Search

Purpose: Recent data highlight unclear efficacy and potential negative sequelae of stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) in the intensive care unit (ICU). Minimizing SUP exposure has pertinent clinical and other implications. This study assessed medication use and clinical outcomes before and after implementation of a practice guideline promoting early discontinuation of SUP in mechanically ventilated ICU patients. Methods: Retrospective, single-center, pre-post cohort study within a medical ICU at a large, academic medical center. Adult patients requiring mechanical ventilation and receiving SUP via a histamine-2 receptor antagonist (H2RA) or proton pump inhibitor (PPI) were eligible for inclusion. The clinical practice guideline was implemented on January 1, 2020. The impact of implementation was assessed via percent of patient-days with inappropriate SUP. Incidence of clinically important GI bleed was the primary safety outcome. Results: A total of 137 pre-guideline and 112 post-guideline patients were included. Comorbidity burden was similar between groups. A higher prevalence of baseline vasopressor receipt (39% vs 67%, P Conclusions: Implementation of an early SUP discontinuation guideline was associated with significant improvements in SUP prescribing practices. Baseline differences between groups likely explain observed differences in clinical outcomes.

Mechanically ventilated emergency department (ED) patients experience high morbidity and mortality. In a prior trial at our center, ED-based lung-protective ventilation was associated with improved care delivery and outcomes. Whether this strategy has persisted in the years after the trial remains unclear. The objective was to assess practice change and clinical outcomes associated with ED lung-protective ventilation.Secondary analysis of individual patient-level data from prior clinical trials and cohort studies.ED and ICUs of a single academic center.Mechanically ventilated adults.A lung-protective ventilator protocol used as the default approach in the ED.The primary ventilator-related outcome was tidal volume, and the primary clinical outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-, hospital-, and ICU-free days. Multivariable logistic regression, propensity score (PS)-adjustment, and multiple a priori subgroup analyses were used to evaluate outcome as a function of the intervention. A total of 1,796 patients in the preintervention period and 1,403 patients in the intervention period were included. In the intervention period, tidal volume was reduced from 8.2 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW) (7.3-9.1) to 6.5 mL/kg PBW (6.1-7.1), and low tidal volume ventilation increased from 46.8% to 96.2% (p0.01). The intervention period was associated with lower mortality (35.9% vs 19.1%), remaining significant after multivariable logistic regression analysis (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.43; 95% CI, 0.35-0.53; p0.01). Similar results were seen after PS adjustment and in subgroups. The intervention group had more ventilator- (18.8 [10.1] vs 14.1 [11.9]; p0.01), hospital- (12.2 [9.6] vs 9.4 [9.5]; p0.01), and ICU-free days (16.6 [10.1] vs 13.1 [11.1]; p0.01).ED lung-protective ventilation has persisted in the years since implementation and was associated with improved outcomes. These data suggest the use of ED-based lung-protective ventilation as a means to improve outcome.

Multidrug resistant Gram-negative infections are becoming more common and pose a serious threat to both individual patients and the population as a whole. Treatment of these infections can be difficult and result in significant morbidity and mortality. The purpose of this review is to discuss information and strategies for using new antibiotics to combat these infections.Eight new antibiotics represent possible means to treat multidrug resistant Gram-negative infections. Although no new mechanisms of action are present amongst these new antibiotics, novel additions to previously utilized mechanisms have been shown to be viable options for treatment of highly resistant organisms.The novel antibiotics considered in this review have varying data on their use as empiric treatment of patients at high risk for multidrug resistant organisms and as final therapy for identified multidrug resistant organisms. Cefiderocol, ceftazidime-avibactam, ceftolozane-tazobactam, meropenem-vaborbactam, and imipenem-relabactam have the best support evidence for use in this patient population.

Background In the RESTORE-IMI 2 trial, imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam (IMI/REL) was noninferior to piperacillin/tazobactam in treating hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. This post hoc analysis was conducted to determine independent predictors of efficacy outcomes in the RESTORE-IMI 2 trial, to assist in treatment decision-making. Methods A stepwise multivariable regression analysis was conducted to identify variables that were independently associated with day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM), favorable clinical response at early follow-up (EFU), and favorable microbiologic response at end of treatment (EOT). The analysis accounted for the number of baseline infecting pathogens and in vitro susceptibility to randomized treatment. Results Vasopressor use, renal impairment, bacteremia at baseline, and Acute Physiologic Assessment and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II scores ≥15 were associated with a greater risk of day 28 ACM. A favorable clinical response at EFU was associated with normal renal function, an APACHE II score Conclusions This analysis, which accounted for baseline pathogen susceptibility, validated well-recognized patient- and disease-related factors as independent predictors of clinical outcomes. These results lend further support to the noninferiority of IMI/REL to piperacillin/tazobactam and suggests that pathogen eradication may be more likely with IMI/REL.

Background The pivotal ASPECT-NP trial showed ceftolozane/tazobactam was non-inferior to meropenem for the treatment of ventilated hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (vHABP/VABP). Here, we evaluated treatment outcomes by degree of respiratory or cardiovascular dysfunction. Methods This was a subset analysis of data from ASPECT-NP, a randomized, double-blind, non-inferiority trial (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02070757). Adults with vHABP/VABP were randomized 1:1 to 3 g ceftolozane/tazobactam or 1 g meropenem every 8 h for 8–14 days. Outcomes in participants with a baseline respiratory component of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (R-SOFA) ≥ 2 (indicative of severe respiratory failure), cardiovascular component of the SOFA score (CV-SOFA) ≥ 2 (indicative of shock), or R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2 were compared by treatment arm. The efficacy endpoint of primary interest was 28-day all-cause mortality. Clinical response, time to death, and microbiologic response were also evaluated. Results There were 726 participants in the intention-to-treat population; 633 with R-SOFA ≥ 2 (312 ceftolozane/tazobactam, 321 meropenem), 183 with CV-SOFA ≥ 2 (84 ceftolozane/tazobactam, 99 meropenem), and 160 with R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2 (69 ceftolozane/tazobactam, 91 meropenem). Baseline characteristics, including causative pathogens, were generally similar in participants with R-SOFA ≥ 2 or CV-SOFA ≥ 2 across treatment arms. The 28-day all-cause mortality rate was 23.7% and 24.0% [difference: 0.3%, 95% confidence interval (CI) − 6.4, 6.9] for R-SOFA ≥ 2, 33.3% and 30.3% (difference: − 3.0%, 95% CI − 16.4, 10.3) for CV-SOFA ≥ 2, and 34.8% and 30.8% (difference: − 4.0%, 95% CI − 18.6, 10.3), respectively, for R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2. Clinical cure rates were as follows: 55.8% and 54.2% (difference: 1.6%, 95% CI − 6.2, 9.3) for R-SOFA ≥ 2, 53.6% and 55.6% (difference: − 2.0%, 95% CI − 16.1, 12.2) for CV-SOFA ≥ 2, and 53.6% and 56.0% (difference: − 2.4%, 95% CI − 17.6, 12.8), respectively, for R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2. Time to death was comparable in all SOFA groups across both treatment arms. A higher rate of microbiologic eradication/presumed eradication was observed for CV-SOFA ≥ 2 and R-SOFA ≥ 2 plus CV-SOFA ≥ 2 with ceftolozane/tazobactam compared to meropenem. Conclusions The presence of severe respiratory failure or shock did not affect the relative efficacy of ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem; either agent may be used to treat critically ill patients with vHABP/VABP. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02070757. Registered 25 February 2014, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757

BACKGROUND: The management of mechanical ventilation critically impacts outcome for patients with acute respiratory failure. Ventilator settings in the early post-intubation period may be especially influential on outcome. Low tidal volume ventilation in the prehospital setting has been shown to impact the provision of low tidal volume after admission and influence outcome. However, there is an overall paucity of data on mechanical ventilation for air medical transport patients. The objectives of this study were to characterize air medical transport ventilation practices and assess variables associated with nonprotective ventilation. METHODS: This was a multi-center, nationwide (approximately 130 bases) retrospective cohort study conducted on consecutive, adult mechanically ventilated air medical transport patients treated in the prehospital environment. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the cohort; the chi-square test compared categorical variables, and continuous variables were compared using independent samples t test or Mann-Whitney U test. To assess for predictors of nonprotective ventilation, a multivariable logistic regression model was constructed to adjust for potentially confounding variables. Low tidal volume ventilation was defined as a tidal volume of ≤ 8 mL/kg predicted body weight (PBW). RESULTS: A total of 68,365 subjects were studied. Height was documented in only 4,186 (6.1%) subjects. Significantly higher tidal volume/PBW (8.6 [8.3–9.2] mL vs 6.5 [6.1–7.0] mL) and plateau pressure (20.0 [16.5–25.0] cm H(2)O vs 18.0 [15.0–22.0] cm H(2)O) were seen in the nonpro-tective ventilation group (P < .001 for both). According to sex, females received higher tidal volume/PBW compared to males (7.4 [6.6–8.0] mL vs 6.4 [6.0–6.8] mL, P < .001) and composed 75% of those subjects with nonprotective ventilation compared to 25% male, P < .001. After multivariable logistic regression, female sex was an independent predictor of nonprotective ventilation (adjusted odds ratio 6.79 [95% CI 5.47–8.43], P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The overwhelming majority of air medical transport subjects had tidal volume set empirically, which may be exposing patients to nonprotective ventilator settings. Given a lack of PBW assessments, the frequency of low tidal volume use remains unknown. Performance improvement initiatives aimed at indexing tidal volume to PBW are easy targets to improve the delivery of mechanical ventilation in the prehospital arena, especially for females.

Deep sedation in the emergency department (ED) is common, increases deep sedation in the ICU, and is negatively associated with outcome. Limiting ED deep sedation may, therefore, be a high-yield intervention to improve outcome. However, the feasibility of conducting an adequately powered ED-based clinical sedation trial is unknown. Our objectives were to assess trial feasibility in terms of: 1) recruitment, 2) protocol implementation and practice change, and 3) safety. Patient-centered clinical outcomes were assessed to better plan for a future large-scale clinical trial.Pragmatic, multicenter ( n = 3), prospective before-after pilot and feasibility trial.The ED and ICUs at three medical centers.Consecutive, adult mechanically ventilation ED patients.An educational initiative aimed at reliable ED sedation depth documentation and reducing the proportion of deeply sedated patients (primary outcome).Sedation-related data in the ED and the first 48 ICU hours were recorded. Deep sedation was defined as a Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of -3 to -5 or a Sedation-Agitation Scale of 1-3. One thousand three hundred fifty-six patients were screened; 415 comprised the final population. Lighter ED sedation was achieved in the intervention group, and the proportion of deeply sedated patients was reduced from 60.2% to 38.8% ( p0.01). There were no concerning trends in adverse events (i.e., inadvertent extubation, device removal, and awareness with paralysis). Mortality was 10.0% in the intervention group and 20.4% in the preintervention group ( p0.01). Compared with preintervention, the intervention group experienced more ventilator-free days [22.0 (9.0) vs 19.9 (10.6)] and ICU-free days [20.8 (8.7) vs 18.1 (10.4)], p0.05 for both.This pilot trial confirmed the feasibility of targeting the ED in order to improve sedation practices and reduce deep sedation. These findings justify an appropriately powered clinical trial regarding ED-based sedation to improve clinical outcomes.

Objective Respiratory support status is critical in understanding patient status, but electronic health record data are often scattered, incomplete, and contradictory. Further, there has been limited work on standardizing representations for respiratory support. The objective of this work was to (1) propose a practical terminology system for respiratory support methods; (2) develop (meta-)heuristics for constructing respiratory support episodes; and (3) evaluate the utility of respiratory support information for mortality prediction. Materials and Methods All analyses were performed using electronic health record data of COVID-19-tested, emergency department-admit, adult patients at a large, Midwestern healthcare system between March 1, 2020 and April 1, 2021. Logistic regression and XGBoost models were trained with and without respiratory support information, and performance metrics were compared. Importance of respiratory-support-based features was explored using absolute coefficient values for logistic regression and SHapley Additive exPlanations values for the XGBoost model. Results The proposed terminology system for respiratory support methods is as follows: Low-Flow Oxygen Therapy (LFOT), High-Flow Oxygen Therapy (HFOT), Non-Invasive Mechanical Ventilation (NIMV), Invasive Mechanical Ventilation (IMV), and ExtraCorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ECMO). The addition of respiratory support information significantly improved mortality prediction (logistic regression area under receiver operating characteristic curve, median [IQR] from 0.855 [0.852—0.855] to 0.881 [0.876—0.884]; area under precision recall curve from 0.262 [0.245—0.268] to 0.319 [0.313—0.325], both P Conclusion Respiratory support information is critical in understanding patient status and can facilitate downstream analyses.

Nosocomial pneumonia, including hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), are the most common nosocomial infections occurring in critically ill patients requiring intensive care. However, challenges exist in making a timely and accurate diagnosis of HAP and VAP. Under diagnosis of HAP and VAP can result in greater mortality risk, especially if accompanied by delays in the administration of appropriate antimicrobial treatment. Over diagnosis of HAP and VAP results in the unnecessary administration of broad spectrum antibiotics that can lead to further escalation of antibiotic resistance. Optimal diagnosis and management of HAP and VAP require a systematic approach that combines clinical and radiographic assessments along with proper microbiologic techniques. The use of more invasive sampling methods (bronchoalveolar lavage and protected specimen brush) may enhance specimen collection resulting in more specific diagnoses to limit unnecessary antibiotic exposure. Molecular techniques, currently in use and investigational technique, may improve the diagnosis of HAP and VAP by allowing more rapid identification of offending pathogens, if present, thus increasing both appropriate antibiotic treatment and avoiding unnecessary drug exposure.

Objectives In the ASPECT-NP trial, ceftolozane/tazobactam was non-inferior to meropenem for treating nosocomial pneumonia; efficacy outcomes by causative pathogen were to be evaluated. Methods Mechanically ventilated participants with hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia were randomized to 3 g ceftolozane/tazobactam (2 g ceftolozane/1 g tazobactam) q8h or 1 g meropenem q8h. Lower respiratory tract (LRT) cultures were obtained ≤36 h before first dose; pathogen identification and susceptibility were confirmed at a central laboratory. Prospective secondary per-pathogen endpoints included 28 day all-cause mortality (ACM), and clinical and microbiological response at test of cure (7–14 days after the end of therapy) in the microbiological ITT (mITT) population. Results The mITT population comprised 511 participants (264 ceftolozane/tazobactam, 247 meropenem). Baseline LRT pathogens included Klebsiella pneumoniae (34.6%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (25.0%) and Escherichia coli (18.2%). Among baseline Enterobacterales isolates, 171/456 (37.5%) were ESBL positive. For Gram-negative baseline LRT pathogens, susceptibility rates were 87.0% for ceftolozane/tazobactam and 93.3% for meropenem. For Gram-negative pathogens, 28 day ACM [52/259 (20.1%) and 62/240 (25.8%)], clinical cure rates [157/259 (60.6%) and 137/240 (57.1%)] and microbiological eradication rates [189/259 (73.0%) and 163/240 (67.9%)] were comparable with ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem, respectively. Per-pathogen microbiological eradication for Enterobacterales [145/195 (74.4%) and 129/185 (69.7%); 95% CI: −4.37 to 13.58], ESBL-producing Enterobacterales [56/84 (66.7%) and 52/73 (71.2%); 95% CI: −18.56 to 9.93] and P. aeruginosa [47/63 (74.6%) and 41/65 (63.1%); 95% CI: −4.51 to 19.38], respectively, were also comparable. Conclusions In mechanically ventilated participants with nosocomial pneumonia owing to Gram-negative pathogens, ceftolozane/tazobactam was comparable with meropenem for per-pathogen 28 day ACM and clinical and microbiological response.

PURPOSE To elicit end-user and stakeholder perceptions regarding design and implementation of an inpatient clinical deterioration early warning system (EWS) for oncology patients to better fit routine clinical practices and enhance clinical impact. METHODS In an explanatory-sequential mixed-methods study, we evaluated a stakeholder-informed oncology early warning system (OncEWS) using surveys and semistructured interviews. Stakeholders were physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), and nurses. For qualitative data, we used grounded theory and thematic content analysis via the constant comparative method to identify determinants of OncEWS implementation. RESULTS Survey respondents generally agreed that an oncology-focused EWS could add value beyond clinical judgment, with nurses endorsing this notion significantly more strongly than other clinicians (nurse: median 5 on a 6-point scale [6 = strongly agree], interquartile range 4-5; doctors/advanced practice providers: 4 [4-5]; P = .005). However, some respondents would not trust an EWS to identify risk accurately (n = 36 [42%] somewhat or very concerned), while others were concerned that institutional culture would not embrace such an EWS (n = 17 [28%]). Interviews highlighted important aspects of the EWS and the local context that might facilitate implementation, including (1) a model tailored to the subtleties of oncology patients, (2) transparent model information, and (3) nursing-centric workflows. Interviewees raised the importance of sepsis as a common and high-risk deterioration syndrome. CONCLUSION Stakeholders prioritized maximizing the degree to which the OncEWS is understandable, informative, actionable, and workflow-complementary, and perceived these factors to be key for translation into clinical benefit.

Background Ceftolozane/tazobactam, a combination antibacterial agent comprising an anti-pseudomonal cephalosporin and β-lactamase inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) in adults. Participants in the ASPECT-NP trial received ceftolozane/tazobactam (3 g [2 g ceftolozane/1 g tazobactam] every 8 h) or meropenem (1 g every 8 h). Participants failing prior antibacterial therapy for the current HABP/VABP episode at study entry had lower 28-day all-cause mortality (ACM) rates with ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem treatment. Here, we report a post hoc analysis examining this result. Methods The phase 3, randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicenter, noninferiority trial compared ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem for treatment of adults with ventilated HABP/VABP; eligibility included those failing prior antibacterial therapy for the current HABP/VABP episode at study entry. The primary and key secondary endpoints were 28-day ACM and clinical response at test of cure (TOC), respectively. Participants who were failing prior therapy were a prospectively defined subgroup; however, subgroup analyses were not designed for noninferiority testing. The 95% CIs for treatment differences were calculated as unstratified Newcombe CIs. Post hoc analyses were performed using multivariable logistic regression analysis to determine the impact of baseline characteristics and treatment on clinical outcomes in the subgroup who were failing prior antibacterial therapy. Results In the ASPECT-NP trial, 12.8% of participants (93/726; ceftolozane/tazobactam, n = 53; meropenem, n = 40) were failing prior antibacterial therapy at study entry. In this subgroup, 28-day ACM was higher in participants who received meropenem versus ceftolozane/tazobactam (18/40 [45.0%] vs 12/53 [22.6%]; percentage difference [95% CI]: 22.4% [3.1 to 40.1]). Rates of clinical response at TOC were 26/53 [49.1%] for ceftolozane/tazobactam versus 15/40 [37.5%] for meropenem (percentage difference [95% CI]: 11.6% [− 8.6 to 30.2]). Multivariable regression analysis determined concomitant vasopressor use and treatment with meropenem were significant factors associated with risk of 28-day ACM. Adjusting for vasopressor use, the risk of dying after treatment with ceftolozane/tazobactam was approximately one-fourth the risk of dying after treatment with meropenem. Conclusions This post hoc analysis further supports the previously demonstrated lower ACM rate for ceftolozane/tazobactam versus meropenem among participants who were failing prior therapy, despite the lack of significant differences in clinical cure rates. ClinicalTrials.gov registrationNCT02070757. Registered February 25, 2014, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757.

Background The randomized, double-blind, phase 3 ASPECT-NP trial evaluated the efficacy of 3 g of ceftolozane/tazobactam (C/T) versus 1 g of meropenem infused every 8 h for 8 to 14 days for treatment of adults with hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) or ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP). We assessed the probability of target attainment and compared efficacy outcomes from ASPECT-NP in participants with augmented renal clearance (ARC) versus those with normal renal function. Methods Baseline renal function was categorized as normal renal function (creatinine clearance 80–130 mL/min) or ARC (creatinine clearance > 130 mL/min). Population pharmacokinetic models informed Monte Carlo simulations to assess probability of target attainment in plasma and pulmonary epithelial lining fluid. Outcomes included 28-day all-cause mortality and clinical cure and per-participant microbiologic cure rates at the test-of-cure visit. Results A > 99% and > 80% probability of target attainment was demonstrated for ceftolozane and tazobactam, respectively, in simulated plasma and epithelial lining fluid. Within treatment arms, 28-day all-cause mortality rates in participants with normal renal function (C/T, n = 131; meropenem, n = 123) and ARC (C/T, n = 96; meropenem, n = 113) were comparable (data comparisons presented as rate; treatment difference [95% CI]) (C/T: normal renal function, 17.6%; ARC, 17.7%; 0.2 [− 9.6 to 10.6]; meropenem: normal renal function, 20.3%; ARC, 17.7%; − 2.6 [− 12.6 to 7.5]). Clinical cure rates at test-of-cure were also comparable across renal function groups within treatment arms (C/T: normal renal function, 57.3%; ARC, 59.4%; − 2.1 [− 14.8 to 10.8]; meropenem: normal renal function, 59.3%; ARC, 57.5%; 1.8 [− 10.6 to 14.2]). Per-participant microbiologic cure rates at test-of-cure were consistent across renal function groups within treatment arms (C/T: normal renal function, 72.2% [n/N = 70/97]; ARC, 71.4% [n/N = 55/77]; 0.7 [− 12.4 to 14.2]; meropenem: normal renal function, 75.0% [n/N = 66/88]; ARC, 70.0% [n/N = 49/70]; 5.0 [− 8.7 to 19.0]). Conclusions C/T and meropenem resulted in 28-day all-cause mortality, clinical cure, and microbiologic cure rates that were comparable between participants with ARC or normal renal function. In conjunction with high probability of target attainment, these results confirm that C/T (3 g) every 8 h is appropriate in patients with HABP/VABP and ARC. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02070757, registered February 25, 2014; EudraCT: 2012-002862-11.

Severe or life threatening infections are common among patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Most infections in the ICU are bacterial or fungal in origin and require antimicrobial therapy for clinical resolution. Antibiotics are the cornerstone of therapy for infected critically ill patients. However, antibiotics are often not optimally administered resulting in less favorable patient outcomes including greater mortality. The timing of antibiotics in patients with life threatening infections including sepsis and septic shock is now recognized as one of the most important determinants of survival for this population. Individuals who have a delay in the administration of antibiotic therapy for serious infections can have a doubling or more in their mortality. Additionally, the timing of an appropriate antibiotic regimen, one that is active against the offending pathogens based on in vitro susceptibility, also influences survival. Thus not only is early empiric antibiotic administration important but the selection of those agents is crucial as well. The duration of antibiotic infusions, especially for β-lactams, can also influence antibiotic efficacy by increasing antimicrobial drug exposure for the offending pathogen. However, due to mounting antibiotic resistance, aggressive antimicrobial de-escalation based on microbiology results is necessary to counterbalance the pressures of early broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy. In this review, we examine time related variables impacting antibiotic optimization as it relates to the treatment of life threatening infections in the ICU. In addition to highlighting the importance of antibiotic timing in the ICU we hope to provide an approach to antimicrobials that also minimizes the unnecessary use of these agents. Such approaches will increasingly be linked to advances in molecular microbiology testing and artificial intelligence/machine learning. Such advances should help identify patients needing empiric antibiotic therapy at an earlier time point as well as the specific antibiotics required in order to avoid unnecessary administration of broad-spectrum antibiotics.

Objective: Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) remains a challenge. The importance of viruses in VAP is not established. We sought to determine the prevalence of viruses in VAP and the outcomes of viral VAP. Design: Retrospective study of VAP over 3 years. The frequency of a viral process represented the primary endpoint. Clinical outcomes served as secondary endpoints. We identified variables independently associated with a virus and conducted sensitivity analyses to assess the interaction between type of infection and patient characteristics. Setting: Tertiary-care referral center. Patients: The final cohort consisted of 710 patients and a virus was isolated in 5.1%. Interventions: None. Results: The most common viruses included: rhinovirus, influenza A, and cytomegalovirus. Baseline characteristics were similar between those with and without viral infections. In logistic regression, immunosuppression (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.44–6.14) and stem-cell transplantation (SCT, aOR, 3.58; 95% CI, 1.17–10.99) were independently associated with a virus. The presence of either variable performed poorly as a screening test for a virus. In-hospital (22.4% vs 21.6%; P = .869) and 30-day (32.8% vs 27.9%; P = .448) mortality rates were similar between the cohorts, respectively. Sensitivity analyses restricted to patients without a mixed viral and bacterial infection or those who were immunocompetent yielded similar results. Conclusion: Although infrequent, a range of viruses may cause VAP. Viruses more often complicate SCT and immunosuppression, but one can isolate viruses in immunocompetent subjects. Viral VAP produces severe infection and results in high mortality rates. Clinical features do not differentiate viral from nonviral VAP.

Objective:To evaluate the attitudes of infectious diseases (ID) and critical care physicians toward antimicrobial stewardship in the intensive care unit (ICU).Design:Anonymous, cross-sectional, web-based surveys.Setting:Surveys were completed in March–November 2017, and data were analyzed from December 2017 to December 2019.Participants:ID and critical care fellows and attending physicians.Methods:We included 10 demographic and 17 newly developed, 5-point, Likert-scaled items measuring attitudes toward ICU antimicrobial stewardship and transdisciplinary collaboration. Exploratory principal components analysis (PCA) was used for data reduction. Multivariable linear regression models explored demographic and attitudinal variables.Results:Of 372 respondents, 315 physicians had complete data (72% attendings, 28% fellows; 63% ID specialists, and 37% critical care specialists). Our PCA yielded a 3-item factor measuring which specialty should assume ICU antimicrobial stewardship (Cronbach standardized α = 0.71; higher scores indicate that ID physicians should be stewards), and a 4-item factor measuring value of ICU transdisciplinary collaborations (α = 0.62; higher scores indicate higher value). In regression models, ID physicians (vs critical care physicians), placed higher value on ICU collaborations and expressed discomfort with uncertain diagnoses. These factors were independently associated with stronger agreement that ID physicians should be ICU antimicrobial stewards. The following factors were independently associated with higher value of transdisciplinary collaboration: female sex, less discomfort with uncertain diagnoses, and stronger agreement with ID physicians as ICU antimicrobial stewards.Conclusions:ID and critical care physicians endorsed their own group for antimicrobial stewardship, but both groups placed high value on ICU transdisciplinary collaborations. Physicians who were more uncomfortable with uncertain diagnoses reported preference for ID physicians to coordinate ICU antimicrobial stewardship; however, physicians who were less uncomfortable with uncertain diagnoses placed greater value on ICU collaborations.

This review will provide rationale for the development of new antibiotics to treat severe or multidrug-resistant (MDR) Gram-negative infections. It will also provide an overview of recently approved and pipeline antibiotics for severe/MDR Gram-negative infections.MDR Gram-negative infections are recognized as critical threats by global and national organizations and carry a significant morbidity and mortality risk. Increasing antibiotic resistance amongst Gram-negative bacteria, including carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii , extended-spectrum β-lactamase-producing Enterobacterales, carbapenem-resistant Enterobacterales and Pseudomonas aeruginosa , with difficult-to-treat-resistance has made both empiric and definitive treatment of these infections increasingly problematic. In recent years, several antibiotics have been approved for treatment of MDR Gram-negative infections and ongoing clinical trials are poised to provide additional options to clinicians' armamentarium. These agents include various β-lactam/β-lactamase inhibitor combinations, eravacycline, plazomicin and cefiderocol.Severe/MDR Gram-negative infections continue to be important infections due to their impact on patient outcomes, especially in critically ill and immunocompromised hosts. The availability of new antibiotics offers an opportunity to improve empiric and definitive treatment of these infections.

Objectives To determine whether race is a major determinant of sepsis outcomes when controlling for socioeconomic factors. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Barnes-Jewish Hospital a 1,350 bed academic medical center. Patients Eleven-thousand four-hundred thirty-two patients hospitalized between January 2010 and April 2017 with sepsis and septic shock. Interventions Multilevel random effects modeling was employed whereby patients were nested within ZIP codes. Individual patient characteristics and socioeconomic variables aggregated at the ZIP code level (education, employment status, income, poverty level, access to healthcare) were included in the model. Measurements and main results In hospital mortality, length of stay, need for vasopressors, and mechanical ventilation were the main endpoints. Black patients had more comorbidities than White patients except for cirrhosis and malignancy. In unadjusted comparisons, White individuals were more likely to require mechanical ventilation and had higher mortality rates and longer hospital stays for both low- and high-income groups. When nesting within ZIP codes and accounting for socioeconomic variables, race did not have a significant effect on mortality. Non-White races had lower odds ratio for mechanical ventilation. Conclusions Our study demonstrates that race is not an independent risk factor for sepsis mortality, as well as sepsis-related length of stay. We should expand our inquiry into determinants of sepsis outcomes by including socioeconomic variables.

Study objective Awareness with paralysis is a devastating complication for patients receiving mechanical ventilation and risks long-term psychological morbidity. Data from the emergency department (ED) demonstrate a high rate of longer-acting neuromuscular blocking agent use, delayed analgosedation, and a lack of sedation depth monitoring. These practices are discordant with recommendations for preventing awareness with paralysis. Despite this, awareness with paralysis has not been rigorously studied in the ED population. Our objective is to assess the prevalence of awareness with paralysis in ED patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Methods This was a single-center, prospective, observational cohort study on 383 mechanically ventilated ED patients. After extubation, we assessed patients for awareness with paralysis by using the modified Brice questionnaire. Three expert reviewers independently adjudicated awareness with paralysis. We report the prevalence of awareness with paralysis (primary outcome); the secondary outcome was perceived threat, a mediator for development of posttraumatic stress disorder. Results The prevalence of awareness with paralysis was 2.6% (10/383). Exposure to rocuronium at any point in the ED was significantly different between patients who experienced awareness with paralysis (70%) versus the rest of the cohort (31.4%) (unadjusted odds ratio 5.1; 95% confidence interval 1.30 to 20.1). Patients experiencing awareness with paralysis had higher mean values on the threat perception scale, denoting a higher degree of perceived threat, compared with patients who did not experience awareness with paralysis (13.4 [SD 7.7] versus 8.5 [SD 6.2]; mean difference 4.9; 95% confidence interval 0.94 to 8.8). Conclusion Awareness with paralysis occurs in a significant minority of ED patients who receive mechanical ventilation. Potential associations of awareness with paralysis with ED care and increased perceived threat warrant further evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: In mechanically ventilated patients, awareness with paralysis (AWP) can have devastating consequences, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, and thoughts of suicide. Single-center data from the emergency department (ED) demonstrate an event rate for AWP factors higher than that reported from the operating room. However, there remains a lack of data on AWP among critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients. The objective was to assess the proportion of ED patients experiencing AWP and investigate modifiable variables associated with its occurrence. DESIGN: An a priori planned secondary analysis of a multicenter, prospective, before-and-after clinical trial. SETTING: The ED of three academic medical centers. PATIENTS: Mechanically ventilated adult patients that received neuromuscular blockers. INTERVENTIONS: None MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All data related to sedation and analgesia were collected. AWP was the primary outcome, assessed with the modified Brice questionnaire, and was independently adjudicated by three expert reviewers. Perceived threat, in the causal pathway for PTSD, was the secondary outcome. A total of 388 patients were studied. The proportion of patients experiencing AWP was 3.4% (n= 13), the majority of whom received rocuronium (n= 12/13; 92.3%). Among patients who received rocuronium, 5.5% (n= 12/230) experienced AWP, compared to 0.6% (n= 1/158) among patients who did not receive rocuronium in the ED [odds ratio, 8.64; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 to 67.15]. Patients experiencing AWP had a higher mean (standard deviation) threat perception scale score, compared to patients without AWP [15.6 (5.8) vs. 7.7 (6.0), p < 0.01]. CONCLUSIONS: AWP was present in a concerning proportion of mechanically ventilated ED patients, was associated with rocuronium exposure in the ED, and led to increased levels of perceived threat, placing patients at greater risk for PTSD. Studies that aim to further quantify AWP in this vulnerable population and eliminate its occurrence are urgently needed.

β-lactams are the cornerstone of empiric and targeted antibiotic therapy for critically ill patients. Recently, there have been calls to use β-lactam therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) within 24-48 hours after the initiation of therapy in critically ill patients. In this article, we review the dynamic physiology of critically ill patients, β-lactam dose response in critically ill patients, the impact of pathogen minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) on β-lactam TDM, and pharmacokinetics in critically ill patients. Additionally, we highlight available clinical data to better inform β-lactam TDM for critically ill patients.We retrospectively analyzed patients admitted for sepsis or septic shock at a single academic medical center who were treated with β-lactam antibiotics.Indexed studies in PubMed in English language were selected for review on topics relative to critical care physiology, β-lactams, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, TDM, and antibiotic susceptibility.We reviewed potentially related studies on β-lactams and TDM and summarized their design, patients, and results. This is a synthetic, nonsystematic, review.In the retrospective analysis of patients treated with β-lactam antibiotics, approximately one-third of patients received less than 48 hours of β-lactam therapy. Of those who continued beyond 48 hours, only 13.7% had patient-specific factors (augmented renal clearance, fluid overload, morbid obesity, and/or surgical drain), suggesting a potential benefit of β-lactam TDM.These data indicate that a strategy of comprehensive β-lactam TDM for critically ill patients is unwarranted as it has not been shown yet to improve patient-oriented outcomes. This review demonstrates that β-lactam TDM in the ICU, while laudable, layers ambiguous β-lactam exposure thresholds upon uncertain/unknown MIC data within a dynamic, unpredictable patient population for whom TDM results will not be available fast enough to significantly affect care. Judicious, targeted TDM for those with risk factors for β-lactam over- or underexposure is a better approach but requires further study. Clinically, choosing the correct antibiotic and dosing β-lactams aggressively, which have a wide therapeutic index, to overcome critical illness factors appears to give critically ill patients the best likelihood of survival.

Background: Adjunctive vasopressin use in septic shock reduces catecholamine requirements and is associated with a lower incidence of new-onset arrhythmias (NOAs). The association of vasopressin timing on NOA development is ill-described. Objective: To determine whether early administration of vasopressin was associated with a lower incidence of NOA in septic shock patients. Methods: A retrospective analysis of intensive care unit (ICU) patients at a large, academic medical center. Septic shock patients who required vasopressin and norepinephrine were eligible for inclusion. Patients were excluded for receipt of other vasoactive agents, history of cardiac arrhythmias, or outside hospital admission. Early vasopressin was defined as receipt within 6 hours of septic shock onset. The primary outcome was incidence of NOA. Results: In total, 436 patients, 220 (50.4%) in the early and 216 (49.6%) in the late vasopressin group, were included. Early vasopressin was not associated with a lower incidence of NOA compared with late vasopressin (9% vs 7%, median absolute difference [95% confidence interval, CI]: −2.1 [−7.2, 3.0], P = 0.41). Early vasopressin patients were observed to have shorter shock duration (2 vs 4 days, median absolute difference [95% CI]: 2 [1, 2], P < 0.001), and ICU length of stay (6 vs 7 days, median absolute difference [95% CI]: 1 [0, 2], P = 0.02). Conclusions and Relevance: Early vasopressin use was not associated with a lower incidence of NOA. Additional studies are needed to elucidate the effect of vasopressin timing on NOA and other clinical outcomes.

The first 70 years of critical care can be considered a period of "industrial revolution-like" advancement in terms of progressing the understanding and care of critical illness. Unfortunately, like the industrial revolution's impact on the environment, advancing ICU care of increasingly elderly, immunosuppressed, and debilitated individuals has resulted in a greater overall burden and complexity of nosocomial infections within modern ICUs. Given the rapid evolution of nosocomial infections, the authors provide an updated review.We searched PubMed and OVID for peer-reviewed literature dealing with nosocomial infections in the critically ill, as well as the websites of government agencies involved with the reporting and prevention of nosocomial infections. Search terms included nosocomial infection, antibiotic resistance, microbiome, antibiotics, and intensive care.Nosocomial infections in the ICU setting are evolving in multiple domains including etiologic pathogens plus novel or emerging pathogens, prevalence, host risk factors, antimicrobial resistance, interactions of the host microbiome with nosocomial infection occurrence, and understanding of pathogenesis and prevention strategies. Increasing virulence and antimicrobial resistance of nosocomial infections mandate increasing efforts toward their prevention.Nosocomial infections are an important determinant of outcome for patients in the ICU setting. Systematic research aimed at improving the prevention and treatment of nosocomial infections is still needed.

Background Pneumonia is the leading infection-related cause of death. The use of simple clinical criteria and contemporary epidemiology to identify patients at high risk of nosocomial pneumonia should enhance prevention efforts and facilitate development of new treatments in clinical trials. Research Question What are the clinical criteria and contemporary epidemiology trends that are helpful in the identification of patients at high risk of nosocomial pneumonia? Study Design and Methods Within the ICUs of 28 US hospitals, we conducted a prospective cohort study among adults who had been hospitalized >48 hours and were considered high risk for pneumonia (defined as treatment with invasive or noninvasive ventilatory support or high levels of supplemental oxygen). We estimated the proportion of high-risk patients who experienced the development of nosocomial pneumonia. Using multivariable logistic regression, we identified patient characteristics and treatment exposures that are associated with increased risk of pneumonia development during the ICU admission. Results Between February 6, 2016, and October 7, 2016, 4,613 high-risk patients were enrolled. Among 1,464 high-risk patients (32%) who were treated for possible nosocomial pneumonia, 537 (37%) met the study pneumonia definition. Among high-risk patients, a multivariable logistic model was developed to identify key patient characteristics and treatment exposures that are associated with increased risk of nosocomial pneumonia development (c-statistic, 0.709; 95% CI, 0.686-0.731). Key factors associated with increased odds of nosocomial pneumonia included an admission diagnosis of trauma or cerebrovascular accident, receipt of enteral nutrition, documented aspiration risk, and receipt of systemic antibacterials within the preceding 90 days. Interpretation Treatment for nosocomial pneumonia is common among patients in the ICU who are receiving high levels of respiratory support, yet more than one-half of patients who are treated do not fulfill standard diagnostic criteria for pneumonia. Application of simple clinical criteria may improve the feasibility of clinical trials of pneumonia prevention and treatment by facilitating prospective identification of patients at highest risk.

Background Synthetic data may provide a solution to researchers who wish to generate and share data in support of precision healthcare. Recent advances in data synthesis enable the creation and analysis of synthetic derivatives as if they were the original data; this process has significant advantages over data deidentification. Objectives To assess a big-data platform with data-synthesizing capabilities (MDClone Ltd., Beer Sheva, Israel) for its ability to produce data that can be used for research purposes while obviating privacy and confidentiality concerns. Methods We explored three use cases and tested the robustness of synthetic data by comparing the results of analyses using synthetic derivatives to analyses using the original data using traditional statistics, machine learning approaches, and spatial representations of the data. We designed these use cases with the purpose of conducting analyses at the observation level (Use Case 1), patient cohorts (Use Case 2), and population-level data (Use Case 3). Results For each use case, the results of the analyses were sufficiently statistically similar (P > 0.05) between the synthetic derivative and the real data to draw the same conclusions. Discussion and conclusion This article presents the results of each use case and outlines key considerations for the use of synthetic data, examining their role in clinical research for faster insights and improved data sharing in support of precision healthcare.

Background Mechanically ventilated patients have experienced greater periods of prolonged deep sedation during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Multiple studies from the pre-COVID era demonstrate that early deep sedation is associated with worse outcome. Despite this, there is a lack of data on sedation depth and its impact on outcome for mechanically ventilated patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. We sought to characterize the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) sedation practices during the COVID-19 pandemic, and to determine if early deep sedation was associated with worse clinical outcomes. Study design and methods Dual-center, retrospective cohort study conducted over 6 months (March–August, 2020), involving consecutive, mechanically ventilated adults. All sedation-related data during the first 48 h were collected. Deep sedation was defined as Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of − 3 to − 5 or Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale of 1–3. To examine impact of early sedation depth on hospital mortality (primary outcome), we used a multivariable logistic regression model. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days. Results 391 patients were studied, and 283 (72.4%) experienced early deep sedation. Deeply sedated patients received higher cumulative doses of fentanyl, propofol, midazolam, and ketamine when compared to light sedation. Deep sedation patients experienced fewer ventilator-, ICU-, and hospital-free days, and greater mortality (30.4% versus 11.1%) when compared to light sedation (p p Conclusions The management of sedation for mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU has changed during the COVID pandemic. Early deep sedation is common and independently associated with worse clinical outcomes. A protocol-driven approach to sedation, targeting light sedation as early as possible, should continue to remain the default approach.

Data suggest that low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) initiated in the emergency department (ED) has a positive impact on outcome. This systematic review and meta-analysis quantify the impact of ED-based LTVV on outcomes and ventilator settings in the ED and ICU.We systematically reviewed MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, references, conferences, and ClinicalTrials.gov.Randomized and nonrandomized studies of mechanically ventilated ED adults were eligible.Two reviewers independently screened abstracts. The primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included ventilation duration, lengths of stay, and occurrence rate of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We assessed impact of ED LTVV interventions on ED and ICU tidal volumes.The search identified 1,023 studies. Eleven studies (n = 12,912) provided outcome data and were meta-analyzed; 10 additional studies (n = 1,863) provided descriptive ED tidal volume data. Overall quality of evidence was low. Random effect meta-analytic models revealed that ED LTVV was associated with lower mortality (26.5%) versus non-LTVV (31.1%) (odds ratio, 0.80 [0.72-0.88]). ED LTVV was associated with shorter ICU (mean difference, -1.0; 95% CI, -1.7 to -0.3) and hospital (mean difference, -1.2; 95% CI, -2.3 to -0.1) lengths of stay, more ventilator-free days (mean difference, 1.4; 95% CI, 0.4-2.4), and lower occurrence rate (4.5% vs 8.3%) of ARDS (odds ratio, 0.57 [0.44-0.75]). ED LTVV interventions were associated with reductions in ED (-1.5-mL/kg predicted body weight [PBW] [-1.9 to -1.0]; p0.001) and ICU (-1.0-mL/kg PBW [-1.8 to -0.2]; p = 0.01) tidal volume.The use of LTVV in the ED is associated with improved clinical outcomes and increased use of lung protection, recognizing low quality of evidence in this domain. Interventions aimed at implementing and sustaining LTVV in the ED should be explored.

Introduction Hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP and VABP) are associated with significant healthcare resource utilization (HCRU). This a priori, exploratory, secondary analysis from the ASPECT-NP clinical trial evaluated resource utilization among patients with ventilated HABP (vHABP)/VABP treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam or meropenem. Methods This analysis used data from the randomized, double-blind, noninferiority phase 3 ASPECT-NP trial of patients with vHABP/VABP randomized to receive ceftolozane/tazobactam 3 g (ceftolozane 2 g/tazobactam 1 g) or meropenem 1 g for 8–14 days. Day 28 outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), intensive care unit (ICU) LOS, and time to mechanical ventilation extubation in the microbiological intention-to-treat (mITT) population and in an HCRU population. The HCRU population, a subset of patients from the mITT population that were alive at day 28, was used to remove resource use bias influenced by mortality rates. Results Ceftolozane/tazobactam-treated versus meropenem-treated patients, respectively, had fewer deaths (20.1% vs. 25.5%), fewer hospital discharges (30.7% vs. 32.4%), and higher ICU discharges (60.0% vs. 58.3%) and extubations (51.9% vs. 48.2%) by day 28. In the HCRU population, adjusted LOS differences (95% confidence intervals) for ceftolozane/tazobactam compared with meropenem were 0.1 (− 1.4 to 1.6) hospitalization days, − 1.4 (− 2.9 to 0.2) ICU days, and − 0.9 (− 2.4 to 0.7) mechanical ventilation days. Patterns were similar among the VABP and Pseudomonas aeruginosa subgroups. Conclusion Similar 28-day resource utilization outcomes were observed between ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem in the mITT population of patients from ASPECT-NP with vHABP/VABP due to gram-negative pathogens. ASPECT-NP was not powered to detect differences in resource utilization outcomes between treatment groups; however, numerical differences in ICU LOS and duration of mechanical ventilation were noted. Further study is needed to assess resource utilization in the real-world practice setting, especially among patients excluded from ASPECT-NP, including those with resistant P. aeruginosa infections. Trial Registrations ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02070757, registered February 25, 2014; EudraCT: 2012-002862-11. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s40121-020-00343-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Purpose of review The traditional approach to sepsis treatment utilizes broad-spectrum antibiotics. Unfortunately, a significant proportion of infected patients have 'culture-negative' sepsis despite appropriate microbiologic assessment. Recent findings There has been increased interest in the past decade on the treatment of culture-negative sepsis. Outcome data comparing culture-negative sepsis with culture-positive sepsis are mixed and it is unclear if culture-negative sepsis is a distinct entity. Recent recommendations promoting antibiotic de-escalation in culture-negative sepsis can be difficult to implement. A variety of strategies have been suggested for limiting antibiotic courses among patients with negative cultures, including limiting antibiotic durations, use of antibiotic stewardship programs, early consideration of narrow antibiotics, rapid diagnostic technology, and eliminating anti-MRSA therapy based on surveillance swabs. Summary Owing to the difficulty inherent in studying the lack of positive data, and to the uncertainty surrounding diagnosis in patients with culture-negative sepsis, prospective data to guide antibiotic choices are lacking. However, antibiotic de-escalation in culture-negative sepsis is both recommended and feasible in patients showing clinical signs of improvement. Increased use of rapid diagnostics, careful consideration of antibiotic necessity, and antibiotic stewardship programs may result in less antibiotic days and better outcomes.

Machine learning and data mining techniques are increasingly being applied to electronic health record (EHR) data to discover underlying patterns and make predictions for clinical use. For instance, these data may be evaluated to predict clinical deterioration events such as cardiopulmonary arrest or escalation of care to the intensive care unit (ICU). In clinical practice, early warning systems with multiple time horizons could indicate different levels of urgency, allowing clinicians to make decisions regarding triage, testing, and interventions for patients at risk of poor outcomes. These different horizon alerts are related and have intrinsic dependencies, which elicit multi-task learning. In this paper, we investigate approaches to properly train deep multi-task models for predicting clinical deterioration events via generating multi-horizon alerts for hospitalized patients outside the ICU, with particular application to oncology patients. Prior knowledge is used as a regularization to exploit the positive effects from the task relatedness. Simultaneously, we propose task-specific loss balancing to reduce the negative effects when optimizing the joint loss function of deep multi-task models. In addition, we demonstrate the effectiveness of the feature-generating techniques from prediction outcome interpretation. To evaluate the model performance of predicting multi-horizon deterioration alerts in a real world scenario, we apply our approaches to the EHR data from 20,700 hospitalizations of adult oncology patients. These patients' baseline high-risk status provides a unique opportunity: the application of an accurate model to an enriched population could produce improved positive predictive value and reduce false positive alerts. With our dataset, the model applying all proposed learning techniques achieves the best performance compared with common models previously developed for clinical deterioration warning.

Background The prospective identification of patients at high risk for hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia may improve clinical trial feasibility and foster antibacterial development. In a prior study conducted in the United States, clinical criteria were used to prospectively identify these patients; however, these criteria have not been applied in a European population. Methods Adults considered high risk for pneumonia (treatment with ventilation or high levels of supplemental oxygen) in the intensive care units of 7 European hospitals were prospectively enrolled from June 12 to December 27, 2017. We estimated the proportion of high-risk patients developing pneumonia according to US Food and Drug Administration guidance and a subset potentially eligible for antibacterial trial enrollment. We compared patient characteristics, treatment exposures, and pneumonia incidence in a European cohort and a previously described US cohort. Results Of 888 high-risk patients, 211/888 (24%) were treated for possible pneumonia, and 150/888 (17%) met the Food and Drug Administration definition for hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia. A higher proportion of European patients treated for possible pneumonia met the pneumonia definition (150/211 [71%] vs 537/1464 [37%]; P Conclusions Clinical criteria prospectively identified high-risk patients with high rates of pneumonia in the European cohort. Despite higher rates of established risk factors and incident pneumonia, European patients were significantly less likely to receive antibiotics for possible pneumonia than US patients. Different treatment practices may contribute to lower rates of antibacterial trial enrollment in the United States.

Nosocomial pneumonia due to antimicrobial-resistant pathogens is associated with high mortality. We assessed the efficacy and safety of the combination antibacterial drug ceftolozane-tazobactam versus meropenem for treatment of Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia.We conducted a randomised, controlled, double-blind, non-inferiority trial at 263 hospitals in 34 countries. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, were undergoing mechanical ventilation, and had nosocomial pneumonia (either ventilator-associated pneumonia or ventilated hospital-acquired pneumonia). Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) with block randomisation (block size four), stratified by type of nosocomial pneumonia and age (65 years vs ≥65 years), to receive either 3 g ceftolozane-tazobactam or 1 g meropenem intravenously every 8 h for 8-14 days. The primary endpoint was 28-day all-cause mortality (at a 10% non-inferiority margin). The key secondary endpoint was clinical response at the test-of-cure visit (7-14 days after the end of therapy; 12·5% non-inferiority margin). Both endpoints were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Investigators, study staff, patients, and patients' representatives were masked to treatment assignment. Safety was assessed in all randomly assigned patients who received study treatment. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02070757.Between Jan 16, 2015, and April 27, 2018, 726 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 362 to the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and 364 to the meropenem group. Overall, 519 (71%) patients had ventilator-associated pneumonia, 239 (33%) had Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores of at least 20, and 668 (92%) were in the intensive care unit. At 28 days, 87 (24·0%) patients in the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and 92 (25·3%) in the meropenem group had died (weighted treatment difference 1·1% [95% CI -5·1 to 7·4]). At the test-of-cure visit 197 (54%) patients in the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and 194 (53%) in the meropenem group were clinically cured (weighted treatment difference 1·1% [95% CI -6·2 to 8·3]). Ceftolozane-tazobactam was thus non-inferior to meropenem in terms of both 28-day all-cause mortality and clinical cure at test of cure. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in 38 (11%) of 361 patients in the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and 27 (8%) of 359 in the meropenem group. Eight (2%) patients in the ceftolozane-tazobactam group and two (1%) in the meropenem group had serious treatment-related adverse events. There were no treatment-related deaths.High-dose ceftolozane-tazobactam is an efficacious and well tolerated treatment for Gram-negative nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients, a high-risk, critically ill population.MerckCo.

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, health-care workers and uninfected patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 as a result of transmission from infected patients and health-care workers. In the absence of high-quality evidence on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, clinical practice of infection control and prevention in ICUs varies widely. Using a Delphi process, international experts in intensive care, infectious diseases, and infection control developed consensus statements on infection control for SARS-CoV-2 in an ICU. Consensus was achieved for 31 (94%) of 33 statements, from which 25 clinical practice statements were issued. These statements include guidance on ICU design and engineering, health-care worker safety, visiting policy, personal protective equipment, patients and procedures, disinfection, and sterilisation. Consensus was not reached on optimal return to work criteria for health-care workers who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 or the acceptable disinfection strategy for heat-sensitive instruments used for airway management of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Well designed studies are needed to assess the effects of these practice statements and address the remaining uncertainties.

Background Hospital-acquired and ventilator-associated pneumonia (HAP/VAP) cause significant mortality. Guidelines recommend empiric broad-spectrum antibiotics followed by de-escalation (DE). This study sought to assess the impact of DE on treatment failure. Methods This single-center retrospective cohort study screened all adult patients with a discharge diagnosis code for pneumonia from 2016 to 2019. Patients were enrolled if they met predefined criteria for HAP/VAP ≥48 hours after admission. Date of pneumonia diagnosis was defined as day 0. Spectrum scores were calculated, and DE was defined as a score reduction on day 3 versus day 1. Patients with DE were compared to patients with no de-escalation (NDE). The primary outcome was composite treatment failure, defined as all-cause mortality or readmission for pneumonia within 30 days of diagnosis. Results Of 11860 admissions screened, 1812 unique patient-admissions were included (1102 HAP, 710 VAP). Fewer patients received DE (876 DE vs 1026 NDE). Groups were well matched at baseline, although more patients receiving DE had respiratory cultures ordered (56.6% vs 50.6%, P = .011). There was no difference in composite treatment failure (35.0% DE vs 33.8% NDE, P = .604). De-escalation was not associated with treatment failure on multivariable Cox regression analysis (hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.96–1.33). Patients receiving DE had fewer antibiotic days (median 9 vs 11, P, In patients with nosocomial pneumonia, antibiotic de-escalation, assessed using spectrum scores, did not significantly impact 30-day composite treatment failure; however, de-escalation was associated with fewer antibiotic days, cases of Clostridioides difficile, and total days of hospitalization.

Pseudomonas aeruginosa is a Gram-negative bacterial pathogen that is a common cause of nosocomial infections, particularly pneumonia, infection in immunocompromised hosts, and in those with structural lung disease such as cystic fibrosis. Epidemiological studies have identified increasing trends of antimicrobial resistance, including multi-drug resistant (MDR) isolates in recent years. P. aeruginosa has several virulence mechanisms that increase its ability to cause severe infections, such as secreted toxins, quorum sensing and biofilm formation. Management of P. aeruginosa infections focuses on prevention when possible, obtaining cultures, and prompt initiation of antimicrobial therapy, occasionally with combination therapy depending on the clinical scenario to ensure activity against P. aeruginosa. Newer anti-pseudomonal antibiotics are available and are increasingly being used in the management of MDR P. aeruginosa.

IntroductionAvoiding low value medical practices is an important focus in current healthcare utilisation. Despite advantages of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) over chest X-ray including improved workflow and timeliness of results, POCUS-guided central venous catheter (CVC) position confirmation has slow rate of adoption. This demonstrates a gap that is ripe for the development of an intervention.MethodsThe intervention is a deimplementation programme called DRAUP (deimplementation of routine chest radiographs after adoption of ultrasound-guided insertion and confirmation of central venous catheter protocol) that will be created to address one unnecessary imaging modality in the acute care environment. We propose a three-phase approach to changing low-value practices. In phase 1, we will be guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework to explore barriers and facilitators of POCUS for CVC confirmation in a single centre, large tertiary, academic hospital via focus groups. The qualitative methods will inform the development and adaptation of strategies that address identified determinants of change. In phase 2, the multifaceted strategies will be conceptualised using Morgan’s framework for understanding and reducing medical overuse. In phase 3, we will locally implement these strategies and assess them using Proctor’s outcomes (adoption, deadoption, fidelity and penetration) in an observational study to demonstrate proof of concept, gaining valuable insights on the programme. Secondary outcomes will include POCUS-guided CVC confirmation efficacy measured by time and effectiveness measured by sensitivity and specificity of POCUS confirmation after CVC insertion.With limited data available to inform interventions that use concurrent implementation and deimplementation strategies to substitute chest X-ray for POCUS using the DRAUP programme, we propose that this primary implementation and secondary effectiveness pilot study will provide novel data that will expand the knowledge of implementation approaches to replacing low value or unnecessary care in acute care environments.Ethics and disseminationApproval of the study by the Human Research Protection Office has been obtained. This work will be disseminated by publication of peer-reviewed manuscripts, presentation in abstract form at scientific meetings and data sharing with other investigators through academically established means.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Identifier, NCT04324762, registered on 27 March 2020.

Background Ceftolozane/tazobactam is approved for treatment of hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP) at double the dose approved for other infection sites. Among nosocomial pneumonia subtypes, ventilated HABP (vHABP) is associated with the lowest survival. In the ASPECT-NP randomized, controlled trial, participants with vHABP treated with ceftolozane/tazobactam had lower 28-day all-cause mortality (ACM) than those receiving meropenem. We conducted a series of post hoc analyses to explore the clinical significance of this finding. Methods ASPECT-NP was a multinational, phase 3, noninferiority trial comparing ceftolozane/tazobactam with meropenem for treating vHABP and VABP; study design, efficacy, and safety results have been reported previously. The primary endpoint was 28-day ACM. The key secondary endpoint was clinical response at test-of-cure. Participants with vHABP were a prospectively defined subgroup, but subgroup analyses were not powered for noninferiority testing. We compared baseline and treatment factors, efficacy, and safety between ceftolozane/tazobactam and meropenem in participants with vHABP. We also conducted a retrospective multivariable logistic regression analysis in this subgroup to determine the impact of treatment arm on mortality when adjusted for significant prognostic factors. Results Overall, 99 participants in the ceftolozane/tazobactam and 108 in the meropenem arm had vHABP. 28-day ACM was 24.2% and 37.0%, respectively, in the intention-to-treat population (95% confidence interval [CI] for difference: 0.2, 24.8) and 18.2% and 36.6%, respectively, in the microbiologic intention-to-treat population (95% CI 2.5, 32.5). Clinical cure rates in the intention-to-treat population were 50.5% and 44.4%, respectively (95% CI − 7.4, 19.3). Baseline clinical, baseline microbiologic, and treatment factors were comparable between treatment arms. Multivariable regression identified concomitant vasopressor use and baseline bacteremia as significantly impacting ACM in ASPECT-NP; adjusting for these two factors, the odds of dying by day 28 were 2.3-fold greater when participants received meropenem instead of ceftolozane/tazobactam. Conclusions There were no underlying differences between treatment arms expected to have biased the observed survival advantage with ceftolozane/tazobactam in the vHABP subgroup. After adjusting for clinically relevant factors found to impact ACM significantly in this trial, the mortality risk in participants with vHABP was over twice as high when treated with meropenem compared with ceftolozane/tazobactam. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02070757. Registered 25 February, 2014, clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02070757.