Search

Introduction: Standard of care for patients with acute ischemic stroke from large vessel occlusion (AISLVO) 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 patientswho were transferred fromany ED to the CCRUand 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 < 0.01) for the DP group was statistically longer, but ED in-out was similar for both groups. Time from CCRU arrival to angiography (difference 9 minutes, 95% CI 4–13, P < 0.01) for the DP group was shorter. Forty-nine percent of the DP group achieved mRS ≤ 2 vs 32% for the PP group (difference −17%, 95% CI −0.32 to −0.03, P < 0.01). The CART identified initial National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale, age, ED in-and-out time, and CCRU arrival-to-angiography time as important predictors of good outcome.Conclusion: Overall, the care process in EDs and at this single CSC for patients requiring MT were not heavily affected by the pandemic, as certain time metrics during the pandemic were statistically shorter than pre-pandemic intervals. Time intervals such as ED in-and-out and CCRU arrival-to-angiography were important factors in achieving good neurologic outcomes. Further study is necessary to confirm our observation and improve operational efficiency in the future.

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

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 (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.

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.

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 < 0.001). Transfer from rural areas was not associated with increased odds of in‐hospital mortality (OR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.60, 1.36; P = 0.63). Conclusion. Thirty‐five percent of patients transferred to the CCRU came from rural areas, which house 25% of the state population of Maryland. Patients transferred from rural counties to the CCRU faced greater transport distances, but they received the same level of care upon arrival at the CCRU and had the same odds of in‐hospital mortality as patients transferred from urban hospitals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Massive pulmonary embolism (MPE) is a rare but highly fatal condition. Our study's objective was to evaluate the association between advanced interventions and survival among patients with MPE treated with venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO). Methods: This is a retrospective review of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO) registry data. We included adult patients with MPE who were treated with VA-ECMO during 2010–2020. Our Primary outcome was survival to hospital discharge; secondary outcomes were ECMO duration among survivors and rates of ECMO-related complications. Clinical variables were compared using the Pearson chi-square and Kruskal-Wallis H tests. Results: We included 802 patients; 80 (10%) received SPE and 18 (2%) received CDT. Overall, 426 (53%) survived to discharge; survival was not significantly different among those treated with SPE or CDT on VA-ECMO (70%) versus VA-ECMO alone (52%) or SPE or CDT before VA-ECMO (52%). Multivariable regression found a trend towards increased survival among those treated with SPE or CDT while on ECMO (AOR 1.8, 95% CI 0.9–3.6), but no significant correlation. There was no association between advanced interventions and ECMO duration among survivors, or rates of ECMO-related complications. Conclusion: Our study found no difference in survival in patients with MPE who received advanced interventions prior to ECMO, and a slight non-significant benefit in those who received advanced interventions while on ECMO. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The PREdiction of Survival on ECMO Therapy Score (PRESET-Score) predicts mortality while on veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) for acute respiratory distress syndrome. The aim of our study was to assess the association between PRESET-Score and survival in a large COVID-19 VV ECMO cohort. Methods: This was a single-center retrospective study of COVID-19 VV ECMO patients from 15 March 2020, to 30 November 2021. Univariable and Multivariable analyses were performed to assess patient survival and score differences. Results: A total of 105 patients were included in our analysis with a mean PRESET-Score of 6.74. Overall survival was 65.71%. The mean PRESET-Score was significantly lower in the survivor group (6.03 vs 8.11, p < 0.001). Patients with a PRESET-Score less than or equal to six had improved survival compared to those with a PRESET-Score greater than or equal to 8 (97.7% vs. 32.5%, p < 0.001). In a multivariable logistic regression, a lower PRESET-Score was also predictive of survival (OR 2.84, 95% CI 1.75, 4.63, p < 0.001). Conclusion: We demonstrate that lower PRESET scores are associated with improved survival. The utilization of this validated, quantifiable, and objective scoring system to help identify COVID-19 patients with the greatest potential to benefit from VV-ECMO appears feasible. The incorporation of the PRESET-Score into institutional ECMO candidacy guidelines can help insure and improve access of this limited healthcare resource to all critically ill patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: With the increased demand for veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) during the COVID-19 pandemic, guidelines for patient candidacy have often limited this modality for patients with a body mass index (BMI) less than 40 kg/m2. We hypothesize that COVID-19 VV ECMO patients with at least class III obesity (BMI ≥ 40) have decreased in-hospital mortality when compared to non-COVID-19 and non-class III obese COVID-19 VV ECMO populations. Methods: This is a single-center retrospective study of COVID-19 VV ECMO patients from January 1, 2014, to November 30, 2021. Our institution used BMI ≥ 40 as part of a multi-disciplinary VV ECMO candidate screening process in COVID-19 patients. BMI criteria were not considered for exclusion criteria in non-COVID-19 patients. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to assess in-hospital mortality differences. Results: A total of 380 patients were included in our analysis: The COVID-19 group had a lower survival rate that was not statistically significant (65.7% vs.74.9%, p =.07). The median BMI between BMI ≥ 40 COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients was not different (44.5 vs 45.5, p =.2). There was no difference in survival between the groups (73.3% vs. 78.5%, p =.58), nor was there a difference in survival between the COVID-19 BMI ≥ 40 and BMI < 40 patients (73.3, 62.7, p =.29). Multivariable logistic regression with the outcome of in-hospital mortality was performed and BMI was not found to be significant (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.89, 1.01; p =.92). Conclusion: BMI ≥ 40 was not an independent risk factor for decreased in-hospital survival in this cohort of VV ECMO patients at a high-volume center. BMI should not be the sole factor when deciding VV ECMO candidacy in patients with COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) has become an important support modality for patients with acute respiratory failure refractory to optimal medical therapy, such as low tidal volume mechanical ventilator support, early paralytic infusion, and early prone positioning. The objective of this cohort study was to investigate the causes and timing of in-hospital mortality in patients on VV ECMO. All patients, excluding trauma and bridge to lung transplant, admitted 8/2014–6/2019 to a specialty ICU for VV ECMO were reviewed. Two hundred twenty-five patients were included. In-hospital mortality was 24.4% (n = 55). Most non-survivors (46/55, 84%) died prior to lung recovery and decannulation from VV ECMO. Most common cause of death (COD) for patients who died on VV ECMO was removal of life sustaining therapy (LST) in setting of multisystem organ failure (MSOF) (n = 24). Nine patients died a median of 9 days [6, 11] after decannulation. Most common COD in these patients was palliative withdrawal of LST due to poor prognosis (n = 3). Non-survivors were older and had worse predictive mortality scores than survivors. We found that death in patients supported with VV ECMO in our study most often occurs prior to decannulation and lung recovery. This study demonstrated that the most common cause of death in patients supported with VV ECMO was removal of LST due MSOF. Acute hemorrhage (systemic or intracranial) was not found to be a common cause of death in our patient population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]