Background: This document updates previously published Clinical Practice Guidelines for the management of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), incorporating new evidence addressing the use of corticosteroids, venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, neuromuscular blocking agents, and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). Methods: We summarized evidence addressing four “PICO questions” (patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome). A multidisciplinary panel with expertise in ARDS used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to develop clinical recommendations. Results: We suggest the use of: 1) corticosteroids for patients with ARDS (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty of evidence), 2) venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in selected patients with severe ARDS (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence), 3) neuromuscular blockers in patients with early severe ARDS (conditional recommendation, low certainty of evidence), and 4) higher PEEP without lung recruitment maneuvers as opposed to lower PEEP in patients with moderate to severe ARDS (conditional recommendation, low to moderate certainty), and 5) we recommend against using prolonged lung recruitment maneuvers in patients with moderate to severe ARDS (strong recommendation, moderate certainty). Conclusions: We provide updated evidence-based recommendations for the management of ARDS. Individual patient and illness characteristics should be factored into clinical decision making and implementation of these recommendations while additional evidence is generated from much-needed clinical trials.

Delirium is common during critical illness and associated with adverse outcomes. We compared characteristics and outcomes of delirious and nondelirious patients enrolled in a multicenter trial comparing protocolized sedation with protocolized sedation plus daily sedation interruption. Randomized trial. Sixteen North American medical and surgical ICUs. Four hundred thirty critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults. All patients had hourly titration of opioid and benzodiazepine infusions using a validated sedation scale. For patients in the interruption group, infusions were resumed, if indicated, at half of previous doses. Delirium screening occurred daily; positive screening was defined as an Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist score of 4 or more at any time. Delirium was diagnosed in 226 of 420 assessed patients (53.8%). Coma was identified in 32.7% of delirious compared with 22.7% of nondelirious patients (p = 0.03). The median time to onset of delirium was 3.5 days (interquartile range, 2–7), and the median duration of delirium was 2 days (interquartile range, 1–4). Delirious patients were more likely to be male (61.1% vs 46.6%; p = 0.005), have a surgical/trauma diagnosis (21.2% vs 11.0%; p = 0.030), and history of tobacco (31.5% vs 16.2%; p = 0.002) or alcohol use (34.6% vs 20.9%; p = 0.009). Patients with positive delirium screening had longer duration of ventilation (13 vs 7 d; p < 0.001), ICU stay (12 vs 8 d; p < 0.0001), and hospital stay (24 vs 15 d; p < 0.0001). Delirious patients were more likely to be physically restrained (86.3% vs 76.7%; p = 0.014) and undergo tracheostomy (34.6% vs 15.5%; p < 0.0001). Antecedent factors independently associated with delirium onset were restraint use (hazard ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.33–2.63; p = 0.0003), antipsychotic administration (hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.005–2.767; p = 0.047), and midazolam dose (hazard ratio, 0.998; 95% CI, 0.997–1.0; p = 0.049). There was no difference in delirium prevalence or duration between the interruption and control groups. In mechanically ventilated adults, delirium was common and associated with longer duration of ventilation and hospitalization. Physical restraint was most strongly associated with delirium.

To characterize the perceived utilization of sedative, analgesic, and neuromuscular blocking agents, the use of sedation scales, algorithms, and daily sedative interruption in mechanically ventilated adults, and to define clinical factors that influence these practices. Cross-sectional mail survey. Canadian critical care practitioners. A total of 273 of 448 eligible physicians (60%) responded. Respondents were well distributed with regard to age, years of practice, specialist certification, size of intensive care unit and hospital, and location of practice. Twenty-nine percent responded that a protocol/care pathway/guideline for the use of sedatives or analgesics is currently in use in their intensive care unit. Daily interruption of continuous infusions of sedatives or analgesics is practiced by 40% of intensivists. A sedation scoring system is used by 49% of respondents. Of these, 67% use the Ramsay scale, 10% use the Sedation-Agitation Scale, 9% use the Glasgow Coma Scale, and 8% use the Motor Activity Assessment Scale. Only 3.7% of intensivists use a delirium scoring system in their intensive care units. Only 22% of respondents currently have a protocol for the use of neuromuscular blocking agents in their intensive care unit, and 84% of respondents use peripheral nerve stimulation for monitoring. In patients receiving neuromuscular blocking agents for >24 hrs, 63.7% of respondents discontinue the neuromuscular blocking agent daily. Intensivists working in university-affiliated hospitals are more likely to employ a sedation protocol and scale (p < .0001), as are intensivists working in larger intensive care units (≥15 beds, p < .01). Intensivists with anesthesiology training (and no formal critical care training) are more likely to use a protocol and sedation scale, and critical care–trained intensivists are more likely to use daily interruption. Younger physicians (<40 yrs) are more likely to practice daily interruption (p = .0092). There is significant variation in critical care sedation, analgesia, and neuromuscular blockade practice. Given the potential effect of practices regarding these medications on patient outcome, future research and educational efforts related to evidence-based protocols for the use of these agents in mechanically ventilated patients might be worthwhile.

Background. We assessed the impact of infectious disease (ID) consultation on management and outcome in patients with Staphylococcus aureus bacteremia (SAB). Methods. A retrospective cohort study examined consecutive SAB patients from 6 academic and community hospitals between 2007 and 2010. Quality measures of management including echocardiography, repeat blood culture, removal of infectious foci, and antibiotic therapy were compared between ID consultation (IDC) and no ID consultation (NIDC) groups. A competing risk model with propensity score adjustment was used to compare in-hospital mortality and time to discharge. Results. Of 847 SAB patients, 506 (60%) patients received an ID consultation and 341 (40%) patients did not. Echocardiography was done for 371 (73%) IDC and 191 (56%) NIDC patients (P < .0001) in hospital. Blood cultures were repeated within 2–4 days of bacteremia in 207 (41%) IDC and 107 (31%) NIDC patients (P = .0058). The infectious foci removal rate was not statistically different between the 2 groups. For empiric therapy, 474 (94%) IDC and 297 (87%) NIDC patients received appropriate antibiotics (P = .0013). For patients who finished the planned course of antibiotics, 285 of 422 (68%) IDC and 141 of 262 (54%) NIDC patients received the appropriate duration of antibiotic therapy (P = .0004). In hospital, 204 (24%) patients died: 104 of 506 (21%) IDC and 100 of 341 (29%) NIDC patients. Matched by propensity score, ID consultation had a subdistribution hazard ratio of 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI], .52–.99; P = .0451) for in-hospital mortality and 1.28 (95% CI, 1.06–1.56; P = .0109) for being discharged alive. Conclusions. ID consultation is associated with better adherence to quality measures, reduced in-hospital mortality, and earlier discharge in patients with SAB.