Efficacy and safety of recombinant human activated protein C for severe sepsis

BACKGROUND

Drotrecogin alfa (activated), or recombinant human activated protein C, has antithrombotic, antiinflammatory, and profibrinolytic properties. In a previous study, drotrecogin alfa activated produced dose-dependent reductions in the levels of markers of coagulation and inflammation in patients with severe sepsis. In this phase 3 trial, we assessed whether treatment with drotrecogin alfa activated reduced the rate of death from any cause among patients with severe sepsis.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter trial. Patients with systemic inflammation and organ failure due to acute infection were enrolled and assigned to receive an intravenous infusion of either placebo or drotrecogin alfa activated (24 microg per kilogram of body weight per hour) for a total duration of 96 hours. The prospectively defined primary end point was death from any cause and was assessed 28 days after the start of the infusion. Patients were monitored for adverse events; changes in vital signs, laboratory variables, and the results of microbiologic cultures; and the development of neutralizing antibodies against activated protein C.

RESULTS

A total of 1690 randomized patients were treated (840 in the placebo group and 850 in the drotrecogin alfa activated group). The mortality rate was 30.8 percent in the placebo group and 24.7 percent in the drotrecogin alfa activated group. On the basis of the prospectively defined primary analysis, treatment with drotrecogin alfa activated was associated with a reduction in the relative risk of death of 19.4 percent (95 percent confidence interval, 6.6 to 30.5) and an absolute reduction in the risk of death of 6.1 percent (P=0.005). The incidence of serious bleeding was higher in the drotrecogin alfa activated group than in the placebo group (3.5 percent vs. 2.0 percent, P=0.06).

CONCLUSIONS

Treatment with drotrecogin alfa activated significantly reduces mortality in patients with severe sepsis and may be associated with an increased risk of bleeding.

Delirium in mechanically ventilated patients: validity and reliability of the confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit (CAM-ICU)

CONTEXT

Delirium is a common problem in the intensive care unit (ICU). Accurate diagnosis is limited by the difficulty of communicating with mechanically ventilated patients and by lack of a validated delirium instrument for use in the ICU.

OBJECTIVES

To validate a delirium assessment instrument that uses standardized nonverbal assessments for mechanically ventilated patients and to determine the occurrence rate of delirium in such patients.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Prospective cohort study testing the Confusion Assessment Method for ICU Patients (CAM-ICU) in the adult medical and coronary ICUs of a US university-based medical center.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 111 consecutive patients who were mechanically ventilated were enrolled from February 1, 2000, to July 15, 2000, of whom 96 (86.5%) were evaluable for the development of delirium and 15 (13.5%) were excluded because they remained comatose throughout the investigation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Occurrence rate of delirium and sensitivity, specificity, and interrater reliability of delirium assessments using the CAM-ICU, made daily by 2 critical care study nurses, compared with assessments by delirium experts using Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 471 daily paired evaluations were completed. Compared with the reference standard for diagnosing delirium, 2 study nurses using the CAM-ICU had sensitivities of 100% and 93%, specificities of 98% and 100%, and high interrater reliability (kappa = 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.92-0.99). Interrater reliability measures across subgroup comparisons showed kappa values of 0.92 for those aged 65 years or older, 0.99 for those with suspected dementia, or 0.94 for those with Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores at or above the median value of 23 (all P<.001). Comparing sensitivity and specificity between patient subgroups according to age, suspected dementia, or severity of illness showed no significant differences. The mean (SD) CAM-ICU administration time was 2 (1) minutes. Reference standard diagnoses of delirium, stupor, and coma occurred in 25.2%, 21.3%, and 28.5% of all observations, respectively. Delirium occurred in 80 (83.3%) patients during their ICU stay for a mean (SD) of 2.4 (1.6) days. Delirium was even present in 39.5% of alert or easily aroused patient observations by the reference standard and persisted in 10.4% of patients at hospital discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

Delirium, a complication not currently monitored in the ICU setting, is extremely common in mechanically ventilated patients. The CAM-ICU appears to be rapid, valid, and reliable for diagnosing delirium in the ICU setting and may be a useful instrument for both clinical and research purposes.

Delirium as a predictor of mortality in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit

CONTEXT

In the intensive care unit (ICU), delirium is a common yet underdiagnosed form of organ dysfunction, and its contribution to patient outcomes is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To determine if delirium is an independent predictor of clinical outcomes, including 6-month mortality and length of stay among ICU patients receiving mechanical ventilation.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Prospective cohort study enrolling 275 consecutive mechanically ventilated patients admitted to adult medical and coronary ICUs of a US university-based medical center between February 2000 and May 2001. Patients were followed up for development of delirium over 2158 ICU days using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU and the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes included 6-month mortality, overall hospital length of stay, and length of stay in the post-ICU period. Secondary outcomes were ventilator-free days and cognitive impairment at hospital discharge.

RESULTS

Of 275 patients, 51 (18.5%) had persistent coma and died in the hospital. Among the remaining 224 patients, 183 (81.7%) developed delirium at some point during the ICU stay. Baseline demographics including age, comorbidity scores, dementia scores, activities of daily living, severity of illness, and admission diagnoses were similar between those with and without delirium (P>.05 for all). Patients who developed delirium had higher 6-month mortality rates (34% vs 15%, P =.03) and spent 10 days longer in the hospital than those who never developed delirium (P<.001). After adjusting for covariates (including age, severity of illness, comorbid conditions, coma, and use of sedatives or analgesic medications), delirium was independently associated with higher 6-month mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 3.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-7.7; P =.008), and longer hospital stay (adjusted HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.4-3.0; P<.001). Delirium in the ICU was also independently associated with a longer post-ICU stay (adjusted HR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.2-2.3; P =.009), fewer median days alive and without mechanical ventilation (19 [interquartile range, 4-23] vs 24 [19-26]; adjusted P =.03), and a higher incidence of cognitive impairment at hospital discharge (adjusted HR, 9.1; 95% CI, 2.3-35.3; P =.002).

CONCLUSION

Delirium was an independent predictor of higher 6-month mortality and longer hospital stay even after adjusting for relevant covariates including coma, sedatives, and analgesics in patients receiving mechanical ventilation.

Long-term cognitive impairment after critical illness

BACKGROUND

Survivors of critical illness often have a prolonged and disabling form of cognitive impairment that remains inadequately characterized.

METHODS

We enrolled adults with respiratory failure or shock in the medical or surgical intensive care unit (ICU), evaluated them for in-hospital delirium, and assessed global cognition and executive function 3 and 12 months after discharge with the use of the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (population age-adjusted mean [±SD] score, 100±15, with lower values indicating worse global cognition) and the Trail Making Test, Part B (population age-, sex-, and education-adjusted mean score, 50±10, with lower scores indicating worse executive function). Associations of the duration of delirium and the use of sedative or analgesic agents with the outcomes were assessed with the use of linear regression, with adjustment for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Of the 821 patients enrolled, 6% had cognitive impairment at baseline, and delirium developed in 74% during the hospital stay. At 3 months, 40% of the patients had global cognition scores that were 1.5 SD below the population means (similar to scores for patients with moderate traumatic brain injury), and 26% had scores 2 SD below the population means (similar to scores for patients with mild Alzheimer's disease). Deficits occurred in both older and younger patients and persisted, with 34% and 24% of all patients with assessments at 12 months that were similar to scores for patients with moderate traumatic brain injury and scores for patients with mild Alzheimer's disease, respectively. A longer duration of delirium was independently associated with worse global cognition at 3 and 12 months (P=0.001 and P=0.04, respectively) and worse executive function at 3 and 12 months (P=0.004 and P=0.007, respectively). Use of sedative or analgesic medications was not consistently associated with cognitive impairment at 3 and 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients in medical and surgical ICUs are at high risk for long-term cognitive impairment. A longer duration of delirium in the hospital was associated with worse global cognition and executive function scores at 3 and 12 months. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and others; BRAIN-ICU ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00392795.).

Long-term cognitive impairment and functional disability among survivors of severe sepsis

CONTEXT

Cognitive impairment and functional disability are major determinants of caregiving needs and societal health care costs. Although the incidence of severe sepsis is high and increasing, the magnitude of patients' long-term cognitive and functional limitations after sepsis is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the change in cognitive impairment and physical functioning among patients who survive severe sepsis, controlling for their presepsis functioning.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS

A prospective cohort involving 1194 patients with 1520 hospitalizations for severe sepsis drawn from the Health and Retirement Study, a nationally representative survey of US residents (1998-2006). A total of 9223 respondents had a baseline cognitive and functional assessment and had linked Medicare claims; 516 survived severe sepsis and 4517 survived a nonsepsis hospitalization to at least 1 follow-up survey and are included in the analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Personal interviews were conducted with respondents or proxies using validated surveys to assess the presence of cognitive impairment and to determine the number of activities of daily living (ADLs) and instrumental ADLs (IADLs) for which patients needed assistance.

RESULTS

Survivors' mean age at hospitalization was 76.9 years. The prevalence of moderate to severe cognitive impairment increased 10.6 percentage points among patients who survived severe sepsis, an odds ratio (OR) of 3.34 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.53-7.25) in multivariable regression. Likewise, a high rate of new functional limitations was seen following sepsis: in those with no limits before sepsis, a mean 1.57 new limitations (95% CI, 0.99-2.15); and for those with mild to moderate limitations before sepsis, a mean of 1.50 new limitations (95% CI, 0.87-2.12). In contrast, nonsepsis general hospitalizations were associated with no change in moderate to severe cognitive impairment (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.80-1.67; P for difference vs sepsis = .01) and with the development of fewer new limitations (mean among those with no limits before hospitalization, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.39-0.57; P for difference vs sepsis <.001 and mean among those with mild to moderate limits, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.23-0.63; P for difference = .001). The declines in cognitive and physical function persisted for at least 8 years.

CONCLUSIONS

Severe sepsis in this older population was independently associated with substantial and persistent new cognitive impairment and functional disability among survivors. The magnitude of these new deficits was large, likely resulting in a pivotal downturn in patients' ability to live independently.

Evaluation of delirium in critically ill patients: validation of the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU)

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate an instrument for use in the intensive care unit to accurately diagnose delirium in critically ill patients who are often nonverbal because of mechanical ventilation.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

The adult medical and coronary intensive care units of a tertiary care, university-based medical center.

PATIENTS

Thirty-eight patients admitted to the intensive care units.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We designed and tested a modified version of the Confusion Assessment Method for use in intensive care unit patients and called it the CAM-ICU. Daily ratings from intensive care unit admission to hospital discharge by two study nurses and an intensivist who used the CAM-ICU were compared against the reference standard, a delirium expert who used delirium criteria from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (fourth edition). A total of 293 daily, paired evaluations were completed, with reference standard diagnoses of delirium in 42% and coma in 27% of all observations. To include only interactive patient evaluations and avoid repeat-observer bias for patients studied on multiple days, we used only the first-alert or lethargic comparison evaluation in each patient. Thirty-three of 38 patients (87%) developed delirium during their intensive care unit stay, mean duration of 4.2 +/- 1.7 days. Excluding evaluations of comatose patients because of lack of characteristic delirium features, the two critical care study nurses and intensivist demonstrated high interrater reliability for their CAM-ICU ratings with kappa statistics of 0.84, 0.79, and 0.95, respectively (p <.001). The two nurses' and intensivist's sensitivities when using the CAM-ICU compared with the reference standard were 95%, 96%, and 100%, respectively, whereas their specificities were 93%, 93%, and 89%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The CAM-ICU demonstrated excellent reliability and validity when used by nurses and physicians to identify delirium in intensive care unit patients. The CAM-ICU may be a useful instrument for both clinical and research purposes to monitor delirium in this challenging patient population.

Efficacy and safety of a paired sedation and ventilator weaning protocol for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care (Awakening and Breathing Controlled trial): a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Approaches to removal of sedation and mechanical ventilation for critically ill patients vary widely. Our aim was to assess a protocol that paired spontaneous awakening trials (SATs)-ie, daily interruption of sedatives-with spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs).

METHODS

In four tertiary-care hospitals, we randomly assigned 336 mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care to management with a daily SAT followed by an SBT (intervention group; n=168) or with sedation per usual care plus a daily SBT (control group; n=168). The primary endpoint was time breathing without assistance. Data were analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00097630.

FINDINGS

One patient in the intervention group did not begin their assigned treatment protocol because of withdrawal of consent and thus was excluded from analyses and lost to follow-up. Seven patients in the control group discontinued their assigned protocol, and two of these patients were lost to follow-up. Patients in the intervention group spent more days breathing without assistance during the 28-day study period than did those in the control group (14.7 days vs 11.6 days; mean difference 3.1 days, 95% CI 0.7 to 5.6; p=0.02) and were discharged from intensive care (median time in intensive care 9.1 days vs 12.9 days; p=0.01) and the hospital earlier (median time in the hospital 14.9 days vs 19.2 days; p=0.04). More patients in the intervention group self-extubated than in the control group (16 patients vs six patients; 6.0% difference, 95% CI 0.6% to 11.8%; p=0.03), but the number of patients who required reintubation after self-extubation was similar (five patients vs three patients; 1.2% difference, 95% CI -5.2% to 2.5%; p=0.47), as were total reintubation rates (13.8%vs 12.5%; 1.3% difference, 95% CI -8.6% to 6.1%; p=0.73). At any instant during the year after enrolment, patients in the intervention group were less likely to die than were patients in the control group (HR 0.68, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.92; p=0.01). For every seven patients treated with the intervention, one life was saved (number needed to treat was 7.4, 95% CI 4.2 to 35.5).

INTERPRETATION

Our results suggest that a wake up and breathe protocol that pairs daily spontaneous awakening trials (ie, interruption of sedatives) with daily spontaneous breathing trials results in better outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients in intensive care than current standard approaches and should become routine practice.

Monitoring sedation status over time in ICU patients: reliability and validity of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS)

CONTEXT

Goal-directed delivery of sedative and analgesic medications is recommended as standard care in intensive care units (ICUs) because of the impact these medications have on ventilator weaning and ICU length of stay, but few of the available sedation scales have been appropriately tested for reliability and validity.

OBJECTIVE

To test the reliability and validity of the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS).

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Adult medical and coronary ICUs of a university-based medical center.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty-eight medical ICU patients enrolled for reliability testing (46% receiving mechanical ventilation) from July 21, 1999, to September 7, 1999, and an independent cohort of 275 patients receiving mechanical ventilation were enrolled for validity testing from February 1, 2000, to May 3, 2001.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Interrater reliability of the RASS, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS), and Ramsay Scale (RS); validity of the RASS correlated with reference standard ratings, assessments of content of consciousness, GCS scores, doses of sedatives and analgesics, and bispectral electroencephalography.

RESULTS

In 290-paired observations by nurses, results of both the RASS and RS demonstrated excellent interrater reliability (weighted kappa, 0.91 and 0.94, respectively), which were both superior to the GCS (weighted kappa, 0.64; P<.001 for both comparisons). Criterion validity was tested in 411-paired observations in the first 96 patients of the validation cohort, in whom the RASS showed significant differences between levels of consciousness (P<.001 for all) and correctly identified fluctuations within patients over time (P<.001). In addition, 5 methods were used to test the construct validity of the RASS, including correlation with an attention screening examination (r = 0.78, P<.001), GCS scores (r = 0.91, P<.001), quantity of different psychoactive medication dosages 8 hours prior to assessment (eg, lorazepam: r = - 0.31, P<.001), successful extubation (P =.07), and bispectral electroencephalography (r = 0.63, P<.001). Face validity was demonstrated via a survey of 26 critical care nurses, which the results showed that 92% agreed or strongly agreed with the RASS scoring scheme, and 81% agreed or strongly agreed that the instrument provided a consensus for goal-directed delivery of medications.

CONCLUSIONS

The RASS demonstrated excellent interrater reliability and criterion, construct, and face validity. This is the first sedation scale to be validated for its ability to detect changes in sedation status over consecutive days of ICU care, against constructs of level of consciousness and delirium, and correlated with the administered dose of sedative and analgesic medications.

Dexmedetomidine vs midazolam for sedation of critically ill patients: a randomized trial

CONTEXT

Gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor agonist medications are the most commonly used sedatives for intensive care unit (ICU) patients, yet preliminary evidence indicates that the alpha(2) agonist dexmedetomidine may have distinct advantages.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the efficacy and safety of prolonged sedation with dexmedetomidine vs midazolam for mechanically ventilated patients.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS

Prospective, double-blind, randomized trial conducted in 68 centers in 5 countries between March 2005 and August 2007 among 375 medical/surgical ICU patients with expected mechanical ventilation for more than 24 hours. Sedation level and delirium were assessed using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) and the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU.

INTERVENTIONS

Dexmedetomidine (0.2-1.4 microg/kg per hour [n = 244]) or midazolam (0.02-0.1 mg/kg per hour [n = 122]) titrated to achieve light sedation (RASS scores between -2 and +1) from enrollment until extubation or 30 days.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Percentage of time within target RASS range. Secondary end points included prevalence and duration of delirium, use of fentanyl and open-label midazolam, and nursing assessments. Additional outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay, and adverse events.

RESULTS

There was no difference in percentage of time within the target RASS range (77.3% for dexmedetomidine group vs 75.1% for midazolam group; difference, 2.2% [95% confidence interval {CI}, -3.2% to 7.5%]; P = .18). The prevalence of delirium during treatment was 54% (n = 132/244) in dexmedetomidine-treated patients vs 76.6% (n = 93/122) in midazolam-treated patients (difference, 22.6% [95% CI, 14% to 33%]; P < .001). Median time to extubation was 1.9 days shorter in dexmedetomidine-treated patients (3.7 days [95% CI, 3.1 to 4.0] vs 5.6 days [95% CI, 4.6 to 5.9]; P = .01), and ICU length of stay was similar (5.9 days [95% CI, 5.7 to 7.0] vs 7.6 days [95% CI, 6.7 to 8.6]; P = .24). Dexmedetomidine-treated patients were more likely to develop bradycardia (42.2% [103/244] vs 18.9% [23/122]; P < .001), with a nonsignificant increase in the proportion requiring treatment (4.9% [12/244] vs 0.8% [1/122]; P = .07), but had a lower likelihood of tachycardia (25.4% [62/244] vs 44.3% [54/122]; P < .001) or hypertension requiring treatment (18.9% [46/244] vs 29.5% [36/122]; P = .02).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference between dexmedetomidine and midazolam in time at targeted sedation level in mechanically ventilated ICU patients. At comparable sedation levels, dexmedetomidine-treated patients spent less time on the ventilator, experienced less delirium, and developed less tachycardia and hypertension. The most notable adverse effect of dexmedetomidine was bradycardia.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00216190 Published online February 2, 2009 (doi:10.1001/jama.2009.56).

Effect of sedation with dexmedetomidine vs lorazepam on acute brain dysfunction in mechanically ventilated patients: the MENDS randomized controlled trial

CONTEXT

Lorazepam is currently recommended for sustained sedation of mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients, but this and other benzodiazepine drugs may contribute to acute brain dysfunction, ie, delirium and coma, associated with prolonged hospital stays, costs, and increased mortality. Dexmedetomidine induces sedation via different central nervous system receptors than the benzodiazepine drugs and may lower the risk of acute brain dysfunction.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether dexmedetomidine reduces the duration of delirium and coma in mechanically ventilated ICU patients while providing adequate sedation as compared with lorazepam.

DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS, AND INTERVENTION

Double-blind, randomized controlled trial of 106 adult mechanically ventilated medical and surgical ICU patients at 2 tertiary care centers between August 2004 and April 2006. Patients were sedated with dexmedetomidine or lorazepam for as many as 120 hours. Study drugs were titrated to achieve the desired level of sedation, measured using the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS). Patients were monitored twice daily for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Days alive without delirium or coma and percentage of days spent within 1 RASS point of the sedation goal.

RESULTS

Sedation with dexmedetomidine resulted in more days alive without delirium or coma (median days, 7.0 vs 3.0; P = .01) and a lower prevalence of coma (63% vs 92%; P < .001) than sedation with lorazepam. Patients sedated with dexmedetomidine spent more time within 1 RASS point of their sedation goal compared with patients sedated with lorazepam (median percentage of days, 80% vs 67%; P = .04). The 28-day mortality in the dexmedetomidine group was 17% vs 27% in the lorazepam group (P = .18) and cost of care was similar between groups. More patients in the dexmedetomidine group (42% vs 31%; P = .61) were able to complete post-ICU neuropsychological testing, with similar scores in the tests evaluating global cognitive, motor speed, and attention functions. The 12-month time to death was 363 days in the dexmedetomidine group vs 188 days in the lorazepam group (P = .48).

CONCLUSION

In mechanically ventilated ICU patients managed with individualized targeted sedation, use of a dexmedetomidine infusion resulted in more days alive without delirium or coma and more time at the targeted level of sedation than with a lorazepam infusion.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00095251.

Effect on the duration of mechanical ventilation of identifying patients capable of breathing spontaneously

BACKGROUND

Prompt recognition of the reversal of respiratory failure may permit earlier discontinuation of mechanical ventilation, without harm to the patient.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, controlled trial in 300 adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation in medical and coronary intensive care units. In the intervention group, patients underwent daily screening of respiratory function by physicians, respiratory therapists, and nurses to identify those possibly capable of breathing spontaneously; successful tests were followed by two-hour trials of spontaneous breathing in those who met the criteria. Physicians were notified when their patients successfully completed the trials of spontaneous breathing. The control subjects had daily screening but no other interventions. In both groups, all clinical decisions, including the decision to discontinue mechanical ventilation, were made by the attending physicians.

RESULTS

Although the 149 patients randomly assigned to the intervention group had more severe disease, they received mechanical ventilation for a median of 4.5 days, as compared with 6 days in the 151 patients in the control group (P=0.003). The median interval between the time a patient met the screening criteria and the discontinuation of mechanical ventilation was one day in the intervention group and three days in the control group (P<0.001). Complications -- removal of the breathing tube by the patient, reintubation, tracheostomy, and mechanical ventilation for more than 21 days -- occurred in 20 percent of the intervention group and 41 percent of the control group (P=0.001). The number of days of intensive care and hospital care was similar in the two groups. Total costs for the intensive care unit were lower in the intervention group (median, $15,740, vs. $20,890 in the controls, P=0.03); hospital costs were lower, though not significantly so (median, $26,229 and $29,048, respectively; P=0.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Daily screening of the respiratory function of adults receiving mechanical ventilation, followed by trials of spontaneous breathing in appropriate patients and notification of their physicians when the trials were successful, can reduce the duration of mechanical ventilation and the cost of intensive care and is associated with fewer complications than usual care.

Lorazepam is an independent risk factor for transitioning to delirium in intensive care unit patients

BACKGROUND

Delirium has recently been shown as a predictor of death, increased cost, and longer duration of stay in ventilated patients. Sedative and analgesic medications relieve anxiety and pain but may contribute to patients' transitioning into delirium.

METHODS

In this cohort study, the authors designed a priori an investigation to determine whether sedative and analgesic medications independently increased the probability of daily transition to delirium. Markov regression modeling (adjusting for 11 covariates) was used in the evaluation of 198 mechanically ventilated patients to determine the probability of daily transition to delirium as a function of sedative and analgesic dose administration during the previous 24 h.

RESULTS

Lorazepam was an independent risk factor for daily transition to delirium (odds ratio, 1.2 [95% confidence interval, 1.1-1.4]; P = 0.003), whereas fentanyl, morphine, and propofol were associated with higher but not statistically significant odds ratios. Increasing age and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores were also independent predictors of transitioning to delirium (multivariable P values < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Lorazepam administration is an important and potentially modifiable risk factor for transitioning into delirium even after adjusting for relevant covariates.

The impact of delirium in the intensive care unit on hospital length of stay

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine the relationship between delirium in the intensive care unit (ICU) and outcomes including length of stay in the hospital.

DESIGN

A prospective cohort study.

SETTING

The adult medical ICU of a tertiary care, university-based medical center.

PARTICIPANTS

The study population consisted of 48 patients admitted to the ICU, 24 of whom received mechanical ventilation.

MEASUREMENTS

All patients were evaluated for the development and persistence of delirium on a daily basis by a geriatric or psychiatric specialist with expertise in delirium assessment using the Diagnostic Statistical Manual IV (DSM-IV) criteria of the American Psychiatric Association, the reference standard for delirium ratings. Primary outcomes measured were length of stay in the ICU and hospital.

RESULTS

The mean onset of delirium was 2.6 days (S.D.+/-1.7), and the mean duration was 3.4+/-1.9 days. Of the 48 patients, 39 (81.3%) developed delirium, and of these 29 (60.4%) developed the complication while still in the ICU. The duration of delirium was associated with length of stay in the ICU ( r=0.65, P=0.0001) and in the hospital ( r=0.68, P<0.0001). Using multivariate analysis, delirium was the strongest predictor of length of stay in the hospital ( P=0.006) even after adjusting for severity of illness, age, gender, race, and days of benzodiazepine and narcotic drug administration.

CONCLUSIONS

In this patient cohort, the majority of patients developed delirium in the ICU, and delirium was the strongest independent determinant of length of stay in the hospital. Further study and monitoring of delirium in the ICU and the risk factors for its development are warranted.

Costs associated with delirium in mechanically ventilated patients*

OBJECTIVE

To determine the costs associated with delirium in mechanically ventilated medical intensive care unit patients.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

A tertiary care academic hospital.

PATIENTS

Patients were 275 consecutive mechanically ventilated medical intensive care unit patients.

INTERVENTIONS

We prospectively examined patients for delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Delirium was categorized as "ever vs. never" and by a cumulative delirium severity index. Costs were determined from individual ledger-level patient charges using cost-center-specific cost-to-charge ratios and were reported in year 2001 U.S. dollars. Fifty-one of 275 patients (18.5%) had persistent coma and died in the hospital and were excluded from further analysis. Of the remaining 224 patients, delirium developed in 183 (81.7%) and lasted a median of 2.1 (interquartile range, 1-3) days. Baseline demographics were similar between those with and without delirium. Intensive care unit costs (median, interquartile range) were significantly higher for those with at least one episode of delirium ($22,346, $15,083-$35,521) vs. those with no delirium ($13,332, $8,837-$21,471, p <.001). Total hospital costs were also higher in those who developed delirium ($41,836, $22,782-$68,134 vs. $27,106, $13,875-$37,419, p =.002). Higher severity and duration of delirium were associated with incrementally greater costs (all p <.001). After adjustment for age, comorbidity, severity of illness, degree of organ dysfunction, nosocomial infection, hospital mortality, and other potential confounders, delirium was associated with 39% higher intensive care unit (95% confidence interval, 12-72%) and 31% higher hospital (95% confidence interval, 1-70%) costs.

CONCLUSIONS

Delirium is a common clinical event in mechanically ventilated medical intensive care unit patients and is associated with significantly higher intensive care unit and hospital costs. Future efforts to prevent or treat intensive care unit delirium have the potential to improve patient outcomes and reduce costs of care.

Delirium

Delirium, a syndrome characterized by an acute change in attention, awareness and cognition, is caused by a medical condition that cannot be better explained by a pre-existing neurocognitive disorder. Multiple predisposing factors (for example, pre-existing cognitive impairment) and precipitating factors (for example, urinary tract infection) for delirium have been described, with most patients having both types. Because multiple factors are implicated in the aetiology of delirium, there are likely several neurobiological processes that contribute to delirium pathogenesis, including neuroinflammation, brain vascular dysfunction, altered brain metabolism, neurotransmitter imbalance and impaired neuronal network connectivity. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) is the most commonly used diagnostic system upon which a reference standard diagnosis is made, although many other delirium screening tools have been developed given the impracticality of using the DSM-5 in many settings. Pharmacological treatments for delirium (such as antipsychotic drugs) are not effective, reflecting substantial gaps in our understanding of its pathophysiology. Currently, the best management strategies are multidomain interventions that focus on treating precipitating conditions, medication review, managing distress, mitigating complications and maintaining engagement to environmental issues. The effective implementation of delirium detection, treatment and prevention strategies remains a major challenge for health-care organizations globally.

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib for the treatment of hospitalised adults with COVID-19 (COV-BARRIER): a randomised, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial

Background

Baricitinib is an oral selective Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor with known anti-inflammatory properties. This study evaluates the efficacy and safety of baricitinib in combination with standard of care for the treatment of hospitalised adults with COVID-19.

Methods

In this phase 3, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, participants were enrolled from 101 centres across 12 countries in Asia, Europe, North America, and South America. Hospitalised adults with COVID-19 receiving standard of care were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive once-daily baricitinib (4 mg) or matched placebo for up to 14 days. Standard of care included systemic corticosteroids, such as dexamethasone, and antivirals, including remdesivir. The composite primary endpoint was the proportion who progressed to high-flow oxygen, non-invasive ventilation, invasive mechanical ventilation, or death by day 28, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. All-cause mortality by day 28 was a key secondary endpoint, and all-cause mortality by day 60 was an exploratory endpoint; both were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the safety population defined as all randomly allocated participants who received at least one dose of study drug and who were not lost to follow-up before the first post-baseline visit. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04421027.

Findings

Between June 11, 2020, and Jan 15, 2021, 1525 participants were randomly assigned to the baricitinib group (n=764) or the placebo group (n=761). 1204 (79·3%) of 1518 participants with available data were receiving systemic corticosteroids at baseline, of whom 1099 (91·3%) were on dexamethasone; 287 (18·9%) participants were receiving remdesivir. Overall, 27·8% of participants receiving baricitinib and 30·5% receiving placebo progressed to meet the primary endpoint (odds ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·67 to 1·08], p=0·18), with an absolute risk difference of −2·7 percentage points (95% CI −7·3 to 1·9). The 28-day all-cause mortality was 8% (n=62) for baricitinib and 13% (n=100) for placebo (hazard ratio [HR] 0·57 [95% CI 0·41–0·78]; nominal p=0·0018), a 38·2% relative reduction in mortality; one additional death was prevented per 20 baricitinib-treated participants. The 60-day all-cause mortality was 10% (n=79) for baricitinib and 15% (n=116) for placebo (HR 0·62 [95% CI 0·47–0·83]; p=0·0050). The frequencies of serious adverse events (110 [15%] of 750 in the baricitinib group vs 135 [18%] of 752 in the placebo group), serious infections (64 [9%] vs 74 [10%]), and venous thromboembolic events (20 [3%] vs 19 [3%]) were similar between the two groups.

Interpretation

Although there was no significant reduction in the frequency of disease progression overall, treatment with baricitinib in addition to standard of care (including dexamethasone) had a similar safety profile to that of standard of care alone, and was associated with reduced mortality in hospitalised adults with COVID-19.

Funding

Eli Lilly and Company.

Translations

For the French, Japanese, Portuguese, Russian and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and functional disability in survivors of critical illness in the BRAIN-ICU study: a longitudinal cohort study

BACKGROUND

Critical illness is associated with cognitive impairment, but mental health and functional disabilities in survivors of intensive care are inadequately characterised. We aimed to assess associations of age and duration of delirium with mental health and functional disabilities in this group.

METHODS

In this prospective, multicentre cohort study, we enrolled patients with respiratory failure or shock who were undergoing treatment in medical or surgical ICUs in Nashville, TN, USA. We obtained data for baseline demographics and in-hospital variables, and assessed survivors at 3 months and 12 months with measures of depression (Beck Depression Inventory II), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist-Event Specific Version), and functional disability (activities of daily living scales, Pfeffer Functional Activities Questionnaire, and Katz Activities of Daily Living Scale). We used linear and proportional odds logistic regression to assess the independent associations between age and duration of delirium with mental health and functional disabilities. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00392795.

FINDINGS

We enrolled 821 patients with a median age of 61 years (IQR 51-71), assessing 448 patients at 3 months and 382 patients at 12 months after discharge. At 3 months, 149 (37%) of 406 patients with available data reported at least mild depression, as did 116 (33%) of 347 patients at 12 months; this depression was mainly due to somatic rather than cognitive-affective symptoms. Depressive symptoms were common even among individuals without a history of depression (as reported by a proxy), occurring in 76 (30%) of 255 patients with data at 3 months and 62 (29%) of 217 individuals at 12 months. Only 7% of patients (27 of 415 at 3 months and 24 of 361 at 12 months) had symptoms consistent with post-traumatic distress disorder. Disabilities in basic activities of daily living (ADL) were present in 139 (32%) of 428 patients at 3 months and 102 (27%) of 374 at 12 months, as were disabilities in instrumental ADL in 108 (26%) of 422 individuals at 3 months and 87 (23%) of 372 at 12 months. Mental health and functional difficulties were prevalent in patients of all ages. Although old age was frequently associated with mental health problems and functional disabilities, we observed no consistent association between the presence of delirium and these outcomes.

INTERPRETATION

Poor mental health and functional disability is common in patients treated in intensive-care units. Depression is five times more common than is post-traumatic distress disorder after critical illness and is driven by somatic symptoms, suggesting approaches targeting physical rather than cognitive causes could benefit patients leaving critical care.

FUNDING

National Institutes of Health AG027472 and the Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center (GRECC), Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Tennessee Valley Healthcare System.

Delirium and Its Motoric Subtypes: A Study of 614 Critically Ill Patients

OBJECTIVES

To describe the motoric subtypes of delirium in critically ill patients and compare patients aged 65 and older with a younger cohort.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

The medical intensive care unit (MICU) of a tertiary care academic medical center.

PARTICIPANTS

Six hundred fourteen MICU patients admitted during a process improvement initiative to monitor levels of sedation and delirium.

MEASUREMENTS

MICU nursing staff assessed delirium and level of consciousness in all MICU patients at least once per 12-hour shift using the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit and the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale. Delirium episodes were categorized as hypoactive, hyperactive, and mixed type.

RESULTS

Delirium was detected in 112 of 156 (71.8%) subjects aged 65 and older and 263 of 458 (57.4%) subjects younger than 65. Mixed type was most common (54.9%), followed by hypoactive delirium (43.5%) and purely hyperactive delirium (1.6%). Patients aged 65 and older experienced hypoactive delirium at a greater rate than younger patients (41.0% vs 21.6%, P<.001) and never experienced hyperactive delirium. Older age was strongly and independently associated with hypoactive delirium (adjusted odds ratio=3.0, 95% confidence interval=1.7-5.3), compared with no delirium in a model that adjusted for other important determinants of delirium including severity of illness, sedative medication use, and ventilation status.

CONCLUSION

Older age is a strong predictor of hypoactive delirium in MICU patients, and this motoric subtype of delirium may be missed in the absence of active monitoring.

The ABCDEF Bundle in Critical Care

The ABCDEF bundle represents an evidence-based guide for clinicians to approach the organizational changes needed for optimizing intensive care unit patient recovery and outcomes. This article reviews the core evidence and features behind the ABCDEF bundle. The bundle has individual components that are clearly defined, flexible to implement, and help empower multidisciplinary clinicians and families in the shared care of the critically ill. The ABCDEF bundle helps guide well-rounded patient care and optimal resource utilization resulting in more interactive intensive care unit patients with better controlled pain, who can safely participate in higher-order physical and cognitive activities at the earliest point in their critical illness.

Intensive care unit delirium is an independent predictor of longer hospital stay: a prospective analysis of 261 non-ventilated patients

Introduction

Delirium occurs in most ventilated patients and is independently associated with more deaths, longer stay, and higher cost. Guidelines recommend monitoring of delirium in all intensive care unit (ICU) patients, though few data exist in non-ventilated patients. The study objective was to determine the relationship between delirium and outcomes among non-ventilated ICU patients.

Method

A prospective cohort investigation of 261 consecutively admitted medical ICU patients not requiring invasive mechanical ventilation during hospitalization at a tertiary-care, university-based hospital between February 2002 and January 2003. ICU nursing staff assessed delirium and level of consciousness at least twice per day using the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) and Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS). Cox regression with time-varying covariates was used to determine the independent relationship between delirium and clinical outcomes.

Results

Of 261 patients, 125 (48%) experienced at least one episode of delirium. Patients who experienced delirium were older (mean ± SD: 56 ± 18 versus 49 ± 17 years; p = 0.002) and more severely ill as measured by Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scores (median 15, interquartile range (IQR) 10–21 versus 11, IQR 6–16; p < 0.001) compared to their non-delirious counterparts. Patients who experienced delirium had a 29% greater risk of remaining in the ICU on any given day (compared to patients who never developed delirium) even after adjusting for age, gender, race, Charlson co-morbidity score, APACHE II score, and coma (hazard ratio (HR) 1.29; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98–1.69, p = 0.07). Similarly, patients who experienced delirium had a 41% greater risk of remaining in the hospital after adjusting for the same covariates (HR 1.41; 95% CI 1.05–1.89, p = 0.023). Hospital mortality was higher among patients who developed delirium (24/125, 19%) versus patients who never developed delirium (8/135, 6%), p = 0.002; however, time to in-hospital death was not significant the adjusted (HR 1.27; 95% CI 0.55–2.98, p = 0.58).

Conclusion

Delirium occurred in nearly half of the non-ventilated ICU patients in this cohort. Even after adjustment for relevant covariates, delirium was found to be an independent predictor of longer hospital stay.

Delirium in the intensive care unit: occurrence and clinical course in older patients

OBJECTIVES

To describe the occurrence of delirium in a cohort of older medical intensive care unit (ICU) patients and its short-term duration in the hospital and to determine the association between preexisting dementia and the occurrence of delirium.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Fourteen-bed medical ICU of an 800-bed university teaching hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred eighteen consecutive patients aged 65 and older admitted to the ICU.

MEASUREMENTS

Baseline characteristics were obtained through surrogate interviews and medical chart review. Dementia was determined using two validated surrogate-rated instruments. Delirium was assessed daily in the ICU using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) for the ICU (CAM-ICU). After discharge from the ICU, patients were followed for up to 7 days using the CAM.

RESULTS

Delirium was present in 37 of 118 (31%) patients on admission. Only 45 patients had a normal mental status on admission, of whom 14 (31%) became delirious during their hospital stay. In the post-ICU period, delirium occurred in 40% of patients. Almost half of patients with delirium in the ICU had persistent delirium in the post-ICU period. Overall, 83 of 118 (70%) had delirium during hospitalization. Stupor or coma occurred in 44% of the patients overall, and 89% of survivors of stupor/coma progressed to delirium. Patients with dementia were 40% more likely to be delirious (relative risk = 1.4, 95% confidence interval = 1.1-1.7), even after controlling for comorbidity, baseline functional status, severity of illness, and invasive procedures.

CONCLUSION

Delirium is a frequent complication in older ICU patients and often persists beyond their ICU stay. Delirium in older ICU persons is a dynamic and complex process. Dementia is an important predisposing risk factor for the development of delirium in this population during and after the ICU stay.

Haloperidol and Ziprasidone for Treatment of Delirium in Critical Illness

BACKGROUND

There are conflicting data on the effects of antipsychotic medications on delirium in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU).

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium to receive intravenous boluses of haloperidol (maximum dose, 20 mg daily), ziprasidone (maximum dose, 40 mg daily), or placebo. The volume and dose of a trial drug or placebo was halved or doubled at 12-hour intervals on the basis of the presence or absence of delirium, as detected with the use of the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU, and of side effects of the intervention. The primary end point was the number of days alive without delirium or coma during the 14-day intervention period. Secondary end points included 30-day and 90-day survival, time to freedom from mechanical ventilation, and time to ICU and hospital discharge. Safety end points included extrapyramidal symptoms and excessive sedation.

RESULTS

Written informed consent was obtained from 1183 patients or their authorized representatives. Delirium developed in 566 patients (48%), of whom 89% had hypoactive delirium and 11% had hyperactive delirium. Of the 566 patients, 184 were randomly assigned to receive placebo, 192 to receive haloperidol, and 190 to receive ziprasidone. The median duration of exposure to a trial drug or placebo was 4 days (interquartile range, 3 to 7). The median number of days alive without delirium or coma was 8.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6 to 9.9) in the placebo group, 7.9 (95% CI, 4.4 to 9.6) in the haloperidol group, and 8.7 (95% CI, 5.9 to 10.0) in the ziprasidone group (P=0.26 for overall effect across trial groups). The use of haloperidol or ziprasidone, as compared with placebo, had no significant effect on the primary end point (odds ratios, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.64 to 1.21] and 1.04 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.48], respectively). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to the secondary end points or the frequency of extrapyramidal symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of haloperidol or ziprasidone, as compared with placebo, in patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium in the ICU did not significantly alter the duration of delirium. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the VA Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center; MIND-USA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01211522 .).

Delirium in the intensive care unit

Delirium, an acute and fluctuating disturbance of consciousness and cognition, is a common manifestation of acute brain dysfunction in critically ill patients, occurring in up to 80% of the sickest intensive care unit (ICU) populations. Critically ill patients are subject to numerous risk factors for delirium. Some of these, such as exposure to sedative and analgesic medications, may be modified to reduce risk. Although dysfunction of other organ systems continues to receive more clinical attention, delirium is now recognized to be a significant contributor to morbidity and mortality in the ICU, and it is recommended that all ICU patients be monitored using a validated delirium assessment instrument. Patients with delirium have longer hospital stays and lower 6-month survival than do patients without delirium, and preliminary research suggests that delirium may be associated with cognitive impairment that persists months to years after discharge. Little evidence exists regarding the prevention and treatment of delirium in the ICU, but multicomponent interventions reduce the incidence of delirium in non-ICU studies. Strategies for the prevention and treatment of ICU delirium are the subjects of multiple ongoing investigations.

Prevalence and risk factors for delirium in critically ill patients with COVID-19 (COVID-D): a multicentre cohort study

BACKGROUND

To date, 750 000 patients with COVID-19 worldwide have required mechanical ventilation and thus are at high risk of acute brain dysfunction (coma and delirium). We aimed to investigate the prevalence of delirium and coma, and risk factors for delirium in critically ill patients with COVID-19, to aid the development of strategies to mitigate delirium and associated sequelae.

METHODS

This multicentre cohort study included 69 adult intensive care units (ICUs), across 14 countries. We included all patients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to participating ICUs with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection before April 28, 2020. Patients who were moribund or had life-support measures withdrawn within 24 h of ICU admission, prisoners, patients with pre-existing mental illness, neurodegenerative disorders, congenital or acquired brain damage, hepatic coma, drug overdose, suicide attempt, or those who were blind or deaf were excluded. We collected de-identified data from electronic health records on patient demographics, delirium and coma assessments, and management strategies for a 21-day period. Additional data on ventilator support, ICU length of stay, and vital status was collected for a 28-day period. The primary outcome was to determine the prevalence of delirium and coma and to investigate any associated risk factors associated with development of delirium the next day. We also investigated predictors of number of days alive without delirium or coma. These outcomes were investigated using multivariable regression.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 20 and April 28, 2020, 4530 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to 69 ICUs, of whom 2088 patients were included in the study cohort. The median age of patients was 64 years (IQR 54 to 71) with a median Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II of 40·0 (30·0 to 53·0). 1397 (66·9%) of 2088 patients were invasively mechanically ventilated on the day of ICU admission and 1827 (87·5%) were invasively mechanical ventilated at some point during hospitalisation. Infusion with sedatives while on mechanical ventilation was common: 1337 (64·0%) of 2088 patients were given benzodiazepines for a median of 7·0 days (4·0 to 12·0) and 1481 (70·9%) were given propofol for a median of 7·0 days (4·0 to 11·0). Median Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score while on invasive mechanical ventilation was -4 (-5 to -3). 1704 (81·6%) of 2088 patients were comatose for a median of 10·0 days (6·0 to 15·0) and 1147 (54·9%) were delirious for a median of 3·0 days (2·0 to 6·0). Mechanical ventilation, use of restraints, and benzodiazepine, opioid, and vasopressor infusions, and antipsychotics were each associated with a higher risk of delirium the next day (all p≤0·04), whereas family visitation (in person or virtual) was associated with a lower risk of delirium (p<0·0001). During the 21-day study period, patients were alive without delirium or coma for a median of 5·0 days (0·0 to 14·0). At baseline, older age, higher SAPS II scores, male sex, smoking or alcohol abuse, use of vasopressors on day 1, and invasive mechanical ventilation on day 1 were independently associated with fewer days alive and free of delirium and coma (all p<0·01). 601 (28·8%) of 2088 patients died within 28 days of admission, with most of those deaths occurring in the ICU.

INTERPRETATION

Acute brain dysfunction was highly prevalent and prolonged in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Benzodiazepine use and lack of family visitation were identified as modifiable risk factors for delirium, and thus these data present an opportunity to reduce acute brain dysfunction in patients with COVID-19.

FUNDING

None.

TRANSLATIONS

For the French and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.