Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND:This survey assessed satisfaction with the practice environment among physicians who have completed fellowship training in critical care medicine (CCM) as recognized by the American Board of Anesthesiology (and are members of the American Society of Anesthesiology) and evaluated the perceived effectiveness of training programs in preparing fellows for critical care practice. METHODS:A cross-sectional online survey composed of 39 multiple choice and open-ended questions was administered between August and December 2018 to all members of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) who self-identified as being CCM trained. The survey instrument was developed and revised in an iterative fashion by ASA committee on CCM and the Society for Education in Anesthesia (SEA). Survey results were analyzed using a mixed-method approach. RESULTS:Three hundred fifty-three of the 1400 anesthesiologists who self-identified to the ASA as having CCM training (25.2%) completed the survey. Most were men (72.3%), board certified in CCM (98.7%), and had practiced a median of 5 years. Half of the respondents rated their training as "excellent." A total of 70.6% described currently working in academic centers with 53.6% providing care in open surgical intensive care units (ICUs). Most anesthesiologist intensivists (75%) spend at least 25% of their clinical time providing ICU care (versus clinical anesthesia). A total of 89% of the respondents were involved in educational activities, 60% reported being in administrative leadership roles, and 37% engaged in scholarly activity. Areas of dissatisfaction included fatigue, lack of collegiality or respect, lack of research training, decreased job satisfaction, and burnout. Analysis suggested moderate levels of job satisfaction (49%), work-life balance (52%), and high levels of burnout (74%). A significant contributor to burnout was with a perception of lack of respect (P = .005) in the work environment. Burnout was not significantly associated with gender or duration of practice. Qualitative analysis of the open-ended responses also identified these 3 variables as major themes. CONCLUSIONS:This survey of CCM-trained anesthesiologists described a high rate of board certification, practice in academic settings, and participation in resident education. Areas of dissatisfaction with an anesthesia/critical care practice included burnout, work/life balance, and lack of respect. These results may increase recruitment of anesthesiologists into critical care and inform strategies to improve satisfaction with anesthesia critical care practice, fellowship training.

Anesthesiologists are uniquely positioned to facilitate emergent care of patients with sepsis in the perioperative setting. A subset of sepsis patients presents with surgical pathology. Emphasis is on timely intervention with source control, antibiotic therapy, and aggressive resuscitation. Ileus, aspiration, and cardiovascular collapse must be considered when inducing patients with sepsis. Dynamic fluid responsiveness may prove an effective tool in minimizing over-resuscitation. Assessment of circulatory failure and drug therapy involves an understanding of preload, afterload, and contractility. Timely, targeted resuscitation and early source control have persisted and remain fundamental to sepsis care.

Acute limb ischemia caused by peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) cannulation is associated with increased mortality. Early detection of limb hypoperfusion may lead to timely intervention and prevent irreversible muscle damage. Methods to determine the adequacy of tissue oxygenation in cannulated extremities include bedside physical examination, trending serum biochemical markers, and somatic near-infrared spectroscopy. To prevent ECMO-related limb ischemia events, interventions include the addition of distal antegrade perfusion catheters to the arterial ECMO canula, minimizing arterial cannula diameter, placing arterial and venous cannulae on opposite extremities, and adding a side-arm graft to the cannulated artery. If the limb develops early signs of ischemia, preventative measures such as distal perfusion catheter insertion or changing the location of the arterial cannula should be performed. Acute compartment syndrome requires emergency fasciotomy or amputation if the limb is unsalvageable. Opportunities for future research include improving monitoring technology and standardizing the use of the distal perfusion catheter.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is a novel cause of organ dysfunction in children, presenting as either coronavirus disease 2019 with sepsis and/or respiratory failure or a hyperinflammatory shock syndrome. Clinicians must now consider these diagnoses when evaluating children for septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign International Guidelines for the Management of Septic Shock and Sepsis-associated Organ Dysfunction in Children provide an appropriate framework for the early recognition and initial resuscitation of children with sepsis or septic shock caused by all pathogens, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. However, the potential benefits of select adjunctive therapies may differ from non-coronavirus disease 2019 sepsis.

BACKGROUND:Ideal timing of postoperative beta-blockers is unclear. We hypothesized that patients who do not receive beta-blockers immediately after cardiac surgery would have increased in-hospital mortality (primary outcome) and postoperative hemodynamic, pulmonary, neurologic, or respiratory complications (secondary outcomes). METHODS:We performed a retrospective cohort study evaluating patients who underwent cardiac surgery at our institution from January 1, 2013 to September 30, 2017. We compared outcomes between patients who received beta-blockers by postoperative day (POD) 5 with outcomes in patients who did not receive beta-blockers at any time or received them after POD 5. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to minimize confounding. Univariate logistic regression analyses were performed on the weighted sets using absent or delayed beta-blockers as the independent variable and each outcome as dependent variables in separate analyses. A secondary analysis was performed in patients prescribed preoperative beta-blockers. E-values were calculated for significant outcomes. RESULTS:All results were confounder adjusted. Among patients presenting for cardiac surgery, not receiving beta-blockers by POD 5 or at any time was not associated with the primary outcome in-hospital mortality, estimated odds ratio (OR; 99.5% confidence interval [CI]) of 1.6 (0.49-5.1), P = .28. Not receiving beta-blockers by POD 5 or at any time was associated with postoperative atrial fibrillation, estimated OR (99.5% CI) of 1.5 (1.1-2.1), P < .001, and pulmonary complications, estimated OR (99.5% CI) of 3.0 (1.8-5.2), P < .001. E-values were 2.4 for postoperative atrial fibrillation and 5.6 for pulmonary complications. Among patients presenting for cardiac surgery taking preoperative beta-blockers, not receiving beta-blockers by POD 5 or at any time was not associated with the primary outcome mortality, with estimated OR (99.5% CI) of 1.3 (0.43-4.1), P = .63. In this subset, not receiving beta-blockers by POD 5 or at any time was associated with increased adjusted ORs of postoperative atrial fibrillation (OR = 1.6; 99.5% CI, 1.1-2.4; P < .001) and postoperative pulmonary complications (OR = 2.8; 99.5% CI, 1.6-5.2; P < .001). Here, e-values were 2.7 for postoperative atrial fibrillation and 5.1 for pulmonary complications. For the sensitivity analyses for secondary outcomes, exposure and outcome periods overlap. Outcomes may have occurred before or after postoperative beta-blocker administration. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who undergo cardiac surgery, not receiving postoperative beta-blockers within the first 5 days after cardiac surgery or at any time is not associated with in-hospital mortality and is associated with, but may not necessarily cause, postoperative atrial fibrillation and pulmonary complications.

This systematic review and meta-analysis addresses the efficacy and safety of nonopioid adjunctive analgesics for patients in the ICU.

Since the first recognition of a cluster of novel respiratory viral infections in China in late December 2019, intensivists in the United States have watched with growing concern as infections with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus-now named coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19)-have spread to hospitals in the United States. Because COVID-19 is extremely transmissible and can progress to a severe form of respiratory failure, the potential to overwhelm available critical care resources is high and critical care management of COVID-19 patients has been thrust into the spotlight. COVID-19 arrived in the United States in January and, as anticipated, has dramatically increased the usage of critical care resources. Three of the hardest-hit cities have been Seattle, New York City, and Chicago with a combined total of over 14,000 cases as of March 23, 2020.In this special article, we describe initial clinical impressions of critical care of COVID-19 in these areas, with attention to clinical presentation, laboratory values, organ system effects, treatment strategies, and resource management. We highlight clinical observations that align with or differ from already published reports. These impressions represent only the early empiric experience of the authors and are not intended to serve as recommendations or guidelines for practice, but rather as a starting point for intensivists preparing to address COVID-19 when it arrives in their community.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for children (including infants, school-aged children, and adolescents) with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. DESIGN/METHODS:A panel of 49 international experts, representing 12 international organizations, as well as three methodologists and three public members was convened. Panel members assembled at key international meetings (for those panel members attending the conference), and a stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in November 2018. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the chairs, co-chairs, methodologists, and group heads, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development process. METHODS:The panel consisted of six subgroups: recognition and management of infection, hemodynamics and resuscitation, ventilation, endocrine and metabolic therapies, adjunctive therapies, and research priorities. We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or as a best practice statement. In addition, "in our practice" statements were included when evidence was inconclusive to issue a recommendation, but the panel felt that some guidance based on practice patterns may be appropriate. RESULTS:The panel provided 77 statements on the management and resuscitation of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. Overall, six were strong recommendations, 49 were weak recommendations, and nine were best-practice statements. For 13 questions, no recommendations could be made; but, for 10 of these, "in our practice" statements were provided. In addition, 52 research priorities were identified. CONCLUSIONS:A large cohort of international experts was able to achieve consensus regarding many recommendations for the best care of children with sepsis, acknowledging that most aspects of care had relatively low quality of evidence resulting in the frequent issuance of weak recommendations. Despite this challenge, these recommendations regarding the management of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction provide a foundation for consistent care to improve outcomes and inform future research.