This article is one of ten reviews selected from the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine 2017. Other selected articles can be found online at http://ccforum.com/series/annualupdate2017. Further information about the Annual Update in Intensive Care and Emergency Medicine is available from http://www.springer.com/series/8901.

Intubation and extubation of ventilated patients are not risk-free procedures in the intensive care unit (ICU) and can be associated with morbidity and mortality. Intubation in the ICU is frequently required in emergency situations for patients with an unstable cardiovascular or respiratory system. Under these circumstances, it is a high-risk procedure with life-threatening complications (20–50%). Moreover, technical problems can also give rise to complications and several new techniques, such as videolaryngoscopy, have been developed recently. Another risk period is extubation, which fails in approximately 10% of cases and is associated with a poor prognosis. A better understanding of the cause of failure is essential to improve success procedure. In constructing these guidelines, the SFAR/SRLF experts have made use of new data on intubation and extubation in the ICU from the last decade to update existing procedures, incorporate more recent advances and propose algorithms.

Introduction: Pain assessment is associated with important outcomes in ICU patients but remains challenging, particularly in non-communicative patients. Use of a reliable tool is paramount to allow any implementation of sedation/analgesia protocols in a multidisciplinary team. This study compared psychometric properties (inter-rater agreement primarily; validity, responsiveness and feasibility secondarily) of three pain scales: Behavioural Pain Scale (BPS/BPS-NI, that is BPS for Non-Intubated patients), Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) and Non-verbal Pain Scale (NVPS), the pain tool routinely used in this 16-bed medical ICU. Methods: Pain was assessed by at least one of four investigators and one of the 20 bedside nurses before, during and 10 minutes after routine care procedures in non-comatose patients (Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale ≥ -3) who were unable to self-report their pain intensity. The Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU was used to assess delirium. Non-parametric tests were used for statistical analysis. Quantitative data are presented as median (25^th to 75^th). Results: A total of 258 paired assessments of pain were performed in 30 patients (43% lightly sedated, 57% with delirium, 63% mechanically ventilated). All three scales demonstrated good psychometric properties. However, BPS and CPOT exhibited the best inter-rater reliability (weighted-κ 0.81 for BPS and CPOT) and the best internal consistency (Cronbach-α 0.80 for BPS, 0.81 for CPOT), which were higher than for NVPS (weighted-κ 0.71, P <0.05; Cronbach-α 0.76, P <0.01). Responsiveness was significantly higher for BPS compared to CPOT and for CPOT compared to NVPS. For feasibility, BPS was rated as the easiest scale to remember but there was no significant difference in regards to users’ preference. Conclusions: BPS and CPOT demonstrate similar psychometric properties in non-communicative intubated and non-intubated ICU patients.

Introduction: Severe cardiovascular collapse (CVC) is a life-threatening complication after emergency endotracheal intubation (ETI) in the ICU. Many factors may interact with hemodynamic conditions during ETI, but no study to date has focused on factors associated with severe CVC occurrence. This study assessed the incidence of severe CVC after ETI in the ICU and analyzed the factors predictive of severe CVC. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of a prospective multicenter study of 1,400 consecutive intubations at 42 ICUs. The incidence of severe CVC was assessed in patients who were hemodynamically stable (mean arterial blood pressure >65 mmHg without vasoactive drugs) before intubation, and the factors predictive of severe CVC were determined by multivariate analysis based on patient and procedure characteristics. Results: Severe CVC occurred following 264 of 885 (29.8 %) intubation procedures. A two-step multivariate analysis showed that independent risk factors for CVC included simple acute physiologic score II regardless of age (odds ratio (OR) 1.02, p < 0.001), age 60–75 years (OR 1.96, p < 0.002 versus 75 years (OR 2.81, p < 0.001 versus 70 % after intubation (OR 1.91, p = 0.001). Comatose patients who required ETI were less likely to develop CVC during intubation (OR 0.48, p = 0.004). Conclusions: CVC is a frequent complication, especially in old and severely ill patients intubated for acute respiratory failure in the ICU. Specific bundles to prevent CVC may reduce morbidity and mortality related to intubation of these high-risk, critically ill patients. Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT01532063; registered 8 February 2012.

Introduction: A quality-improvement project was conducted to reduce severe pain and stress-related events while moving ICU-patients. Methods: The Plan-Do-Check-Adjust cycle was studied during four one-month phases, separated by five-month interphases. All consecutive patients staying more than 24 hours were evaluated every morning while being moved for nursing care (bathing, massage, sheet-change, repositioning). Phase 1 was considered as the baseline. Implemented and adjusted quality-interventions were assessed at phases 2 and 3, respectively. An independent post-intervention control-audit was performed at Phase 4. Primary-endpoints were the incidence of severe pain defined by a behavioral pain scale > 5 or a 0 to 10 visual numeric rating scale > 6, and the incidence of serious adverse events (SAE): cardiac arrest, arrhythmias, tachycardia, bradycardia, hypertension, hypotension, desaturation, bradypnea or ventilatory distress. Pain, SAE, patients' characteristics and analgesia were compared among the phases by a multivariate mixed-effects model for repeated-measurements, adjusted on severity index, age, admission type (medical/surgical), intubation and sedation status. Results: During the four studied phases, 630 care procedures were analyzed in 53, 47, 43 and 50 patients, respectively. Incidence of severe pain decreased significantly from 16% (baseline) to 6% in Phase 3 (odds ratio (OR) = 0.33 (0.11; 0.98), P = 0.04) and 2% in Phase 4 (OR = 0.30 (0.12; 0.95), P = 0.02). Incidence of SAE decreased significantly from 37% (baseline) to 17% in Phase 3 and 21% in Phase 4. In multivariate analysis, SAE were independently associated with Phase 3 (OR = 0.40 (0.23; 0.72), P < 0.01), Phase 4 (OR = 0.53 (0.30; 0.92), P = 0.03), intubation status (OR = 1.91 (1.28; 2.85), P < 0.01) and severe pain (OR = 2.74 (1.54; 4.89), P < 0.001). Conclusions: Severe pain and serious adverse events are common and strongly associated while moving ICU patients for nursing procedures. Quality improvement of pain management is associated with a decrease of serious adverse events. Careful documentation of pain management during mobilization for nursing procedures could be implemented as a health quality indicator in the ICU.