Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice. Methods Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ2) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable). Results Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16–24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment. Conclusion Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited. Trial registration: The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.

Study design: Retrospective medical record review. Objectives: To compare patients, admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with an acute cervical spinal cord injury (SCI) and documented motor deficit, who did, with those who did not, require a cardiac pacemaker. Setting: South Australian Tertiary Referral Intensive Care and Spinal Injury Unit. Methods: Retrospective medical record review and data set linkage. Results: From 1995 to 2007, 465 patients sustained a cervical SCI. Of these, 30 (6.5%) were admitted to ICU with a clinically assessable motor deficit and 3 (0.6% of all patients, or 10% of those admitted to ICU) required a cardiac pacemaker. All three patients had a cervical SCI, C5 (American Spinal Injury Association A) tetraplegia, and required invasive mechanical respiratory and inotropic support and a tracheostomy for weaning. Two patients (66%) were discharged alive to rehabilitation. Patients requiring a pacemaker had bradycardic episodes over a longer period (11 vs 4 days, P ¼ 0.01), a trend towards a later onset of bradycardia (8 vs 1.5 days, P ¼ 0.05) and a longer ICU length of stay (37 vs 10 days, P ¼ 0.02). Conclusion: Patients with a cervical SCI requiring a cardiac pacemaker are characterized by a higher level of SCI injury and motor loss, require mechanical respiratory and inotropic support, a tracheostomy to wean, and bradycardic episodes of a later onset and over a longer period of time. These findings suggest that such patients should be managed at hospitals with specialized acute spinal injury, intensive care and cardiac pacemaker services.

Background and Aim:Intensive-care practices and settings may differ for India in comparison to other countries. While international guidelines are available to direct the use of enteral nutrition (EN), there are no recommendations specific to Indian settings. Advisory board meetings were arranged to develop the practice guidelines specific to Indian context, for the use of EN in critically ill patients and to overcome challenges in this field.Methods:Various existing guidelines, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, controlled trials, and review articles were reviewed for their contextual relevance and strength. A systematic grading of practice guidelines by advisory board was done based on strength of the supporting evidence. Wherever Indian studies were not available, references were taken from the international guidelines.Results:Based on the literature review, the recommendations for developing the practice guidelines were made as per the grading criteria agreed upon by the advisory board. The recommendations were to address challenges regarding EN versus parenteral nutrition; nutrition screening and assessment; nutrition in hemodynamically unstable; route of nutrition; tube feeding and challenges; tolerance; optimum calorie-protein requirements; selection of appropriate enteral feeding formula; micronutrients and immune-nutrients; standard nutrition in hepatic, renal, and respiratory diseases and documentation of nutrition practices.Conclusion:This paper summarizes the optimum nutrition practices for critically ill patients. The possible solutions to overcome the challenges in this field are presented as practice guidelines at the end of each section. These guidelines are expected to provide guidance in critical care settings regarding appropriate critical-care nutrition practices and to set up Intensive Care Unit nutrition protocols.

We report the case of a 50-year-old woman undergoing elective endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography, who developed coma and hemiparesis secondary to severe cerebral artery gas embolism. Despite prompt diagnosis and early hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBO2) she developed severe cerebral edema and died within 24 h.

A bstract The coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected millions of people worldwide. As our understanding of the disease is evolving, our approach to the patient management is also changing swiftly. Available new evidence is helping us take radical decisions in COVID-19 management. We searched for inclusion of the published literature on treatment of COVID-19 from around the globe. All relevant evidences available till the time of submission of this article were briefly discussed. Once advised as blanket therapy for all patients, recent reports of hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin indicated no potential benefit and use of such combination may increase the risk of arrhythmias. Clinical evidence with newer antivirals such as remdesivir and favipiravir is promising that can hasten the patient recovery and reduce the mortality. With steroids, evidence is much clear in that it should be used in low dose and for short period not extending beyond 7 days in moderate to severe hospitalized patients. Low-molecular-weight heparin should be initiated in all hospitalized COVID-19 patients and dose should be based on the coagulation profile and risk of thromboembolism. Immunomodulatory drugs such tocilizumab may be considered for severe and critically ill patients to improve the outcomes. Though ulinastatin can be a potential alternative immunomodulator, there is lack of clinical evidence on its usage in COVID-19. Convalescent plasma therapy can be potentially lifesaving in critically ill patients. However, there is need to generate further evidence with various such therapies. Though availability of a potent vaccine is awaited, current treatment of COVID-19 is based on available therapies, which is guided by the evidence. In this review, we discuss the potential treatments available around the globe with current evidence on each of such treatments. How to cite this article: Dixit SB, Zirpe KG, Kulkarni AP, Chaudhry D, Govil D, Mehta Y, et al. Current Approaches to COVID-19: Therapy and Prevention. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(9):838–846.