Sevransky, Jonathan

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to: 1) determine the association between vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 6 hours and first 24 hours after the onset of septic shock and 30-day in-hospital mortality; 2) determine whether the effect of vasopressor dosing intensity varies by fluid resuscitation volume; and 3) determine whether the effect of vasopressor dosing intensity varies by dosing titration pattern. Design: Multicenter prospective cohort study between September 2017 and February 2018. Vasopressor dosing intensity was defined as the total vasopressor dose infused across all vasopressors in norepinephrine equivalents. Setting: Thirty-three hospital sites in the United States ( n = 32) and Jordan ( n = 1). Patients: Consecutive adults requiring admission to the ICU with septic shock treated with greater than or equal to 1 vasopressor within 24 hours of shock onset. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Out of 1,639 patients screened, 616 were included. Norepinephrine (93%) was the most common vasopressor. Patients received a median of 3,400 mL (interquartile range, 1,851–5,338 mL) during the 24 hours after shock diagnosis. The median vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 24 hours of shock onset was 8.5 μg/min norepinephrine equivalents (3.4–18.1 μg/min norepinephrine equivalents). In the first 6 hours, increasing vasopressor dosing intensity was associated with increased odds ratio of 30-day in-hospital mortality, with the strength of association dependent on concomitant fluid administration. Over the entire 24 hour period, every 10 μg/min increase in vasopressor dosing intensity was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.16–1.53), and this association did not vary with the amount of fluid administration. Compared to an early high/late low vasopressor dosing strategy, an early low/late high or sustained high vasopressor dosing strategy was associated with higher mortality. Conclusions: Increasing vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 24 hours after septic shock was associated with increased mortality. This association varied with the amount of early fluid administration and the timing of vasopressor titration.

Objectives: To characterize the association between the use of physiologic assessment (central venous pressure, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure, stroke volume variation, pulse pressure variation, passive leg raise test, and critical care ultrasound) with fluid and vasopressor administration 24 hours after shock onset and with in-hospital mortality. Design: Multicenter prospective cohort study between September 2017 and February 2018. Settings: Thirty-four hospitals in the United States and Jordan. Patients: Consecutive adult patients requiring admission to the ICU with systolic blood pressure less than or equal to 90 mm Hg, mean arterial blood pressure less than or equal to 65 mm Hg, or need for vasopressor. Interventions: None. Measurement and Main Results: Of 1,639 patients enrolled, 39% had physiologic assessments. Use of physiologic assessment was not associated with cumulative fluid administered within 24 hours of shock onset, after accounting for baseline characteristics, etiology and location of shock, ICU types, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III, and hospital (beta coefficient, 0.04; 95% CI, −0.07 to 0.15). In multivariate analysis, the use of physiologic assessment was associated with a higher likelihood of vasopressor use (adjusted odds ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.45−2.71) and higher 24-hour cumulative vasopressor dosing as norepinephrine equivalent (beta coefficient, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19−0.55). The use of vasopressor was associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.27−2.78). In-hospital mortality was not associated with the use of physiologic assessment (adjusted odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.63−1.18). Conclusions: The use of physiologic assessment in the 24 hours after shock onset is associated with increased use of vasopressor but not with fluid administration.

Objectives: In the United States, physician training in Critical Care Medicine has developed as a subspecialty of different primary boards, despite significant commonality in knowledge and skills. The Society of Critical Care Medicine appointed a multidisciplinary Task Force to examine alternative approaches for future training. Design: The Task Force reviewed the literature and conducted informal discussions with key stakeholders. Specific topics reviewed included the history of critical care training, commonalities among subspecialties, developments since a similar review in 2004, international experience, quality patient care, and financial and workforce issues. Main Results: The Task Force believes that options for future training include establishment of a 1) primary specialty of critical care; 2) unified fellowship and certification process; or 3) unified certification process with separate fellowship programs within the current specialties versus 4) maintaining multiple specialty-based fellowship programs and certification processes. Conclusions: 1) Changing the current Critical Care Medicine training paradigms may benefit trainees and patient care. 2) Multiple pathways into critical care training for all interested trainees are desirable for meeting future intensivist workforce demands. 3) The current subspecialties within separate boards are not “distinct and well-defined field[s] of medical practice” per the American Board of Medical Specialties. Recommendations for first steps are as follows: 1) as the society representing multidisciplinary critical care, the Society of Critical Care Medicine has an opportunity to organize a meeting of all stakeholders to discuss the issues regarding Critical Care Medicine training and consider cooperative approaches for the future. 2) A common Critical Care Medicine examination, possibly with a small percentage of base-specialty–specific questions, should be considered. 3) Institutions with multiple Critical Care Medicine fellowship programs should consider developing joint, multidisciplinary training curricula. 4) The boards that offer Critical Care Medicine examinations, along with national critical care societies, should consider ways to shorten training time.

Abstract Rationale Accurate, early identification of patients at risk for developing acute lung injury (ALI) provides the opportunity to test and implement secondary prevention strategies. Objectives To determine the frequency and outcome of ALI development in patients at risk and validate a lung injury prediction score (LIPS). Methods In this prospective multicenter observational cohort study, predisposing conditions and risk modifiers predictive of ALI development were identified from routine clinical data available during initial evaluation. The discrimination of the model was assessed with area under receiver operating curve (AUC). The risk of death from ALI was determined after adjustment for severity of illness and predisposing conditions. Measurements and Main Results Twenty-two hospitals enrolled 5,584 patients at risk. ALI developed a median of 2 (interquartile range 1–4) days after initial evaluation in 377 (6.8%; 148 ALI-only, 229 adult respiratory distress syndrome) patients. The frequency of ALI varied according to predisposing conditions (from 3% in pancreatitis to 26% after smoke inhalation). LIPS discriminated patients who developed ALI from those who did not with an AUC of 0.80 (95% confidence interval, 0.78–0.82). When adjusted for severity of illness and predisposing conditions, development of ALI increased the risk of in-hospital death (odds ratio, 4.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.9–5.7). Conclusions ALI occurrence varies according to predisposing conditions and carries an independently poor prognosis. Using routinely available clinical data, LIPS identifies patients at high risk for ALI early in the course of their illness. This model will alert clinicians about the risk of ALI and facilitate testing and implementation of ALI prevention strategies. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT00889772).