Search

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to: 1) determine the association between vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 6 hours and first 24 hours after the onset of septic shock and 30-day in-hospital mortality; 2) determine whether the effect of vasopressor dosing intensity varies by fluid resuscitation volume; and 3) determine whether the effect of vasopressor dosing intensity varies by dosing titration pattern.Design: Multicenter prospective cohort study between September 2017 and February 2018. Vasopressor dosing intensity was defined as the total vasopressor dose infused across all vasopressors in norepinephrine equivalents.Setting: Thirty-three hospital sites in the United States (n = 32) and Jordan (n = 1).Patients: Consecutive adults requiring admission to the ICU with septic shock treated with greater than or equal to 1 vasopressor within 24 hours of shock onset.Interventions: None.Measurements and Main Results: Out of 1,639 patients screened, 616 were included. Norepinephrine (93%) was the most common vasopressor. Patients received a median of 3,400 mL (interquartile range, 1,851-5,338 mL) during the 24 hours after shock diagnosis. The median vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 24 hours of shock onset was 8.5 μg/min norepinephrine equivalents (3.4-18.1 μg/min norepinephrine equivalents). In the first 6 hours, increasing vasopressor dosing intensity was associated with increased odds ratio of 30-day in-hospital mortality, with the strength of association dependent on concomitant fluid administration. Over the entire 24 hour period, every 10 μg/min increase in vasopressor dosing intensity was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.16-1.53), and this association did not vary with the amount of fluid administration. Compared to an early high/late low vasopressor dosing strategy, an early low/late high or sustained high vasopressor dosing strategy was associated with higher mortality.Conclusions: Increasing vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 24 hours after septic shock was associated with increased mortality. This association varied with the amount of early fluid administration and the timing of vasopressor titration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To characterize the association between the use of physiologic assessment (central venous pressure, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure, stroke volume variation, pulse pressure variation, passive leg raise test, and critical care ultrasound) with fluid and vasopressor administration 24 hours after shock onset and with in-hospital mortality.Design: Multicenter prospective cohort study between September 2017 and February 2018.Settings: Thirty-four hospitals in the United States and Jordan.Patients: Consecutive adult patients requiring admission to the ICU with systolic blood pressure less than or equal to 90 mm Hg, mean arterial blood pressure less than or equal to 65 mm Hg, or need for vasopressor.Interventions: None.Measurement and Main Results: Of 1,639 patients enrolled, 39% had physiologic assessments. Use of physiologic assessment was not associated with cumulative fluid administered within 24 hours of shock onset, after accounting for baseline characteristics, etiology and location of shock, ICU types, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III, and hospital (beta coefficient, 0.04; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.15). In multivariate analysis, the use of physiologic assessment was associated with a higher likelihood of vasopressor use (adjusted odds ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.45-2.71) and higher 24-hour cumulative vasopressor dosing as norepinephrine equivalent (beta coefficient, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19-0.55). The use of vasopressor was associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.27-2.78). In-hospital mortality was not associated with the use of physiologic assessment (adjusted odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.63-1.18).Conclusions: The use of physiologic assessment in the 24 hours after shock onset is associated with increased use of vasopressor but not with fluid administration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Vitamin D deficiency is a common, potentially reversible contributor to morbidity and mortality among critically ill patients. The potential benefits of vitamin D supplementation in acute critical illness require further study.Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of early vitamin D3 supplementation in critically ill, vitamin D-deficient patients who were at high risk for death. Randomization occurred within 12 hours after the decision to admit the patient to an intensive care unit. Eligible patients received a single enteral dose of 540,000 IU of vitamin D3 or matched placebo. The primary end point was 90-day all-cause, all-location mortality.Results: A total of 1360 patients were found to be vitamin D-deficient during point-of-care screening and underwent randomization. Of these patients, 1078 had baseline vitamin D deficiency (25-hydroxyvitamin D level, <20 ng per milliliter [50 nmol per liter]) confirmed by subsequent testing and were included in the primary analysis population. The mean day 3 level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D was 46.9±23.2 ng per milliliter (117±58 nmol per liter) in the vitamin D group and 11.4±5.6 ng per milliliter (28±14 nmol per liter) in the placebo group (difference, 35.5 ng per milliliter; 95% confidence interval [CI], 31.5 to 39.6). The 90-day mortality was 23.5% in the vitamin D group (125 of 531 patients) and 20.6% in the placebo group (109 of 528 patients) (difference, 2.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.1 to 7.9; P = 0.26). There were no clinically important differences between the groups with respect to secondary clinical, physiological, or safety end points. The severity of vitamin D deficiency at baseline did not affect the association between the treatment assignment and mortality.Conclusions: Early administration of high-dose enteral vitamin D3 did not provide an advantage over placebo with respect to 90-day mortality or other, nonfatal outcomes among critically ill, vitamin D-deficient patients. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; VIOLET ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03096314.). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Sepsis-associated immunosuppression increases hospital-acquired infection and viral reactivation risk. A key underlying mechanism is programmed cell death protein-1 (PD-1)-mediated T-cell function impairment. This is one of the first clinical safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) assessments of the anti-PD-1 antibody nivolumab and its effect on immune biomarkers in sepsis.Methods: Randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, Phase 1b study in 31 adults at 10 US hospital ICUs with sepsis diagnosed ≥ 24 h before study treatment, ≥ 1 organ dysfunction, and absolute lymphocyte count ≤ 1.1 × 103 cells/μL. Participants received one nivolumab dose [480 mg (n = 15) or 960 mg (n = 16)]; follow-up was 90 days. Primary endpoints were safety and PK parameters.Results: Twelve deaths occurred [n = 6 per study arm; 40% (480 mg) and 37.5% (960 mg)]. Serious AEs occurred in eight participants [n = 1, 6.7% (480 mg); n = 7, 43.8% (960 mg)]. AEs considered by the investigator to be possibly drug-related and immune-mediated occurred in five participants [n = 2, 13.3% (480 mg); n = 3, 18.8% (960 mg)]. Mean ± SD terminal half-life was 14.7 ± 5.3 (480 mg) and 15.8 ± 7.9 (960 mg) days. All participants maintained > 90% receptor occupancy (RO) 28 days post-infusion. Median (Q1, Q3) mHLA-DR levels increased to 11,531 (6528, 19,495) and 11,449 (6225, 16,698) mAbs/cell in the 480- and 960-mg arms by day 14, respectively. Pro-inflammatory cytokine levels did not increase.Conclusions: In this sepsis population, nivolumab administration did not result in unexpected safety findings or indicate any 'cytokine storm'. The PK profile maintained RO > 90% for ≥ 28 days. Further efficacy and safety studies are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER (CLINICALTRIALS.GOV): NCT02960854. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is the most severe form of acute lung injury, responsible for high mortality and long-term morbidity. As a dynamic syndrome with multiple etiologies, its timely diagnosis is difficult as is tracking the course of the syndrome. Therefore, there is a significant need for early, rapid detection and diagnosis as well as clinical trajectory monitoring of ARDS. Here, we report our work on using human breath to differentiate ARDS and non-ARDS causes of respiratory failure. A fully automated portable 2-dimensional gas chromatography device with high peak capacity (> 200 at the resolution of 1), high sensitivity (sub-ppb), and rapid analysis capability (~ 30 min) was designed and made in-house for on-site analysis of patients' breath. A total of 85 breath samples from 48 ARDS patients and controls were collected. Ninety-seven elution peaks were separated and detected in 13 min. An algorithm based on machine learning, principal component analysis (PCA), and linear discriminant analysis (LDA) was developed. As compared to the adjudications done by physicians based on the Berlin criteria, our device and algorithm achieved an overall accuracy of 87.1% with 94.1% positive predictive value and 82.4% negative predictive value. The high overall accuracy and high positive predicative value suggest that the breath analysis method can accurately diagnose ARDS. The ability to continuously and non-invasively monitor exhaled breath for early diagnosis, disease trajectory tracking, and outcome prediction monitoring of ARDS may have a significant impact on changing practice and improving patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To assess for the first time the safety and pharmacokinetics of an antiprogrammed cell death-ligand 1 immune checkpoint inhibitor (BMS-936559; Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ) and its effect on immune biomarkers in participants with sepsis-associated immunosuppression.Design: Randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation.Setting: Seven U.S. hospital ICUs.Study Population: Twenty-four participants with sepsis, organ dysfunction (hypotension, acute respiratory failure, and/or acute renal injury), and absolute lymphocyte count less than or equal to 1,100 cells/μL.Interventions: Participants received single-dose BMS-936559 (10-900 mg; n = 20) or placebo (n = 4) infusions. Primary endpoints were death and adverse events; key secondary endpoints included receptor occupancy and monocyte human leukocyte antigen-DR levels.Measurements and Main Results: The treated group was older (median 62 yr treated pooled vs 46 yr placebo), and a greater percentage had more than 2 organ dysfunctions (55% treated pooled vs 25% placebo); other baseline characteristics were comparable. Overall mortality was 25% (10 mg dose: 2/4; 30 mg: 2/4; 100 mg: 1/4; 300 mg: 1/4; 900 mg: 0/4; placebo: 0/4). All participants had adverse events (75% grade 1-2). Seventeen percent had a serious adverse event (3/20 treated pooled, 1/4 placebo), with none deemed drug-related. Adverse events that were potentially immune-related occurred in 54% of participants; most were grade 1-2, none required corticosteroids, and none were deemed drug-related. No significant changes in cytokine levels were observed. Full receptor occupancy was achieved for 28 days after BMS-936559 (900 mg). At the two highest doses, an apparent increase in monocyte human leukocyte antigen-DR expression (> 5,000 monoclonal antibodies/cell) was observed and persisted beyond 28 days.Conclusions: In this first clinical evaluation of programmed cell death protein-1/programmed cell death-ligand 1 pathway inhibition in sepsis, BMS-936559 was well tolerated, with no evidence of drug-induced hypercytokinemia or cytokine storm, and at higher doses, some indication of restored immune status over 28 days. Further randomized trials on programmed cell death protein-1/programmed cell death-ligand 1 pathway inhibition are needed to evaluate its clinical safety and efficacy in patients with sepsis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sepsis is a major risk factor for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, there remains a paucity of literature examining risk factors for ARDS in septic patients early in their course. This study examined the role of early fluid administration and identified other risk factors within the first 6 h of hospital presentation associated with developing ARDS in septic patients. Methods: This was a secondary analysis of septic adult patients presenting to the Emergency Department or being admitted for high-risk elective surgery from the multicenter observational cohort study, US Critical Injury and Illness trial Group-Lung Injury Prevention Study 1 (USCIITG-LIPS 1, NCT00889772). Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify potential early risk factors for ARDS. Stratified analysis by shock status was performed to examine the association between early fluid administration and ARDS. Results: Of the 5584 patients in the original study cohort, 2534 (45.4%) met our criteria for sepsis. One hundred and fifty-six (6.2%) of these patients developed ARDS during the hospital stay. In multivariable analyses, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.07-1.13), age (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96-0.98), total fluid infused in the first 6 h (in liters) (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.03-1.29), shock (OR 2.57, 95% CI 1.62-4.08), pneumonia as a site of infection (OR 2.31, 95% CI 1.59-3.36), pancreatitis (OR 3.86, 95% CI 1.33-11.24), and acute abdomen (OR 3.77, 95% CI 1.37-10.41) were associated with developing ARDS. In the stratified analysis, total fluid infused in the first 6 h (in liters) (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.87-1.28) was not associated with the development of ARDS in the shock group, while there was an association in the non-shock group (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.05-1.38). Conclusions: In septic patients, the following risk factors identified within the first 6 h of hospital presentation were associated with ARDS: APACHE II score, presence of shock, pulmonary source of infection, pancreatitis, and presence of an acute abdomen. In septic patients without shock, the amount of fluid infused during the first 6 h of hospital presentation was associated with developing ARDS. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The Michigan Trauma Quality Improvement Program (MTQIP) is a collaborative quality initiative sponsored by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network (BCBSM/BCN). The MTQIP benchmark reports identified our trauma center as a high outlier for venous thromboembolism (VTE) episodes. This study outlines the performance improvement (PI) process used to reduce the rate of VTE using MTQIP infrastructure. Study Design Trauma patients admitted for > 24 hours, with an Injury Severity Score (ISS) ≥ 5, were included in this study. We performed a preliminary analysis examining prophylaxis drug type to VTE, adjusted by patient confounders and timing of first dose, using MTQIP data abstracted for our hospital. It showed that patients receiving enoxaparin had a VTE rate that was half that of those receiving unfractionated heparin (odds ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.85). Guided by these results, we produced the following plan: consolidation to single VTE prophylaxis agent and dose, focused education of providers, initiation of VTE prophylaxis for all patients—with clear exception rules—and dose withholding minimization. Results were monitored using the MTQIP platform. Results After implementation of our focused PI plan, the VTE rate decreased from 6.2% (n = 36/year) to 2.6% (n = 14/year). Our trauma center returned to average performance status within MTQIP. Conclusions Participation in MTQIP provided identification of trauma center outlier status for the outcome of VTE. Analysis of MTQIP data allowed creation of a local action plan. The MTQIP infrastructure supported execution and monitoring of the action plan consistent with loop-closure practices, as advocated by the American College of Surgeons Committee on Trauma, and a positive performance improvement result was achieved with VTE reduction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Objective To investigate oseltamivir and oseltamivir carboxylate pharmacokinetics in critically ill patients who were receiving continuous venovenous hemodialysis ( CVVHD) and/or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation ( ECMO). Design Prospective, open-label, pharmacokinetic study. Setting Intensive care units of an academic medical center. Patients Thirteen critically ill patients aged 13 years or older with suspected or confirmed H1N1 influenza who had a prescription for oseltamivir and were concurrently receiving CVVHD and/or ECMO between October 2009 and January 2010. Intervention Oseltamivir 150 mg was administered nasogastrically or nasoenterically every 12 hours. Blood samples were collected at baseline and at 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 hours after administration of the fourth oseltamivir dose or subsequent doses. In patients receiving CVVHD, effluent also was collected at the same time points. Urine was collected throughout the 12-hour dosing interval. Measurements and Main Results Eight patients received CVVHD only, four patients received both CVVHD and ECMO, and one patient received ECMO only. Pharmacokinetic parameters for the patient who received only ECMO were not reported. The median maximum plasma concentration and area under the plasma concentration-time curve for the 12-hour dosing interval (AUC0-12) for the remaining 12 patients were 83.4 ng/ml and 216 ng•hour/ml, respectively, for oseltamivir and 2000 ng/ml and 21,500 ng•hour/ml, respectively, for oseltamivir carboxylate. Mean clearance due to CVVHD was 33.8 ml/minute for oseltamivir and 50.2 ml/minute for oseltamivir carboxylate. For patients who received ECMO, no substantial differences between pre- and post- ECMO oxygenator plasma concentrations were found for oseltamivir or oseltamivir carboxylate. Conclusion Although the optimal pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic targets for oseltamivir carboxylate remain unclear, in the patients receiving CVVHD with or without ECMO, a regimen of oseltamivir 150 mg every 12 hours yielded a median oseltamivir carboxylate AUC0-12 considerably higher than would be expected in non-critically ill patients receiving the same dosage regimen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Respondents, regardless of these logistical challenges, indicated their willingness to enroll COVID-19 patients, however,12% of respondents would refuse to enroll COVID-19 research patients. B Conclusion: b Despite numerous stressors, including exposure and infection of research staff, members of the PETAL Network were heavily engaged in COVID-19 clinical trials and research. B Background: b During the COVID-19 pandemic, the initial understandings of disease pathogenesis and treatment interventions were limited. [Extracted from the article]

Objective: Effective communication about serious illness is pivotal in delivering surgical palliative care-a crucial component of comprehensive surgical critical care (SCC). However, limited educational strategies exist for fellow-level trainees, who are often directing clinical decision-making and building mutual trust with patients and families. This pilot study assess implications of a novel serious illness communication training opportunity tailored specifically for SCC fellows., Design: Prospective implementation of a multimodal training session (1 hour-didactic lecture, 2 hours-live-action simulation), using pre- and postcourse surveys to assess self-perceived confidence., Setting: University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, Michigan., Participants: Eleven ACGME-accredited SCC fellows during the 2023 to 2024 academic year participated and completed all 3 survey assessments., Results: Following the course, 6 of 7 confidence domains showed improvement, with 2 reaching statistical significance-communication skills to discuss goals of care and/or code status (3.73 vs. 4.36, p = 0.018) and end-of-life care or transition to comfort-focused care (3.36 vs. 4.18, p = 0.023) with a patient or family member. At 6-month follow up, fellows reported further increases in all queried domains, though changes were nonsignificant. Greatest absolute increases were noted in delivering serious news (4.18 vs. 4.55, p = 0.143) and expressing nonverbal empathy (4.09 vs. 4.50, p = 0.197). The majority (91%) of respondents felt more comfortable having serious illness conversations with patients and families due to their training course experience., Conclusion: Implementation of a 3-hour training course tailored for SCC fellows significantly boosted both the immediate and long-term confidence in their serious illness communication skills and ability to manage complex care scenarios., (Copyright © 2024 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Since introducing new and alternative treatment options may increase decisional conflict, we aimed to describe the use of the decision support tool (DST) and its impact on treatment preference and decisional conflict., Background: For the treatment of appendicitis, antibiotics are an effective alternative to appendectomy, with both approaches associated with a different set of risks (eg, recurrence vs surgical complications) and benefits (eg, more rapid return to work vs decreased chance of readmission). Patients often have limited knowledge of these treatment options, and DSTs that include video-based educational materials and questions to elicit patient preferences about outcomes may be helpful. Concurrent with the Comparing Outcomes of Drugs and Appendectomy trials, our group developed a DST for appendicitis treatment ( www.appyornot.org )., Methods: A retrospective cohort including people who self-reported current appendicitis and used the AppyOrNot DST between 2021 and 2023. Treatment preferences before and after the use of the DST, demographic information, and Ottawa Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) were reported after completing the DST., Results: A total of 8243 people from 66 countries and all 50 U.S. states accessed the DST. Before the DST, 14% had a strong preference for antibiotics and 31% for appendectomy, with 55% undecided. After using the DST, the proportion in the undecided category decreased to 49% ( P < 0.0001). Of those who completed the Ottawa Decisional Conflict Score (DCS; n = 356), 52% reported the lowest level of decisional conflict (<25) after using the DST; 43% had a DCS score of 25 to 50, 5.1% had a DCS score of >50 and 2.5% had and DCS score of >75., Conclusions: The publicly available DST appyornot.org reduced the proportion that was undecided about which treatment they favored and had a modest influence on those with strong treatment preferences. Decisional conflict was not common after use. The use of this DST is now a component of a nationwide implementation program aimed at improving the way surgeons share information about appendicitis treatment options. If its use can be successfully implemented, this may be a model for improving communication about treatment for patients experiencing emergency health conditions., Competing Interests: The authors report no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To describe rates of dexamethasone use in the nonoperative management of malignant small bowel obstruction (mSBO) and their outcomes., Background: mSBO is common in patients with advanced abdominal-pelvic cancers. Management includes prioritizing quality of life and avoiding surgical intervention when possible. The use of dexamethasone to restore bowel function is recommended in the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for mSBO. Yet, it is unknown how often dexamethasone is used for mSBO and whether results from nonresearch settings support its use., Methods: This is a multicenter retrospective cohort study including unique admissions for mSBO from January 1, 2019 to December 31, 2021. Dexamethasone use and management outcomes were summarized with descriptive statistics and multiple logistic regression., Results: Among 571 admissions (68% female, mean age 63 years, 85% history of abdominal surgery) that were eligible and initially nonoperative, 26% [95% confidence interval (CI) = 23%-30%] received dexamethasone treatment (69% female, mean age 62 years, 87% history of abdominal surgery). Dexamethasone use by site ranged from 13% to 52%. Among dexamethasone recipients, 13% (95% CI = 9%-20%) subsequently required nonelective surgery during the same admission and 4 dexamethasone-related safety-events were reported. Amongst 421 eligible admissions where dexamethasone was not used, 17% (95% CI = 14%-21%) required nonelective surgery. Overall, the unadjusted odds ratio (OR) for nonelective surgery with dexamethasone use compared to without its use was 0.7 (95% CI = 0.4-1.3). Using multiple logistic regression, OR after adjusting for site, age, sex, history of abdominal surgery, nasogastric tube, and Gastrografin use was 0.6 (95% CI = 0.3-1.1)., Conclusion: Dexamethasone was used in about 1 in 4 eligible mSBO admissions with high variability of use between tertiary academic centers. This multicenter retrospective cohort study suggested an association between dexamethasone use and lower rates of nonelective surgery, representing a potential opportunity for quality improvement., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Intravenous fluids and vasopressor agents are commonly used in early resuscitation of patients with sepsis, but comparative data for prioritizing their delivery are limited., Methods: In an unblinded superiority trial conducted at 60 U.S. centers, we randomly assigned patients to either a restrictive fluid strategy (prioritizing vasopressors and lower intravenous fluid volumes) or a liberal fluid strategy (prioritizing higher volumes of intravenous fluids before vasopressor use) for a 24-hour period. Randomization occurred within 4 hours after a patient met the criteria for sepsis-induced hypotension refractory to initial treatment with 1 to 3 liters of intravenous fluid. We hypothesized that all-cause mortality before discharge home by day 90 (primary outcome) would be lower with a restrictive fluid strategy than with a liberal fluid strategy. Safety was also assessed., Results: A total of 1563 patients were enrolled, with 782 assigned to the restrictive fluid group and 781 to the liberal fluid group. Resuscitation therapies that were administered during the 24-hour protocol period differed between the two groups; less intravenous fluid was administered in the restrictive fluid group than in the liberal fluid group (difference of medians, -2134 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2318 to -1949), whereas the restrictive fluid group had earlier, more prevalent, and longer duration of vasopressor use. Death from any cause before discharge home by day 90 occurred in 109 patients (14.0%) in the restrictive fluid group and in 116 patients (14.9%) in the liberal fluid group (estimated difference, -0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.4 to 2.6; P = 0.61); 5 patients in the restrictive fluid group and 4 patients in the liberal fluid group had their data censored (lost to follow-up). The number of reported serious adverse events was similar in the two groups., Conclusions: Among patients with sepsis-induced hypotension, the restrictive fluid strategy that was used in this trial did not result in significantly lower (or higher) mortality before discharge home by day 90 than the liberal fluid strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; CLOVERS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03434028.)., (Copyright © 2023 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Tracheostomies are highly aerosolizing procedures yet are often indicated in patients with COVID-19 who require prolonged intubation. Robust investigations of the safety of tracheostomy protocols and provider adherence and evaluations are limited., Objectives: To determine the rate of COVID-19 infection of health care personnel involved in COVID-19 tracheostomies under a multidisciplinary safety protocol and to investigate health care personnel's attitudes and suggested areas for improvement concerning the protocol., Methods: All health care personnel involved in tracheostomies in COVID-19-positive patients from April 9 through July 11, 2020, were sent a 22-item electronic survey., Results: Among 107 health care personnel (80.5%) who responded to the survey, 5 reported a positive COVID-19 test result (n = 2) or symptoms of COVID-19 (n = 3) within 21 days of the tracheostomy. Respondents reported 100% adherence to use of adequate personal protective equipment. Most (91%) were familiar with the tracheostomy protocol and felt safe (92%) while performing tracheostomy. Suggested improvements included creating dedicated tracheostomy teams and increasing provider choices surrounding personal protective equipment., Conclusions: Multidisciplinary engagement in the development and implementation of a COVID-19 tracheostomy protocol is associated with acceptable safety for all members of the care team., (©2022 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.)

Background: Baricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19., Methods: In this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168., Findings: Between Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012)., Interpretation: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered., Funding: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.)

To prospectively describe 1-year outcomes, with a focus on functional outcome, cognitive outcome, and the burden of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder, in coronavirus disease 2019 patients managed with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation., Design: Prospective case series., Setting: Tertiary extracorporeal membrane oxygenation center in the United States., Patients: Adult coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients managed with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation March 1, 2020, to July 31, 2020., Interventions: Baseline variables, treatment measures, and short-term outcomes were obtained from the medical record. Survivors were interviewed by telephone, a year following the index intensive care admission. Functional outcome was assessed using the modified Rankin Scale and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale 2.0. Cognitive status was assessed with the 5-minute Montreal Cognitive Assessment. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale was used to screen for anxiety and depression. Screening for post-traumatic stress disorder was performed with the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist 5 instrument., Measurements and Main Results: Twenty-three patients were managed with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, 14 (61%) survived to hospital discharge. Thirteen (57%) were alive at 1 year. One patient was dependent on mechanical ventilation, another intermittently required supplemental oxygen at 1 year. The median modified Rankin Scale score was 2 (interquartile range, 1-2), median World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale 2.0 impairment score was 21% (interquartile range, 6-42%). Six of 12 previously employed individuals (50%) had returned to work, and 10 of 12 (83%) were entirely independent in activities of daily living. The median Montreal Cognitive Assessment score was 14 (interquartile range, 13-14). Of 10 patients assessed with Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, 4 (40%) screened positive for depression and 6 (60%) for anxiety. Four of 10 (40%) screened positive for post-traumatic stress disorder., Conclusions: Functional impairment was common a year following the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in coronavirus disease 2019, although the majority achieved independence in daily living and about half returned to work. Long-term anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder were common, but cognitive impairment was not., Competing Interests: The authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)

Background: Whereas data from the pre-pandemic era have demonstrated that tracheostomy can accelerate liberation from the ventilator, reduce need for sedation, and facilitate rehabilitation, concerns for healthcare worker safety have led to disagreement on tracheostomy placement in COVID-19 patients. Data on COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheostomy may inform best practices. Thus, we report a retrospective institutional cohort experience with tracheostomy in ventilated patients with COVID-19, examining associations between time to tracheostomy and duration of mechanical ventilation in relation to patient characteristics, clinical course, and survival., Methods: Clinical data were extracted for all COVID-19 tracheostomies performed at a quaternary referral center from April-July 2020. Outcomes studied included mortality, adverse events, duration of mechanical ventilation, and time to decannulation., Results: Among 64 COVID-19 tracheostomies (13% of COVID-19 hospitalizations), patients were 64% male and 42% African American, with a median age of 54 (range, 20-89). Median time to tracheostomy was 22 (range, 7-60) days and median duration of mechanical ventilation was 39.4 (range, 20-113) days. Earlier tracheostomy was associated with shortened mechanical ventilation (R 2 =0.4, P<0.01). Median decannulation time was 35.3 (range, 7-79) days. There was 19% mortality and adverse events in 45%, mostly from bleeding in therapeutically anticoagulated patients., Conclusions: Tracheostomy was associated with swifter liberation from the ventilator and acceptable safety for physicians in this series of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Patient mortality was not increased relative to historical data on acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Future studies are required to establish conclusions of causality regarding tracheostomy timing with mechanical ventilation, complications, or mortality in COVID-19 patients., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form (available at https://dx.doi.org/10.21037/jtd-21-10). PKP reports receiving funding paid to her institution during the past three years from the National Institutes of Health, Department of Defense, Eli Lilly, Atox Bio, the Marcus Foundation, and Bristol Myers Squibb; additionally, she serves on the Council of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. MWS, SGK, and SBC are supported by the National Institutes of Health. MJB serves as President and member of the Board of Directors, both of which are volunteer positions, for the Global Tracheostomy Collaborative. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (2021 Journal of Thoracic Disease. All rights reserved.)

Background: COVID-19 has led to an unprecedented strain on health care facilities across the United States. Accurately identifying patients at an increased risk of deterioration may help hospitals manage their resources while improving the quality of patient care. Here, we present the results of an analytical model, Predicting Intensive Care Transfers and Other Unforeseen Events (PICTURE), to identify patients at high risk for imminent intensive care unit transfer, respiratory failure, or death, with the intention to improve the prediction of deterioration due to COVID-19., Objective: This study aims to validate the PICTURE model's ability to predict unexpected deterioration in general ward and COVID-19 patients, and to compare its performance with the Epic Deterioration Index (EDI), an existing model that has recently been assessed for use in patients with COVID-19., Methods: The PICTURE model was trained and validated on a cohort of hospitalized non-COVID-19 patients using electronic health record data from 2014 to 2018. It was then applied to two holdout test sets: non-COVID-19 patients from 2019 and patients testing positive for COVID-19 in 2020. PICTURE results were aligned to EDI and NEWS scores for head-to-head comparison via area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under the precision-recall curve. We compared the models' ability to predict an adverse event (defined as intensive care unit transfer, mechanical ventilation use, or death). Shapley values were used to provide explanations for PICTURE predictions., Results: In non-COVID-19 general ward patients, PICTURE achieved an AUROC of 0.819 (95% CI 0.805-0.834) per observation, compared to the EDI's AUROC of 0.763 (95% CI 0.746-0.781; n=21,740; P<.001). In patients testing positive for COVID-19, PICTURE again outperformed the EDI with an AUROC of 0.849 (95% CI 0.820-0.878) compared to the EDI's AUROC of 0.803 (95% CI 0.772-0.838; n=607; P<.001). The most important variables influencing PICTURE predictions in the COVID-19 cohort were a rapid respiratory rate, a high level of oxygen support, low oxygen saturation, and impaired mental status (Glasgow Coma Scale)., Conclusions: The PICTURE model is more accurate in predicting adverse patient outcomes for both general ward patients and COVID-19 positive patients in our cohorts compared to the EDI. The ability to consistently anticipate these events may be especially valuable when considering potential incipient waves of COVID-19 infections. The generalizability of the model will require testing in other health care systems for validation., (©Brandon C Cummings, Sardar Ansari, Jonathan R Motyka, Guan Wang, Richard P Medlin Jr, Steven L Kronick, Karandeep Singh, Pauline K Park, Lena M Napolitano, Robert P Dickson, Michael R Mathis, Michael W Sjoding, Andrew J Admon, Ross Blank, Jakob I McSparron, Kevin R Ward, Christopher E Gillies. Originally published in JMIR Medical Informatics (https://medinform.jmir.org), 21.04.2021.)

Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice., Methods: Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ 2 ) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable)., Results: Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16-24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment., Conclusion: Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited., Trial Registration: The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.

Importance: Data on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed., Objective: To determine whether hydroxychloroquine is an efficacious treatment for adults hospitalized with COVID-19., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial conducted at 34 hospitals in the US. Adults hospitalized with respiratory symptoms from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were enrolled between April 2 and June 19, 2020, with the last outcome assessment on July 17, 2020. The planned sample size was 510 patients, with interim analyses planned after every 102 patients were enrolled. The trial was stopped at the fourth interim analysis for futility with a sample size of 479 patients., Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 2 doses, then 200 mg twice daily for 8 doses) (n = 242) or placebo (n = 237)., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was clinical status 14 days after randomization as assessed with a 7-category ordinal scale ranging from 1 (death) to 7 (discharged from the hospital and able to perform normal activities). The primary outcome was analyzed with a multivariable proportional odds model, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) greater than 1.0 indicating more favorable outcomes with hydroxychloroquine than placebo. The trial included 12 secondary outcomes, including 28-day mortality., Results: Among 479 patients who were randomized (median age, 57 years; 44.3% female; 37.2% Hispanic/Latinx; 23.4% Black; 20.1% in the intensive care unit; 46.8% receiving supplemental oxygen without positive pressure; 11.5% receiving noninvasive ventilation or nasal high-flow oxygen; and 6.7% receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), 433 (90.4%) completed the primary outcome assessment at 14 days and the remainder had clinical status imputed. The median duration of symptoms prior to randomization was 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 7 days). Clinical status on the ordinal outcome scale at 14 days did not significantly differ between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (median [IQR] score, 6 [4-7] vs 6 [4-7]; aOR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.42]). None of the 12 secondary outcomes were significantly different between groups. At 28 days after randomization, 25 of 241 patients (10.4%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and 25 of 236 (10.6%) in the placebo group had died (absolute difference, -0.2% [95% CI, -5.7% to 5.3%]; aOR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.54 to 2.09])., Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults hospitalized with respiratory illness from COVID-19, treatment with hydroxychloroquine, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve clinical status at day 14. These findings do not support the use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 among hospitalized adults., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04332991.

Background: Antibiotic therapy has been proposed as an alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis., Methods: We conducted a pragmatic, nonblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy (10-day course) with appendectomy in patients with appendicitis at 25 U.S. centers. The primary outcome was 30-day health status, as assessed with the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating better health status; noninferiority margin, 0.05 points). Secondary outcomes included appendectomy in the antibiotics group and complications through 90 days; analyses were prespecified in subgroups defined according to the presence or absence of an appendicolith., Results: In total, 1552 adults (414 with an appendicolith) underwent randomization; 776 were assigned to receive antibiotics (47% of whom were not hospitalized for the index treatment) and 776 to undergo appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure). Antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of 30-day EQ-5D scores (mean difference, 0.01 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.001 to 0.03). In the antibiotics group, 29% had undergone appendectomy by 90 days, including 41% of those with an appendicolith and 25% of those without an appendicolith. Complications were more common in the antibiotics group than in the appendectomy group (8.1 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.98); the higher rate in the antibiotics group could be attributed to those with an appendicolith (20.2 vs. 3.6 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.11 to 15.38) and not to those without an appendicolith (3.7 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.43). The rate of serious adverse events was 4.0 per 100 participants in the antibiotics group and 3.0 per 100 participants in the appendectomy group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.50)., Conclusions: For the treatment of appendicitis, antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of results of a standard health-status measure. In the antibiotics group, nearly 3 in 10 participants had undergone appendectomy by 90 days. Participants with an appendicolith were at a higher risk for appendectomy and for complications than those without an appendicolith. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; CODA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02800785.)., (Copyright © 2020 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: Vitamin D deficiency is a common, potentially reversible contributor to morbidity and mortality among critically ill patients. The potential benefits of vitamin D supplementation in acute critical illness require further study., Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of early vitamin D 3 supplementation in critically ill, vitamin D-deficient patients who were at high risk for death. Randomization occurred within 12 hours after the decision to admit the patient to an intensive care unit. Eligible patients received a single enteral dose of 540,000 IU of vitamin D 3 or matched placebo. The primary end point was 90-day all-cause, all-location mortality., Results: A total of 1360 patients were found to be vitamin D-deficient during point-of-care screening and underwent randomization. Of these patients, 1078 had baseline vitamin D deficiency (25-hydroxyvitamin D level, <20 ng per milliliter [50 nmol per liter]) confirmed by subsequent testing and were included in the primary analysis population. The mean day 3 level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D was 46.9±23.2 ng per milliliter (117±58 nmol per liter) in the vitamin D group and 11.4±5.6 ng per milliliter (28±14 nmol per liter) in the placebo group (difference, 35.5 ng per milliliter; 95% confidence interval [CI], 31.5 to 39.6). The 90-day mortality was 23.5% in the vitamin D group (125 of 531 patients) and 20.6% in the placebo group (109 of 528 patients) (difference, 2.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.1 to 7.9; P = 0.26). There were no clinically important differences between the groups with respect to secondary clinical, physiological, or safety end points. The severity of vitamin D deficiency at baseline did not affect the association between the treatment assignment and mortality., Conclusions: Early administration of high-dose enteral vitamin D 3 did not provide an advantage over placebo with respect to 90-day mortality or other, nonfatal outcomes among critically ill, vitamin D-deficient patients. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; VIOLET ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03096314.)., (Copyright © 2019 Massachusetts Medical Society.)

Background: An association between increased venous thromboembolism (VTE) events and influenza A H1N1 (H1N1) was noted in the first 10 patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). An empirical systemic anticoagulation protocol (heparin intravenous infusion) was initiated when autopsy of patients with severe hypoxemia confirmed multiple primary pulmonary thrombi and emboli. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between H1N1 and VTE events and to assess the efficacy of empirical systemic heparin anticoagulation in preventing VTE and death in H1N1 severe ARDS patients., Methods: An observational cohort study of critically ill severe ARDS patients with possible H1N1 viral pneumonia was performed in a surgical intensive care unit in a single 990-bed academic tertiary care center. Early empirical systemic heparin anticoagulation for all severe ARDS patients with possible H1N1 viral pneumonia was initiated as a VTE preventive strategy., Results: Univariate comparisons and multivariate logistic regression were used to identify risk factors for VTE. Independent risk factors for VTE included H1N1, culture-positive bacterial pneumonia, and vasopressor requirement. Independent risk factors for pulmonary embolism included H1N1, culture-positive bacterial pneumonia, and male sex. H1N1 ARDS patients had 23.3-fold higher risk for pulmonary embolism and 17.9-fold increased risk for VTE. Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank test confirmed that empirical systemic heparin anticoagulation provided significant protection from thrombotic events in the H1N1-positive but not in the H1N1-negative critically ill ARDs patients. In multivariate analysis, adjusting for H1N1 status, patients without empirical systemic anticoagulation were 33 times more likely to have any VTE compared with those treated with empirical systemic heparin anticoagulation (P = .01)., Conclusions: Critically ill patients with H1N1 ARDS have increased risk of venous thrombotic complications, particularly pulmonary thromboembolism. Empirical systemic heparin anticoagulation in this cohort of patients significantly reduced VTE incidence without increased hemorrhagic complications., (Copyright © 2018 Society for Vascular Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The American Association for the Surgery of Trauma Critical Care Committee has developed clinical consensus guides to help with practical answers based on the best evidence available. These are focused in areas in which the levels of evidence may not be that strong and are based on a combination of expert consensus and research. Overall, quality of the research is mixed, with many studies suffering from small numbers and issues with bias. The first two of these focus on the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in trauma patients and nutrition for the critically ill surgical/trauma patient.

Prompt intravenous fluid therapy is a fundamental treatment for patients with septic shock. However, the optimal approach for administering intravenous fluid in septic shock resuscitation is unknown. Two competing strategies are emerging: a liberal fluids approach, consisting of a larger volume of initial fluid (50 to 75 mL/kg [4 to 6 L in an 80-kg adult] during the first 6 hours) and later use of vasopressors, versus a restrictive fluids approach, consisting of a smaller volume of initial fluid (≤30 mL/kg [≤2 to 3 L]), with earlier reliance on vasopressor infusions to maintain blood pressure and perfusion. Early fluid therapy may enhance or maintain tissue perfusion by increasing venous return and cardiac output. However, fluid administration may also have deleterious effects by causing edema within vital organs, leading to organ dysfunction and impairment of oxygen delivery. Conversely, a restrictive fluids approach primarily relies on vasopressors to reverse hypotension and maintain perfusion while limiting the administration of fluid. Both strategies have some evidence to support their use but lack robust data to confirm the benefit of one strategy over the other, creating clinical and scientific equipoise. As part of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury Network, we designed a randomized clinical trial to compare the liberal and restrictive fluids strategies, the Crystalloid Liberal or Vasopressor Early Resuscitation in Sepsis trial. The purpose of this article is to review the current literature on approaches to early fluid resuscitation in adults with septic shock and outline the rationale for the upcoming trial., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Pancreatic trauma results in high morbidity and mortality, in part caused by the delay in diagnosis and subsequent organ dysfunction. Optimal operative management strategies remain unclear. We therefore sought to determine CT accuracy in diagnosing pancreatic injury and the morbidity and mortality associated with varying operative strategies., Methods: We created a multicenter, pancreatic trauma registry from 18 Level 1 and 2 trauma centers. Adult, blunt or penetrating injured patients from 2005 to 2012 were analyzed. Sensitivity and specificity of CT scan identification of main pancreatic duct injury was calculated against operative findings. Independent predictors for mortality, adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and pancreatic fistula and/or pseudocyst were identified through multivariate regression analysis. The association between outcomes and operative management was measured., Results: We identified 704 pancreatic injury patients of whom 584 (83%) underwent a pancreas-related procedure. CT grade modestly correlated with OR grade (r 0.39) missing 10 ductal injuries (9 grade III, 1 grade IV) providing 78.7% sensitivity and 61.6% specificity. Independent predictors of mortality were age, Injury Severity Score (ISS), lactate, and number of packed red blood cells transfused. Independent predictors of ARDS were ISS, Glasgow Coma Scale score, and pancreatic fistula (OR 5.2, 2.6-10.1). Among grade III injuries (n = 158, 22.4%), the risk of pancreatic fistula/pseudocyst was reduced when the end of the pancreas was stapled (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.05-0.9) compared with sewn and was not affected by duct stitch placement. Drainage alone in grades IV (n = 25) and V (n = 24) injuries carried increased risk of pancreatic fistula/pseudocyst (OR 8.3, 95% CI 2.2-32.9)., Conclusion: CT is insufficiently sensitive to reliably identify pancreatic duct injury. Patients with grade III injuries should have their resection site stapled instead of sewn and a duct stitch is unnecessary. Further study is needed to determine if drainage alone should be employed in grades IV and V injuries., Level of Evidence: Epidemiologic/Diagnostic study, level III.

Background: The use of extracorporeal life support (ECLS) in the trauma population remains controversial and has been reported only in small cohort studies. Recent ECLS technical advances have increased its use as an advanced critical care option in trauma. Given the degree of resource utilization, costs, and expertise required to provide ECLS support in trauma patients, we sought to perform a multi-institutional study to assess the indications and outcomes of ECLS in trauma., Methods: A retrospective review of adult (≥16 years) trauma patients receiving ECLS support in the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) registry (1989-2016) was performed. Standardized data from the contributing ELSO centers includes patient demographics, diagnoses, and ECLS technique and procedures. Additionally, baseline characteristics, precannulation and postcannulation physiologic data, complications, and outcomes were recorded. Survival was categorized both by transition off ECLS support and survival to hospital discharge., Results: Two hundred seventy-nine trauma patients were identified (0.92% of 30,273 adult ECLS patients). Extracorporeal life support increased significantly in the last 5 years (173 in 2011-2016, 62%) compared with 106 in the prior 18 years. Trauma patients were predominantly male (78%), with a mean age of 34.8 ± 15.4 years (range, 16-88 years). Thoracic injury was the most common diagnosis; acute respiratory distress syndrome was the most common indication. Extracorporeal life support was venovenous for respiratory failure (89%), VA for cardiac failure (7%), and VA for ECLS-assisted cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) (E-CPR) (4%). Extracorporeal life support duration was 8.8 ± 9.5 days (longest 83 days), and was longer for respiratory support (9.3 ± 9.3 days) vs. cardiac support (4.1 ± 4.5 days) and E-CPR (6.5 ± 16.8 days). Overall survival from ECLS was 70% and survival to hospital discharge was 61% in the total cohort (63% respiratory, 50% cardiac, 25% E-CPR), similar to survival rates in other ELSO registry cohorts. More than 80% of patients had a reported complication during ECLS support. The most common complication was cardiovascular (51%) followed by a bleeding complication (29%). Multiple organ failure was the most common cause of death (15.4%)., Conclusion: Data from the largest registry of critically ill trauma patients receiving ECLS support demonstrates reasonable survival. With growing experience and improved safety profile, trauma should not be considered a contraindication for ECLS. Further analysis of the ELSO registry regarding trauma-specific risk factors and ECLS-specific practices may identify best candidates and improve trauma ECLS outcomes., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic study, level III.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used increasingly for both respiratory and cardiac failure in adult patients. Indications for ECMO use in cardiac failure include severe refractory cardiogenic shock, refractory ventricular arrhythmia, active cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest, and acute or decompensated right heart failure. Evidence is emerging to guide the use of this therapy for some of these indications, but there remains a need for additional evidence to guide best practices. As a result, the use of ECMO may vary widely across centers. The purpose of this document is to highlight key aspects of care delivery, with the goal of codifying the current use of this rapidly growing technology. A major challenge in this field is the need to emergently deploy ECMO for cardiac failure, often with limited time to assess the appropriateness of patients for the intervention. For this reason, we advocate for a multidisciplinary team of experts to guide institutional use of this therapy and the care of patients receiving it. Rigorous patient selection and careful attention to potential complications are key factors in optimizing patient outcomes. Seamless patient transport and clearly defined pathways for transition of care to centers capable of providing heart replacement therapies (e.g., durable ventricular assist device or heart transplantation) are essential to providing the highest level of care for those patients stabilized by ECMO but unable to be weaned from the device. Ultimately, concentration of the most complex care at high-volume centers with advanced cardiac capabilities may be a way to significantly improve the care of this patient population.

Background: The incidence and long-term outcomes of acute kidney injury in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to influenza A(H1N1) pdm09 virus (pH1N1) have not been examined., Objective: To assess long-term renal recovery in patients with acute kidney injury and severe ARDS due to pH1N1., Methods: A retrospective observational cohort study of adults with severe pH1N1-associated ARDS admitted to a tertiary referral center. Baseline characteristics, acute kidney injury stage, continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), intermittent hemodialysis, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, survival, and renal recovery (defined as dialysis independence) were evaluated., Results: Fifty-seven patients, most with stage 3 acute kidney injury, were included. The 53% mortality rate among the 38 patients requiring CRRT was significantly higher than the 0% mortality rate among the 19 patients not requiring CRRT or intermittent hemodialysis. Increased duration of CRRT was not significantly associated with decreased survival. Fifteen CRRT patients required transition to intermittent hemodialysis. Of the CRRT patients who survived, 94% experienced renal recovery. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was instituted in 17 patients; 15 of these patients required CRRT., Conclusions: Acute kidney injury is common in patients with severe ARDS caused by pH1N1 infection. CRRT is a significant risk factor for increased mortality, but most patients who survived experienced full renal recovery., (©2018 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.)

Severe hypoxemia is associated with untoward outcomes in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. Nevertheless, in and of itself, correction of hypoxemia is not an adequate surrogate outcome for mortality and clear evidence-based targets for correction of hypoxemia remain to be determined. At present, clinical management is directed toward achieving sufficient oxygenation while minimizing toxicity of ventilator-induced lung injury. The gold standard remains lung-protective mechanical ventilation, using lower-tidal volumes and pressure-limited ventilator titration. Notable progress in care includes further refinements in mechanical ventilation, consideration of salutatory effects of early prone positioning and neuromuscular blockade, and exploration of adjunctive extrapulmonary support with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. This review focuses on three specific aspects: the evolving trend toward open lung ventilation, tempered by the recent cautionary experience with high-frequency oscillation ventilation; the evolution of prone positioning as a treatment for the most hypoxemic patients; and the continued future promise of extracorporeal support as a true rescue therapy., (Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.)

Background: Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is a rescue treatment for severe hypoxemia in the intensive care unit setting., Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of iNO in adult patients with severe hypoxemia before and during transport to a tertiary care center., Methods: Prospective data were examined in a retrospective cohort study. Patients with severe hypoxemia and cardiopulmonary failure (n=139) at referring hospitals in whom conventional therapy was unsuccessful were treated with iNO in the intensive care units in anticipation of transfer to a tertiary center. Treatment wih iNO was initiated by the critical care transport team in 114 patients and continued in 25 patients. Arterial blood gas analysis was done before and after iNO treatment., Results: Patients treated with iNO had significant improvement in oxygenation: mean (SD) for PaO2 increased from 60.7 (20.2) to 72.3 (40.6) mm Hg (P=.008), and mean (SD) for ratio of PaO2 to fraction of inspired oxygen (P:F) increased from 62.4 (26.1) to 73.1 (42.6) (P= .03). Use of iNO was continued through transport in 102 patients, all of whom were transported without complication. The P:F continued to improve, with a mean (SD) of 109.7 (73.8) from 6 to 8 hours after arrival at the tertiary center (P< .001 relative to values both before and after treatment). Among patients treated with iNO, 60.2% survived to discharge. In 35 nonresponders, iNO was discontinued, and 15 patients could not be transferred owing to life-threatening hypoxemia; 2 were later transferred on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Of 18 patients transported without iNO, 9 (50%) survived., Conclusions: Use of iNO significantly improves oxygenation of patients with severe hypoxemia and allows safe transfer to a tertiary care center., (©2015 American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.)

Background: Ventilator practices in patients at risk for acute lung injury (ALI) and ARDS are unclear. We examined factors associated with choice of set tidal volumes (VT), and whether VT < 8 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW) relates to the development of ALI/ARDS., Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of a multicenter cohort of adult subjects at risk of lung injury with and without ALI/ARDS at onset of invasive ventilation. Descriptive statistics were used to describe ventilator practices in specific settings and ALI/ARDS risk groups. Logistic regression analysis was used to determine the factors associated with the use of VT < 8 mL/kg PBW and the relationship of VT to ALI/ARDS development and outcome., Results: Of 829 mechanically ventilated patients, 107 met the criteria for ALI/ARDS at time of intubation, and 161 developed ALI/ARDS after intubation (post-intubation ALI/ARDS). There was significant intercenter variability in initial ventilator settings, and in the incidence of ALI/ARDS and post-intubation ALI/ARDS. The median VT was 7.96 (IQR 7.14-8.94) mL/kg PBW in ALI/ARDS subjects, and 8.45 (IQR 7.50-9.55) mL/kg PBW in subjects without ALI/ARDS (P = .004). VT decreased from 8.40 (IQR 7.38-9.37) mL/kg PBW to 7.97 (IQR 6.90-9.23) mL/kg PBW (P < .001) in those developing post-intubation ALI/ARDS. Among subjects without ALI/ARDS, VT ≥ 8 mL/kg PBW was associated with shorter height and higher body mass index, while subjects with pneumonia were less likely to get ≥ 8 mL/kg PBW. Initial VT ≥ 8 mL/kg PBW was not associated with the post-intubation ALI/ARDS (adjusted odds ratio 1.30, 95% CI 0.74-2.29) or worse outcomes. Post-intubation ALI/ARDS subjects had mortality similar to subjects intubated with ALI/ARDS., Conclusions: Clinicians seem to respond to ALI/ARDS with lower initial VT. Initial VT, however, was not associated with the development of post-intubation ALI/ARDS or other outcomes.