Laudański, Krzysztof

Poor outcomes in Subarachnoid Hemorrhage (SAH) are in part due to a unique form of secondary neurological injury known as Delayed Cerebral Ischemia (DCI). DCI is characterized by new neurological insults that continue to occur beyond 72 h after the onset of the hemorrhage. Historically, it was thought to be a consequence of hypoperfusion in the setting of vasospasm. However, DCI was found to occur even in the absence of radiographic evidence of vasospasm. More recent evidence indicates that catastrophic ionic disruptions known as Cortical Spreading Depolarizations (CSD) may be the culprits of DCI. CSDs occur in otherwise healthy brain tissue even without demonstrable vasospasm. Furthermore, CSDs often trigger a complex interplay of neuroinflammation, microthrombi formation, and vasoconstriction. CSDs may therefore represent measurable and modifiable prognostic factors in the prevention and treatment of DCI. Although Ketamine and Nimodipine have shown promise in the treatment and prevention of CSDs in SAH, further research is needed to determine the therapeutic potential of these as well as other agents.

The variances in operating room (OR) cancellation rates between different service lines and operators within these service lines were assessed by reviewing the electronic medical record (EMR) covering 34,561 cases performed by 199 OR operators in 2018. We assumed that cancellations would differ between different service lines, but the between-operators variance was minimal within the service line. We hypothesized that most variability would be secondary to patient-specific (weekdays, time of year, and national holidays), seasonal and administrative issues. Of 4165 case cancellations, the majority (73.1%) occurred before the patient arrived at the hospital. A total of 60% of all cancellations were within gastroenterology, interventional cardiology, and orthopedics. Cancellation rate variability between surgeons operating within the same service line greatly varied between services from very homogenous to very diverse across providers. The top reasons for cancellation were: date change, canceled by a patient, or “no show”. The highest cancellation rates occurred on Mondays and Tuesdays, in January and September, and during weeks associated with national holidays. In summary, cancellation variability must be analyzed at the level of individual specialties, operators, and time variability.

The study’s objective was to assess facilitators and barriers of Tele-Critical Care (TCC) perceived by SCCM members. By utilizing a survey distributed to SCCM members, a cross-sectional study was developed to analyze survey results from December 2019 and July 2020. SCCM members responded to the survey (n = 15,502) with a 1.9% response rate for the first distribution and a 2.54% response rate for the second survey (n = 9985). Participants (n = 286 and n = 254) were almost equally distributed between non-users, providers, users, and potential users of TCC services. The care delivery models for TCC were similar across most participants. Some consumers of TCC services preferred algorithmic coverage and scheduled rounds, while reactive and on-demand models were less utilized. The surveys revealed that outcome-driven measures were the principal form of TCC performance evaluation. A 1:100 (provider: patients) ratio was reported to be optimal. Factors related to costs, perceived lack of need for services, and workflow challenges were described by those who terminated TCC services. Barriers to implementation revolved around lack of reimbursement and adequate training. Interpersonal communication was identified as an essential TCC provider skill. The second survey introduced after the onset pandemic demonstrated more frequent use of advanced practice providers and focus on performance measures. Priorities for effective TCC deployment include communication, knowledge, optimal operationalization, and outcomes measurement at the organizational level. The potential effect of COVID-19 during the early stages of the pandemic on survey responses was limited and focused on the need to demonstrate TCC value.

Objectives: In 2014, the Tele-ICU Committee of the Society of Critical Care Medicine published an article regarding the state of ICU telemedicine, one better defined today as tele-critical care. Given the rapid evolution in the field, the authors now provide an updated review. Data Sources and Study Selection: We searched PubMed and OVID for peer-reviewed literature published between 2010 and 2018 related to significant developments in tele-critical care, including its prevalence, function, activity, and technologies. Search terms included electronic ICU, tele-ICU, critical care telemedicine, and ICU telemedicine with appropriate descriptors relevant to each sub-section. Additionally, information from surveys done by the Society of Critical Care Medicine was included given the relevance to the discussion and was referenced accordingly. Data Extraction and Data Synthesis: Tele-critical care continues to evolve in multiple domains, including organizational structure, technologies, expanded-use case scenarios, and novel applications. Insights have been gained in economic impact and human and organizational factors affecting tele-critical care delivery. Legislation and credentialing continue to significantly influence the pace of tele-critical care growth and adoption. Conclusions: Tele-critical care is an established mechanism to leverage critical care expertise to ICUs and beyond, but systematic research comparing different models, approaches, and technologies is still needed.