Critical Care

In the best of times, critical care nurses have one of the most difficult and stressful jobs in health care. The COVID-19 pandemic has made that immeasurably worse. As hospitals have been flooded with critically ill patients, nurses have been overwhelmed.

“What we’re hearing from our nurses is really shocking,” Amanda Bettencourt, PhD, APRN, CCRN-K, president-elect of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), said in an interview. “They’re saying they’re at the breaking point.”

Between Aug. 26 and Aug. 30, the AACN surveyed more than 6,000 critical care nurses, zeroing in on four key questions regarding the pandemic and its impact on nursing. The results were alarming – not only with regard to individual nurses but also for the nursing profession and the future of health care. A full 66% of those surveyed said their experiences during the pandemic have caused them to consider leaving nursing. The respondents’ take on their colleagues was even more concerning. Ninety-two percent agreed with the following two statements: “I believe the pandemic has depleted nurses at my hospital. Their careers will be shorter than they intended.”

“This puts the entire health care system at risk,” says Dr. Bettencourt, assistant professor in the department of family and community health at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia. Intensive care unit (ICU) nurses are highly trained and are skilled in caring for critically ill patients with complex medical needs. “It’s not easy to replace a critical care nurse when one leaves,” she said.

And when nurses leave, patients suffer, said Beth Wathen, MSN, RN, CCRN-K, president of the ACCN and frontline nurse at Children’s Hospital Colorado, in Aurora. “Hospitals can have all the beds and all the rooms and all the equipment they want, but without nurses and others at the front lines to provide that essential care, none of it really matters, whether we’re talking about caring for COVID patients or caring for patients with other health ailments.”
 

Heartbreak of the unvaccinated

The problem is not just overwork because of the flood of COVID-19 patients. The emotional strain is enormous as well. “What’s demoralizing for us is not that patients are sick and that it’s physically exhausting to take care of sick patients. We’re used to that,” said Dr. Bettencourt.

But few nurses have experienced the sheer magnitude of patients caused by this pandemic. “The past 18 months have been grueling,” says Ms. Wathen. “The burden on frontline caregivers and our nurses at the front line has been immense.”

The situation is made worse by how unnecessary much of the suffering is at this point. Seventy-six percent of the survey’s respondents agreed with the following statement: “People who hold out on getting vaccinated undermine nurses’ physical and mental well-being.” That comment doesn’t convey the nature or extent of the effect on caregivers’ well-being. “That 9 out of 10 of the people we’re seeing in ICU right now are unvaccinated just adds to the sense of heartbreak and frustration,” says Ms. Wathen. “These deaths don’t have to be happening right now. And that’s hard to bear witness to.”

The politicization of public health has also taken a toll. “That’s been the hard part of this entire pandemic,” says Ms. Wathen. “This really isn’t at all about politics. This is about your health; this is about my health. This is about our collective health as a community and as a country.”

Like the rest of the world, nurses are also concerned about their own loved ones. The survey statement, “I fear taking care of patients with COVID puts my family’s health at risk,” garnered 67% agreement. Ms. Wathen points out that nurses take the appropriate precautions but still worry about taking infection home to their families. “This disease is a tricky one,” she says. She points out that until this pandemic is over, in addition to being vaccinated, nurses and the public still need to be vigilant about wearing masks, social distancing, and taking other precautions to ensure the safety of us all. “Our individual decisions don’t just affect ourselves. They affect our family, the people in our circle, and the people in our community,” she said.
 

Avoiding a professional exodus

It’s too early yet to have reliable national data on how many nurses have already left their jobs because of COVID-19, but it is clear that there are too few nurses of all kinds. The American Nurses Association sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services urging the agency to declare the nursing shortage a crisis and to take immediate steps to find solutions.

The nursing shortage predates the pandemic, and COVID-19 has brought a simmering problem to the boil. Nurses are calling on the public and the health care system for help. From inside the industry, the needs are pretty much what they were before the pandemic. Dr. Bettencourt and Ms. Wathen point to the need for supportive leadership, healthy work environments, sufficient staffing to meet patients’ needs, and a voice in decisions, such as decisions about staffing, that affect nurses and their patients. Nurses want to be heard and appreciated. “It’s not that these are new things,” said Dr. Bettencourt. “We just need them even more now because we’re stressed even more than we were before.”

Critical care nurses have a different request of the public. They’re asking – pleading, actually – with the public to get vaccinated, wear masks in public, practice social distancing, and bring this pandemic to an end.

“COVID kills, and it’s a really difficult, tragic, and lonely death,” said Ms. Wathen. “We’ve witnessed hundreds of thousands of those deaths. But now we have a way to stop it. If many more people get vaccinated, we can stop this pandemic. And hopefully that will stop this current trend of nurses leaving.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the best of times, critical care nurses have one of the most difficult and stressful jobs in health care. The COVID-19 pandemic has made that immeasurably worse. As hospitals have been flooded with critically ill patients, nurses have been overwhelmed.

“What we’re hearing from our nurses is really shocking,” Amanda Bettencourt, PhD, APRN, CCRN-K, president-elect of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), said in an interview. “They’re saying they’re at the breaking point.”

Between Aug. 26 and Aug. 30, the AACN surveyed more than 6,000 critical care nurses, zeroing in on four key questions regarding the pandemic and its impact on nursing. The results were alarming – not only with regard to individual nurses but also for the nursing profession and the future of health care. A full 66% of those surveyed said their experiences during the pandemic have caused them to consider leaving nursing. The respondents’ take on their colleagues was even more concerning. Ninety-two percent agreed with the following two statements: “I believe the pandemic has depleted nurses at my hospital. Their careers will be shorter than they intended.”

“This puts the entire health care system at risk,” says Dr. Bettencourt, assistant professor in the department of family and community health at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia. Intensive care unit (ICU) nurses are highly trained and are skilled in caring for critically ill patients with complex medical needs. “It’s not easy to replace a critical care nurse when one leaves,” she said.

And when nurses leave, patients suffer, said Beth Wathen, MSN, RN, CCRN-K, president of the ACCN and frontline nurse at Children’s Hospital Colorado, in Aurora. “Hospitals can have all the beds and all the rooms and all the equipment they want, but without nurses and others at the front lines to provide that essential care, none of it really matters, whether we’re talking about caring for COVID patients or caring for patients with other health ailments.”
 

Heartbreak of the unvaccinated

The problem is not just overwork because of the flood of COVID-19 patients. The emotional strain is enormous as well. “What’s demoralizing for us is not that patients are sick and that it’s physically exhausting to take care of sick patients. We’re used to that,” said Dr. Bettencourt.

But few nurses have experienced the sheer magnitude of patients caused by this pandemic. “The past 18 months have been grueling,” says Ms. Wathen. “The burden on frontline caregivers and our nurses at the front line has been immense.”

The situation is made worse by how unnecessary much of the suffering is at this point. Seventy-six percent of the survey’s respondents agreed with the following statement: “People who hold out on getting vaccinated undermine nurses’ physical and mental well-being.” That comment doesn’t convey the nature or extent of the effect on caregivers’ well-being. “That 9 out of 10 of the people we’re seeing in ICU right now are unvaccinated just adds to the sense of heartbreak and frustration,” says Ms. Wathen. “These deaths don’t have to be happening right now. And that’s hard to bear witness to.”

The politicization of public health has also taken a toll. “That’s been the hard part of this entire pandemic,” says Ms. Wathen. “This really isn’t at all about politics. This is about your health; this is about my health. This is about our collective health as a community and as a country.”

Like the rest of the world, nurses are also concerned about their own loved ones. The survey statement, “I fear taking care of patients with COVID puts my family’s health at risk,” garnered 67% agreement. Ms. Wathen points out that nurses take the appropriate precautions but still worry about taking infection home to their families. “This disease is a tricky one,” she says. She points out that until this pandemic is over, in addition to being vaccinated, nurses and the public still need to be vigilant about wearing masks, social distancing, and taking other precautions to ensure the safety of us all. “Our individual decisions don’t just affect ourselves. They affect our family, the people in our circle, and the people in our community,” she said.
 

Avoiding a professional exodus

It’s too early yet to have reliable national data on how many nurses have already left their jobs because of COVID-19, but it is clear that there are too few nurses of all kinds. The American Nurses Association sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services urging the agency to declare the nursing shortage a crisis and to take immediate steps to find solutions.

The nursing shortage predates the pandemic, and COVID-19 has brought a simmering problem to the boil. Nurses are calling on the public and the health care system for help. From inside the industry, the needs are pretty much what they were before the pandemic. Dr. Bettencourt and Ms. Wathen point to the need for supportive leadership, healthy work environments, sufficient staffing to meet patients’ needs, and a voice in decisions, such as decisions about staffing, that affect nurses and their patients. Nurses want to be heard and appreciated. “It’s not that these are new things,” said Dr. Bettencourt. “We just need them even more now because we’re stressed even more than we were before.”

Critical care nurses have a different request of the public. They’re asking – pleading, actually – with the public to get vaccinated, wear masks in public, practice social distancing, and bring this pandemic to an end.

“COVID kills, and it’s a really difficult, tragic, and lonely death,” said Ms. Wathen. “We’ve witnessed hundreds of thousands of those deaths. But now we have a way to stop it. If many more people get vaccinated, we can stop this pandemic. And hopefully that will stop this current trend of nurses leaving.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In the best of times, critical care nurses have one of the most difficult and stressful jobs in health care. The COVID-19 pandemic has made that immeasurably worse. As hospitals have been flooded with critically ill patients, nurses have been overwhelmed.

“What we’re hearing from our nurses is really shocking,” Amanda Bettencourt, PhD, APRN, CCRN-K, president-elect of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), said in an interview. “They’re saying they’re at the breaking point.”

Between Aug. 26 and Aug. 30, the AACN surveyed more than 6,000 critical care nurses, zeroing in on four key questions regarding the pandemic and its impact on nursing. The results were alarming – not only with regard to individual nurses but also for the nursing profession and the future of health care. A full 66% of those surveyed said their experiences during the pandemic have caused them to consider leaving nursing. The respondents’ take on their colleagues was even more concerning. Ninety-two percent agreed with the following two statements: “I believe the pandemic has depleted nurses at my hospital. Their careers will be shorter than they intended.”

“This puts the entire health care system at risk,” says Dr. Bettencourt, assistant professor in the department of family and community health at the University of Pennsylvania School of Nursing, Philadelphia. Intensive care unit (ICU) nurses are highly trained and are skilled in caring for critically ill patients with complex medical needs. “It’s not easy to replace a critical care nurse when one leaves,” she said.

And when nurses leave, patients suffer, said Beth Wathen, MSN, RN, CCRN-K, president of the ACCN and frontline nurse at Children’s Hospital Colorado, in Aurora. “Hospitals can have all the beds and all the rooms and all the equipment they want, but without nurses and others at the front lines to provide that essential care, none of it really matters, whether we’re talking about caring for COVID patients or caring for patients with other health ailments.”
 

Heartbreak of the unvaccinated

The problem is not just overwork because of the flood of COVID-19 patients. The emotional strain is enormous as well. “What’s demoralizing for us is not that patients are sick and that it’s physically exhausting to take care of sick patients. We’re used to that,” said Dr. Bettencourt.

But few nurses have experienced the sheer magnitude of patients caused by this pandemic. “The past 18 months have been grueling,” says Ms. Wathen. “The burden on frontline caregivers and our nurses at the front line has been immense.”

The situation is made worse by how unnecessary much of the suffering is at this point. Seventy-six percent of the survey’s respondents agreed with the following statement: “People who hold out on getting vaccinated undermine nurses’ physical and mental well-being.” That comment doesn’t convey the nature or extent of the effect on caregivers’ well-being. “That 9 out of 10 of the people we’re seeing in ICU right now are unvaccinated just adds to the sense of heartbreak and frustration,” says Ms. Wathen. “These deaths don’t have to be happening right now. And that’s hard to bear witness to.”

The politicization of public health has also taken a toll. “That’s been the hard part of this entire pandemic,” says Ms. Wathen. “This really isn’t at all about politics. This is about your health; this is about my health. This is about our collective health as a community and as a country.”

Like the rest of the world, nurses are also concerned about their own loved ones. The survey statement, “I fear taking care of patients with COVID puts my family’s health at risk,” garnered 67% agreement. Ms. Wathen points out that nurses take the appropriate precautions but still worry about taking infection home to their families. “This disease is a tricky one,” she says. She points out that until this pandemic is over, in addition to being vaccinated, nurses and the public still need to be vigilant about wearing masks, social distancing, and taking other precautions to ensure the safety of us all. “Our individual decisions don’t just affect ourselves. They affect our family, the people in our circle, and the people in our community,” she said.
 

Avoiding a professional exodus

It’s too early yet to have reliable national data on how many nurses have already left their jobs because of COVID-19, but it is clear that there are too few nurses of all kinds. The American Nurses Association sent a letter to the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services urging the agency to declare the nursing shortage a crisis and to take immediate steps to find solutions.

The nursing shortage predates the pandemic, and COVID-19 has brought a simmering problem to the boil. Nurses are calling on the public and the health care system for help. From inside the industry, the needs are pretty much what they were before the pandemic. Dr. Bettencourt and Ms. Wathen point to the need for supportive leadership, healthy work environments, sufficient staffing to meet patients’ needs, and a voice in decisions, such as decisions about staffing, that affect nurses and their patients. Nurses want to be heard and appreciated. “It’s not that these are new things,” said Dr. Bettencourt. “We just need them even more now because we’re stressed even more than we were before.”

Critical care nurses have a different request of the public. They’re asking – pleading, actually – with the public to get vaccinated, wear masks in public, practice social distancing, and bring this pandemic to an end.

“COVID kills, and it’s a really difficult, tragic, and lonely death,” said Ms. Wathen. “We’ve witnessed hundreds of thousands of those deaths. But now we have a way to stop it. If many more people get vaccinated, we can stop this pandemic. And hopefully that will stop this current trend of nurses leaving.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Top 10 things to know about the AHA ACLS 2020 updates¹

1. There were no changes to the 2015 cardiac arrest algorithms.

2. The 2020 adult bradycardia algorithm increased the atropine dose to 1 mg (from 0.5-1 mg) but maintains the same frequency of dosing as every 3-5 minutes with max dose of 3 mg.

3. Epinephrine was reaffirmed. Specifically, give epinephrine as soon as possible in nonshockable rhythms (pulseless electrical activity and asystole). In shockable rhythms (ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia), the timing is less clear but it is reasonable to give the first dose after initial defibrillation attempts have failed. Currently the shockable rhythms algorithm has the first dose of epinephrine given after the second shock.

4. Giving medications intravenously is preferred over intraosseous (IO) cannulation because of some small observational studies that showed worsened outcomes with IO delivery. Try to get an IV if possible, but can still use IO if necessary. Central venous catheters are still not recommended during a code unless no other access can be obtained.

5. Double sequential defibrillation in refractory VF, which is the application of two sets of pads using two defibrillators to provide defibrillation either in rapid succession or at the same time, is not recommended because of lack of evidence.

6. It is reasonable to use physiological parameters such as arterial blood pressure or end-tidal CO₂ (EtCO₂) to monitor CPR quality. Goal EtCO₂ is greater than 10 but ideally greater 20 mm Hg, so if you’re not reaching that ideal goal, push harder and/or faster! Of note, to use arterial blood pressure monitoring you must have an arterial line in place and to get adequate EtCO2 monitoring, the patient must be intubated with an EtCO₂ monitor attached.

7. The need for intubation and the ideal timing are still unknown. The American Heart Association recommends either bag valve mask or an advanced airway.

8. In pregnant patients who develop cardiac arrest, focus on high-quality CPR and relief of aortocaval compression through left lateral uterine displacement while the patient is supine. This means that someone on the team stands on the left side of the patient and cups the uterus, pulling it up and leftward. Alternately, if standing on the right of the patient, push the uterus left and upward off of the maternal vessels.

9. AHA released new algorithms for opioid overdose given the current crisis. There is an absence of proven naloxone benefit in cardiac arrest so focus on standard resuscitative efforts and do not wait for effects of naloxone before initiating CPR. However, naloxone is still reasonable to give if overdose is suspected.

10. Clinicians should wait a minimum of 72 hours after return to normothermia before performing multimodal neuroprognostication. This allows for confounding factors (that is, meds) to hopefully be removed for improved accuracy.

Top 5 things that differ in a COVID-19+/PUI cardiac arrest case²

1. Don adequate personal protective equipment prior to entering the room. This might create a necessary delay in care.

2. Use a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter on all airway modalities.

3. Intubate as early as possible by someone highly experienced and place the patient on a ventilator with HEPA filter while undergoing resuscitation. This decreases aerosolization risk.

4. Use a mechanical CPR device if possible. This results in less people needed in the room.

5. If a patient is NOT intubated but is prone when they arrest, safely turn them supine and perform resuscitative effort. If a patient is intubated and prone when they arrest: If unable to safely turn them, place the pads in the AP position and perform compressions over T7-T10 vertebral bodies. Evidence for this is extremely limited but comes from a small pilot study which showed that reverse CPR generated a higher mean arterial pressure, compared with standard resuscitation.³

Dr. Allen is assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

References

1. Merchant RM et al. Part 1: Executive Summary: 2020 American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation. 2020 Oct 21;142:S337-57. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000918.

2. Edelson DP et al. Interim guidance for basic and advanced life support in adults, children, and neonates with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. 2020 Jun 23;141(25):e933-43. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047463.

3. Mazer SP et al. Reverse CPR: A pilot study of CPR in the prone position. Resuscitation. 2003 Jun;57(3):279-85. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(03)00037-6.

Top 10 things to know about the AHA ACLS 2020 updates¹

1. There were no changes to the 2015 cardiac arrest algorithms.

2. The 2020 adult bradycardia algorithm increased the atropine dose to 1 mg (from 0.5-1 mg) but maintains the same frequency of dosing as every 3-5 minutes with max dose of 3 mg.

3. Epinephrine was reaffirmed. Specifically, give epinephrine as soon as possible in nonshockable rhythms (pulseless electrical activity and asystole). In shockable rhythms (ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia), the timing is less clear but it is reasonable to give the first dose after initial defibrillation attempts have failed. Currently the shockable rhythms algorithm has the first dose of epinephrine given after the second shock.

4. Giving medications intravenously is preferred over intraosseous (IO) cannulation because of some small observational studies that showed worsened outcomes with IO delivery. Try to get an IV if possible, but can still use IO if necessary. Central venous catheters are still not recommended during a code unless no other access can be obtained.

5. Double sequential defibrillation in refractory VF, which is the application of two sets of pads using two defibrillators to provide defibrillation either in rapid succession or at the same time, is not recommended because of lack of evidence.

6. It is reasonable to use physiological parameters such as arterial blood pressure or end-tidal CO₂ (EtCO₂) to monitor CPR quality. Goal EtCO₂ is greater than 10 but ideally greater 20 mm Hg, so if you’re not reaching that ideal goal, push harder and/or faster! Of note, to use arterial blood pressure monitoring you must have an arterial line in place and to get adequate EtCO2 monitoring, the patient must be intubated with an EtCO₂ monitor attached.

7. The need for intubation and the ideal timing are still unknown. The American Heart Association recommends either bag valve mask or an advanced airway.

8. In pregnant patients who develop cardiac arrest, focus on high-quality CPR and relief of aortocaval compression through left lateral uterine displacement while the patient is supine. This means that someone on the team stands on the left side of the patient and cups the uterus, pulling it up and leftward. Alternately, if standing on the right of the patient, push the uterus left and upward off of the maternal vessels.

9. AHA released new algorithms for opioid overdose given the current crisis. There is an absence of proven naloxone benefit in cardiac arrest so focus on standard resuscitative efforts and do not wait for effects of naloxone before initiating CPR. However, naloxone is still reasonable to give if overdose is suspected.

10. Clinicians should wait a minimum of 72 hours after return to normothermia before performing multimodal neuroprognostication. This allows for confounding factors (that is, meds) to hopefully be removed for improved accuracy.

Top 5 things that differ in a COVID-19+/PUI cardiac arrest case²

1. Don adequate personal protective equipment prior to entering the room. This might create a necessary delay in care.

2. Use a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter on all airway modalities.

3. Intubate as early as possible by someone highly experienced and place the patient on a ventilator with HEPA filter while undergoing resuscitation. This decreases aerosolization risk.

4. Use a mechanical CPR device if possible. This results in less people needed in the room.

5. If a patient is NOT intubated but is prone when they arrest, safely turn them supine and perform resuscitative effort. If a patient is intubated and prone when they arrest: If unable to safely turn them, place the pads in the AP position and perform compressions over T7-T10 vertebral bodies. Evidence for this is extremely limited but comes from a small pilot study which showed that reverse CPR generated a higher mean arterial pressure, compared with standard resuscitation.³

Dr. Allen is assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

References

1. Merchant RM et al. Part 1: Executive Summary: 2020 American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation. 2020 Oct 21;142:S337-57. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000918.

2. Edelson DP et al. Interim guidance for basic and advanced life support in adults, children, and neonates with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. 2020 Jun 23;141(25):e933-43. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047463.

3. Mazer SP et al. Reverse CPR: A pilot study of CPR in the prone position. Resuscitation. 2003 Jun;57(3):279-85. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(03)00037-6.

Top 10 things to know about the AHA ACLS 2020 updates¹

1. There were no changes to the 2015 cardiac arrest algorithms.

2. The 2020 adult bradycardia algorithm increased the atropine dose to 1 mg (from 0.5-1 mg) but maintains the same frequency of dosing as every 3-5 minutes with max dose of 3 mg.

3. Epinephrine was reaffirmed. Specifically, give epinephrine as soon as possible in nonshockable rhythms (pulseless electrical activity and asystole). In shockable rhythms (ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia), the timing is less clear but it is reasonable to give the first dose after initial defibrillation attempts have failed. Currently the shockable rhythms algorithm has the first dose of epinephrine given after the second shock.

4. Giving medications intravenously is preferred over intraosseous (IO) cannulation because of some small observational studies that showed worsened outcomes with IO delivery. Try to get an IV if possible, but can still use IO if necessary. Central venous catheters are still not recommended during a code unless no other access can be obtained.

5. Double sequential defibrillation in refractory VF, which is the application of two sets of pads using two defibrillators to provide defibrillation either in rapid succession or at the same time, is not recommended because of lack of evidence.

6. It is reasonable to use physiological parameters such as arterial blood pressure or end-tidal CO₂ (EtCO₂) to monitor CPR quality. Goal EtCO₂ is greater than 10 but ideally greater 20 mm Hg, so if you’re not reaching that ideal goal, push harder and/or faster! Of note, to use arterial blood pressure monitoring you must have an arterial line in place and to get adequate EtCO2 monitoring, the patient must be intubated with an EtCO₂ monitor attached.

7. The need for intubation and the ideal timing are still unknown. The American Heart Association recommends either bag valve mask or an advanced airway.

8. In pregnant patients who develop cardiac arrest, focus on high-quality CPR and relief of aortocaval compression through left lateral uterine displacement while the patient is supine. This means that someone on the team stands on the left side of the patient and cups the uterus, pulling it up and leftward. Alternately, if standing on the right of the patient, push the uterus left and upward off of the maternal vessels.

9. AHA released new algorithms for opioid overdose given the current crisis. There is an absence of proven naloxone benefit in cardiac arrest so focus on standard resuscitative efforts and do not wait for effects of naloxone before initiating CPR. However, naloxone is still reasonable to give if overdose is suspected.

10. Clinicians should wait a minimum of 72 hours after return to normothermia before performing multimodal neuroprognostication. This allows for confounding factors (that is, meds) to hopefully be removed for improved accuracy.

Top 5 things that differ in a COVID-19+/PUI cardiac arrest case²

1. Don adequate personal protective equipment prior to entering the room. This might create a necessary delay in care.

2. Use a high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter on all airway modalities.

3. Intubate as early as possible by someone highly experienced and place the patient on a ventilator with HEPA filter while undergoing resuscitation. This decreases aerosolization risk.

4. Use a mechanical CPR device if possible. This results in less people needed in the room.

5. If a patient is NOT intubated but is prone when they arrest, safely turn them supine and perform resuscitative effort. If a patient is intubated and prone when they arrest: If unable to safely turn them, place the pads in the AP position and perform compressions over T7-T10 vertebral bodies. Evidence for this is extremely limited but comes from a small pilot study which showed that reverse CPR generated a higher mean arterial pressure, compared with standard resuscitation.³

Dr. Allen is assistant professor of medicine in the division of hospital medicine at Emory University, Atlanta.

References

1. Merchant RM et al. Part 1: Executive Summary: 2020 American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation. 2020 Oct 21;142:S337-57. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000918.

2. Edelson DP et al. Interim guidance for basic and advanced life support in adults, children, and neonates with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. 2020 Jun 23;141(25):e933-43. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.047463.

3. Mazer SP et al. Reverse CPR: A pilot study of CPR in the prone position. Resuscitation. 2003 Jun;57(3):279-85. doi: 10.1016/s0300-9572(03)00037-6.

The family of an Alabama man used his obituary to plead with people to become vaccinated against COVID-19.

Ray Martin DeMonia, 73, of Cullman, Alabama, ran an antiques business for 40 years and served as an auctioneer at charity events, the obituary said.

He had a stroke in 2020 during the first months of the COVID pandemic and made sure to get vaccinated, his daughter, Raven DeMonia, told The Washington Post.

“He knew what the vaccine meant for his health and what it meant to staying alive,” she said. “He said, ‘I just want to get back to shaking hands with people, selling stuff, and talking antiques.’”

His daughter told the Post that her father went to Cullman Regional Medical Center on Aug. 23 with heart problems.

About 12 hours after he was admitted, her mother got a call from the hospital saying they’d called 43 hospitals and were unable to find a “specialized cardiac ICU bed” for him, Ms. DeMonia told the Post.

He was finally airlifted to Rush Foundation Hospital in Meridian, Mississippi, almost 200 miles from his home, but died there Sept. 1. His family decided to make a plea for increased vaccinations in his obituary.

“In honor of Ray, please get vaccinated if you have not, in an effort to free up resources for non COVID related emergencies,” the obit said. “Due to COVID 19, CRMC emergency staff contacted 43 hospitals in 3 states in search of a Cardiac ICU bed and finally located one in Meridian, MS. He would not want any other family to go through what his did.”

Mr. DeMonia is survived by his wife, daughter, grandson, and other family members.

The Alabama Hospital Association says state hospitals are still short of ICU beds. On Sept. 12, the AHA website said the state had 1,530 staffed ICU beds to accommodate 1,541 ICU patients.

The AHA said 83% of COVID patients in ICU had not been vaccinated against COVID, 4% were partially vaccinated, and 13% were fully vaccinated. Alabama trails other states in vaccination rates. Newsweek, citing CDC data, said 53.7% of people in Alabama were fully vaccinated. In comparison, 53.8% of all Americans nationally are fully vaccinated.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The family of an Alabama man used his obituary to plead with people to become vaccinated against COVID-19.

Ray Martin DeMonia, 73, of Cullman, Alabama, ran an antiques business for 40 years and served as an auctioneer at charity events, the obituary said.

He had a stroke in 2020 during the first months of the COVID pandemic and made sure to get vaccinated, his daughter, Raven DeMonia, told The Washington Post.

“He knew what the vaccine meant for his health and what it meant to staying alive,” she said. “He said, ‘I just want to get back to shaking hands with people, selling stuff, and talking antiques.’”

His daughter told the Post that her father went to Cullman Regional Medical Center on Aug. 23 with heart problems.

About 12 hours after he was admitted, her mother got a call from the hospital saying they’d called 43 hospitals and were unable to find a “specialized cardiac ICU bed” for him, Ms. DeMonia told the Post.

He was finally airlifted to Rush Foundation Hospital in Meridian, Mississippi, almost 200 miles from his home, but died there Sept. 1. His family decided to make a plea for increased vaccinations in his obituary.

“In honor of Ray, please get vaccinated if you have not, in an effort to free up resources for non COVID related emergencies,” the obit said. “Due to COVID 19, CRMC emergency staff contacted 43 hospitals in 3 states in search of a Cardiac ICU bed and finally located one in Meridian, MS. He would not want any other family to go through what his did.”

Mr. DeMonia is survived by his wife, daughter, grandson, and other family members.

The Alabama Hospital Association says state hospitals are still short of ICU beds. On Sept. 12, the AHA website said the state had 1,530 staffed ICU beds to accommodate 1,541 ICU patients.

The AHA said 83% of COVID patients in ICU had not been vaccinated against COVID, 4% were partially vaccinated, and 13% were fully vaccinated. Alabama trails other states in vaccination rates. Newsweek, citing CDC data, said 53.7% of people in Alabama were fully vaccinated. In comparison, 53.8% of all Americans nationally are fully vaccinated.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The family of an Alabama man used his obituary to plead with people to become vaccinated against COVID-19.

Ray Martin DeMonia, 73, of Cullman, Alabama, ran an antiques business for 40 years and served as an auctioneer at charity events, the obituary said.

He had a stroke in 2020 during the first months of the COVID pandemic and made sure to get vaccinated, his daughter, Raven DeMonia, told The Washington Post.

“He knew what the vaccine meant for his health and what it meant to staying alive,” she said. “He said, ‘I just want to get back to shaking hands with people, selling stuff, and talking antiques.’”

His daughter told the Post that her father went to Cullman Regional Medical Center on Aug. 23 with heart problems.

About 12 hours after he was admitted, her mother got a call from the hospital saying they’d called 43 hospitals and were unable to find a “specialized cardiac ICU bed” for him, Ms. DeMonia told the Post.

He was finally airlifted to Rush Foundation Hospital in Meridian, Mississippi, almost 200 miles from his home, but died there Sept. 1. His family decided to make a plea for increased vaccinations in his obituary.

“In honor of Ray, please get vaccinated if you have not, in an effort to free up resources for non COVID related emergencies,” the obit said. “Due to COVID 19, CRMC emergency staff contacted 43 hospitals in 3 states in search of a Cardiac ICU bed and finally located one in Meridian, MS. He would not want any other family to go through what his did.”

Mr. DeMonia is survived by his wife, daughter, grandson, and other family members.

The Alabama Hospital Association says state hospitals are still short of ICU beds. On Sept. 12, the AHA website said the state had 1,530 staffed ICU beds to accommodate 1,541 ICU patients.

The AHA said 83% of COVID patients in ICU had not been vaccinated against COVID, 4% were partially vaccinated, and 13% were fully vaccinated. Alabama trails other states in vaccination rates. Newsweek, citing CDC data, said 53.7% of people in Alabama were fully vaccinated. In comparison, 53.8% of all Americans nationally are fully vaccinated.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The 30-day mortality rate was significantly lower among hospitalized patients treated by full-time clinicians, compared with those treated by part-time clinicians, in a new study.

The number of physicians working part time in the United States has increased by nearly 11% since 1993, and as more physicians opt for part-time work, quality of care deserves further study, the investigators wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine. Most studies comparing outcomes for patients treated by full-timers and part-timers have focused on outpatient care settings, where mortality is low and the potential for confounding is high, according to the study authors Hirotaka Kato, PhD, of Keio University in Tokyo, and colleagues. The new study, in contrast, is based on data from nearly 400,000 hospitalizations.

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis on a 20% random sample of Medicare patients aged 65 years and older who were treated by a hospitalist for an emergency medical condition between 2011 and 2016. They examined associations between the number of days per year worked by hospitalists and they 30-day mortality rates among the patients they treated. The researchers analyzed a total of 392,797 hospitalizations in which patients were treated by 19,170 hospitalists. The mean age of the hospitalists was 41 years; 39% were female. Clinician work days were divided into quartiles.

Overall, the 30-day mortality was significantly higher among patients treated by clinicians in the bottom quartile with the fewest number of days worked, compared with those treated by clinicians in the top quartile with the most days worked (10.5% vs. 9.6%). The rates were similar in the second and third quartiles (10.0% and 9.5%).

The average number of days worked clinically per year was 57.6 in the lowest quartile versus 163.3 in the highest quartile, a 65% difference. No significant associations were noted between days worked and patient outcomes with regard to physician age, gender, or hospital teaching status.

Hospital 30-day readmission rates were examined as a secondary outcome, but there was no association between patient readmission and the number of days worked by the clinician. The adjusted 30-day readmission rate for clinicians in the bottom quartile of days worked, compared with those in the top quartile, was 15.3% versus 15.2% (P = .61).

The researchers found no difference in patients’ severity of illness (defined by expected mortality) or reason for admission between physicians in the different quartiles of days worked. They eliminated confounding from hospital-level differences by comparing outcomes of patients between physicians in the same hospital.
 

Possible explanations for worse patient outcomes

“As the number of physicians who engage in part-time clinical work continues to increase, these findings should lead to careful consideration by health systems to reevaluate preventive measures to address potential unintended patient harm,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers proposed several reasons for the association between fewer clinical work days and worse patient outcomes. First, physicians putting in less clinical time may be less updated on the latest guidelines, their skills may decline with less frequent patient care, and they may be less familiar with the nurses, medical assistants, and support staff, which may contribute to poor teamwork. The researchers also stated that some part-time physicians may need to balance nonclinical responsibilities, such as research or administrative tasks, concurrently with inpatient care. “It is also possible that physicians with less clinical knowledge or skills select to become part-time physicians, whereas physicians with higher clinical performance decide to work full time,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design and potential for unmeasured confounding variables, and the results may not generalize to younger patients or surgical patients, the researchers noted. Also, the study did not include care by hospitalists that was not billed, days in which clinicians treated non-Medicare patients or patients not part of the Medicare sample, or information about the reasons for clinicians’ part-time work.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, and suggest the need for better institutional support to maintain the clinical performance of physicians who may be balancing a range of obligations, they concluded.

Clinician work issues have renewed relevance

“The data in this paper are from 2016 and earlier, but it is possibly event more relevant today than then,” Eileen Barrett, MD, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “The pandemic has exacerbated stressors being experienced by physicians and other health care workers, including higher clinical workloads and burnout, and spotlighted gendered effects on women in the workforce, which is likely to drive more physicians to part-time work.

“Reporting these findings now is so important so they can contribute to a shared mental model of the challenges physicians and hospitals face as we seek solutions to deliver high-quality and high-value care with an engaged, professionally fulfilled workforce,” she emphasized.

Dr. Barrett said she was surprised that the study did not show differences in readmission rates depending on the number of shifts worked, and also that the results were not different when considering expected mortality.

“However unpopular it may be to say so, physicians and administrators should assume these results apply to their practice unless they have examined their own data and know it does not,” Dr. Barrett said. “With that in mind, hospitals, administrators, and regulatory bodies have an urgent need to examine and reduce the forces driving physicians to part-time clinical work. Some of these factors include the absence of childcare, excessive paperwork, burnout, administrative duties, and valued experiences such as teaching, leadership, and research that keep clinicians from the bedside.

“Additionally, steps should be taken to reduce the administrative complexity that makes providing the best care to patients difficult and requires hospitalists to create ‘workarounds,’ because those who work fewer clinical hours may not know how to do these, nor how to advocate for their patients,” Dr. Barrett emphasized.

“Additional research is needed to determine how mortality varies by number of clinical shifts for pediatric and obstetric patients who are infrequently covered by Medicare, also how the pandemic and increasing administrative complexity since the time the data was obtained affect patient care,” Dr. Barrett noted.

The study was supported by a grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science to lead author Dr. Kato, who had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Barrett, who serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News, had no financial conflicts.

The 30-day mortality rate was significantly lower among hospitalized patients treated by full-time clinicians, compared with those treated by part-time clinicians, in a new study.

The number of physicians working part time in the United States has increased by nearly 11% since 1993, and as more physicians opt for part-time work, quality of care deserves further study, the investigators wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine. Most studies comparing outcomes for patients treated by full-timers and part-timers have focused on outpatient care settings, where mortality is low and the potential for confounding is high, according to the study authors Hirotaka Kato, PhD, of Keio University in Tokyo, and colleagues. The new study, in contrast, is based on data from nearly 400,000 hospitalizations.

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis on a 20% random sample of Medicare patients aged 65 years and older who were treated by a hospitalist for an emergency medical condition between 2011 and 2016. They examined associations between the number of days per year worked by hospitalists and they 30-day mortality rates among the patients they treated. The researchers analyzed a total of 392,797 hospitalizations in which patients were treated by 19,170 hospitalists. The mean age of the hospitalists was 41 years; 39% were female. Clinician work days were divided into quartiles.

Overall, the 30-day mortality was significantly higher among patients treated by clinicians in the bottom quartile with the fewest number of days worked, compared with those treated by clinicians in the top quartile with the most days worked (10.5% vs. 9.6%). The rates were similar in the second and third quartiles (10.0% and 9.5%).

The average number of days worked clinically per year was 57.6 in the lowest quartile versus 163.3 in the highest quartile, a 65% difference. No significant associations were noted between days worked and patient outcomes with regard to physician age, gender, or hospital teaching status.

Hospital 30-day readmission rates were examined as a secondary outcome, but there was no association between patient readmission and the number of days worked by the clinician. The adjusted 30-day readmission rate for clinicians in the bottom quartile of days worked, compared with those in the top quartile, was 15.3% versus 15.2% (P = .61).

The researchers found no difference in patients’ severity of illness (defined by expected mortality) or reason for admission between physicians in the different quartiles of days worked. They eliminated confounding from hospital-level differences by comparing outcomes of patients between physicians in the same hospital.
 

Possible explanations for worse patient outcomes

“As the number of physicians who engage in part-time clinical work continues to increase, these findings should lead to careful consideration by health systems to reevaluate preventive measures to address potential unintended patient harm,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers proposed several reasons for the association between fewer clinical work days and worse patient outcomes. First, physicians putting in less clinical time may be less updated on the latest guidelines, their skills may decline with less frequent patient care, and they may be less familiar with the nurses, medical assistants, and support staff, which may contribute to poor teamwork. The researchers also stated that some part-time physicians may need to balance nonclinical responsibilities, such as research or administrative tasks, concurrently with inpatient care. “It is also possible that physicians with less clinical knowledge or skills select to become part-time physicians, whereas physicians with higher clinical performance decide to work full time,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design and potential for unmeasured confounding variables, and the results may not generalize to younger patients or surgical patients, the researchers noted. Also, the study did not include care by hospitalists that was not billed, days in which clinicians treated non-Medicare patients or patients not part of the Medicare sample, or information about the reasons for clinicians’ part-time work.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, and suggest the need for better institutional support to maintain the clinical performance of physicians who may be balancing a range of obligations, they concluded.

Clinician work issues have renewed relevance

“The data in this paper are from 2016 and earlier, but it is possibly event more relevant today than then,” Eileen Barrett, MD, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “The pandemic has exacerbated stressors being experienced by physicians and other health care workers, including higher clinical workloads and burnout, and spotlighted gendered effects on women in the workforce, which is likely to drive more physicians to part-time work.

“Reporting these findings now is so important so they can contribute to a shared mental model of the challenges physicians and hospitals face as we seek solutions to deliver high-quality and high-value care with an engaged, professionally fulfilled workforce,” she emphasized.

Dr. Barrett said she was surprised that the study did not show differences in readmission rates depending on the number of shifts worked, and also that the results were not different when considering expected mortality.

“However unpopular it may be to say so, physicians and administrators should assume these results apply to their practice unless they have examined their own data and know it does not,” Dr. Barrett said. “With that in mind, hospitals, administrators, and regulatory bodies have an urgent need to examine and reduce the forces driving physicians to part-time clinical work. Some of these factors include the absence of childcare, excessive paperwork, burnout, administrative duties, and valued experiences such as teaching, leadership, and research that keep clinicians from the bedside.

“Additionally, steps should be taken to reduce the administrative complexity that makes providing the best care to patients difficult and requires hospitalists to create ‘workarounds,’ because those who work fewer clinical hours may not know how to do these, nor how to advocate for their patients,” Dr. Barrett emphasized.

“Additional research is needed to determine how mortality varies by number of clinical shifts for pediatric and obstetric patients who are infrequently covered by Medicare, also how the pandemic and increasing administrative complexity since the time the data was obtained affect patient care,” Dr. Barrett noted.

The study was supported by a grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science to lead author Dr. Kato, who had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Barrett, who serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News, had no financial conflicts.

The 30-day mortality rate was significantly lower among hospitalized patients treated by full-time clinicians, compared with those treated by part-time clinicians, in a new study.

The number of physicians working part time in the United States has increased by nearly 11% since 1993, and as more physicians opt for part-time work, quality of care deserves further study, the investigators wrote in JAMA Internal Medicine. Most studies comparing outcomes for patients treated by full-timers and part-timers have focused on outpatient care settings, where mortality is low and the potential for confounding is high, according to the study authors Hirotaka Kato, PhD, of Keio University in Tokyo, and colleagues. The new study, in contrast, is based on data from nearly 400,000 hospitalizations.

The researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis on a 20% random sample of Medicare patients aged 65 years and older who were treated by a hospitalist for an emergency medical condition between 2011 and 2016. They examined associations between the number of days per year worked by hospitalists and they 30-day mortality rates among the patients they treated. The researchers analyzed a total of 392,797 hospitalizations in which patients were treated by 19,170 hospitalists. The mean age of the hospitalists was 41 years; 39% were female. Clinician work days were divided into quartiles.

Overall, the 30-day mortality was significantly higher among patients treated by clinicians in the bottom quartile with the fewest number of days worked, compared with those treated by clinicians in the top quartile with the most days worked (10.5% vs. 9.6%). The rates were similar in the second and third quartiles (10.0% and 9.5%).

The average number of days worked clinically per year was 57.6 in the lowest quartile versus 163.3 in the highest quartile, a 65% difference. No significant associations were noted between days worked and patient outcomes with regard to physician age, gender, or hospital teaching status.

Hospital 30-day readmission rates were examined as a secondary outcome, but there was no association between patient readmission and the number of days worked by the clinician. The adjusted 30-day readmission rate for clinicians in the bottom quartile of days worked, compared with those in the top quartile, was 15.3% versus 15.2% (P = .61).

The researchers found no difference in patients’ severity of illness (defined by expected mortality) or reason for admission between physicians in the different quartiles of days worked. They eliminated confounding from hospital-level differences by comparing outcomes of patients between physicians in the same hospital.
 

Possible explanations for worse patient outcomes

“As the number of physicians who engage in part-time clinical work continues to increase, these findings should lead to careful consideration by health systems to reevaluate preventive measures to address potential unintended patient harm,” the researchers wrote.

The researchers proposed several reasons for the association between fewer clinical work days and worse patient outcomes. First, physicians putting in less clinical time may be less updated on the latest guidelines, their skills may decline with less frequent patient care, and they may be less familiar with the nurses, medical assistants, and support staff, which may contribute to poor teamwork. The researchers also stated that some part-time physicians may need to balance nonclinical responsibilities, such as research or administrative tasks, concurrently with inpatient care. “It is also possible that physicians with less clinical knowledge or skills select to become part-time physicians, whereas physicians with higher clinical performance decide to work full time,” they noted.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the observational design and potential for unmeasured confounding variables, and the results may not generalize to younger patients or surgical patients, the researchers noted. Also, the study did not include care by hospitalists that was not billed, days in which clinicians treated non-Medicare patients or patients not part of the Medicare sample, or information about the reasons for clinicians’ part-time work.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size, and suggest the need for better institutional support to maintain the clinical performance of physicians who may be balancing a range of obligations, they concluded.

Clinician work issues have renewed relevance

“The data in this paper are from 2016 and earlier, but it is possibly event more relevant today than then,” Eileen Barrett, MD, of the University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, said in an interview. “The pandemic has exacerbated stressors being experienced by physicians and other health care workers, including higher clinical workloads and burnout, and spotlighted gendered effects on women in the workforce, which is likely to drive more physicians to part-time work.

“Reporting these findings now is so important so they can contribute to a shared mental model of the challenges physicians and hospitals face as we seek solutions to deliver high-quality and high-value care with an engaged, professionally fulfilled workforce,” she emphasized.

Dr. Barrett said she was surprised that the study did not show differences in readmission rates depending on the number of shifts worked, and also that the results were not different when considering expected mortality.

“However unpopular it may be to say so, physicians and administrators should assume these results apply to their practice unless they have examined their own data and know it does not,” Dr. Barrett said. “With that in mind, hospitals, administrators, and regulatory bodies have an urgent need to examine and reduce the forces driving physicians to part-time clinical work. Some of these factors include the absence of childcare, excessive paperwork, burnout, administrative duties, and valued experiences such as teaching, leadership, and research that keep clinicians from the bedside.

“Additionally, steps should be taken to reduce the administrative complexity that makes providing the best care to patients difficult and requires hospitalists to create ‘workarounds,’ because those who work fewer clinical hours may not know how to do these, nor how to advocate for their patients,” Dr. Barrett emphasized.

“Additional research is needed to determine how mortality varies by number of clinical shifts for pediatric and obstetric patients who are infrequently covered by Medicare, also how the pandemic and increasing administrative complexity since the time the data was obtained affect patient care,” Dr. Barrett noted.

The study was supported by a grant from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science to lead author Dr. Kato, who had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Barrett, who serves on the editorial advisory board of Internal Medicine News, had no financial conflicts.

Jessica Gosnell, MD, 41, from Portland, Oregon, lives daily with the knowledge that her rare disease — a form of hereditary angioedema — could cause a sudden, severe swelling in her throat that could require quick intubation and land her in an intensive care unit (ICU) for days.

“I’ve been hospitalized for throat swells three times in the last year,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Gosnell no longer practices medicine because of a combination of illnesses, but lives with her husband, Andrew, and two young children, and said they are all “terrified” she will have to go to the hospital amid a COVID-19 surge that had shrunk the number of available ICU beds to 152 from 780 in Oregon as of Aug. 30. Thirty percent of the beds are in use for patients with COVID-19.

She said her life depends on being near hospitals that have ICUs and having access to highly specialized medications, one of which can cost up to $50,000 for the rescue dose.

Her fear has her “literally living bedbound.” In addition to hereditary angioedema, she has Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which weakens connective tissue. She wears a cervical collar 24/7 to keep from tearing tissues, as any tissue injury can trigger a swell.
 

Patients worry there won’t be room

As ICU beds in most states are filling with COVID-19 patients as the Delta variant spreads, fears are rising among people like Dr. Gosnell, who have chronic conditions and diseases with unpredictable emergency visits, who worry that if they need emergency care there won’t be room.

As of Aug. 30, in the United States, 79% of ICU beds nationally were in use, 30% of them for COVID-19 patients, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

In individual states, the picture is dire. Alabama has fewer than 10% of its ICU beds open across the entire state. In Florida, 93% of ICU beds are filled, 53% of them with COVID patients. In Louisiana, 87% of beds were already in use, 45% of them with COVID patients, just as category 4 hurricane Ida smashed into the coastline on Aug. 29.

News reports have told of people transported and airlifted as hospitals reach capacity.

In Bellville, Tex., U.S. Army veteran Daniel Wilkinson needed advanced care for gallstone pancreatitis that normally would take 30 minutes to treat, his Bellville doctor, Hasan Kakli, MD, told CBS News.

Mr. Wilkinson’s house was three doors from Bellville Hospital, but the hospital was not equipped to treat the condition. Calls to other hospitals found the same answer: no empty ICU beds. After a 7-hour wait on a stretcher, he was airlifted to a Veterans Affairs hospital in Houston, but it was too late. He died on August 22 at age 46.

Dr. Kakli said, “I’ve never lost a patient with this diagnosis. Ever. I’m scared that the next patient I see is someone that I can’t get to where they need to get to. We are playing musical chairs with 100 people and 10 chairs. When the music stops, what happens?”

Also in Texas in August, Joe Valdez, who was shot six times as an unlucky bystander in a domestic dispute, waited for more than a week for surgery at Ben Taub Hospital in Houston, which was over capacity with COVID patients, the Washington Post reported.

Others with chronic diseases fear needing emergency services or even entering a hospital for regular care with the COVID surge.

Nicole Seefeldt, 44, from Easton, Penn., who had a double-lung transplant in 2016, said that she hasn’t been able to see her lung transplant specialists in Philadelphia — an hour-and-a-half drive — for almost 2 years because of fear of contracting COVID. Before the pandemic, she made the trip almost weekly.

“I protect my lungs like they’re children,” she said. 

She relies on her local hospital for care, but has put off some needed care, such as a colonoscopy, and has relied on telemedicine because she wants to limit her hospital exposure.

Ms. Seefeldt now faces an eventual kidney transplant, as her kidney function has been reduced to 20%. In the meantime, she worries she will need emergency care for either her lungs or kidneys.

“For those of us who are chronically ill or disabled, what if we have an emergency that is not COVID-related? Are we going to be able to get a bed? Are we going to be able to get treatment? It’s not just COVID patients who come to the [emergency room],” she said.
 

A pandemic problem

Paul E. Casey, MD, MBA, chief medical officer at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, said that high vaccination rates in Chicago have helped Rush continue to accommodate both non-COVID and COVID patients in the emergency department.

Though the hospital treated a large volume of COVID patients, “The vast majority of people we see and did see through the pandemic were non-COVID patents,” he said.

Dr. Casey said that in the first wave the hospital noticed a concerning drop in patients coming in for strokes and heart attacks — “things we knew hadn’t gone away.”

And the data backs it up. Over the course of the pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Interview Survey found that the percentage of Americans who reported seeing a doctor or health professional fell from 85% at the end of 2019 to about 80% in the first three months of 2021. The survey did not differentiate between in-person visits and telehealth appointments.

Medical practices and patients themselves postponed elective procedures and delayed routine visits during the early months of the crisis.

Patients also reported staying away from hospitals’ emergency departments throughout the pandemic. At the end of 2019, 22% of respondents reported visiting an emergency department in the past year. That dropped to 17% by the end of 2020, and was at 17.7% in the first 3 months of 2021.

Dr. Casey said that, in his hospital’s case, clear messaging became very important to assure patients it was safe to come back. And the message is still critical.

“We want to be loud and clear that patients should continue to seek care for those conditions,” Dr. Casey said. “Deferring healthcare only comes with the long-term sequelae of disease left untreated so we want people to be as proactive in seeking care as they always would be.”

In some cases, fears of entering emergency rooms because of excess patients and risk for infection are keeping some patients from seeking necessary care for minor injuries.

Jim Rickert, MD, an orthopedic surgeon with Indiana University Health in Bloomington, said that some of his patients have expressed fears of coming into the hospital for fractures.

Some patients, particularly elderly patients, he said, are having falls and fractures and wearing slings or braces at home rather than going into the hospital for injuries that need immediate attention.

Bones start healing incorrectly, Dr. Rickert said, and the correction becomes much more difficult.
 

Plea for vaccinations

Dr. Gosnell made a plea posted on her neighborhood news forum for people to get COVID vaccinations.

“It seems to me it’s easy for other people who are not in bodies like mine to take health for granted,” she said. “But there are a lot of us who live in very fragile bodies and our entire life is at the intersection of us and getting healthcare treatment. Small complications to getting treatment can be life altering.”

Dr. Gosnell, Ms. Seefeldt, Dr. Casey, and Dr. Rickert reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Jessica Gosnell, MD, 41, from Portland, Oregon, lives daily with the knowledge that her rare disease — a form of hereditary angioedema — could cause a sudden, severe swelling in her throat that could require quick intubation and land her in an intensive care unit (ICU) for days.

“I’ve been hospitalized for throat swells three times in the last year,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Gosnell no longer practices medicine because of a combination of illnesses, but lives with her husband, Andrew, and two young children, and said they are all “terrified” she will have to go to the hospital amid a COVID-19 surge that had shrunk the number of available ICU beds to 152 from 780 in Oregon as of Aug. 30. Thirty percent of the beds are in use for patients with COVID-19.

She said her life depends on being near hospitals that have ICUs and having access to highly specialized medications, one of which can cost up to $50,000 for the rescue dose.

Her fear has her “literally living bedbound.” In addition to hereditary angioedema, she has Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which weakens connective tissue. She wears a cervical collar 24/7 to keep from tearing tissues, as any tissue injury can trigger a swell.
 

Patients worry there won’t be room

As ICU beds in most states are filling with COVID-19 patients as the Delta variant spreads, fears are rising among people like Dr. Gosnell, who have chronic conditions and diseases with unpredictable emergency visits, who worry that if they need emergency care there won’t be room.

As of Aug. 30, in the United States, 79% of ICU beds nationally were in use, 30% of them for COVID-19 patients, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

In individual states, the picture is dire. Alabama has fewer than 10% of its ICU beds open across the entire state. In Florida, 93% of ICU beds are filled, 53% of them with COVID patients. In Louisiana, 87% of beds were already in use, 45% of them with COVID patients, just as category 4 hurricane Ida smashed into the coastline on Aug. 29.

News reports have told of people transported and airlifted as hospitals reach capacity.

In Bellville, Tex., U.S. Army veteran Daniel Wilkinson needed advanced care for gallstone pancreatitis that normally would take 30 minutes to treat, his Bellville doctor, Hasan Kakli, MD, told CBS News.

Mr. Wilkinson’s house was three doors from Bellville Hospital, but the hospital was not equipped to treat the condition. Calls to other hospitals found the same answer: no empty ICU beds. After a 7-hour wait on a stretcher, he was airlifted to a Veterans Affairs hospital in Houston, but it was too late. He died on August 22 at age 46.

Dr. Kakli said, “I’ve never lost a patient with this diagnosis. Ever. I’m scared that the next patient I see is someone that I can’t get to where they need to get to. We are playing musical chairs with 100 people and 10 chairs. When the music stops, what happens?”

Also in Texas in August, Joe Valdez, who was shot six times as an unlucky bystander in a domestic dispute, waited for more than a week for surgery at Ben Taub Hospital in Houston, which was over capacity with COVID patients, the Washington Post reported.

Others with chronic diseases fear needing emergency services or even entering a hospital for regular care with the COVID surge.

Nicole Seefeldt, 44, from Easton, Penn., who had a double-lung transplant in 2016, said that she hasn’t been able to see her lung transplant specialists in Philadelphia — an hour-and-a-half drive — for almost 2 years because of fear of contracting COVID. Before the pandemic, she made the trip almost weekly.

“I protect my lungs like they’re children,” she said. 

She relies on her local hospital for care, but has put off some needed care, such as a colonoscopy, and has relied on telemedicine because she wants to limit her hospital exposure.

Ms. Seefeldt now faces an eventual kidney transplant, as her kidney function has been reduced to 20%. In the meantime, she worries she will need emergency care for either her lungs or kidneys.

“For those of us who are chronically ill or disabled, what if we have an emergency that is not COVID-related? Are we going to be able to get a bed? Are we going to be able to get treatment? It’s not just COVID patients who come to the [emergency room],” she said.
 

A pandemic problem

Paul E. Casey, MD, MBA, chief medical officer at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, said that high vaccination rates in Chicago have helped Rush continue to accommodate both non-COVID and COVID patients in the emergency department.

Though the hospital treated a large volume of COVID patients, “The vast majority of people we see and did see through the pandemic were non-COVID patents,” he said.

Dr. Casey said that in the first wave the hospital noticed a concerning drop in patients coming in for strokes and heart attacks — “things we knew hadn’t gone away.”

And the data backs it up. Over the course of the pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Interview Survey found that the percentage of Americans who reported seeing a doctor or health professional fell from 85% at the end of 2019 to about 80% in the first three months of 2021. The survey did not differentiate between in-person visits and telehealth appointments.

Medical practices and patients themselves postponed elective procedures and delayed routine visits during the early months of the crisis.

Patients also reported staying away from hospitals’ emergency departments throughout the pandemic. At the end of 2019, 22% of respondents reported visiting an emergency department in the past year. That dropped to 17% by the end of 2020, and was at 17.7% in the first 3 months of 2021.

Dr. Casey said that, in his hospital’s case, clear messaging became very important to assure patients it was safe to come back. And the message is still critical.

“We want to be loud and clear that patients should continue to seek care for those conditions,” Dr. Casey said. “Deferring healthcare only comes with the long-term sequelae of disease left untreated so we want people to be as proactive in seeking care as they always would be.”

In some cases, fears of entering emergency rooms because of excess patients and risk for infection are keeping some patients from seeking necessary care for minor injuries.

Jim Rickert, MD, an orthopedic surgeon with Indiana University Health in Bloomington, said that some of his patients have expressed fears of coming into the hospital for fractures.

Some patients, particularly elderly patients, he said, are having falls and fractures and wearing slings or braces at home rather than going into the hospital for injuries that need immediate attention.

Bones start healing incorrectly, Dr. Rickert said, and the correction becomes much more difficult.
 

Plea for vaccinations

Dr. Gosnell made a plea posted on her neighborhood news forum for people to get COVID vaccinations.

“It seems to me it’s easy for other people who are not in bodies like mine to take health for granted,” she said. “But there are a lot of us who live in very fragile bodies and our entire life is at the intersection of us and getting healthcare treatment. Small complications to getting treatment can be life altering.”

Dr. Gosnell, Ms. Seefeldt, Dr. Casey, and Dr. Rickert reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Jessica Gosnell, MD, 41, from Portland, Oregon, lives daily with the knowledge that her rare disease — a form of hereditary angioedema — could cause a sudden, severe swelling in her throat that could require quick intubation and land her in an intensive care unit (ICU) for days.

“I’ve been hospitalized for throat swells three times in the last year,” she said in an interview.

Dr. Gosnell no longer practices medicine because of a combination of illnesses, but lives with her husband, Andrew, and two young children, and said they are all “terrified” she will have to go to the hospital amid a COVID-19 surge that had shrunk the number of available ICU beds to 152 from 780 in Oregon as of Aug. 30. Thirty percent of the beds are in use for patients with COVID-19.

She said her life depends on being near hospitals that have ICUs and having access to highly specialized medications, one of which can cost up to $50,000 for the rescue dose.

Her fear has her “literally living bedbound.” In addition to hereditary angioedema, she has Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, which weakens connective tissue. She wears a cervical collar 24/7 to keep from tearing tissues, as any tissue injury can trigger a swell.
 

Patients worry there won’t be room

As ICU beds in most states are filling with COVID-19 patients as the Delta variant spreads, fears are rising among people like Dr. Gosnell, who have chronic conditions and diseases with unpredictable emergency visits, who worry that if they need emergency care there won’t be room.

As of Aug. 30, in the United States, 79% of ICU beds nationally were in use, 30% of them for COVID-19 patients, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

In individual states, the picture is dire. Alabama has fewer than 10% of its ICU beds open across the entire state. In Florida, 93% of ICU beds are filled, 53% of them with COVID patients. In Louisiana, 87% of beds were already in use, 45% of them with COVID patients, just as category 4 hurricane Ida smashed into the coastline on Aug. 29.

News reports have told of people transported and airlifted as hospitals reach capacity.

In Bellville, Tex., U.S. Army veteran Daniel Wilkinson needed advanced care for gallstone pancreatitis that normally would take 30 minutes to treat, his Bellville doctor, Hasan Kakli, MD, told CBS News.

Mr. Wilkinson’s house was three doors from Bellville Hospital, but the hospital was not equipped to treat the condition. Calls to other hospitals found the same answer: no empty ICU beds. After a 7-hour wait on a stretcher, he was airlifted to a Veterans Affairs hospital in Houston, but it was too late. He died on August 22 at age 46.

Dr. Kakli said, “I’ve never lost a patient with this diagnosis. Ever. I’m scared that the next patient I see is someone that I can’t get to where they need to get to. We are playing musical chairs with 100 people and 10 chairs. When the music stops, what happens?”

Also in Texas in August, Joe Valdez, who was shot six times as an unlucky bystander in a domestic dispute, waited for more than a week for surgery at Ben Taub Hospital in Houston, which was over capacity with COVID patients, the Washington Post reported.

Others with chronic diseases fear needing emergency services or even entering a hospital for regular care with the COVID surge.

Nicole Seefeldt, 44, from Easton, Penn., who had a double-lung transplant in 2016, said that she hasn’t been able to see her lung transplant specialists in Philadelphia — an hour-and-a-half drive — for almost 2 years because of fear of contracting COVID. Before the pandemic, she made the trip almost weekly.

“I protect my lungs like they’re children,” she said. 

She relies on her local hospital for care, but has put off some needed care, such as a colonoscopy, and has relied on telemedicine because she wants to limit her hospital exposure.

Ms. Seefeldt now faces an eventual kidney transplant, as her kidney function has been reduced to 20%. In the meantime, she worries she will need emergency care for either her lungs or kidneys.

“For those of us who are chronically ill or disabled, what if we have an emergency that is not COVID-related? Are we going to be able to get a bed? Are we going to be able to get treatment? It’s not just COVID patients who come to the [emergency room],” she said.
 

A pandemic problem

Paul E. Casey, MD, MBA, chief medical officer at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, said that high vaccination rates in Chicago have helped Rush continue to accommodate both non-COVID and COVID patients in the emergency department.

Though the hospital treated a large volume of COVID patients, “The vast majority of people we see and did see through the pandemic were non-COVID patents,” he said.

Dr. Casey said that in the first wave the hospital noticed a concerning drop in patients coming in for strokes and heart attacks — “things we knew hadn’t gone away.”

And the data backs it up. Over the course of the pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Health Interview Survey found that the percentage of Americans who reported seeing a doctor or health professional fell from 85% at the end of 2019 to about 80% in the first three months of 2021. The survey did not differentiate between in-person visits and telehealth appointments.

Medical practices and patients themselves postponed elective procedures and delayed routine visits during the early months of the crisis.

Patients also reported staying away from hospitals’ emergency departments throughout the pandemic. At the end of 2019, 22% of respondents reported visiting an emergency department in the past year. That dropped to 17% by the end of 2020, and was at 17.7% in the first 3 months of 2021.

Dr. Casey said that, in his hospital’s case, clear messaging became very important to assure patients it was safe to come back. And the message is still critical.

“We want to be loud and clear that patients should continue to seek care for those conditions,” Dr. Casey said. “Deferring healthcare only comes with the long-term sequelae of disease left untreated so we want people to be as proactive in seeking care as they always would be.”

In some cases, fears of entering emergency rooms because of excess patients and risk for infection are keeping some patients from seeking necessary care for minor injuries.

Jim Rickert, MD, an orthopedic surgeon with Indiana University Health in Bloomington, said that some of his patients have expressed fears of coming into the hospital for fractures.

Some patients, particularly elderly patients, he said, are having falls and fractures and wearing slings or braces at home rather than going into the hospital for injuries that need immediate attention.

Bones start healing incorrectly, Dr. Rickert said, and the correction becomes much more difficult.
 

Plea for vaccinations

Dr. Gosnell made a plea posted on her neighborhood news forum for people to get COVID vaccinations.

“It seems to me it’s easy for other people who are not in bodies like mine to take health for granted,” she said. “But there are a lot of us who live in very fragile bodies and our entire life is at the intersection of us and getting healthcare treatment. Small complications to getting treatment can be life altering.”

Dr. Gosnell, Ms. Seefeldt, Dr. Casey, and Dr. Rickert reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Background: Both observational studies and clinical trials have found that a liberal oxygenation strategy in multiple inpatient settings may be harmful. Furthermore, a conservative strategy is what has been recommended in guidelines. Conversely, the relevance of this recent concept has been challenged in a large trial of a critically ill population (ICU-ROX).

Dr. Saraiva is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at UK HealthCare, Lexington, Ky.

Background: Both observational studies and clinical trials have found that a liberal oxygenation strategy in multiple inpatient settings may be harmful. Furthermore, a conservative strategy is what has been recommended in guidelines. Conversely, the relevance of this recent concept has been challenged in a large trial of a critically ill population (ICU-ROX).

Dr. Saraiva is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at UK HealthCare, Lexington, Ky.

Background: Both observational studies and clinical trials have found that a liberal oxygenation strategy in multiple inpatient settings may be harmful. Furthermore, a conservative strategy is what has been recommended in guidelines. Conversely, the relevance of this recent concept has been challenged in a large trial of a critically ill population (ICU-ROX).

Dr. Saraiva is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at UK HealthCare, Lexington, Ky.

Background: Many articles have been published on sepsis and mortality in ICUs, but there are not many analyzing outcomes in patients with infections, nor types of infections. More information on the infection rate, types of infection, and possible impact on mortality should heighten awareness of infection effects, as well as guide resource allocation and help direct policy development for diagnosis and treatment.

Despite limitations related to being an observational study, 24-hour point evaluation, a centrally controlled database, and different geographic locations, this study elucidated the world-wide prevalence of ICU infection and high hospital-in mortality in those patients.

Bottom line: There is a high prevalence of infection in ICUs: 43%-60% depending on location. This is associated with 30% in-hospital mortality.

Citation: Vincent J-L et al. Prevalance and outcomes of infection among patients in intensive care units in 2017. JAMA. 2020 Mar 24;323(15):1478-87.

Dr. Rogozinska is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at UK HealthCare, Lexington, Ky.

Background: Many articles have been published on sepsis and mortality in ICUs, but there are not many analyzing outcomes in patients with infections, nor types of infections. More information on the infection rate, types of infection, and possible impact on mortality should heighten awareness of infection effects, as well as guide resource allocation and help direct policy development for diagnosis and treatment.

Despite limitations related to being an observational study, 24-hour point evaluation, a centrally controlled database, and different geographic locations, this study elucidated the world-wide prevalence of ICU infection and high hospital-in mortality in those patients.

Bottom line: There is a high prevalence of infection in ICUs: 43%-60% depending on location. This is associated with 30% in-hospital mortality.

Citation: Vincent J-L et al. Prevalance and outcomes of infection among patients in intensive care units in 2017. JAMA. 2020 Mar 24;323(15):1478-87.

Dr. Rogozinska is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at UK HealthCare, Lexington, Ky.

Background: Many articles have been published on sepsis and mortality in ICUs, but there are not many analyzing outcomes in patients with infections, nor types of infections. More information on the infection rate, types of infection, and possible impact on mortality should heighten awareness of infection effects, as well as guide resource allocation and help direct policy development for diagnosis and treatment.

Despite limitations related to being an observational study, 24-hour point evaluation, a centrally controlled database, and different geographic locations, this study elucidated the world-wide prevalence of ICU infection and high hospital-in mortality in those patients.

Bottom line: There is a high prevalence of infection in ICUs: 43%-60% depending on location. This is associated with 30% in-hospital mortality.

Citation: Vincent J-L et al. Prevalance and outcomes of infection among patients in intensive care units in 2017. JAMA. 2020 Mar 24;323(15):1478-87.

Dr. Rogozinska is a hospitalist and assistant professor of medicine at UK HealthCare, Lexington, Ky.

It is well known that survivors of critical care are at heightened risk of mental health disorders even months afterward they are discharged, but it’s less clear what factors might contribute to those outcomes. A new attempt to identify risk factors for post-ICU depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress disorder, as well as worse quality of life, paints a complex picture.

Age, mental preexisting mental health concerns, acute emotional stress at the time of critical care, and post-care physical impairment all may play a role, according to the multicenter, prospective cohort study conducted in Brazil, which was published in CHEST .

Previous systematic reviews have shown raised frequencies mental health disorders following ICU discharge, including anxiety (32%-40%), depression (29%-34%), and PTSD (16%-23%). Few studies have looked at the potential impact of preexisting conditions or post-ICU disability on these outcomes, yet that information is critical to key to designing effective prevention and rehabilitation interventions.

The results suggest that preexisting mental health and factors associated with the critical illness, which have gained attention as potential factors, aren’t sufficient to explain these outcomes. “Our data suggest that the network of potential risk factors for mental illness among patients who have been discharged from the ICU is much more complex and may involve risk factors from multiple domains. ... Long-term mental health disorders after critical illness may be the result of the interaction among stressors before ICU stay, during ICU stay, and after ICU stay, calling attention to the need for interdisciplinary and multifaceted strategies aimed at preventing and screening for mental health disorders after ICU discharge,” Cassiano Teixeira, MD, PhD, of the Postgraduation of Pulmonology–Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, and colleagues wrote.

The researchers also noted that some risk factors could be screened and may be modifiable, including anxiety and depression symptoms at ICU discharge, as well as reduced physical function status.
 

Complications or risk factors?

The findings are significant, though they may represent complications of emotional distress following ICU stays, rather than risk factors that predict it, according to an accompanying editorial. The author, O. Joseph Bienvenu III, MD, PhD, who is a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore. He called for prospective studies to determine the predictive value of these factors. “If we are to improve long-term mental health after critical illnesses, this predictive information will be vital to selective prevention efforts.”

Dr. O. Joseph Bienvenu

Potential interventions could include psychological treatment in the ICU, ICU follow-up clinics, support groups, and cognitive-behavioral therapy, among others. Whichever approach is used, it should be targeted, according to Dr. Bienvenu, since patients who have greater emotional distress seem to gain the most benefit from such interventions.

The researchers examined outcomes among 579 adults who had spent at least 72 hours in the ICU. The median age was 61 years, and 47% were women.

Six months after release from the ICU, telephone assessments by trained researchers revealed that 48% had impairment in physical function, compared with the time preceding ICU admission. 36.2% of participants had a mental health disorder: 24.2% reported anxiety, 20.9% had depression, and 15.4% had PTSD.

Increasing numbers of psychiatric syndromes, from 0 to 3, was associated with worse scores on the mental dimension on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) score, but there was no relationship with scores on the physical dimension.
 

Risks to mental health

Clinical characteristics associated with risk of anxiety at 6 months post discharge included being 65 years or older (prevalence ratio, 0.63; P = .009), a history of depression (PR, 1.52; P = .009), anxiety at discharge (PR, 1.65; P = .003), depression at discharge (HR, 1.44; P = .02), physical dependence (PR, 1.48; P = .01), and reduced physical functional status at 6 months post discharge (PR, 1.38; P = .04).

Characteristics associated with depression at 6 months post discharge included a history of depression (PR, 1.78; P = .001), symptoms of depression at discharge (PR, 3.04; P < .001), and reduced physical functional status at 6 months (PR, 1.53; P = .01).

Characteristics associated with PTSD at 6 months post discharge were depression symptoms at discharge (PR, 1.70; P = .01), physical dependence (PR, 1.79; P = .01), and reduced physical status at 6 months (PR, 1.62; P = .02).

Characteristics associated with any mental health disorder included higher education (PR, 0.74; P = .04), a history of depression (PR, 1.32; P = .02), anxiety symptoms at discharge (PR, 1.55; P = .001), depression symptoms at discharge (PR, 1.50; P = .001), and physical dependence at 6 months following discharge (PR, 1.66; P < .001).

“The lower HRQoL found in ICU survivors with mental health disorders in comparison with those without is a reason for concern. This finding, in association with the higher prevalence of psychiatric syndromes among ICU survivors, reinforces the importance of assessing anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms among ICU survivors, because these syndromes typically are long lasting and underdiagnosed, and their occurrence may affect quality of life, survival, and costs in the context of care after ICU discharge,” according to the researchers.

The authors of the study and Dr. Bienvenu have no relevant financial disclosures.

It is well known that survivors of critical care are at heightened risk of mental health disorders even months afterward they are discharged, but it’s less clear what factors might contribute to those outcomes. A new attempt to identify risk factors for post-ICU depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress disorder, as well as worse quality of life, paints a complex picture.

Age, mental preexisting mental health concerns, acute emotional stress at the time of critical care, and post-care physical impairment all may play a role, according to the multicenter, prospective cohort study conducted in Brazil, which was published in CHEST .

Previous systematic reviews have shown raised frequencies mental health disorders following ICU discharge, including anxiety (32%-40%), depression (29%-34%), and PTSD (16%-23%). Few studies have looked at the potential impact of preexisting conditions or post-ICU disability on these outcomes, yet that information is critical to key to designing effective prevention and rehabilitation interventions.

The results suggest that preexisting mental health and factors associated with the critical illness, which have gained attention as potential factors, aren’t sufficient to explain these outcomes. “Our data suggest that the network of potential risk factors for mental illness among patients who have been discharged from the ICU is much more complex and may involve risk factors from multiple domains. ... Long-term mental health disorders after critical illness may be the result of the interaction among stressors before ICU stay, during ICU stay, and after ICU stay, calling attention to the need for interdisciplinary and multifaceted strategies aimed at preventing and screening for mental health disorders after ICU discharge,” Cassiano Teixeira, MD, PhD, of the Postgraduation of Pulmonology–Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, and colleagues wrote.

The researchers also noted that some risk factors could be screened and may be modifiable, including anxiety and depression symptoms at ICU discharge, as well as reduced physical function status.
 

Complications or risk factors?

The findings are significant, though they may represent complications of emotional distress following ICU stays, rather than risk factors that predict it, according to an accompanying editorial. The author, O. Joseph Bienvenu III, MD, PhD, who is a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore. He called for prospective studies to determine the predictive value of these factors. “If we are to improve long-term mental health after critical illnesses, this predictive information will be vital to selective prevention efforts.”

Dr. O. Joseph Bienvenu

Potential interventions could include psychological treatment in the ICU, ICU follow-up clinics, support groups, and cognitive-behavioral therapy, among others. Whichever approach is used, it should be targeted, according to Dr. Bienvenu, since patients who have greater emotional distress seem to gain the most benefit from such interventions.

The researchers examined outcomes among 579 adults who had spent at least 72 hours in the ICU. The median age was 61 years, and 47% were women.

Six months after release from the ICU, telephone assessments by trained researchers revealed that 48% had impairment in physical function, compared with the time preceding ICU admission. 36.2% of participants had a mental health disorder: 24.2% reported anxiety, 20.9% had depression, and 15.4% had PTSD.

Increasing numbers of psychiatric syndromes, from 0 to 3, was associated with worse scores on the mental dimension on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) score, but there was no relationship with scores on the physical dimension.
 

Risks to mental health

Clinical characteristics associated with risk of anxiety at 6 months post discharge included being 65 years or older (prevalence ratio, 0.63; P = .009), a history of depression (PR, 1.52; P = .009), anxiety at discharge (PR, 1.65; P = .003), depression at discharge (HR, 1.44; P = .02), physical dependence (PR, 1.48; P = .01), and reduced physical functional status at 6 months post discharge (PR, 1.38; P = .04).

Characteristics associated with depression at 6 months post discharge included a history of depression (PR, 1.78; P = .001), symptoms of depression at discharge (PR, 3.04; P < .001), and reduced physical functional status at 6 months (PR, 1.53; P = .01).

Characteristics associated with PTSD at 6 months post discharge were depression symptoms at discharge (PR, 1.70; P = .01), physical dependence (PR, 1.79; P = .01), and reduced physical status at 6 months (PR, 1.62; P = .02).

Characteristics associated with any mental health disorder included higher education (PR, 0.74; P = .04), a history of depression (PR, 1.32; P = .02), anxiety symptoms at discharge (PR, 1.55; P = .001), depression symptoms at discharge (PR, 1.50; P = .001), and physical dependence at 6 months following discharge (PR, 1.66; P < .001).

“The lower HRQoL found in ICU survivors with mental health disorders in comparison with those without is a reason for concern. This finding, in association with the higher prevalence of psychiatric syndromes among ICU survivors, reinforces the importance of assessing anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms among ICU survivors, because these syndromes typically are long lasting and underdiagnosed, and their occurrence may affect quality of life, survival, and costs in the context of care after ICU discharge,” according to the researchers.

The authors of the study and Dr. Bienvenu have no relevant financial disclosures.

It is well known that survivors of critical care are at heightened risk of mental health disorders even months afterward they are discharged, but it’s less clear what factors might contribute to those outcomes. A new attempt to identify risk factors for post-ICU depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress disorder, as well as worse quality of life, paints a complex picture.

Age, mental preexisting mental health concerns, acute emotional stress at the time of critical care, and post-care physical impairment all may play a role, according to the multicenter, prospective cohort study conducted in Brazil, which was published in CHEST .

Previous systematic reviews have shown raised frequencies mental health disorders following ICU discharge, including anxiety (32%-40%), depression (29%-34%), and PTSD (16%-23%). Few studies have looked at the potential impact of preexisting conditions or post-ICU disability on these outcomes, yet that information is critical to key to designing effective prevention and rehabilitation interventions.

The results suggest that preexisting mental health and factors associated with the critical illness, which have gained attention as potential factors, aren’t sufficient to explain these outcomes. “Our data suggest that the network of potential risk factors for mental illness among patients who have been discharged from the ICU is much more complex and may involve risk factors from multiple domains. ... Long-term mental health disorders after critical illness may be the result of the interaction among stressors before ICU stay, during ICU stay, and after ICU stay, calling attention to the need for interdisciplinary and multifaceted strategies aimed at preventing and screening for mental health disorders after ICU discharge,” Cassiano Teixeira, MD, PhD, of the Postgraduation of Pulmonology–Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, and colleagues wrote.

The researchers also noted that some risk factors could be screened and may be modifiable, including anxiety and depression symptoms at ICU discharge, as well as reduced physical function status.
 

Complications or risk factors?

The findings are significant, though they may represent complications of emotional distress following ICU stays, rather than risk factors that predict it, according to an accompanying editorial. The author, O. Joseph Bienvenu III, MD, PhD, who is a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Johns Hopkins Medicine, Baltimore. He called for prospective studies to determine the predictive value of these factors. “If we are to improve long-term mental health after critical illnesses, this predictive information will be vital to selective prevention efforts.”

Dr. O. Joseph Bienvenu

Potential interventions could include psychological treatment in the ICU, ICU follow-up clinics, support groups, and cognitive-behavioral therapy, among others. Whichever approach is used, it should be targeted, according to Dr. Bienvenu, since patients who have greater emotional distress seem to gain the most benefit from such interventions.

The researchers examined outcomes among 579 adults who had spent at least 72 hours in the ICU. The median age was 61 years, and 47% were women.

Six months after release from the ICU, telephone assessments by trained researchers revealed that 48% had impairment in physical function, compared with the time preceding ICU admission. 36.2% of participants had a mental health disorder: 24.2% reported anxiety, 20.9% had depression, and 15.4% had PTSD.

Increasing numbers of psychiatric syndromes, from 0 to 3, was associated with worse scores on the mental dimension on the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) score, but there was no relationship with scores on the physical dimension.
 

Risks to mental health

Clinical characteristics associated with risk of anxiety at 6 months post discharge included being 65 years or older (prevalence ratio, 0.63; P = .009), a history of depression (PR, 1.52; P = .009), anxiety at discharge (PR, 1.65; P = .003), depression at discharge (HR, 1.44; P = .02), physical dependence (PR, 1.48; P = .01), and reduced physical functional status at 6 months post discharge (PR, 1.38; P = .04).

Characteristics associated with depression at 6 months post discharge included a history of depression (PR, 1.78; P = .001), symptoms of depression at discharge (PR, 3.04; P < .001), and reduced physical functional status at 6 months (PR, 1.53; P = .01).

Characteristics associated with PTSD at 6 months post discharge were depression symptoms at discharge (PR, 1.70; P = .01), physical dependence (PR, 1.79; P = .01), and reduced physical status at 6 months (PR, 1.62; P = .02).

Characteristics associated with any mental health disorder included higher education (PR, 0.74; P = .04), a history of depression (PR, 1.32; P = .02), anxiety symptoms at discharge (PR, 1.55; P = .001), depression symptoms at discharge (PR, 1.50; P = .001), and physical dependence at 6 months following discharge (PR, 1.66; P < .001).

“The lower HRQoL found in ICU survivors with mental health disorders in comparison with those without is a reason for concern. This finding, in association with the higher prevalence of psychiatric syndromes among ICU survivors, reinforces the importance of assessing anxiety, depression, and PTSD symptoms among ICU survivors, because these syndromes typically are long lasting and underdiagnosed, and their occurrence may affect quality of life, survival, and costs in the context of care after ICU discharge,” according to the researchers.

The authors of the study and Dr. Bienvenu have no relevant financial disclosures.

Study Overview

Objective. To update national trends in the treatment and risk factor control of diabetic patients from 1999 through 2018 in the US using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) with the goal of identifying population subgroups with the highest probability of having untreated risk factors.

Design. The authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data from NHANES focusing on adults with diabetes. They examined patient characteristics and medication use over time and estimated the prevalence of risk factor control and medication use. To minimize the effects of a small sample size, the survey years were pooled into 4-year intervals. The variables studied included glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c), blood pressure, serum cholesterol, medication use, sociodemographic characteristics, and weight status. For statistical analysis, logistic and multinomial logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with treatment in participants who did not achieve targets for glycemic, blood pressure, and lipid control. Temporal trends were estimated using 2-piece linear spline models with 1 knot at inflection points.

Setting and participants. The NHANES program began in the early 1960s to monitor the health of the US population. In 1999, the survey became a continuous program combining interviews and physical examinations. The survey examines a nationally representative sample of about 5000 persons each year. This study included 6653 participants who were nonpregnant, aged older than 20 years, reported a diagnosis of diabetes from a physician, and participated in NHANES from 1999 through 2018.

Main outcome measures. The main outcome measures were temporal trends in risk factor control (glycemic, blood pressure, or lipid levels) and medication use (glucose lowering, blood pressure lowering, or lipid lowering medications), and number as well as class of drug used, from 1999 through 2018 in diabetic adults from the US participating in NHANES.

Results. Sociodemographic characteristics of the studied diabetes population—The age and racial or ethnic distribution of participants with diabetes were stable from 1999 through 2018, whereas participants with a college degree, higher income, health insurance, obesity, or long-standing diabetes increased during the same period.

Trends in diabetes risk factor control—The trends for glycemic, blood pressure, and lipid control were nonlinear, with an inflection point around 2010. Glycemic control was defined as HbA_1c less than 7%, blood pressure was considered controlled if less than 140/90 mmHg, and lipid was controlled if non-HDL cholesterol level was less than 130 mg/dL. Although these chosen targets were based on the most recent clinical guidelines, the authors declared that they observed similar trends when alternative targets were used. The level of risk factor control improved in all diabetic patients from 1999 through 2010. However, the percentage of adult diabetic participants for whom glycemic control was achieved declined from 57.4% (95% CI, 52.9-61.8) in 2007-2010 to 50.5% (95% CI, 45.8-55.3) in 2015-2018. Blood pressure control was achieved in 74.2% of participants (95% CI, 70.7-77.4) in 2011-2014 but declined to 70.4% (95% CI, 66.7-73.8) in 2015-2018. Control in lipid levels improved during the entire study period; however, the rate of improvement heavily declined after 2007 with lipid target levels attained in 52.3% of participants (95% CI, 49.2-55.3) in 2007-2014 and 55.7% (95% CI, 50.8-60.5) in 2015-2018. Finally, the percentage of participants in whom targets for all 3 risk factors were simultaneously achieved plateaued after 2010 and was 22.2% (95% CI, 17.9-27.3) in 2015-2018.

Trends in diabetes treatment—The use of glucose lowering drugs increased from 74.1% in 1999-2002 to 82.7% in 2007-2010 and then stabilized. A shift toward a safer glucose lowering treatment choice was observed with a decline in the use of older glucose lowering medications such as sulfonylureas, which increases the risk of hypoglycemia, and an increase in the use of metformin, insulin, and newer agents such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

Similarly, blood pressure lowering medication use rose from 1999-2002 to 2007-2010 and then stabilized, with increased use of first-line recommended treatments including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers. Likewise, statin use rose from 28.4% in 1999-2002 to 56% in 2011-2014 and then stabilized. The total number of drugs used culminated in 2011-2014 with 60% of participants using more than 5 drugs and then leveled off to 57.2% in 2015-2018. Lastly, health insurance status and race or ethnicity impacted the likelihood of receiving monotherapy or combination drug therapy when targets for glycemic, blood pressure, or lipid control were not achieved.

Conclusion. Despite great progress in the control of diabetes and its associated risk factors between 1999 and 2010, this trend declined for glycemic and blood pressure control and leveled off for lipid control in adult NHANES participants with diabetes after 2010. First-line treatments for diabetes and associated risk factors remain underused, and treatment intensification may not be sufficiently considered in patients with uncontrolled risk factors despite clinical guideline recommendations. The findings of this study may portend a possible population-level increase in diabetes-related illnesses in the years to come.

Commentary

The thorough understanding of trends in management of diseases is critical to inform public health policies and planning. Well designed clinical studies heavily influence the development of public health policies and clinical guidelines, which in turn drive real-world clinical practice. In a recent analysis utilizing data from NHANES, Fang et al¹ showed evidence of a general shift toward less intensive treatment of diabetes, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia in adults living in the US during the last decade.

Similarly, in a separate study using NHANES data collected between 1999 and 2018 published in JAMA just 2 weeks after the current report, Wang et al² confirms this declining trend in diabetes management with only 21.2% of diabetic adults simultaneously attaining glycemic, blood pressure, and lipid level targets during the same period. What led to the decline in more stringent risk factor and diabetes management since 2010 observed in these studies? One possible explanation, as suggested by Fang et al, is that major clinical trials from the late 2000s­—including Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes, UK Prospective Diabetes Study, Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation, and Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial—that assessed the effects of intensive glycemic control (with target HbA_1c < 6.5%) found that intensive treatment of diabetes compared to standard care had no cardiovascular benefit albeit increasing the risk of hypoglycemia. Thus, these trial findings may have translated into suboptimal diabetes treatment observed in some NHANES participants. Wang et al propose that effective tailored approaches are needed to improve risk factor control in diabetic patients, such as enhance and maintain adherence to medications and healthy lifestyle behaviors, as well as better access to health care and therapeutic education.

The changes in recent trends in diabetes management have immense clinical implications. The authors of this study suggest a link between the recent relaxation of glycemic targets, as well as risk factor control, and a resurgence of diabetic complications such as lower limb amputation or stroke. Indeed, several recent studies indicate an upward trend or plateau in diabetic complications which had been decreasing in prevalence prior to 2010.³ For example, lower extremity amputation has surged by more than 25% between 2010 and 2015, especially in young and middle-aged adults.⁴ Among the arguments brought forward that this recent resurgence in amputations is directly linked to worsening glycemic control is the fact that between 2007 and 2010, when glucose levels were best controlled within the previous 30-year period, amputations were also at the lowest levels. Moreover, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also show a 55% increase in mortality (from 15.7 to 24.2 per 1000) among diabetic patients between 2010 and 2015.¹⁴ On the other hand, a growing number of studies show that an increase of inappropriate treatment intensification—reaching HbA_1c levels that are way below the recommended targets—is associated with adverse consequences in diabetic patients particularly in those aged more than 65 years.^5-7 These seemingly contradictory findings highlight the importance of a personalized and thoughtful approach to the management of diabetes and its risk factors. As an example, an increase in the use of newer and safer glucose lowering drugs (eg, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors) can help achieve better HbA_1c goals with a reduced risk of hypoglycemic episodes as recently shown by a Danish study.⁸ In this study, the authors concluded that the reduction of the rate of hypoglycemic episodes leading to hospitalization in Denmark was directly linked to the use of these safer and newer glucose lowering drugs.

A discussion on the specifics of trends in diabetes treatment and control must include considerations in older adults aged more than 65 years who constitute more than 40% of the diabetic population. Despite the high prevalence of diabetes in this vulnerable population, such data are still insufficient in the literature and are critically needed to inform public health policies and clinical guidelines. In epidemiological studies focusing on diabetic complications from the last 10 years, concerning increases have been observed in younger⁹ and middle-aged adults while remaining stable in older adults. However, the risk of hypoglycemia or severe hypoglycemia remains high in older adults living in nursing facilities, even in those with an elevated HbA_1c of greater than 8%.⁷ Moreover, in light of more relaxed HbA_1c treatment goals for older frail adults as recommended by international guidelines since 2010,^10,11 recent findings from the French GERODIAB cohort show an increased mortality (hazard ratio, 1.76) in type 2 diabetics aged 70 years and older with HbA_1c greater than or equal to 8.6%.¹² Similarly, a 5-year retrospective British study from 2018 which included patients aged 70 years and older, shows an increased overall mortality in those with HbA_1c greater than 8.5%.¹³ Taken together, further age-stratified analysis utilizing data from large cohort studies including NHANES may help to clarify national trends in diabetes treatment and risk factor control as well as diabetic complications specific to the geriatric population. By being better informed of such trends, clinicians could then develop treatment strategies that minimize complications (eg, hypoglycemia, falls) while achieving favorable outcomes (eg, reduce hyperglycemic emergencies, improve survival) in frail older patients.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The understanding of population-wide trends in diabetes control is critical to planning public health approaches for the prevention and treatment of this disease and its complications. In older adults, the high risk of hypoglycemic events and insufficient epidemiological data on trends of diabetes control hinder diabetes management. Personalized treatment targets taking into account geriatric syndromes and general health status, as well as multidisciplinary management involving endocrinologists, geriatricians, and clinical pharmacists, are necessary to optimize care in older adults with diabetes.

Study Overview

Objective. To update national trends in the treatment and risk factor control of diabetic patients from 1999 through 2018 in the US using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) with the goal of identifying population subgroups with the highest probability of having untreated risk factors.

Design. The authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data from NHANES focusing on adults with diabetes. They examined patient characteristics and medication use over time and estimated the prevalence of risk factor control and medication use. To minimize the effects of a small sample size, the survey years were pooled into 4-year intervals. The variables studied included glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c), blood pressure, serum cholesterol, medication use, sociodemographic characteristics, and weight status. For statistical analysis, logistic and multinomial logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with treatment in participants who did not achieve targets for glycemic, blood pressure, and lipid control. Temporal trends were estimated using 2-piece linear spline models with 1 knot at inflection points.

Setting and participants. The NHANES program began in the early 1960s to monitor the health of the US population. In 1999, the survey became a continuous program combining interviews and physical examinations. The survey examines a nationally representative sample of about 5000 persons each year. This study included 6653 participants who were nonpregnant, aged older than 20 years, reported a diagnosis of diabetes from a physician, and participated in NHANES from 1999 through 2018.

Main outcome measures. The main outcome measures were temporal trends in risk factor control (glycemic, blood pressure, or lipid levels) and medication use (glucose lowering, blood pressure lowering, or lipid lowering medications), and number as well as class of drug used, from 1999 through 2018 in diabetic adults from the US participating in NHANES.

Results. Sociodemographic characteristics of the studied diabetes population—The age and racial or ethnic distribution of participants with diabetes were stable from 1999 through 2018, whereas participants with a college degree, higher income, health insurance, obesity, or long-standing diabetes increased during the same period.

Trends in diabetes risk factor control—The trends for glycemic, blood pressure, and lipid control were nonlinear, with an inflection point around 2010. Glycemic control was defined as HbA_1c less than 7%, blood pressure was considered controlled if less than 140/90 mmHg, and lipid was controlled if non-HDL cholesterol level was less than 130 mg/dL. Although these chosen targets were based on the most recent clinical guidelines, the authors declared that they observed similar trends when alternative targets were used. The level of risk factor control improved in all diabetic patients from 1999 through 2010. However, the percentage of adult diabetic participants for whom glycemic control was achieved declined from 57.4% (95% CI, 52.9-61.8) in 2007-2010 to 50.5% (95% CI, 45.8-55.3) in 2015-2018. Blood pressure control was achieved in 74.2% of participants (95% CI, 70.7-77.4) in 2011-2014 but declined to 70.4% (95% CI, 66.7-73.8) in 2015-2018. Control in lipid levels improved during the entire study period; however, the rate of improvement heavily declined after 2007 with lipid target levels attained in 52.3% of participants (95% CI, 49.2-55.3) in 2007-2014 and 55.7% (95% CI, 50.8-60.5) in 2015-2018. Finally, the percentage of participants in whom targets for all 3 risk factors were simultaneously achieved plateaued after 2010 and was 22.2% (95% CI, 17.9-27.3) in 2015-2018.

Trends in diabetes treatment—The use of glucose lowering drugs increased from 74.1% in 1999-2002 to 82.7% in 2007-2010 and then stabilized. A shift toward a safer glucose lowering treatment choice was observed with a decline in the use of older glucose lowering medications such as sulfonylureas, which increases the risk of hypoglycemia, and an increase in the use of metformin, insulin, and newer agents such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

Similarly, blood pressure lowering medication use rose from 1999-2002 to 2007-2010 and then stabilized, with increased use of first-line recommended treatments including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers. Likewise, statin use rose from 28.4% in 1999-2002 to 56% in 2011-2014 and then stabilized. The total number of drugs used culminated in 2011-2014 with 60% of participants using more than 5 drugs and then leveled off to 57.2% in 2015-2018. Lastly, health insurance status and race or ethnicity impacted the likelihood of receiving monotherapy or combination drug therapy when targets for glycemic, blood pressure, or lipid control were not achieved.

Conclusion. Despite great progress in the control of diabetes and its associated risk factors between 1999 and 2010, this trend declined for glycemic and blood pressure control and leveled off for lipid control in adult NHANES participants with diabetes after 2010. First-line treatments for diabetes and associated risk factors remain underused, and treatment intensification may not be sufficiently considered in patients with uncontrolled risk factors despite clinical guideline recommendations. The findings of this study may portend a possible population-level increase in diabetes-related illnesses in the years to come.

Commentary

The thorough understanding of trends in management of diseases is critical to inform public health policies and planning. Well designed clinical studies heavily influence the development of public health policies and clinical guidelines, which in turn drive real-world clinical practice. In a recent analysis utilizing data from NHANES, Fang et al¹ showed evidence of a general shift toward less intensive treatment of diabetes, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia in adults living in the US during the last decade.

Similarly, in a separate study using NHANES data collected between 1999 and 2018 published in JAMA just 2 weeks after the current report, Wang et al² confirms this declining trend in diabetes management with only 21.2% of diabetic adults simultaneously attaining glycemic, blood pressure, and lipid level targets during the same period. What led to the decline in more stringent risk factor and diabetes management since 2010 observed in these studies? One possible explanation, as suggested by Fang et al, is that major clinical trials from the late 2000s­—including Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes, UK Prospective Diabetes Study, Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation, and Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial—that assessed the effects of intensive glycemic control (with target HbA_1c < 6.5%) found that intensive treatment of diabetes compared to standard care had no cardiovascular benefit albeit increasing the risk of hypoglycemia. Thus, these trial findings may have translated into suboptimal diabetes treatment observed in some NHANES participants. Wang et al propose that effective tailored approaches are needed to improve risk factor control in diabetic patients, such as enhance and maintain adherence to medications and healthy lifestyle behaviors, as well as better access to health care and therapeutic education.

The changes in recent trends in diabetes management have immense clinical implications. The authors of this study suggest a link between the recent relaxation of glycemic targets, as well as risk factor control, and a resurgence of diabetic complications such as lower limb amputation or stroke. Indeed, several recent studies indicate an upward trend or plateau in diabetic complications which had been decreasing in prevalence prior to 2010.³ For example, lower extremity amputation has surged by more than 25% between 2010 and 2015, especially in young and middle-aged adults.⁴ Among the arguments brought forward that this recent resurgence in amputations is directly linked to worsening glycemic control is the fact that between 2007 and 2010, when glucose levels were best controlled within the previous 30-year period, amputations were also at the lowest levels. Moreover, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also show a 55% increase in mortality (from 15.7 to 24.2 per 1000) among diabetic patients between 2010 and 2015.¹⁴ On the other hand, a growing number of studies show that an increase of inappropriate treatment intensification—reaching HbA_1c levels that are way below the recommended targets—is associated with adverse consequences in diabetic patients particularly in those aged more than 65 years.^5-7 These seemingly contradictory findings highlight the importance of a personalized and thoughtful approach to the management of diabetes and its risk factors. As an example, an increase in the use of newer and safer glucose lowering drugs (eg, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors) can help achieve better HbA_1c goals with a reduced risk of hypoglycemic episodes as recently shown by a Danish study.⁸ In this study, the authors concluded that the reduction of the rate of hypoglycemic episodes leading to hospitalization in Denmark was directly linked to the use of these safer and newer glucose lowering drugs.

A discussion on the specifics of trends in diabetes treatment and control must include considerations in older adults aged more than 65 years who constitute more than 40% of the diabetic population. Despite the high prevalence of diabetes in this vulnerable population, such data are still insufficient in the literature and are critically needed to inform public health policies and clinical guidelines. In epidemiological studies focusing on diabetic complications from the last 10 years, concerning increases have been observed in younger⁹ and middle-aged adults while remaining stable in older adults. However, the risk of hypoglycemia or severe hypoglycemia remains high in older adults living in nursing facilities, even in those with an elevated HbA_1c of greater than 8%.⁷ Moreover, in light of more relaxed HbA_1c treatment goals for older frail adults as recommended by international guidelines since 2010,^10,11 recent findings from the French GERODIAB cohort show an increased mortality (hazard ratio, 1.76) in type 2 diabetics aged 70 years and older with HbA_1c greater than or equal to 8.6%.¹² Similarly, a 5-year retrospective British study from 2018 which included patients aged 70 years and older, shows an increased overall mortality in those with HbA_1c greater than 8.5%.¹³ Taken together, further age-stratified analysis utilizing data from large cohort studies including NHANES may help to clarify national trends in diabetes treatment and risk factor control as well as diabetic complications specific to the geriatric population. By being better informed of such trends, clinicians could then develop treatment strategies that minimize complications (eg, hypoglycemia, falls) while achieving favorable outcomes (eg, reduce hyperglycemic emergencies, improve survival) in frail older patients.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The understanding of population-wide trends in diabetes control is critical to planning public health approaches for the prevention and treatment of this disease and its complications. In older adults, the high risk of hypoglycemic events and insufficient epidemiological data on trends of diabetes control hinder diabetes management. Personalized treatment targets taking into account geriatric syndromes and general health status, as well as multidisciplinary management involving endocrinologists, geriatricians, and clinical pharmacists, are necessary to optimize care in older adults with diabetes.

Study Overview

Objective. To update national trends in the treatment and risk factor control of diabetic patients from 1999 through 2018 in the US using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) with the goal of identifying population subgroups with the highest probability of having untreated risk factors.

Design. The authors conducted a cross-sectional analysis of data from NHANES focusing on adults with diabetes. They examined patient characteristics and medication use over time and estimated the prevalence of risk factor control and medication use. To minimize the effects of a small sample size, the survey years were pooled into 4-year intervals. The variables studied included glycated hemoglobin (HbA_1c), blood pressure, serum cholesterol, medication use, sociodemographic characteristics, and weight status. For statistical analysis, logistic and multinomial logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with treatment in participants who did not achieve targets for glycemic, blood pressure, and lipid control. Temporal trends were estimated using 2-piece linear spline models with 1 knot at inflection points.

Setting and participants. The NHANES program began in the early 1960s to monitor the health of the US population. In 1999, the survey became a continuous program combining interviews and physical examinations. The survey examines a nationally representative sample of about 5000 persons each year. This study included 6653 participants who were nonpregnant, aged older than 20 years, reported a diagnosis of diabetes from a physician, and participated in NHANES from 1999 through 2018.

Main outcome measures. The main outcome measures were temporal trends in risk factor control (glycemic, blood pressure, or lipid levels) and medication use (glucose lowering, blood pressure lowering, or lipid lowering medications), and number as well as class of drug used, from 1999 through 2018 in diabetic adults from the US participating in NHANES.

Results. Sociodemographic characteristics of the studied diabetes population—The age and racial or ethnic distribution of participants with diabetes were stable from 1999 through 2018, whereas participants with a college degree, higher income, health insurance, obesity, or long-standing diabetes increased during the same period.

Trends in diabetes risk factor control—The trends for glycemic, blood pressure, and lipid control were nonlinear, with an inflection point around 2010. Glycemic control was defined as HbA_1c less than 7%, blood pressure was considered controlled if less than 140/90 mmHg, and lipid was controlled if non-HDL cholesterol level was less than 130 mg/dL. Although these chosen targets were based on the most recent clinical guidelines, the authors declared that they observed similar trends when alternative targets were used. The level of risk factor control improved in all diabetic patients from 1999 through 2010. However, the percentage of adult diabetic participants for whom glycemic control was achieved declined from 57.4% (95% CI, 52.9-61.8) in 2007-2010 to 50.5% (95% CI, 45.8-55.3) in 2015-2018. Blood pressure control was achieved in 74.2% of participants (95% CI, 70.7-77.4) in 2011-2014 but declined to 70.4% (95% CI, 66.7-73.8) in 2015-2018. Control in lipid levels improved during the entire study period; however, the rate of improvement heavily declined after 2007 with lipid target levels attained in 52.3% of participants (95% CI, 49.2-55.3) in 2007-2014 and 55.7% (95% CI, 50.8-60.5) in 2015-2018. Finally, the percentage of participants in whom targets for all 3 risk factors were simultaneously achieved plateaued after 2010 and was 22.2% (95% CI, 17.9-27.3) in 2015-2018.

Trends in diabetes treatment—The use of glucose lowering drugs increased from 74.1% in 1999-2002 to 82.7% in 2007-2010 and then stabilized. A shift toward a safer glucose lowering treatment choice was observed with a decline in the use of older glucose lowering medications such as sulfonylureas, which increases the risk of hypoglycemia, and an increase in the use of metformin, insulin, and newer agents such as sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors.

Similarly, blood pressure lowering medication use rose from 1999-2002 to 2007-2010 and then stabilized, with increased use of first-line recommended treatments including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers. Likewise, statin use rose from 28.4% in 1999-2002 to 56% in 2011-2014 and then stabilized. The total number of drugs used culminated in 2011-2014 with 60% of participants using more than 5 drugs and then leveled off to 57.2% in 2015-2018. Lastly, health insurance status and race or ethnicity impacted the likelihood of receiving monotherapy or combination drug therapy when targets for glycemic, blood pressure, or lipid control were not achieved.

Conclusion. Despite great progress in the control of diabetes and its associated risk factors between 1999 and 2010, this trend declined for glycemic and blood pressure control and leveled off for lipid control in adult NHANES participants with diabetes after 2010. First-line treatments for diabetes and associated risk factors remain underused, and treatment intensification may not be sufficiently considered in patients with uncontrolled risk factors despite clinical guideline recommendations. The findings of this study may portend a possible population-level increase in diabetes-related illnesses in the years to come.

Commentary

The thorough understanding of trends in management of diseases is critical to inform public health policies and planning. Well designed clinical studies heavily influence the development of public health policies and clinical guidelines, which in turn drive real-world clinical practice. In a recent analysis utilizing data from NHANES, Fang et al¹ showed evidence of a general shift toward less intensive treatment of diabetes, hypertension, and hypercholesterolemia in adults living in the US during the last decade.

Similarly, in a separate study using NHANES data collected between 1999 and 2018 published in JAMA just 2 weeks after the current report, Wang et al² confirms this declining trend in diabetes management with only 21.2% of diabetic adults simultaneously attaining glycemic, blood pressure, and lipid level targets during the same period. What led to the decline in more stringent risk factor and diabetes management since 2010 observed in these studies? One possible explanation, as suggested by Fang et al, is that major clinical trials from the late 2000s­—including Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes, UK Prospective Diabetes Study, Action in Diabetes and Vascular Disease: Preterax and Diamicron Modified Release Controlled Evaluation, and Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial—that assessed the effects of intensive glycemic control (with target HbA_1c < 6.5%) found that intensive treatment of diabetes compared to standard care had no cardiovascular benefit albeit increasing the risk of hypoglycemia. Thus, these trial findings may have translated into suboptimal diabetes treatment observed in some NHANES participants. Wang et al propose that effective tailored approaches are needed to improve risk factor control in diabetic patients, such as enhance and maintain adherence to medications and healthy lifestyle behaviors, as well as better access to health care and therapeutic education.

The changes in recent trends in diabetes management have immense clinical implications. The authors of this study suggest a link between the recent relaxation of glycemic targets, as well as risk factor control, and a resurgence of diabetic complications such as lower limb amputation or stroke. Indeed, several recent studies indicate an upward trend or plateau in diabetic complications which had been decreasing in prevalence prior to 2010.³ For example, lower extremity amputation has surged by more than 25% between 2010 and 2015, especially in young and middle-aged adults.⁴ Among the arguments brought forward that this recent resurgence in amputations is directly linked to worsening glycemic control is the fact that between 2007 and 2010, when glucose levels were best controlled within the previous 30-year period, amputations were also at the lowest levels. Moreover, data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also show a 55% increase in mortality (from 15.7 to 24.2 per 1000) among diabetic patients between 2010 and 2015.¹⁴ On the other hand, a growing number of studies show that an increase of inappropriate treatment intensification—reaching HbA_1c levels that are way below the recommended targets—is associated with adverse consequences in diabetic patients particularly in those aged more than 65 years.^5-7 These seemingly contradictory findings highlight the importance of a personalized and thoughtful approach to the management of diabetes and its risk factors. As an example, an increase in the use of newer and safer glucose lowering drugs (eg, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists, and dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors) can help achieve better HbA_1c goals with a reduced risk of hypoglycemic episodes as recently shown by a Danish study.⁸ In this study, the authors concluded that the reduction of the rate of hypoglycemic episodes leading to hospitalization in Denmark was directly linked to the use of these safer and newer glucose lowering drugs.

A discussion on the specifics of trends in diabetes treatment and control must include considerations in older adults aged more than 65 years who constitute more than 40% of the diabetic population. Despite the high prevalence of diabetes in this vulnerable population, such data are still insufficient in the literature and are critically needed to inform public health policies and clinical guidelines. In epidemiological studies focusing on diabetic complications from the last 10 years, concerning increases have been observed in younger⁹ and middle-aged adults while remaining stable in older adults. However, the risk of hypoglycemia or severe hypoglycemia remains high in older adults living in nursing facilities, even in those with an elevated HbA_1c of greater than 8%.⁷ Moreover, in light of more relaxed HbA_1c treatment goals for older frail adults as recommended by international guidelines since 2010,^10,11 recent findings from the French GERODIAB cohort show an increased mortality (hazard ratio, 1.76) in type 2 diabetics aged 70 years and older with HbA_1c greater than or equal to 8.6%.¹² Similarly, a 5-year retrospective British study from 2018 which included patients aged 70 years and older, shows an increased overall mortality in those with HbA_1c greater than 8.5%.¹³ Taken together, further age-stratified analysis utilizing data from large cohort studies including NHANES may help to clarify national trends in diabetes treatment and risk factor control as well as diabetic complications specific to the geriatric population. By being better informed of such trends, clinicians could then develop treatment strategies that minimize complications (eg, hypoglycemia, falls) while achieving favorable outcomes (eg, reduce hyperglycemic emergencies, improve survival) in frail older patients.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The understanding of population-wide trends in diabetes control is critical to planning public health approaches for the prevention and treatment of this disease and its complications. In older adults, the high risk of hypoglycemic events and insufficient epidemiological data on trends of diabetes control hinder diabetes management. Personalized treatment targets taking into account geriatric syndromes and general health status, as well as multidisciplinary management involving endocrinologists, geriatricians, and clinical pharmacists, are necessary to optimize care in older adults with diabetes.

Delirium is a frequent form of organ failure among the critically ill, impacting up to 80% of mechanically ventilated patients (Ely EW et al. JAMA. 2004;291[14]:1753-62). Its cardinal manifestations include disturbances in attention and cognition that occur acutely (e.g., hours to days) that are not better explained by another disease process (such as a toxidrome or dementia) (American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed., 2013). Duration of delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU) is independently associated with poor outcomes, such as mortality and hospital length of stay, even when accounting for comorbidities, coma duration, sedative use, and severity of illness. Delirium during critical illness is an important bellwether for a patient’s clinical status, often serving as a harbinger for severe or worsening disease.

Over the last two decades, the critical care community has come to understand the importance of recognizing delirium, which is often underdiagnosed, as well as delirium prevention. In the ICU, several factors coalesce to form the perfect environment for the development of delirium. Patients often have preexisting comorbidities that predispose to delirium, such as preexisting cognitive impairment, and the severity of critical illness increases the risk of delirium further. There are also bedside factors, however, that are important for the intensivist to address, many of which are modifiable. These include routinely screening for delirium and assessing level of consciousness, implementing early mobility and rehabilitation, targeting light sedation, and avoiding deliriogenic medications such as benzodiazepines. These evidence-based care practices form the foundation of the 2018 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU (i.e., PADIS guidelines), which aim to reduce delirium and iatrogenesis from critical care (Devlin JW et al. Crit Care Med. 2018;46[9]:e825-e873). The severe acute respiratory syndrome–coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pathogen that has caused the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, however, has brought unprecedented challenges to critical care. One unfortunate side effect has been increased use of deep sedation and, thus, a greater incidence of delirium (Pun BT et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9[3]:239-50). While the impact of the pandemic is unprecedented, thoughtful and careful sedation use remains vital to providing optimal care for the critically ill patient.
 

The link between sedation and delirium

The advent of modern mechanical ventilation brought critical care medicine into a period of rapid growth. Practices derived from the operating room, such as deep sedation and paralysis, became commonplace. Yet, starting in the late 1990s and early 2000s, evidence started growing regarding the impact of delirium and the unique aspects of the ICU that made it so prevalent. Delirium is strongly linked to inpatient mortality in mechanically ventilated adults, and it is best understood as an additional form of organ failure, much like other organ failures commonly recognized and treated by intensivists, such as respiratory or renal failure. Certain medications and sedation practices are associated with the development and duration of delirium. Benzodiazepines, a common sedative medication, are strongly linked to the development of delirium. In a study comparing commonly used sedative and analgesic agents, the use of lorazepam was associated with a greater risk of delirium the following day among critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients (Pandhariphande PP et al. Anesthesiology. 2006;104[1]:21-6). Given how commonly benzodiazepines are used and delirium develops in the ICU, this association has striking implications for clinical care and outcomes such as mortality. It is also significant, given that benzodiazepine use has increased during the pandemic, potentially creating significant downstream consequences. Benzodiazepines should be actively avoided when at all possible, given their propensity to lead to delirium, in accordance with the most recent guidelines.

Which sedation agent to choose?

While the negative effects of benzodiazepine-based sedation are well established, the optimal sedation agent remains unclear. Several other drugs are commonly used in the ICU, including propofol, dexmedetomidine, and opioid agents such as fentanyl and morphine. Propofol and dexmedetomidine are used specifically for their sedative properties, though they have dramatically different effects on the depth of sedation and different mechanisms of action. Opioid agents are most commonly used for their analgesic effect; however, in higher doses or combined with other medications, they have the secondary effect of inducing sedation. No particular sedation agent, however, beyond the avoidance of benzodiazepines has been recommended for use in the most recent guidelines. In the PRODEX and MIDEX studies, dexmedetomidine was noninferior to both midazolam and propofol in achieving targeted light to moderate sedation, and dexmedetomidine was associated with a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation compared to midazolam (Jakob SM et al. JAMA. 2012;307[11]:1151-60). More recently, the SPICE-III trial studied dexmedetomidine vs. usual care and found no difference in 90-day mortality (Shehabi Y et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;380[26]:2506-17).

In choosing the best sedation agent to avoid delirium, the largest and most applicable trial to date is the “Maximizing the Efficacy of Sedation and Reducing Neurological Dysfunction and Mortality in Septic Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure,” or MENDS2 trial (Hughes CG et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:1424-36). This study was a double-blind, multicenter randomized controlled trial of dexmedetomidine vs propofol in critically ill patients with sepsis receiving mechanical ventilation. The primary outcome was days alive without delirium or coma over the 14-day intervention period. The study enrolled 438 patients between 13 sites, with 422 patients receiving either dexmedetomidine or propofol. Hughes and colleagues found no difference in the primary outcome of days alive without delirium or coma between the dexmedetomidine and the propofol arms. The study also found no difference in secondary outcomes, including ventilator-free days, 90-day mortality, and 6-month global cognition, as well as no difference in safety endpoints. Importantly, there was excellent compliance with guideline-recommended practices of spontaneous awakening and breathing trials and early mobility, both of which are associated with reduced sedation exposure. The study did have some notable nuances, however. The overall doses of trial drugs were relatively low, and there was a moderate use of rescue sedation. There was also a small amount of crossover use of propofol and dexmedetomidine between treatment arms (10%), although the authors note that this was lower than in prior related studies. Overall, the MENDS2 study suggests there is likely clinical equipoise between propofol and dexmedetomidine in terms of delirium outcomes when combined with best practices, such targeted light sedation, paired awakening and breathing trials, and early mobility.
 

How should we manage sedation to prevent delirium?

Building off of the recent MENDS2 study and earlier work in the field, along with the 2018 PADIS guidelines, the general paradigm of sedation management should be focused on using light sedation with sedation interruptions to minimize overall sedation exposure. Based on the best available evidence to date, targeting less overall sedation leads to improved outcomes in critically ill patients, including mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation. Benzodiazepines should be avoided due to their association with delirium, but currently there is no evidence to suggest one nonbenzodiazepine sedative is better than another. Intensivists can feel comfortable choosing between agents based on a patient’s individual clinical needs, especially when patients are receiving paired spontaneous awakening and breathing trials and early rehabilitation. These same principles should be applied to sedation management and delirium patients in COVID-19 patients as well. While certain circumstances will necessitate deeper sedation at times (e.g., refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS from COVID-19), clinicians should continually reassess the actual sedation needs of the patient with the goal of reducing overall sedation. Focusing effort on these evidence-based practices will help reduce the incidence of delirium and ultimately improve patient outcomes.
 

Dr. Mart is with the Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center; Critical Illness, Brain Dysfunction, and Survivorship (CIBS) Center; and VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center (GRECC), Nashville, Tennessee.

Delirium is a frequent form of organ failure among the critically ill, impacting up to 80% of mechanically ventilated patients (Ely EW et al. JAMA. 2004;291[14]:1753-62). Its cardinal manifestations include disturbances in attention and cognition that occur acutely (e.g., hours to days) that are not better explained by another disease process (such as a toxidrome or dementia) (American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed., 2013). Duration of delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU) is independently associated with poor outcomes, such as mortality and hospital length of stay, even when accounting for comorbidities, coma duration, sedative use, and severity of illness. Delirium during critical illness is an important bellwether for a patient’s clinical status, often serving as a harbinger for severe or worsening disease.

Over the last two decades, the critical care community has come to understand the importance of recognizing delirium, which is often underdiagnosed, as well as delirium prevention. In the ICU, several factors coalesce to form the perfect environment for the development of delirium. Patients often have preexisting comorbidities that predispose to delirium, such as preexisting cognitive impairment, and the severity of critical illness increases the risk of delirium further. There are also bedside factors, however, that are important for the intensivist to address, many of which are modifiable. These include routinely screening for delirium and assessing level of consciousness, implementing early mobility and rehabilitation, targeting light sedation, and avoiding deliriogenic medications such as benzodiazepines. These evidence-based care practices form the foundation of the 2018 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU (i.e., PADIS guidelines), which aim to reduce delirium and iatrogenesis from critical care (Devlin JW et al. Crit Care Med. 2018;46[9]:e825-e873). The severe acute respiratory syndrome–coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pathogen that has caused the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, however, has brought unprecedented challenges to critical care. One unfortunate side effect has been increased use of deep sedation and, thus, a greater incidence of delirium (Pun BT et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9[3]:239-50). While the impact of the pandemic is unprecedented, thoughtful and careful sedation use remains vital to providing optimal care for the critically ill patient.
 

The link between sedation and delirium

The advent of modern mechanical ventilation brought critical care medicine into a period of rapid growth. Practices derived from the operating room, such as deep sedation and paralysis, became commonplace. Yet, starting in the late 1990s and early 2000s, evidence started growing regarding the impact of delirium and the unique aspects of the ICU that made it so prevalent. Delirium is strongly linked to inpatient mortality in mechanically ventilated adults, and it is best understood as an additional form of organ failure, much like other organ failures commonly recognized and treated by intensivists, such as respiratory or renal failure. Certain medications and sedation practices are associated with the development and duration of delirium. Benzodiazepines, a common sedative medication, are strongly linked to the development of delirium. In a study comparing commonly used sedative and analgesic agents, the use of lorazepam was associated with a greater risk of delirium the following day among critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients (Pandhariphande PP et al. Anesthesiology. 2006;104[1]:21-6). Given how commonly benzodiazepines are used and delirium develops in the ICU, this association has striking implications for clinical care and outcomes such as mortality. It is also significant, given that benzodiazepine use has increased during the pandemic, potentially creating significant downstream consequences. Benzodiazepines should be actively avoided when at all possible, given their propensity to lead to delirium, in accordance with the most recent guidelines.

Which sedation agent to choose?

While the negative effects of benzodiazepine-based sedation are well established, the optimal sedation agent remains unclear. Several other drugs are commonly used in the ICU, including propofol, dexmedetomidine, and opioid agents such as fentanyl and morphine. Propofol and dexmedetomidine are used specifically for their sedative properties, though they have dramatically different effects on the depth of sedation and different mechanisms of action. Opioid agents are most commonly used for their analgesic effect; however, in higher doses or combined with other medications, they have the secondary effect of inducing sedation. No particular sedation agent, however, beyond the avoidance of benzodiazepines has been recommended for use in the most recent guidelines. In the PRODEX and MIDEX studies, dexmedetomidine was noninferior to both midazolam and propofol in achieving targeted light to moderate sedation, and dexmedetomidine was associated with a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation compared to midazolam (Jakob SM et al. JAMA. 2012;307[11]:1151-60). More recently, the SPICE-III trial studied dexmedetomidine vs. usual care and found no difference in 90-day mortality (Shehabi Y et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;380[26]:2506-17).

In choosing the best sedation agent to avoid delirium, the largest and most applicable trial to date is the “Maximizing the Efficacy of Sedation and Reducing Neurological Dysfunction and Mortality in Septic Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure,” or MENDS2 trial (Hughes CG et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:1424-36). This study was a double-blind, multicenter randomized controlled trial of dexmedetomidine vs propofol in critically ill patients with sepsis receiving mechanical ventilation. The primary outcome was days alive without delirium or coma over the 14-day intervention period. The study enrolled 438 patients between 13 sites, with 422 patients receiving either dexmedetomidine or propofol. Hughes and colleagues found no difference in the primary outcome of days alive without delirium or coma between the dexmedetomidine and the propofol arms. The study also found no difference in secondary outcomes, including ventilator-free days, 90-day mortality, and 6-month global cognition, as well as no difference in safety endpoints. Importantly, there was excellent compliance with guideline-recommended practices of spontaneous awakening and breathing trials and early mobility, both of which are associated with reduced sedation exposure. The study did have some notable nuances, however. The overall doses of trial drugs were relatively low, and there was a moderate use of rescue sedation. There was also a small amount of crossover use of propofol and dexmedetomidine between treatment arms (10%), although the authors note that this was lower than in prior related studies. Overall, the MENDS2 study suggests there is likely clinical equipoise between propofol and dexmedetomidine in terms of delirium outcomes when combined with best practices, such targeted light sedation, paired awakening and breathing trials, and early mobility.
 

How should we manage sedation to prevent delirium?

Building off of the recent MENDS2 study and earlier work in the field, along with the 2018 PADIS guidelines, the general paradigm of sedation management should be focused on using light sedation with sedation interruptions to minimize overall sedation exposure. Based on the best available evidence to date, targeting less overall sedation leads to improved outcomes in critically ill patients, including mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation. Benzodiazepines should be avoided due to their association with delirium, but currently there is no evidence to suggest one nonbenzodiazepine sedative is better than another. Intensivists can feel comfortable choosing between agents based on a patient’s individual clinical needs, especially when patients are receiving paired spontaneous awakening and breathing trials and early rehabilitation. These same principles should be applied to sedation management and delirium patients in COVID-19 patients as well. While certain circumstances will necessitate deeper sedation at times (e.g., refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS from COVID-19), clinicians should continually reassess the actual sedation needs of the patient with the goal of reducing overall sedation. Focusing effort on these evidence-based practices will help reduce the incidence of delirium and ultimately improve patient outcomes.
 

Dr. Mart is with the Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center; Critical Illness, Brain Dysfunction, and Survivorship (CIBS) Center; and VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center (GRECC), Nashville, Tennessee.

Delirium is a frequent form of organ failure among the critically ill, impacting up to 80% of mechanically ventilated patients (Ely EW et al. JAMA. 2004;291[14]:1753-62). Its cardinal manifestations include disturbances in attention and cognition that occur acutely (e.g., hours to days) that are not better explained by another disease process (such as a toxidrome or dementia) (American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th ed., 2013). Duration of delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU) is independently associated with poor outcomes, such as mortality and hospital length of stay, even when accounting for comorbidities, coma duration, sedative use, and severity of illness. Delirium during critical illness is an important bellwether for a patient’s clinical status, often serving as a harbinger for severe or worsening disease.

Over the last two decades, the critical care community has come to understand the importance of recognizing delirium, which is often underdiagnosed, as well as delirium prevention. In the ICU, several factors coalesce to form the perfect environment for the development of delirium. Patients often have preexisting comorbidities that predispose to delirium, such as preexisting cognitive impairment, and the severity of critical illness increases the risk of delirium further. There are also bedside factors, however, that are important for the intensivist to address, many of which are modifiable. These include routinely screening for delirium and assessing level of consciousness, implementing early mobility and rehabilitation, targeting light sedation, and avoiding deliriogenic medications such as benzodiazepines. These evidence-based care practices form the foundation of the 2018 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU (i.e., PADIS guidelines), which aim to reduce delirium and iatrogenesis from critical care (Devlin JW et al. Crit Care Med. 2018;46[9]:e825-e873). The severe acute respiratory syndrome–coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pathogen that has caused the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, however, has brought unprecedented challenges to critical care. One unfortunate side effect has been increased use of deep sedation and, thus, a greater incidence of delirium (Pun BT et al. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9[3]:239-50). While the impact of the pandemic is unprecedented, thoughtful and careful sedation use remains vital to providing optimal care for the critically ill patient.
 

The link between sedation and delirium

The advent of modern mechanical ventilation brought critical care medicine into a period of rapid growth. Practices derived from the operating room, such as deep sedation and paralysis, became commonplace. Yet, starting in the late 1990s and early 2000s, evidence started growing regarding the impact of delirium and the unique aspects of the ICU that made it so prevalent. Delirium is strongly linked to inpatient mortality in mechanically ventilated adults, and it is best understood as an additional form of organ failure, much like other organ failures commonly recognized and treated by intensivists, such as respiratory or renal failure. Certain medications and sedation practices are associated with the development and duration of delirium. Benzodiazepines, a common sedative medication, are strongly linked to the development of delirium. In a study comparing commonly used sedative and analgesic agents, the use of lorazepam was associated with a greater risk of delirium the following day among critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients (Pandhariphande PP et al. Anesthesiology. 2006;104[1]:21-6). Given how commonly benzodiazepines are used and delirium develops in the ICU, this association has striking implications for clinical care and outcomes such as mortality. It is also significant, given that benzodiazepine use has increased during the pandemic, potentially creating significant downstream consequences. Benzodiazepines should be actively avoided when at all possible, given their propensity to lead to delirium, in accordance with the most recent guidelines.

Which sedation agent to choose?

While the negative effects of benzodiazepine-based sedation are well established, the optimal sedation agent remains unclear. Several other drugs are commonly used in the ICU, including propofol, dexmedetomidine, and opioid agents such as fentanyl and morphine. Propofol and dexmedetomidine are used specifically for their sedative properties, though they have dramatically different effects on the depth of sedation and different mechanisms of action. Opioid agents are most commonly used for their analgesic effect; however, in higher doses or combined with other medications, they have the secondary effect of inducing sedation. No particular sedation agent, however, beyond the avoidance of benzodiazepines has been recommended for use in the most recent guidelines. In the PRODEX and MIDEX studies, dexmedetomidine was noninferior to both midazolam and propofol in achieving targeted light to moderate sedation, and dexmedetomidine was associated with a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation compared to midazolam (Jakob SM et al. JAMA. 2012;307[11]:1151-60). More recently, the SPICE-III trial studied dexmedetomidine vs. usual care and found no difference in 90-day mortality (Shehabi Y et al. N Engl J Med. 2019;380[26]:2506-17).

In choosing the best sedation agent to avoid delirium, the largest and most applicable trial to date is the “Maximizing the Efficacy of Sedation and Reducing Neurological Dysfunction and Mortality in Septic Patients with Acute Respiratory Failure,” or MENDS2 trial (Hughes CG et al. N Engl J Med. 2021;384:1424-36). This study was a double-blind, multicenter randomized controlled trial of dexmedetomidine vs propofol in critically ill patients with sepsis receiving mechanical ventilation. The primary outcome was days alive without delirium or coma over the 14-day intervention period. The study enrolled 438 patients between 13 sites, with 422 patients receiving either dexmedetomidine or propofol. Hughes and colleagues found no difference in the primary outcome of days alive without delirium or coma between the dexmedetomidine and the propofol arms. The study also found no difference in secondary outcomes, including ventilator-free days, 90-day mortality, and 6-month global cognition, as well as no difference in safety endpoints. Importantly, there was excellent compliance with guideline-recommended practices of spontaneous awakening and breathing trials and early mobility, both of which are associated with reduced sedation exposure. The study did have some notable nuances, however. The overall doses of trial drugs were relatively low, and there was a moderate use of rescue sedation. There was also a small amount of crossover use of propofol and dexmedetomidine between treatment arms (10%), although the authors note that this was lower than in prior related studies. Overall, the MENDS2 study suggests there is likely clinical equipoise between propofol and dexmedetomidine in terms of delirium outcomes when combined with best practices, such targeted light sedation, paired awakening and breathing trials, and early mobility.
 

How should we manage sedation to prevent delirium?

Building off of the recent MENDS2 study and earlier work in the field, along with the 2018 PADIS guidelines, the general paradigm of sedation management should be focused on using light sedation with sedation interruptions to minimize overall sedation exposure. Based on the best available evidence to date, targeting less overall sedation leads to improved outcomes in critically ill patients, including mortality and duration of mechanical ventilation. Benzodiazepines should be avoided due to their association with delirium, but currently there is no evidence to suggest one nonbenzodiazepine sedative is better than another. Intensivists can feel comfortable choosing between agents based on a patient’s individual clinical needs, especially when patients are receiving paired spontaneous awakening and breathing trials and early rehabilitation. These same principles should be applied to sedation management and delirium patients in COVID-19 patients as well. While certain circumstances will necessitate deeper sedation at times (e.g., refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS from COVID-19), clinicians should continually reassess the actual sedation needs of the patient with the goal of reducing overall sedation. Focusing effort on these evidence-based practices will help reduce the incidence of delirium and ultimately improve patient outcomes.
 

Dr. Mart is with the Division of Allergy, Pulmonary, and Critical Care Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center; Critical Illness, Brain Dysfunction, and Survivorship (CIBS) Center; and VA Tennessee Valley Healthcare System Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center (GRECC), Nashville, Tennessee.