Kashyap, Rahul

Background: Troponin-T (TnT) elevation is common in severe sepsis and septic shock, but the impact on mortality and other clinical outcomes remains uncertain. Methods: This was a retrospective review of adult patients with severe sepsis and septic shock admitted to all the intensive care units (ICU) at Mayo Clinic, Rochester from January 2012 to December 2014. Patients with congenital heart disease or pre-existing moderate or greater valvular disease were excluded. TnT elevation was defined as initial TnT ≥0.1 ng/mL or rise in 3- and 6-hour TnT ≥0.03 ng/mL. Primary outcomes included ICU, hospital, 28-day and 1-year mortality and secondary outcomes were need for and duration of non-invasive ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation, ICU readmission, and ICU and hospital length of stay. Two-tailed p <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: During this three-year period, TnT was measured in 372/765 patients (49%) with septic shock with TnT elevation noted in 329/372 (88%) patients. In patients with and without TnT elevation, initial TnT was 0.14±0.26 vs. 0.14±0.02 ng/mL, p =0.57 and peak TnT was 0.20±0.36 vs. 0.08±0.11 ng/mL, p <0.001. Severity of illness scores, laboratory values, vasopressor use, clinical parameters and medications were similar between patients with and without TnT elevation, except that patients with TnT elevation were older and had more frequent history of coronary atherosclerosis, chronic kidney disease, heart failure and atrial fibrillation (all p <0.05). There was no significant difference in ICU mortality [43 (13%) vs. 8 (19%), p =0.34] and hospital mortality [75 (23%) vs. 12 (28%), p =0.45] between patients with and without TnT elevation. Long-term follow-up of 220/329 (67%) patients showed no significant difference in 28-day mortality [97/216 (45%) vs. 1/4 (25%); p =0.63] or 1-year mortality [163/216 (75%) vs. 4/4 (100%); p =0.58]. There was no significant difference in any of the secondary outcomes between patients with and without elevated TnT (all p >0.05). There was no difference in mortality with increasing quartiles of peak TnT. Conclusions: Troponin elevation is associated with older age and higher comorbidity burden, but does not predict mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.

Abstract Background Bacterial blood stream infection (BSI) is a leading cause for mortality and morbidity in the pediatric solid organ transplant recipient population. This systematic review aims at pooling global data from the leading transplant institutions to identify the overall prevalence and risk factors associated with bacterial BSI and the most common causative organisms. Methods A systematic review of PubMed and OVID databases was conducted for the past 20 years. Initial search from both databases had a yield of 252 unique articles which were reviewed independently by two authors. Data related to demographics, prevalence, organisms and risk factors were extracted from the articles and subsequently analysed. The systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023403206). The PRISMA flow diagram visually summarises the screening process Results A total of 14 articles were included from the United States of America, France, Italy, Thailand, Japan, Spain and Korea. A total of 4215 liver transplants were included in the final analysis. The overall prevalence of BSI in pediatric liver transplant patients was 23.5% with the highest prevalence reported in Japan (39.5%) and lowest in the USA (18.7%). Mean age of the patients was 25 months and 54% were females. The most common organisms reported were Staphylococcus epidermidis at 22.8% followed by Enterococcus species (16.6%), Klebsiella species (11.9%) and Escherichia coli (11.4%). Among the risk factors studied, postoperative biliary complications, past medical history of biliary atresia and younger age were the risk factors most associated with BSI. Prevalence of bloodstream infections (BSI) post pediatric liver transplant in included countries. Bacterial organisms isolated in blood cultures in pediatric post liver transplant patient with a bloodstream infection. Conclusion Bacterial BSI post pediatric liver transplantation occurs with high prevalence. Further studies need to be conducted to better define risk factors for BSI and determine the best empirical antibiotic management for BSI in this population as the distribution of organisms varies greatly from otherwise healthy pediatric patients. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Abstract Background Twitter has become an invaluable resource for gaining insights into crucial developments in global healthcare communication. The hashtags (#) can be used to categorize tweets and gather conversations on a specific topic or to target a particular audience. Although the prevailing knowledge fund underlines the potential of digital networks to essentially influence the management of infectious diseases (ID), there has been no comprehensive analysis on the user information in the ID Twitter community, nor of the influence this hashtag has generated. The objective of our study was to evaluate the demographic data of #IDTwitter users, discern the most influential members and popular narratives in this realm, and ascertain the impact of the hashtag. Methods Using data from 28th June 2019 and 28th March 2023, an extensive analysis was conducted using the Symplur Signals research analytics tool. The analysis focused on the cumulative number of tweets, impressions, and unique users who shared tweets containing the hashtag #IDTwitter, with users categorized into specific healthcare stakeholder groups. The primary outcome measures were outreach and awareness measured by the number of tweets and impressions. Results The study observed the trends of #IDTwitter over a period of 45 months and found 441,650 tweets were shared by 92,734 users that generated a total of 1,833,037,732 impressions (views). Top five co-occurring hashtags were #IDtwitter, #MedTwitter, #MedEd, #COVID19, #TwitteRx. The top five countries reporting the greatest number of users of this hashtag were The United States of America (48326), Canada (4803), Mexico (3413), India (2759), Australia (2658). Various healthcare stakeholders’ categories were identified and three largest groups of contributors were Doctors (14.55%), Healthcare Providers (7.54%) and Researcher/Academic (3.70%). The top three influencers of this hashtag include two clinical pharmacists and one organization account. Country-wise distribution of Users of #IDTwitter The image shows the geographical distribution of the users who posted tweets containing #IDTwitter were shared (based on the locations at which the posting accounts were registered). Twitter is used worldwide for conversations regarding communicable diseases and their prevention, not only among the general public but also among students and professionals via online chat discussions and virtual rounds. Stakeholders of #IDTwitter Accounting for the percentage distribution of #IDTwitter-posting users in various healthcare stakeholders categories (data derived from Symplur Signals, with the classification being based on information provided in the Twitter biographies of the users- https://help.symplur.com/en/articles/103684-healthcare-stakeholder-segmentation). Twitter has become a quintessential tool for connecting people worldwide, and we can leverage this platform to our advantage by paying close attention to the topic and content of hashtag exchanges to combat misinformation related to matters like antibiotic usage or any epidemic infection on social media platforms. Top Co-occurring Hashtags The hashtags that generally appear alongside of #IDTwitter could provide an insight regarding the popular discussions involving #IDTwitter. Conclusion Our findings indicate that there is considerable interest in using #IDTwitter to promote relevant content and engage a geographically diverse audience. It underscores the vitality of professional voices in combating misinformation and we could definitely leverage this 'viral' hashtag for our advantage. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Abstract Objective: Global concern exists for workplace violence against healthcare workers (HCWs), especially in low and middle-income nations. This violence includes physical, verbal, or sexual abuse and has a significant impact despite initiatives like Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines. We conducted a study in Kenya to address this issue. Methods: We did a cross-sectional survey that collected responses during June 6th to August 9th, 2022, focused on healthcare professionals in Kenya within the global ViSHWaS study. Violence against healthcare professionals in multiple Kenyan counties was analysed, The study reached participants through social media, emails, and other channels using a snowball sampling technique. Results: The survey included 1,458 HCWs, primarily females (66.5%), aged 36-45 (42.4%), and of African race, representing 40 counties, with the majority from Nairobi (28.9%) and working in government academic (35.5%) and private academic institutions (20.6%). Most had over 11 years of healthcare experience (64.4%), and registered nurses were the most common cadre (27.8%). Approximately half (49.9%) reported experiencing violence, with verbal violence (80.6%) and emotional abuse (78.6%) being common. Online harassment was reported by only 3.5%, mainly on Facebook (63.2%), involving hate speech (92.1%). Patients or their relatives were the most common aggressors (44.7%), while supervisors accounted for 12.5%. The frequency of violence varied, and 80.2% noted an increase after the COVID-19 pandemic. Only 41.2% of incidents were reported. Most were familiar with safety guidelines (93.6%). Self-violence was associated with familiarity with guidelines, concern about violence, preparedness, and night shifts, while colleague violence was associated with age, gender, race, work experience, training, preparedness, and night shifts. Conclusion: Our Kenya-based cross-sectional sub-analysis highlights that a significant number of HCWs experienced violence, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, which negatively affected job satisfaction. Although most HCWs were familiar with OSHA guidelines, there were difficulties in their practical implementation.

OBJECTIVES: There is a paucity of literature regarding administrative approvals required for clinical studies during a pandemic. We aimed to evaluate variation in duration of administrative approvals within the Viral Infection and Respiratory illness Universal Study (VIRUS): A Global COVID-19 Registry. DESIGN, SETTING, AND SUBJECTS: Survey analysis of 188 investigators who participated in the VIRUS: COVID-19 registry, a prospective, observational global registry database of 287 sites. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For each study site approved through December 8, 2020, we assessed the duration in days: 1) from institutional review board (IRB) submission to IRB approval, 2) from IRB approval to Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) access, 3) from REDCap access to first patient data entry in REDCap, and 4) total duration from IRB submission to first patient data entry in REDCap. Analysis of variance and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used to compare time durations. Of 287 sites, 188 sites (United States = 155, non-United States = 33) provided complete administrative data. There was considerable variability in duration from IRB submission to first patient data entry with median (interquartile range) of 28 days (16–50 d), with differences not significantly different by country (United States: 30 [17–50] vs non-United States: 23 d [8–46 d]; p = 0.08) or previous “multisite trial experience” (experienced: 27 [15–51] vs not experienced: 29 d [13–47 d]; p = 0.67). The U.S. sites had a higher proportion of female principal investigators (n = 77; 50%), compared with non-U.S. sites (n = 7; 21%; p = 0.002). Non-U.S. sites had a significantly shorter time to first patient data entry after REDCap access: 7 (1–28) versus 3 days (1–6 d) (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In this Society of Critical Care Medicine global VIRUS: COVID-19 Registry, we identified considerable variability in time from IRB submission to first patient data entry with no significant differences by country or prior multicenter trial experience. However, there was a significant difference between US and non-U.S. sites in the time from REDCap access to first data entry.

IMPORTANCE: The scientific community debates Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT)-3.5’s article quality, authorship merit, originality, and ethical use in scientific writing. OBJECTIVES: Assess GPT-3.5’s ability to craft the background section of critical care clinical research questions compared to medical researchers with H-indices of 22 and 13. DESIGN: Observational cross-sectional study. SETTING: Researchers from 20 countries from six continents evaluated the backgrounds. PARTICIPANTS: Researchers with a Scopus index greater than 1 were included. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: In this study, we generated a background section of a critical care clinical research question on “acute kidney injury in sepsis” using three different methods: researcher with H-index greater than 20, researcher with H-index greater than 10, and GPT-3.5. The three background sections were presented in a blinded survey to researchers with an H-index range between 1 and 96. First, the researchers evaluated the main components of the background using a 5-point Likert scale. Second, they were asked to identify which background was written by humans only or with large language model-generated tools. RESULTS: A total of 80 researchers completed the survey. The median H-index was 3 (interquartile range, 1–7.25) and most (36%) researchers were from the Critical Care specialty. When compared with researchers with an H-index of 22 and 13, GPT-3.5 was marked high on the Likert scale ranking on main background components (median 4.5 vs. 3.82 vs. 3.6 vs. 4.5, respectively; p < 0.001). The sensitivity and specificity to detect researchers writing versus GPT-3.5 writing were poor, 22.4% and 57.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: GPT-3.5 could create background research content indistinguishable from the writing of a medical researcher. It was marked higher compared with medical researchers with an H-index of 22 and 13 in writing the background section of a critical care clinical research question.