Search

Objectives: The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has disrupted critical care services across the world. In anticipation of surges in the need for critical care services, governments implemented "lockdown" measures to preserve and create added critical care capacity. Herein, we describe the impact of lockdown measures on the utilization of critical care services and patient outcomes compared with nonlockdown epochs in a large integrated health region.Design: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study.Setting: Seventeen adult ICUs across 14 acute care hospitals in Alberta, Canada.Patients: All adult (age ≥ 15 yr) patients admitted to any study ICU.Interventions: None.Measurements and Main Results: The main exposure was ICU admission during "lockdown" occurring between March 16, 2020, and June 30, 2020. This period was compared with two nonpandemic control periods: "year prior" (March 16, 2019, to June 30, 2019) and "pre lockdown" immediately prior (November 30, 2019, to March 15, 2020). The primary outcome was the number of ICU admissions. Secondary outcomes included the following: daily measures of ICU utilization, ICU duration of stay, avoidable delay in ICU discharge, and occupancy; and patient outcomes. Mixed multilevel negative binomial regression and interrupted time series regression were used to compare rates of ICU admissions between periods. Multivariable regressions were used to compare patient outcomes between periods. During the lockdown, there were 3,649 ICU admissions (34.1 [8.0] ICU admissions/d), compared with 4,125 (38.6 [9.3]) during the prelockdown period and 3,919 (36.6 [8.7]) during the year prior. Mean bed occupancy declined significantly during the lockdown compared with the nonpandemic periods (78.7%, 95.9%, and 96.4%; p < 0.001). Avoidable ICU discharge delay also decreased significantly (42.0%, 53.2%, and 58.3%; p < 0.001). During the lockdown, patients were younger, had fewer comorbid diseases, had higher acuity, and were more likely to be medical admissions compared with the nonpandemic periods. Adjusted ICU and hospital mortality and ICU and hospital lengths of stay were significantly lower during the lockdown compared with nonpandemic periods.Conclusions: The coronavirus disease 2019 lockdown resulted in substantial changes to ICU utilization, including a reduction in admissions, occupancy, patient lengths of stay, and mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is conflicting evidence on the association between afterhours discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital mortality. We examined the effects of afterhours discharge, including the potential effect of residual organ dysfunction, on hospital mortality in a large integrated health region. Methods: We performed a multi-center retrospective cohort study of 10,463 adults discharged from 9 mixed medical/surgical ICUs in Alberta from June 2012 to December 2014. We applied a 2-stage modeling strategy to investigate the association between afterhours discharge (19:00h to 07:59h) and post-ICU hospital mortality. We applied mixed-effect multi-variable linear regression to assess the relationship between discharge organ dysfunction and afterhours discharge. We then applied mixed-effect multi-variable logistic regression to evaluate the direct, indirect and integrated associations of afterhours discharge on hospital mortality and hospitalization duration. Results: Of 10,463 patients, 23.7% (n = 2,480) were discharged afterhours, of which 27.4% occurred on a holiday or weekend. This varied significantly by ICU size, type, and site. Patients discharged afterhours were more likely medical admissions, had greater multi-morbidity and illness acuity. A greater average SOFA score in the 72 hours prior to ICU discharge was not associated with afterhours discharge. However, a greater average SOFA score was associated with hospital mortality (adjusted-odds ratio [OR], 1.23; 95% CI, 1.18-1.28). Afterhours discharge was associated with higher hospital mortality (adjusted-OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.01-1.39), increased hospital stay (adjusted-risk ratio [RR], 1.10; 95% CI, 1.09-1.11) and increased post-ICU stay (adjusted-RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.14-1.17) when compared with workhours discharge. Conclusions: Afterhours discharge is common, occurring in 1 in 4 discharges, and is widely variable across ICUs. Patients discharged afterhours have greater risk of hospital mortality and prolonged hospitalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a correction notice for an article titled "Determinants of fluid use and the association between volume of fluid used and effect of balanced solutions on mortality in critically ill patients: a secondary analysis of the BaSICS trial" published in the journal Intensive Care Medicine. The correction states that the given name of the third author was incorrectly listed as "Vivivane" and should be "Viviane." The original article has been corrected, and the authors apologize for the mistake. The publisher, Springer Nature, remains neutral regarding jurisdictional claims and institutional affiliations. The authors of the article are Fernando G. Zampieri, Flavia R. Machado, Viviane C. Veiga, Luciano C. P. Azevedo, Sean M. Bagshaw, Lucas P. Damiani, and Alexandre B. Cavalcanti. [Extracted from the article]

Objective: Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Evidence examining commonly used drug treatments remains uncertain. We assessed the comparative effectiveness of inpatient treatments for HRS by performing a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs).Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception.Study Selection and Data Extraction: Pairs of reviewers independently identified eligible RCTs that enrolled patients with type 1 or 2 HRS. Pairs of reviewers independently extracted data.Data Synthesis: We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool for RCTs and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations approach. Our main outcomes are all-cause mortality, HRS reversal, and serious adverse events. Of 3,079 citations, we included 26 RCTs examining 1,736 patients. Based on pooled analysis, terlipressin increases HRS reversal compared with placebo (142 reversals per 1,000 [95% CI, >87.7 to >210.9]; high certainty). Norepinephrine (112.7 reversals per 1,000 [95% CI, 52.6 to >192.3]) may increase HRS reversal compared with placebo (low certainty). The effect of midodrine+octreotide (67.8 reversals per 1,000 [95% CI, <2.8 to >177.4]; very low) on HRS reversal is uncertain. Terlipressin may reduce mortality compared with placebo (93.7 fewer deaths [95% CI, 168.7 to <12.5]; low certainty). Terlipressin probably increases the risk of serious adverse events compared with placebo (20.4 more events per 1,000 [95% CI, <5.1 to >51]; moderate certainty).Conclusions: Terlipressin increases HRS reversal compared with placebo. Terlipressin may reduce mortality. Until access to terlipressin improves, initial norepinephrine administration may be more appropriate than initial trial with midodrine+octreotide. Our review has the potential to inform future guideline and practice in the treatment of HRS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]