Gajic, Ognjen

ABSTRACT Objective To compare outcomes of phenobarbital‐based versus benzodiazepine‐based pathways for alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) in critically ill adults and evaluate whether pathway design and timing of phenobarbital use affect treatment outcomes. Data Sources A librarian‐led search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov , and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform was conducted through July 2024, with updates in December 2024, August 2025, and December 2025. Search concepts included phenobarbital, benzodiazepines, and alcohol withdrawal. Study Selection and Data Extraction Comparative studies of adults admitted or transferred to an intensive care unit (ICU) with AWS and treated with phenobarbital‐based versus benzodiazepine‐based pathways were included. Sixteen nonrandomized studies were included in the qualitative synthesis, and 12 treatment‐oriented studies were included in the primary meta‐analysis. Multiple reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using Risk Of Bias In Non‐randomized Studies—of Interventions (ROBINS‐I). Data Synthesis Phenobarbital‐based pathways were not associated with significantly different intubation (11 studies; odds ratio (OR), 0.62; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20–1.87; I 2 = 73%) or hospital length of stay (five studies; mean differences [MD], −1.75 days; 95% CI, −5.07 to 1.56; I 2 = 63%) compared with benzodiazepine‐based pathways. ICU length of stay was shorter with phenobarbital‐based pathways (eight studies; MD, −0.60 days; 95% CI, −0.79 to −0.41; I 2 = 0%). In exploratory subgroup analyses, front‐loaded, protocolized phenobarbital‐first pathways were associated with lower intubation and shorter hospital length of stay, but certainty of evidence was very low. Relevance to Patient Care and Clinical Practice This review distinguishes phenobarbital‐first, protocolized ICU pathways from adjunctive or mixed phenobarbital strategies, suggesting that implementation design may influence outcomes. Conclusions Although evidence remains very low certainty, these findings suggest that phenobarbital's role in ICU AWS may be pathway dependent. Front‐loaded, protocolized phenobarbital‐first pathways may be associated with favorable outcomes in exploratory analyses, but these findings should be considered hypothesis‐generating and require confirmation in prospective randomized trials. Trial Registration: CRD42024595819

IMPORTANCE: Phenobarbital use in ICU alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) may reflect severe or refractory withdrawal and treatment escalation, making multicenter data important to understand its use within ICU practice and its relationship with clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate phenobarbital use in real-world ICU AWS as a marker of severe or refractory withdrawal and treatment escalation. We also examined its association with time-to-discharge and safety outcomes compared with nonphenobarbital regimens. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter retrospective cohort study using multiple imputation and propensity score matching. Adults with AWS, defined as Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol, revised (CIWA-Ar) score greater than or equal to 10, were included if they received a phenobarbital-based or nonphenobarbital-based regimen in ICUs across a large academic health system from June 30, 2017, to July 1, 2024. Postoperative ICU admissions were excluded. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary outcomes were time to ICU and hospital discharge alive from treatment initiation. Safety outcomes were hypotension, new intubation, and aspiration within 48 hours. RESULTS: Of 1216 patients, 345 (28.4%) received phenobarbital. Before matching, phenobarbital-treated patients had higher CIWA-Ar, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III, and pre-ICU benzodiazepine exposure, consistent with more severe or refractory withdrawal. In adjusted time-to-discharge models, phenobarbital use was not significantly associated with time to hospital discharge alive (discharge rate ratio [DRR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.74–1.12; p = 0.370) or ICU discharge alive (DRR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.59–1.01; p = 0.057). Hypotension and intubation were similar, and aspiration was less frequent with phenobarbital. CONCLUSIONS: In a contemporary ICU cohort, phenobarbital use reflected treatment escalation in patients with more severe or refractory AWS. After adjustment, time to ICU and hospital discharge alive did not differ significantly, hypotension and intubation were similar, and aspiration was less frequent with phenobarbital. Future studies should define optimal timing, dosing, and patient selection.

Background Intensive care units are high-acuity environments characterized by time pressure, medical complexity, and organizational demands. These conditions may influence clinicians’ ability to provide patient-centered care and contribute to forms of care perceived as fragmented or dehumanizing. Objective To examine how ICU clinicians describe and make sense of the pressures shaping everyday critical care practice, and how these pressures give rise to interacting patterns of care, including those described as hurry, blur, burden, and cruelty. Methods We conducted a qualitative study using focus groups with ICU clinicians from a large academic health system. Discussions were informed by the concept of the pathologies of care as sensitizing concepts. Four focus groups were held with physicians, nurses, advanced practice nurses, and a social worker ( N = 14). Transcripts were analyzed using directed content analysis with both deductive and inductive coding. Results Clinicians described these patterns not as discrete phenomena but as interrelated, context-dependent processes shaped by shared operational pressures such as time constraints, workload, and information demands. These dynamics were often viewed as inherent to the structure and culture of ICU care and were described as co-occurring and compounding. Communication emerged as both a contributor to and a potential mechanism for mitigation, alongside system-level strategies such as reducing documentation burden and leveraging artificial intelligence to support care delivery. Conclusions Patterns reflected in hurry, blur, burden, and cruelty are best understood as emergent properties of complex care systems. Addressing these dynamics may require system-level approaches to improve communication, reduce workload pressures, and support more patient-centered, humanizing care.

Abstract Rationale Mechanically ventilated intensive care unit patients receive sedatives based on clinician observations of arousal and motor activity with potential for negative consequences and poor mitigation of symptoms. Objectives To test the preliminary efficacy of patient self-managed sedative therapy compared to usual care of nurse-administered sedation on self-reported anxiety, duration of mechanical ventilation, and delirium incidence (CAM-ICU). Methods A two-group, open-label, randomized, multicenter clinical trial in 5 Midwestern hospitals enrolled 161 patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation who were willing and able to use a push-button device to self-administer sedation for up to 7 days. Patients were randomized 1:1 using center-stratified blocks to usual care (n = 81) or intervention (n = 80) with self-administered dexmedetomidine. Intervention patients were allowed 3 self-administered dexmedetomidine boluses per hour (0.25 mcg/kg) with 20-minute lock-outs. The initial basal infusion (0.2 mcg/kg/hr) was adjusted by nurses between 0.1-0.7 mcg/kg/hr based on patient-delivered boluses in the prior 2 hours. Analysis consisted of linear mixed-effects model for comparisons of anxiety ratings over time and duration of mechanical ventilation. Incidence of delirium was analyzed using generalized estimating equations. Measurement and Main Results Sample characteristics had a female (54.7%) and Caucasian preponderance (92.5%) with a median age of 62 years on protocol for a median of 88 hours. Nine intervention patients were extubated prior to protocol initiation. Patient self-reported three times daily anxiety ratings with a visual analog scale (VAS) ranged from 0-100 over time but were not significantly different between groups in either an intention-to-treat (ITT) or per protocol (PP) analysis (p = 0.94, p = 0.30 respectively). While intervention patients had shorter duration of MV [(mean 50.8(52.8) vs. usual care 68.7(58.2) hours), p = 0.02 ITT], PP analysis resulted in no difference between groups (mean 56.4 (53.0) vs. 68.7(58.2), p = 0.23). 10.2% of intervention patients developed new incidence of delirium vs. 8.5% of usual care which was not significantly different between groups by either ITT (p = 0.65) or PP analyses (p = 0.58). Conclusions Intervention patients had similar outcomes compared to usual care patients. Self-administration of sedative therapy is a safe, novel patient-centered intervention warranting further rigorous investigation for anxiety self-management.

Introduction Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) is common and remains the leading infectious cause of death worldwide. Antibiotics remain the mainstay of treatment, but organisms are often not identified, necessitating empirical treatment. Current treatment guidelines recommend combination therapy with beta-lactams and macrolides or monotherapy with fluoroquinolones for non-severe CAP. However, rising antibiotic resistance and safety concerns have led to increased doxycycline use, despite limited evidence supporting its efficacy. Our goal is to conduct a pragmatic, open-label, randomised clinical trial comparing the effectiveness of azithromycin with that of doxycycline in combination with beta-lactam therapy in adult patients hospitalised for CAP. Methods and analysis Patients presenting to the emergency department or directly referred to the hospital with a clinical presentation concerning for CAP and need for hospitalisation are eligible. We plan to enrol 1120 adults hospitalised at six hospitals across four states, including rural, suburban and urban settings and academic and community hospitals. Randomisation will be 1:1 using an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded screening and randomisation tool triggered by the treating clinician’s orders for azithromycin or doxycycline. Outcomes will be ascertained pragmatically via EHR-based data retrieval and will not require additional study visits. Our primary outcome is days alive and out of the hospital through day 28. Secondary outcomes include oxygen-free days; a composite of a need for advanced respiratory support or in-hospital mortality with analyses of each component separately; an ordinal measure of clinical deterioration defined by a prespecified severity scale; and 60-day and 180-day mortality. Safety outcomes are the incidence of Clostridioides difficile infection and QT prolongation. Analyses will follow an intention-to-treat framework, with per-protocol analyses for sensitivity. The primary endpoint will be compared between groups using a stratified van Elteren test, with supportive analyses using proportional odds regression and analysis of covariance adjusted for key covariates. Ethics and dissemination The Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board reviewed and approved this protocol with a waiver of written consent, requiring verbal consent to be obtained by the clinician initiating the antibiotics (IRB# 24–0 06 503). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and international conference presentations. Trial registration number NCT07164131 .

Abstract Rationale Lung-protective ventilation protocols use predicted body weight (PBW) to set tidal volumes. However, biases exist in these formulas, with overestimation of lung capacity in older, shorter, female, and non-White patients—groups that experience higher mortality rates during invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). This study investigated associations between pre-admission forced vital capacity (FVC), driving pressure, and patient outcomes. Methods This multicenter retrospective study included adults (18-95 years old) with pre-admission spirometry who required IMV between 01/01/2016 and 05/31/2025 across the Mayo Clinic, spanning 11 ICUs within 5 hospitals in 4 states. Patients were stratified by FVC/PBW ratio quartiles. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Trends were assessed using linear or logistic regression, with FVC/PBW as a continuous variable. Mediation analysis examined pathways between FVC/PBW and mortality, with driving pressure (cm H2O, standardized) as the mediator, and adjusted for covariates including age, sex, SOFA score, and BMI. Absolute risk differences and number needed to harm (NNH) were estimated for key thresholds (e.g. FVC/PBW ≥45 mL/kg, PFTs within 2 years). Results Among 4,839 patients (38.7% female, mean (±SD) age 64.5±13.5 years), FVC/PBW ratio demonstrated substantial individual variation, with a mean of 48.3 ± 13.4 mL/kg. There was systematic variation by demographics (Figure): females had significantly lower ratios than males (45.4 versus 50.2 mL/kg, P < 0.001), and ratios were lower with older age from 52.5 mL/kg in patients <65 to 43.2 mL/kg in those ≥85 years (P < 0.001 for trend). Patients in the lowest FVC/PBW quartile had higher 28-day mortality compared to the highest quartile (26.0% versus 17.0%, P < 0.001) and higher driving pressures (14.0 versus 10.0 cm H2O, P < 0.001; Figure). In mediation analysis (n = 4,147), driving pressure mediated the relationship between FVC and mortality. Each 1-SD increase in FVC/PBW was associated with 0.364-SD lower driving pressure (P < 0.001) and 2.4% lower mortality. The adjusted indirect effect through driving pressure was significant (ACME -0.024, 95% CI: -0.029 to -0.019), accounting for the mortality effect. Sensitivity analyses across binary thresholds, age quartiles, outlier exclusion, and obstructive pathology confirmed robust mediation. Patients with FVC/PBW <45 mL/kg (N = 1,644; 39.6%) had 28-day mortality of 17.8% versus 13.5% for ≥45 mL/kg (risk difference 4.3%, 95% CI 1.8-6.8%; NNH: 23 patients). Conclusions Pre-admission lung function was strongly associated with mortality in adults receiving IMV through driving pressure-mediated pathways. Driving pressure is a modifiable target, especially in patients with smaller lung capacities at highest risk for ventilator-induced lung injury. Further prospective investigation is needed to confirm these findings. This abstract is funded by: National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institute of Health (NIH) Grant Number K23HL151671

Abstract Rationale Community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide; current guidelines recommend either the use of β-lactam therapy with a macrolide (azithromycin; AZM) or monotherapy with a fluoroquinolone for treatment. Limited evidence exists on their comparative effectiveness. To address this gap, we examined the differences in outcomes among CAP patients treated with β-lactam therapy plus AZM or fluoroquinolone monotherapymethods: We emulated a randomized clinical trial that hypothetically assigned patients to β-lactam therapy plus AZM or fluoroquinolone. Eligible patients were all adults hospitalized for nonsevere community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) based on ATS/IDSA criteria; at Mayo Clinic hospitals (3 academic and 16 community) between May 2018 and September 2022 and received one of the two treatments within 12 hours of admission. Ensemble machine learning with augmented inverse probability weighting (AIPW) was used to evaluate “intention to treat” effects on hospital-free days (HFDs), 180-day mortality, use of advanced respiratory support, in-hospital mortality, and the composite of advanced respiratory support and/or in-hospital mortality. We used the E-value and post-discharge systolic blood pressure (SBP) (negative outcome) to evaluate effects of potential unmeasured confounding and alternative “doubly robust” inverse probably weighting with regression adjustment (IPWRA) to evaluate robustness of the findings. Results 2,451 patients (2,142 β-lactam therapy plus AZM and 309 fluoroquinolone) were eligible and included in the analyses: 53.9% were female, 86.8% were White, and mean age was 58.4 years (SD: 17.02). Compared with β-lactam therapy plus AZM, the fluoroquinolone group experienced significantly higher HFD (1.50 days; 95% CI: 1.08, 1.91), lower use of advanced respiratory support (RR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.09, 0.54), lower in-hospital mortality (RR: 0.14; 95% CI: 0.00, 0.40), and composite of advanced respiratory support and/or in-hospital mortality (RR: 0.29; 95% CI: 0.08, 0.49). Moderate to large e-values (ranging from 3.50 to 4.74) and use of negative outcomes (post-discharge SBP) suggested that unmeasured confounding is unlikely to change the findings. Sensitivity analysis using IPWRA showed very similar results. Conclusion Among hospitalized patients with non-severe CAP, treatment with fluoroquinolone monotherapy was associated with more hospital-free days, lower in-hospital mortality, and reduced need for advanced respiratory support compared with AZM and β-lactam combination. The findings highlight the role of fluoroquinolone as a beneficial alternative CAP patients. However, further studies are needed to explore the underlying mechanisms driving these differences and assess whether specific patient subgroups may benefit most from quinolone-based therapy. This abstract is funded by: none

Abstract Rationale Critical care education has been identified as a global priority to improve the early identification and management of common syndromes, including sepsis and respiratory failure. International practice varies widely, and frontline clinical team perspectives remain poorly defined. The CERTAIN (Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and iNjury) program provides a structured, checklist-based approach shown to improve the delivery of best practices and patient-centered outcomes worldwide. Over the past decade we have performed a needs assessment at the start of each international CERTAIN program. We performed a retrospective analysis of these data to examine the critical care domains prioritized by frontline interprofessional teams to inform global training priorities. MethodsWe developed an anonymous online survey consisting of 20 previously defined activities essential to the practice of critical care. Participants ranked these activities using Q-sort methodology on a forced distribution scale from -4 (lowest priority) to + 4 (highest priority). Individual rankings were summed across all participants to generate aggregate scores for each activity, with higher values reflecting greater collective prioritization. Aggregate scores were calculated for the entire cohort and each site and summarized with bar plots to illustrate prioritization patterns across critical care domains. ResultsA total of 213 intensivists, emergency medicine physicians, nurses, and pharmacists from hospitals in China (75), Cambodia (70), Croatia (31), Japan (24) and India (13) completed the survey. The distribution of priorities across content domains is illustrated in Figure. Management of shock, sepsis, mechanical ventilation, and respiratory failure received the highest aggregate scores. Interprofessional critical care coordination was the only process of care activity identified as high priority, and transitions of care, patient centered communication, and shared decision making were consistently ranked lowest. While minor variation existed across individual sites, resuscitation and the acute management of high-risk clinical conditions were consistently prioritized over processes of care and patient-centered care domains. ConclusionThis multicenter analysis demonstrates consistent interprofessional clinician prioritization of acute clinical management topics for training. These insights inform both areas of emphasis and highlight challenges that CERTAIN and other programs face to improve global patient care delivery. Variation in care processes has been consistently identified as the largest modifiable factor to improve patient outcomes, and cultural differences may present barriers to engagement on the best approaches to patient centered care. Figure. Distribution of aggregate Q-sort scores across 20 critical care activities. Scores represent summed participant rankings (n=213) from -4 (lowest priority) to +4 (highest priority). This abstract is funded by: None