Gajic, Ognjen

Objectives: Our preliminary data and observational studies suggested an increasing “off label” use of oral midodrine as a vasopressor sparing agent in various groups of critically ill patients, including those with sepsis. We designed this clinical trial to evaluate the feasibility of use of midodrine hydrochloride in early sepsis to reduce the duration for IV vasopressors and decrease ICU and hospital length of stay. Design: Pilot, two-center, placebo-controlled, double blinded randomized clinical trial. Setting: Medical ICUs at Mayo Clinic Rochester and Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi were the study sites. Patients and Methods: Adult patients (≥ 18 yr old) were included within 24 hours of meeting the Sepsis-3 definition if the mean arterial pressure remained less than 70 mm Hg despite receiving timely antibiotics and initial IV fluid bolus of 30 cc/kg. Intervention: Three doses of 10 mg midodrine versus placebo were administered. Measurements and Main Results: Total 32 patients were randomized into midodrine (n = 17) and placebo groups (n = 15). There were no major differences in baseline variables between the groups except for higher baseline creatinine in the midodrine group (2.0 ± 0.9 mg/dL) versus placebo group (1.4 ± 0.6 mg /dL), p = 0.03. The median duration of IV vasopressor requirement was 14.5 ± 8.1 hours in midodrine group versus 18.8 ± 7.1 hours in the placebo group, p value equals to 0.19. Patients in the midodrine group needed 729 ± 963 norepinephrine equivalent compared with 983 ± 1,569 norepinephrine equivalent in the placebo group, p value equals to 0.59. ICU length of stay was 2.29 days (interquartile range, 1.65–3.9 d) in the midodrine group, compared with 2.45 days (interquartile range, 1.6–3.2 d) in the placebo group, p value equals to 0.36. No serious adverse events were observed in either group. Conclusions: Phase II clinical trial powered for clinical outcomes (duration of vasopressor use, need for central venous catheter, and ICU and hospital length of stay) is justified.

The use of supraglottic airway devices such as the King LTS-D laryngeal tube has increased in the prehospital setting because of their relative ease of successful insertion, even in the hands of inexperienced providers. However, these devices have their own associated complications. In patients with a known or suspected difficult airway, supraglottic airway device exchanges should occur under controlled conditions using an airway exchange catheter, preferably under direct visualization with a flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope. We report unanticipated difficulties with supraglottic airway exchange caused by a kinked King LTS-D laryngeal tube.

Objective: The Lung Injury Prediction Score identifies patients at risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome in the emergency department, but it has not been validated in non-emergency department hospitalized patients. We aimed to evaluate whether Lung Injury Prediction Score identifies non-emergency department hospitalized patients at risk of developing acute respiratory distress syndrome at the time of critical care contact. Design: Retrospective study. Setting: Five academic medical centers. Patients: Nine hundred consecutive patients (≥ 18 yr old) with at least one acute respiratory distress syndrome risk factor at the time of critical care contact. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Lung Injury Prediction Score was calculated using the worst values within the 12 hours before initial critical care contact. Patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome at the time of initial contact were excluded. Acute respiratory distress syndrome developed in 124 patients (13.7%) a median of 2 days (interquartile range, 2–3) after critical care contact. Hospital mortality was 22% and was significantly higher in acute respiratory distress syndrome than non-acute respiratory distress syndrome patients (48% vs 18%; p < 0.001). Increasing Lung Injury Prediction Score was significantly associated with development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.21–1.42) and the composite outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome or death (odds ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.18–1.34). A Lung Injury Prediction Score greater than or equal to 4 was associated with the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (odds ratio, 4.17; 95% CI, 2.26–7.72), composite outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome or death (odds ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.68–3.49), and acute respiratory distress syndrome after accounting for the competing risk of death (hazard ratio, 3.71; 95% CI, 2.05–6.72). For acute respiratory distress syndrome development, the Lung Injury Prediction Score has an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.70 and a Lung Injury Prediction Score greater than or equal to 4 has 90% sensitivity (misses only 10% of acute respiratory distress syndrome cases), 31% specificity, 17% positive predictive value, and 95% negative predictive value. Conclusions: In a cohort of non-emergency department hospitalized patients, the Lung Injury Prediction Score and Lung Injury Prediction Score greater than or equal to 4 can identify patients at increased risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome and/or death at the time of critical care contact but it does not perform as well as in the original emergency department cohort.

Objectives: Approximately half of ICU admissions are comprised of patients older than 65 years old. Mild cognitive impairment is a common disorder affecting 10–20% of patients in the same age group. A need exists for exploring mild cognitive impairment and risk of critical illness. As mild cognitive impairment may be a contributor to poorer overall health or be a result of it, we sought to determine whether the presence of mild cognitive impairment independently increases the risk of critical illness admissions. Design: Data from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging were analyzed. All study participants underwent prospective comprehensive cognitive testing and expert panel consensus diagnosis of both cognitive function and clinical state at baseline and subsequent visits. Comparisons were made between those with normal cognitive function and mild cognitive impairment regarding baseline health and frequency of critical illness. Setting: Single-center population-based cohort out of Olmsted County, MN. Participants: All individuals 70–89 years old were screened for prospective enrollment in the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging. Patients with preexisting dementia and ICU admission within 3 years of entry to the study were excluded from this analysis. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Of 2,425 patients analyzed from the Mayo Clinic Study of Aging, 1,734 patients (71%) were included in the current study. Clinical factors associated with baseline mild cognitive impairment included age, male gender, stroke, and poorer health self-rating. Using a Cox regression model adjusting for these and a priori variables of baseline health, the presence of mild cognitive impairment remained a significant predictor of ICU admission (hazard ratio, 1.50 [1.15–1.96]; p = 0.003). Conclusions and Relevance: The presence of mild cognitive impairment is independently associated with increased critical illness admission. Further prospective studies are needed to analyze the impact of critical illness on cognitive function.