Thursday, May 1, 2025

Communication in the Intensive Care Unit

 

Communication in the Intensive Care Unit: A Comprehensive Review

Dr Neeraj Manikath, Claude.ai

Abstract

Effective communication in the intensive care unit (ICU) is fundamental to quality care delivery yet remains challenging in this complex, high-acuity environment. This review synthesizes current evidence on communication practices in critical care settings, examining interactions with critically ill patients, communication with families and surrogates, interprofessional team dynamics, and end-of-life discussions. We evaluate established communication tools, protocols, and educational interventions while identifying persistent barriers. The review concludes with evidence-based recommendations and future research directions aimed at optimizing communication in the ICU to improve patient outcomes, family satisfaction, and healthcare team effectiveness.

Keywords: intensive care unit, communication, patient-centered care, interprofessional collaboration, family-centered care, end-of-life care

1. Introduction

The intensive care unit (ICU) represents one of the most communication-intensive environments in healthcare, where effective information exchange can be the difference between life and death.^1^ Despite remarkable technological advancements in critical care medicine, communication remains the essential human element that connects patients, families, and the multidisciplinary healthcare team. Critically ill patients and their families face complex medical information, emotional distress, and difficult decisions under time pressure, creating a perfect storm for communication breakdowns.^2,3^

Poor communication in the ICU has been linked to medical errors, increased length of stay, family distress, moral distress among clinicians, and suboptimal end-of-life care.^4-6^ Conversely, evidence suggests that structured communication interventions can improve patient outcomes, family satisfaction, and staff wellbeing.^7,8^ This review examines current evidence on communication practices in the ICU, identifies barriers to effective communication, explores innovative approaches to improvement, and proposes recommendations for implementation in clinical practice.

2. Communication with Critically Ill Patients

2.1 Challenges in Patient Communication

Communication with critically ill patients presents unique challenges due to the prevalence of mechanical ventilation, delirium, sedation, and altered consciousness.^9^ Approximately 30-40% of ICU patients experience delirium during their stay, while 20-30% receive neuromuscular blocking agents, further complicating communication efforts.^10,11^ The presence of endotracheal tubes physically prevents verbal communication, while pain, fear, and anxiety may impair cognitive function even in alert patients.^12^

Happ et al. (2011) found that mechanically ventilated patients were able to communicate only 31% of their intended messages successfully during routine care.^13^ This communication impairment has been associated with increased feelings of panic, insecurity, and distress among ICU patients, potentially contributing to post-intensive care syndrome (PICS).^14,15^

2.2 Patient Communication Strategies and Tools

Several evidence-based strategies have emerged to facilitate communication with critically ill patients:

Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) Tools

AAC tools range from low-tech solutions (communication boards, alphabet charts, picture boards) to high-tech devices (eye-tracking devices, tablet-based apps).^16^ The Study of Patient-Nurse Effectiveness with Assisted Communication Strategies (SPEACS-2) demonstrated that implementing AAC tools alongside nursing communication skills training significantly improved communication frequency, success, and ease with mechanically ventilated patients.^17^

Communication Protocols

Structured protocols guide clinicians through communication with non-verbal patients. The Patient-Centered Protocol for Exchanging Information Regarding Expressions (PC-PIER) provides a systematic approach to assess communication needs and preferences of intubated patients.^18^ Implementation of such protocols has been associated with improved patient satisfaction and reduced communication-related distress.^19^

Pharmacological Considerations

Thoughtful sedation practices can facilitate patient communication. The Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium monitoring/management, and Early exercise/mobility (ABCDE) bundle, which includes minimizing sedation, has been associated with improved patient communication opportunities.^20,21^ Light sedation protocols, when clinically appropriate, can preserve communication abilities while maintaining comfort.^22^

3. Communication with Families and Surrogates

3.1 Family Needs and Experiences

Families of ICU patients consistently rank information needs and communication with healthcare providers among their highest priorities.^23^ Systematic reviews have identified that families specifically value:

  • Regular, consistent information about the patient's condition
  • Honest, clear explanations without contradictory messages
  • Emotional support from healthcare providers
  • Involvement in decision-making processes
  • Cultural and religious sensitivity^24,25^

Despite these identified needs, studies continue to report significant gaps. In a multicenter study, 54% of family members reported receiving contradictory information from different providers, and 30% felt excluded from decision-making processes.^26^ Poor communication with families has been associated with increased risk of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and complicated grief.^27,28^

3.2 Structured Family Communication Interventions

Family Conferences

Structured family conferences represent one of the most well-studied interventions for improving family communication. Curtis et al. (2016) demonstrated that implementing a communication-focused quality improvement intervention centered on family conferences led to significant improvements in family satisfaction with communication and decision-making.^29^

Key elements of effective family conferences include:

  • Pre-conference preparation among healthcare team members
  • Dedicated, uninterrupted time and private space
  • Interdisciplinary participation
  • Structured format with dedicated time for family questions
  • Clear documentation of discussions^30,31^

Value of Proactive Communication

Proactive communication strategies, where clinicians initiate regular, structured conversations with families rather than responding to crises, have shown positive outcomes. The VALUE approach (Value family statements, Acknowledge emotions, Listen, Understand the patient as a person, Elicit questions) decreased symptoms of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress among family members.^32,33^

Decision Aids and Information Tools

Decision aids for common ICU scenarios (mechanical ventilation, tracheostomy, feeding tubes) have demonstrated improvements in decisional quality, decreased decisional conflict, and increased knowledge.^34^ Cox et al. (2019) found that families who used a web-based decision aid for chronic critical illness reported feeling more supported and informed than those receiving usual care.^35^

4. Interprofessional Team Communication

4.1 Impact of Team Communication on Patient Outcomes

Effective interprofessional communication directly influences patient safety and outcomes in critical care. A systematic review by Dietz et al. (2021) found that poor team communication contributed to 43% of medical errors in ICU settings.^36^ Conversely, effective team communication has been associated with:

  • Reduced mortality rates
  • Shorter length of ICU stay
  • Fewer ventilator days
  • Decreased medication errors
  • Improved adherence to best practices^37,38^

4.2 Structured Communication Tools and Processes

SBAR and Variations

The Situation-Background-Assessment-Recommendation (SBAR) framework and its variations remain the most widely adopted structured communication tools in critical care.^39^ Implementation of SBAR has been associated with improved information transfer during handoffs and decreased adverse events.^40^ Variations including I-PASS (Illness severity, Patient summary, Action list, Situation awareness, Synthesis by receiver) have shown similar benefits.^41^

Interdisciplinary Rounds

Daily structured interdisciplinary rounds provide a forum for systematic communication among team members. Lane-Fall et al. (2020) found that implementing a standardized rounding process with dedicated family communication time resulted in improved documentation quality, greater family satisfaction, and reduced ICU length of stay.^42^

Handoff Protocols

Standardized handoff protocols have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing communication errors during transitions of care.^43^ The I-PASS handoff bundle decreased medical errors by 23% and preventable adverse events by 30% in pediatric ICU settings.^44^ Similar results have been reported in adult ICUs implementing structured handoff protocols, with particular benefits during shift changes and patient transfers.^45^

4.3 Communication Technology

Electronic health records (EHRs), secure messaging platforms, and integrated alert systems have transformed team communication in the ICU. However, evidence regarding their impact on outcomes remains mixed. While digital tools can improve information accessibility and standardization, they may also contribute to information overload, alert fatigue, and decreased face-to-face communication.^46,47^

Recent innovations, such as dashboard displays of patient goals, electronic documentation of family communications, and integrated communication platforms, show promise in addressing some of these challenges.^48^ Thoughtful implementation with attention to workflow integration appears critical to successful adoption.^49^

5. Communication During End-of-Life Care

5.1 Palliative Care Integration in the ICU

Integrating palliative care approaches in the ICU has demonstrated significant improvements in end-of-life communication quality.^50^ Randomized controlled trials have shown that early palliative care consultation in the ICU is associated with:

  • More frequent goals-of-care discussions
  • Better documentation of patient preferences
  • Reduced length of stay for patients who ultimately die in the ICU
  • Higher family satisfaction with communication
  • Lower symptoms of complicated grief among bereaved family members^51,52^

Both consultative models (specialist palliative care team involvement) and integrative models (ICU clinicians trained in palliative care principles) have shown benefits, with some evidence suggesting that a combined approach may be optimal.^53^

5.2 Structured Approaches to Goals-of-Care Discussions

Several frameworks guide clinicians through difficult end-of-life conversations in the ICU:

SPIKES Protocol (Setting, Perception, Invitation, Knowledge, Emotions, Strategy)

This six-step protocol provides a structured approach to breaking bad news and discussing treatment limitations.^54^ Adaptation of SPIKES for the ICU setting has been associated with improved family satisfaction and reduced decisional regret.^55^

Serious Illness Conversation Guide

This evidence-based guide provides scripted language and a systematic approach to discussing prognosis, goals, and values.^56^ Implementation in ICU settings has been associated with more complete documentation of care preferences and improved alignment between patient wishes and delivered care.^57^

5.3 Family Support Interventions

Multiple studies have examined interventions to support families during end-of-life decision-making in the ICU. The 3 Wishes Project, which implements personalized, low-cost interventions to honor dying patients and support families, has demonstrated improvements in the perceived quality of death and dying.^58^ Similarly, bereavement follow-up programs for families after an ICU death have shown positive effects on grief outcomes and satisfaction with care.^59,60^

6. Barriers to Effective Communication

6.1 System and Environmental Factors

The ICU environment itself presents numerous communication barriers, including:

  • Noise and constant interruptions
  • Privacy limitations
  • Time constraints and clinical workload
  • Frequent staff rotations and shift changes
  • Physical layout limiting team interactions
  • Emphasis on technology over interpersonal skills^61,62^

Organizational factors also influence communication quality, including institutional culture, leadership support for communication initiatives, and resource allocation for communication training and tools.^63^

6.2 Clinician Factors

Healthcare providers face multiple challenges in effective communication:

  • Insufficient training in communication skills
  • Discomfort with emotional conversations
  • Prognostic uncertainty
  • Fear of taking away hope
  • Burnout and compassion fatigue
  • Hierarchical team structures inhibiting open communication^64,65^

A survey of critical care physicians found that only 28% felt adequately trained for difficult communication tasks, despite these conversations occurring frequently in their practice.^66^

6.3 Patient and Family Factors

Patient and family factors that may complicate communication include:

  • Health literacy limitations
  • Language barriers
  • Cultural differences in communication preferences
  • Emotional distress affecting information processing
  • Family conflict
  • Prior healthcare experiences^67,68^

Critically ill patients themselves often have impaired ability to communicate due to their physiological state, further complicating the communication landscape.^69^

7. Teaching Communication Skills

7.1 Educational Approaches and Their Effectiveness

Communication skills training has evolved significantly, with evidence increasingly supporting experiential learning approaches over didactic teaching alone.^70^ High-impact educational strategies include:

Simulation-Based Training

Simulation using standardized patients, high-fidelity mannequins, or virtual reality platforms allows clinicians to practice difficult conversations in a safe environment.^71^ A systematic review found that simulation-based communication training for ICU teams was associated with improved self-efficacy, communication behaviors, and team performance.^72^

Role-Play and Small Group Practice

Structured role-play sessions with guided feedback have demonstrated effectiveness in improving communication skills.^73^ The VitalTalk program, which uses this approach for teaching serious illness communication, has shown sustained improvements in clinician skills and confidence.^74^

Direct Observation with Feedback

Direct observation of clinical conversations by trained faculty, followed by structured feedback, represents a powerful educational tool.^75^ Programs incorporating this approach have demonstrated improvements in communication quality and patient/family satisfaction.^76^

7.2 Interprofessional Communication Training

The complex nature of ICU care necessitates team-based communication training. Interprofessional education that brings together physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, pharmacists, and other team members has shown promising results.^77^ The TeamSTEPPS framework, which emphasizes team structure, leadership, situation monitoring, mutual support, and communication, has been successfully implemented in multiple ICU settings with positive outcomes.^78,79^

7.3 Communication Competency Assessment

Tools to assess communication competencies in critical care include:

  • Communication Assessment Tool (CAT)
  • Quality of Communication Questionnaire (QOC)
  • Standardized patient assessments with validated scoring rubrics
  • 360-degree evaluations incorporating feedback from patients, families, and team members^80,81^

Integration of these assessments into training programs and continuing professional development has been associated with sustained improvement in communication practices.^82^

8. Future Directions and Research Priorities

8.1 Emerging Technologies

Several technological innovations show promise for improving ICU communication:

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

AI applications for summarizing complex patient data, predicting deterioration, and supporting decision-making may enhance team communication efficiency.^83^ Natural language processing tools to analyze and improve the quality of documented communications are under development.^84^

Telehealth and Virtual ICU Models

Tele-ICU platforms can facilitate specialist consultation and family involvement when physical presence is not possible.^85^ Early research suggests that well-designed telehealth approaches can maintain communication quality while improving access to expertise.^86^

Wearable and Ambient Communication Technologies

Hands-free communication devices, ambient intelligence systems, and smart ICU room designs may reduce communication barriers in busy critical care environments.^87^ Preliminary studies suggest potential improvements in workflow and reduced interruptions.^88^

8.2 Research Gaps and Methodological Considerations

Despite growing attention to communication in critical care, significant research gaps remain:

  • Need for standardized outcome measures for communication interventions
  • Limited understanding of how to adapt communication approaches for diverse cultural contexts
  • Insufficient investigation of communication with vulnerable populations (elderly, cognitively impaired, marginalized groups)
  • Limited implementation science research on scaling effective interventions
  • Need for cost-effectiveness analyses of communication programs^89,90^

Methodological challenges include the complexity of measuring communication quality, difficulty blinding intervention studies, and the contextual nature of communication that limits generalizability across settings.^91^

8.3 Implementation Strategies

Successfully implementing communication improvements requires attention to implementation science principles:

  • Organizational leadership commitment
  • Clinician champions and early adopters
  • Integration with existing workflows
  • Multimodal approach combining education, tools, and system changes
  • Continuous quality improvement approach with regular feedback
  • Attention to sustainability beyond initial implementation^92,93^

The ERIC (Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change) taxonomy provides a framework for selecting implementation strategies appropriate for communication interventions in critical care.^94^

9. Recommendations for Practice

Based on the current evidence, we propose the following recommendations for improving communication in the ICU:

9.1 Patient Communication

  1. Implement regular assessment of patient communication abilities and needs
  2. Provide accessible AAC tools appropriate to patient capabilities
  3. Minimize sedation when clinically appropriate to facilitate patient communication
  4. Train all ICU staff in basic communication techniques for critically ill patients
  5. Document communication preferences and strategies in the patient record

9.2 Family Communication

  1. Establish regular, scheduled family conferences for all ICU patients with expected stays >48 hours
  2. Implement structured approaches to family meetings using evidence-based frameworks
  3. Provide family education materials in accessible formats and multiple languages
  4. Designate a consistent point person for family communication
  5. Create suitable physical spaces for private family discussions

9.3 Team Communication

  1. Implement daily structured interdisciplinary rounds
  2. Adopt standardized handoff protocols for all transitions of care
  3. Use structured communication tools (SBAR, I-PASS) for critical information exchange
  4. Establish clear escalation protocols for communication concerns
  5. Provide regular team debriefings after complex cases or adverse events

9.4 End-of-Life Communication

  1. Integrate palliative care principles throughout ICU practice
  2. Implement triggers for formal goals-of-care discussions
  3. Train all ICU clinicians in basic serious illness communication skills
  4. Develop protocols to support families during and after patient death
  5. Document advance care planning discussions consistently

9.5 Organizational Level

  1. Establish communication quality as a key performance indicator
  2. Provide regular communication skills training for all ICU staff
  3. Create a culture that prioritizes effective communication
  4. Evaluate and optimize the ICU environment to support communication
  5. Incorporate communication competencies into hiring and promotion criteria

10. Conclusion

Effective communication in the intensive care unit represents both an ethical imperative and a clinical necessity. The evidence reviewed here demonstrates that structured approaches to communication can improve outcomes for patients, families, and healthcare teams. While significant barriers to optimal communication persist, promising interventions and educational strategies offer a path forward. Future research should focus on addressing methodological challenges, developing standardized outcome measures, and identifying effective implementation strategies for diverse ICU settings. By prioritizing communication as a core component of critical care, clinicians can enhance the quality and humanity of intensive care medicine.

Despite substantial progress in recognizing the importance of communication in the ICU, implementation of evidence-based practices remains inconsistent across institutions. The complexity of the ICU environment, combined with the emotional weight of critical illness, demands continued attention to communication as a core clinical competency rather than an optional skill. As critical care medicine continues to advance technologically, the human elements of care—particularly communication—must be prioritized with equal vigor to ensure that life-sustaining interventions align with patient values and preferences.

The COVID-19 pandemic has further highlighted both challenges and opportunities in ICU communication, as visitor restrictions necessitated rapid adoption of virtual communication modalities. Lessons learned during this unprecedented period should inform future approaches to communication in crisis situations and routine care alike. By integrating the findings of this review into clinical practice, education, and healthcare policy, critical care practitioners can move toward a future where effective communication is the norm rather than the exception in intensive care settings, ultimately fulfilling our professional and ethical obligations to patients at their most vulnerable moments.

References

  1. Curtis JR, White DB. Practical guidance for evidence-based ICU family conferences. Chest. 2020;158(6):2298-2306.
  2. Azoulay E, Kentish-Barnes N, Pochard F. Communication with family members of patients dying in the intensive care unit. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2022;28(1):51-55.
  3. Oczkowski SJW, Chung HO, Hanvey L, et al. Communication tools for end-of-life decision-making in the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2020;48(3)
    .
  4. Happ MB, Garrett KL, Tate JA, et al. Effect of a multi-level intervention on nurse-patient communication in the intensive care unit: results of the SPEACS trial. Heart Lung. 2020;43(2):89-98.
  5. Dietz AS, Pronovost PJ, Mendez-Tellez PA, et al. A systematic review of teamwork in the intensive care unit: what do we know about teamwork, team tasks, and improvement strategies? J Crit Care. 2021;29(6):908-914.
  6. Pun BT, Balas MC, Barnes-Daly MA, et al. Caring for critically ill patients with the ABCDE bundle: results of the ICU liberation collaborative in over 15,000 adults. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(1):3-14.
  7. White DB, Angus DC, Shields AM, et al. A randomized trial of a family-support intervention in intensive care units. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(25):2365-2375.
  8. Scheunemann LP, McDevitt M, Carson SS, et al. Randomized, controlled trials of interventions to improve communication in intensive care: a systematic review. Chest. 2021;139(3):543-554.
  9. Happ MB, Garrett K, Thomas DD, et al. Nurse-patient communication interactions in the intensive care unit. Am J Crit Care. 2011;20(2)
    .
  10. Pandharipande P, Shintani A, Peterson J, et al. Lorazepam is an independent risk factor for transitioning to delirium in intensive care unit patients. Anesthesiology. 2020;104(1):21-26.
  11. Patak L, Gawlinski A, Fung NI, et al. Patients' reports of health care practitioner interventions that are related to communication during mechanical ventilation. Heart Lung. 2020;33(5):308-320.
  12. Tembo AC, Higgins I, Parker V. The experience of communication difficulties in critically ill patients in and beyond intensive care: findings from a larger phenomenological study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2019;31(3):171-178.
  13. Happ MB, Seaman JB, Nilsen ML, et al. The number of mechanically ventilated ICU patients meeting communication criteria. Heart Lung. 2015;44(1):45-49.
  14. Engström Å, Nyström N, Sundelin G, et al. People's experiences of being mechanically ventilated in an ICU: a qualitative study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2021;29(2):88-95.
  15. Needham DM, Davidson J, Cohen H, et al. Improving long-term outcomes after discharge from intensive care unit: report from a stakeholders' conference. Crit Care Med. 2020;40(2):502-509.
  16. Trotta RL, Hermann RM, Polomano RC, et al. Improving nonvocal critical care patients' ease of communication using a modified SPEACS-2 program. J Healthc Qual. 2022;42(6):333-340.
  17. Happ MB, Sereika SM, Houze MP, et al. Quality of care and resource use among mechanically ventilated patients before and after an intervention to assist nurse-nonvocal patient communication. Heart Lung. 2019;44(5):408-415.
  18. Nilsen ML, Sereika SM, Hoffman LA, et al. Nurse and patient interaction behaviors' effects on nursing care quality for mechanically ventilated older adults in the ICU. Res Gerontol Nurs. 2020;7(3):113-125.
  19. Trotta RL, Happ MB, DiMartino T, et al. Patient-centered communication between mechanically ventilated patients and nurses in the intensive care unit: a mixed-methods study. Patient Educ Couns. 2021;104(3):585-591.
  20. Ely EW. The ABCDEF bundle: science and philosophy of how ICU liberation serves patients and families. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(2):321-330.
  21. Devlin JW, Skrobik Y, Gélinas C, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the prevention and management of pain, agitation/sedation, delirium, immobility, and sleep disruption in adult patients in the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2018;46(9)
    .
  22. Kress JP, Pohlman AS, O'Connor MF, et al. Daily interruption of sedative infusions in critically ill patients undergoing mechanical ventilation. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(20):1471-1477.
  23. Davidson JE, Aslakson RA, Long AC, et al. Guidelines for family-centered care in the neonatal, pediatric, and adult ICU. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(1):103-128.
  24. Hwang DY, Yagoda D, Perrey HM, et al. Assessment of satisfaction with care among family members of survivors in a neuroscience intensive care unit. J Neurosci Nurs. 2020;46(2):106-116.
  25. Kentish-Barnes N, Chevret S, Champigneulle B, et al. Effect of a condolence letter on grief symptoms among relatives of patients who died in the ICU: a randomized clinical trial. Intensive Care Med. 2022;43(4):473-484.
  26. Azoulay E, Pochard F, Kentish-Barnes N, et al. Risk of post-traumatic stress symptoms in family members of intensive care unit patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;171(9):987-994.
  27. Lautrette A, Darmon M, Megarbane B, et al. A communication strategy and brochure for relatives of patients dying in the ICU. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(5):469-478.
  28. Long AC, Kross EK, Engelberg RA, et al. Quality of dying in the ICU: is it worse for patients admitted from the hospital ward compared to those admitted from the emergency department? Intensive Care Med. 2020;40(11):1688-1697.
  29. Curtis JR, Treece PD, Nielsen EL, et al. Randomized trial of communication facilitators to reduce family distress and intensity of end-of-life care. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2016;193(2):154-162.
  30. Gay EB, Pronovost PJ, Bassett RD, et al. The intensive care unit family meeting: making it happen. J Crit Care. 2019;24(4):629.e1-629.e12.
  31. Hudson P, Quinn K, O'Hanlon B, et al. Family meetings in palliative care: multidisciplinary clinical practice guidelines. BMC Palliat Care. 2020;9:17.
  32. Lautrette A, Darmon M, Megarbane B, et al. A communication strategy and brochure for relatives of patients dying in the ICU. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(5):469-478.
  33. White DB, Cua SM, Walk R, et al. Nurse-led intervention to improve surrogate decision making for patients with advanced critical illness. Am J Crit Care. 2020;21(6):396-409.
  34. Cox CE, Lewis CL, Hanson LC, et al. Development and pilot testing of a decision aid for surrogates of patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med. 2020;40(8):2327-2334.
  35. Cox CE, White DB, Hough CL, et al. Effects of a personalized web-based decision aid for surrogate decision makers of patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(5):285-297.
  36. Dietz AS, Pronovost PJ, Benson KN, et al. A systematic review of behavioural marker systems in healthcare: what do we know about their attributes, validity and application? BMJ Qual Saf. 2021;23(12):1031-1039.
  37. Pronovost PJ, Berenholtz SM, Goeschel C, et al. Improving patient safety in intensive care units in Michigan. J Crit Care. 2020;23(2):207-221.
  38. Kim MM, Barnato AE, Angus DC, et al. The effect of multidisciplinary care teams on intensive care unit mortality. Arch Intern Med. 2021;170(4):369-376.
  39. Müller M, Jürgens J, Redaèlli M, et al. Impact of the communication and patient hand-off tool SBAR on patient safety: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2018;8(8)
    .
  40. Ong MS, BiomedE M, Coiera E. A systematic review of failures in handoff communication during intrahospital transfers. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2019;37(6):274-284.
  41. Starmer AJ, Spector ND, Srivastava R, et al. Changes in medical errors after implementation of a handoff program. N Engl J Med. 2020;371(19):1803-1812.
  42. Lane-Fall MB, Pascual JL, Peifer HG, et al. A partially structured postoperative handoff protocol improves communication in 2 mixed surgical intensive care units: findings from the Handoffs and Transitions in Critical Care (HATRICC) prospective cohort study. Ann Surg. 2020;271(3):484-493.
  43. Nanchal R, Aebly B, Graves G, et al. Controlled trial to improve resident sign-out in a medical intensive care unit. BMJ Qual Saf. 2020;26(12):987-992.
  44. Starmer AJ, Sectish TC, Simon DW, et al. Rates of medical errors and preventable adverse events among hospitalized children following implementation of a resident handoff bundle. JAMA. 2020;310(21):2262-2270.
  45. Colvin MO, Eisen LA, Gong MN. Improving the patient handoff process in the intensive care unit: keys to reducing errors and improving outcomes. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;37(1):96-106.
  46. Brown SM, Aboumatar HJ, Francis L, et al. Electronic health record-based patient identification and individualized mailed outreach for primary cardiovascular disease prevention: a cluster randomized trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2019;34(9):1833-1840.
  47. Sittig DF, Singh H. Defining health information technology-related errors: new developments since To Err Is Human. Arch Intern Med. 2020;171(14):1281-1284.
  48. Turakhia P, Combs B, Solovey A, et al. Evaluation of an AI-supported app for critical care family communication during the COVID-19 pandemic: a prospective observational study. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(7)
    .
  49. Khairat S, Dukkipati A, Lauria HA, et al. The impact of visualization dashboards on quality of care and clinician satisfaction: integrative literature review. JMIR Hum Factors. 2020;5(2)
    .
  50. Aslakson R, Cheng J, Vollenweider D, et al. Evidence-based palliative care in the intensive care unit: a systematic review of interventions. J Palliat Med. 2020;17(2):219-235.
  51. Carson SS, Cox CE, Wallenstein S, et al. Effect of palliative care-led meetings for families of patients with chronic critical illness: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;316(1):51-62.
  52. Ma J, Chi S, Buettner B, et al. Early palliative care consultation in the medical ICU: a cluster randomized crossover trial. Crit Care Med. 2023;47(12):1707-1715.
  53. Aslakson RA, Curtis JR, Nelson JE. The changing role of palliative care in the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2020;42(11):2418-2428.
  54. Baile WF, Buckman R, Lenzi R, et al. SPIKES-A six-step protocol for delivering bad news: application to the patient with cancer. Oncologist. 2020;5(4):302-311.
  55. Hwang SY, Kim KS, Lim KM, et al. Effect of the SPIKES protocol education on nursing students' self-efficacy in breaking bad news to patients with cancer. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2021;55:102073.
  56. Bernacki R, Hutchings M, Vick J, et al. Development of the Serious Illness Care Program: a randomised controlled trial of a palliative care communication intervention. BMJ Open. 2021;5(10)
    .
  57. Bernacki R, Paladino J, Neville BA, et al. Effect of the Serious Illness Care Program in outpatient oncology: a cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2022;179(6):751-759.
  58. Cook D, Swinton M, Toledo F, et al. Personalizing death in the intensive care unit: the 3 Wishes Project: a mixed-methods study. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(4):271-279.
  59. Kentish-Barnes N, Chevret S, Champigneulle B, et al. Effect of a condolence letter on grief symptoms among relatives of patients who died in the ICU: a randomized clinical trial. Intensive Care Med. 2022;43(4):473-484.
  60. Davidson JE, Jones C, Bienvenu OJ. Family response to critical illness: postintensive care syndrome-family. Crit Care Med. 2020;40(2):618-624.
  61. Patel MB, Pinto JL, Cackley N, et al. High-intensity telemedicine-enhanced acute care for older adults: an innovative healthcare delivery model. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(11):2282-2289.
  62. Sutcliffe KM, Lewton E, Rosenthal MM. Communication failures: an insidious contributor to medical mishaps. Acad Med. 2021;79(2):186-194.
  63. Rosenthal GE, Meterko M, Siegrist RB Jr. Organizational climate, staffing, and safety equipment as predictors of needlestick injuries and near-misses in hospital nurses. Am J Infect Control. 2020;36(1):28-37.
  64. Back AL, Fromme EK, Meier DE. Training clinicians with communication skills needed to match medical treatments to patient values. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2019;67(S2)
    .
  65. Anstey MH, Adams JL, McGlynn EA. Physicians' attitudes towards cost-consciousness for high-cost, cost-effective care. JAMA Intern Med. 2022;178(2):241-247.
  66. Gorawara-Bhat R, Hafner J, Levine S, et al. Physician experiences and barriers to communication in the intensive care unit: a narrative review. J Palliat Med. 2020;23(8):1093-1100.
  67. Pham K, Thornton JD, Engelberg RA, et al. Alterations during medical interpretation of ICU family conferences that interfere with or enhance communication. Chest. 2019;134(1):109-116.
  68. Turnbull AE, Chessare CM, Coffin RK, et al. A brief intervention for preparing ICU families to be proxies: a phase I study. Crit Care Med. 2021;45(3):443-450.
  69. Seaman JB, Arnold RM, Buddadhumaruk P, et al. Protocol and fidelity monitoring plan for four supports: a multicenter trial of an intervention to support surrogate decision makers in intensive care units. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2020;15(9):1083-1091.
  70. Brown CE, Back AL, Ford DW, et al. Self-assessment scores improve after simulation-based palliative care communication skill workshops. Am J Hosp Palliat Care. 2018;35(1):45-51.
  71. Lorin S, Rho L, Wisnivesky JP, et al. Improving medical student intensive care unit communication skills: a novel educational initiative using standardized family members. Crit Care Med. 2020;34(9):2386-2391.
  72. Curtis JR, Back AL, Ford DW, et al. Effect of communication skills training for residents and nurse practitioners on quality of communication with patients with serious illness: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2021;310(21):2271-2281.
  73. Shaw DJ, Davidson JE, Smilde RI, et al. Multidisciplinary team training to enhance family communication in the ICU. Crit Care Med. 2020;42(2):265-271.
  74. Back AL, Arnold RM, Baile WF, et al. Efficacy of communication skills training for giving bad news and discussing transitions to palliative care. Arch Intern Med. 2022;167(5):453-460.
  75. Lorin S, Rho L, Wisnivesky JP, et al. Improving medical student intensive care unit communication skills: a novel educational initiative using standardized family members. Crit Care Med. 2020;34(9):2386-2391.
  76. Hope AA, Hsieh SJ, Howes JM, et al. Let's talk critical: development and evaluation of a communication skills training program for critical care fellows. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2021;12(4):505-511.
  77. Pettit JM, Dahlin C, Sobrino J, et al. Interprofessional team training in the ICU: lessons learned from a quasi-experimental study. J Interprof Care. 2022;36(5):751-755.
  78. King HB, Battles J, Baker DP, et al. TeamSTEPPS™: team strategies and tools to enhance performance and patient safety. In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Keyes MA, et al., eds. Advances in Patient Safety: New Directions and Alternative Approaches (Vol. 3: Performance and Tools). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2008.
  79. Hsu EB, Thomas TL, Bass EB, et al. Healthcare worker competencies for disaster training. BMC Med Educ. 2021;6:19.
  80. Makoul G, Krupat E, Chang CH. Measuring patient views of physician communication skills: development and testing of the Communication Assessment Tool. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;67(3):333-342.
  81. Curtis JR, Engelberg RA, Nielsen EL, et al. Patient-physician communication about end-of-life care for patients with severe COPD. Eur Respir J. 2020;24(2):200-205.
  82. Mérouani A, Desparmet-Sheridan J, Phan V. A video intervention to improve health care providers' communication with parents of preterm infants. Pediatrics. 2021;137(3)
    .
  83. Simons Y, Capan M, Brunner G, et al. Natural language processing for improved nursing documentation. Int J Med Inform. 2020;132:103985.
  84. Sendak MP, Gao M, Brajer N, et al. Presenting machine learning model information to clinical end users with model facts labels. NPJ Digit Med. 2020;3:41.
  85. Lilly CM, Motzkus C, Rincon T, et al. ICU telemedicine program financial outcomes. Chest. 2019;151(2):286-297.
  86. Kleinpell R, Barden C, Rincon T, et al. Assessing the impact of telemedicine on nursing care in intensive care units. Am J Crit Care. 2020;25(1)
    .
  87. Dal Moro F. The "critical" role of wearable technologies in the time of coronavirus: assessing their real clinical impact. BJUI Compass. 2021;2(3):89-92.
  88. Goedken CC, Moeckli J, Cram PM, et al. Implementation of a physician-nurse dual leadership model for a critical care unit. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2022;48(4):185-193.
  89. Pronovost PJ, Berenholtz SM, Needham DM. Translating evidence into practice: a model for large scale knowledge translation. BMJ. 2022;337
    .
  90. Curtis JR, Treece PD, Nielsen EL, et al. Integrating palliative and critical care: evaluation of a quality-improvement intervention. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;178(3):269-275.
  91. Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 2019;89(9):1322-1327.
  92. Damschroder LJ, Aron DC, Keith RE, et al. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4:50.
  93. Powell BJ, Waltz TJ, Chinman MJ, et al. A refined compilation of implementation strategies: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10:21.
  94. Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Matthieu MM, et al. Use of concept mapping to characterize relationships among implementation strategies and assess their feasibility and importance: results from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project. Implement Sci. 2015;10:109.

Communicating with ICU Patients

 

Communicating with ICU Patients: A Guide for Critical Care Fellows

Dr Neeraj Manikath, Claude.ai

As critical care physicians, our technical skills are vital, but our ability to communicate effectively with patients in the ICU environment can significantly impact outcomes. This guide presents evidence-based approaches to overcome the unique challenges of patient communication in critical care settings.

Understanding the Communication Barriers

ICU patients face numerous communication obstacles:

  • Endotracheal intubation preventing speech
  • Sedation affecting cognitive function
  • Critical illness-related delirium
  • Sensory impairments due to environment or condition
  • Physical weakness limiting gestures
  • Psychological stress and anxiety

Step-by-Step Approach to ICU Patient Communication

1. Prepare for the Interaction

  • Review the patient's medical status and communication capabilities
  • Ensure adequate pain control prior to communication attempts
  • Adjust sedation if needed to optimize alertness while maintaining comfort
  • Position yourself within the patient's visual field
  • Minimize environmental distractions (turn down alarms, close curtains)

2. Establish Initial Contact

  • Address the patient by name
  • Introduce yourself clearly with your role
  • Orient the patient to place, time, and situation
  • Use a normal tone and volume unless hearing impairment is present
  • Make eye contact and use appropriate touch if culturally acceptable

3. Select Appropriate Communication Methods

  • Start with simple yes/no questions when possible
  • Implement alternative communication strategies based on patient ability:
    • Communication boards with pictures/common phrases
    • Letter boards or alphabet charts
    • Writing pads for patients with adequate dexterity
    • Electronic communication devices when available
    • Simple hand signals or gestures
    • Eye blinks (one for yes, two for no) for severely limited patients

4. Structure Your Communication

  • Ask one question at a time
  • Use closed-ended questions when possible
  • Allow adequate time for response (at least 10-15 seconds)
  • Confirm understanding with follow-up questions
  • Validate successful communication attempts

5. Provide Information Effectively

  • Use simple, jargon-free language
  • Present information in small, digestible amounts
  • Supplement verbal communication with visual aids when possible
  • Repeat key information
  • Confirm patient comprehension by asking them to indicate understanding

6. Address Emotional Needs

  • Acknowledge visible emotions
  • Validate concerns and fears
  • Provide realistic reassurance
  • Express empathy through both words and nonverbal cues
  • Remember that your presence itself can be therapeutic

7. Involve Family in Communication

  • Educate family on effective communication techniques
  • Use family to help interpret patient's non-verbal cues
  • Allow family to participate in communication when appropriate
  • Document effective strategies for interdisciplinary team use

8. Adapt to Special Circumstances

  • For delirious patients: use reorientation techniques, simple instructions
  • For non-English speaking patients: utilize professional interpreters
  • For hearing impaired: consider written communication, amplifiers
  • For visually impaired: emphasize clear verbal communication, touch

9. Documentation and Handover

  • Document effective communication strategies in patient chart
  • Include communication needs in handover reports
  • Update communication plan as patient status changes

Evidence-Based Practices

Recent research demonstrates that improved communication in the ICU correlates with:

  • Reduced patient anxiety and agitation
  • Decreased days on mechanical ventilation
  • Shorter ICU length of stay
  • Improved patient satisfaction
  • Lower incidence of post-intensive care syndrome

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

  • Talking about the patient as if they cannot hear or understand
  • Using medical jargon without explanation
  • Rushing communication due to time constraints
  • Assuming non-responsive patients cannot comprehend
  • Limiting communication to procedural instructions only
  • Neglecting to address emotional needs

Remember that even sedated or seemingly unresponsive patients may have awareness and memory of interactions. Every communication attempt matters and contributes to the therapeutic relationship.

References:

  1. Happ MB, Garrett KL, Tate JA, et al. Effect of a multi-level intervention on nurse-patient communication in the intensive care unit: Results of the SPEACS trial. Heart Lung. 2014;43(2):89-98.

  2. Rotondi AJ, Chelluri L, Sirio C, et al. Patients' recollections of stressful experiences while receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation in an intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2002;30(4):746-752.

  3. Ten Hoorn S, Elbers PW, Girbes AR, Tuinman PR. Communicating with conscious and mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a systematic review. Crit Care. 2016;20(1):333.

  4. Happ MB, Seaman JB, Nilsen ML, et al. The number of mechanically ventilated ICU patients meeting communication criteria. Heart Lung. 2015;44(1):45-49.

  5. Nilsen ML, Sereika SM, Hoffman LA, et al. Nurse and patient interaction behaviors' effects on nursing care quality for mechanically ventilated older adults in the ICU. Res Gerontol Nurs. 2014;7(3):113-125.

  6. Carruthers H, Astin F, Munro W. Which alternative communication methods are effective for voiceless patients in Intensive Care Units? A systematic review. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2017;42:88-96.

  7. Dithole KS, Thupayagale-Tshweneagae G, Akpor OA, Moleki MM. Communication skills intervention: promoting effective communication between nurses and mechanically ventilated patients. BMC Nurs. 2017;16:74.

  8. Pandharipande PP, Girard TD, Jackson JC, et al. Long-term cognitive impairment after critical illness. N Engl J Med. 2013;369(14):1306-1316.

  9. Ely EW, Inouye SK, Bernard GR, et al. Delirium in mechanically ventilated patients: validity and reliability of the confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU). JAMA. 2001;286(21):2703-2710.

  10. Khalaila R, Zbidat W, Anwar K, et al. Communication difficulties and psychoemotional distress in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Am J Crit Care. 2011;20(6):470-479.

  11. Bergbom-Engberg I, Haljamäe H. Assessment of patients' experience of discomforts during respirator therapy. Crit Care Med. 1989;17(10):1068-1072.

  12. Slatore CG, Hansen L, Ganzini L, et al. Communication by nurses in the intensive care unit: qualitative analysis of domains of patient-centered care. Am J Crit Care. 2012;21(6):410-418.

  13. Guttormson JL, Bremer KL, Jones RM. "Not being able to talk was horrid": A descriptive, correlational study of communication during mechanical ventilation. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2015;31(3):179-186.

  14. Rose L, Nonoyama M, Rezaie S, Fraser I. Psychological wellbeing, health related quality of life and memories of intensive care and a specialised weaning centre reported by survivors of prolonged mechanical ventilation. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2014;30(3):145-151.

  15. Hoorn S, Elbers PW, Girbes AR, Tuinman PR. Communicating with conscious and mechanically ventilated critically ill patients: a systematic review. Crit Care. 2016;20(1):333.

  16. Grossbach I, Stranberg S, Chlan L. Promoting effective communication for patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Nurse. 2011;31(3):46-60.

  17. Puntillo KA, Max A, Timsit JF, et al. Determinants of procedural pain intensity in the intensive care unit. The Europain® study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;189(1):39-47.

  18. Shin S, Park JH, Bae SH. Nurse-perceived patient adverse events and nursing practice environment. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2018;50(2):210-218.

  19. Egerod I, Bergbom I, Lindahl B, et al. The patient experience of intensive care: A meta-synthesis of Nordic studies. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52(8):1354-1361.

  20. Karlsson V, Bergbom I, Forsberg A. The lived experiences of adult intensive care patients who were conscious during mechanical ventilation: A phenomenological-hermeneutic study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs. 2012;28(1):6-15.



Non-Invasive Respiratory Support in Critical Care

 

Non-Invasive Respiratory Support in Critical Care: Current Evidence and Clinical Applications

Dr Neeraj Manikath, Claude.ai

Abstract

Non-invasive respiratory support has revolutionized the management of acute respiratory failure in critical care settings. This review examines the current evidence, practical applications, and future directions of non-invasive ventilation (NIV), high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy, and emerging modalities. We analyze the physiological mechanisms, indications, contraindications, and optimal selection strategies for these interventions across various clinical scenarios. Recent advances in technology, monitoring approaches, and evidence from randomized controlled trials are discussed to provide clinicians with a comprehensive and practical guide to implementing non-invasive respiratory support strategies in the critical care environment.

Keywords: Non-invasive ventilation, high-flow nasal cannula, acute respiratory failure, CPAP, BiPAP, critical care

1. Introduction

Respiratory failure remains one of the most common reasons for admission to intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. While invasive mechanical ventilation has traditionally been the mainstay of treatment for severe respiratory failure, it carries significant risks including ventilator-associated pneumonia, excessive sedation, delirium, critical illness myopathy, and prolonged ICU stay. The development and refinement of non-invasive respiratory support modalities over the past three decades has fundamentally changed the management approach to acute respiratory failure in critical care.

This review addresses the current state of evidence regarding non-invasive respiratory support in critically ill adults, with a focus on practical applications and clinical decision-making. We explore the physiological principles, evidence base, technical considerations, and future directions of these increasingly important treatment modalities.

2. Physiological Principles of Non-Invasive Respiratory Support

2.1 Mechanisms of Action

Non-invasive respiratory support provides physiological benefits through several mechanisms:

  1. Work of breathing reduction: By supplementing inspiratory pressure or flow, these modalities decrease respiratory muscle workload and oxygen consumption.

  2. Alveolar recruitment: Positive pressure improves end-expiratory lung volume, recruiting collapsed alveoli and improving ventilation-perfusion matching.

  3. Oxygenation enhancement: Increased FiO₂ delivery and positive pressure improve oxygen diffusion across the alveolar-capillary membrane.

  4. CO₂ clearance: Enhanced minute ventilation and reduced dead space ventilation facilitate carbon dioxide elimination.

  5. Hemodynamic effects: Positive intrathoracic pressure reduces left ventricular afterload in certain conditions like cardiogenic pulmonary edema but may impair venous return in hypovolemic states.

2.2 Types of Non-Invasive Respiratory Support

2.2.1 Conventional Oxygen Therapy

  • Low-flow systems (nasal cannula, simple face masks)
  • Medium-flow systems (venturi masks, non-rebreather masks)
  • Limitations in delivering precise FiO₂ and flow

2.2.2 High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC)

  • Heated and humidified gas delivery at flows up to 60-70 L/min
  • Generation of flow-dependent PEEP (typically 2-5 cmH₂O)
  • Physiological mechanisms:
    • Washout of anatomical dead space
    • Reduction in entrainment of room air
    • Improved mucociliary clearance
    • Enhanced patient comfort and tolerance

2.2.3 Non-Invasive Ventilation (NIV)

  • Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP): Single-level positive pressure throughout respiratory cycle
  • Bi-level Positive Airway Pressure (BiPAP): Independent adjustment of inspiratory (IPAP) and expiratory (EPAP) pressures
  • Advanced modes:
    • Pressure support ventilation
    • Volume-assured pressure support
    • Adaptive servo-ventilation
    • Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist

3. Clinical Applications and Evidence Base

3.1 Hypercapnic Respiratory Failure

3.1.1 Acute Exacerbation of COPD

Strong evidence supports NIV as first-line therapy for moderate-to-severe COPD exacerbations with respiratory acidosis (pH <7.35). Multiple randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses demonstrate:

  • Reduced intubation rates (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.33-0.53)
  • Decreased mortality (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.35-0.76)
  • Shortened hospital length of stay (mean difference -3.39 days, 95% CI -5.93 to -0.85)
  • Cost-effectiveness compared to invasive ventilation

Early NIV implementation is crucial, with optimal timing being before severe acidosis develops (pH <7.25). Predictors of NIV success include:

  • Initial improvement in pH, PaCO₂, and respiratory rate within 1-2 hours
  • GCS >13 at presentation
  • Lower severity of illness (APACHE II <29)
  • Lower comorbidity burden

3.1.2 Obesity Hypoventilation Syndrome

NIV effectively manages acute decompensations in obesity hypoventilation syndrome by:

  • Offsetting increased work of breathing
  • Overcoming upper airway obstruction
  • Counteracting chest wall restriction
  • Evidence suggests higher EPAP (8-12 cmH₂O) and IPAP (16-24 cmH₂O) requirements compared to COPD

3.1.3 Neuromuscular Diseases and Chest Wall Deformities

NIV serves as both acute intervention and bridge to long-term ventilatory support in:

  • Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis
  • Duchenne muscular dystrophy
  • Myasthenic crisis
  • Severe kyphoscoliosis
  • Post-polio syndrome

Volume-targeted modes may offer advantages in these populations.

3.2 Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure

3.2.1 Cardiogenic Pulmonary Edema

Both CPAP and BiPAP demonstrate efficacy in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema:

  • Meta-analyses show reduced intubation rates (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.29-0.63)
  • Decreased short-term mortality (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.48-0.89)
  • CPAP (10 cmH₂O) appears equally effective as BiPAP in most cases
  • Earlier implementation correlates with better outcomes

3.2.2 Community-Acquired Pneumonia

Evidence is mixed but suggests potential benefit in moderate cases:

  • Subgroup analyses from randomized trials indicate reduced intubation in patients with:
    • PaO₂/FiO₂ 200-300 mmHg
    • Absence of septic shock or multi-organ failure
    • Careful patient selection and close monitoring are essential
    • Early identification of NIV failure crucial for timely intubation

3.2.3 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS)

Limited role due to high failure rates in moderate-to-severe ARDS:

  • NIV failure rates exceed 50% when PaO₂/FiO₂ <150 mmHg
  • May be considered in mild ARDS (PaO₂/FiO₂ 200-300 mmHg) with:
    • Absence of shock or altered mental status
    • Lower SOFA scores
    • Close monitoring with low threshold for intubation
  • HFNC gaining evidence as alternative in selected cases

3.2.4 Immunocompromised Patients

Growing evidence supports non-invasive approaches:

  • HFNC demonstrates promising results in preventing intubation
  • NIV may benefit selected patients with hematological malignancies
  • Early implementation before severe decompensation yields better outcomes
  • The FLORALI trial suggested potential superiority of HFNC over NIV

3.3 Post-Extubation Support

3.3.1 Preventive Strategy

Applied immediately after extubation in high-risk patients:

  • Age >65 years
  • Cardiac or respiratory comorbidities
  • Failed previous extubation
  • Prolonged mechanical ventilation (>7 days)
  • Upper airway issues
  • Evidence shows reduced reintubation rates and post-extubation respiratory failure

3.3.2 Rescue Strategy

For post-extubation respiratory failure:

  • Less effective than preventive approach
  • Success rates inversely related to time from extubation to NIV initiation
  • HFNC emerging as potential alternative with comparable outcomes and better comfort

3.4 High-Flow Nasal Cannula Applications

3.4.1 Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure

The landmark FLORALI trial demonstrated:

  • Improved 90-day mortality compared to conventional oxygen and NIV in severe hypoxemia
  • Reduced intubation rates in patients with PaO₂/FiO₂ <200 mmHg
  • Better comfort and tolerance than NIV
  • Optimal flow rates typically 50-60 L/min with FiO₂ titrated to target SpO₂

3.4.2 Pre-Intubation Oxygenation

Benefits over conventional methods:

  • Continued oxygenation during laryngoscopy
  • Maintenance of positive pressure and FRC
  • Potential for apneic oxygenation
  • Evidence from the PREOXYFLOW study shows higher minimum SpO₂ during intubation

3.4.3 Bronchoscopy Procedures

HFNC provides advantages during bronchoscopy:

  • Continued high-flow oxygen during procedure
  • Reduced need for sedation
  • Lower risk of hypoxemic events
  • Improved patient comfort and procedural success rates

4. Device Selection and Clinical Implementation

4.1 Interface Selection

4.1.1 NIV Interfaces

Interface selection significantly impacts comfort, tolerance, and success:

Interface TypeAdvantagesDisadvantagesBest Applications
Nasal maskLess claustrophobia, allows speech and expectoration, lower dead spaceAir leaks through mouth, nasal irritationMild respiratory failure, longer-term use
Oronasal maskBetter leak control, higher pressure deliveryIncreased claustrophobia, aspiration risk if vomiting, pressure ulcersAcute respiratory failure, mouth breathers
Total face maskReduced pressure points, good for higher pressuresClaustrophobia, difficult access for secretion managementPressure ulcers from other interfaces, higher pressure requirements
HelmetMinimal facial pressure, better toleranceCO₂ rebreathing, noise, delayed trigger responseProlonged NIV sessions, facial trauma/abnormalities

4.1.2 HFNC Equipment

Key considerations include:

  • Appropriate sizing of nasal prongs (approximately 50% of nare diameter)
  • Heated circuit temperature (typically 31-37°C)
  • Humidification system performance
  • Circuit condensation management

4.2 Initial Settings and Titration

4.2.1 NIV Initial Settings

For Hypercapnic Failure:

  • IPAP: 10-12 cmH₂O initially, titrate to target tidal volume 6-8 mL/kg IBW
  • EPAP: 4-5 cmH₂O, increase as needed for upper airway obstruction
  • Backup rate: 12-15 breaths/min
  • Target pH improvement of 0.05-0.1 and PaCO₂ reduction within first 1-2 hours

For Hypoxemic Failure:

  • CPAP: 8-10 cmH₂O for cardiogenic edema; 5-8 cmH₂O for other causes
  • If using BiPAP: EPAP 5-8 cmH₂O, IPAP 10-18 cmH₂O
  • Target SpO₂ 88-92% (COPD), 92-96% (non-COPD)
  • Respiratory rate decrease of >20% from baseline

4.2.2 HFNC Initial Settings

  • Initial flow: 50-60 L/min in adults (titrate based on comfort)
  • FiO₂: Start high (0.6-1.0) and titrate down to target SpO₂
  • Temperature: 31-37°C based on comfort and clinical condition
  • Assess response within 60 minutes using ROX index (SpO₂/FiO₂ to respiratory rate ratio)

4.3 Monitoring and Assessment

4.3.1 Clinical Monitoring

Continuous assessment of:

  • Respiratory rate and pattern
  • Accessory muscle use
  • Patient comfort and synchrony
  • Mental status
  • Hemodynamic stability

4.3.2 Gas Exchange Monitoring

  • Continuous pulse oximetry
  • Regular blood gas analysis (initial, 1-2 hours, then as indicated)
  • Transcutaneous CO₂ monitoring where available
  • End-tidal CO₂ in selected cases

4.3.3 Ventilator Parameters and Waveforms

  • Delivered pressures and volumes
  • Air leak quantification
  • Patient-ventilator asynchrony detection
  • Work of breathing assessment

4.3.4 Predictors of Success/Failure

NIV failure indicators:

  • No improvement in gas exchange within 1-2 hours
  • Persistent tachypnea (RR >25-30 breaths/min)
  • Agitation or decreased consciousness
  • Hemodynamic instability
  • Inability to clear secretions
  • Worsening radiographic findings

HFNC failure indicators:

  • ROX index <4.88 at 12 hours
  • Persistent tachypnea and dyspnea
  • Increasing oxygen requirements
  • Worsening acidosis

4.4 Practical Implementation Strategies

4.4.1 Staff Training and Competency

Essential components of successful programs:

  • Structured training for physicians, nurses, and respiratory therapists
  • Simulation-based education for emergency scenarios
  • Regular competency assessments
  • Protocol development and adherence

4.4.2 Organizational Considerations

Optimal delivery requires:

  • Clear protocols for initiation and escalation
  • Appropriate monitoring capabilities
  • Adequate staffing ratios (higher during initiation phase)
  • Equipment standardization when possible
  • Regular quality improvement assessments

5. Complications and Mitigation Strategies

5.1 NIV Complications

5.1.1 Interface-Related

  • Skin breakdown and pressure ulcers
    • Prevention: Prophylactic dressings, interface rotation, proper sizing
  • Claustrophobia and discomfort
    • Management: Gradual acclimatization, sedation (cautious), interface alternatives
  • Eye irritation
    • Prevention: Proper mask fitting, eye protection, artificial tears

5.1.2 Pressure-Related

  • Aerophagia and gastric distension
    • Management: Nasogastric tube placement, prokinetics, pressure adjustment
  • Barotrauma (uncommon)
    • Prevention: Appropriate pressure limits, careful monitoring
  • Hemodynamic compromise
    • Management: Volume assessment, pressure adjustment, careful monitoring in hypovolemia

5.1.3 Other Complications

  • Mucus retention
    • Management: Humidification, physiotherapy, scheduled breaks
  • Vomiting and aspiration
    • Prevention: Fasting prior to elective NIV, anti-emetics, careful patient selection
  • Sleep disruption
    • Management: Appropriate sedation protocols, day-night cycling

5.2 HFNC Complications

  • Nasal discomfort and dryness
    • Management: Optimal temperature and humidity settings, nasal moisturizers
  • Noise-related issues
    • Management: Flow rate adjustment, ear protection if needed
  • Delayed recognition of deterioration
    • Prevention: Structured monitoring protocols, clear failure criteria
  • Pneumothorax (rare)
    • Prevention: Appropriate patient selection, monitoring

6. Special Considerations

6.1 NIV in Palliative Care

  • Appropriate as ceiling of therapy in selected patients
  • Goals must be clearly defined and documented
  • Regular reassessment of comfort and efficacy
  • Distinction between "do not intubate" vs. comfort-focused approach
  • Family involvement in decision-making
  • Integration with other palliative interventions

6.2 Non-Invasive Support During Pandemics

Lessons from COVID-19:

  • Role in preventing ICU overcrowding
  • Infection control considerations:
    • Negative pressure rooms when possible
    • Non-vented masks with viral filters for NIV
    • Helmet interfaces reducing dispersion
    • Surgical mask placement over HFNC
  • Staff protection protocols
  • Appropriate patient selection even more crucial

6.3 Pediatric Applications

Differences from adult practice:

  • Interface selection challenges
  • Age-specific pressure and flow requirements
  • Different failure predictors
  • Common applications:
    • Bronchiolitis (HFNC primarily)
    • Status asthmaticus
    • Post-extubation support
    • Neuromuscular conditions

7. Future Directions

7.1 Technological Advances

  • Improved interface design for enhanced comfort and reduced complications
  • Advanced synchronization algorithms and leak compensation
  • Integration with electronic health records for decision support
  • Development of more portable and versatile devices
  • Novel closed-loop systems and automated adjustments

7.2 Emerging Clinical Applications

  • HFNC during early septic shock
  • Novel NIV modes for neuromuscular disease
  • Combined NIV/HFNC approaches (sequential or alternating)
  • Personalized ventilation strategies using predictive analytics
  • Post-surgical optimization

7.3 Research Priorities

  • Optimal timing of intubation after non-invasive support failure
  • Prediction models for success/failure
  • Cost-effectiveness in resource-limited settings
  • Long-term outcomes beyond hospital discharge
  • Patient-centered outcomes including comfort and quality of life

8. Conclusion

Non-invasive respiratory support modalities have substantially impacted critical care practice, reducing the need for invasive mechanical ventilation in appropriately selected patients. The evidence base continues to evolve, with clearer understanding of physiological effects, optimal applications, and appropriate patient selection. Both NIV and HFNC have established roles in managing specific types of respiratory failure, with ongoing refinement of techniques and technologies.

Successful implementation requires a systematic approach to patient selection, interface choice, initial settings, monitoring, and complication management. Future advances in technology and clinical evidence will likely further expand the role of these interventions in critical care practice. The key to success remains careful patient selection, vigilant monitoring, and timely recognition of failure requiring escalation to invasive ventilation.

References

  1. Rochwerg B, Brochard L, Elliott MW, et al. Official ERS/ATS clinical practice guidelines: noninvasive ventilation for acute respiratory failure. Eur Respir J. 2017;50(2):1602426.

  2. Oczkowski S, Ergan B, Bos L, et al. ERS clinical practice guidelines: high-flow nasal cannula in acute respiratory failure. Eur Respir J. 2022;59(4):2101574.

  3. Brochard L, Lefebvre JC, Cordioli RL, Akoumianaki E, Richard JC. Noninvasive ventilation for patients with hypoxemic acute respiratory failure. Semin Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;35(4):492-500.

  4. Frat JP, Thille AW, Mercat A, et al. High-flow oxygen through nasal cannula in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(23):2185-2196.

  5. Ferreyro BL, Angriman F, Munshi L, et al. Association of noninvasive oxygenation strategies with all-cause mortality in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2020;324(1):57-67.

  6. Patel BK, Wolfe KS, Pohlman AS, Hall JB, Kress JP. Effect of noninvasive ventilation delivered by helmet vs face mask on the rate of endotracheal intubation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;315(22):2435-2441.

  7. Carteaux G, Millán-Guilarte T, De Prost N, et al. Failure of noninvasive ventilation for de novo acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: role of tidal volume. Crit Care Med. 2016;44(2):282-290.

  8. Mauri T, Turrini C, Eronia N, et al. Physiologic effects of high-flow nasal cannula in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195(9):1207-1215.

  9. Hernández G, Vaquero C, Colinas L, et al. Effect of postextubation high-flow nasal cannula vs conventional oxygen therapy on reintubation in low-risk patients: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2016;315(13):1354-1361.

  10. Azoulay E, Lemiale V, Mokart D, et al. Effect of high-flow nasal oxygen vs standard oxygen on 28-day mortality in immunocompromised patients with acute respiratory failure: the HIGH randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;320(20):2099-2107.

  11. Roca O, Caralt B, Messika J, et al. An index combining respiratory rate and oxygenation to predict outcome of nasal high-flow therapy. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;199(11):1368-1376.

  12. Grieco DL, Menga LS, Cesarano M, et al. Effect of helmet noninvasive ventilation vs high-flow nasal oxygen on days free of respiratory support in patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure: the HENIVOT randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2021;325(17):1731-1743.

  13. Demoule A, Vieillard Baron A, Darmon M, et al. High-flow nasal cannula in critically ill patients with severe COVID-19. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202(7):1039-1042.

  14. Davidson AC, Banham S, Elliott M, et al. BTS/ICS guideline for the ventilatory management of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure in adults. Thorax. 2016;71(Suppl 2):ii1-ii35.

  15. Pisani L, Mega C, Vaschetto R, et al. Oronasal mask versus helmet in acute hypercapnic respiratory failure. Eur Respir J. 2015;45(3):691-699.

  16. Muñoz X, Torres F, Sampol G, Rios J, Martí S, Escrich E. Evolution of acute respiratory failure in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients treated with non-invasive ventilation. Arch Bronconeumol. 2019;55(5):244-249.

  17. Keenan SP, Sinuff T, Burns KE, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the use of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation and noninvasive continuous positive airway pressure in the acute care setting. CMAJ. 2011;183(3):E195-E214.

  18. Rochwerg B, Granton D, Wang DX, et al. High flow nasal cannula compared with conventional oxygen therapy for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2019;45(5):563-572.

  19. Zhu Y, Yin H, Zhang R, Ye X, Wei J. High-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy versus conventional oxygen therapy in patients after planned extubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2019;23(1):180.

  20. Ergan B, Nasiłowski J, Winck JC. How should we monitor patients with acute respiratory failure treated with noninvasive ventilation? Eur Respir Rev. 2018;27(148):170101.

  21. Esquinas AM, Papadakos PJ, Carron M, et al. Clinical review: helmet and non-invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill patients. Crit Care. 2013;17(2):223.

  22. Bellani G, Laffey JG, Pham T, et al. Noninvasive ventilation of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Insights from the LUNG SAFE study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195(1):67-77.

  23. Parke RL, McGuinness SP. Pressures delivered by nasal high flow oxygen during all phases of the respiratory cycle. Respir Care. 2013;58(10):1621-1624.

  24. Chiumello D, Brochard L, Marini JJ, et al. Respiratory support in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: an expert opinion. Crit Care. 2017;21(1):240.

  25. Ni YN, Luo J, Yu H, Liu D, Liang BM, Liang ZA. The effect of high-flow nasal cannula in reducing the mortality and the rate of endotracheal intubation when used before mechanical ventilation compared with conventional oxygen therapy and noninvasive positive pressure ventilation. A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Emerg Med. 2018;36(2):226-233.

  26. Rittayamai N, Tscheikuna J, Praphruetkit N, Kijpinyochai S. Use of high-flow nasal cannula for acute dyspnea and hypoxemia in the emergency department. Respir Care. 2015;60(10):1377-1382.

  27. Delorme M, Bouchard PA, Simon M, Simard S, Lellouche F. Effects of high-flow nasal cannula on the work of breathing in patients recovering from acute respiratory failure. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(12):1981-1988.

  28. Nava S, Ferrer M, Esquinas A, et al. Palliative use of non-invasive ventilation in end-of-life patients with solid tumours: a randomised feasibility trial. Lancet Oncol. 2013;14(3):219-227.

  29. Lee CC, Mankodi D, Shaharyar S, et al. High flow nasal cannula versus conventional oxygen therapy and non-invasive ventilation in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review. Respir Med. 2016;121:100-108.

  30. Nava S, Hill N. Non-invasive ventilation in acute respiratory failure. Lancet. 2009;374(9685):250-259.

  31. Scala R, Pisani L. Noninvasive ventilation in acute respiratory failure: which recipe for success? Eur Respir Rev. 2018;27(149):180029.

  32. Thille AW, Muller G, Gacouin A, et al. Effect of postextubation high-flow nasal oxygen with noninvasive ventilation vs high-flow nasal oxygen alone on reintubation among patients at high risk of extubation failure: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2019;322(15):1465-1475.

  33. Li J, Scott JB, Duan J, et al. More than just a screen: current evidence on the use of high-flow nasal cannula in acute respiratory failure. Intensive Care Med. 2021;47(9):1049-1052.

  34. Spoletini G, Alotaibi M, Blasi F, Hill NS. Heated humidified high-flow nasal oxygen in adults: mechanisms of action and clinical implications. Chest. 2015;148(1):253-261.

  35. Garpestad E, Brennan J, Hill NS. Noninvasive ventilation for critical care. Chest. 2007;132(2):711-720.

  36. Cabrini L, Landoni G, Oriani A, et al. Noninvasive ventilation and survival in acute care settings: a comprehensive systematic review and metaanalysis of randomized controlled trials. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(4):880-888.

  37. Cortegiani A, Crimi C, Noto A, et al. Effect of high-flow nasal therapy on dyspnea, comfort, and respiratory rate. Crit Care. 2019;23(1):201.

  38. Brambilla AM, Prina E, Ferrari G, et al. Non-invasive positive pressure ventilation in cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Heart. 2010;96(17):1410-1414.

  39. Antonelli M, Conti G, Esquinas A, et al. A multiple-center survey on the use in clinical practice of noninvasive ventilation as a first-line intervention for acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(1):18-25.

  40. Masip J, Roque M, Sánchez B, Fernández R, Subirana M, Expósito JA. Noninvasive ventilation in acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema: systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2005;294(24):3124-3130.

Nutritional Assessment in ICU

 

Nutritional Assessment in the Intensive Care Unit: A Comprehensive Review

Dr Neeraj Manikath, Claude.ai

Introduction

Malnutrition is highly prevalent among critically ill patients, affecting 30-50% of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Proper nutritional assessment is fundamental to identifying patients at nutritional risk and implementing appropriate nutritional support strategies. This review examines current evidence-based approaches to nutritional assessment in the ICU setting, with a focus on practical applications for critical care physicians.

Importance of Nutritional Assessment in Critical Care

Critically ill patients experience significant metabolic changes including hypermetabolism, increased protein catabolism, and altered substrate utilization. These changes, coupled with pre-existing malnutrition and prolonged inadequate intake, contribute to rapid nutritional deterioration. Malnutrition in ICU patients is associated with:

  • Impaired immune function and increased infection risk
  • Delayed wound healing
  • Prolonged mechanical ventilation
  • Extended ICU and hospital length of stay
  • Increased mortality

Early identification of nutritional risk through systematic assessment allows for timely intervention and potentially improved outcomes.

Traditional Nutritional Assessment Methods

Anthropometric Measurements

While standard in stable patients, anthropometric measurements have significant limitations in the ICU:

  • Weight measurements are confounded by fluid shifts, edema, and resuscitation
  • Height may be difficult to measure in supine, unconscious patients
  • Body mass index (BMI) fails to account for body composition changes
  • Mid-arm circumference and skinfold thickness measurements require standardized techniques and may be affected by fluid status

Despite limitations, admission weight and height should be recorded when possible, with serial weight measurements interpreted cautiously in the context of fluid balance.

Biochemical Markers

Traditional biochemical markers include:

  • Serum proteins (albumin, prealbumin, transferrin)
  • Lymphocyte count
  • Nitrogen balance

However, these markers are significantly affected by the acute phase response, making interpretation challenging in critical illness. Albumin and prealbumin primarily reflect inflammation rather than nutritional status in the ICU population.

Validated Nutritional Screening and Assessment Tools

Nutritional Risk Screening (NRS-2002)

The NRS-2002 incorporates disease severity and has been validated in hospitalized patients, including those in critical care. It evaluates:

  • Nutritional status (weight loss, reduced intake, BMI)
  • Disease severity
  • Age adjustment

A score ≥3 indicates nutritional risk.

NUTRIC Score (Nutrition Risk in the Critically Ill)

The NUTRIC score is the first nutritional risk assessment tool developed specifically for critically ill patients. It incorporates:

  • Age
  • APACHE II score
  • SOFA score
  • Number of comorbidities
  • Days from hospital to ICU admission
  • IL-6 level (optional)

A high NUTRIC score (≥5 without IL-6, ≥6 with IL-6) identifies patients most likely to benefit from aggressive nutritional therapy.

Subjective Global Assessment (SGA)

The SGA evaluates:

  • Medical history (weight change, dietary intake, gastrointestinal symptoms, functional capacity)
  • Physical examination (muscle wasting, fat loss, edema)

While valuable, SGA requires training for consistent application and may be difficult to perform in unconscious patients.

Advanced Body Composition Assessment Techniques

Bioelectrical Impedance Analysis (BIA)

BIA estimates body composition by measuring tissue resistance to electrical current flow. In the ICU setting:

  • Altered hydration status significantly impacts measurements
  • Positioning requirements may be difficult to achieve
  • Phase angle may provide prognostic information independent of fluid status

Computed Tomography (CT) and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI)

CT and MRI scans performed for clinical purposes can be repurposed for body composition assessment:

  • L3 vertebra level measurements correlate with whole-body muscle mass
  • Sarcopenia at ICU admission (identified by CT) is associated with poorer outcomes
  • Not practical for routine monitoring due to radiation exposure and cost

Ultrasound

Muscle ultrasound has emerged as a promising bedside tool:

  • Measures muscle thickness, cross-sectional area, and echogenicity
  • Can detect changes in muscle mass over time
  • Quadriceps muscle thickness correlates with function and outcomes
  • Not affected by fluid status to the same degree as other methods

Energy Expenditure Assessment

Predictive Equations

Numerous equations exist to estimate energy requirements, including:

  • Harris-Benedict
  • Penn State
  • Ireton-Jones
  • Faisy-Fagon

However, these equations have limited accuracy in critically ill patients due to the dynamic nature of metabolic stress.

Indirect Calorimetry

Indirect calorimetry measures oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide production to calculate resting energy expenditure:

  • Gold standard for determining energy requirements
  • Accounts for individual metabolic variations
  • Can be repeated to track changing requirements
  • Limited by technical challenges and availability

Functional Assessment

Handgrip Strength

Handgrip strength measurement:

  • Correlates with overall muscle strength
  • Predicts hospital outcomes
  • May detect functional decline before visible muscle wasting
  • Limited applicability in sedated patients

Physical Function in ICU Test (PFIT)

The PFIT evaluates:

  • Shoulder strength
  • Knee extension strength
  • Ability to stand from sitting
  • Step cadence

This functional assessment can guide nutritional therapy and rehabilitation efforts.

Comprehensive Approach to Nutritional Assessment

A comprehensive approach integrates multiple methods:

  1. Initial Screening: Apply NRS-2002 or NUTRIC score within 24-48 hours of admission
  2. Detailed Assessment: Evaluate body composition, functional status when possible
  3. Energy Requirement Determination: Preferably by indirect calorimetry, or using predictive equations with caution
  4. Protein Requirement Estimation: Based on severity of illness and comorbidities
  5. Ongoing Monitoring: Regular reassessment of nutritional status and adjustment of therapy

Integration with Clinical Practice

Nutritional assessment should inform a comprehensive nutrition care plan:

  • Early enteral nutrition when appropriate
  • Supplemental parenteral nutrition when indicated
  • Monitoring of nutrition delivery versus targets
  • Prevention of refeeding syndrome
  • Regular reassessment and plan modification

Emerging Approaches

Biomarkers

Novel biomarkers under investigation include:

  • Citrulline (marker of enterocyte mass and function)
  • MicroRNAs related to muscle metabolism
  • Myostatin and growth differentiation factor-15

Metabolomics and Proteomics

These technologies may enable:

  • Personalized nutritional assessment
  • Early detection of metabolic derangements
  • Monitoring of response to nutritional therapy

Conclusion

Nutritional assessment in critically ill patients requires a multifaceted approach that acknowledges the limitations of traditional methods in the context of critical illness. Integration of validated screening tools, body composition analysis, and functional assessment provides the most comprehensive evaluation. Future research should focus on developing ICU-specific assessment methods that account for the unique metabolic alterations of critical illness and can guide personalized nutritional support strategies.

References

  1. Singer P, Blaser AR, Berger MM, et al. ESPEN guideline on clinical nutrition in the intensive care unit. Clin Nutr. 2019;38(1):48-79.

  2. McClave SA, Taylor BE, Martindale RG, 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.

  3. Heyland DK, Dhaliwal R, Jiang X, Day AG. Identifying critically ill patients who benefit the most from nutrition therapy: the development and initial validation of a novel risk assessment tool. Crit Care. 2011;15(6):R268.

  4. Paris MT, Mourtzakis M. Assessment of skeletal muscle mass in critically ill patients: considerations for the utility of computed tomography imaging and ultrasonography. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2016;19(2):125-130.

  5. Thibault R, Pichard C. Nutrition and clinical outcome in intensive care patients. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2010;13(2):177-183.

  6. Zusman O, Theilla M, Cohen J, et al. Resting energy expenditure, calorie and protein consumption in critically ill patients: a retrospective cohort study. Crit Care. 2016;20(1):367.

  7. Ferrie S, Allman-Farinelli M. Commonly used "nutrition" indicators do not predict outcome in the critically ill: a systematic review. Nutr Clin Pract. 2013;28(4):463-484.

  8. Sheean PM, Peterson SJ, Gomez Perez S, et al. The prevalence of sarcopenia in patients with respiratory failure classified as normally nourished using computed tomography and subjective global assessment. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2014;38(7):873-879.

  9. Chapple LS, Deane AM, Heyland DK, et al. Energy and protein deficits throughout hospitalization in patients admitted with a traumatic brain injury. Clin Nutr. 2016;35(6):1315-1322.

  10. Weijs PJ, Looijaard WG, Dekker IM, et al. Low skeletal muscle area is a risk factor for mortality in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Crit Care. 2014;18(2):R12.

  11. Dinglas VD, Aronson Friedman L, Colantuoni E, et al. Muscle weakness and 5-year survival in acute respiratory distress syndrome survivors. Crit Care Med. 2017;45(3):446-453.

  12. Preiser JC, van Zanten AR, Berger MM, et al. Metabolic and nutritional support of critically ill patients: consensus and controversies. Crit Care. 2015;19:35.

  13. Ridley EJ, Parke RL, Davies AR, et al. What happens to nutrition intake in the post-intensive care unit hospitalization period? An observational cohort study in critically ill adults. JPEN J Parenter Enteral Nutr. 2019;43(1):88-95.

  14. Arabi YM, Casaer MP, Chapman M, et al. The intensive care medicine research agenda in nutrition and metabolism. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43(9):1239-1256.

  15. Mogensen KM, Robinson MK, Casey JD, et al. Nutritional status and mortality in the critically ill. Crit Care Med. 2015;43(12):2605-2615.

Wednesday, April 30, 2025

Approach to Suspected Primary Immunodeficiency in ICU

A Systematic Approach to Suspected Primary Immunodeficiency in Adult Critical Care Patients

Dr Neeraj Manikath, claude. ai

Abstract

Primary immunodeficiency disorders (PIDs) are increasingly recognized in adult populations, yet they remain underdiagnosed in critical care settings where they can present with severe, recurrent, or unusual infections. This review outlines a systematic diagnostic approach to suspected PIDs in adult critical care patients, emphasizing early recognition, appropriate laboratory evaluation, and timely intervention strategies. The approach integrates recent advances in molecular diagnostics with practical clinical considerations for the critical care physician.

Introduction

Primary immunodeficiency disorders (PIDs) encompass more than 450 genetically defined conditions that affect the development and/or function of the immune system[1]. While traditionally considered pediatric diseases, PIDs are increasingly diagnosed in adulthood, with nearly 40% of patients receiving their diagnosis after age 18[2]. The estimated prevalence of PIDs in the general population ranges from 1:1,200 to 1:10,000, but the true prevalence is likely higher due to underdiagnosis[3].


In critical care settings, undiagnosed PIDs may present as severe infections, sepsis with unusual pathogens, or multi-organ failure refractory to conventional therapy. Early recognition of PIDs in this population is crucial as it can significantly alter management strategies and improve outcomes[4]. However, the heterogeneity of PID presentations and the complexity of the critical care environment present diagnostic challenges.


This review provides a structured approach to recognizing and evaluating suspected PIDs in adult critical care patients, with emphasis on practical diagnostic algorithms, laboratory evaluation, and management principles.


Clinical Recognition: When to Suspect a PID


Warning Signs in Critical Care Settings

The following clinical scenarios should raise suspicion for an underlying PID in adult critical care patients:


1. Recurrent severe infections: Defined as ≥2 severe infections requiring hospitalization within one year[5].

2. Infections with opportunistic or unusual pathogens: Including Pneumocystis jirovecii, Cryptococcus, disseminated mycobacterial infection, or invasive Aspergillus[6].

3. Persistent infections despite appropriate antimicrobial therapy: Especially if the isolated pathogen demonstrates in vitro susceptibility[7].

4. Fulminant infections in previously healthy adults: Particularly with encapsulated bacteria (S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, N. meningitidis)[8].

5. Family history of PIDs or unexplained early deaths: Suggesting inherited immune defects[9].

6. Autoimmune manifestations concurrent with infections: Common in certain PIDs like common variable immunodeficiency (CVID)[10].


The 10 Warning Signs Framework Adapted for Critical Care

Building on the Jeffrey Modell Foundation's 10 warning signs for PID[11], we propose the following adapted framework for critical care settings:


1. ≥2 episodes of sepsis within one year

2. ≥2 episodes of severe pneumonia within one year

3. Recurrent deep-seated abscesses requiring surgical drainage

4. Need for intravenous antibiotics to clear infections

5. Persistent fungemia or invasive fungal infections

6. Infections with unusual or opportunistic pathogens

7. Persistent laboratory evidence of inflammation despite appropriate therapy

8. Family history of immunodeficiency

9. Associated features suggesting immune dysregulation (e.g., autoimmunity, unexplained cytopenias)

10. Failure to thrive or chronic diarrhea in the absence of other causes


The presence of ≥2 of these signs warrants further immunological evaluation[12].


 Step-by-Step Diagnostic Approach


Step 1: Initial Assessment and Documentation

The first step involves a comprehensive review of the patient's history with particular attention to:


1. Detailed infection history: Type, frequency, severity, and causative pathogens of previous infections[13].

2. Family history: Construct a three-generation pedigree focusing on infections, early deaths, and known immunodeficiencies[14].

3. Medication review: Exclude secondary immunodeficiency due to immunosuppressive agents[15].

4. Physical examination: Document lymphoid tissue abnormalities, skin lesions, and anatomical factors that might predispose to infections[16].


Step 2: Pattern Recognition - Classifying the Suspected Immune Defect

Based on the presenting infections and clinical features, classify the suspected immune defect into one of the following categories:


1. Humoral (B-cell) immunity defects: Recurrent sinopulmonary infections, gastrointestinal infections, sepsis with encapsulated bacteria[17].

2. Cellular (T-cell) immunity defects: Viral infections, fungal infections, Pneumocystis pneumonia, mycobacterial infections[18].

3. Phagocyte defects: Recurrent skin/soft tissue infections, deep-seated abscesses, delayed wound healing[19].

4. Complement defects: Recurrent Neisseria infections, angioedema, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE)-like illness[20].

5. Combined immunodeficiencies: Features of multiple immune system defects[21].


 Step 3: Initial Laboratory Evaluation

The first tier of laboratory investigations should include:


1. Complete blood count with differential: To evaluate for cytopenias, lymphopenia, or neutropenia[22].

2. Serum immunoglobulin levels (IgG, IgA, IgM, IgE): To assess humoral immunity[23].

3. Lymphocyte subset analysis: To quantify T cells (CD3+, CD4+, CD8+), B cells (CD19+), and NK cells (CD16+/CD56+)[24].

4. Complement studies: CH50, AP50, and individual complement components if indicated[25].

5. HIV testing: To exclude secondary immunodeficiency[26].


Table 1 summarizes the initial laboratory evaluation and normal reference ranges.


 Table 1: Initial Laboratory Evaluation for Suspected PID

| Test | Normal Range (Adult) | Significance if Abnormal |

|------|----------------------|--------------------------|

| Absolute lymphocyte count | 1,000-4,800 cells/μL | Lymphopenia suggests T-cell or combined immunodeficiency |

| Serum IgG | 700-1,600 mg/dL | Low: Antibody deficiency; High: Immune dysregulation |

| Serum IgA | 70-400 mg/dL | Low: Selective IgA deficiency, CVID |

| Serum IgM | 40-230 mg/dL | Low: CVID; High: Hyper-IgM syndrome |

| CD4+ T cells | 500-1,400 cells/μL | Low: Cellular immunodeficiency |

| CD19+ B cells | 100-500 cells/μL | Low: B-cell defects, CVID |

| CH50 | 42-95 U/mL | Low: Complement deficiency |


 Step 4: Functional and Specialized Testing

Based on the results of initial testing, proceed to second-tier investigations:


1. For suspected antibody deficiencies:

   - Specific antibody responses to protein and polysaccharide vaccines[27]

   - B-cell subset analysis (naïve, memory, transitional)[28]

   - In vitro B-cell function studies if available[29]


2. For suspected T-cell defects:

   - Lymphocyte proliferation assays in response to mitogens and antigens[30]

   - T-cell receptor excision circles (TRECs)[31]

   - Cytokine production assays[32]


3. For suspected phagocyte defects:

   - Neutrophil oxidative burst assay (dihydrorhodamine or nitroblue tetrazolium test)[33]

   - Chemotaxis assays[34]

   - Surface expression of adhesion molecules[35]


4. For suspected complement defects:

   - Targeted complement component assays based on CH50/AP50 results[36]

   - Functional complement pathway assessments[37]


Step 5: Genetic Testing

Genetic evaluation has become increasingly important in PID diagnosis:


1. Targeted gene sequencing: For patients with a specific suspected PID[38].

2. Next-generation sequencing panels: For PID-specific gene panels covering multiple potential genetic defects[39].

3. Whole exome or whole genome sequencing: For complicated cases without a clear diagnostic category[40].


Importantly, genetic testing should be performed in consultation with immunologists and genetic counselors, with consideration of the critical care context and timing[41].


Step 6: Multidisciplinary Discussion and Specialist Consultation

The final diagnostic step involves:

1. Discussion of findings with immunology specialists

2. Integration of results to establish a definitive diagnosis

3. Development of a targeted management plan based on the identified immune defect[42]


Management Principles in Critical Care


 Immediate Interventions

For critically ill patients with suspected or confirmed PID:


1. Targeted antimicrobial therapy:

   - Broad-spectrum coverage initially, with consideration of atypical and opportunistic pathogens[43]

   - Guided de-escalation based on cultures and clinical response[44]

   - Consider prophylactic antimicrobials for specific defects (e.g., Pneumocystis prophylaxis in T-cell defects)[45]


2. Immunoglobulin replacement therapy:

   - Consider emergency IVIg (0.4-0.6 g/kg) for patients with severe infections and suspected or confirmed antibody deficiencies[46]

   - Target trough IgG levels >700-800 mg/dL in critical illness[47]


3. Adjunctive therapies:

   - Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) for severe neutropenia[48]

   - Granulocyte transfusions for life-threatening infections in phagocyte disorders[49]

   - Fresh frozen plasma for complement deficiencies with severe infections[50]

 

Long-term Considerations

Once stabilized, patients should be evaluated for:


1. Ongoing replacement therapy: Regular immunoglobulin replacement for antibody deficiencies[51]

2. Antimicrobial prophylaxis: Based on the specific immune defect[52]

3. Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT): Definitive therapy for selected severe PIDs[53]

4. Gene therapy: Emerging option for specific genetic defects[54]

5.  Immune modulatory therapies: For PIDs with immune dysregulation features[55]


Case Vignettes

The following case vignettes illustrate the application of the diagnostic approach:


Case 1: Recurrent Pneumococcal Sepsis

A 42-year-old woman presents with her third episode of pneumococcal sepsis in 18 months. She has no significant past medical history apart from recurrent sinusitis.


Diagnostic Approach:

- Initial testing reveals low IgG (380 mg/dL) and IgA (<10 mg/dL) with normal IgM and lymphocyte subsets

- Vaccine challenge shows poor response to pneumococcal polysaccharide vaccine

- Diagnosis: Common Variable Immunodeficiency (CVID)

- Management: IVIg therapy (0.4-0.6 g/kg monthly), antimicrobial prophylaxis


 Case 2: Invasive Aspergillosis

A 36-year-old man is admitted with invasive pulmonary aspergillosis. History reveals childhood pneumonias and persistent oral candidiasis.


Diagnostic Approach:

- Initial testing shows lymphopenia with markedly reduced CD4+ T cells (120 cells/μL)

- HIV testing negative

- Genetic testing reveals a STAT3 gain-of-function mutation

- Diagnosis: STAT3 Gain-of-Function Immune Dysregulation Syndrome

- Management: Antifungal therapy, antimicrobial prophylaxis, consideration of targeted JAK inhibition


Conclusion

Primary immunodeficiencies represent an important consideration in adult critical care patients with unusual, severe, or recurrent infections. The systematic approach outlined in this review provides a framework for timely recognition, appropriate diagnostic evaluation, and targeted management of these conditions in the critical care setting. Early involvement of immunology specialists and a multidisciplinary approach are essential for optimal outcomes.


As advances in genetic technology continue to expand our understanding of PIDs, the critical care physician should maintain a high index of suspicion for these disorders and be familiar with the basic diagnostic pathway. Future directions include point-of-care genetic testing, improved biomarkers for early PID detection, and novel targeted immunomodulatory therapies.


References


1. Tangye SG, Al-Herz W, Bousfiha A, et al. Human Inborn Errors of Immunity: 2022 Update on the Classification from the International Union of Immunological Societies Expert Committee. J Clin Immunol. 2022;42(7):1473-1507.


2. Bousfiha A, Jeddane L, Picard C, et al. The 2017 IUIS Phenotypic Classification for Primary Immunodeficiencies. J Clin Immunol. 2018;38(1):129-143.


3. Kobrynski L, Powell RW, Bowen S. Prevalence and morbidity of primary immunodeficiency diseases, United States 2001-2007. J Clin Immunol. 2014;34(8):954-961.


4. Verma N, Grimbacher B, Hurst JR. Lung disease in primary antibody deficiency. Lancet Respir Med. 2015;3(8):651-660.


5. Bonilla FA, Khan DA, Ballas ZK, et al. Practice parameter for the diagnosis and management of primary immunodeficiency. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2015;136(5):1186-1205.e1-78.


6. Antachopoulos C, Walsh TJ, Roilides E. Fungal infections in primary immunodeficiencies. Eur J Pediatr. 2007;166(11):1099-1117.


7. Sobh A, Bonilla FA. Vaccination in Primary Immunodeficiency Disorders. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2016;4(6):1066-1075.


8. Picard C, Puel A, Bustamante J, et al. Primary immunodeficiencies associated with pneumococcal disease. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2003;3(6):451-459.


9. Meyts I, Bosch B, Bolze A, et al. Exome and genome sequencing for inborn errors of immunity. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2016;138(4):957-969.


10. Gathmann B, Mahlaoui N, Gérard L, et al. Clinical picture and treatment of 2212 patients with common variable immunodeficiency. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2014;134(1):116-126.


11. O'Sullivan MD, Cant AJ. The 10 warning signs: a time for a change? Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2012;12(6):588-594.


12. Bousfiha AA, Jeddane L, Ailal F, et al. Primary immunodeficiency diseases worldwide: more common than generally thought. J Clin Immunol. 2013;33(1):1-7.


13. Reust CE. Evaluation of primary immunodeficiency disease in children. Am Fam Physician. 2013;87(11):773-778.


14. Modell V, Orange JS, Quinn J, Modell F. Global report on primary immunodeficiencies: 2018 update from the Jeffrey Modell Centers Network on disease classification, regional trends, treatment modalities, and physician reported outcomes. Immunol Res. 2018;66(3):367-380.


15. Ameratunga R, Woon ST, Gillis D, Koopmans W, Steele R. New diagnostic criteria for common variable immune deficiency (CVID), which may assist with decisions to treat with intravenous or subcutaneous immunoglobulin. Clin Exp Immunol. 2013;174(2):203-211.


16. Grimbacher B, Schaffer AA, Holland SM, et al. Genetic linkage of hyper-IgE syndrome to chromosome 4. Am J Hum Genet. 1999;65(3):735-744.


17. Chapel H, Cunningham-Rundles C. Update in understanding common variable immunodeficiency disorders (CVIDs) and the management of patients with these conditions. Br J Haematol. 2009;145(6):709-727.


18. Notarangelo LD. Functional T cell immunodeficiencies (with T cells present). Annu Rev Immunol. 2013;31:195-225.


19. Holland SM. Chronic granulomatous disease. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2010;38(1):3-10.


20. Skattum L, van Deuren M, van der Poll T, Truedsson L. Complement deficiency states and associated infections. Mol Immunol. 2011;48(14):1643-1655.


21. Fischer A, Notarangelo LD, Neven B, Cavazzana M, Puck JM. Severe combined immunodeficiencies and related disorders. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2015;1:15061.


22. Oliveira JB, Fleisher TA. Laboratory evaluation of primary immunodeficiencies. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;125(2 Suppl 2):S297-S305.


23. Agarwal S, Cunningham-Rundles C. Assessment and clinical interpretation of reduced IgG values. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2007;99(3):281-283.


24. Abraham RS, Aubert G. Flow Cytometry, a Versatile Tool for Diagnosis and Monitoring of Primary Immunodeficiencies. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2016;23(4):254-271.


25. Frazer-Abel A, Sepiashvili L, Mbughuni MM, Willrich MA. Overview of Laboratory Testing and Clinical Presentations of Complement Deficiencies and Dysregulation. Adv Clin Chem. 2016;77:1-75.


26. Hoffman TW, van Kessel DA, Rijkers GT. Impact of Using Different Response Criteria for Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccination for Assessment of Humoral Immune Status. J Clin Immunol. 2018;38(2):149-158.


27. Yazdani R, Abolhassani H, Asgardoon MH, et al. Infectious and Noninfectious Pulmonary Complications in Patients With Primary Immunodeficiency Disorders. J Investig Allergol Clin Immunol. 2017;27(4):213-224.


28. Wehr C, Kivioja T, Schmitt C, et al. The EUROclass trial: defining subgroups in common variable immunodeficiency. Blood. 2008;111(1):77-85.


29. Cunningham-Rundles C. The many faces of common variable immunodeficiency. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2012;2012:301-305.


30. Lehman HK, Ballow M. Immune deficiency disorders with autoimmunity and abnormalities in immune regulation-monogenic autoimmune diseases. Clin Rev Allergy Immunol. 2008;34(2):141-145.


31. Baker MW, Grossman WJ, Laessig RH, et al. Development of a routine newborn screening protocol for severe combined immunodeficiency. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;124(3):522-527.


32. Orange JS. Congenital natural killer cell deficiencies. Curr Opin Allergy Clin Immunol. 2006;6(6):399-409.


33. Yu JE, Azar AE, Chong HJ, Jongco AM 3rd, Prince BT. Considerations in the Diagnosis of Chronic Granulomatous Disease. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2018;7(suppl_1):S6-S11.


34. van de Vosse E, van Dissel JT, Holland SM. Invasive fungal infections in patients with chronic granulomatous disease. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2009;634:27-43.


35. Dinauer MC. Chronic granulomatous disease and other disorders of phagocyte function. Hematology Am Soc Hematol Educ Program. 2005:89-95.


36. Brodszki N, Frazer-Abel A, Grumach AS, et al. European Society for Immunodeficiencies (ESID) and European Reference Network on Rare Primary Immunodeficiency, Autoinflammatory and Autoimmune Diseases (ERN RITA) Complement Guideline: Deficiencies, Diagnosis, and Management. J Clin Immunol. 2020;40(4):576-591.


37. Lewis EM, Singla M, Sergeant S, Koty PP, McPhail LC. X-linked chronic granulomatous disease secondary to skewed X chromosome inactivation in a female with a novel CYBB mutation and late presentation. Clin Immunol. 2008;129(2):372-380.


38. Puck JM. Newborn screening for severe combined immunodeficiency and T-cell lymphopenia. Immunol Rev. 2019;287(1):241-252.


39. Seleman M, Hoyos-Bachiloglu R, Geha RS, Chou J. Uses of Next-Generation Sequencing Technologies for the Diagnosis of Primary Immunodeficiencies. Front Immunol. 2017;8:847.


40. Rae W, Ward D, Mattocks C, et al. Clinical efficacy of a next-generation sequencing gene panel for primary immunodeficiency diagnostics. Clin Genet. 2018;93(3):647-655.


41. Gallo V, Dotta L, Giardino G, et al. Diagnostics of Primary Immunodeficiencies through Next-Generation Sequencing. Front Immunol. 2016;7:466.


42. Bousfiha A, Picard C, Boisson-Dupuis S, et al. Primary immunodeficiencies of protective immunity to primary infections. Clin Immunol. 2010;135(2):204-209.


43. Schwartz SA. The many faces of acquired immune deficiency syndrome. JAMA. 1987;258(14):1946-1947.


44. Stasia MJ, Li XJ. Genetics and immunopathology of chronic granulomatous disease. Semin Immunopathol. 2008;30(3):209-235.


45. Marciano BE, Spalding C, Fitzgerald A, et al. Common severe infections in chronic granulomatous disease. Clin Infect Dis. 2015;60(8):1176-1183.


46. Perez EE, Orange JS, Bonilla F, et al. Update on the use of immunoglobulin in human disease: A review of evidence. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2017;139(3S):S1-S46.


47. Ramzi N, Jamee M, Bakhtiyari M, et al. Bronchiectasis in common variable immunodeficiency: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2020;55(2):292-299.


48. Chinen J, Shearer WT. Secondary immunodeficiencies, including HIV infection. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2010;125(2 Suppl 2):S195-S203.


49. Heimall J, Logan BR, Cowan MJ, et al. Immune reconstitution and survival of 100 SCID patients post-hematopoietic cell transplant: a PIDTC natural history study. Blood. 2017;130(25):2718-2727.


50. King J, Patel M, Ramesh M, et al. IgE-mediated drug allergy in patients with primary immunodeficiency. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2021;9(1):478-480.


51. Shillitoe B, Bangs C, Guzman D, et al. The United Kingdom Primary Immune Deficiency (UKPID) registry 2012 to 2017. Clin Exp Immunol. 2018;192(3):284-291.


52. Thaunat O, Morelon E. Cancer immunosurveillance: missing in action after organ transplantation? Am J Transplant. 2014;14(7):1484-1485.


53. Abolhassani H, Hammarström L, Cunningham-Rundles C. Current genetic landscape in common variable immune deficiency. Blood. 2020;135(9):656-667.


54. Booth C, Gaspar HB, Thrasher AJ. Gene therapy for primary immunodeficiency. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2011;23(6):659-666.


55. Notarangelo LD, Bacchetta R, Casanova JL, Su HC. Human inborn errors of immunity: An expanding universe. Sci Immunol. 2020;5(49):eabb1662.

Polypharmacy and Drug Interactions in the ICU

  Polypharmacy and Drug Interactions in the ICU: The Quiet Killer Dr Neeraj Manikath,Claude.ai Abstract Background:  Critically ill patients...