Search

Introduction: Standard of care for patients with acute ischemic stroke from large vessel occlusion (AIS-LVO) includes prompt evaluation for urgent mechanical thrombectomy (MT) at a comprehensive stroke center (CSC). During the start of the coronavirus 2019 pandemic (COVID-19), there were reports about disruption to emergency department (ED) operations and delays in management of patients with AIS-LVO. In this study we investigate the outcome and operations for patients who were transferred from different EDs to an academic CSC’s critical care resuscitation unit (CCRU), which specializes in expeditious transfer of time-sensitive disease. Methods: This was a pre-post retrospective study using prospectively collected clinical data from our CSC’s stroke registry. Adult patients who were transferred from any ED to the CCRU and underwent MT were eligible. We compared time intervals in the pre-pandemic (PP) period between January 2018– February 2020, such as ED in-out and CCRU arrival-angiography, to those during the pandemic (DP) between March 2020–May 31, 2021. We used classification and regression tree (CART) analysis to identify which time intervals, besides clinical factors, were associated with good neurological outcome (90-day modified Rankin scale 0–2). Results: We analyzed 203 patients: 135 (66.5%) in the PP group and 68 (33.5%) in the DP group. Time from ED triage to computed tomography (difference 7 minutes, 95% confidence interval [CI] −12 to −1, P

Background. Previous research suggests that patients from rural areas who are critically ill with complex medical needs or require time-sensitive subspecialty interventions face worse healthcare outcomes and delays in care when compared to those from urban areas. The critical care resuscitation unit (CCRU) at our quaternary care center was established to expedite the transfer of critically ill patients or those who need time-sensitive intervention. This study investigates if disparities exist in treatments and outcomes among patients transferred to the CCRU from rural versus urban hospitals. Methods. This is a retrospective study of adult, nontrauma patients admitted to the CCRU via interhospital transfer from outside facilities from January 1 to December 31, 2018. Patients transferred from within our institution or with missing clinical data were excluded. Multivariable logistic regressions were performed to measure the association between patients’ demographic and clinical factors with in-hospital mortality. Results. We analyzed 1381 nontrauma patients, and 484 (35%) were from rural areas. Median age was 59 [47–69], and 629 (46%) were female. Median sequential organ failure assessment was 3 ([1–6], p=0.062) for both patients transferred from urban and rural hospitals. There was no significant difference between groups with respect to most demographic and clinical factors, as well as types of interventions after CCRU arrival, including emergent surgical interventions within 12 hours of arrival at the CCRU. Rural patients were more likely to be transferred for care by the acute care emergency surgery service than were patients from urban areas and were transferred over a significantly greater distance (difference of 53 kilometers (km), 95% CI: –58.9–51.7 km, P

Introduction: Previous studies have demonstrated that rapid transfer to definitive care improves the outcomes for many time-sensitive conditions. The critical care resuscitation unit (CCRU) improves the operations of the University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC) by expediting the transfers and resuscitations for critically ill patients who exceed the resources at other facilities. In this study we investigated CCRU transfer patterns to determine patient characteristics and logistical factors that influence bed assignments and transfer to the CCRU. We hypothesized that CCRU physicians prioritize transfer for critically ill patients. Therefore, those patients would be transferred faster. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of all non-traumatic adult patients transferred to the CCRU from other hospitals between January 1–December 31, 2018. The primary outcome was the interval from transfer request to CCRU bed assignment. The secondary outcome was the interval from transfer request to CCRU arrival. We used multivariate logistic regressions to determine associations with the outcomes of interest. Results: A total of 1,741 patients were admitted to the CCRU during the 2018 calendar year. Of those patients, 1,422 were transferred from other facilities and were included in the final analysis. Patients’ mean age was 57 ± 17 years with a median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 3 [interquartile range 1–6]. Median time from transfer request to CCRU bed assignment was 8 (0–70) minutes. A total of 776 (55%) patients underwent surgical intervention after arrival. Using the median transfer request to bed assignment time, we found that patients requiring stroke neurology (odds ratio [OR] 5.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.85–10.86), having higher SOFA score (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.001–1.07), and needing an immediate operation (OR 2.85, 95% CI 1.98–4.13) were associated with immediate bed assignment time (≤8 minutes). Patients who were operated on (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55–0.99) were significantly less likely to have an immediate bed assignment time. Conclusion: The CCRU expedited the transfer of critically ill patients who needed urgent interventions from outside facilities. Higher SOFA scores and the need for urgent neurological or surgical intervention were associated with near-immediate CCRU bed assignment. Other institutions with similar models to the CCRU should perform studies to confirm our observations.

Introduction: Blood pressure measurement is important for treating patients. It is known that there is a discrepancy between cuff blood pressure vs arterial blood pressure measurement. However few studies have explored the clinical significance of discrepancies between cuff (CPB) vs arterial blood pressure (ABP). Our study investigated whether differences in CBP and ABP led to change in management for patients with hypertensive emergencies and factors associated with this change. Methods: This prospective observational study included adult patients admitted between January 2019–May 2021 to a resuscitation unit with hypertensive emergencies. We defined clinical significance of discrepancies as a discrepancy between CBP and ABP that resulted in change of clinical management. We used stepwise multivariable logistic regression to measure associations between clinical factors and outcomes. Results: Of 212 patients we analyzed, 88 (42%) had change in management. Mean difference between CBP and ABP was 17 milligrams of mercury (SD 14). Increasing the existing rate of antihypertensive infusion occurred in 38 (44%) patients. Higher body mass index (odds ratio [OR] 1.04, 95% confidence Interval [CI] 1.0001–1.08, P-value

Background. The critical care resuscitation unit (CCRU) facilitates interhospital transfer (IHT) of critically ill patients for immediate interventions. Due to these patients’ acuity, it is uncommon for patients to be directly discharged home from this unit, but it does happen on occasion. Since there is no literature regarding outcomes of patients being discharged from a resuscitation unit, our study investigated these patients’ outcome at greater than 12 months after being discharged directly from the CCRU. Methods. We performed a retrospective cohort study of all adult patients directly discharged from the CCRU between January 01, 2017, and December 31, 2020. The primary outcome was number of ED visits or hospitalizations within 6 months. Secondary outcomes were number of ED visits or hospitalizations within 6, 12, and >12 months from CCRU discharge. Results. We analyzed 145 patients’ records. Mean age was 56 (standard deviation [SD] ± 19), with a majority being male (72%) and Caucasian (58%). The most common discharge destination was home (139 patients, 96% of total subjects) versus hospice (2%) or nursing facilities (2%). Most patients (55%) did not have any hospital revisits within the first 6 months of discharge, while 31% had 1-2 revisits, and 14% had ≥3 revisits. The most common discharge diagnoses were soft tissue infection (16.5%), aortic dissection (14%), and stroke (11%). Factors which were associated with a greater likelihood of any return hospital visit within 6 months receiving mechanical ventilation during CCRU stay (coefficient −2.23, 95% CI 0.01–0.87, P=0.036), while high hemoglobin on CCRU discharge was associated with no ED revisit (coeff. 0.42, 95% CI 1.15–2.06, P=0.004). Conclusions. Most patients who were discharged from the CCRU did not require any hospital revisits in the first 6 months. Requiring mechanical ventilation and having soft tissue infection were associated with high unplanned hospital revisits following discharge. Further research is needed to validate these findings.

Introduction: Blood pressure (BP) monitoring is an essential component of sepsis management. The Surviving Sepsis Guidelines recommend invasive arterial BP (IABP) monitoring, although the benefits over non-invasive BP (NIBP) monitoring are unclear. This study investigated discrepancies between IABP and NIBP measurement and their clinical significance. We hypothesized that IABP monitoring would be associated with changes in management among patients with sepsis requiring vasopressors. Methods: We performed a retrospective study of adult patients admitted to the critical care resuscitation unit at a quaternary medical center between January 1–December 31, 2017. We included patients with sepsis conditions AND IABP monitoring. We defined a clinically significant BP discrepancy (BPD) between NIBP and IABP measurement as a difference of > 10 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg) AND change of BP management to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥ 65 mm Hg. Results: We analyzed 127 patients. Among 57 (45%) requiring vasopressors, 9 (16%) patients had a clinically significant BPD vs 2 patients (3% odds ratio [OR] 6.4; 95% CI: 1.2–30; P = 0.01) without vasopressors. In multivariable logistic regression, higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (OR 1.33; 95% CI: 1.02–1.73; P = 0.03) and serum lactate (OR 1.27; 95% CI: 1.003–1.60, P = 0.04) were associated with increased likelihood of clinically significant BPD. There were no complications (95% CI: 0–0.02) from arterial catheter insertions. Conclusion: Among our population of septic patients, the use of vasopressors was associated with increased odds of a clinically significant blood pressure discrepancy between IABP and NIBP measurement. Additionally, higher SOFA score and serum lactate were associated with higher likelihood of clinically significant blood pressure discrepancy. Further studies are needed to confirm our observations and investigate the benefits vs the risk of harm of IABP monitoring in patients with sepsis.

Background. The 6-bed critical care resuscitation unit (CCRU) is a unique and specialized intensive care unit (ICU) that streamlines the interhospital transfer (IHT—transfer between different hospitals) process for a wide range of patients with critical illness or time-sensitive disease. Previous studies showed the unit successfully increased the number of ICU admissions while reducing the time of transfer in the first year of its establishment. However, its sustainability is unknown. Methods. This was a descriptive retrospective analysis of adult, non-trauma patients who were transferred to an 800-bed quaternary medical center. Patients transferred to our medical center between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018 were eligible. We used interrupted time series (ITS) and descriptive analyses to describe the trend and compare the transfer process between patients who were transferred to the CCRU versus those transferred to other adult inpatient units. Results. From 2014 to 2018, 50,599 patients were transferred to our medical center; 31,582 (62%) were non-trauma adults. Compared with the year prior to the opening of the CCRU, ITS showed a significant increase in IHT after the establishment of the CCRU. The CCRU received a total of 7,788 (25%) IHTs during this period or approximately 20% of total transfers per year. Most transfers (41%) occurred via ground. Median and interquartile range [IQR] of transfer times to other ICUs (156 [65–1027] minutes) were longer than the CCRU (46 [22–139] minutes, P

Introduction: Patients with spontaneous intracranial hemorrhage (sICH) are associated with high mortality and require early neurosurgical interventions. At our academic referral center, the neurocritical care unit (NCCU) receives patients directly from referring facilities. However, when no NCCU bed is immediately available, patients are initially admitted to the critical care resuscitation unit (CCRU). We hypothesized that the CCRU expedites transfer of sICH patients and facilitates timely external ventricular drain (EVD) placement comparable to the NCCU. Methods: This is a pre-post study of adult patients transferred with sICH and EVD placement. Patients admitted between January 2011–July 2013 (2011 Control) were compared with patients admitted either to the CCRU or the NCCU (2013 Control) between August 2013–September 2015. The primary outcome was time interval from arrival at any intensive care units (ICU) to time of EVD placement (ARR-EVD). Secondary outcomes included time interval from emergency department transfer request to arrival, and in-hospital mortality. We assessed clinical association by multivariable logistic regressions. Results: We analyzed 259 sICH patients who received EVDs: 123 (48%) CCRU; 81 (31%) 2011 Control; and 55 (21%) in the 2013 Control. The groups had similar characteristics, age, disease severity, and mortality. Median ARR-EVD time was 170 minutes [106–311] for CCRU patients; 241 minutes [152–490] (p < 0.01) for 2011 Control; and 210 minutes [139–574], p = 0.28) for 2013 Control. Median transfer request-arrival time for CCRU patients was significantly less than both control groups. Multivariable logistic regression showed each minute delay in ARR-EVD was associated with 0.03% increased likelihood of death (odds ratio 1.0003, 95% confidence interval, 1.0001–1.006, p = 0.043). Conclusion: Patients admitted to the CCRU had shorter transfer times when compared to patients admitted directly to other ICUs. Compared to the specialty NCCU, the CCRU had similar time interval from arrival to EVD placement. A resuscitation unit like the CCRU can complement the specialty unit NCCU in caring for patients with sICH who require EVDs.

Introduction: Chest radiography (CXR) is commonly used to confirm the proper placement of above-diaphragm central venous catheters (CVCs) and to detect associated complications. Recent studies have shown that point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) has better sensitivity and is faster than CXR for these purposes. We were interested in documenting how often emergency medicine and critical care practitioners perform POCUS to confirm proper CVC positioning as well as their confidence in performing it. Methods: We surveyed members of our state's chapters of the College of Emergency Physicians and the Society of Critical Care Medicine between April and December 2018. Our primary outcome was the percentage of providers who would agree to perform only POCUS, forgoing CXR, for confirmation of CVC position. We performed multivariable logistic regressions to measure associations between demographic, clinical information, and outcomes. Results: One hundred thirty-six providers participated (a 25% participation rate). Their specialties were as follows: emergency medicine, 75%; critical care, 13%; and emergency medicine/critical care, 11%. Thirty-one percent would use POCUS only for CVC confirmation, while 42% were confident in performing POCUS for this purpose. Multivariable logistic regressions showed that performing more non-procedural ultrasound examinations was associated with a higher likelihood of agreeing to perform POCUS only (OR, 2.9; 95% CI: 1.3–6.3). Forty-six percent of relevant comments suggested more training to increase the use of POCUS. Conclusion: Participants in this study did not frequently use POCUS for CVC confirmation. Designers of training curricula should consider including more instruction in the use of POCUS to confirm proper CVC placement and to detect complications.

Background: The most critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may require advanced support modalities, such as veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO). A systematic, methodical approach to a respiratory pandemic on a state and institutional level is critical. Methods: We conducted retrospective review of our institutional response to the COVID-19 pandemic, focusing on the creation of a dedicated airlock biocontainment unit (BCU) to treat patients with refractory COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS). Data were collected through conversations with staff on varying levels in the BCU, those leading the effort to make the BCU and hospital incident command system, email communications regarding logistic changes being implemented, and a review of COVID-19 patient census at our institution from March through June 2020. Results: Over 2100 patients were successfully admitted to system hospitals; 29% of these patients required critical care. The response to this respiratory pandemic augmented intensive care physician staffing, created a 70-member nursing team, and increased the extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) capability by nearly 200%. During this time period, 40 COVID-19 patients on VV-ECMO were managed in the BCU. Challenges in an airlock unit included communication, scarcity of resources, double-bunking, and maintaining routine care. Conclusions: Preparing for a surge of critically ill patients during a pandemic can be a daunting task. The implementation of a coordinated, system-level approach can help with the allocation of resources as needed. Focusing on established strengths of hospitals within the system can guide triage based on individual patient needs. The management of ECMO patients is still a specialty care, and a systematic and hospital based approach requiring an ECMO team composed of multiple experienced individuals is paramount during a respiratory viral pandemic.

(1) Background: COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS) has several distinctions from traditional acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); however, patients with refractory respiratory failure may still benefit from veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) support. We report our challenges caring for CARDS patients on VV-ECMO and alterations to traditional management strategies. (2) Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of our institutional strategies for managing patients with COVID-19 who required VV-ECMO in a dedicated airlock biocontainment unit (BCU), from March to June 2020. The data collected included the time course of admission, VV-ECMO run, ventilator length, hospital length of stay, and major events related to bleeding, such as pneumothorax and tracheostomy. The dispensation of sedation agents and trial therapies were obtained from institutional pharmacy tracking. A descriptive statistical analysis was performed. (3) Results: Forty COVID-19 patients on VV-ECMO were managed in the BCU during this period, from which 21 survived to discharge and 19 died. The criteria for ECMO initiation was altered for age, body mass index, and neurologic status/cardiac arrest. All cannulations were performed with a bedside ultrasound-guided percutaneous technique. Ventilator and ECMO management were routed in an ultra-lung protective approach, though varied based on clinical setting and provider experience. There was a high incidence of pneumothorax (n = 19). Thirty patients had bedside percutaneous tracheostomy, with more procedural-related bleeding complications than expected. A higher use of sedation was noted. The timing of decannulation was also altered, given the system constraints. A variety of trial therapies were utilized, and their effectiveness is yet to be determined. (4) Conclusions: Even in a high-volume ECMO center, there are challenges in caring for an expanded capacity of patients during a viral respiratory pandemic. Though institutional resources and expertise may vary, it is paramount to proceed with insightful planning, the recognition of challenges, and the dynamic application of lessons learned when facing a surge of critically ill patients.

Introduction: Patients who develop occult septic shock (OSS) are associated with worse outcomes than those with early septic shock (ESS). Patients with skin and soft tissue infection (SSTI) may have underlying organ dysfunction due to OSS, yet the prevalence and the outcomes of patients with SSTI and early versus occult shock have not been described. This study compared the clinical characteristics of SSTI patients and the prevalence of having no septic shock (NSS), ESS, or OSS. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed charts of adult patients who were transferred from any emergency department to our academic center between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2016. Outcomes of interest were the development of OSS and acute kidney injury (AKI). We performed logistic regressions to measure the association between clinical factors with the outcomes and created probability plots to show the relationship between key clinical variables and outcomes of OSS or AKI. Results: Among 269 patients, 218 (81%) patients had NSS, 16 (6%) patients had ESS, and 35 (13%) patients had OSS. Patients with OSS had higher mean serum lactate concentrations than patients with NSS (3.5 vs. 2.1 mmol/L, P < 0.01). Higher sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score was associated with higher likelihood of developing OSS (odds ratio [OR] 1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.23–1.62, P < 0.001). NSS was associated with very low odds of developing AKI (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.08–0.33, P < 0.001). Conclusions: 13% of the patients with SSTI developed OSS. Patients with OSS had elevated serum lactate concentration and higher SOFA score than those with NSS. Increased SOFA score is a predictor for the development of OSS.