Search

BackgroundAlthough 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 questionWhat is the impact of treatment variability on mortality in patients with moderate to severe ARDS in the United States?Study design and methodsWe conducted a multicenter, observational cohort study of mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS and Pao2 to Fio2 ratio of ≤ 150 with positive end-expiratory pressure of ≥ 5 cm H2O, 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.ResultsA total of 2,466 patients were enrolled. Median baseline Pao2 to Fio2 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 H2O) 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.InterpretationSubstantial 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 registryClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03021824; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Background/Objective: SeptiCyte RAPID is a transcriptional host response assay that discriminates between sepsis and non-infectious systemic inflammation (SIRS) with a one-hour turnaround time. The overall performance of this test in a cohort of 419 patients has recently been described [Balk et al., J Clin Med 2024, 13, 1194]. In this study, we present the results from a detailed stratification analysis in which SeptiCyte RAPID performance was evaluated in the same cohort across patient groups and subgroups encompassing different demographics, comorbidities and disease, sources and types of pathogens, interventional treatments, and clinically defined phenotypes. The aims were to identify variables that might affect the ability of SeptiCyte RAPID to discriminate between sepsis and SIRS and to determine if any patient subgroups appeared to present a diagnostic challenge for the test. Methods: (1) Subgroup analysis, with subgroups defined by individual demographic or clinical variables, using conventional statistical comparison tests. (2) Principal component analysis and k-means clustering analysis to investigate phenotypic subgroups defined by unique combinations of demographic and clinical variables. Results: No significant differences in SeptiCyte RAPID performance were observed between most groups and subgroups. One notable exception involved an enhanced SeptiCyte RAPID performance for a phenotypic subgroup defined by a combination of clinical variables suggesting a septic shock response. Conclusions: We conclude that for this patient cohort, SeptiCyte RAPID performance was largely unaffected by key variables associated with heterogeneity in patients suspected of sepsis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To review the current knowledge of common comorbidities in the intensive care unit, including diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer, end-stage renal disease, end-stage liver disease, HIV infection, and obesity, with specific attention to epidemiology, contribution to diseases and outcomes, and the impact on treatments in these patients., Data Source: Review of the relevant medical literature for specific common comorbidities in the critically ill., Results: Critically ill patients are admitted to the intensive care unit for various reasons, and often the admission diagnosis is accompanied by a chronic comorbidity. Chronic comorbid conditions commonly seen in critically ill patients may influence the decision to provide intensive care unit care, decisions regarding types and intensity of intensive care unit treatment options, and outcomes. The presence of comorbid conditions may predispose patients to specific complications or forms of organ dysfunction. The impact of specific comorbidities varies among critically ill medical, surgical, and other populations, and outcomes associated with certain comorbidities have changed over time. Specifically, outcomes for patients with cancer and HIV have improved, likely related to advances in therapy. Overall, the negative impact of chronic comorbidity on survival in critical illness may be primarily influenced by the degree of organ dysfunction or the cumulative severity of multiple comorbidities., Conclusion: Chronic comorbid conditions are common in critically ill patients. Both the acute illness and the chronic conditions influence prognosis and optimal care delivery for these patients, particularly for adverse outcomes and complications influenced by comorbidities. Further work is needed to fully determine the individual and combined impact of chronic comorbidities on intensive care unit outcomes.