Background: To avoid overexertion in critically ill patients, information on the physical demand, i.e., metabolic load, of daily care and active exercises is warranted. Objective: The objective of this study was toassess the metabolic load during morning care activities and active bed exercises in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients. Methods: This study incorporated an explorative observational study executed in a university hospital intensive care unit. Oxygen consumption (VO2) was measured in mechanically ventilated (≥48 h) critically ill patients during rest, routine morning care, and active bed exercises. We aimed to describe and compare VO2 in terms of absolute VO2 (mL) defined as the VO2 attributable to the activity and relative VO2 in mL per kilogram bodyweight, per minute (mL/kg/min). Additional outcomes achieved during the activity were perceived exertion, respiratory variables, and the highest VO2 values. Changes in VO2 and activity duration were tested using paired tests. Results: Twenty-one patients were included with a mean (standard deviation) age of 59 y (12). Median (interquartile range [IQR]) durations of morning care and active bed exercises were 26 min (21–29) and 7 min (5–12), respectively. Absolute VO2 of morning care was significantly higher than that of active bed exercises (p = 0,009). Median (IQR) relative VO2 was 2.9 (2.6–3.8) mL/kg/min during rest; 3.1 (2.8–3.7) mL/kg/min during morning care; and 3.2 (2.7–4) mL/kg/min during active bed exercises. The highest VO2 value was 4.9 (4.2–5.7) mL/kg/min during morning care and 3.7 (3.2–5.3) mL/kg/min during active bed exercises. Median (IQR) perceived exertion on the 6–20 Borg scale was 12 (10.3–14.5) during morning care (n = 8) and 13.5 (11–15) during active bed exercises (n = 6). Conclusion: Absolute VO2 in mechanically ventilated patients may be higher during morning care than during active bed exercises due to the longer duration of the activity. Intensive care unit clinicians should be aware that daily-care activities may cause intervals of high metabolic load and high ratings of perceived exertion.
Background: Airway care interventions and prone positioning are used in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) to improve oxygenation and facilitate mucus removal. At the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the decision-making process regarding the practice of airway care interventions and prone positioning was challenging. Objective: To provide an overview of the practice of airway care interventions and prone positioning during the second wave of the pandemic in the Netherlands. Method: Web-based survey design. Seventy ICU nurses, each representing one intensive care in the Netherlands, were contacted for participation. Potential items were generated based on a literature search and formulated by a multidisciplinary team. Questions were pilot tested for face and construct validity by four intensive care nurses from four different hospitals. Results: The response rate was 53/77 (69%). This survey revealed widespread use of airway care interventions in the Netherlands in COVID-19 patients, despite questionable benefits. Additionally, prone positioning was used in invasively and non-invasively ventilated patients. Conclusions: The use of airway care interventions and prone positioning is time consuming and comes with the production of waste. Further research is needed to assess the effectiveness, workload, and environmental impact of airway care interventions and prone positioning.
Despite changing attitudes towards animal testing and current legislation to protect experimental animals, the rate of animal experiments seems to have changed little in recent years. On May 15–16, 2013, the In Vitro Testing Industrial Platform (IVTIP) held an open meeting to discuss the state of the art in alternative methods, how companies have, can, and will need to adapt and what drives and hinders regulatory acceptance and use. Several key messages arose from the meeting. First, industry and regulatory bodies should not wait for complete suites of alternative tests to become available, but should begin working with methods available right now (e.g., mining of existing animal data to direct future studies, implementation of alternative tests wherever scientifically valid rather than continuing to rely on animal tests) in non-animal and animal integrated strategies to reduce the numbers of animals tested. Sharing of information (communication), harmonization and standardization (coordination), commitment and collaboration are all required to improve the quality and speed of validation, acceptance, and implementation of tests. Finally, we consider how alternative methods can be used in research and development before formal implementation in regulations. Here we present the conclusions on what can be done already and suggest some solutions and strategies for the future.
