Search

Lung transplantation (LTx) is the definitive treatment for end-stage lung failure. However, there have been no large, long-term studies on the impact of acute in-hospital stroke in this population. What are the trends, risk factors, and outcomes of acute stroke in patients undergoing LTx in the United States? We identified adult first-time isolated LTx recipients from the United Network for Organ Sharing database, which comprehensively captures every transplant in the United States, between May 2005 and December 2020. Stroke was defined as occurring at any time after LTx but prior to discharge. Multivariable logistic regression with stepwise feature elimination was used to identify risk factors for stroke. Freedom from death in patients with a stroke vs those without a stroke was evaluated with Kaplan-Meier analysis. Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to identify predictors of death at 24 months. Of 28,564 patients (median age, 60 years; 60% male), 653 (2.3%) experienced an acute in-hospital stroke after LTx. Median follow-up was 1.2 (stroke) and 3.0 (non-stroke) years. Annual incidence of stroke increased (1.5% in 2005 to 2.4% in 2020; P for trend =.007), as did lung allocation score and utilization of post-LTx extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (P =.01 and P <.001, respectively). Compared with those without stroke, patients with stroke had lower survival at 1 month (84% vs 98%), 12 months (61% vs 88%), and 24 months (52% vs 80%) (log-rank test, P <.001 for all). In Cox analysis, acute stroke conferred a high hazard of mortality (hazard ratio, 3.01; 95% CI, 2.67-3.41). Post-LTx extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was the strongest risk factor for stroke (adjusted OR, 2.98; 95% CI, 2.19-4.06). Acute in-hospital stroke post-LTx has been increasing over time and is associated with markedly worse short- and long-term survival. As increasingly sicker patients undergo LTx as well as experience stroke, further research on stroke characteristics, prevention, and management strategies is warranted. [Display omitted] [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2019, the United States experienced a nationwide outbreak of e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI). More than one-half of these patients required admission to an ICU.Research Question: What are the recent literature and expert opinions which inform the diagnosis and management of patients with critical illness with EVALI?Study Design and Methods: To synthesize information critical to pulmonary/critical care specialists in the care of patients with EVALI, this study examined data available from patients hospitalized with EVALI between August 2019 and January 2020; reviewed the clinical course and critical care experience with those patients admitted to the ICU; and compiled opinion of national experts.Results: Of the 2,708 patients with confirmed or probable EVALI requiring hospitalization as of January 21, 2020, a total of 1,604 (59.2%) had data available on ICU admission; of these, 705 (44.0%) were admitted to the ICU and are included in this analysis. The majority of ICU patients required respiratory support (88.5%) and in severe cases required intubation (36.1%) or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (6.7%). The majority (93.0%) of these ICU patients survived to discharge. Review of the clinical course and expert opinion provided insight into: imaging; considerations for bronchoscopy; medical treatment, including use of empiric antibiotics, antiviral agents, and corticosteroids; respiratory support, including considerations for intubation, positioning maneuvers, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation; and patient outcomes.Interpretation: Review of the clinical course of patients with EVALI requiring ICU admission and compilation of expert opinion provided critical insight into pulmonary/critical care-specific considerations for this patient population. Because a large proportion of patients hospitalized with EVALI required ICU admission, it is important to remain prepared to care for patients with EVALI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a progressive disease associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite the negative impact of PAH on quality of life and survival, data on use of specialty palliative care services (PCS) is scarce.Research Question: We sought to evaluate the inpatient use of PCS in patients with PAH.Study Design and Methods: Using the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample, 30,495 admissions with a primary diagnosis of PAH were identified from 2001 through 2017. The primary outcome of interest was temporal trends and predictors of inpatient PCS use in patients with PAH.Results: The inpatient use of PCS was low (2.2%), but increased during the study period from 0.5% in 2001 to 7.6% in 2017, with a significant increase starting in 2009. White race, private insurance, higher socioeconomic status, hospital-specific factors, higher comorbidity burden (Charlson Comorbidity Index), cardiac and noncardiac organ failure, and use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation and noninvasive mechanical ventilation were independent predictors of increased PCS use. PCS use was associated with a higher prevalence of do-not-resuscitate status, a longer length of stay, higher hospitalization costs, and increased in-hospital mortality with less frequent discharges to home, likely because these patients were also sicker (higher comorbidity index and illness acuity).Interpretation: The inpatient use of PCS in patients with PAH is low, but has been increasing over recent years. Despite increased PCS use over time, patient- and hospital-specific disparities in PCS use continue. Further studies evaluating these disparities and the role of PCS in the comprehensive care of PAH patients are warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Influenza-associated aspergillosis (IAA) has been increasingly reported in the literature in recent years, but contemporary large-scale data on the morbidity and mortality burden of IAA are lacking.Research Question: The goal of this study was to estimate the predictors, associations, and outcomes of IAA in the United States.Study Design and Methods: This retrospective cohort study was performed by using the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample database from 2005 to 2014 to identify influenza and IAA hospitalizations. Baseline variables and outcomes were compared between influenza hospitalizations without IAA and those with IAA. These variables were then used to perform an adjusted analysis for obtaining predictors and associations of the diagnosis and in-hospital mortality of IAA.Results: Of the 477,556 hospitalizations identified with the principal diagnosis of influenza, IAA was identified in 823 (0.17%) hospitalizations. The IAA cohort consisted more commonly of 45- to 65-year-olds in urban teaching hospitals with substance abuse. Yearly trends revealed that both influenza and IAA hospitalizations have increased over time, with a peak observed in 2009, the year of the influenza A(H1N1) pandemic. Mortality was higher (20.58% vs 1.36%), average length of stay was longer (17.94 vs 4.05 days), and mean cost per hospitalization was higher ($194,932 vs $24,286) in the IAA cohort compared with the influenza cohort without IAA (P < .005). Solid-organ transplantation, hematologic malignancies, and use of invasive mechanical ventilation were associated with higher odds of IAA, among other factors. Use of invasive mechanical ventilation (adjusted OR, 13.43; P < .005), longer length of stay (adjusted OR, 5.47; P < .005), utilization of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (adjusted OR, 4.99; P = .014), and the group aged 45 to 64 years (adjusted OR, 3.03; P = .012) were associated with higher in-hospital mortality in the IAA cohort.Interpretation: Although IAA is a rare complication of influenza hospitalizations, it is associated with increased all-cause mortality, more extended hospital stays, and higher hospital charges compared with influenza without IAA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although specific interventions previously demonstrated benefit in patients with ARDS, use of these interventions is inconsistent, and patient mortality remains high. The impact of variability in center management practices on ARDS mortality rates remains unknown., Research Question: What is the impact of treatment variability on mortality in patients with moderate to severe ARDS in the United States?, Study Design and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, observational cohort study of mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS and Pao 2 to Fio 2 ratio of ≤ 150 with positive end-expiratory pressure of ≥ 5 cm H 2 O, who were admitted to 29 US centers between October 1, 2016, and April 30, 2017. The primary outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality. Center variation in ventilator management, adjunctive therapy use, and mortality also were assessed., Results: A total of 2,466 patients were enrolled. Median baseline Pao 2 to Fio 2 ratio was 105 (interquartile range, 78.0-129.0). In-hospital 28-day mortality was 40.7%. Initial adherence to lung protective ventilation (LPV; tidal volume, ≤ 6.5 mL/kg predicted body weight; plateau pressure, or when unavailable, peak inspiratory pressure, ≤ 30 mm H 2 O) was 31.4% and varied between centers (0%-65%), as did rates of adjunctive therapy use (27.1%-96.4%), methods used (neuromuscular blockade, prone positioning, systemic steroids, pulmonary vasodilators, and extracorporeal support), and mortality (16.7%-73.3%). Center standardized mortality ratios (SMRs), calculated using baseline patient-level characteristics to derive expected mortality rate, ranged from 0.33 to 1.98. Of the treatment-level factors explored, only center adherence to early LPV was correlated with SMR., Interpretation: Substantial center-to-center variability exists in ARDS management, suggesting that further opportunities for improving ARDS outcomes exist. Early adherence to LPV was associated with lower center mortality and may be a surrogate for overall quality of care processes. Future collaboration is needed to identify additional treatment-level factors influencing center-level outcomes., Trial Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03021824; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)