Search

We sought to determine whether hyperinflammatory acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and hypoinflammatory ARDS, which have been associated with differences in plasma biomarkers and mortality risk, also display differences in bronchoalveolar lavage (BALF) biomarker profiles. We then described the relationship between hyperinflammatory ARDS and hypoinflammatory ARDS to novel subphenotypes derived using BALF biomarkers.Secondary analysis of a randomized control trial testing omega-3 fatty acids for the treatment of ARDS.Five North American intensive care units.Adults (n = 88) on invasive mechanical ventilation within 48 hours of ARDS onset.None.We classified 57 patients as hypoinflammatory and 31 patients as hyperinflammatory using a previously validated logistic regression model. Of 14 BALF biomarkers analyzed, interleukin-6 and granulocyte colony stimulating factor were higher among patients with hyperinflammatory ARDS compared with hypoinflammatory ARDS, though the differences were not robust to multiple hypothesis testing. We then performed a de novo latent class analysis of the 14 BALF biomarkers to identify two classes well separated by alveolar profiles. Class 2 (n = 63) displayed significantly higher interleukin-6, von Willebrand factor, soluble programmed cell death receptor-1, % neutrophils, and other biomarkers of inflammation compared with class 1 (n = 25). These BALF-derived classes had minimal overlap with the plasma-derived hyperinflammatory and hypoinflammatory classes, and the majority of both plasma-derived classes were in BALF-derived class 2 and characterized by high BALF biomarkers. Additionally, the BALF-derived classes were associated with clinical severity of pulmonary disease, with class 2 exhibiting lower Pao2 to Fio2 and distinct ventilatory parameters, unlike the plasma-derived classes, which were only related to nonpulmonary organ dysfunction.Hyperinflammatory and hypoinflammatory ARDS subphenotypes did not display significant differences in alveolar biologic profiles. Identifying ARDS subgroups using BALF measurements is a unique approach that complements information obtained from plasma, with potential to inform enrichment strategies in trials of lung-targeted therapies.

Few surveys have focused on physician moral distress, burnout, and professional fulfilment. We assessed physician wellness and coping during the COVID-19 pandemic.Cross-sectional survey using four validated instruments.Sixty-two sites in Canada and the United States.Attending physicians (adult, pediatric; intensivist, nonintensivist) who worked in North American ICUs.None.We analysed 431 questionnaires (43.3% response rate) from 25 states and eight provinces. Respondents were predominantly male (229 [55.6%]) and in practice for 11.8 ± 9.8 years. Compared with prepandemic, respondents reported significant intrapandemic increases in days worked/mo, ICU bed occupancy, and self-reported moral distress (240 [56.9%]) and burnout (259 [63.8%]). Of the 10 top-ranked items that incited moral distress, most pertained to regulatory/organizational ( n = 6) or local/institutional ( n = 2) issues or both ( n = 2). Average moral distress (95.6 ± 66.9), professional fulfilment (6.5 ± 2.1), and burnout scores (3.6 ± 2.0) were moderate with 227 physicians (54.6%) meeting burnout criteria. A significant dose-response existed between COVID-19 patient volume and moral distress scores. Physicians who worked more days/mo and more scheduled in-house nightshifts, especially combined with more unscheduled in-house nightshifts, experienced significantly more moral distress. One in five physicians used at least one maladaptive coping strategy. We identified four coping profiles (active/social, avoidant, mixed/ambivalent, infrequent) that were associated with significant differences across all wellness measures.Despite moderate intrapandemic moral distress and burnout, physicians experienced moderate professional fulfilment. However, one in five physicians used at least one maladaptive coping strategy. We highlight potentially modifiable factors at individual, institutional, and regulatory levels to enhance physician wellness.

BackgroundTo help mitigate the burden of health care on US economy, public policymakers and health care legislation have been focusing on reducing hospital readmissions. Respiratory complications have been identified among the commonest of adverse events in neurologic patients. The goal of our study was to better understand respiratory complications and their contribution to rehospitalizations in patients with seizures.MethodsWe used the 2013 Nationwide Readmission Database to analyze unplanned 30-day readmission rate (30RR). The study population comprised of patients with index hospital discharge diagnosis of generalized convulsive epilepsy and status epilepticus. Patients under 18 years of age, who died during hospitalization or who had missing demographic data, were excluded. Patients hospitalized in December were also excluded due to lack of 30-day follow-up. The primary outcome of interest was 30-day readmission. The causes of readmission were determined by corresponding International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes.ResultsThe 30RR was highest in patients with index hospitalization discharge diagnosis of status epilepticus, followed by generalized convulsive epilepsy (intractable), followed by generalized convulsive epilepsy (nonintractable). While seizure was the most common reason for readmission, contribution of respiratory complications to readmissions was 7.85%, 12.39%, and 6.93%, respectively. Pneumonia/aspiration pneumonitis and respiratory insufficiency accounted for the majority of the readmissions in all subgroups.ConclusionsRespiratory complications are the leading nonseizure cause of 30-day unplanned readmissions in patients with generalized convulsive epilepsy and status epilepticus. Further research on identifying appropriate interventions to reduce readmissions from respiratory causes may improve outcomes for patients in these epilepsy subgroups.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., IMPORTANCE: At the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, medications repurposed for management of coronavirus disease 2019 were used in the absence of clinical trial evidence. OBJECTIVES: To describe the variation and evolution in use of repurposed medications for coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational cohort study of adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021, across 76 United States and international hospitals within the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study coronavirus disease 2019 registry. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hospital variation was quantified using multivariable adjusted random effects logistic regression models and unsupervised clustering. Repurposed medications included antivirals, corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, immunomodulators, and therapeutic dose anticoagulants. RESULTS: Among 7,069 adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019, 1,979 (28%) received antivirals, 2,876 (41%) received corticosteroids, 1,779 (25%) received hydroxychloroquine, 620 (9%) received immunomodulators, and 2,154 (31%) received therapeutic dose anticoagulants. Contribution of hospital site to risk-adjusted variation was 46% for antivirals, 30% for corticosteroids, 48% for hydroxychloroquine, 46% for immunomodulators, and 52% for therapeutic dose anticoagulants. Compared with the early pandemic, the later pandemic practice phenotypes converged with increased use of antivirals (odds ratio, 3.14; 95% CI, 2.40–4.10) and corticosteroids (odds ratio, 5.43; 95% CI, 4.23–6.97), with decreased use of hydroxychloroquine (odds ratio, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01–0.04) and immunomodulators (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.34–0.70). There was no clinically significant change in the use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01–1.02). There were no differences in risk-adjusted mortality between hospitals with high rates of repurposed medication use compared with hospitals with low rates of use. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Hospital variation in the use of repurposed medications varied widely across hospitals early in the pandemic and later converged with the emergence of randomized clinical trials. Platforms developed for rapid activation and enrollment in clinical trials of repurposed medications are needed prior to the next pandemic to expedite effective, evidence-based practice.

The objective of this study was to determine the characteristics and survival rates of patients receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation more than once during a single hospitalization.We analyzed inpatient Medicare data from 1992 to 2005 identifying beneficiaries 65 years old and older who underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation more than once during the same hospitalization.We examined patient and hospital characteristics, survival to hospital discharge, factors associated with survival to discharge, median survival, and discharge disposition.We analyzed data from 421,394 patients who underwent cardiopulmonary resuscitation during the study period. Four lakh thirteen thousand four hundred three patients received cardiopulmonary resuscitation once during a hospitalization and survival was 17.7% with median survival after discharge being 20.6 months. There were 7,991 patients who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation more than once during the same hospitalization; 8.8% survived the efforts, and median survival after leaving the hospital was 10.5 months. Patients who received more than one episode of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during a hospitalization were significantly less likely to go home after discharge. Greater age, black race, higher burden of chronic illness, and receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a larger or metropolitan hospital were associated with lower survival among patients receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation more than once.Undergoing multiple cardiopulmonary resuscitation events during a hospitalization is associated with substantially reduced short- and long-term survival compared with patients who undergo cardiopulmonary resuscitation once. This information may be useful to clinicians when discussing end-of-life care with patients and families of patients who have experienced return of spontaneous circulation following in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation but remain at risk for recurrent cardiac arrest.

Administration of eicosapentaenoic acid and docosahexanoic acid, omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil, has been associated with improved patient outcomes in acute lung injury when studied in a commercial enteral formula. However, fish oil has not been tested independently in acute lung injury. We therefore sought to determine whether enteral fish oil alone would reduce pulmonary and systemic inflammation in patients with acute lung injury.Phase II randomized controlled trial.Five North American medical centers.Mechanically ventilated patients with acute lung injury ≥18 yrs of age.Subjects were randomized to receive enteral fish oil (9.75 g eicosapentaenoic acid and 6.75 g docosahexanoic acid daily) or saline placebo for up to 14 days.Bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and blood were collected at baseline (day 0), day 4 ± 1, and day 8 ± 1. The primary end point was bronchoalveolar lavage fluid interleukin-8 levels. Forty-one participants received fish oil and 49 received placebo. Enteral fish oil administration was associated with increased serum eicosapentaenoic acid concentration (p.0001). However, there was no significant difference in the change in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid interleukin-8 from baseline to day 4 (p = .37) or day 8 (p = .55) between treatment arms. There were no appreciable improvements in other bronchoalveolar lavage fluid or plasma biomarkers in the fish oil group compared with the control group. Similarly, organ failure score, ventilator-free days, intensive care unit-free days, and 60-day mortality did not differ between the groups.Fish oil did not reduce biomarkers of pulmonary or systemic inflammation in patients with acute lung injury, and the results do not support the conduct of a larger clinical trial in this population with this agent. This experimental approach is feasible for proof-of-concept studies evaluating new treatments for acute lung injury.

Hypermetabolism and malnourishment are common in the intensive care unit. Malnutrition is associated with increased morbidity and mortality, and most intensive care unit patients receive specialized nutrition therapy to attenuate the effects of malnourishment. However, the optimal amount of energy to deliver is unknown, with some studies suggesting that full calorie feeding improves clinical outcomes but other studies concluding that caloric intake may not be important in determining outcome. In this narrative review, we discuss the studies of critically ill patients that examine the relationship between dose of nutrition and clinically important outcomes. Observational studies suggest that achieving targeted caloric intake might not be necessary since provision of approximately 25% to 66% of goal calories may be sufficient. Randomized controlled trials comparing early aggressive use of enteral nutrition compared with delayed, less aggressive use of enteral nutrition suggest that providing increased calories with early, aggressive enteral nutrition is associated with improved clinical outcomes. However, energy provision with parenteral nutrition, either instead of or supplemental to enteral nutrition, does not offer additional benefits. In summary, the optimal amount of calories to provide critically ill patients is unclear given the limitations of the existing data. However, evidence suggests that improving adequacy of enteral nutrition by moving intake closer to goal calories might be associated with a clinical benefit. There is no role for supplemental parenteral nutrition to increase caloric delivery in the early phase of critical illness. Further high-quality evidence from randomized trials investigating the optimal amount of energy intake in intensive care unit patients is needed.

The quality of family-clinician communication in the intensive care unit is often inadequate, but little is known about specific clinician communication behaviors that might improve family satisfaction. In this exploratory analysis, we hypothesized that clinicians' communication behaviors providing emotional support to families during intensive care unit conferences would be associated with increased family satisfaction.We audiotaped 51 intensive care unit family conferences in which withholding or withdrawing life support was discussed or bad news was delivered. Emotional support techniques used by clinicians during each conference were identified and coded using grounded theory.Four Seattle hospitals.Family members of critically ill patients.Questionnaires rating satisfaction with communication were completed by 169 family members.Linear regression with generalized estimating equation methods was used to analyze the association between the frequency of clinicians' emotionally supportive statements and family satisfaction. Increasing frequency of three types of clinicians' statements during family conferences was associated with increased family satisfaction: a) assurances that the patient will not be abandoned before death (p=.015); b) assurances that the patient will be comfortable and will not suffer (p=.029); and c) support for family's decisions about end- of-life care, including support for family's decision to withdraw or not to withdraw life-support (p=.005).Most family members participating in this study were quite satisfied with the communication in the family conferences. Specific clinician communication behaviors are associated with increased family satisfaction during family conferences among family members who are willing to have a family conference recorded. Our results suggest that clinicians in the intensive care unit may improve the experiences of families of critically ill patients by providing explicit support for decisions made by a family with regard to end-of-life care and by assuring families continuity of high-quality care with particular attention to the patient's comfort.

To identify risk factors for group B streptococcus (GBS) colonization in pregnancy, hypothesizing that health care workers may have increased risk.Population-based, case-control study comparing 40,459 cases of GBS colonization, identified from Washington State birth certificate data linked to hospital discharge data for live births between 1997 and 2002, with 84,268 controls matched by year of delivery by multivariable logistic regression.After adjustment for confounders, the following characteristics were independently associated with increased maternal GBS colonization: health care occupation (odds ratio [OR] 1.22, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.07-1.38), black race (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.36-1.74), overweight (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.12), obesity (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.13-1.28), severe obesity (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.28-1.63), median income greater than lowest quintile (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.20-1.39 for fifth versus first quintile), some high school education (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.05-1.40), high school graduate (OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.16-1.56), and adequate prenatal care (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.06-1.24). Hispanic women (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.80-0.96) and smokers (OR for 1-10 cigarettes per day 0.90, 95% CI 0.83-0.97) had a decreased odds of colonization.Health care workers, black women, and women with high body mass index may be at greater risk of GBS colonization in pregnancy. However, any increases in risk are modest and the association between a health care occupation and GBS colonization needs to be investigated further.

Acute pancreatitis represents a spectrum of disease ranging from a mild, self-limited course requiring only brief hospitalization to a rapidly progressive, fulminant illness resulting in the multiple organ dysfunction syndrome (MODS), with or without accompanying sepsis. The goal of this consensus statement is to provide recommendations regarding the management of the critically ill patient with severe acute pancreatitis (SAP).An international consensus conference was held in April 2004 to develop recommendations for the management of the critically ill patient with SAP. Evidence-based recommendations were developed by a jury of ten persons representing surgery, internal medicine, and critical care after conferring with experts and reviewing the pertinent literature to address specific questions concerning the management of patients with severe acute pancreatitis.There were a total of 23 recommendations developed to provide guidance to critical care clinicians caring for the patient with SAP. Topics addressed were as follows. 1) When should the patient admitted with acute pancreatitis be monitored in an ICU or stepdown unit? 2) Should patients with severe acute pancreatitis receive prophylactic antibiotics? 3) What is the optimal mode and timing of nutritional support for the patient with SAP? 4) What are the indications for surgery in acute pancreatitis, what is the optimal timing for intervention, and what are the roles for less invasive approaches including percutaneous drainage and laparoscopy? 5) Under what circumstances should patients with gallstone pancreatitis undergo interventions for clearance of the bile duct? 6) Is there a role for therapy targeting the inflammatory response in the patient with SAP? Some of the recommendations included a recommendation against the routine use of prophylactic systemic antibacterial or antifungal agents in patients with necrotizing pancreatitis. The jury also recommended against pancreatic debridement or drainage for sterile necrosis, limiting debridement or drainage to those with infected pancreatic necrosis and/or abscess confirmed by radiologic evidence of gas or results or fine needle aspirate. Furthermore, the jury recommended that whenever possible, operative necrosectomy and/or drainage be delayed at least 2-3 wk to allow for demarcation of the necrotic pancreas.This consensus statement provides 23 different recommendations concerning the management of patients with SAP. These recommendations differ in several ways from previous recommendations because of the release of recent data concerning the management of these patients and also because of the focus on the critically ill patient. There are a number of important questions that could not be answered using an evidence-based approach, and areas in need of further research were identified.