Aim To assess the feasibility, tolerance and effectiveness of enteral nutrition in critically ill patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in the prone position for severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). Methods Prospective observational study conducted in a multidisciplinary critical care unit of a tertiary care hospital from January 2013 until July 2015. All patients with ARDS who received invasive mechanical ventilation in prone position during the study period were included. Patients’ demographics, severity of illness (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II) score), baseline markers of nutritional status (subjective global assessment (SGA) and body mass index), details of nutrition delivery during prone and supine hours and outcomes (Length of stay and discharge status) were recorded. Results Fifty-one patients met inclusion criteria out of whom four patients were excluded from analysis since they did not receive any enteral nutrition due to severe hemodynamic instability. The mean age of patients was 46.4 ± 12.9 years, with male:female ratio of 7:3. On admission, SGA revealed moderate malnutrition in 51% of patients and the mean APACHE II score was 26.8 ± 9.2. The average duration of prone ventilation per patient was 60.2 ± 30.7 h. All patients received continuous nasogastric/orogastric feeds. The mean calories (kcal/kg/day) and protein (g/kg/day) prescribed in the supine position were 24.5 ± 3.8 and 1.1 ± 0.2 while the mean calories and protein prescribed in prone position were 23.5 ± 3.6 and 1.1 ± 0.2, respectively. Percentage of prescribed calories received by patients in supine position was similar to that in prone position (83.2% vs. 79.6%; P = 0.12). Patients received a higher percentage of prescribed protein in supine compared to prone position (80.8% vs. 75%, P = 0.02). The proportion of patients who received at least 75% of the caloric and protein goals was 37 (78.7%) and 37 (78.7%) in supine and 32 (68.1%) and 21 (44.6%) in prone position. Conclusion In critically ill patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in the prone position, enteral nutrition with nasogastric/orogastric feeding is feasible and well tolerated. Nutritional delivery of calories and proteins in prone position is comparable to that in supine position.

Background: The epidemiology of critical illness in India is distinct from high-income countries. However, limited data exist on resource availability, staffing patterns, case-mix and outcomes from critical illness. Critical care registries, by enabling a continual evaluation of service provision, epidemiology, resource availability and quality, can bridge these gaps in information. In January 2019, we established the Indian Registry of IntenSive care to map capacity and describe case-mix and outcomes. In this report, we describe the implementation process, preliminary results, opportunities for improvement, challenges and future directions. Methods: All adult and paediatric ICUs in India were eligible to join if they committed to entering data for ICU admissions. Data are collected by a designated representative through the electronic data collection platform of the registry. IRIS hosts data on a secure cloud-based server and access to the data is restricted to designated personnel and is protected with standard firewall and a valid secure socket layer (SSL) certificate. Each participating ICU owns and has access to its own data. All participating units have access to de-identified network-wide aggregate data which enables benchmarking and comparison. Results: The registry currently includes 14 adult and 1 paediatric ICU in the network (232 adult ICU beds and 9 paediatric ICU beds). There have been 8721 patient encounters with a mean age of 56.9 (SD 18.9); 61.4% of patients were male and admissions to participating ICUs were predominantly unplanned (87.5%). At admission, most patients (61.5%) received antibiotics, 17.3% needed vasopressors, and 23.7% were mechanically ventilated. Mortality for the entire cohort was 9%.  Data availability for demographics, clinical parameters, and indicators of admission severity was greater than 95%. Conclusions: IRIS represents a successful model for the continual evaluation of critical illness epidemiology in India and provides a framework for the deployment of multi-centre quality improvement and context-relevant clinical research.

Background: The epidemiology of critical illness in India is distinct from high-income countries. However, limited data exist on resource availability, staffing patterns, case-mix and outcomes from critical illness. Critical care registries, by enabling a continual evaluation of service provision, epidemiology, resource availability and quality, can bridge these gaps in information. In January 2019, we established the Indian Registry of IntenSive care to map capacity and describe case-mix and outcomes. In this report, we describe the implementation process, preliminary results, opportunities for improvement, challenges and future directions. Methods: All adult and paediatric ICUs in India were eligible to join if they committed to entering data for ICU admissions. Data are collected by a designated representative through the electronic data collection platform of the registry. IRIS hosts data on a secure cloud-based server and access to the data is restricted to designated personnel and is protected with standard firewall and a valid secure socket layer (SSL) certificate. Each participating ICU owns and has access to its own data. All participating units have access to de-identified network-wide aggregate data which enables benchmarking and comparison. Results: The registry currently includes 14 adult and 1 paediatric ICU in the network (232 adult ICU beds and 9 paediatric ICU beds). There have been 8721 patient encounters with a mean age of 56.9 (SD 18.9); 61.4% of patients were male and admissions to participating ICUs were predominantly unplanned (87.5%). At admission, most patients (61.5%) received antibiotics, 17.3% needed vasopressors, and 23.7% were mechanically ventilated. Mortality for the entire cohort was 9%.  Data availability for demographics, clinical parameters, and indicators of admission severity was greater than 95%. Conclusions: IRIS represents a successful model for the continual evaluation of critical illness epidemiology in India and provides a framework for the deployment of multi-centre quality improvement and context-relevant clinical research.

No abstract

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been responsible for over 3.4 million deaths globally and over 25 million cases in India. As part of the response, India imposed a nation-wide lockdown and prioritized COVID-19 care in hospitals and intensive care units (ICUs). Leveraging data from the Indian Registry of IntenSive care, we sought to understand the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on critical care service utilization, case-mix, and clinical outcomes in non-COVID ICUs.  Methods: We included all consecutive patients admitted between 1 st October 2019 and 27 th September 2020. Data were extracted from the registry database and included patients admitted to the non-COVID or general ICUs at each of the sites. Outcomes included measures of resource-availability, utilisation, case-mix, acuity, and demand for ICU beds. We used a Mann-Whitney test to compare the pre-pandemic period (October 2019 - February 2020) to the pandemic period (March-September 2020). In addition, we also compared the period of intense lockdown (March-May 31 st 2020) with the pre-pandemic period. Results: There were 3424 patient encounters in the pre-pandemic period and 3524 encounters in the pandemic period. Comparing these periods, weekly admissions declined (median [Q1 Q3] 160 [145,168] to 113 [98.5,134]; p<0.001); unit turnover declined (median [Q1 Q3] 12.1 [11.32,13] to 8.58 [7.24,10], p<0.001), and APACHE II score increased (median [Q1 Q3] 19 [19,20] to 21 [20,22] ; p<0.001). Unadjusted ICU mortality increased (9.3% to 11.7%, p=0.015) and the length of ICU stay was similar (median [Q1 Q3] 2.11 [2, 2] vs. 2.24 [2, 3] days; p=0.151). Conclusion: Our registry-based analysis of the impact of COVID-19 on non-COVID critical care demonstrates significant disruptions to healthcare utilization during the pandemic and an increase in the severity of illness.