Objectives: To assess the knowledge and use of the Assessment, prevention, and management of pain; spontaneous awakening and breathing trials; Choice of analgesia and sedation; Delirium assessment; Early mobility and exercise; and Family engagement and empowerment (ABCDEF) bundle to implement the Pain, Agitation, Delirium guidelines. Design: Worldwide online survey. Setting: Intensive care. Intervention: A cross-sectional online survey using the Delphi method was administered to intensivists worldwide, to assess the knowledge and use of all aspects of the ABCDEF bundle. Measurement and Main Results: There were 1,521 respondents from 47 countries, 57% had implemented the ABCDEF bundle, with varying degrees of compliance across continents. Most of the respondents (83%) used a scale to evaluate pain. Spontaneous awakening trials and spontaneous breathing trials are performed in 66% and 67% of the responder ICUs, respectively. Sedation scale was used in 89% of ICUs. Delirium monitoring was implemented in 70% of ICUs, but only 42% used a validated delirium tool. Likewise, early mobilization was “prescribed” by most, but 69% had no mobility team and 79% used no formal mobility scale. Only 36% of the respondents assessed ICU-acquired weakness. Family members were actively involved in 67% of ICUs; however, only 33% used dedicated staff to support families and only 35% reported that their unit was open 24 hr/d for family visits. Conclusions: The current implementation of the ABCDEF bundle varies across individual components and regions. We identified specific targets for quality improvement and adoption of the ABCDEF bundle. Our data reflect a significant but incomplete shift toward patient- and family-centered ICU care in accordance with the Pain, Agitation, Delirium guidelines.

Summary: Healthcare workers involved in aerosol‐generating procedures, such as tracheal intubation, may be at elevated risk of acquiring COVID‐19. However, the magnitude of this risk is unknown. We conducted a prospective international multicentre cohort study recruiting healthcare workers participating in tracheal intubation of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID‐19. Information on tracheal intubation episodes, personal protective equipment use and subsequent provider health status was collected via self‐reporting. The primary endpoint was the incidence of laboratory‐confirmed COVID‐19 diagnosis or new symptoms requiring self‐isolation or hospitalisation after a tracheal intubation episode. Cox regression analysis examined associations between the primary endpoint and healthcare worker characteristics, procedure‐related factors and personal protective equipment use. Between 23 March and 2 June 2020, 1718 healthcare workers from 503 hospitals in 17 countries reported 5148 tracheal intubation episodes. The overall incidence of the primary endpoint was 10.7% over a median (IQR [range]) follow‐up of 32 (18–48 [0–116]) days. The cumulative incidence within 7, 14 and 21 days of the first tracheal intubation episode was 3.6%, 6.1% and 8.5%, respectively. The risk of the primary endpoint varied by country and was higher in women, but was not associated with other factors. Around 1 in 10 healthcare workers involved in tracheal intubation of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID‐19 subsequently reported a COVID‐19 outcome. This has human resource implications for institutional capacity to deliver essential healthcare services, and wider societal implications for COVID‐19 transmission.

The All India Difficult Airway Association (AIDAA) guidelines for management of the unanticipated difficult airway in adults provide a structured, stepwise approach to manage unanticipated difficulty during tracheal intubation in adults. They have been developed based on the available evidence; wherever robust evidence was lacking, or to suit the needs and situation in India, recommendations were arrived at by consensus opinion of airway experts, incorporating the responses to a questionnaire sent to members of the AIDAA and the Indian Society of Anaesthesiologists. We recommend optimum pre-oxygenation and nasal insufflation of 15 L/min oxygen during apnoea in all patients, and calling for help if the initial attempt at intubation is unsuccessful. Transnasal humidified rapid insufflations of oxygen at 70 L/min (transnasal humidified rapid insufflation ventilatory exchange) should be used when available. We recommend no more than three attempts at tracheal intubation and two attempts at supraglottic airway device (SAD) insertion if intubation fails, provided oxygen saturation remains ≥ 95%. Intubation should be confirmed by capnography. Blind tracheal intubation through the SAD is not recommended. If SAD insertion fails, one final attempt at mask ventilation should be tried after ensuring neuromuscular blockade using the optimal technique for mask ventilation. Failure to intubate the trachea as well as an inability to ventilate the lungs by face mask and SAD constitutes ‘complete ventilation failure’, and emergency cricothyroidotomy should be performed. Patient counselling, documentation and standard reporting of the airway difficulty using a ‘difficult airway alert form’ must be done. In addition, the AIDAA provides suggestions for the contents of a difficult airway cart.

Objectives: Stroke volume variation and pulse pressure variation do not reliably predict fluid responsiveness during low tidal volume ventilation. We hypothesized that with transient increase in tidal volume from 6 to 8 mL/kg predicted body weight, that is, “tidal volume challenge,” the changes in pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation will predict fluid responsiveness. Design: Prospective, single-arm study. Setting: Medical-surgical ICU in a university hospital. Patients: Adult patients with acute circulatory failure, having continuous cardiac output monitoring, and receiving controlled low tidal volume ventilation. Interventions: The pulse pressure variation, stroke volume variation, and cardiac index were recorded at tidal volume 6 mL/kg predicted body weight and 1 minute after the “tidal volume challenge.” The tidal volume was reduced back to 6 mL/kg predicted body weight, and a fluid bolus was given to identify fluid responders (increase in cardiac index > 15%). The end-expiratory occlusion test was performed at tidal volumes 6 and 8 mL/kg predicted body weight and after reducing tidal volume back to 6 mL/kg predicted body weight. Results: Thirty measurements were obtained in 20 patients. The absolute change in pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation after increasing tidal volume from 6 to 8 mL/kg predicted body weight predicted fluid responsiveness with areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves (with 95% CIs) being 0.99 (0.98–1.00) and 0.97 (0.92–1.00), respectively. The best cutoff values of the absolute change in pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation after increasing tidal volume from 6 to 8 mL/kg predicted body weight were 3.5% and 2.5%, respectively. The pulse pressure variation, stroke volume variation, central venous pressure, and end-expiratory occlusion test obtained during tidal volume 6 mL/kg predicted body weight did not predict fluid responsiveness. Conclusions: The changes in pulse pressure variation or stroke volume variation obtained by transiently increasing tidal volume (tidal volume challenge) are superior to pulse pressure variation and stroke volume variation in predicting fluid responsiveness during low tidal volume ventilation.

Many ethical questions on the use of life-sustaining treatments for terminally ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) exist.^1-4 Several multinational studies, which are largely limited to developed nations in the West, have now been performed to describe the attitudes of physicians toward end-of-life care practices in ICUs.^5-10 These studies suggest that most Western physicians deem withholding and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatments acceptable. To illustrate, in a previous questionnaire survey that documented the likely management of a patient with severe hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy after cardiac arrest, more than 90% of physicians from Europe and North America would implement do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders; fewer than 10% to 40%, depending on the specific region, would maintain mechanical ventilation and start antibiotics and vasopressors if the patient developed septic shock.⁵