and glucose management; and 5) seizure prophylaxis and treatment. The survey was completed predominantly by intensivists (n = 33, 50%) and neurosurgeons (n = 23, 35%) from 66 centers (97% response rate). The most common cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) target was > 60 mmHg (n = 39, 60%) and/or an individualized target (n = 25, 38%). To support CPP, crystalloid fluid loading (n = 60, 91%) was generally preferred over albumin (n = 15, 23%), and vasopressors (n = 63, 96%) over inotropes (n = 29, 44%). The most commonly reported target of partial pressure of carbon dioxide in arterial blood (PaCO2) was 36–40 mmHg (4.8–5.3 kPa) in case of controlled intracranial pressure (ICP) < 20 mmHg (n = 45, 69%) and PaCO2 target of 30–35 mmHg (4–4.7 kPa) in case of raised ICP (n = 40, 62%). Almost all respondents indicated to generally treat fever (n = 65, 98%) with paracetamol (n = 61, 92%) and/or external cooling (n = 49, 74%). Conventional glucose management (n = 43, 66%) was preferred over tight glycemic control (n = 18, 28%). More than half of the respondents indicated to aim for full caloric replacement within 7 days (n = 43, 66%) using enteral nutrition (n = 60, 92%). Indications for and duration of seizure prophylaxis varied, and levetiracetam was mostly reported as the agent of choice for both seizure prophylaxis (n = 32, 49%) and treatment (n = 40, 61%). Practice preferences vary substantially regarding general supportive and preventive measures in TBI patients at ICUs of European neurotrauma centers. These results provide an opportunity for future comparative effectiveness research, since a more evidence-based uniformity in good practices in general ICU management could have a major impact on TBI outcome.

Background: The role of haloperidol as treatment for ICU delirium and related symptoms remains controversial despite two recent large controlled trials evaluating its efficacy and safety. We sought to determine whether haloperidol when compared to placebo in critically ill adults with delirium reduces days with delirium and coma and improves delirium-related sequelae. Methods: This multi-center double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial at eight mixed medical-surgical Dutch ICUs included critically ill adults with delirium (Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist ≥ 4 or a positive Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU) admitted between February 2018 and January 2020. Patients were randomized to intravenous haloperidol 2.5 mg or placebo every 8 h, titrated up to 5 mg every 8 h if delirium persisted until ICU discharge or up to 14 days. The primary outcome was ICU delirium- and coma-free days (DCFDs) within 14 days after randomization. Predefined secondary outcomes included the protocolized use of sedatives for agitation and related behaviors, patient-initiated extubation and invasive device removal, adverse drug associated events, mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, 28-day mortality, and long-term outcomes up to 1-year after randomization. Results: The trial was terminated prematurely for primary endpoint futility on DSMB advice after enrolment of 132 (65 haloperidol; 67 placebo) patients [mean age 64 (15) years, APACHE IV score 73.1 (33.9), male 68%]. Haloperidol did not increase DCFDs (adjusted RR 0.98 [95% CI 0.73–1.31], p = 0.87). Patients treated with haloperidol (vs. placebo) were less likely to receive benzodiazepines (adjusted OR 0.41 [95% CI 0.18–0.89], p = 0.02). Effect measures of other secondary outcomes related to agitation (use of open label haloperidol [OR 0.43 (95% CI 0.12–1.56)] and other antipsychotics [OR 0.63 (95% CI 0.29–1.32)], self-extubation or invasive device removal [OR 0.70 (95% CI 0.22–2.18)]) appeared consistently more favorable with haloperidol, but the confidence interval also included harm. Adverse drug events were not different. Long-term secondary outcomes (e.g., ICU recall and quality of life) warrant further study. Conclusions: Haloperidol does not reduce delirium in critically ill delirious adults. However, it may reduce rescue medication requirements and agitation-related events in delirious ICU patients warranting further evaluation. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (#NCT03628391), October 9, 2017.