Objectives:It is important to describe and understand the prevalence and risk factors for the syndrome of delirium in critical illness. Since anticholinergic medication may contribute to the development of delirium in the PICU, we have sought to quantify anticholinergic medication exposure in patients with prolonged admission. We have used Anticholinergic Drug Scale scores to quantify the magnitude or extent of this burden.Design:Retrospective cohort study, January 2011 to December 2015.Setting:Single academic medical center PICU.Patients:Children under 18 years old with a PICU admission of 15 days or longer, requiring mechanical ventilation.Interventions:None.Measurements and Main Results:Daily Anticholinergic Drug Scale scores for the first 15 days of admission, in each of 88 subjects (total of 1,320 PICU days), were collected and assessed in relation to demographic data, severity of illness, and medication use. Median (interquartile range) of daily Anticholinergic Drug Scale score was 5 (interquartile range, 3–7). Anticholinergic Drug Scale score was not associated with age, sex, medical history, presenting Severity of Illness score, PICU length of stay, ventilator hours, or hospital mortality. Medications most frequently associated with high Anticholinergic Drug Scale score were low potency anticholinergic drugs such as morphine, midazolam, vancomycin, steroids, and furosemide, with the exception of ranitidine (Anticholinergic Drug Scale score 2). Patients receiving high doses of midazolam infusion had significantly higher Anticholinergic Drug Scale scores compared with those receiving lower or no midazolam dosing.Conclusions:A high number of medications with anticholinergic effects are administered to PICU patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation. These exposures are much higher than those reported in adult intensive care patients. Since anticholinergic drug exposure is associated with delirium, further study of this exposure in PICU patients is needed.

No abstract

Background: COVIDTrach is a UK multi-centre prospective cohort study project evaluating the outcomes of tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 receiving mechanical ventilation. It also examines the incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection among healthcare workers involved in the procedure. Method: An invitation to participate was sent to all UK NHS departments involved in tracheostomy in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Data was entered prospectively and clinical outcomes updated over time via an online database (REDCap). Clinical variables were compared with clinical outcomes using multivariable regression analysis, with logistic regression used to develop a prediction model for mortality. Participants recorded whether any of the operators tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 within two weeks of the procedure. Findings: The cohort comprised 1605 tracheostomy cases from 126 UK hospitals. The median time from intubation to tracheostomy was 15 days (IQR 11, 21). 285 (18%) patients died following the procedure. 1229 (93%) of the survivors had been successfully weaned from mechanical ventilation at censoring and 1049 (81%) had been discharged from hospital. Age, inspired oxygen concentration requirement on the day of tracheostomy, PEEP setting, pyrexia, number of days of ventilation before tracheostomy, C-reactive protein and the use of anticoagulation and inotropic support independently predicticted mortality. Six reports were received of operators testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 within two weeks following the procedure. Interpretation: Tracheostomy appears to be safe in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 and to operators performing the procedure and we identified clinical indicators that are predictive of mortality. Optimal timing of the procedure remains to be determined. Funding: The COVIDTrach project is supported by the Wellcome Trust UCL COVID-19 Rapid Response Award and the National Institute for Health Research.

No abstract

Aim There is a well-documented increase in incidence of thyroid cancer in individuals living within the blast radius at the time of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster. Following a case encountered in our clinical practice of a patient born within the blast radius but after the blast itself, we aimed to evaluate the evidence of increased thyroid cancer within such a cohort. Method We reviewed the existing literature for evidence for or against an increase in thyroid cancer in this population group. Identified articles were reviewed and appraised, evaluating the evidence for any possible increase in incidence. Results Very few papers looked at risk in such a population, but those identified suggested no increase in risk of thyroid cancer in individuals born within the radius, after the blast. Conclusions We conclude there is little evidence supporting routine monitoring for individuals born within the blast radius after the blast, and as such this should be included in the British Thyroid Association guidelines.