ISSUE 04
Mapping the future of critical care T
he only certainties seemed to be uncertainties as the 11th Congress of the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine drew to a close. For both Satish Bhagwanjee, director of the Critical Care Training Program in the Department of Anesthesiology at the University of Washington Medical Center in Seattle and Jean-Louis Vincent, professor of intensive care at the Erasme University in Belgium, the diverse range of people either affected by or practicing critical care medicine, the wide range of cultural influences and even contradictory scientific evidence meant a balanced approach and a great deal of imagination had to be applied. In describing the process behind the Durban Declaration which was created as both a legacy from the international
Professor Jean-Louis Vincent
By SHIRLEY LE GEURN congress and a road map going forward, Bhagwanjee said that there was an incredible ignorance about critical care generally and that many people directly affected by it were “blind and lost”. Complex interventions and care decisions needed to be made within ICUs to ensure that the right medical outcomes were achieved and this was made even more complex when a team dynamic came into play, he said. Across the board, he stressed, ethical imperatives, cultural differences and the unequal distribution of resources and infrastructure always needed to be taken into consideration. He said it was not “about dollars available” but about the immense diversity which necessitated a better and clearer description of various issues as well as imagination enough to know that things would never be straightforward,” he said. Vincent, in asking how far critical care had come since the 10th Congress of the World Federation of Societies of Intensive and Critical Care Medicine in Florence in 2009 also stressed that “things were not necessarily black and white.” He said that in the scientific research realm, there had been a lot of contradictory studies with many negative outcomes. However, all role players needed to consider a balance between the positive and negative effects of different interventions and individualise treatment according to the needs of the patient. He said that one of the major questions had to be where were the studies that showed beneficial effects of therapies such as fluid and electrolyte therapy, the use of steroids, anti-oxidants, sedation, strategies to address hypoxaemia and issues surrounding ventilation amongst others. He said studies had delivered
both yes and no answers – as well as “we will see” ones that returned to square one with no definite conclusion and a need for future research. Asking why there were so many negative trials, he explained that it was not a matter of power, the subject or even the size of the study. A major influence was the heterogeneity of the populations in which researchers are operating. “Often we have to consider and interrogate the fact that some of what are believed to be major benefits could do a lot of harm,” he pointed out. When it came to treatment, especially when dealing with the likes of sepsis for example, intensivists needed better biomarkers, he said. Vincent said that, of late, big random control studies appeared to be done with a view to eliminating treatment studies rather than to add positive measures. He said that current literature always delivered a “no” verdict which was quite depressing. Looking to the future, he added: “We like to criticise everything but we need to look at what works. We need to go over things again and again.” Nevertheless, Vincent believes that researchers and intensivists can be proud of what has been achieved through collaborative studies. He also highlighted the fact that studies such as these, backed by modern technology, would deliver large databases, would allow researchers to ultimately extract a great deal of valuable data. “However, my point is that the future is not only about big random control studies,” he stressed, adding that intensivists could be smart and achieve a deal through extrapolating the findings from smaller studies that could improve care for the critically ill. “You can base your decisions on small trials. It is not only big trials that will make a difference,” he said.