The novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2-causing Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19), emerged as a public health threat in December 2019 and was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020. Delirium, a dangerous untoward prognostic development, serves as a barometer of systemic injury in critical illness. The early reports of 25% encephalopathy from China are likely a gross underestimation, which we know occurs whenever delirium is not monitored with a valid tool. Indeed, patients with COVID-19 are at accelerated risk for delirium due to at least seven factors including (1) direct central nervous system (CNS) invasion, (2) induction of CNS inflammatory mediators, (3) secondary effect of other organ system failure, (4) effect of sedative strategies, (5) prolonged mechanical ventilation time, (6) immobilization, and (7) other needed but unfortunate environmental factors including social isolation and quarantine without family. Given early insights into the pathobiology of the virus, as well as the emerging interventions utilized to treat the critically ill patients, delirium prevention and management will prove exceedingly challenging, especially in the intensive care unit (ICU). The main focus during the COVID-19 pandemic lies within organizational issues, i.e., lack of ventilators, shortage of personal protection equipment, resource allocation, prioritization of limited mechanical ventilation options, and end-of-life care. However, the standard of care for ICU patients, including delirium management, must remain the highest quality possible with an eye towards long-term survival and minimization of issues related to post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). This article discusses how ICU professionals (e.g., physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, pharmacologists) can use our knowledge and resources to limit the burden of delirium on patients by reducing modifiable risk factors despite the imposed heavy workload and difficult clinical challenges posed by the pandemic.

Objectives: Excessive fluid therapy in patients with sepsis may be associated with risks that outweigh any benefit. We investigated the possible influence of early fluid balance on outcome in a large international database of ICU patients with sepsis. Design: Observational cohort study. Setting: Seven hundred and thirty ICUs in 84 countries. Patients: All adult patients admitted between May 8 and May 18, 2012, except admissions for routine postoperative surveillance. For this analysis, we included only the 1,808 patients with an admission diagnosis of sepsis. Patients were stratified according to quartiles of cumulative fluid balance 24 hours and 3 days after ICU admission. Measurements and Main Results: ICU and hospital mortality rates were 27.6% and 37.3%, respectively. The cumulative fluid balance increased from 1,217 mL (–90 to 2,783 mL) in the first 24 hours after ICU admission to 1,794 mL (–951 to 5,108 mL) on day 3 and decreased thereafter. The cumulative fluid intake was similar in survivors and nonsurvivors, but fluid balance was less positive in survivors because of higher fluid output in these patients. Fluid balances became negative after the third ICU day in survivors but remained positive in nonsurvivors. After adjustment for possible confounders in multivariable analysis, the 24-hour cumulative fluid balance was not associated with an increased hazard of 28-day in-hospital death. However, there was a stepwise increase in the hazard of death with higher quartiles of 3-day cumulative fluid balance in the whole population and after stratification according to the presence of septic shock. Conclusions: In this large cohort of patients with sepsis, higher cumulative fluid balance at day 3 but not in the first 24 hours after ICU admission was independently associated with an increase in the hazard of death.

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.

Many patients treated in the intensive care unit (ICU) experience pain, that is a source of suffering and leaves a long-term imprint (chronic pain, post-traumatic stress disorder). Nearly 30% of patients experience pain at rest, the percentage increases to 50% during nursing procedures. Pain in ICU patients can be divided into four categories: continuous ICU treatment-related pain/discomfort, acute illness-related pain, intermittent procedural pain and pre-existing chronic pain present before ICU admission. Daily nursing procedures and interventions performed in the ICU may be a potential source of pain, therefore it is crucial to use simple pain monitoring tools. The assessment of pain intensity in ICU patients remains an everyday challenge for clinicians, especially in sedated, intubated and mechanically ventilated patients. Regular assessment of pain intensity leads to improved outcome and better quality of life of patients in the ICU and after discharge from ICU. The gold standard in pain evaluation is patient self-report, which is not always possible. Current research shows that two tools best validated for patients unable to self-report pain are Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT). International guidelines recommend the use of validated tools for pain evaluation, but they underline the need for translation in to a given language. The authors of this publication obtained an official agreement from the authors of two behavioral scales ― CPOT and BPS ― for translation into Polish. Validation of these tools in the Polish population will aid their wider use in pain assessment in ICUs in Poland. Many patients treated in the intensive care unit (ICU) experience pain, that is a source of suffering and leaves a long-term imprint (chronic pain, post-traumatic stress disorder). Nearly 30% of patients experience pain at rest, the percentage increases to 50% during nursing procedures. Pain in ICU patients can be divided into four categories: continuous ICU treatment-related pain/discomfort, acute illness-related pain, intermittent procedural pain and pre-existing chronic pain present before ICU admission. Daily nursing procedures and interventions performed in the ICU may be a potential source of pain, therefore it is crucial to use simple pain monitoring tools. The assessment of pain intensity in ICU patients remains an everyday challenge for clinicians, especially in sedated, intubated and mechanically ventilated patients. Regular assessment of pain intensity leads to improved outcome and better quality of life of patients in the ICU and after discharge from ICU. The gold standard in pain evaluation is patient self-report, which is not always possible. Current research shows that two tools best validated for patients unable to self-report pain are Behavioral Pain Scale (BPS) and Critical Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT). International guidelines recommend the use of validated tools for pain evaluation, but they underline the need for translation in to a given language. The authors of this publication obtained an official agreement from the authors of two behavioral scales ― CPOT and BPS ― for translation into Polish. Validation of these tools in the Polish population will aid their wider use in pain assessment in ICUs in Poland.

In December 2019, a novel coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, appeared, causing a wide range of symptoms, mainly respiratory infection. In March 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic, therefore the efforts of scientists around the world are focused on finding the right treatment and vaccine for the novel disease. COVID-19 has spread rapidly over several months, affecting patients across all age groups and geographic areas. The disease has a diverse course; patients may range from asymptomatic to those with respiratory failure, complicated by acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). One possible complication of pulmonary involvement in COVID-19 is pulmonary fibrosis, which leads to chronic breathing difficulties, long-term disability and affects patients’ quality of life. There are no specific mechanisms that lead to this phenomenon in COVID-19, but some information arises from previous severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) epidemics. The aim of this narrative review is to present the possible causes and pathophysiology of pulmonary fibrosis associated with COVID-19 based on the mechanisms of the immune response, to suggest possible ways of prevention and treatment.

Oxidative stress is an imbalance between pro- and antioxidants that adversely influences the organism in various mechanisms and on many levels. Oxidative damage occurring concomitantly in many cellular structures may cause a deterioration of function, including apoptosis and necrosis. The damage leaves a molecular “footprint”, which can be detected by specific methodology, using certain oxidative stress biomarkers. There is an intimate relationship between oxidative stress, inflammation, and functional impairment, resulting in various diseases affecting the entire human body. In the current narrative review, we strengthen the connection between oxidative stress mechanisms and their active compounds, emphasizing kidney damage and renal transplantation. An analysis of reactive oxygen species (ROS), antioxidants, products of peroxidation, and finally signaling pathways gives a lot of promising data that potentially will modify cell responses on many levels, including gene expression. Oxidative damage, stress, and ROS are still intensively exploited research subjects. We discuss compounds mentioned earlier as biomarkers of oxidative stress and present their role documented during the last 20 years of research. The following keywords and MeSH terms were used in the search: oxidative stress, kidney, transplantation, ischemia-reperfusion injury, IRI, biomarkers, peroxidation, and treatment.