Delirium is a prevalent complication in critically ill medical and surgical cardiac patients. It is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, prolonged hospitalizations, cognitive impairments, functional decline, and hospital costs. The incidence of delirium in cardiac patients varies based on the criteria used for the diagnosis, the population studied, and the type of surgery (cardiac or not cardiac). Delirium experienced when cardiac patients are in the intensive care unit (ICU) is likely preventable in most cases. While there are many protocols for recognizing and managing ICU delirium in medical and surgical cardiac patients, there is no homogeneity, nor are there established clinical guidelines. This review provides a comprehensive overview of delirium in cardiac patients and highlights its presentation, course, risk factors, pathophysiology, and management. We define cardiac ICU patients as both medical and postoperative surgical patients with cardiac disease in the ICU. We also highlight current controversies and future considerations of innovative therapies and nonpharmacological and pharmacological management interventions. Clinicians caring for critically ill patients with cardiac disease must understand the complex syndrome of ICU delirium and recognize the impact of delirium in predicting long-term outcomes for ICU patients.

Methemoglobinemia is a rare disorder of the blood in which there is an increase in methemoglobin, which occurs when hemoglobin is present in the oxidized form. Methemoglobin impairs hemoglobin’s ability to transport oxygen, produces functional anemia, and leads to tissue hypoxia. We report the successful management of a case of refractory hypoxia due to acutely acquired methemoglobinemia in a patient undergoing treatment for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. The cause of methemoglobinemia in this patient remains unknown. Hypoxia and methemoglobinemia did not respond to methylene blue and required administration of packed red blood cell transfusions.

Introduction Sedation in mechanically ventilated adults in the intensive care unit (ICU) is commonly achieved with intravenous infusions of propofol, dexmedetomidine or benzodiazepines. Significant limitations associated with each can impact their usage. Inhaled isoflurane has potential benefit for ICU sedation due to its safety record, sedation profile, lack of metabolism and accumulation, and fast wake-up time. Administration in the ICU has historically been restricted by the lack of a safe and effective delivery system for the ICU. The Sedaconda Anaesthetic Conserving Device-S (Sedaconda ACD-S) has enabled the delivery of inhaled volatile anaesthetics for sedation with standard ICU ventilators, but it has not yet been rigorously evaluated in the USA. We aim to evaluate the efficacy and safety of inhaled isoflurane delivered via the Sedaconda ACD-S compared with intravenous propofol for sedation of mechanically ventilated ICU adults in USA hospitals. Methods and analysis INhaled Sedation versus Propofol in REspiratory failure in the ICU (INSPiRE-ICU1) is a phase 3, multicentre, randomised, controlled, open-label, assessor-blinded trial that aims to enrol 235 critically ill adults in 14 hospitals across the USA. Eligible patients are randomised in a 1.5:1 ratio for a treatment duration of up to 48 (±6) hours or extubation, whichever occurs first, with primary follow-up period of 30 days and additional follow-up to 6 months. Primary outcome is percentage of time at target sedation range. Key secondary outcomes include use of opioids during treatment, spontaneous breathing efforts during treatment, wake-up time at end of treatment and cognitive recovery after treatment. Ethics and dissemination Trial protocol has been approved by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and central (Advarra SSU00208265) or local institutional review boards ((IRB), Cleveland Clinic IRB FWA 00005367, Tufts HS IRB 20221969, Houston Methodist IRB PRO00035247, Mayo Clinic IRB Mod22-001084-08, University of Chicago IRB21-1917-AM011 and Intermountain IRB 033175). Results will be presented at scientific conferences, submitted for publication, and provided to the FDA. Trial registration number NCT05312385.

Carboxyhemoglobinemia is a common but a serious disorder, defined as an increase in carboxyhemoglobin level. Unfortunately, there are few data on carboxyhemoglobinemia in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients. Therefore, our study aimed to evaluate the incidence and etiologies of carboxyhemoglobinemia in COVID-19 patients and determine any association between carboxyhemoglobinemia and novel coronavirus infection. A retrospective chart review was performed at an academic medical center for all inpatient COVID-19 cases with either single or serial carboxyhemoglobin (COHb) levels from March 2020 through August 2020.Our study demonstrates that carboxyhemoglobinemia in COVID-19 patients is due to sepsis, hemolysis, and cytokine storm, triggered by the novel coronavirus infection sequela and is not directly from the virulence of novel coronavirus. Given the coexisting illnesses in critically ill COVID-19 patients, it is impossible to establish if coronavirus virulence was the culprit of elevated COHb levels. Moreover, our study found a high incidence of carboxyhemoglobinemia in critically ill COVID-19 patients. The oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry can be inaccurate and unreliable; however, our study could not demonstrate any uniform results on the discrepancy between oxygen saturation measured by pulse oximetry and arterial blood gas. In this study, COHb levels were measured using a CO-oximeter. Therefore, we recommend monitoring the COHb level routinely in critically ill COVID-19 patients to allow more effective and prompt treatment.

Delirium is a highly prevalent and costly neuropsychiatric condition that affects up to 87% of critically ill hospitalized patients. It impacts various cognitive domains, including attention, memory, perception, and motor functions, with symptoms such as behavioral changes, hallucinations, slurred speech, visual impairments, and fatigue. Non-pharmacological interventions have been shown to reduce the incidence and duration of delirium, with strategies like reality orientation, cognitive stimulation, family support, and physical support. However, the scalability of these interventions in hospital settings is limited by resource constraints, low patient engagement, and the complexity of delivery. Digital technology-based cognitive stimulation offers a potential solution to these barriers, though evidence supporting its effectiveness is currently insufficient. This narrative literature review explores both traditional and novel digital technology-based cognitive stimulation techniques for the prevention and management of delirium in acute hospital settings.

Background: The aim of the current pilot study was to evaluate the usability, acceptability, and tolerability of virtual reality (VR)-based cognitive stimulation exercises (CSEs) in healthy young versus old populations before health care integration. A secondary aim was to assess the accuracy of VR games as a proxy for cognitive stimulation, specifically for attention. VR-based CSEs promise to improve attention and brain function through varied learning systems. Methods: This is a Phase 1 feasibility clinical trial at a single center. It involves 30 healthy volunteers randomly selected using the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status classification system. Participants fall into ASA 1 (age >18-35 years, n = 15) or ASA 2 (age >60 years, n = 15) categories. All participants tested the ReCognitionVR-based CSEs. Feasibility criterion: Participants in each group were monitored for completion of 20 minutes of VR-based CSEs. Acceptability criterion: Proportion of participants with system usability scale (SUS) >35 or SUS score of 87.5. Safety (tolerability) monitoring: Sessions were monitored for neurological, cardiovascular, or pulmonary adverse events (AEs). Safety criterion: No more than 10% of sessions stopped due to neurological, cardiovascular, or pulmonary AEs. Results: The primary outcome (feasibility) of ReCognitionVR-based CSEs was 100%. For the secondary outcome (acceptability), there was no group difference in SUS scores (ASA 1 = 88.17 ± 12.83 vs. ASA 2 = 88.39 ± 10.22, P = 0.81). For the tertiary outcome (safety), mild transient uneasiness was reported by two (13.4%) ASA 1 participants (resolved in 2 minutes), and one (6.67%) ASA 1 participant experienced a temporary >20% increase in blood pressure from baseline. No ASA 2 participants had AEs. Conclusion: The feasibility, acceptability, and safety of ReCognitionVR-based CSEs in healthy elderly volunteers are acceptable, indicating that the evaluation of the ReCognitionVR-based CSEs in hospitalized patients is reasonable.