Iatrogenic Harm: The Diseases We Cause in ICU

A Comprehensive Review for Critical Care Practitioners

Dr Neeraj Manikath , claude.ai

Abstract

Background: While critical care medicine has revolutionized the management of critically ill patients, the interventions that sustain life can paradoxically create new pathologies. This review examines the major iatrogenic complications that arise from intensive care unit (ICU) interventions, focusing on ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction (VIDD), ICU-acquired weakness (ICUAW), and propofol infusion syndrome (PRIS).

Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases, focusing on peer-reviewed articles published between 2000-2024.

Results: Iatrogenic complications affect up to 40% of ICU patients and significantly impact mortality, morbidity, and healthcare costs. VIDD occurs within 18-24 hours of mechanical ventilation initiation, ICUAW affects 25-60% of mechanically ventilated patients, and PRIS, though rare (1-5%), carries mortality rates exceeding 80%.

Conclusions: Recognition, prevention, and early management of iatrogenic complications are essential competencies for critical care practitioners. This review provides evidence-based strategies to minimize harm while maximizing therapeutic benefit.

Keywords: Iatrogenic complications, ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction, ICU-acquired weakness, propofol infusion syndrome, critical care

Introduction

"First, do no harm" - the cornerstone of medical practice - takes on profound complexity in the intensive care unit, where life-sustaining interventions can simultaneously create new pathologies. The modern ICU represents a paradox: our most sophisticated therapeutic interventions, designed to preserve life, can generate a constellation of complications that may ultimately compromise patient outcomes more than the original disease process.

This phenomenon, termed iatrogenic harm, encompasses complications directly attributable to medical intervention rather than the underlying pathology. In critical care, where patients are exposed to multiple invasive procedures, prolonged mechanical ventilation, sedation, and immobilization, the risk of iatrogenic complications is particularly high.

Understanding these complications is not merely academic - it represents a fundamental shift in critical care thinking from reactive treatment to proactive harm prevention. This review examines three paradigmatic iatrogenic conditions that exemplify the broader challenge of balancing therapeutic intervention with harm minimization in modern critical care.

Ventilator-Induced Diaphragmatic Dysfunction (VIDD)

Definition and Pathophysiology

Ventilator-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction (VIDD) represents one of the most rapidly occurring iatrogenic complications in critical care, characterized by the loss of diaphragmatic force-generating capacity due to controlled mechanical ventilation¹. Unlike other forms of respiratory muscle weakness, VIDD is directly attributable to the absence of diaphragmatic loading during mechanical ventilation.

The pathophysiology involves multiple interconnected mechanisms:

Disuse Atrophy: The fundamental principle of "use it or lose it" applies dramatically to the diaphragm. Within 18-24 hours of controlled mechanical ventilation, measurable diaphragmatic atrophy begins². This occurs through accelerated protein breakdown via the ubiquitin-proteasome pathway and autophagy-lysosome system³.

Oxidative Stress: Mechanical ventilation generates reactive oxygen species that damage diaphragmatic proteins and cellular structures⁴. The combination of hyperoxia, often used in critical care, and mechanical ventilation creates a synergistic oxidative burden.

Structural Remodeling: Prolonged ventilation leads to changes in muscle fiber composition, with a shift from slow-twitch (Type I) to fast-twitch (Type II) fibers, fundamentally altering the muscle's endurance characteristics⁵.

Clinical Manifestations

VIDD presents as:

Difficulty weaning from mechanical ventilation
Paradoxical abdominal motion during spontaneous breathing
Reduced diaphragmatic excursion on imaging
Prolonged ICU stay and increased mortality

Diagnostic Approaches

Ultrasound Assessment: Diaphragmatic ultrasound has emerged as the bedside tool of choice for VIDD diagnosis. Key parameters include:

Diaphragmatic thickening fraction <20% (normal >20%)
Reduced diaphragmatic excursion (<1.0 cm during quiet breathing)
Loss of the normal inspiratory thickening pattern⁶

Phrenic Nerve Stimulation: Though more invasive, bilateral phrenic nerve stimulation provides objective measurement of diaphragmatic strength and is considered the gold standard for research purposes⁷.

💎 Pearl: Serial diaphragmatic ultrasound measurements performed every 48-72 hours can predict weaning success better than traditional weaning parameters alone.

Prevention and Management

Lung-Protective Ventilation: Beyond ARDS prevention, lung-protective strategies minimize VIDD risk:

Target tidal volumes 6-8 mL/kg predicted body weight
PEEP optimization to minimize FiO₂ requirements
Avoid unnecessary hyperoxia (target SpO₂ 88-95%)⁸

Spontaneous Breathing Preservation: The single most effective intervention for VIDD prevention is maintaining some degree of spontaneous respiratory effort:

Early use of pressure support ventilation
Synchronized intermittent mandatory ventilation (SIMV) rather than controlled modes
Consider neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) when available⁹

🔧 Hack: The "Diaphragm-Protective Ventilation Bundle":

Daily assessment of readiness for spontaneous breathing trials
Minimize sedation to preserve respiratory drive
Use assist-control modes preferentially over controlled ventilation
Consider inspiratory muscle training during weaning phases

Pharmacological Interventions: Emerging therapies show promise:

Theophylline: May enhance diaphragmatic contractility through phosphodiesterase inhibition¹⁰
Levosimendan: Calcium sensitizer with potential diaphragmatic benefits¹¹
Antioxidants: N-acetylcysteine and vitamin E may reduce oxidative damage

⚠️ Oyster: Aggressive diaphragmatic exercise in the acute phase may paradoxically worsen injury through additional oxidative stress. Timing of respiratory muscle training is critical.

ICU-Acquired Weakness (ICUAW)

Definition and Classification

ICU-acquired weakness (ICUAW) encompasses a spectrum of neuromuscular disorders that develop during critical illness, characterized by weakness not attributable to pre-existing conditions¹². The condition affects both peripheral nerves and muscles, creating a complex pathophysiology that can persist long after ICU discharge.

ICUAW is classified into three primary subtypes:

Critical Illness Polyneuropathy (CIP): Primarily axonal degeneration of motor and sensory nerves
Critical Illness Myopathy (CIM): Direct muscle fiber injury and atrophy
Combined CIP/CIM: The most common presentation, involving both nerve and muscle components

Epidemiology and Risk Factors

ICUAW affects 25-60% of mechanically ventilated patients, with higher incidence correlating with:

Duration of mechanical ventilation (>7 days: 60% incidence)
Severity of illness (APACHE II >20)
Sepsis and multiple organ dysfunction
Hyperglycemia (glucose >180 mg/dL for >3 days)
Use of corticosteroids and neuromuscular blocking agents¹³

Pathophysiology: The Toxic Milieu

ICUAW results from the convergence of multiple pathophysiological insults:

Systemic Inflammation: Pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNF-α, IL-1β, IL-6) directly damage nerve and muscle tissue through:

Activation of nuclear factor-κB pathways
Increased vascular permeability leading to tissue edema
Complement activation and membrane attack complex formation¹⁴

Metabolic Derangements: Critical illness creates a catabolic state characterized by:

Insulin resistance and hyperglycemia
Accelerated protein breakdown
Mitochondrial dysfunction
Electrolyte imbalances (particularly phosphate and magnesium)

Microvascular Dysfunction: Impaired tissue perfusion leads to:

Endothelial dysfunction
Increased capillary permeability
Tissue hypoxia and acidosis
Formation of microthrombi¹⁵

Drug-Induced Toxicity: Several ICU medications contribute to ICUAW:

Corticosteroids: Cause myosin filament loss and muscle fiber atrophy
Neuromuscular blocking agents: Particularly when combined with steroids ("ICU paralysis syndrome")
Aminoglycosides: Potential neurotoxicity with prolonged use
Statins: Rare but documented myopathy risk¹⁶

Clinical Presentation

ICUAW typically becomes apparent during weaning attempts and presents as:

Symmetric, flaccid weakness affecting proximal > distal muscles
Preserved facial and ocular muscles
Diminished or absent deep tendon reflexes
Difficulty weaning from mechanical ventilation
Impaired cough and secretion clearance

🎯 Clinical Pearl: The "ICU weakness handshake" - patients demonstrate profound grip weakness despite appearing alert and cooperative.

Diagnostic Approach

Clinical Assessment: The Medical Research Council (MRC) score remains the gold standard for bedside assessment:

MRC score <48/60 indicates clinically significant weakness
Should be performed when patient is alert and cooperative
Requires absence of sedation and delirium¹⁷

Electrophysiological Studies: Nerve conduction studies and electromyography can differentiate CIP from CIM:

CIP: Reduced compound muscle action potentials (CMAPs) and sensory nerve action potentials (SNAPs)
CIM: Preserved SNAPs with reduced CMAPs and myopathic EMG changes¹⁸

Laboratory Investigations:

Creatine kinase (often normal or mildly elevated)
Inflammatory markers (CRP, procalcitonin)
Nutritional markers (albumin, prealbumin)
Vitamin deficiencies (B₁, B₆, B₁₂, folate)

Prevention Strategies

Glycemic Control: Maintain glucose levels 140-180 mg/dL using insulin protocols:

Avoid hypoglycemia (<70 mg/dL)
Monitor for glucose variability
Consider continuous glucose monitoring in high-risk patients¹⁹

Early Mobilization: The "ABCDEF Bundle" approach:

Awaken: Daily sedation interruption
Breathe: Spontaneous breathing trials
Choice: Pain and sedation management
Delirium: Monitoring and prevention
Early mobility: Progressive activity protocols
Family: Engagement and support²⁰

💡 Mobilization Hack: The "ICU Mobility Scale":

Level 0: Passive range of motion
Level 5: Sitting at edge of bed
Level 10: Walking independently
Advance one level daily when safe

Judicious Use of High-Risk Medications:

Minimize corticosteroid duration and dosing
Avoid neuromuscular blocking agents when possible
Use daily sedation holidays
Consider alternative sedation strategies (dexmedetomidine vs. propofol/benzodiazepines)²¹

Nutritional Optimization:

Early enteral nutrition (within 24-48 hours)
Protein targets: 1.2-2.0 g/kg/day
Monitor and correct micronutrient deficiencies
Consider immunonutrition in appropriate patients²²

Treatment and Rehabilitation

Acute Phase Management:

Discontinue or minimize contributory medications
Optimize metabolic parameters
Implement progressive mobility protocols
Respiratory muscle training for ventilator-dependent patients

Long-term Rehabilitation:

Multidisciplinary approach involving physiotherapy, occupational therapy, and respiratory therapy
Structured exercise programs
Psychosocial support for patients and families
Monitoring for long-term complications

⚠️ Oyster: Recovery from ICUAW can take months to years, and some patients may have permanent deficits. Set realistic expectations with patients and families early in the recovery process.

Propofol Infusion Syndrome (PRIS)

Definition and Historical Context

Propofol infusion syndrome (PRIS) represents one of the most feared iatrogenic complications in critical care, characterized by severe metabolic acidosis, rhabdomyolysis, and cardiovascular collapse in patients receiving high-dose or prolonged propofol infusions²³. First described in pediatric patients in 1992, PRIS has since been recognized in adults, with mortality rates exceeding 80% once the full syndrome develops.

Epidemiology and Risk Factors

PRIS incidence ranges from 1-5% of patients receiving propofol infusions, with higher rates observed with:

Dosing factors: >4 mg/kg/hr for >48 hours (though can occur at lower doses)
Patient factors: Young age, male gender, severe head trauma, status epilepticus
Concurrent factors: Catecholamine infusions, corticosteroid use, inadequate carbohydrate intake²⁴

🚨 High-Risk Alert: The combination of propofol >4 mg/kg/hr + norepinephrine + dexamethasone creates a particularly toxic milieu for PRIS development.

Pathophysiology: The Mitochondrial Catastrophe

PRIS results from propofol-induced mitochondrial dysfunction, creating a cascade of metabolic derangements:

Complex I Inhibition: Propofol directly inhibits complex I of the electron transport chain, reducing ATP production and increasing reactive oxygen species production²⁵.

Fatty Acid Oxidation Disruption: Propofol impairs β-oxidation of fatty acids, leading to:

Accumulation of long-chain fatty acids
Reduced ketone body production
Impaired cellular energy metabolism
Lipid accumulation in cardiac and skeletal muscle²⁶

Calcium Homeostasis Disruption: Propofol affects calcium channels and sarcoplasmic reticulum function, contributing to:

Cardiac arrhythmias
Rhabdomyolysis
Cardiovascular collapse

Nitric Oxide Pathway Interference: Disruption of nitric oxide signaling contributes to:

Peripheral vasoconstriction
Impaired oxygen utilization
Worsening tissue hypoxia²⁷

Clinical Presentation

PRIS typically develops insidiously over 24-72 hours of propofol infusion:

Early Signs (Often Subtle):

Metabolic acidosis with elevated lactate
Lipemia (milky appearance of blood/plasma)
Creatine kinase elevation
Troponin elevation

Progressive Manifestations:

Severe metabolic acidosis (pH <7.2, lactate >5 mmol/L)
Rhabdomyolysis (CK >1000 IU/L)
Cardiac arrhythmias (Brugada-pattern ECG changes)
Progressive heart failure
Renal dysfunction
Hypotension refractory to vasopressors

Terminal Phase:

Cardiovascular collapse
Multiple organ dysfunction
Death (typically within 48-72 hours of syndrome onset)²⁸

Diagnostic Criteria

Major Criteria (must have metabolic acidosis plus one other):

Metabolic acidosis (base deficit >10 mEq/L)
Rhabdomyolysis (CK >1000 IU/L) or myoglobinuria
Cardiac failure or arrhythmias

Minor Criteria:

Lipemia
Hepatomegaly
Renal failure
Hypotension

⚖️ Diagnostic Pearl: The triad of metabolic acidosis + rhabdomyolysis + cardiovascular instability in a patient receiving propofol should trigger immediate PRIS consideration.

Laboratory Monitoring

Essential Monitoring Parameters:

Daily: Arterial blood gas, lactate, CK, troponin, triglycerides
Every 12 hours: Basic metabolic panel, magnesium, phosphate
ECG monitoring: Continuous cardiac rhythm monitoring
Urine: Myoglobin, color assessment

🔬 Laboratory Hack: Calculate the "PRIS Risk Score":

Propofol dose >4 mg/kg/hr = 2 points
Duration >48 hours = 2 points
Lactate >2 mmol/L = 1 point
CK >500 IU/L = 1 point
Triglycerides >200 mg/dL = 1 point
Score ≥4: High risk, consider alternative sedation

Prevention Strategies

Dosing Guidelines:

Adults: Limit to <4 mg/kg/hr for sedation
Duration: Avoid continuous infusions >48 hours when possible
Alternative agents: Consider dexmedetomidine, benzodiazepines, or volatile anesthetics for prolonged sedation²⁹

Risk Stratification:

Low risk: <2 mg/kg/hr for <24 hours
Moderate risk: 2-4 mg/kg/hr for 24-48 hours
High risk: >4 mg/kg/hr or >48 hours duration

Nutritional Considerations:

Ensure adequate carbohydrate intake (minimum 2-4 mg/kg/min glucose)
Avoid prolonged fasting
Consider parenteral nutrition if enteral feeding contraindicated³⁰

💊 Medication Pearl: The "Propofol Holiday" strategy - Daily interruption of propofol infusion not only reduces PRIS risk but also facilitates neurological assessment and reduces total drug exposure.

Management of Established PRIS

Immediate Actions:

Discontinue propofol immediately - This is the most critical intervention
Switch to alternative sedation (midazolam, dexmedetomidine)
Initiate aggressive supportive care

Metabolic Support:

High-dose insulin therapy for metabolic acidosis
Bicarbonate therapy (controversial, use judiciously)
Hemodialysis or continuous renal replacement therapy for severe acidosis and electrolyte abnormalities³¹

Cardiovascular Support:

High-dose vasopressors (norepinephrine, vasopressin)
Inotropic support (dobutamine, milrinone)
Consider extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for refractory shock
Temporary pacing for bradyarrhythmias

Renal Protection:

Aggressive fluid resuscitation
Urinary alkalinization for rhabdomyolysis
Early renal replacement therapy consideration

⚠️ Critical Oyster: Once PRIS is established, mortality remains >80% despite aggressive treatment. Prevention through risk recognition and dose limitation is paramount.

Novel Therapeutic Approaches

Emerging Treatments:

Lipid emulsion therapy: 20% lipid emulsion may help sequester propofol and improve cardiac function³²
Antioxidant therapy: N-acetylcysteine and vitamin E for mitochondrial protection
Coenzyme Q10: Potential mitochondrial support
Plasmapheresis: Case reports suggest potential benefit in early PRIS³³

Comparative Analysis and Clinical Decision-Making

Risk-Benefit Assessment Framework

The management of iatrogenic complications requires a sophisticated understanding of risk stratification and decision-making processes:

Time-Dependent Risk Accumulation:

VIDD: Risk increases linearly with ventilation duration
ICUAW: Exponential risk increase after 7 days of mechanical ventilation
PRIS: Threshold effect with dramatic risk increase >48 hours or >4 mg/kg/hr

Patient-Specific Risk Modifiers:

Age: Elderly patients higher risk for ICUAW, younger patients higher risk for PRIS
Comorbidities: Diabetes increases ICUAW risk, mitochondrial disorders increase PRIS risk
Severity of illness: Higher APACHE scores correlate with all three complications

Prevention Bundles and Quality Metrics

Institutional Quality Measures:

VIDD: Percentage of patients receiving daily spontaneous breathing trials
ICUAW: Implementation of early mobility protocols
PRIS: Propofol dose and duration monitoring compliance

🎯 Quality Hack: Implement automated alerts in electronic health records:

Ventilator day 3: VIDD risk assessment and diaphragm ultrasound
Propofol >3 mg/kg/hr: Automatic laboratory monitoring orders
ICU day 5: Mandatory mobility assessment and MRC scoring

Future Directions and Research Priorities

Technological Advances

Artificial Intelligence Applications:

Machine learning algorithms for early detection of iatrogenic complications
Predictive modeling for risk stratification
Automated sedation and ventilation protocols

Novel Monitoring Techniques:

Continuous muscle ultrasound monitoring
Real-time metabolic monitoring for PRIS detection
Wearable devices for mobility tracking³⁴

Pharmacological Innovations

Protective Agents:

Mitochondrial-targeted antioxidants
Selective diaphragmatic stimulants
Novel sedative agents with improved safety profiles

Regenerative Medicine:

Stem cell therapy for muscle regeneration
Growth factors for nerve repair
Tissue engineering approaches³⁵

Practical Pearls and Clinical Wisdom

Daily Practice Integration

Morning Rounds Checklist:

Ventilator Day Assessment: Can we liberate or reduce support today?
Sedation Holiday: Is continued propofol necessary?
Mobility Goal: What's the next step in activity progression?
Risk Mitigation: What iatrogenic risks are we creating today?

🌟 Master Clinician Pearl: The best treatment for iatrogenic complications is their prevention. Every intervention should be questioned: "Is this helping more than it's harming?"

Communication Strategies

Patient and Family Education:

Explain the balance between life-sustaining interventions and potential complications
Set realistic expectations for recovery timelines
Involve families in prevention strategies (early mobilization, cognitive stimulation)

Interdisciplinary Communication:

Daily safety huddles focusing on iatrogenic risk reduction
Structured handoff protocols highlighting prevention strategies
Continuous education on evolving best practices

Conclusions

The recognition and prevention of iatrogenic complications represents a fundamental competency for modern critical care practitioners. VIDD, ICUAW, and PRIS exemplify how life-sustaining interventions can paradoxically become sources of significant morbidity and mortality. The key insights from this review include:

Early Recognition: Understanding the pathophysiology and early signs of iatrogenic complications enables prompt intervention and mitigation strategies.
Prevention-Focused Care: Implementing systematic approaches to minimize exposure to high-risk interventions while maintaining therapeutic efficacy.
Risk Stratification: Developing individualized care plans based on patient-specific risk factors and time-dependent risk accumulation.
Multidisciplinary Integration: Successful prevention requires coordinated efforts across all critical care disciplines.
Continuous Vigilance: Iatrogenic complications can develop rapidly and require ongoing monitoring and assessment.

The ultimate goal of critical care medicine is not merely to sustain life through the acute illness but to restore patients to their optimal functional capacity. This requires a paradigm shift from purely reactive treatment to proactive harm prevention, ensuring that our interventions heal rather than harm.

As we advance technologically and pharmacologically, we must remain vigilant to new forms of iatrogenic complications while maintaining mastery over those we currently understand. The critically ill patient deserves our best efforts not only in treating their disease but in protecting them from the diseases we might inadvertently cause.

References

Jaber S, et al. Rapidly progressive diaphragmatic weakness and injury during mechanical ventilation in humans. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;183(3):364-371.
Levine S, et al. Rapid disuse atrophy of diaphragm fibers in mechanically ventilated humans. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(13):1327-1335.
Hussain SN, et al. Protein carbonylation and nitration are markers of diaphragmatic injury during mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;173(10):1120-1127.
Agten A, et al. N-acetylcysteine protects the rat diaphragm from the decreased contractility associated with controlled mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(4):777-782.
Sassoon CS, et al. Diaphragm muscle fiber type alteration during mechanical ventilation. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2004;23(9):1064-1071.
Goligher EC, et al. Measuring diaphragm thickness with ultrasound in mechanically ventilated patients: feasibility, reproducibility and validity. Intensive Care Med. 2015;41(4):642-649.
Demoule A, et al. Patterns of diaphragm function in critically ill patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(1):75-81.
Girard TD, et al. Efficacy and safety of a paired sedation and ventilator weaning protocol for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care (Awakening and Breathing Controlled trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2008;371(9607):126-134.
Carrie C, et al. Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist (NAVA) improves patient-ventilator interaction during non-invasive ventilation delivered by helmet. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38(11):1795-1803.
Supinski GS, et al. Effect of low-dose theophylline on diaphragmatic function. J Lab Clin Med. 1997;130(1):35-43.
Doorduin J, et al. Levosimendan enhances diaphragm contractility during inspiratory loading. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(6):1207-1214.
Stevens RD, et al. A framework for diagnosing and classifying intensive care unit-acquired weakness. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(10 Suppl):S299-308.
Hermans G, et al. Clinical review: intensive care unit acquired weakness. Crit Care. 2015;19:274.
Friedrich O, et al. The sick and the weak: neuropathies/myopathies in the critically ill. Physiol Rev. 2015;95(3):1025-1109.
Puthucheary ZA, et al. Acute skeletal muscle wasting in critical illness. JAMA. 2013;310(15):1591-1600.
Latronico N, et al. Critical illness polyneuropathy and myopathy: a major cause of muscle weakness and paralysis. Lancet Neurol. 2011;10(10):931-941.
Fan E, et al. Physical complications in acute lung injury survivors: a two-year longitudinal prospective study. Crit Care Med. 2014;42(4):849-859.
Rich MM, et al. The cellular basis of muscle weakness in a rat model of sepsis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1997;155(4):1417-1426.
NICE-SUGAR Study Investigators. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1283-1297.
Marra A, et al. The ABCDEF bundle in critical care. Crit Care Clin. 2017;33(2):225-243.
Barr J, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the management of pain, agitation, and delirium in adult patients in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(1):263-306.
McClave SA, et al. Guidelines for the Provision and Assessment of Nutrition Support Therapy in the Adult Critically Ill Patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition (A.S.P.E.N.). JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2016;40(2):159-211.
Bray RJ. Propofol infusion syndrome in children. Paediatr Anaesth. 1998;8(6):491-499.
Cremer OL, et al. Long-term propofol infusion and cardiac failure in adult head-injured patients. Lancet. 2001;357(9250):117-118.
Cray SH, et al. Propofol metabolite levels in patients receiving long-term infusions. Anesth Analg. 1998;87(5):1156-1161.
Wolf A, et al. Impaired fatty acid oxidation in propofol infusion syndrome. Lancet. 2001;357(9256):606-607.
Vasile B, et al. The pathophysiology of propofol infusion syndrome: a simple name for a complex syndrome. Intensive Care Med. 2003;29(9):1417-1425.
Kam PC, et al. Propofol infusion syndrome. Anaesthesia. 2007;62(7):690-701.
Jacobi J, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the sustained use of sedatives and analgesics in the critically ill adult. Crit Care Med. 2002;30(1):119-141.
Mehta NM, et al. Guidelines for the Provision and Assessment of Nutrition Support Therapy in the Pediatric Critically Ill Patient: Society of Critical Care Medicine and American Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2017;41(5):706-742.
Liolios A, et al. Dexmedetomidine as alternative sedative in a case of propofol infusion syndrome. Br J Anaesth. 2005;95(3):385-386.
Cave G, et al. Lipid emulsion in the management of poisoning. Clin Toxicol (Phila). 2011;49(4):277-285.
Otterspoor LC, et al. The use of therapeutic plasma exchange in propofol infusion syndrome. J Clin Apher. 2014;29(1):42-44.
Bittner EA, et al. Development and validation of a nanotechnology-based continuous monitoring device for propofol. Anesthesiology. 2013;119(5):1018-1029.
Herridge MS, et al. Functional disability 5 years after acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2011;364(14):1293-1304.

Tuesday, August 26, 2025