Fluids are given with the purpose of increasing cardiac output (CO), but approximately only 50% of critically ill patients are fluid responders. Since the effect of a fluid bolus is time-sensitive, it diminuish within few hours, following the initial fluid resuscitation. Several functional hemodynamic tests (FHTs), consisting of maneuvers affecting heart-lung interactions, have been conceived to discriminate fluid responders from non-responders. Three main variables affect the reliability of FHTs in predicting fluid responsiveness: (1) tidal volume; (2) spontaneous breathing activity; (3) cardiac arrythmias. Most FTHs have been validated in sedated or even paralyzed ICU patients, since, historically, controlled mechanical ventilation with high tidal volumes was the preferred mode of ventilatory support. The transition to contemporary methods of invasive mechanical ventilation with spontaneous breathing activity impacts heart-lung interactions by modifying intrathoracic pressure, tidal volumes and transvascular pressure in lung capillaries. These alterations and the heterogeneity in respiratory mechanics (that is present both in healthy and injured lungs) subsequently influence venous return and cardiac output. Cardiac arrythmias are frequently present in critically ill patients, especially atrial fibrillation, and intuitively impact on FHTs. This is due to the random CO fluctuations. Finally, the presence of continuous CO monitoring in ICU patients is not standard and the assessment of fluid responsiveness with surrogate methods is clinically useful, but also challenging. In this review we provide an algorithm for the use of FHTs in different subgroups of ICU patients, according to ventilatory setting, cardiac rhythm and the availability of continuous hemodynamic monitoring.

BackgroundThe growing burden of atrial fibrillation (AF) experienced by the general population translates into an increased incidence in the intensive care setting, further aggravated by illness severity. New onset AF has been established as an independent mortality predictor. Cardiology management guidelines are based on major trials that included ambulatory patients with varying degrees of ventricular systolic and diastolic dysfunction, and with variable dependences of left ventricular filling on atrial systole. Emphasis is placed on rate control combined with anticoagulation therapy, along with careful consideration of limiting any myocardial depression by antiarrhythmic medication in patients who often already have some form of structural heart disease.DesignNarrative review Objectives: Critical care echocardiography (CCE) is well established as a widely available diagnostic and monitoring tool in haemodynamically unstable patients. It assists in identifying risk factors associated with arrhythmias, reveals parameters associated with arrhythmia chronicity, and guides therapy to facilitate a return to sinus rhythm. CCE helps guide the crucial management decision to seek either rhythm or rate control and, with rhythm control, monitors return of mechanical sinus rhythm with left atrial recovery post cardioversion. Echocardiography can also help when conflicting management goals are present, such as guideline-driven therapeutic anticoagulation in the intensive care patient that is at significant risk of bleeding.ResultsThis review seeks to assist intensive care practitioners managing patients with AF, with a focus on the many benefits CCE offers, blending specific intensive care medicine data to current cardiology guidelines on arrhythmia management in these severely ill patients.

 Background:  This Rapid Practice Guideline (RPG) aimed to provide evidence‑based recommendations for ketamine analgo-sedation (monotherapy and adjunct) versus non-ketamine sedatives or usual care in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients on invasive mechanical ventilation (iMV) and to identify knowledge gaps for future research.

 Methods:  The RPG panel comprised 23 multinational multidisciplinary panelists, including a patient representative. An up-to-date systematic review and meta-analysis constituted the evidence base. The Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach, and the evidence-to-decision framework were used to assess the certainty of evidence and to move from evidence to decision/recommendation. The panel provided input on the balance of the desirable and undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, patients' values and preferences, costs, resources, equity, feasibility, acceptability, and research priorities.

 Results:  Data from 17 randomized clinical trials (n=898) and 9 observational studies (n=1934) were included. There was considerable uncertainty about the desirable and undesirable effects of ketamine monotherapy for analgo-sedation. The evidence was very low certainty and downgraded for risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency. Uncertainty or variability in values and preferences were identified. Costs, resources, equity, and acceptability were considered varied. Adjunctive ketamine therapy had no effect on mortality (within 28 days) (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76 to 1.27; low certainty), and may slightly reduce iMV duration (days) (mean difference [MD] -0.05 days; 95% CI -0.07 to -0.03; low certainty), and uncertain effect on the cumulative dose of opioids (mcg/kg/h morphine equivalent) (MD -11.6; 95% CI -20.4 to -2.7; very low certainty). Uncertain desirable effects (cumulative dose of sedatives and vasopressors) and undesirable effects (adverse event rate, delirium, arrhythmia, hepatotoxicity, hypersalivation, use of physical restraints) were also identified. A possibility of important uncertainty or variability in patient-important outcomes led to a balanced effect that favored neither the intervention nor the comparison. Cost, resources, and equity were considered varied.

 Conclusion:  The RPG panel provided two conditional recommendations and suggested (1) against using ketamine as monotherapy analgo-sedation in critically ill adults on iMV when other analgo-sedatives are available; and (2) using ketamine as an adjunct to non-ketamine usual care sedatives (e.g., opioids, propofol, dexmedetomidine) or continuing with non-ketamine usual care sedatives alone. Large-scale trials should provide additional evidence.

Background: Awake proning in spontaneously breathing patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure was applied during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic to improve oxygenation while avoiding tracheal intubation. An updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the topic was published.Methods: The Clinical practice committee (CPC) of the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (SSAI) assessed the clinical practice guideline "Awake proning in patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: A rapid practice guideline" for possible endorsement. The Appraisal of Guidelines for REsearch and Evaluation (AGREE) II tool was used.Results: Four out of six SSAI CPC members completed the appraisal. The individual domain totals were: Scope and Purpose 90%; Stakeholder Involvement 89%; Rigour of Development 74%; Clarity of Presentation 85%; Applicability 75%; Editorial Independence 98%; Overall Assessment 79%.Conclusion: The SSAI CPC endorses the clinical practice guideline "Awake proning in patients with COVID-19-related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure: A rapid practice guideline". This guideline serves as a useful decision aid for clinicians caring for critically ill patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and can be used to provide guidance on use of prone positioning in this group of patients.

PurposeTo provide consensus recommendations regarding hemodynamic data reporting in studies investigating fluid responsiveness and fluid challenge (FC) use in the intensive care unit (ICU).MethodsThe Executive Committee of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine (ESICM) commissioned and supervised the project. A panel of 18 international experts and a methodologist identified main domains and items from a systematic literature, plus 2 ancillary domains. A three-step Delphi process based on an iterative approach was used to obtain the final consensus. In the Delphi 1 and 2, the items were selected with strong (>= 80% of votes) or week agreement (70-80% of votes), while the Delphi 3 generated recommended (>= 90% of votes) or suggested (80-90% of votes) items (RI and SI, respectively).ResultsWe identified 5 main domains initially including 117 items and the consensus finally resulted in 52 recommendations or suggestions: 18 RIs and 2 SIs statements were obtained for the domain "ICU admission", 11 RIs and 1 SI for the domain "mechanical ventilation", 5 RIs for the domain "reason for giving a FC", 8 RIs for the domain pre- and post-FC "hemodynamic data", and 7 RIs for the domain "pre-FC infused drugs". We had no consensus on the use of echocardiography, strong agreement regarding the volume (4 ml/kg) and the reference variable (cardiac output), while weak on administration rate (within 10 min) of FC in this setting.ConclusionThis consensus found 5 main domains and provided 52 recommendations for data reporting in studies investigating fluid responsiveness in ICU patients.

BackgroundWhen caring for mechanically ventilated adults with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF), clinicians are faced with an uncertain choice between ventilator modes allowing for spontaneous breaths or ventilation fully controlled by the ventilator. The preferences of clinicians managing such patients, and what motivates their choice of ventilator mode, are largely unknown. To better understand how clinicians preferences may impact the choice of ventilatory support for patients with AHRF, we issued a survey to an international network of intensive care unit (ICU) researchers.MethodsWe distributed an online survey with 32 broadly similar and interlinked questions on how clinicians prioritise spontaneous or controlled ventilation in invasively ventilated patients with AHRF of different severity, and which factors determine their choice.ResultsThe survey was distributed to 1337 recipients in 12 countries. Of these, 415 (31%) completed the survey either fully (52%) or partially (48%). Most respondents were identified as medical specialists (87%) or physicians in training (11%). Modes allowing for spontaneous ventilation were considered preferable in mild AHRF, with controlled ventilation considered as progressively more important in moderate and severe AHRF. Among respondents there was strong support (90%) for a randomised clinical trial comparing spontaneous with controlled ventilation in patients with moderate AHRF.ConclusionsThe responses from this international survey suggest that there is clinical equipoise for the preferred ventilator mode in patients with AHRF of moderate severity. We found strong support for a randomised trial comparing modes of ventilation in patients with moderate AHRF.

This rapid practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for the use of awake proning in adult patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19. The panel included 20 experts from 12 countries, including one patient representative, and used a strict conflict of interest policy for potential financial and intellectual conflicts of interest. Methodological support was provided by the guidelines in intensive care, development, and evaluation (GUIDE) group. Based on an updated systematic review, and the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) method we evaluated the certainty of evidence and developed recommendations using the Evidence-to-Decision framework. We conducted an electronic vote, requiring >80% agreement amongst the panel for a recommendation to be adopted. The panel made a strong recommendation for a trial of awake proning in adult patients with COVID-19 related hypoxemic acute respiratory failure who are not invasively ventilated. Awake proning appears to reduce the risk of tracheal intubation, although it may not reduce mortality. The panel judged that most patients would want a trial of awake proning, although this may not be feasible in some patients and some patients may not tolerate it. However, given the high risk of clinical deterioration amongst these patients, awake proning should be conducted in an area where patients can be monitored by staff experienced in rapidly detecting and managing clinical deterioration. This RPG panel recommends a trial of awake prone positioning in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19.