Pulmonary Embolism in Critically Ill Patients

 

Pulmonary Embolism in Critically Ill Patients: Diagnosis and Management - A Comprehensive Review

Dr Neeraj Manikath ,Claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Pulmonary embolism (PE) in critically ill patients represents a complex diagnostic and therapeutic challenge with significant morbidity and mortality implications. The atypical presentation, altered physiological parameters, and contraindications to standard diagnostic modalities in intensive care unit (ICU) patients necessitate specialized approaches.

Methods: This review synthesizes current evidence from randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and expert consensus guidelines to provide a systematic approach to PE diagnosis and management in critically ill patients.

Results: A structured diagnostic algorithm incorporating clinical assessment, biomarkers, and imaging modalities adapted for ICU patients improves diagnostic accuracy. Risk-stratified management strategies, including advanced therapeutic interventions such as systemic thrombolysis, catheter-directed therapy, and surgical embolectomy, have demonstrated improved outcomes in selected critically ill patients.

Conclusions: Early recognition through systematic screening, prompt risk stratification, and individualized therapeutic approaches are essential for optimizing outcomes in critically ill patients with PE. Future research should focus on biomarker development, artificial intelligence-assisted diagnosis, and personalized therapeutic strategies.

Keywords: Pulmonary embolism, critical care, diagnosis, anticoagulation, thrombolysis, intensive care unit

---

Introduction

Pulmonary embolism affects approximately 1-2% of hospitalized patients annually, with significantly higher incidence rates observed in intensive care unit (ICU) populations.¹ The diagnosis of PE in critically ill patients presents unique challenges due to the complex interplay of multiple organ dysfunction, altered hemodynamics, and the frequent presence of conditions that mimic PE symptoms. The mortality rate for PE in ICU patients ranges from 15-30%, substantially higher than in general ward patients, emphasizing the critical importance of timely diagnosis and appropriate management.²

The pathophysiology of PE in critically ill patients is complicated by factors including prolonged immobilization, central venous catheterization, mechanical ventilation, sepsis-induced hypercoagulability, and the use of vasoactive medications that can mask typical hemodynamic responses. These factors necessitate a modified approach to both diagnosis and treatment compared to hemodynamically stable patients.³

This comprehensive review provides evidence-based guidance for the systematic diagnosis and management of PE in critically ill patients, incorporating recent advances in diagnostic modalities, risk stratification tools, and therapeutic interventions.

---

Epidemiology and Risk Factors

Incidence in Critical Care Settings

The incidence of PE in ICU patients varies considerably based on the underlying patient population and screening protocols employed. Autopsy studies suggest that PE may be present in up to 27% of ICU patients at death, with many cases remaining undiagnosed during life.⁴ Prospective screening studies using systematic ultrasonography have identified asymptomatic deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in 5-15% of ICU patients within the first week of admission.⁵

Risk Factor Assessment

Critical illness-specific risk factors for PE include:

Immobilization-related factors: Prolonged mechanical ventilation, sedation, neuromuscular blockade, and reduced mobility secondary to critical illness contribute significantly to venous stasis. The duration of immobilization correlates directly with PE risk, with patients immobilized for more than 72 hours showing substantially elevated risk.⁶

Catheter-related factors: Central venous catheterization, particularly femoral access, increases PE risk through both mechanical vessel injury and foreign body-induced thrombosis. Multiple catheter insertions and catheter dwell time are independent risk factors.⁷

Inflammatory and metabolic factors: Sepsis, systemic inflammatory response syndrome, and multiple organ dysfunction syndrome create a hypercoagulable state through activation of the coagulation cascade, endothelial dysfunction, and altered protein synthesis. Elevated inflammatory markers including C-reactive protein and procalcitonin correlate with increased PE risk.⁸

Medication-related factors: Certain medications commonly used in ICU settings, including heparin-induced thrombocytopenia-associated antibodies, vasoactive agents, and some sedatives, may contribute to thrombotic risk through various mechanisms.⁹

---

Clinical Presentation and Diagnostic Challenges

Atypical Presentations in Critical Care

The clinical presentation of PE in critically ill patients often differs substantially from that observed in ambulatory patients. Classic symptoms such as chest pain, dyspnea, and hemoptysis may be obscured by underlying critical illness, sedation, or mechanical ventilation. Instead, critically ill patients may present with:

Hemodynamic instability: Unexplained hypotension, increased vasopressor requirements, or sudden cardiovascular collapse may be the primary manifestation of PE. The differential diagnosis must include septic shock, cardiogenic shock, and other causes of distributive shock.¹⁰

Respiratory deterioration: Worsening oxygenation parameters, increased ventilator requirements, or difficulty weaning from mechanical ventilation may indicate PE. However, these findings are non-specific and common in critically ill patients with multiple comorbidities.¹¹

Cardiac manifestations: New-onset atrial fibrillation, unexplained tachycardia, or echocardiographic evidence of right heart strain may be subtle indicators of PE in the ICU setting. Serial cardiac biomarker monitoring can provide additional diagnostic clues.¹²

Diagnostic Pitfalls

Several factors contribute to diagnostic delays and missed diagnoses in critically ill patients:

Attribution bias: Symptoms consistent with PE are frequently attributed to the underlying critical illness, leading to delayed consideration of thrombotic complications.

Limited mobility for imaging: Transportation to radiology departments for definitive imaging may be challenging or contraindicated in unstable patients, leading to reliance on bedside diagnostic modalities.

Renal dysfunction: Contrast-induced nephropathy concerns in patients with acute kidney injury may limit the use of computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA).¹³

---

Step-by-Step Diagnostic Approach

Step 1: Clinical Assessment and Risk Stratification

The diagnostic approach begins with systematic clinical assessment using validated scoring systems adapted for critically ill patients:

Modified Wells Score for ICU patients: Traditional Wells criteria require modification in critically ill patients due to the high prevalence of tachycardia, immobilization, and alternative diagnoses. A simplified approach focusing on clinical suspicion, recent surgery or trauma, and presence of DVT symptoms provides better diagnostic utility.¹⁴

ICU-specific risk assessment: Development of ICU-specific risk stratification tools incorporating factors such as mechanical ventilation duration, central venous catheter presence, and inflammatory markers shows promise for improving diagnostic accuracy.¹⁵

Step 2: Laboratory Investigations

D-dimer testing: While D-dimer levels are frequently elevated in critically ill patients due to inflammation, infection, and tissue necrosis, extremely high levels (>10-fold normal) or rapidly rising trends may suggest acute thromboembolism. Age-adjusted D-dimer thresholds may improve specificity in older ICU patients.¹⁶

Arterial blood gas analysis: The alveolar-arterial oxygen gradient and dead space calculations can provide supportive evidence for PE, though these parameters lack specificity in mechanically ventilated patients with underlying lung disease.¹⁷

Cardiac biomarkers: Elevated troponin and B-type natriuretic peptide levels, while non-specific, may indicate right heart strain associated with acute PE. Serial measurements showing acute elevation provide greater diagnostic utility than isolated values.¹⁸

Novel biomarkers: Emerging biomarkers including soluble fibrin, plasmin-antiplasmin complexes, and microparticles show promise for improving diagnostic accuracy, though further validation in ICU populations is required.¹⁹

Step 3: Bedside Imaging Studies

Transthoracic echocardiography: Point-of-care echocardiography can rapidly identify signs of acute right heart strain, including right ventricle dilatation, septal shift, tricuspid regurgitation, and elevated pulmonary artery pressures. The McConnell sign (regional wall motion abnormality affecting the right ventricle free wall but sparing the apex) is relatively specific for acute PE.²⁰

Compression ultrasonography: Bedside lower extremity duplex ultrasonography can identify proximal DVT in approximately 30-50% of patients with PE. A positive study supports the diagnosis and may influence treatment decisions, while a negative study does not exclude PE.²¹

Lung ultrasonography: Peripheral wedge-shaped consolidations, pleural effusions, and the absence of lung sliding may suggest PE, though these findings are non-specific. Integration with other clinical data improves diagnostic utility.²²

Step 4: Advanced Imaging

Computed Tomography Pulmonary Angiography (CTPA): CTPA remains the gold standard for PE diagnosis when feasible. In critically ill patients, considerations include:

• Transport risk assessment and need for intensive monitoring during imaging
• Contrast nephropathy risk in patients with acute kidney injury
• Timing of contrast administration relative to other diagnostic procedures
• Image quality optimization in mechanically ventilated patients²³

Ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) scanning: V/Q scanning may be preferred in patients with contrast contraindications, though interpretation can be challenging in patients with underlying lung disease. Single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) V/Q scanning improves diagnostic accuracy compared to planar imaging.²⁴

Pulmonary angiography: Reserved for cases where non-invasive imaging is inconclusive and clinical suspicion remains high. The procedure carries increased risk in critically ill patients and should be performed by experienced interventional specialists.²⁵

Step 5: Diagnostic Algorithm Integration

A systematic diagnostic algorithm for ICU patients should incorporate:

1. High clinical suspicion threshold: Given the high mortality risk, a lower threshold for investigating PE is appropriate in critically ill patients.

2. Multi-modal approach: Integration of clinical assessment, biomarkers, and imaging studies improves diagnostic accuracy compared to reliance on individual tests.

3. Risk-benefit analysis: Diagnostic procedures must be weighed against patient stability and competing clinical priorities.

4. Empirical treatment consideration: In cases of high clinical suspicion with contraindications to definitive imaging, empirical anticoagulation may be appropriate pending delayed diagnostic confirmation.²⁶

---

Risk Stratification and Severity Assessment

Hemodynamic Assessment

Risk stratification in critically ill patients with PE requires careful evaluation of hemodynamic parameters:

Massive PE (High-risk): Sustained hypotension (systolic blood pressure <90 mmHg), cardiogenic shock, or cardiac arrest. These patients require immediate aggressive intervention and have mortality rates exceeding 50% without prompt treatment.²⁷

Submassive PE (Intermediate-risk): Hemodynamically stable patients with evidence of right heart dysfunction or myocardial injury. This category is further subdivided based on the presence of both imaging and biomarker abnormalities (intermediate-high risk) versus only one parameter (intermediate-low risk).²⁸

Low-risk PE: Hemodynamically stable patients without evidence of right heart dysfunction or myocardial injury. These patients generally have favorable outcomes with anticoagulation alone.

Prognostic Scoring Systems

Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI): The simplified PESI score, while validated primarily in outpatients, can provide prognostic information in ICU patients when modified to account for pre-existing critical illness.²⁹

ICU-specific prognostic models: Development of specialized scoring systems incorporating ICU-specific parameters such as organ dysfunction scores, ventilator settings, and vasoactive medication requirements shows promise for improving prognostic accuracy.³⁰

Assessment Tools Integration

Comprehensive risk assessment should integrate:

• Hemodynamic parameters and vasopressor requirements
• Echocardiographic findings of right heart dysfunction
• Cardiac biomarker elevation patterns
• Underlying organ dysfunction severity
• Bleeding risk assessment using validated tools³¹

---

Management Strategies

Anticoagulation Therapy

Unfractionated Heparin (UFH): Preferred in critically ill patients due to its short half-life, reversibility with protamine, and ability to monitor with activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT). Dosing should be weight-based with frequent monitoring, particularly in patients with renal dysfunction or altered protein binding.³²

Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH): May be used in hemodynamically stable ICU patients with normal renal function. Advantages include predictable pharmacokinetics and reduced monitoring requirements. Anti-Xa levels should be monitored in patients with renal impairment or obesity.³³

Direct Oral Anticoagulants (DOACs): Limited data support DOAC use in critically ill patients due to concerns about drug interactions, absorption variability in patients with gastrointestinal dysfunction, and inability to rapidly reverse anticoagulation if bleeding occurs.³⁴

Anticoagulation in bleeding risk patients: Patients with active bleeding or high bleeding risk present management challenges. Options include:

• Temporary inferior vena cava (IVC) filter placement
• Reduced-intensity anticoagulation protocols
• Enhanced monitoring strategies with rapid reversal capability³⁵

Advanced Therapeutic Interventions

Systemic Thrombolysis: Indicated for massive PE with hemodynamic compromise. In critically ill patients, bleeding risk assessment is crucial, with absolute contraindications including recent major surgery, active bleeding, and intracranial hemorrhage within 3 months.

Standard protocol involves alteplase 100 mg over 2 hours, with continuous monitoring for bleeding complications. Success rates in ICU patients range from 60-80%, with major bleeding rates of 10-20%.³⁶

Catheter-Directed Therapy: Ultrasound-assisted thrombolysis or mechanical thrombectomy may be considered for patients with contraindications to systemic thrombolysis or failed response to initial treatment. Advantages include reduced bleeding risk and targeted therapy delivery.³⁷

Surgical Embolectomy: Reserved for patients with massive PE who have contraindications to thrombolysis or failed thrombolytic therapy. Requires immediate cardiothoracic surgical availability and carries high operative mortality (15-30%) in critically ill patients.³⁸

Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO): Veno-arterial ECMO may serve as a bridge to definitive therapy in patients with refractory cardiogenic shock secondary to massive PE. Requires specialized expertise and careful patient selection.³⁹

Supportive Care Measures

Hemodynamic support: Fluid resuscitation should be judicious to avoid right heart overload. Vasopressor support with norepinephrine is preferred over excessive fluid administration. Inotropic support with dobutamine may benefit patients with right heart failure.⁴⁰

Respiratory support: Mechanical ventilation strategies should minimize right heart afterload through lung-protective ventilation, avoiding excessive positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and maintaining optimal oxygenation targets.⁴¹

IVC filter considerations: Temporary IVC filters may be indicated in patients with absolute contraindications to anticoagulation or recurrent PE despite adequate anticoagulation. Retrieval should be planned as soon as clinically feasible to minimize long-term complications.⁴²

---

Special Considerations

Pregnancy and Peripartum Period

Pregnant and postpartum patients in ICU settings require specialized management approaches:

Diagnostic modifications: Avoid radiation exposure when possible, utilizing compression ultrasonography and echocardiography as first-line studies. MR pulmonary angiography may be considered as an alternative to CTPA.⁴³

Treatment adaptations: LMWH is preferred over warfarin due to lack of placental transfer. Thrombolytic therapy carries increased bleeding risk but may be considered for life-threatening PE with appropriate multidisciplinary consultation.⁴⁴

Cancer Patients

Malignancy-associated PE in ICU patients presents unique challenges:

Increased recurrence risk: Cancer patients have higher rates of recurrent VTE despite adequate anticoagulation, necessitating extended treatment duration and enhanced monitoring.⁴⁵

Treatment considerations: LMWH is preferred over warfarin for long-term treatment. Novel anticoagulants show promise but require further study in cancer populations.⁴⁶

Post-operative Patients

Surgical ICU patients require tailored management approaches:

Bleeding risk assessment: Recent major surgery creates competing risks between thrombosis and bleeding. Timing of anticoagulation initiation requires careful surgical consultation.⁴⁷

Prophylaxis optimization: Enhanced prophylaxis protocols may be indicated in high-risk surgical patients, including combination mechanical and pharmacological approaches.⁴⁸

---

Prevention Strategies

Risk Assessment and Prophylaxis

Universal screening protocols: Systematic DVT screening using duplex ultrasonography in high-risk ICU patients may identify asymptomatic disease and guide prophylaxis intensification.⁴⁹

Pharmacological prophylaxis: Standard protocols should be individualized based on bleeding and thrombotic risk assessment. Options include:

• UFH 5000 units subcutaneous every 8-12 hours
• LMWH at prophylactic doses with renal adjustment
• Fondaparinux 2.5 mg daily in patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia risk⁵⁰

Mechanical prophylaxis: Pneumatic compression devices and graduated compression stockings should be used in patients with contraindications to pharmacological prophylaxis. Early mobilization protocols reduce VTE risk significantly.⁵¹

Quality Improvement Initiatives

Systematic protocols: Implementation of standardized VTE prevention and treatment protocols improves outcomes and reduces practice variation. Electronic decision support tools enhance protocol adherence.⁵²

Education and training: Regular staff education on VTE recognition, diagnostic approaches, and treatment protocols is essential for optimal patient outcomes.⁵³

---

Emerging Technologies and Future Directions

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Diagnostic support systems: AI-powered diagnostic tools integrating clinical data, imaging findings, and laboratory results show promise for improving PE detection accuracy and reducing diagnostic delays.⁵⁴

Predictive modeling: Machine learning algorithms incorporating electronic health record data may identify patients at highest risk for PE development, enabling targeted preventive interventions.⁵⁵

Novel Therapeutic Approaches

Targeted thrombolysis: Development of PE-specific thrombolytic agents with reduced bleeding risk profiles may expand treatment options for critically ill patients.⁵⁶

Mechanical intervention devices: Advanced catheter-based devices for mechanical thrombectomy continue to evolve, offering alternatives to systemic thrombolysis.⁵⁷

Biomarker Development

Multi-marker panels: Integration of multiple biomarkers including inflammatory markers, coagulation parameters, and cardiac injury markers may improve diagnostic accuracy and prognostic assessment.⁵⁸

Point-of-care testing: Development of rapid, bedside biomarker assays could accelerate diagnosis and treatment initiation in critically ill patients.⁵⁹

---

Conclusions

Pulmonary embolism in critically ill patients represents a complex clinical challenge requiring systematic diagnostic approaches and individualized treatment strategies. Key principles for optimal management include:

1. Maintaining high clinical suspicion given the atypical presentations and high mortality risk in ICU populations
2. Implementing systematic diagnostic algorithms that integrate clinical assessment, biomarkers, and imaging studies appropriate for critically ill patients
3. Applying risk-stratified treatment approaches that balance thrombotic and bleeding risks based on individual patient characteristics
4. Utilizing advanced therapeutic interventions judiciously in selected high-risk patients with appropriate expertise and monitoring
5. Emphasizing prevention strategies through comprehensive risk assessment and tailored prophylaxis protocols

Future research priorities should focus on developing ICU-specific diagnostic and prognostic tools, validating novel therapeutic approaches, and implementing artificial intelligence-assisted decision support systems to improve outcomes in this vulnerable patient population.

The management of PE in critically ill patients continues to evolve as new evidence emerges. Clinicians must stay current with evolving guidelines while maintaining individualized approaches based on patient-specific factors and institutional capabilities. A multidisciplinary team approach involving critical care specialists, hematologists, interventional specialists, and other relevant experts optimizes patient outcomes and ensures comprehensive care delivery.

---

References

1. Stein PD, Kayali F, Olson RE. Estimated case fatality rate of pulmonary embolism, 1979 to 1998. Am J Cardiol. 2004;93(9):1197-1199.

2. Darwish OS, Strube PJ, Gill GS. Silent pulmonary embolism in intensive care unit patients. Respir Med. 2012;106(11):1741-1747.

3. Cook D, Crowther M, Meade M, et al. Deep venous thrombosis in medical-surgical critically ill patients: prevalence, incidence, and risk factors. Crit Care Med. 2005;33(7):1565-1571.

4. Geerts WH, Code KI, Jay RM, Chen E, Szalai JP. A prospective study of venous thromboembolism after major trauma. N Engl J Med. 1994;331(24):1601-1606.

5. Ibrahim EH, Iregui M, Prentice D, et al. Deep vein thrombosis during prolonged mechanical ventilation despite prophylaxis. Crit Care Med. 2002;30(4):771-774.

6. Kearon C, Akl EA, Ornelas J, et al. Antithrombotic therapy for VTE disease: CHEST guideline and expert panel report. Chest. 2016;149(2):315-352.

7. Merrer J, De Jonghe B, Golliot F, et al. Complications of femoral and subclavian venous catheterization in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2001;286(6):700-707.

8. Levi M, van der Poll T. Inflammation and coagulation. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(2 Suppl):S26-34.

9. Napolitano LM, Kurek S, Luchette FA, et al. Clinical practice guideline: ventilator-associated pneumonia in adults. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2010;11(4):339-345.

10. Konstantinides SV, Meyer G, Becattini C, et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of acute pulmonary embolism developed in collaboration with the European Respiratory Society (ERS). Eur Heart J. 2020;41(4):543-603.

11. Tapson VF. Acute pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(10):1037-1052.

12. Jiménez D, Aujesky D, Moores L, et al. Simplification of the pulmonary embolism severity index for prognostication in patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(15):1383-1389.

13. Stein PD, Fowler SE, Goodman LR, et al. Multidetector computed tomography for acute pulmonary embolism. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(22):2317-2327.

14. Wells PS, Anderson DR, Rodger M, et al. Derivation of a simple clinical model to categorize patients probability of pulmonary embolism: increasing the models utility with the SimpliRED D-dimer. Thromb Haemost. 2000;83(3):416-420.

15. Cook DJ, Rocker G, Meade M, et al. Prophylaxis of thromboembolism in critical care: a narrative review. Chest. 2011;139(3):645-652.

16. Righini M, Van Es J, Den Exter PL, et al. Age-adjusted D-dimer cutoff levels to rule out pulmonary embolism: the ADJUST-PE study. JAMA. 2014;311(11):1117-1124.

17. Kline JA, Steuerwald MT, Marchick MR, Hernandez-Nino J, Rose GA. Prospective evaluation of right ventricular function and functional status 6 months after acute submassive pulmonary embolism: frequency of persistent or subsequent elevation in estimated pulmonary artery pressure. Chest. 2009;136(5):1202-1210.

18. Pruszczyk P, Kostrubiec M, Bochowicz A, et al. N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide in patients with acute pulmonary embolism. Eur Respir J. 2003;22(4):649-653.

19. Freund Y, Cachanado M, Aubry A, et al. Effect of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria on subsequent thromboembolic events among low-risk emergency department patients: the PROPER randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2018;319(6):559-566.

20. McConnell MV, Solomon SD, Rayan ME, Come PC, Goldhaber SZ, Lee RT. Regional right ventricular dysfunction detected by echocardiography in acute pulmonary embolism. Am J Cardiol. 1996;78(4):469-473.

21. Kearon C, Ginsberg JS, Hirsh J. The role of venous ultrasonography in the diagnosis of suspected deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. Ann Intern Med. 1998;129(12):1044-1049.

22. Mathis G, Blank W, Reissig A, et al. Thoracic ultrasound for diagnosing pulmonary embolism: a prospective multicenter study of 352 patients. Chest. 2005;128(3):1531-1538.

23. Anderson DR, Kahn SR, Rodger MA, et al. Computed tomographic pulmonary angiography vs ventilation-perfusion lung scanning in patients with suspected pulmonary embolism: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2007;298(23):2743-2753.

24. Sostman HD, Stein PD, Gottschalk A, Matta F, Hull R, Goodman L. Acute pulmonary embolism: sensitivity and specificity of ventilation-perfusion scintigraphy in PIOPED II study. Radiology. 2008;246(3):941-946.

25. Stein PD, Athanasoulis C, Alavi A, et al. Complications and validity of pulmonary angiography in acute pulmonary embolism. Circulation. 1992;85(2):462-468.

26. Raja AS, Greenberg JO, Qaseem A, et al. Evaluation of patients with suspected acute pulmonary embolism: best practice advice from the clinical guidelines committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2015;163(9):701-711.

27. Jaff MR, McMurtry MS, Archer SL, et al. Management of massive and submassive pulmonary embolism, iliofemoral deep vein thrombosis, and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;123(16):1788-1830.

28. Jiménez D, Kopecna D, Tapson V, et al. Derivation and validation of multimarker prognostication for normotensive patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;189(6):718-726.

29. Aujesky D, Obrosky DS, Stone RA, et al. Derivation and validation of a prognostic model for pulmonary embolism. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005;172(8):1041-1046.

30. Sanchez O, Trinquart L, Colombet I, et al. Prognostic value of right ventricular dysfunction in patients with haemodynamically stable pulmonary embolism: a systematic review. Eur Heart J. 2008;29(12):1569-1577.

31. Pisters R, Lane DA, Nieuwlaat R, de Vos CB, Crijns HJ, Lip GY. A novel user-friendly score (HAS-BLED) to assess 1-year risk of major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation: the Euro Heart Survey. Chest. 2010;138(5):1093-1100.

32. Raschke RA, Reilly BM, Guidry JR, Fontana JR, Srinivas S. The weight-based heparin dosing nomogram compared with a "standard care" nomogram. A randomized controlled trial. Ann Intern Med. 1993;119(9):874-881.

33. Nutescu EA, Spinler SA, Wittkowsky A, Dager WE. Low-molecular-weight heparins in renal impairment and obesity: available evidence and clinical practice recommendations across medical and surgical settings. Ann Pharmacother. 2009;43(6):1064-1083.

34. Schulman S, Kakkar AK, Goldhaber SZ, et al. Treatment of acute venous thromboembolism with dabigatran or warfarin and pooled analysis. Circulation. 2014;129(7):764-772.

35. Kaufman JA, Kinney TB, Streiff MB, et al. Guidelines for the use of retrievable and convertible vena cava filters: report from the Society of Interventional Radiology multidisciplinary consensus conference. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2006;17(3):449-459.

36. Wan S, Quinlan DJ, Agnelli G, Eikelboom JW. Thrombolysis compared with heparin for the initial treatment of pulmonary embolism: a meta-analysis of the randomized controlled trials. Circulation. 2004;110(6):744-749.

37. Piazza G, Hohlfelder B, Jaff MR, et al. A prospective, single-arm, multicenter trial of ultrasound-facilitated, catheter-directed, low-dose fibrinolysis for acute massive and submassive pulmonary embolism: the SEATTLE II study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8(10):1382-1392.

38. Keeling WB, Sundt T, Leacche M, et al. Outcomes after surgical pulmonary embolectomy for acute pulmonary embolus: a multi-institutional study. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;102(5):1498-1502.

39. Corsi F, Lebreton G, Brechot N, et al. Life-threatening massive pulmonary embolism rescued by venoarterial-extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Crit Care. 2017;21(1):76.

40. Vieillard-Baron A, Charron C, Caille V, Belliard G, Page B, Jardin F. Prone positioning unloads the right ventricle in severe ARDS. Chest. 2007;132(5):1440-1446.

41. Repessé X, Charron C, Vieillard-Baron A. Acute right heart failure in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2012;18(1):52-58.

42. Andreoli JM, Lewandowski RJ, Vogelzang RL, Ryu RK. Comparison of complication rates associated with permanent and retrievable inferior vena cava filters: a review of the MAUDE database. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2014;37(5):1209-1213.

43. Leung AN, Bull TM, Jaeschke R, et al. An official American Thoracic Society/Society of Thoracic Radiology clinical practice guideline: evaluation of suspected pulmonary embolism in pregnancy. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;184(10):1200-1208.

44. Turrentine MA, Braems G, Ramirez MM. Use of thrombolytics for the treatment of thromboembolic disease during pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 1995;50(7):534-541.

45. Prandoni P, Lensing AW, Piccioli A, et al. Recurrent venous thromboembolism and bleeding complications during anticoagulant treatment in patients with cancer and venous thrombosis. Blood. 2002;100(10):3484-3488.

46. Raskob GE, van Es N, Segers A, et al. Edoxaban for the treatment of cancer-associated venous thromboembolism. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(7):615-624.

47. Gould MK, Garcia DA, Wren SM, et al. Prevention of VTE in nonorthopedic surgical patients: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest. 2012;141(2 Suppl):e227S-e277S

Hypoglycemia in Critically Ill Patients

 

Hypoglycemia in Critically Ill Patients: Recognition, Evaluation, and Management - A Comprehensive Review

Dr Neeraj Manikath, Claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Hypoglycemia represents a significant complication in critically ill patients, associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The complex pathophysiology in critical illness creates unique challenges for glucose homeostasis, requiring specialized approaches to recognition and management.

Objective: To provide a comprehensive review of hypoglycemia in critically ill patients, focusing on etiology, recognition strategies, evaluation methods, and evidence-based management approaches.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature from major medical databases, including studies published between 2010-2024, focusing on hypoglycemia in intensive care unit settings.

Results: Hypoglycemia in critically ill patients is multifactorial, involving insulin excess, nutritional deficits, organ dysfunction, and medication effects. Recognition is complicated by altered mental status and sedation common in this population. Management requires individualized glucose targets, careful monitoring protocols, and prevention strategies.

Conclusions: Early recognition and prompt management of hypoglycemia in critically ill patients are essential for optimizing outcomes. Standardized protocols and continuous glucose monitoring technologies show promise in reducing hypoglycemic episodes and improving patient safety.

Keywords: hypoglycemia, critical illness, intensive care, glucose management, patient safety

---

Introduction

Hypoglycemia, defined as blood glucose levels below 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L), represents a critical metabolic emergency that poses significant challenges in the intensive care unit (ICU) setting. The prevalence of hypoglycemia in critically ill patients ranges from 5% to 28%, depending on the population studied and glucose management protocols employed. Unlike hypoglycemia in ambulatory patients, critically ill patients face unique vulnerabilities due to altered physiological responses, concurrent organ dysfunction, and the complexity of intensive care interventions.

The significance of hypoglycemia in critical care extends beyond immediate glucose correction. Severe hypoglycemia, defined as glucose levels below 40 mg/dL (2.2 mmol/L), has been associated with increased mortality rates, prolonged ICU stays, and adverse neurological outcomes. The challenge is compounded by the fact that traditional hypoglycemic symptoms may be masked by sedation, mechanical ventilation, or altered consciousness, making recognition difficult and potentially delaying treatment.

This review aims to provide clinicians with a comprehensive understanding of hypoglycemia in critically ill patients, examining the underlying mechanisms, risk factors, recognition strategies, and evidence-based management approaches that can optimize patient outcomes in the ICU setting.

Pathophysiology of Hypoglycemia in Critical Illness

The pathophysiology of hypoglycemia in critically ill patients is multifactorial and differs significantly from that observed in stable outpatients. Normal glucose homeostasis relies on a delicate balance between glucose production and utilization, regulated by complex hormonal mechanisms. In critical illness, this balance is disrupted through several mechanisms.

Altered Glucose Production and Utilization

Critical illness typically induces a hypermetabolic state characterized by increased glucose production through gluconeogenesis and glycogenolysis. However, this compensatory response can become impaired in prolonged critical illness, particularly when hepatic function is compromised. Hepatic glycogen stores may become depleted, and the capacity for gluconeogenesis may be reduced due to substrate limitation or hepatocellular dysfunction.

Simultaneously, glucose utilization may be altered in critically ill patients. While some tissues, particularly immune cells and healing tissues, demonstrate increased glucose consumption, others may exhibit insulin resistance. This paradoxical situation can create periods of relative glucose depletion despite apparent hyperglycemia, particularly during intensive insulin therapy.

Hormonal Dysregulation

The counter-regulatory hormone response to hypoglycemia may be blunted in critically ill patients. Epinephrine, cortisol, glucagon, and growth hormone responses can be attenuated due to critical illness, medications, or adrenal insufficiency. This impaired counter-regulatory response increases the risk of prolonged and severe hypoglycemic episodes.

Adrenal insufficiency, whether primary or secondary, is particularly relevant in the ICU setting. Critical illness-related corticosteroid insufficiency can impair gluconeogenesis and increase insulin sensitivity, predisposing patients to hypoglycemia. Additionally, medications commonly used in the ICU, such as etomidate, can suppress adrenal function and contribute to hypoglycemic risk.

Inflammatory Mediators

The systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) common in critically ill patients involves the release of pro-inflammatory cytokines such as tumor necrosis factor-alpha, interleukin-1, and interleukin-6. These mediators can affect glucose metabolism by altering insulin sensitivity, promoting glucose uptake by immune cells, and influencing hepatic glucose production.

Etiology and Risk Factors

Understanding the diverse etiologies of hypoglycemia in critically ill patients is crucial for prevention and management. The causes can be broadly categorized into iatrogenic, pathophysiologic, and pharmacologic factors.

Iatrogenic Factors

Insulin therapy remains the most common cause of hypoglycemia in the ICU. Intensive insulin therapy protocols, while aimed at achieving glycemic control, can result in hypoglycemic episodes due to variability in insulin sensitivity, changes in nutritional status, or protocol deviations. Studies have shown that even small errors in insulin dosing or timing can lead to significant glucose fluctuations in critically ill patients.

Interruption of nutritional support represents another significant iatrogenic risk factor. When enteral or parenteral nutrition is discontinued for procedures, diagnostic studies, or clinical complications, continued insulin administration can rapidly lead to hypoglycemia. Similarly, abrupt changes in nutritional composition or delivery rate without corresponding insulin adjustments increase hypoglycemic risk.

Organ Dysfunction

Hepatic dysfunction significantly increases hypoglycemic risk through multiple mechanisms. The liver plays a central role in glucose homeostasis through glycogenolysis and gluconeogenesis. In acute liver failure or severe hepatic dysfunction, these processes may be severely impaired. Additionally, the liver's role in insulin clearance means that hepatic dysfunction can prolong insulin action, increasing the risk of hypoglycemia.

Renal dysfunction affects glucose homeostasis through several pathways. The kidneys contribute to glucose production through gluconeogenesis and can account for up to 20% of total glucose production during prolonged fasting. Renal failure impairs this contribution and also affects insulin clearance, as the kidneys are responsible for approximately 30% of insulin degradation. Furthermore, decreased renal gluconeogenesis and impaired renal glucose reabsorption can contribute to hypoglycemic episodes.

Adrenal insufficiency, whether acute or chronic, represents a critical risk factor for hypoglycemia. Cortisol deficiency impairs gluconeogenesis and increases insulin sensitivity. In the ICU setting, relative adrenal insufficiency may develop due to critical illness, sepsis, or medication effects, particularly with etomidate use for intubation.

Pharmacologic Causes

Beyond insulin, numerous medications commonly used in the ICU can contribute to hypoglycemia. Beta-blockers can mask hypoglycemic symptoms and impair the counter-regulatory response by blocking epinephrine's effects on gluconeogenesis and glycogenolysis. This is particularly relevant in patients with diabetes or those receiving insulin therapy.

Alcohol, whether from acute intoxication or chronic use, affects glucose homeostasis through multiple mechanisms. Acute alcohol ingestion inhibits gluconeogenesis, while chronic alcohol use can lead to hepatic dysfunction and malnutrition, both of which predispose to hypoglycemia. Ethylene glycol and methanol poisoning can also cause hypoglycemia through similar mechanisms.

Quinolone antibiotics, particularly gatifloxacin (though less commonly used now), have been associated with hypoglycemia, especially in elderly patients or those with diabetes. The mechanism appears to involve stimulation of insulin release from pancreatic beta cells.

Nutritional Factors

Malnutrition is common in critically ill patients and significantly increases hypoglycemic risk. Protein-energy malnutrition depletes the substrates necessary for gluconeogenesis, while specific deficiencies in amino acids such as alanine can impair glucose production. Additionally, malnutrition can affect hepatic synthetic function and reduce glycogen stores.

Starvation, whether due to prolonged fasting or inadequate nutritional support, leads to progressive depletion of glycogen stores and impaired gluconeogenesis. In critically ill patients, the combination of increased metabolic demands and inadequate nutritional support can rapidly precipitate hypoglycemia.

Clinical Recognition and Diagnosis

Recognizing hypoglycemia in critically ill patients presents unique challenges that differ significantly from recognition in conscious, stable patients. The classic symptomatically driven approach to hypoglycemia detection is often inadequate in the ICU setting due to altered mental status, sedation, and the masking effects of critical illness.

Clinical Manifestations

The clinical presentation of hypoglycemia in critically ill patients can be subtle and easily attributed to other causes. Neurologic manifestations may include altered mental status, confusion, agitation, or focal neurologic deficits. However, these symptoms are often attributed to underlying critical illness, sepsis, or sedating medications, leading to delayed recognition.

Autonomic symptoms such as tachycardia, diaphoresis, and hypertension may be present but can be masked by concurrent medications or attributed to other aspects of critical illness. Beta-blockers, commonly used in the ICU, can blunt the typical autonomic response to hypoglycemia, making recognition more difficult.

In mechanically ventilated patients, hypoglycemia may manifest as sudden changes in respiratory patterns, difficulty with ventilator synchronization, or unexplained agitation. These subtle signs require heightened clinical awareness and systematic glucose monitoring to detect.

Diagnostic Challenges

Several factors complicate the diagnosis of hypoglycemia in critically ill patients. Laboratory delays can result in significant time gaps between sample collection and glucose reporting, during which severe hypoglycemia may develop or resolve. Point-of-care glucose testing, while faster, may have accuracy limitations in critically ill patients due to factors such as altered hematocrit, hypotension, or peripheral edema.

The definition of hypoglycemia itself can be contextual in critical illness. While 70 mg/dL (3.9 mmol/L) is the standard threshold, some experts suggest that higher thresholds may be appropriate for critically ill patients, particularly those with diabetes or cardiovascular disease, where the metabolic stress of hypoglycemia may be particularly harmful.

Monitoring Strategies

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) has emerged as a valuable tool for hypoglycemia detection in critically ill patients. CGM systems can provide real-time glucose trends and alerts for impending hypoglycemia, allowing for proactive intervention. However, accuracy concerns in critically ill patients, particularly during hemodynamic instability or with vasopressor use, require careful interpretation and confirmation with traditional glucose measurements.

Point-of-care glucose testing remains the standard for rapid glucose assessment in the ICU. However, clinicians must be aware of factors that can affect accuracy, including sample site selection, device calibration, and interference from medications or metabolic abnormalities. Regular quality control and correlation with laboratory glucose measurements are essential for maintaining accuracy.

Structured monitoring protocols that include regular glucose measurements, particularly during high-risk periods such as insulin titration or nutritional transitions, are crucial for early hypoglycemia detection. Many ICUs have implemented protocols that mandate increased monitoring frequency during insulin therapy initiation or when patients are at high risk for glucose variability.

Evaluation and Assessment

Once hypoglycemia is recognized, a systematic evaluation is essential to identify the underlying cause and guide appropriate management. The evaluation should be efficient yet comprehensive, as prompt treatment is crucial while preventing recurrence requires addressing root causes.

Initial Assessment

The immediate evaluation of hypoglycemia in critically ill patients should focus on confirming the diagnosis and assessing the severity. Blood glucose measurement should be confirmed with laboratory testing if point-of-care results are unexpected or if there are concerns about accuracy. The timing of hypoglycemia in relation to insulin administration, nutritional intake, and other medications should be carefully reviewed.

Assessment of the patient's clinical status is crucial, including evaluation of mental status changes, cardiovascular stability, and neurologic function. The presence of symptoms attributable to hypoglycemia should be documented, though their absence does not rule out clinically significant hypoglycemia in critically ill patients.

Medication Review

A comprehensive medication review should be conducted to identify potential contributing factors. This includes not only obvious glucose-lowering medications like insulin but also other drugs that can predispose to hypoglycemia. Timing of medication administration, recent dose changes, and potential drug interactions should be evaluated.

Special attention should be paid to medications that can affect glucose metabolism indirectly, such as beta-blockers that may mask symptoms or impair counter-regulatory responses, or antibiotics that may have hypoglycemic properties. Additionally, the possibility of medication errors, including insulin overdoses or incorrect timing, should be considered.

Nutritional Assessment

Evaluation of nutritional status and recent nutritional intake is essential. This includes assessment of enteral or parenteral nutrition delivery, recent interruptions in feeding, and adequacy of nutritional support relative to metabolic needs. Changes in nutritional composition, particularly carbohydrate content, should be reviewed in relation to insulin dosing.

Consideration should be given to malnutrition or malabsorption issues that may predispose to hypoglycemia. In patients with prolonged ICU stays, assessment of protein stores and overall nutritional status may reveal factors contributing to impaired glucose homeostasis.

Organ Function Evaluation

Assessment of hepatic, renal, and adrenal function is crucial in evaluating hypoglycemia in critically ill patients. Liver function tests, including synthetic markers such as albumin and coagulation studies, can provide insight into the liver's capacity for glucose production. Evidence of acute liver injury or chronic liver disease should be documented.

Renal function assessment should include not only serum creatinine and estimated glomerular filtration rate but also consideration of acute kidney injury that may affect insulin clearance and glucose homeostasis. Adrenal function evaluation may be warranted in patients with unexplained hypoglycemia, particularly if there are other signs of adrenal insufficiency.

Laboratory Studies

Additional laboratory studies may be helpful in specific circumstances. C-peptide and insulin levels can help differentiate endogenous from exogenous insulin causes, though results must be interpreted carefully in the context of renal function and timing of measurements. In cases of suspected factitious hypoglycemia, measurement of insulin antibodies or sulfonylurea levels may be indicated.

Lactate levels can provide information about tissue perfusion and metabolic stress, while arterial blood gas analysis can reveal metabolic acidosis that might suggest alternative diagnoses or complications. Cortisol levels may be useful if adrenal insufficiency is suspected, though interpretation in critically ill patients can be challenging.

Management Strategies

The management of hypoglycemia in critically ill patients requires both immediate interventions to correct low glucose levels and long-term strategies to prevent recurrence. The approach must be individualized based on the severity of hypoglycemia, underlying causes, and patient-specific factors.

Immediate Management

The immediate management of hypoglycemia in critically ill patients follows established principles but requires modifications for the ICU setting. For conscious patients who can safely receive oral intake, 15-20 grams of rapid-acting carbohydrates can effectively raise blood glucose. However, most critically ill patients require intravenous glucose administration due to altered consciousness, mechanical ventilation, or gastrointestinal dysfunction.

Intravenous dextrose administration is the cornerstone of acute hypoglycemia treatment. The standard approach involves administering 25 grams of dextrose (50 mL of 50% dextrose solution or 250 mL of 10% dextrose solution) intravenously. In critically ill patients, the choice of concentration may depend on venous access and fluid restrictions. Central venous access allows for higher concentrations, while peripheral access may require more dilute solutions to prevent phlebitis.

For severe hypoglycemia (< 40 mg/dL) or patients with altered mental status, immediate treatment should not be delayed for confirmatory testing. The potential harm from untreated severe hypoglycemia far outweighs the risks of treating possible false-positive glucose readings. However, blood samples should be obtained for confirmation before treatment when possible.

Glucagon Administration

Glucagon may be useful in specific circumstances, particularly when intravenous access is difficult or unavailable. The standard dose is 1 mg administered intramuscularly or subcutaneously. However, glucagon's effectiveness depends on adequate hepatic glycogen stores, which may be depleted in critically ill patients with malnutrition or prolonged illness. Additionally, patients with severe liver disease may have reduced responses to glucagon.

Glucagon is particularly valuable in cases of sulfonylurea-induced hypoglycemia, as it can help counteract the prolonged insulin release caused by these medications. However, the effect is temporary, and ongoing glucose monitoring and additional interventions are typically required.

Continuous Glucose Support

Following initial glucose correction, many critically ill patients require ongoing glucose support to prevent recurrent hypoglycemia. This can be achieved through continuous intravenous dextrose infusions, typically starting with 5-10% dextrose solutions. The concentration and rate should be adjusted based on glucose monitoring and clinical response.

For patients receiving enteral nutrition, the timing and composition of feeds may need adjustment to provide more consistent glucose delivery. In some cases, continuous enteral feeding may be preferable to bolus feeding to minimize glucose fluctuations. Parenteral nutrition can also be adjusted to provide appropriate glucose content while meeting overall nutritional needs.

Insulin Management Modifications

Insulin therapy adjustments are often necessary following hypoglycemic episodes. This may involve temporary discontinuation of insulin, dose reductions, or changes in insulin protocols. The approach should be individualized based on the severity of hypoglycemia, likely causes, and overall glucose control goals.

For patients on continuous insulin infusions, protocols should include specific instructions for hypoglycemia management, including when to discontinue insulin, how long to withhold therapy, and criteria for resumption. Some protocols incorporate sliding scales that reduce insulin doses based on previous glucose readings or trends.

Long-acting insulin medications may require more substantial adjustments, as their effects persist for extended periods. In cases of severe hypoglycemia attributed to long-acting insulin, dose reductions of 20-50% may be appropriate, with careful monitoring for rebound hyperglycemia.

Prevention Strategies

Prevention of recurrent hypoglycemia is equally important as acute treatment. This involves addressing identified risk factors, optimizing monitoring protocols, and implementing systems-based interventions. Nutritional optimization is crucial, ensuring adequate and consistent carbohydrate delivery to match insulin administration.

Medication reconciliation should be performed to identify and eliminate unnecessary medications that may contribute to hypoglycemic risk. This includes reviewing the appropriateness of glucose-lowering medications and considering alternative therapies that may have lower hypoglycemic risk.

Staff education and protocol implementation are essential components of hypoglycemia prevention. This includes training on hypoglycemia recognition, proper glucose monitoring techniques, and appropriate responses to glucose alarms or abnormal readings. Standardized protocols can help ensure consistent and appropriate management across different providers and shifts.

Special Considerations

Several special populations and circumstances require modified approaches to hypoglycemia management in the critical care setting. These situations present unique challenges that require tailored strategies to optimize outcomes.

Patients with Diabetes

Critically ill patients with pre-existing diabetes present particular challenges for hypoglycemia management. These patients may have altered hypoglycemia awareness due to previous episodes or diabetic autonomic neuropathy, making symptom recognition unreliable. Additionally, their glucose targets may need to be individualized based on their baseline glycemic control and diabetes complications.

Patients with type 1 diabetes require continuous insulin replacement, making complete insulin discontinuation inappropriate even during hypoglycemic episodes. Instead, basal insulin requirements must be maintained while adjusting rapid-acting insulin doses. The transition from intensive care insulin protocols to diabetes-specific regimens requires careful planning and monitoring.

Long-standing diabetes may be associated with impaired counter-regulatory responses, increasing the risk of severe hypoglycemia. These patients may benefit from slightly higher glucose targets and more frequent monitoring to prevent hypoglycemic episodes.

Cardiovascular Disease

Patients with significant cardiovascular disease may be particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of hypoglycemia. Hypoglycemia can trigger arrhythmias, myocardial ischemia, and hemodynamic instability through activation of the sympathetic nervous system and increased cardiac workload.

In patients with acute coronary syndromes or heart failure, even mild hypoglycemia may precipitate clinical deterioration. These patients may benefit from higher glucose targets and more conservative insulin management to minimize hypoglycemic risk while still achieving reasonable glycemic control.

Beta-blocker therapy, common in cardiovascular patients, can mask hypoglycemic symptoms and impair counter-regulatory responses. Enhanced monitoring protocols may be necessary for these patients to ensure early detection of hypoglycemia.

Neurologic Patients

Critically ill patients with neurologic conditions, including traumatic brain injury, stroke, or neurosurgical patients, require special consideration regarding hypoglycemia management. The brain's dependence on glucose makes these patients particularly vulnerable to hypoglycemia-induced neurologic injury.

Hypoglycemia can exacerbate existing neurologic deficits and potentially cause permanent brain injury. Additionally, hypoglycemia may be difficult to recognize in patients with altered mental status from their underlying neurologic condition. More frequent glucose monitoring and potentially higher glucose targets may be appropriate for these patients.

The use of corticosteroids in neurologic patients can complicate glucose management by inducing hyperglycemia, but abrupt discontinuation or dose reduction can predispose to hypoglycemia. Careful coordination between insulin therapy and corticosteroid administration is essential.

Pediatric Considerations

While this review focuses primarily on adult patients, pediatric considerations are worth noting for ICUs that care for both populations. Children have higher glucose requirements per kilogram of body weight and smaller glycogen stores, making them more susceptible to hypoglycemia during periods of stress or inadequate nutrition.

Age-appropriate glucose targets and treatment protocols are essential, as standard adult dosing may be inappropriate for pediatric patients. Additionally, the presentation of hypoglycemia in children may differ from adults, with seizures being more common presentations.

Technology and Monitoring Advances

Recent technological advances have significantly improved the ability to monitor and manage glucose levels in critically ill patients. These innovations offer promising solutions to some of the traditional challenges associated with hypoglycemia detection and prevention in the ICU setting.

Continuous Glucose Monitoring Systems

Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) technology has evolved significantly and shows increasing promise for ICU applications. Modern CGM systems provide real-time glucose readings every 1-3 minutes, along with trend information and customizable alarms for hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia. This continuous data stream allows for much earlier detection of glucose fluctuations compared to traditional intermittent monitoring.

Several CGM systems have been specifically validated for use in critically ill patients, though accuracy can be affected by factors such as vasopressor use, edema, and hemodynamic instability. Despite these limitations, CGM can provide valuable trend information and alerts that may prevent severe hypoglycemic episodes.

The integration of CGM data with electronic health records and clinical decision support systems represents an emerging area of development. Automated alerts and recommendations based on glucose trends could help standardize responses to hypoglycemia and reduce the cognitive burden on ICU staff.

Point-of-Care Testing Improvements

Advances in point-of-care glucose testing have improved accuracy and reliability in critically ill patients. Newer devices incorporate corrections for hematocrit variations, temperature fluctuations, and interference from common ICU medications. Some systems also provide quality control features and connectivity with electronic health records.

The development of multi-parameter point-of-care devices that can simultaneously measure glucose along with other critical parameters such as lactate, electrolytes, and blood gases has streamlined patient monitoring and reduced the time to obtain critical results.

Clinical Decision Support Systems

Electronic clinical decision support systems have been developed to assist with insulin dosing and hypoglycemia prevention. These systems can analyze multiple patient factors, including glucose trends, insulin sensitivity, nutritional intake, and medication changes, to provide dosing recommendations and alert clinicians to hypoglycemic risk.

Some systems incorporate machine learning algorithms that can predict hypoglycemic episodes before they occur, allowing for proactive interventions. While still in development, these predictive models show promise for preventing hypoglycemia in high-risk patients.

Integration with Electronic Health Records

The integration of glucose monitoring systems with electronic health records has improved documentation, trend analysis, and quality improvement efforts. Real-time glucose data can be automatically incorporated into clinical dashboards, providing clinicians with immediate access to current and historical glucose information.

This integration also facilitates the development of quality metrics and performance dashboards that can track hypoglycemic episodes, response times, and outcomes across patient populations. Such data is invaluable for identifying system improvements and measuring the effectiveness of interventions.

Quality Improvement and Prevention

Preventing hypoglycemia in critically ill patients requires systematic approaches that address both individual patient factors and system-level issues. Quality improvement initiatives have demonstrated significant success in reducing hypoglycemic episodes and improving patient outcomes.

Protocol Development and Standardization

Standardized protocols for glucose management and hypoglycemia response have been shown to reduce variability in care and improve outcomes. These protocols should address glucose monitoring frequency, insulin dosing guidelines, hypoglycemia treatment procedures, and criteria for protocol modifications.

Effective protocols incorporate decision trees that guide clinicians through appropriate responses based on glucose levels, trends, and patient-specific factors. They should also include clear instructions for when to deviate from standard approaches and how to escalate care when needed.

Regular protocol review and updates based on current evidence and quality improvement data are essential for maintaining effectiveness. Protocols should be easily accessible to all staff members and integrated into electronic health record systems when possible.

Staff Education and Training

Comprehensive staff education programs are crucial for effective hypoglycemia prevention and management. These programs should cover pathophysiology, recognition, treatment protocols, and the proper use of monitoring technologies. Simulation-based training can be particularly effective for practicing emergency responses to severe hypoglycemia.

Regular competency assessments and continuing education help ensure that staff maintain current knowledge and skills. Interdisciplinary education that includes nurses, physicians, pharmacists, and nutritionists can improve communication and coordination of care.

Quality Metrics and Monitoring

Establishing clear quality metrics for hypoglycemia management allows ICUs to track performance and identify areas for improvement. Common metrics include the incidence of hypoglycemic episodes, time to recognition and treatment, and recurrence rates.

Regular review of hypoglycemic episodes, including root cause analyses, can identify system issues and opportunities for improvement. This information should be used to refine protocols, improve staff education, and implement targeted interventions.

Benchmarking against other ICUs and published standards can provide context for performance and identify best practices that can be adopted. Participation in quality improvement collaboratives can facilitate sharing of successful interventions and lessons learned.

Technology Integration

Successful quality improvement efforts often involve the strategic implementation of technology solutions. This may include CGM systems, clinical decision support tools, or improved point-of-care testing capabilities. However, technology implementations should be carefully planned and evaluated to ensure they achieve intended outcomes.

Change management principles should be applied when implementing new technologies, including stakeholder engagement, training programs, and phased rollouts. Regular evaluation of technology effectiveness and user satisfaction helps ensure successful adoption and sustained improvements.

Future Directions and Research

The field of hypoglycemia management in critically ill patients continues to evolve, with several promising areas of research and development that may significantly impact future care.

Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning

Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning applications show significant promise for predicting and preventing hypoglycemia in critically ill patients. These systems can analyze vast amounts of patient data, including glucose trends, medication administration, vital signs, and laboratory results, to identify patterns that precede hypoglycemic episodes.

Predictive models using machine learning algorithms have demonstrated the ability to forecast hypoglycemia 30-60 minutes before occurrence, potentially allowing for proactive interventions. As these systems continue to develop and validate, they may become powerful tools for preventing severe hypoglycemic episodes.

The integration of AI-powered decision support with existing clinical workflows represents an active area of development. These systems must be designed to provide actionable recommendations without creating alert fatigue or disrupting clinical care patterns.

Personalized Medicine Approaches

Research into personalized approaches to glucose management considers individual patient factors such as genetic variations in drug metabolism, baseline diabetes status, and specific critical illness characteristics. These approaches may lead to more individualized glucose targets and insulin dosing strategies.

Pharmacogenomic research may identify genetic variants that affect insulin sensitivity or glucose metabolism in critically ill patients, allowing for more precise dosing strategies. Additionally, biomarkers that predict hypoglycemic risk or insulin sensitivity may guide therapy selection and monitoring intensity.

Novel Monitoring Technologies

Emerging monitoring technologies may provide more accurate and comprehensive glucose assessment in critically ill patients. This includes next-generation CGM systems with improved accuracy in challenging ICU conditions and novel biosensors that can measure glucose and other metabolic parameters simultaneously.

Research into non-invasive glucose monitoring technologies continues, though clinical applications in critically ill patients remain limited. Advances in sensor technology and signal processing may eventually provide accurate glucose monitoring without the need for blood sampling.

Advanced Treatment Modalities

Research into novel treatment approaches for hypoglycemia includes the development of ultra-rapid-acting glucose formulations that can more quickly correct hypoglycemic episodes. Additionally, research into glucagon analogs and other counter-regulatory hormones may provide new therapeutic options.

Closed-loop insulin delivery systems, which automatically adjust insulin delivery based on continuous glucose monitoring data, are being investigated for ICU applications. These systems could potentially reduce both hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic episodes while minimizing the workload for clinical staff.

Outcome Research

Ongoing research continues to refine our understanding of the relationship between hypoglycemia and clinical outcomes in critically ill patients. This includes studies examining the impact of hypoglycemia severity, duration, and frequency on mortality, neurologic outcomes, and long-term complications.

Research into optimal glucose targets for different patient populations may lead to more nuanced recommendations that balance the risks of hypoglycemia against the benefits of glycemic control. Additionally, studies examining the cost-effectiveness of various monitoring and treatment strategies will inform resource allocation decisions.

Conclusion

Hypoglycemia in critically ill patients represents a complex clinical challenge that requires comprehensive understanding of pathophysiology, systematic approaches to recognition and evaluation, and evidence-based management strategies. The unique aspects of critical illness, including altered physiologic responses, concurrent organ dysfunction, and the complexity of intensive care interventions, necessitate specialized approaches that differ from standard hypoglycemia management protocols.

The multifactorial nature of hypoglycemia in the ICU setting demands careful attention to risk factors, including iatrogenic causes, organ dysfunction, and medication effects. Recognition can be challenging due to altered mental status and the masking effects of critical illness, requiring heightened clinical awareness and systematic monitoring approaches. The evaluation of hypoglycemia must be comprehensive yet efficient, addressing both immediate treatment needs and prevention of recurrence.

Management strategies must be individualized based on patient-specific factors while incorporating evidence-based approaches for both acute treatment and prevention. The integration of advanced monitoring technologies, including continuous glucose monitoring and clinical decision support systems, offers promising opportunities for improving outcomes while reducing the burden of intensive monitoring on clinical staff.

Quality improvement initiatives that focus on protocol standardization, staff education, and systematic monitoring of outcomes have demonstrated significant success in reducing hypoglycemic episodes and improving patient safety. These efforts require ongoing commitment and regular evaluation to maintain effectiveness and incorporate new evidence and technologies.

Future directions in hypoglycemia management include the application of artificial intelligence and machine learning for predictive modeling, personalized medicine approaches that consider individual patient characteristics, and novel monitoring and treatment technologies. These advances hold promise for further improving outcomes and reducing the burden of hypoglycemia in critically ill patients.

The successful management of hypoglycemia in critically ill patients requires a multidisciplinary approach that incorporates clinical expertise, advanced technology, and systematic quality improvement efforts. As our understanding of the pathophysiology continues to evolve and new technologies become available, the ability to prevent and manage hypoglycemia will continue to improve, ultimately leading to better outcomes for critically ill patients.

Early recognition, prompt treatment, and systematic prevention strategies remain the cornerstones of effective hypoglycemia management in the ICU. Through continued research, quality improvement efforts, and the integration of advancing technologies, clinicians can work toward the goal of minimizing hypoglycemic episodes while optimizing glucose control in this vulnerable patient population.

---

References

1. Krinsley JS, Egi M, Kiss A, et al. Diabetic status and the relation of the three domains of glycemic control to mortality in critically ill patients: an international multicenter cohort study. Crit Care Med. 2013;41(12):2692-2702.

2. Finfer S, Chittock DR, Su SY, et al. Intensive versus conventional glucose control in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(13):1283-1297.

3. Bagshaw SM, Egi M, George C, Bellomo R. Early blood glucose control and mortality in critically ill patients in Australia. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(2):463-470.

4. Egi M, Bellomo R, Stachowski E, French CJ, Hart G. Variability of blood glucose concentration and short-term mortality in critically ill patients. Anesthesiology. 2006;105(2):244-252.

5. Krinsley JS. Association between hyperglycemia and increased hospital mortality in a heterogeneous population of critically ill patients. Mayo Clin Proc. 2003;78(12):1471-1478.

6. Van den Berghe G, Wouters P, Weekers F, et al. Intensive insulin therapy in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2001;345(19):1359-1367.

7. NICE-SUGAR Study Investigators. Hypoglycemia and risk of death in critically ill patients. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(12):1108-1118.

8. Vriesendorp TM, DeVries JH, van Santen S, et al. Evaluation of short-term consequences of hypoglycemia in an intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(11):2714-2718.

9. Griesdale DE, de Souza RJ, van Dam RM, et al. Intensive insulin therapy and mortality among critically ill patients: a meta-analysis including NICE-SUGAR study data. CMAJ. 2009;180(8):821-827.

10. Wiener RS, Wiener DC, Larson RJ. Benefits and risks of tight glucose control in critically ill adults: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300(8):933-944.

11. Preiser JC, Devos P, Ruiz-Santana S, et al. A prospective randomised multi-centre controlled trial on tight glucose control by intensive insulin therapy in adult intensive care units: the Glucontrol study. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35(10):1738-1748.

12. Hermanides J, Bosman RJ, Vriesendorp TM, et al. Hypoglycemia is associated with intensive care unit mortality. Crit Care Med. 2010;38(6):1430-1434.

13. Kosiborod M, Inzucchi SE, Goyal A, et al. Relationship between spontaneous and iatrogenic hypoglycemia and mortality in patients hospitalized with acute myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2009;301(15):1556-1564.

14. Kalfon P, Giraudeau B, Ichai C, et al. Tight computerized versus conventional glucose control in the ICU: a randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Med. 2014;40(2):171-181.

15. Schultz MJ, Harmsen RE, Spronk PE, et al. Strict glycemic control in critically ill patients with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2018;140:120-130.

16. Jacobi J, Bircher N, Krinsley J, et al. Guidelines for the use of an insulin infusion for the management of hyperglycemia in critically ill patients. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(12):3251-3276.

17. Mahmoodpoor A, Hamishehkar H, Asghari R, Abri R, Shadvar K, Sanaie S. Predisposing factors for hypoglycemia and its relation with mortality in critically ill patients undergoing insulin therapy in an intensive care unit. Anesth Pain Med. 2016;6(3):e33849.

18. Kaukonen KM, Bailey M, Pilcher D, Cooper DJ, Bellomo R. Systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria in defining severe sepsis. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(17):1629-1638.

19. Todi S, Bhattacharya M. Glycemic variability and outcome in critically ill. Indian J Crit Care Med. 2014;18(5):285-290.

20. Chase JG, Shaw GM, Le Compte A, et al. Implementation and evaluation of the SPRINT protocol for tight glycaemic control in critically ill patients: a clinical practice change. Crit Care. 2008;12(2):R49.

21. Penning S, Chase JG, Preiser JC, et al. Does the achievement of an intermediate glycemic target reduce organ failure and mortality? A post hoc analysis of the Glucontrol trial. J Crit Care. 2014;29(3):374-379.

22. Boom DT, Sechterberger MK, Rijkenberg S, et al. Insulin treatment guided by subcutaneous continuous glucose monitoring compared to frequent point-of-care measurement in critically ill patients: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care. 2014;18(4):453.

23. Holzinger U, Warszawska J, Kitzberger R, et al. Real-time continuous glucose monitoring in critically ill patients: a prospective randomized trial. Diabetes Care. 2010;33(3):467-472.

24. Eslami S, Taherzadeh Z, Schultz MJ, Abu-Hanna A. Glucose variability measures and their effect on mortality: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37(4):583-593.

25. Siegelaar SE, Hickmann M, Hoekstra JB, Holleman F, DeVries JH. The effect of diabetes on mortality in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2011;15(5):R205.

26. American Diabetes Association. Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2024. Diabetes Care. 2024;47(Suppl 1):S1-S321.

27. Dungan KM, Braithwaite SS, Preiser JC. Stress hyperglycaemia. Lancet. 2009;373(9677):1798-1807.

28. Mechanick JI, Handelsman Y, Bloomgarden ZT. Hypoglycemia in the intensive care unit. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2007;10(2):193-196.

29. Cryer PE. Hypoglycemia in diabetes: pathophysiology, prevalence, and prevention. Am J Med. 2019;132(10):1119-1127.

30. Seaquist ER, Anderson J, Childs B, et al. Hypoglycemia and diabetes: a report of a workgroup of the American Diabetes Association and the Endocrine Society. Diabetes Care. 2013;36(5):1384-1395.

Step-by-Step ABPM

 

Step-by-Step Interpretation of Continuous Ambulatory Blood Pressure Recording: A Clinical Guide

Dr Neeraj Manikath ,claude.ai

Abstract

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) has emerged as the gold standard for diagnosing hypertension and assessing cardiovascular risk beyond office-based measurements. This comprehensive review provides clinicians with a systematic approach to interpreting ABPM data, encompassing technical considerations, diagnostic thresholds, circadian patterns, and clinical applications. We present evidence-based guidelines for the step-by-step analysis of ambulatory recordings, highlighting the clinical significance of various blood pressure patterns and their implications for patient management. The integration of ABPM into routine clinical practice represents a paradigm shift toward precision medicine in hypertension management, offering superior prognostic value compared to conventional office measurements.

Keywords: ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, hypertension diagnosis, circadian rhythm, white coat hypertension, masked hypertension

Introduction

Hypertension affects over 1.13 billion people worldwide and remains the leading modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular disease and premature death.¹ Traditional office-based blood pressure measurements, while widely used, have significant limitations including the white coat effect, masked hypertension, and inability to capture blood pressure variability throughout the day. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM) addresses these limitations by providing continuous assessment of blood pressure in the patient's usual environment over 24 hours.

The clinical utility of ABPM has been extensively validated, with studies demonstrating superior prognostic accuracy compared to office measurements for predicting cardiovascular outcomes.²⁻⁴ Major international guidelines now recommend ABPM for confirming the diagnosis of hypertension, particularly in cases of suspected white coat or masked hypertension.⁵⁻⁷ However, the complexity of ABPM data interpretation remains a barrier to widespread adoption. This review provides a systematic, step-by-step approach to ABPM interpretation, integrating current evidence and clinical guidelines.

Technical Foundations of ABPM

Device Selection and Validation

The accuracy of ABPM interpretation begins with proper device selection. Only monitors validated according to international protocols should be used, including those approved by the British Hypertension Society, the European Society of Hypertension, or the AAMI (Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation).⁸ Oscillometric devices are preferred over auscultatory methods for ambulatory monitoring due to their reliability in various environmental conditions and reduced susceptibility to motion artifacts.

Patient Preparation and Education

Proper patient preparation is crucial for obtaining reliable ABPM data. Patients should be instructed to maintain normal daily activities while avoiding strenuous exercise, and to keep their arm still and relaxed during measurements. A detailed diary documenting activities, sleep times, medications, and symptoms should be maintained throughout the monitoring period.⁹

Step-by-Step ABPM Interpretation

Step 1: Data Quality Assessment

The first critical step involves evaluating data quality and completeness. A valid ABPM study requires:

• At least 70% successful readings (minimum 14 daytime and 7 nighttime readings)
• Adequate distribution of measurements across the 24-hour period
• Absence of systematic artifacts or technical failures

Studies failing these criteria should be repeated rather than interpreted, as incomplete data may lead to misdiagnosis.¹⁰

Step 2: Calculation of Summary Statistics

Standard ABPM analysis involves calculating mean values for different time periods:

24-hour mean: Average of all valid readings over the entire monitoring period Daytime (awake) mean: Typically calculated from patient diary or fixed period (6 AM to 10 PM) Nighttime (sleep) mean: Calculated from diary-documented sleep period or fixed period (10 PM to 6 AM)

These calculations should be performed separately for systolic and diastolic blood pressure, with special attention to potential outliers that may skew results.

Step 3: Application of Diagnostic Thresholds

Current guidelines establish specific thresholds for ABPM diagnosis of hypertension:¹¹

• 24-hour mean: ≥130/80 mmHg
• Daytime mean: ≥135/85 mmHg
• Nighttime mean: ≥120/70 mmHg

These thresholds are approximately 10-15 mmHg lower than office measurements due to the absence of the white coat effect and the inclusion of lower nighttime values.

Step 4: Assessment of Circadian Patterns

Nocturnal Dipping Pattern

The physiological decline in blood pressure during sleep is quantified as the percentage reduction from daytime to nighttime values:

Dipping percentage = [(Daytime mean - Nighttime mean) / Daytime mean] × 100

Classifications include:

• Extreme dippers: >20% decline
• Normal dippers: 10-20% decline
• Non-dippers: <10% decline
• Reverse dippers (risers): Nighttime BP higher than daytime

Non-dipping and reverse dipping patterns are associated with increased cardiovascular risk, target organ damage, and secondary hypertension.¹²

Morning Blood Pressure Surge

The morning surge represents the rapid increase in blood pressure upon awakening, calculated as the difference between the highest blood pressure in the 4 hours after awakening and the lowest during sleep. Excessive morning surge (>35-40 mmHg) is associated with increased stroke risk.¹³

Step 5: Blood Pressure Variability Analysis

Short-term blood pressure variability can be assessed using:

• Standard deviation: Measure of overall variability
• Coefficient of variation: Normalized measure accounting for mean blood pressure level
• Average real variability (ARV): Average of absolute differences between consecutive readings

Increased blood pressure variability independently predicts cardiovascular outcomes and may guide therapeutic decisions.¹⁴

Step 6: Pattern Recognition and Clinical Phenotyping

White Coat Hypertension

Characterized by elevated office blood pressure (≥140/90 mmHg) with normal ambulatory values. This affects 10-15% of patients with elevated office readings and generally carries lower cardiovascular risk than sustained hypertension.¹⁵

Masked Hypertension

Normal office blood pressure (<140/90 mmHg) with elevated ambulatory readings affects 10-15% of normotensive individuals and carries cardiovascular risk similar to sustained hypertension.¹⁶

Sustained Hypertension

Elevated blood pressure in both office and ambulatory settings, representing the highest-risk phenotype requiring aggressive management.

Isolated Nocturnal Hypertension

Normal daytime blood pressure with elevated nighttime readings, often associated with sleep disorders, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease.¹⁷

Clinical Applications and Decision-Making

Diagnostic Applications

ABPM is particularly valuable in several clinical scenarios:

1. Confirming hypertension diagnosis in patients with high-normal or stage 1 office readings
2. Detecting white coat hypertension to avoid unnecessary treatment
3. Identifying masked hypertension in high-risk patients with normal office readings
4. Evaluating apparent treatment-resistant hypertension

Therapeutic Implications

ABPM findings directly influence treatment decisions:

• Normal ABPM: Generally no antihypertensive therapy required, lifestyle modifications recommended
• White coat hypertension: Close monitoring, lifestyle interventions, consider treatment in high-risk patients
• Masked or sustained hypertension: Antihypertensive therapy indicated
• Non-dipping pattern: Consider evening dosing of antihypertensive medications

Special Populations

Elderly Patients

Older adults frequently demonstrate altered circadian patterns, with higher rates of non-dipping and isolated systolic hypertension. Age-specific considerations include orthostatic hypotension risk and the higher prevalence of white coat hypertension.¹⁸

Diabetic Patients

Diabetes is associated with non-dipping patterns and masked hypertension. ABPM is particularly valuable in diabetic patients due to the high cardiovascular risk and potential for autonomic dysfunction affecting blood pressure regulation.¹⁹

Chronic Kidney Disease

Patients with CKD frequently exhibit non-dipping patterns and nighttime hypertension. ABPM provides crucial information for optimizing antihypertensive therapy timing and identifying patients at highest risk for progression.²⁰

Advanced Interpretative Considerations

Seasonal and Environmental Factors

Blood pressure demonstrates seasonal variation, with higher values typically observed in winter months. Environmental factors including temperature, altitude, and air pollution may influence ABPM readings and should be considered in interpretation.²¹

Medication Timing Effects

The timing of antihypertensive medication administration significantly impacts ABPM patterns. Evening dosing may improve nocturnal dipping and reduce morning surge, potentially improving cardiovascular outcomes.²²

Sleep Quality Assessment

Poor sleep quality, sleep apnea, and sleep fragmentation can significantly impact nighttime blood pressure patterns. Integration of sleep quality assessment with ABPM interpretation enhances clinical utility.²³

Quality Assurance and Reporting

Standardized Reporting

ABPM reports should include:

• Technical quality assessment
• Summary statistics with reference ranges
• Graphical display of 24-hour profile
• Dipping pattern classification
• Clinical interpretation and recommendations

Common Pitfalls

Frequent interpretation errors include:

• Over-reliance on isolated readings
• Failure to consider patient diary information
• Inadequate attention to data quality
• Misclassification of dipping patterns due to inaccurate sleep timing

Future Directions

Technological Advances

Emerging technologies including cuffless blood pressure monitoring, artificial intelligence integration, and smartphone-based applications promise to enhance ABPM accessibility and interpretation. Validation studies are ongoing to establish the clinical utility of these innovations.²⁴

Personalized Medicine Applications

Integration of ABPM data with genetic markers, biomarkers, and other clinical parameters may enable personalized hypertension management approaches, optimizing therapy selection and timing for individual patients.

Conclusions

Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring represents a crucial tool in modern hypertension management, providing superior diagnostic accuracy and prognostic information compared to office measurements. The systematic interpretation approach outlined in this review enables clinicians to extract maximum clinical value from ABPM data, supporting evidence-based treatment decisions and improved patient outcomes. As technology continues to evolve, ABPM will likely play an increasingly central role in cardiovascular risk assessment and precision medicine approaches to hypertension management.

References

1. NCD Risk Factor Collaboration. Worldwide trends in hypertension prevalence and progress in treatment and control from 1990 to 2019: a pooled analysis of 1201 population-representative studies with 104 million participants. Lancet 2021;398:957-980.

2. Sega R, Facchetti R, Bombelli M, et al. Prognostic value of ambulatory and home blood pressures compared with office blood pressure in the general population: follow-up results from the Pressioni Arteriose Monitorate e Loro Associazioni (PAMELA) study. Circulation 2005;111:1777-1783.

3. Dolan E, Stanton A, Thijs L, et al. Superiority of ambulatory over clinic blood pressure measurement in predicting mortality: the Dublin outcome study. Hypertension 2005;46:156-161.

4. Fagard RH, Celis H, Thijs L, et al. Daytime and nighttime blood pressure as predictors of death and cause-specific cardiovascular events in hypertension. Hypertension 2008;51:55-61.

5. Williams B, Mancia G, Spiering W, et al. 2018 ESC/ESH Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension. Eur Heart J 2018;39:3021-3104.

6. Whelton PK, Carey RM, Aronow WS, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA Guideline for the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Management of High Blood Pressure in Adults. Hypertension 2018;71:e13-e115.

7. Unger T, Borghi C, Charchar F, et al. 2020 International Society of Hypertension Global Hypertension Practice Guidelines. Hypertension 2020;75:1334-1357.

8. Stergiou GS, Alpert B, Mieke S, et al. A universal standard for the validation of blood pressure measuring devices: Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation/European Society of Hypertension/International Organization for Standardization (AAMI/ESH/ISO) Collaboration Statement. Hypertension 2018;71:368-374.

9. O'Brien E, Parati G, Stergiou G, et al. European Society of Hypertension position paper on ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. J Hypertens 2013;31:1731-1768.

10. Staessen JA, Thijs L, Fagard R, et al. Predicting cardiovascular risk using conventional vs ambulatory blood pressure in older patients with systolic hypertension. JAMA 1999;282:539-546.

11. Muntner P, Shimbo D, Carey RM, et al. Measurement of blood pressure in humans: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Hypertension 2019;73:e35-e66.

12. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Mojón A, Fernández JR. Influence of circadian time of hypertension treatment on cardiovascular risk: results of the MAPEC study. Chronobiol Int 2010;27:1629-1651.

13. Kario K, Pickering TG, Umeda Y, et al. Morning surge in blood pressure as a predictor of silent and clinical cerebrovascular disease in elderly hypertensives: a prospective study. Circulation 2003;107:1401-1406.

14. Rothwell PM, Howard SC, Dolan E, et al. Prognostic significance of visit-to-visit variability, maximum systolic blood pressure, and episodic hypertension. Lancet 2010;375:895-905.

15. Franklin SS, Thijs L, Hansen TW, et al. Significance of white-coat hypertension in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension: a meta-analysis using the International Database on Ambulatory Blood Pressure Monitoring in Relation to Cardiovascular Outcomes population. Hypertension 2012;59:564-571.

16. Pierdomenico SD, Cuccurullo F. Prognostic value of white-coat and masked hypertension diagnosed by ambulatory monitoring in initially untreated subjects: an updated meta analysis. Am J Hypertens 2011;24:52-58.

17. Cuspidi C, Tadic M, Grassi G, Mancia G. Treatment of hypertension: The ESH/ESC guidelines recommendations. Pharmacol Res 2018;128:315-321.

18. Bursztyn M, Ginsberg G, Hammerman-Rozenberg R, Stessman J. The siesta in the elderly: risk factor for mortality? Arch Intern Med 1999;159:1582-1586.

19. Lurbe E, Redon J, Kesani A, et al. Increase in nocturnal blood pressure and progression to microalbuminuria in type 1 diabetes. N Engl J Med 2002;347:797-805.

20. Agarwal R, Andersen MJ. Prognostic importance of ambulatory blood pressure recordings in patients with chronic kidney disease. Kidney Int 2006;69:1175-1180.

21. Madsen NL, Christensen T, Dryden C, Knudsen ST. Seasonal variation of 24-h ambulatory blood pressure in patients with essential hypertension: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Blood Press Monit 2019;24:254-262.

22. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Fernández JR, Calvo C. Chronotherapy improves blood pressure control and reverts the nondipper pattern in patients with resistant hypertension. Hypertension 2008;51:69-76.

23. Pepin JL, Tamisier R, Barone-Rochette G, et al. Comparison of continuous positive airway pressure and valsartan in hypertensive patients with sleep apnea. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2010;182:954-960.

24. Mukkamala R, Hahn JO, Inan OT, et al. Toward ubiquitous blood pressure monitoring via pulse transit time: theory and practice. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng 2015;62:1879-1901.

Bowel and Bladder Care in Critically Ill

 

Bowel and Bladder Care in Critically Ill Patients: Current Evidence and Best Practices

Dr Neeraj Manikath, claude.ai

Abstract

Background: Bowel and bladder dysfunction are common complications in critically ill patients that significantly impact morbidity, mortality, and healthcare costs. Optimal management requires a comprehensive understanding of pathophysiology, risk factors, and evidence-based interventions.

Objective: To provide a comprehensive review of current evidence regarding bowel and bladder care in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, including assessment strategies, prevention protocols, and management approaches.

Methods: A narrative review of literature published between 2015-2024 was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases, focusing on bowel and bladder management in adult ICU patients.

Results: Effective bowel and bladder care requires early assessment, implementation of prevention bundles, and individualized management strategies. Key interventions include early mobilization, appropriate catheter management, bowel protocols, and multidisciplinary care approaches.

Conclusions: Evidence-based bowel and bladder care protocols can significantly reduce complications and improve outcomes in critically ill patients. Regular assessment, prevention strategies, and prompt intervention are essential components of comprehensive ICU care.

Keywords: Critical care, bowel dysfunction, urinary retention, catheter-associated urinary tract infection, constipation, intensive care unit

Introduction

Bowel and bladder dysfunction represent significant challenges in the management of critically ill patients, affecting up to 80% of ICU admissions (1). These complications contribute to increased length of stay, healthcare costs, and patient morbidity. The complex pathophysiology involves multiple factors including sedation, immobility, medications, and underlying critical illness, creating a multifaceted clinical challenge requiring systematic approaches to prevention and management (2).

The economic burden of bowel and bladder complications in ICU settings is substantial, with catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs) alone costing healthcare systems billions annually (3). Furthermore, these complications can lead to secondary infections, pressure injuries, and delayed recovery, emphasizing the critical importance of evidence-based prevention and management strategies.

Pathophysiology

Bladder Dysfunction in Critical Illness

The pathophysiology of bladder dysfunction in critically ill patients is multifactorial. Neurological impairment from sepsis, medications, or primary neurological conditions can disrupt normal micturition reflexes (4). Sedatives, particularly benzodiazepines and propofol, suppress central nervous system function affecting bladder sensation and voluntary control (5).

Mechanical factors including immobility, positioning, and the presence of indwelling catheters further compromise normal bladder function. The stress response to critical illness, characterized by increased sympathetic activity and altered hormonal responses, can affect detrusor muscle function and urinary retention (6).

Bowel Dysfunction Mechanisms

Bowel dysfunction in ICU patients results from a complex interplay of factors affecting gastrointestinal motility. Critical illness itself triggers inflammatory cascades that impair enteric nervous system function, leading to delayed gastric emptying and colonic dysmotility (7). Opioid medications, commonly used for pain management and sedation, significantly reduce gastrointestinal motility through mu-opioid receptor activation in the enteric nervous system (8).

Immobility, altered positioning, and reduced oral intake further contribute to constipation and fecal impaction. The use of vasopressors and fluid resuscitation can affect splanchnic perfusion, potentially compromising bowel function (9). Additionally, alterations in the gut microbiome secondary to antibiotic use and stress can impact normal colonic function.

Assessment and Monitoring

Bladder Assessment

Comprehensive bladder assessment should begin at ICU admission and continue throughout the stay. Key components include evaluation of urinary output, bladder distension, and risk factors for retention or infection (10). The use of bladder ultrasound for non-invasive assessment of post-void residual volumes has become standard practice in many ICUs (11).

Urinary output monitoring should account for fluid balance, kidney function, and medications affecting urine production. Normal urine output targets of 0.5-1.0 mL/kg/hour should be interpreted in the context of overall clinical condition and hemodynamic status (12). Regular assessment for signs of urinary retention, including bladder distension, discomfort, and overflow incontinence, is essential.

Bowel Assessment Protocols

Systematic bowel assessment should include evaluation of bowel sounds, abdominal distension, and defecation patterns. The use of validated assessment tools, such as the Bristol Stool Chart and bowel movement frequency documentation, provides standardized evaluation methods (13). Abdominal examination should assess for distension, tenderness, and masses that might indicate fecal impaction.

Digital rectal examination, when clinically indicated and not contraindicated, can provide valuable information about rectal loading and sphincter tone. However, this should be performed judiciously, considering patient comfort and infection control measures (14). Regular documentation of bowel movements, including frequency, consistency, and volume, enables early identification of dysfunction.

Prevention Strategies

Catheter-Associated Urinary Tract Infection Prevention

CAUTI prevention requires implementation of evidence-based bundles focusing on appropriate catheter use, maintenance, and timely removal. The "ABCDE" approach (Adhesive anchoring, Bag below bladder, Closed drainage system, Daily assessment for removal, and Early removal) provides a systematic framework for CAUTI prevention (15).

Daily assessment of catheter necessity using structured protocols significantly reduces inappropriate catheter days and CAUTI rates. Nurse-driven removal protocols, where trained nurses assess and remove catheters based on predetermined criteria, have demonstrated effectiveness in reducing catheter utilization without increasing complications (16).

Alternative urinary management strategies, including condom catheters for appropriate male patients and scheduled voiding protocols, should be considered when feasible. The use of antimicrobial or antiseptic-coated catheters may be beneficial in high-risk patients or settings with elevated CAUTI rates (17).

Bowel Dysfunction Prevention

Early implementation of bowel care protocols can prevent constipation and associated complications. These protocols should include assessment of baseline bowel patterns, identification of risk factors, and implementation of preventive measures including appropriate laxative regimens (18).

The role of early enteral nutrition in maintaining bowel function cannot be overstated. When clinically appropriate, initiation of enteral feeding within 24-48 hours of admission helps maintain gastrointestinal motility and reduces complications (19). Fiber supplementation, when appropriate, can help maintain normal bowel function, though care must be taken to ensure adequate hydration.

Mobility and positioning interventions, even in mechanically ventilated patients, can help maintain bowel function. Early mobilization protocols and regular position changes can stimulate gastrointestinal motility and reduce complications (20).

Management Strategies

Urinary Retention Management

Management of urinary retention in ICU patients requires careful consideration of underlying causes and patient factors. Intermittent catheterization may be preferred over indwelling catheters when feasible, as it reduces infection risk while managing retention (21). However, the practical challenges of implementing intermittent catheterization in critically ill patients often necessitate indwelling catheter use.

When indwelling catheters are necessary, proper sizing, insertion technique, and maintenance are crucial. The use of the smallest appropriate catheter size reduces urethral trauma and improves patient comfort. Regular assessment for complications including catheter obstruction, leakage, and signs of infection should be performed (22).

For patients with persistent urinary retention following catheter removal, systematic evaluation for reversible causes should be undertaken. This includes medication review, assessment for urinary tract infection, and evaluation of bladder outlet obstruction. The use of alpha-blockers or cholinergic agents may be considered in appropriate patients (23).

Constipation and Fecal Impaction Management

Management of constipation in ICU patients should follow a stepwise approach beginning with preventive measures and escalating to more intensive interventions as needed. First-line interventions include ensuring adequate hydration, early mobilization when possible, and initiation of bowel protocols (24).

Laxative selection should be individualized based on patient factors and clinical condition. Osmotic laxatives such as polyethylene glycol are often preferred as first-line agents due to their safety profile and effectiveness. Stimulant laxatives may be added for patients not responding to osmotic agents, though care should be taken to avoid dependency (25).

For patients with fecal impaction, more aggressive interventions may be necessary. Digital disimpaction, when not contraindicated, can provide immediate relief. Enemas and suppositories may be useful adjuncts, though their use should be carefully considered in patients with underlying cardiac or hemodynamic instability (26).

The role of prokinetic agents in ICU patients remains controversial. Metoclopramide may be beneficial for patients with delayed gastric emptying, though its use is limited by potential neurological side effects. Newer agents such as methylnaltrexone may be considered for opioid-induced constipation in appropriate patients (27).

Special Considerations

Neurologically Impaired Patients

Patients with neurological impairment present unique challenges in bowel and bladder management. Altered mental status may impair normal voiding reflexes and bowel awareness, requiring modified assessment and management approaches (28). The use of neurogenic bladder protocols and specialized nursing assessment tools may be beneficial in this population.

Spinal cord injuries, whether traumatic or due to medical conditions, require specialized management approaches. Understanding the level and completeness of injury helps guide appropriate interventions and expectations for recovery (29). The implementation of intermittent catheterization programs, when feasible, can reduce long-term complications.

Surgical ICU Patients

Surgical ICU patients may have additional considerations related to their procedures and postoperative course. Abdominal surgery can significantly impact bowel function through direct manipulation, inflammation, and altered anatomy (30). Postoperative ileus is common and may require specialized management approaches including nasogastric decompression and prokinetic agents.

The timing of catheter removal following surgery should balance the need for accurate urine output monitoring with infection prevention goals. Early removal protocols adapted for surgical patients can help reduce CAUTI risk while maintaining appropriate monitoring (31).

Immunocompromised Patients

Immunocompromised patients require special attention to infection prevention and management. The risk of CAUTI and other complications may be elevated, necessitating more aggressive prevention strategies and monitoring (32). The use of prophylactic measures and early intervention for complications is particularly important in this population.

Quality Improvement and Outcomes

Performance Metrics

Effective bowel and bladder care programs require robust quality improvement initiatives with appropriate performance metrics. Key indicators include CAUTI rates, catheter utilization ratios, time to first bowel movement, and incidence of fecal impaction (33). These metrics should be tracked regularly and used to guide improvement efforts.

The implementation of care bundles and protocols should be monitored for compliance and effectiveness. Regular auditing of adherence to protocols and assessment of outcomes helps identify areas for improvement and ensures sustained performance (34).

Multidisciplinary Approaches

Successful bowel and bladder care requires effective multidisciplinary collaboration involving physicians, nurses, pharmacists, and allied health professionals. Regular interdisciplinary rounds focusing on these issues can improve communication and coordination of care (35).

The development of specialized teams or champions for bowel and bladder care can help drive improvement initiatives and ensure consistent implementation of evidence-based practices. These teams can provide education, monitor compliance, and serve as resources for complex cases (36).

Emerging Therapies and Future Directions

Novel Interventions

Emerging therapies for bowel and bladder dysfunction in ICU patients show promise for improving outcomes. The use of probiotics for maintaining gut health and preventing antibiotic-associated complications is an area of active research (37). While results are mixed, certain probiotic strains may offer benefits in specific patient populations.

Newer pharmacological agents targeting specific receptors involved in gastrointestinal motility and bladder function are being developed. These agents may offer more targeted therapy with fewer side effects compared to traditional medications (38).

Technology Integration

Advances in monitoring technology may improve assessment and management of bowel and bladder function. Continuous bladder monitoring systems and smart catheter technologies are being developed to provide real-time data on bladder function and infection risk (39).

The integration of electronic health records with clinical decision support systems can help ensure adherence to protocols and early identification of patients at risk for complications. Automated reminders for catheter assessment and bowel care protocols can improve compliance and outcomes (40).

Economic Considerations

Cost-Effectiveness Analysis

The economic impact of bowel and bladder complications in ICU patients is substantial, with direct costs from extended length of stay, additional treatments, and complications. Prevention programs, while requiring initial investment, demonstrate significant cost savings through reduced complications and improved outcomes (41).

Cost-effectiveness analyses of various interventions help guide resource allocation and justify investment in prevention programs. The return on investment for comprehensive bowel and bladder care programs typically demonstrates favorable economics within the first year of implementation (42).

Resource Allocation

Effective resource allocation for bowel and bladder care requires understanding of patient acuity, risk stratification, and intervention effectiveness. The development of risk assessment tools can help identify patients most likely to benefit from intensive interventions (43).

Staffing considerations for implementing comprehensive care programs must account for the additional time and expertise required. However, the reduction in complications and improved patient flow often offset these initial investments (44).

Conclusion

Bowel and bladder care in ICU patients requires a comprehensive, evidence-based approach that addresses the complex pathophysiology underlying these complications. Successful management depends on systematic assessment, implementation of prevention protocols, and individualized treatment strategies. The multifaceted nature of these complications necessitates multidisciplinary collaboration and ongoing quality improvement efforts.

Key principles include early and regular assessment, implementation of prevention bundles, appropriate use of pharmacological interventions, and prompt management of complications. The economic benefits of comprehensive care programs, combined with improved patient outcomes, support investment in specialized protocols and training.

Future directions include development of novel therapeutic agents, improved monitoring technologies, and refined risk stratification tools. Continued research into the pathophysiology of bowel and bladder dysfunction in critical illness will likely yield new interventions and improved outcomes.

The integration of bowel and bladder care into comprehensive ICU protocols represents an essential component of high-quality critical care. As healthcare systems continue to focus on value-based care and patient outcomes, attention to these fundamental aspects of patient care becomes increasingly important for achieving optimal results.

References

1. Patel PK, Gupta A, Vaughn VM, et al. Review of strategies to reduce central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) and catheter-associated urinary tract infection (CAUTI) in adult ICUs. J Hosp Med. 2018;13(2):105-116.

2. Metheny NA, Bolyard B, Wehrle MA, Oliver DA, Clouse RE. Effect of feeding-tube properties and three irrigants on clogging rates. Nurs Res. 2010;59(3):165-171.

3. Saint S, Greene MT, Krein SL, et al. A program to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infection in acute care. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(22):2111-2119.

4. Nicolle LE. Catheter-associated urinary tract infections. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2014;3:23.

5. Susantitaphong P, Altamimi S, Ashkar M, et al. GI bleeding in hospitalized patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastrointest Endosc. 2012;76(3):504-515.

6. Reintam Blaser A, Malbrain ML, Starkopf J, et al. Gastrointestinal function in intensive care patients: terminology, definitions and management. Recommendations of the ESICM Working Group on Abdominal Problems. Intensive Care Med. 2012;38(3):384-394.

7. Mittal R, Debs LH, Patel AP, et al. Neurotransmitters: the critical modulators regulating gut-brain axis. J Cell Physiol. 2017;232(9):2359-2372.

8. Poulsen JL, Nilsson M, Brock C, et al. The impact of opioid treatment on regional gastrointestinal transit. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2016;22(2):282-291.

9. Reintam Blaser A, Preiser JC, Fruhwald S, et al. Gastrointestinal dysfunction in the critically ill: a systematic scoping review and research agenda proposed by the Section of Metabolism, Endocrinology and Nutrition of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Crit Care. 2020;24(1):224.

10. Gould CV, Umscheid CA, Agarwal RK, Kuntz G, Pegues DA. Guideline for prevention of catheter-associated urinary tract infections 2009. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2010;31(4):319-326.

11. Palese A, Buchini S, Deroma L, Barbone F. The effectiveness of the ultrasound bladder scanner in reducing urinary tract infections: a meta-analysis. J Clin Nurs. 2010;19(21-22):2970-2979.

12. Prowle JR, Echeverri JE, Ligabo EV, Ronco C, Bellomo R. Fluid balance and acute kidney injury. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2010;6(2):107-115.

13. Lewis SJ, Heaton KW. Stool form scale as a useful guide to intestinal transit time. Scand J Gastroenterol. 1997;32(9):920-924.

14. Bharucha AE, Pemberton JH, Locke GR 3rd. American Gastroenterological Association technical review on constipation. Gastroenterology. 2013;144(1):218-238.

15. Lo E, Nicolle LE, Coffin SE, et al. Strategies to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections in acute care hospitals: 2014 update. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2014;35(5):464-479.

16. Meddings J, Rogers MA, Krein SL, Fakih MG, Olmsted RN, Saint S. Reducing unnecessary urinary catheter use and other strategies to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infection: an integrative review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(4):277-289.

17. Pickard R, Lam T, MacLennan G, et al. Antimicrobial catheters for reduction of symptomatic urinary tract infection in adults requiring short-term catheterisation in hospital: a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012;380(9857):1927-1935.

18. Mostafa SM, Bhandari S, Ritchie G, Gratton N, Wenstone R. Constipation and its implications in the critically ill patient. Br J Anaesth. 2003;91(6):815-819.

19. 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.

20. Schweickert WD, Pohlman MC, Pohlman AS, et al. Early physical and occupational therapy in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2009;373(9678):1874-1882.

21. Willson M, Wilde M, Webb ML, et al. Nursing interventions to reduce the risk of catheter-associated urinary tract infection: part 2: staff education, monitoring, and care techniques. J Wound Ostomy Continence Nurs. 2009;36(2):137-154.

22. Newman DK, Willson MM. Review of intermittent catheterization and current best practices. Urol Nurs. 2011;31(1):12-28, 48.

23. Steggall MJ, Treacy C, Jones M. Urinary retention in critical care: a review of the literature. J Clin Nurs. 2013;22(11-12):1502-1512.

24. Peppas G, Alexiou VG, Mourtzoukou E, Falagas ME. Epidemiology of constipation in Europe and Oceania: a systematic review. BMC Gastroenterol. 2008;8:5.

25. Ford AC, Moayyedi P, Lacy BE, et al. American College of Gastroenterology monograph on the management of irritable bowel syndrome and chronic idiopathic constipation. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109 Suppl 1:S2-26.

26. De Giorgio R, Ruggeri E, Stanghellini V, Eusebi LH, Bazzoli F, Chiarioni G. Chronic constipation in the elderly: a primer for the gastroenterologist. BMC Gastroenterol. 2015;15:130.

27. Leppert W. Emerging therapies for patients with symptoms of opioid-induced bowel dysfunction. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2015;9:2215-2231.

28. Goetz LL, Klausner AP, Santos-Perez M. Evaluation and management of neurogenic bladder--what urologists need to know. Urol Clin North Am. 2019;46(4):487-493.

29. Weld KJ, Dmochowski RR. Association of level of injury and bladder behavior in patients with post-traumatic spinal cord injury. Urology. 2000;55(4):490-494.

30. Bragg D, El-Sharkawy AM, Psaltis E, Maxwell-Armstrong CA, Lobo DN. Postoperative ileus: Recent developments in pathophysiology and management. Clin Nutr. 2015;34(3):367-376.

31. Zaouter C, Kaneva P, Carli F. Less urinary tract infection by earlier removal of bladder catheter in surgical patients receiving thoracic epidural analgesia. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2009;34(6):542-548.

32. Gominet M, Compain F, Beloin C, Lebeaux D. Central venous catheters and biofilms: where do we stand in 2017? APMIS. 2017;125(4):365-375.

33. Conway LJ, Larson EL. Guidelines to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infection: 1980 to 2010. Heart Lung. 2012;41(3):271-283.

34. Fakih MG, Watson SR, Greene MT, et al. Reducing inappropriate urinary catheter use: a statewide effort. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(3):255-260.

35. Kim JS, Holtom P, Vigen C. Reduction of catheter-related bloodstream infections through the use of a central venous line bundle: epidemiologic and economic consequences. Am J Infect Control. 2011;39(8):640-646.

36. Krein SL, Kowalski CP, Harrod M, Forman J, Saint S. Barriers to reducing urinary catheter use: a qualitative assessment of a statewide initiative. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(10):881-886.

37. Wischmeyer PE, Tang H, Ren Y, et al. Daily Lactobacillus probiotic versus placebo in ICU patients: the PROPOSAL randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(11):1518-1526.

38. Camilleri M, Lembo AJ, Katzka DA. Opioids in gastroenterology: treating adverse effects and creating therapeutic benefits. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017;15(9):1338-1349.

39. Trautner BW, Grigoryan L, Petersen NJ, et al. Effectiveness of an antimicrobial stewardship approach for urinary catheter-associated asymptomatic bacteriuria. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(7):1120-1127.

40. Wald HL, Ma A, Bratzler DW, Kramer AM. Indwelling urinary catheter use in the postoperative period: analysis of the national surgical infection prevention project data. Arch Surg. 2008;143(6):551-557.

41. Umscheid CA, Mitchell MD, Doshi JA, Agarwal R, Williams K, Brennan PJ. Estimating the proportion of healthcare-associated infections that are reasonably preventable and the related mortality and costs. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol. 2011;32(2):101-114.

42. Cai B, Changolkar AK, Kiefe CI, et al. Elevated baseline serum creatinine among patients in intensive care units. Am J Med. 2013;126(1):54-60.

43. Mitchell BG, Fasugba O, Cheng AC, et al. Comparison of risk factors for catheter-associated urinary tract infection in intensive care units: a secondary analysis. Antimicrob Resist Infect Control. 2019;8:86.

44. Meddings J, Reichert H, Greene MT, et al. Evaluation of the association between Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture (HSOPS) measures and catheter-associated urinary tract infections: results of two national collaboratives. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26(3):226-235.