Admission Code Status and End-of-life Care for Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19

CONTEXT

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted variability in intensity of care. We aimed to characterize intensity of care among hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES

Examine the prevalence and predictors of admission code status, palliative care consultation, comfort-measures-only orders, and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) among patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study examined data from an international registry of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. A proportional odds model evaluated predictors of more aggressive code status (i.e., Full Code) vs. less (i.e., Do Not Resuscitate, DNR). Among decedents, logistic regression was used to identify predictors of palliative care consultation, comfort measures only, and CPR at time of death.

RESULTS

We included 29,923 patients across 179 sites. Among those with admission code status documented, Full Code was selected by 90% (n = 15,273). Adjusting for site, Full Code was more likely for patients who were of Black or Asian race (ORs 1.82, 95% CIs 1.5-2.19; 1.78, 1.15-3.09 respectively, relative to White race), Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.89, CI 1.35-2.32), and male sex (OR 1.16, CI 1.0-1.33). Of the 4951 decedents, 29% received palliative care consultation, 59% transitioned to comfort measures only, and 29% received CPR, with non-White racial and ethnic groups less likely to receive comfort measures only and more likely to receive CPR.

CONCLUSION

In this international cohort of patients with COVID-19, Full Code was the initial code status in the majority, and more likely among patients who were Black or Asian race, Hispanic ethnicity or male. These results provide direction for future studies to improve these disparities in care.

Neurologic Manifestations of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection in Hospitalized Patients During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic

To describe the prevalence, associated risk factors, and outcomes of serious neurologic manifestations (encephalopathy, stroke, seizure, and meningitis/encephalitis) among patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

SETTING

One hundred seventy-nine hospitals in 24 countries within the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study COVID-19 Registry.

PATIENTS

Hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

RESULTS

Of 16,225 patients enrolled in the registry with hospital discharge status available, 2,092 (12.9%) developed serious neurologic manifestations including 1,656 (10.2%) with encephalopathy at admission, 331 (2.0%) with stroke, 243 (1.5%) with seizure, and 73 (0.5%) with meningitis/encephalitis at admission or during hospitalization. Patients with serious neurologic manifestations of COVID-19 were older with median (interquartile range) age 72 years (61.0-81.0 yr) versus 61 years (48.0-72.0 yr) and had higher prevalence of chronic medical conditions, including vascular risk factors. Adjusting for age, sex, and time since the onset of the pandemic, serious neurologic manifestations were associated with more severe disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.49; p < 0.001) as defined by the World Health Organization ordinal disease severity scale for COVID-19 infection. Patients with neurologic manifestations were more likely to be admitted to the ICU (OR, 1.45; p < 0.001) and require critical care interventions (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: OR, 1.78; p = 0.009 and renal replacement therapy: OR, 1.99; p < 0.001). Hospital, ICU, and 28-day mortality for patients with neurologic manifestations was higher (OR, 1.51, 1.37, and 1.58; p < 0.001), and patients had fewer ICU-free, hospital-free, and ventilator-free days (estimated difference in days, -0.84, -1.34, and -0.84; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Encephalopathy at admission is common in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and is associated with worse outcomes. While serious neurologic manifestations including stroke, seizure, and meningitis/encephalitis were less common, all were associated with increased ICU support utilization, more severe disease, and worse outcomes.

Association of latitude and altitude with adverse outcomes in patients with COVID-19: The VIRUS registry

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) course may be affected by environmental factors. Ecological studies previously suggested a link between climatological factors and COVID-19 fatality rates. However, individual-level impact of these factors has not been thoroughly evaluated yet.

AIM

To study the association of climatological factors related to patient location with unfavorable outcomes in patients.

METHODS

In this observational analysis of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study: COVID-19 Registry cohort, the latitudes and altitudes of hospitals were examined as a covariate for mortality within 28 d of admission and the length of hospital stay. Adjusting for baseline parameters and admission date, multivariable regression modeling was utilized. Generalized estimating equations were used to fit the models.

RESULTS

Twenty-two thousand one hundred eight patients from over 20 countries were evaluated. The median age was 62 (interquartile range: 49-74) years, and 54% of the included patients were males. The median age increased with increasing latitude as well as the frequency of comorbidities. Contrarily, the percentage of comorbidities was lower in elevated altitudes. Mortality within 28 d of hospital admission was found to be 25%. The median hospital-free days among all included patients was 20 d. Despite the significant linear relationship between mortality and hospital-free days (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.39 (1.04, 1.86), P = 0.025 for mortality within 28 d of admission; aOR = -1.47 (-2.60, -0.33), P = 0.011 for hospital-free days), suggesting that adverse patient outcomes were more common in locations further away from the Equator; the results were no longer significant when adjusted for baseline differences (aOR = 1.32 (1.00, 1.74), P = 0.051 for 28-day mortality; aOR = -1.07 (-2.13, -0.01), P = 0.050 for hospital-free days). When we looked at the altitude’s effect, we discovered that it demonstrated a non-linear association with mortality within 28 d of hospital admission (aOR = 0.96 (0.62, 1.47), 1.04 (0.92, 1.19), 0.49 (0.22, 0.90), and 0.51 (0.27, 0.98), for the altitude points of 75 MASL, 125 MASL, 400 MASL, and 600 MASL, in comparison to the reference altitude of 148 m.a.s.l, respectively. P = 0.001). We detected an association between latitude and 28-day mortality as well as hospital-free days in this worldwide study. When the baseline features were taken into account, however, this did not stay significant.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that differences observed in previous epidemiological studies may be due to ecological fallacy rather than implying a causal relationship at the patient level.

SARS-CoV-2 infection increases risk of acute kidney injury in a bimodal age distribution

BACKGROUND

Hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV2 develop acute kidney injury (AKI) frequently, yet gaps remain in understanding why adults seem to have higher rates compared to children. Our objectives were to evaluate the epidemiology of SARS-CoV2-related AKI across the age spectrum and determine if known risk factors such as illness severity contribute to its pattern.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of ongoing prospective international cohort registry. AKI was defined by KDIGO-creatinine only criteria. Log-linear, logistic and generalized estimating equations assessed odds ratios (OR), risk differences (RD), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for AKI and mortality adjusting for sex, pre-existing comorbidities, race/ethnicity, illness severity, and clustering within centers. Sensitivity analyses assessed different baseline creatinine estimators.

RESULTS

Overall, among 6874 hospitalized patients, 39.6% (n = 2719) developed AKI. There was a bimodal distribution of AKI by age with peaks in older age (≥60 years) and middle childhood (5-15 years), which persisted despite controlling for illness severity, pre-existing comorbidities, or different baseline creatinine estimators. For example, the adjusted OR of developing AKI among hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV2 was 2.74 (95% CI 1.66-4.56) for 10-15-year-olds compared to 30-35-year-olds and similarly was 2.31 (95% CI 1.71-3.12) for 70-75-year-olds, while adjusted OR dropped to 1.39 (95% CI 0.97-2.00) for 40-45-year-olds compared to 30-35-year-olds.

CONCLUSIONS

SARS-CoV2-related AKI is common with a bimodal age distribution that is not fully explained by known risk factors or confounders. As the pandemic turns to disproportionately impacting younger individuals, this deserves further investigation as the presence of AKI and SARS-CoV2 infection increases hospital mortality risk.

Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, ventilation management, and outcomes in invasively ventilated intensive care unit patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a pooled analysis of four observational studies

Background

Geoeconomic variations in epidemiology, the practice of ventilation, and outcome in invasively ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain unexplored. In this analysis we aim to address these gaps using individual patient data of four large observational studies.

Methods

In this pooled analysis we harmonised individual patient data from the ERICC, LUNG SAFE, PRoVENT, and PRoVENT-iMiC prospective observational studies, which were conducted from June, 2011, to December, 2018, in 534 ICUs in 54 countries. We used the 2016 World Bank classification to define two geoeconomic regions: middle-income countries (MICs) and high-income countries (HICs). ARDS was defined according to the Berlin criteria. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patients in MICs versus HICs. The primary outcome was the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) for the first 3 days of mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were key ventilation parameters (tidal volume size, positive end-expiratory pressure, fraction of inspired oxygen, peak pressure, plateau pressure, driving pressure, and respiratory rate), patient characteristics, the risk for and actual development of acute respiratory distress syndrome after the first day of ventilation, duration of ventilation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality.

Findings

Of the 7608 patients included in the original studies, this analysis included 3852 patients without ARDS, of whom 2345 were from MICs and 1507 were from HICs. Patients in MICs were younger, shorter and with a slightly lower body-mass index, more often had diabetes and active cancer, but less often chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure than patients from HICs. Sequential organ failure assessment scores were similar in MICs and HICs. Use of LTVV in MICs and HICs was comparable (42·4% vs 44·2%; absolute difference –1·69 [–9·58 to 6·11] p=0·67; data available in 3174 [82%] of 3852 patients). The median applied positive end expiratory pressure was lower in MICs than in HICs (5 [IQR 5–8] vs 6 [5–8] cm H₂O; p=0·0011). ICU mortality was higher in MICs than in HICs (30·5% vs 19·9%; p=0·0004; adjusted effect 16·41% [95% CI 9·52–23·52]; p<0·0001) and was inversely associated with gross domestic product (adjusted odds ratio for a US$10 000 increase per capita 0·80 [95% CI 0·75–0·86]; p<0·0001).

Interpretation

Despite similar disease severity and ventilation management, ICU mortality in patients without ARDS is higher in MICs than in HICs, with a strong association with country-level economic status.

Funding

No funding.

Variation in Early Management Practices in Moderate-to-Severe ARDS in the United States: The Severe ARDS: Generating Evidence Study

BACKGROUND

Although specific interventions previously demonstrated benefit in patients with ARDS, use of these interventions is inconsistent, and patient mortality remains high. The impact of variability in center management practices on ARDS mortality rates remains unknown.

RESEARCH QUESTION

What is the impact of treatment variability on mortality in patients with moderate to severe ARDS in the United States?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, observational cohort study of mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS and 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.

RESULTS

A 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.

INTERPRETATION

Substantial center-to-center variability exists in ARDS management, suggesting that further opportunities for improving ARDS outcomes exist. Early adherence to LPV was associated with lower center mortality and may be a surrogate for overall quality of care processes. Future collaboration is needed to identify additional treatment-level factors influencing center-level outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRY

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03021824; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Healthcare disparities among anticoagulation therapies for severe COVID-19 patients in the multi-site VIRUS registry

Here we analyze hospitalized andintensive care unit coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) patient outcomes from the international VIRUS registry (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04323787). We find that COVID‐19 patients administered unfractionated heparin but not enoxaparin have a higher mortality‐rate (390 of 1012 = 39%) compared to patients administered enoxaparin but not unfractionated heparin (270 of 1939 = 14%), presenting a risk ratio of 2.79 (95% confidence interval [CI]: [2.42, 3.16]; p = 4.45e−52). This difference persists even after balancing on a number of covariates including demographics, comorbidities, admission diagnoses, and method of oxygenation, with an increased mortality rate on discharge from the hospital of 37% (268 of 733) for unfractionated heparin versus 22% (154 of 711) for enoxaparin, presenting a risk ratio of 1.69 (95% CI: [1.42, 2.00]; p = 1.5e−8). In these balanced cohorts, a number of complications occurred at an elevated rate for patients administered unfractionated heparin compared to patients administered enoxaparin, including acute kidney injury, acute cardiac injury, septic shock, and anemia. Furthermore, a higher percentage of Black/African American COVID patients (414 of 1294 [32%]) were noted to receive unfractionated heparin compared to White/Caucasian COVID patients (671 of 2644 [25%]), risk ratio 1.26 (95% CI: [1.14, 1.40]; p = 7.5e−5). After balancing upon available clinical covariates, this difference in anticoagulant use remained statistically significant (311 of 1047 [30%] for Black/African American vs. 263 of 1047 [25%] for White/Caucasian, p = .02, risk ratio 1.18; 95% CI: [1.03, 1.36]). While retrospective studies cannot suggest any causality, these findings motivate the need for follow‐up prospective research into the observed racial disparity in anticoagulant use and outcomes for severe COVID‐19 patients.

Scheduled Prophylactic 6-Hourly IV AcetaminopheN to Prevent Postoperative Delirium in Older CaRdiac SurgicAl Patients (PANDORA): protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative delirium is common among older cardiac surgery patients. Often difficult to predict and address prophylactically, delirium complicates the postoperative course by increasing morbidity and mortality as well as prolonging both hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) lengths of stay. Based on our pilot trial, we intend to study the effect of scheduled 6-hourly acetaminophen administration for 48 hours post-cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) on the incidence of in-hospital delirium and long-term neurocognitive outcomes. Additionally, effect on duration and severity of delirium, rescue analgesic consumption, acute and chronic pain scores and lengths of hospital and ICU stay will also be explored.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, quadruple-blinded trial will include 900 older (>60 years) cardiac surgical patients requiring CPB. Patients meeting the inclusion criteria and not meeting any exclusion criteria will be enrolled at seven centres across the USA with Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), Boston, as the central coordinating centre. Additional sites may be included to broaden or speed accrual. The primary outcome measure is the incidence of in-hospital delirium till day 30. Secondary outcomes include the duration and severity of in-hospital delirium, hospital and ICU lengths of stay, postoperative pain scores, postoperative rescue analgesic consumption, postoperative cognitive function and chronic sternal pain. Creation of a biorepository and the use of intraoperative-blinded electroencephalogram (EEG) and cerebral oximetry data will support exploratory endpoints to determine mechanistic predictors of postoperative delirium.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This trial is approved and centrally facilitated by the Institutional Review Board at BIDMC. An independent Data Safety and Monitoring Board is responsible for maintaining safety oversight. Protocol # 2019 P00075, V.1.4 (dated 20 October 2020).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04093219.

Outcomes of Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Receiving Organ Support Therapies: The International Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study Registry

OBJECTIVES

To describe the outcomes of hospitalized patients in a multicenter, international coronavirus disease 2019 registry.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional observational study including coronavirus disease 2019 patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection between February 15, 2020, and November 30, 2020, according to age and type of organ support therapies.

SETTING

About 168 hospitals in 16 countries within the Society of Critical Care Medicine's Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness University Study coronavirus disease 2019 registry.

PATIENTS

Adult hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients who did and did not require various types and combinations of organ support (mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, vasopressors, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation).

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Primary outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were discharge home with or without assistance and hospital length of stay. Risk-adjusted variation in hospital mortality for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation was assessed by using multilevel models with hospitals as a random effect, adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, sex, and comorbidities. Among 20,608 patients with coronavirus disease 2019, the mean (± sd) age was 60.5 (±17), 11,1887 (54.3%) were men, 8,745 (42.4%) were admitted to the ICU, and 3,906 (19%) died in the hospital. Hospital mortality was 8.2% for patients receiving no organ support (n = 15,001). The most common organ support therapy was invasive mechanical ventilation (n = 5,005; 24.3%), with a hospital mortality of 49.8%. Mortality ranged from 40.8% among patients receiving only invasive mechanical ventilation (n =1,749) to 71.6% for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive drugs, and new renal replacement therapy (n = 655). Mortality was 39% for patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (n = 389). Rates of discharge home ranged from 73.5% for patients who did not require organ support therapies to 29.8% for patients who only received invasive mechanical ventilation, and 8.8% for invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive drugs, and renal replacement; 10.8% of patients older than 74 years who received invasive mechanical ventilation were discharged home. Median hospital length of stay for patients on mechanical ventilation was 17.1 days (9.7-28 d). Adjusted interhospital variation in mortality among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation was large (median odds ratio 1.69).

CONCLUSIONS

Coronavirus disease 2019 prognosis varies by age and level of organ support. Interhospital variation in mortality of mechanically ventilated patients was not explained by patient characteristics and requires further evaluation.

Evaluating the association between unmet healthcare needs and subsequent clinical outcomes: protocol for the Addressing Post-Intensive Care Syndrome-01 (APICS-01) multicentre cohort study

INTRODUCTION

As short-term mortality declines for critically ill patients, a growing number of survivors face long-term physical, cognitive and/or mental health impairments. After hospital discharge, many critical illness survivors require an in-depth plan to address their healthcare needs. Early after hospital discharge, numerous survivors experience inadequate care or a mismatch between their healthcare needs and what is provided. Many patients are readmitted to the hospital, have substantial healthcare resource use and experience long-lasting morbidity. The objective of this study is to investigate the gap in healthcare needs occurring immediately after hospital discharge and its association with hospital readmissions or death for survivors of acute respiratory failure (ARF).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

In this multicentre prospective cohort study, we will enrol 200 survivors of ARF in the intensive care unit (ICU) who are discharged directly home from their acute care hospital stay. Unmet healthcare needs, the primary exposure of interest, will be evaluated as soon as possible within 1 to 4 weeks after hospital discharge, via a standardised telephone assessment. The primary outcome, death or hospital readmission, will be measured at 3 months after discharge. Secondary outcomes (eg, quality of life, cognitive impairment, depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder) will be measured as part of 3-month and 6-month telephone-based follow-up assessments. Descriptive statistics will be reported for the exposure and outcome variables along with a propensity score analysis, using inverse probability weighting for the primary exposure, to evaluate the relationship between the primary exposure and outcome.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study received ethics approval from Vanderbilt University Medical Center Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the University of Utah IRB (for the Veterans Affairs site). These results will inform both clinical practice and future interventional trials in the field. We plan to disseminate the results in peer-reviewed journals, and via national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03738774). Registered before enrollment of the first patient.

Early High-Dose Vitamin D3 for Critically Ill, Vitamin D-Deficient Patients

BACKGROUND

Vitamin D deficiency is a common, potentially reversible contributor to morbidity and mortality among critically ill patients. The potential benefits of vitamin D supplementation in acute critical illness require further study.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of early vitamin D₃ supplementation in critically ill, vitamin D-deficient patients who were at high risk for death. Randomization occurred within 12 hours after the decision to admit the patient to an intensive care unit. Eligible patients received a single enteral dose of 540,000 IU of vitamin D₃ or matched placebo. The primary end point was 90-day all-cause, all-location mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 1360 patients were found to be vitamin D-deficient during point-of-care screening and underwent randomization. Of these patients, 1078 had baseline vitamin D deficiency (25-hydroxyvitamin D level, <20 ng per milliliter [50 nmol per liter]) confirmed by subsequent testing and were included in the primary analysis population. The mean day 3 level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D was 46.9±23.2 ng per milliliter (117±58 nmol per liter) in the vitamin D group and 11.4±5.6 ng per milliliter (28±14 nmol per liter) in the placebo group (difference, 35.5 ng per milliliter; 95% confidence interval [CI], 31.5 to 39.6). The 90-day mortality was 23.5% in the vitamin D group (125 of 531 patients) and 20.6% in the placebo group (109 of 528 patients) (difference, 2.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.1 to 7.9; P = 0.26). There were no clinically important differences between the groups with respect to secondary clinical, physiological, or safety end points. The severity of vitamin D deficiency at baseline did not affect the association between the treatment assignment and mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Early administration of high-dose enteral vitamin D₃ did not provide an advantage over placebo with respect to 90-day mortality or other, nonfatal outcomes among critically ill, vitamin D-deficient patients. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; VIOLET ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03096314.).

Prevalence of Disagreement About Appropriateness of Treatment Between ICU Patients/Surrogates and Clinicians

BACKGROUND

ICU patients/surrogates may experience adverse outcomes related to perceived inappropriate treatment. The objective was to determine the prevalence of patient/surrogate-reported perceived inappropriate treatment, its impact on adverse outcomes, and discordance with clinicians.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter, prospective, observational study of adult ICU patients.

RESULTS

For 151 patients, 1,332 patient, surrogate, nurse, and physician surveys were collected. Disagreement between patients/surrogates and clinicians regarding "too much" treatment being administered occurred in 26% of patients. Disagreement regarding "too little" treatment occurred in 10% of patients. Disagreement about perceived inappropriate treatment was associated with prognostic discordance (P = .02) and lower patient/surrogate satisfaction (Likert scale 1-5 of 4 vs 5; P = .02). Patient/surrogate respondents reported "too much" treatment in 8% of patients and "too little" treatment in 6% of patients. Perceived inappropriate treatment was associated with moderate or high respondent distress for 55% of patient/surrogate respondents and 35% of physician/nurse respondents (P = .30). Patient/surrogate perception of inappropriate treatment was associated with lower satisfaction (Family Satisfaction in the ICU Questionnaire-24, 69.9 vs 86.6; P = .002) and lower trust in the clinical team (Likert scale 1-5 of 4 vs 5; P = .007), but no statistically significant differences in depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-2 of 2 vs 1; P = .06) or anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 Scale of 7 vs 4; P = .18).

CONCLUSIONS

For approximately one-third of ICU patients, there is disagreement between clinicians and patients/surrogates about the appropriateness of treatment. Disagreement about appropriateness of treatment was associated with prognostic discordance and lower patient/surrogate satisfaction. Patients/surrogates who reported inappropriate treatment also reported lower satisfaction and trust in the ICU team.

Effect of Titrating Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) With an Esophageal Pressure-Guided Strategy vs an Empirical High PEEP-Fio2 Strategy on Death and Days Free From Mechanical Ventilation Among Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Adjusting positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) to offset pleural pressure might attenuate lung injury and improve patient outcomes in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether PEEP titration guided by esophageal pressure (PES), an estimate of pleural pressure, was more effective than empirical high PEEP-fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) in moderate to severe ARDS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Phase 2 randomized clinical trial conducted at 14 hospitals in North America. Two hundred mechanically ventilated patients aged 16 years and older with moderate to severe ARDS (Pao2:Fio2 ≤200 mm Hg) were enrolled between October 31, 2012, and September 14, 2017; long-term follow-up was completed July 30, 2018.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized to PES-guided PEEP (n = 102) or empirical high PEEP-Fio2 (n = 98). All participants received low tidal volumes.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was a ranked composite score incorporating death and days free from mechanical ventilation among survivors through day 28. Prespecified secondary outcomes included 28-day mortality, days free from mechanical ventilation among survivors, and need for rescue therapy.

RESULTS

Two hundred patients were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 56 [16] years; 46% female) and completed 28-day follow-up. The primary composite end point was not significantly different between treatment groups (probability of more favorable outcome with PES-guided PEEP: 49.6% [95% CI, 41.7% to 57.5%]; P = .92). At 28 days, 33 of 102 patients (32.4%) assigned to PES-guided PEEP and 30 of 98 patients (30.6%) assigned to empirical PEEP-Fio2 died (risk difference, 1.7% [95% CI, -11.1% to 14.6%]; P = .88). Days free from mechanical ventilation among survivors was not significantly different (median [interquartile range]: 22 [15-24] vs 21 [16.5-24] days; median difference, 0 [95% CI, -1 to 2] days; P = .85). Patients assigned to PES-guided PEEP were significantly less likely to receive rescue therapy (4/102 [3.9%] vs 12/98 [12.2%]; risk difference, -8.3% [95% CI, -15.8% to -0.8%]; P = .04). None of the 7 other prespecified secondary clinical end points were significantly different. Adverse events included gross barotrauma, which occurred in 6 patients with PES-guided PEEP and 5 patients with empirical PEEP-Fio2.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients with moderate to severe ARDS, PES-guided PEEP, compared with empirical high PEEP-Fio2, resulted in no significant difference in death and days free from mechanical ventilation. These findings do not support PES-guided PEEP titration in ARDS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01681225.

Expert Evaluation of a Chicken Tissue-based Model for Teaching Ultrasound-guided Central Venous Catheter Insertion

BACKGROUND

Ultrasound-guided central venous catheterization (CVC) is a commonly performed procedure which carries significant risks for complications. Current models used for simulation-based teaching are expensive and may not replicate tissue feel and ultrasound qualities of human tissues. We aimed to evaluate a tissue model composed of chicken breast and balloons and compare it to a commercially available mannequin.

METHODS

Forty attending physicians from four departments with extensive CVC experience were enrolled. Participants completed an ultrasound-guided central line placement utilizing both models during a hands-on workshop. Following CVC placement on each model, participants completed a survey to assess their experience with that particular model.

RESULTS

40 attending physicians (12 (30%) anesthesia, 11 (28%) emergency medicine, 11 (28%) internal medicine, and 6 (15%) surgery) participated in the study. The chicken model was rated significantly higher than the mannequin model with regard to ultrasound quality (p=0.02) and tissue feel (p=0.002). In a direct comparison, participants rated the chicken model more highly than the mannequin in all categories except similarity to the human anatomy. Overall the chicken model was preferred to the mannequin, (mean score 44.5; standard deviation 26.0). The mannequin was rated higher with regard to similarity to human anatomy (mean score 52.8; standard deviation 25.7). The comparison between key features (ultrasound characteristics, similarity to human anatomy and teaching trainees) of the models did not vary significantly by area of practice, with the exception of ease of use (p=0.045).

CONCLUSIONS

In this prospective study of experienced clinicians we found that a novel tissue model for ultrasound-guided CVC placement was rated more highly compared to a commercially available mannequin task trainer.

Effect of Aspirin on Development of ARDS in At-Risk Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department: The LIPS-A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains largely supportive. Whether early intervention can prevent development of ARDS remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of early aspirin administration for the prevention of ARDS.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial conducted at 16 US academic hospitals. Between January 2, 2012, and November 17, 2014, 7673 patients at risk for ARDS (Lung Injury Prediction Score ≥4) in the emergency department were screened and 400 were randomized. Ten patients were excluded, leaving 390 in the final modified intention-to-treat analysis cohort.

INTERVENTIONS

Administration of aspirin, 325-mg loading dose followed by 81 mg/d (n = 195) or placebo (n = 195) within 24 hours of emergency department presentation and continued to hospital day 7, discharge, or death.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the development of ARDS by study day 7. Secondary measures included ventilator-free days, hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, 28-day and 1-year survival, and change in serum biomarkers associated with ARDS. A final α level of .0737 (α = .10 overall) was required for statistical significance of the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Among 390 analyzed patients (median age, 57 years; 187 [48%] women), the median (IQR) hospital length of stay was 6 3-10) days. Administration of aspirin, compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce the incidence of ARDS at 7 days (10.3% vs 8.7%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.24 [92.6% CI, 0.67 to 2.31], P = .53). No significant differences were seen in secondary outcomes: ventilator-free to day 28, mean (SD), 24.9 (7.4) days vs 25.2 (7.0) days (mean [90% CI] difference, -0.26 [-1.46 to 0.94] days; P = .72); ICU length of stay, mean (SD), 5.2 (7.0) days vs 5.4 (7.0) days (mean [90% CI] difference, -0.16 [-1.75 to 1.43] days; P = .87); hospital length of stay, mean (SD), 8.8 (10.3) days vs 9.0 (9.9) days (mean [90% CI] difference, -0.27 [-1.96 to 1.42] days; P = .79); or 28-day survival, 90% vs 90% (hazard ratio [90% CI], 1.03 [0.60 to 1.79]; P = .92) or 1-year survival, 73% vs 75% (hazard ratio [90% CI], 1.06 [0.75 to 1.50]; P = .79). Bleeding-related adverse events were infrequent in both groups (aspirin vs placebo, 5.6% vs 2.6%; odds ratio [90% CI], 2.27 [0.92 to 5.61]; P = .13).

RESULTS

Among 390 analyzed patients (median age, 57 years; 187 [48%] women), median (IQR) hospital length of stay was 6 (3-10) days. Administration of aspirin, compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce the incidence of ARDS at 7 days (OR, 1.24; 92.6%CI, 0.67-2.31). No significant differences were seen in secondary outcomes or adverse events. [table: see text]

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among at-risk patients presenting to the ED, the use of aspirin compared with placebo did not reduce the risk of ARDS at 7 days. The findings of this phase 2b trial do not support continuation to a larger phase 3 trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01504867.

Predicting Mortality in Low-Income Country ICUs: The Rwanda Mortality Probability Model (R-MPM)

Introduction

Intensive Care Unit (ICU) risk prediction models are used to compare outcomes for quality improvement initiatives, benchmarking, and research. While such models provide robust tools in high-income countries, an ICU risk prediction model has not been validated in a low-income country where ICU population characteristics are different from those in high-income countries, and where laboratory-based patient data are often unavailable. We sought to validate the Mortality Probability Admission Model, version III (MPM₀-III) in two public ICUs in Rwanda and to develop a new Rwanda Mortality Probability Model (R-MPM) for use in low-income countries.

Methods

We prospectively collected data on all adult patients admitted to Rwanda’s two public ICUs between August 19, 2013 and October 6, 2014. We described demographic and presenting characteristics and outcomes. We assessed the discrimination and calibration of the MPM₀-III model. Using stepwise selection, we developed a new logistic model for risk prediction, the R-MPM, and used bootstrapping techniques to test for optimism in the model.

Results

Among 427 consecutive adults, the median age was 34 (IQR 25–47) years and mortality was 48.7%. Mechanical ventilation was initiated for 85.3%, and 41.9% received vasopressors. The MPM₀-III predicted mortality with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.72 and Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square statistic p = 0.024. We developed a new model using five variables: age, suspected or confirmed infection within 24 hours of ICU admission, hypotension or shock as a reason for ICU admission, Glasgow Coma Scale score at ICU admission, and heart rate at ICU admission. Using these five variables, the R-MPM predicted outcomes with area under the ROC curve of 0.81 with 95% confidence interval of (0.77, 0.86), and Hosmer-Lemeshow chi-square statistic p = 0.154.

Conclusions

The MPM₀-III has modest ability to predict mortality in a population of Rwandan ICU patients. The R-MPM is an alternative risk prediction model with fewer variables and better predictive power. If validated in other critically ill patients in a broad range of settings, the model has the potential to improve the reliability of comparisons used for critical care research and quality improvement initiatives in low-income countries.

The Esophageal Pressure-Guided Ventilation 2 (EPVent2) trial protocol: a multicentre, randomised clinical trial of mechanical ventilation guided by transpulmonary pressure

INTRODUCTION

Optimal ventilator management for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains uncertain. Lower tidal volume ventilation appears to be beneficial, but optimal management of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) remains unclear. The Esophageal Pressure-Guided Ventilation 2 Trial (EPVent2) aims to examine the impact of mechanical ventilation directed at maintaining a positive transpulmonary pressure (PTP) in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

EPVent2 is a multicentre, prospective, randomised, phase II clinical trial testing the hypothesis that the use of a PTP-guided ventilation strategy will lead to improvement in composite outcomes of mortality and time off the ventilator at 28 days as compared with a high-PEEP control. This study will enrol 200 study participants from 11 hospitals across North America. The trial will utilise a primary composite end point that incorporates death and days off the ventilator at 28 days to test the primary hypothesis that adjusting ventilator pressure to achieve positive PTP values will result in improved mortality and ventilator-free days.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Safety oversight will be under the direction of an independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB). Approval of the protocol was obtained from the DSMB prior to enrolling the first study participant. Approvals of the protocol as well as informed consent documents were also obtained from the Institutional Review Board of each participating institution prior to enrolling study participants at each respective site. The findings of this investigation, as well as associated ancillary studies, will be disseminated in the form of oral and abstract presentations at major national and international medical specialty meetings. The primary objective and other significant findings will also be presented in manuscript form. All final, published manuscripts resulting from this protocol will be submitted to PubMed Central in accordance with the National Institute of Health Public Access Policy.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov under number NCT01681225.

Lung Injury Prevention with Aspirin (LIPS-A): a protocol for a multicentre randomised clinical trial in medical patients at high risk of acute lung injury

INTRODUCTION

Acute lung injury (ALI) is a devastating condition that places a heavy burden on public health resources. Although the need for effective ALI prevention strategies is increasingly recognised, no effective preventative strategies exist. The Lung Injury Prevention Study with Aspirin (LIPS-A) aims to test whether aspirin (ASA) could prevent and/or mitigate the development of ALI.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

LIPS-A is a multicentre, double-blind, randomised clinical trial testing the hypothesis that the early administration of ASA will result in a reduced incidence of ALI in adult patients at high risk. This investigation will enrol 400 study participants from 14 hospitals across the USA. Conditional logistic regression will be used to test the primary hypothesis that early ASA administration will decrease the incidence of ALI.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Safety oversight will be under the direction of an independent Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB). Approval of the protocol was obtained from the DSMB prior to enrolling the first study participant. Approval of both the protocol and informed consent documents were also obtained from the institutional review board of each participating institution prior to enrolling study participants at the respective site. In addition to providing important clinical and mechanistic information, this investigation will inform the scientific merit and feasibility of a phase III trial on ASA as an ALI prevention agent. The findings of this investigation, as well as associated ancillary studies, will be disseminated in the form of oral and abstract presentations at major national and international medical specialty meetings. The primary objective and other significant findings will also be presented in manuscript form. All final, published manuscripts resulting from this protocol will be submitted to Pub Med Central in accordance with the National Institute of Health Public Access Policy.