Purpose In the critically ill, hospital-acquired bloodstream infections (HA-BSI) are associated with significant mortality. Granular data are required for optimizing management, and developing guidelines and clinical trials. Methods We carried out a prospective international cohort study of adult patients (≥ 18 years of age) with HA-BSI treated in intensive care units (ICUs) between June 2019 and February 2021. Results 2600 patients from 333 ICUs in 52 countries were included. 78% HA-BSI were ICU-acquired. Median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was 8 [IQR 5; 11] at HA-BSI diagnosis. Most frequent sources of infection included pneumonia (26.7%) and intravascular catheters (26.4%). Most frequent pathogens were Gram-negative bacteria (59.0%), predominantly Klebsiella spp. (27.9%), Acinetobacter spp . (20.3%), Escherichia coli (15.8%), and Pseudomonas spp . (14.3%). Carbapenem resistance was present in 37.8%, 84.6%, 7.4%, and 33.2%, respectively. Difficult-to-treat resistance (DTR) was present in 23.5% and pan-drug resistance in 1.5%. Antimicrobial therapy was deemed adequate within 24 h for 51.5%. Antimicrobial resistance was associated with longer delays to adequate antimicrobial therapy. Source control was needed in 52.5% but not achieved in 18.2%. Mortality was 37.1%, and only 16.1% had been discharged alive from hospital by day-28. Conclusions HA-BSI was frequently caused by Gram-negative, carbapenem-resistant and DTR pathogens. Antimicrobial resistance led to delays in adequate antimicrobial therapy. Mortality was high, and at day-28 only a minority of the patients were discharged alive from the hospital. Prevention of antimicrobial resistance and focusing on adequate antimicrobial therapy and source control are important to optimize patient management and outcomes. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00134-022-06944-2.

Purpose: Cervical traumas are frequent in emergency department and X-ray, CT, and MRI are the essential imaging modalities in the diagnosis. However, especially for pregnant and morbid obese patients and children, these techniques can be challenging. We tested the success of point-of-care ultrasound in the evaluation of cervical traumas. Methods: This is a case series of cervical vertebra imaging with ultrasound in emergency department. We used linear probe and placed it anterolaterally to the neck, parallel to cervical spine. Images were obtained by an ultrasound-certified emergency physician. The height of the anterior wall of vertebral body, irregularity in vertebral body, and intervertebral space were assessed. Results: We presented a case series of six patients. Ultrasound images of cervical vertebral bodies and intervertebral spaces were able to obtain for all the patients. Any pathology was not observed in ultrasound imaging. This finding was compatible with cervical X-ray and CT scans and all the patients were discharged. Conclusions: However, this is a case series report of minor cervical trauma, and we were able to obtain ultrasound images of cervical vertebra bodies with point-of-care ultrasound examination by an emergency physician. This technique can be important for the patients contraindicated to CT or MRI. Also, it can give additional information to X-ray and CT scans especially for soft tissues. A2 A new technique in verifying the placement of a nasogastric tube: obtaining the longitudinal view of nasogastric tube in addition to transverse view with ultrasound

Purpose: To develop a set of actionable quality indicators for critical care suitable for use in low-or middle-income countries (LMICs).Methods: A list of 84 candidate indicators compiled from a previous literature review and stakeholder recommendations were categorised into three domains (foundation, process, and quality impact). An expert panel (EP) representing stakeholders from critical care and allied specialties in multiple low-, middle-, and high-income countries was convened. In rounds one and two of the Delphi exercise, the EP appraised (Likert scale 1-5) each indicator for validity, feasibility; in round three sensitivity to change, and reliability were additionally appraised. Potential barriers and facilitators to implementation of the quality indicators were also reported in this round. Median score and interquartile range (IQR) were used to determine consensus; indicators with consensus disagreement (median < 4, IQR ≤ 1) were removed, and indicators with consensus agreement (median ≥ 4, IQR ≤ 1) or no consensus were retained. In round four, indicators were prioritised based on their ability to impact cost of care to the provider and recipient, staff wellbeing, patient safety, and patient-centred outcomes.Results: Seventy-one experts from 30 countries (n = 45, 63%, representing critical care) selected 57 indicators to assess quality of care in intensive care unit (ICU) in LMICs: 16 foundation, 27 process, and 14 quality impact indicators after round three. Round 4 resulted in 14 prioritised indicators. Fifty-seven respondents reported barriers and facilitators, of which electronic registry-embedded data collection was the biggest perceived facilitator to implementation (n = 54/57, 95%) Concerns over burden of data collection (n = 53/57, 93%) and variations in definition (n = 45/57, 79%) were perceived as the greatest barrier to implementation. Conclusion:This consensus exercise provides a common set of indicators to support benchmarking and quality improvement programs for critical care populations in LMICs.

No abstract

Background: Hypotension is a common complication following spinal anaesthesia. The administration of intravenous fluids prior to spinal anaesthesia, known as pre-loading, has been used to offset the hypotension effect; however, the ideal fluid for pre-loading is still a matter of debate. The objective of this study was to compare the effects of Gelaspan 4% and Volulyte 6% as pre-loading fluids. Methods: A total of 93 patients with American Society of Anaesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I or II having lower limb orthopaedic surgery under spinal anaesthesia were randomised into two groups that received either Volulyte (n = 47) or Gelaspan (n = 46). Before the spinal anaesthesia, these patients were pre-loaded with 500 mL of the fluid of their respective group. Blood samples were taken before pre-loading and again after spinal anaesthesia and sent for venous blood gas and electrolyte level measurement. Baseline and intraoperative records of systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate (HR) and the requirement of ephedrine to treat hypotension were also recorded. Results: Both fluids could not prevent significant reductions in SBP (P = 0.011), DBP (P = 0.002) and MAP (P = 0.001). There was also significant reduction in HR over time (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in terms of ephedrine usage between both groups. Neither Volulyte 6% nor Gelaspan 4% caused significant changes in acid-base status. Conclusion: The use of 500 mL of either Gelaspan 4% or Volulyte 6% as pre-loading fluids did not significantly prevent the incidence of post-spinal anaesthesia hypotension following orthopaedic lower limb surgery; however, both were useful in the maintenance normal acid-base balance.