Sofía Contreras

OBJECTIVE: To (1) provide an overview of the epidemiology, clinical presentation, and risk factors of iatrogenic opioid withdrawal in critically ill patients and (2) conduct a literature review of assessment and management of iatrogenic opioid withdrawal in critically ill patients. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE (1946-June 2017), EMBASE (1974-June 2017), and CINAHL (1982-June 2017) with the terms opioid withdrawal, opioid, opiate, critical care, critically ill, assessment tool, scale, taper, weaning, and management. Reference list of identified literature was searched for additional references as well as www.clinicaltrials.gov . STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: We restricted articles to those in English and dealing with humans. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 2 validated pediatric critically ill opioid withdrawal assessment tools: (1) Withdrawal Assessment Tool-Version 1 (WAT-1) and (2) Sophia Observation Withdrawal Symptoms Scale (SOS). Neither tool differentiated between opioid and benzodiazepine withdrawal. WAT-1 was evaluated in critically ill adults but not found to be valid. No other adult tool was identified. For management, we identified 5 randomized controlled trials, 2 prospective studies, and 2 systematic reviews. Most studies were small and only 2 studies utilized a validated assessment tool. Enteral methadone, α-2 agonists, and protocolized weaning were studied. CONCLUSION: We identified 2 validated assessment tools for pediatric intensive care unit patients; no valid tool for adults. Management strategies tested in small trials included methadone, α-2 agonists, and protocolized sedation/weaning. We challenge researchers to create validated tools assessing specifically for opioid withdrawal in critically ill children and adults to direct management.

CONTEXT: Non-technical skills such as leadership, communication, or situation awareness should lead to effective teamwork in a crisis. This study aimed to analyse the role of these skills in the emotional response of health professionals to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Before the COVID-19 outbreak, 48 doctors and 48 nurses participated in a simulation-based teamwork training program based on teaching non-technical skills through simulation. In May 2020, this group of professionals from a COVID-19 referral hospital was invited to participate in a survey exploring stress, anxiety, and depression, using the PSS-14 (Perceived Stress Scale) and the HADS (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) measures. A control group that did not receive the training was included. We conducted a logistic regression to assess whether having attended a simulation-based teamwork training program modified the probability of presenting psychological distress (PSS-14 > 18 or HADS> 12). RESULTS: A total of 141 healthcare professionals were included, 77 in the intervention group and 64 in the control group. Based on the PSS-14, 70.1% of the intervention group and 75% of the control group (p = 0.342) had symptoms of stress. Having contact with COVID-19 patients [OR 4.16(1.64-10.52)]; having minors in charge [OR 2.75 (1.15-6.53)]; working as a doctor [0.39(0.16-0.95)], and being a woman [OR 2.94(1.09-7.91)] were related with PSS14 symptoms. Based on the HADS, 54.6% of the intervention group and 42.2% of the control group (p = 0.346) had symptoms of anxiety or depression. Having contact with COVID-19 patients [OR 2.17(1.05-4.48)] and having minors in charge [OR 2.14(1.06-4.32)] were related to HADS symptoms. Healthcare professionals who attended COVID-19 patients showed higher levels of anxiety and depression [OR 2.56(1.03-6.36) (p = 0.043)]. CONCLUSION: Healthcare professionals trained in non-technical skills through simulation tended towards higher levels of anxiety and depression and fewer levels of stress, during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: Although the prevalence of community-acquired respiratory bacterial coinfection upon hospital admission in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been reported to be < 5%, almost three-quarters of patients received antibiotics. We aim to investigate whether procalcitonin (PCT) or C-reactive protein (CRP) upon admission could be helpful biomarkers to identify bacterial coinfection among patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: We carried out a multicentre, observational cohort study including consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to 55 Spanish intensive care units (ICUs). The primary outcome was to explore whether PCT or CRP serum levels upon hospital admission could predict bacterial coinfection among patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. The secondary outcome was the evaluation of their association with mortality. We also conducted subgroups analyses in higher risk profile populations. RESULTS: Between 5 February 2020 and 21 December 2021, 4076 patients were included, 133 (3%) of whom presented bacterial coinfection. PCT and CRP had low area under curve (AUC) scores at the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis [0.57 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51-0.61) and 0.6 (95% CI, 0.55-0.64), respectively], but high negative predictive values (NPV) [97.5% (95% CI 96.5-98.5) and 98.2% (95% CI 97.5-98.9) for PCT and CRP, respectively]. CRP alone was associated with bacterial coinfection (OR 2, 95% CI 1.25-3.19; p = 0.004). The overall 15, 30 and 90 days mortality had a higher trend in the bacterial coinfection group, but without significant difference. PCT ≥ 0.12 ng/mL was associated with higher 90 days mortality. CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that measurements of PCT and CRP, alone and at a single time point, are not useful for ruling in or out bacterial coinfection in viral pneumonia by COVID-19.