Bittner, Edward A.

Objective The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) introduced Milestones in 2013 to aid the assessment of residents and fellows within the framework of the six core competencies of practice. Feedback from program directors and trainees, clinical competency committee processes, and milestone reporting identified the need for modification. This study represents a consensus-driven educational quality improvement initiative which describes the development, revision process, and key features of Critical Care Anesthesiology (CCA) Milestones 2.0, and provides lessons learned in adapting competency-based assessment to a one-year subspecialty training program. Methods A Critical Care Anesthesiology (CCA) working group was convened by the ACGME in 2021 to revise the content, enhance relevance to training, clarify goals for program leadership, and develop supplemental resources to aid implementation. The group consisted of a diverse group of experienced educators and clinicians from CCA fellowship programs nationwide. A modified Delphi process, stakeholder feedback, Milestones performance data, and public comment were used to iteratively revise Milestones. In addition, a supplemental guide was developed to provide examples and resources to aid the Milestones assessment. Conclusion The Milestones 2.0 simplify the use, implementation, and interpretation of this competency framework for program directors, trainees, faculty, and the American Board of Anesthesiology. The resulting CCA Milestones 2.0 provide updated specialty-specific, competency-based behavioral anchors to guide the developmental progression of competencies and outcomes for CCA fellows and facilitate the design of curricula and the advancement of CCA training programs. Lessons learned in the development of the CCA Milestones 2.0 include the importance of simplification, behavioral specificity, and supplemental.

Objective: The specialty of critical care in the United States currently lacks a single, broad, unified database. We conducted a scoping review of existing established national ICU databases, describing national and international patterns of critical care delivery. Data Sources: A systematic literature search was undertaken using MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science search engines. Study Selection: Projects describing national critical care delivery (including any subspecialty) published in any language were included. Titles, abstracts, and full-text manuscripts were reviewed in duplicate for inclusion. Data Extraction: National database characteristics were collected, including the number and subspecialty of ICUs, the inaugural year, data entry methodology, the number of episodes of care included, and captured clinical data elements. Data Synthesis: Of 24,003 abstracts screened, 185 manuscripts were eligible for inclusion. Thirty countries were identified as having established national ICU registries: Argentina, Australia/New Zealand, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States and Uruguay. Data entry commonly incorporates a combination of automated data abstraction from electronic healthcare systems and manual data entry, followed by independent validation. Frequently recorded variables include patient demographics; admission vital signs and laboratory data; comorbidities; admission source and diagnoses; ICU diagnoses, treatments, and complications; illness severity scores; and clinically relevant outcomes including discharge disposition, functional status, lengths of stay, and mortality. Conclusions: Insights and experience gained from the study of mature national ICU registries may be used to guide an equivalent U.S. multidisciplinary program aimed at benchmarking, needs assessment, quality improvement, and research facilitation

Background: The increased popularity and ubiquitous use of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) for the treatment of diabetes, heart failure, and obesity has led to significant concern for increased risk for perioperative aspiration, given their effects on delayed gastric emptying. This concern is highlighted by many major societies that have published varying guidance on the perioperative management of these medications, given limited data. We conducted a scoping review of the available literature regarding the aspiration risk and aspiration/regurgitant events related to GLP-1 RAs. Methods: A librarian-assisted search was performed using five electronic medical databases (PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science Platform Databases, including Web of Science Core Collection, KCI Korean Journal Database, MEDLINE, and Preprint Citation Index) from inception through March 2024 for articles that reported endoscopic, ultrasound, and nasogastric evaluation for increased residual gastric volume retained food contents, as well as incidences of regurgitation and aspiration events. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full text of articles to determine eligibility. Data extraction was performed using customized fields established a priori within a systematic review software system. Results: Of the 3712 citations identified, 24 studies met eligibility criteria. Studies included four prospective, six retrospective, five case series, and nine case reports. The GLP-1 RAs reported in the studies included semaglutide, liraglutide, lixisenatide, dulaglutide, tirzepatide, and exenatide. All studies, except one case report, reported patients with confounding factors for retained gastric contents and aspiration, such as a history of diabetes, cirrhosis, hypothyroidism, psychiatric disorders, gastric reflux, Barrett’s esophagus, Parkinson’s disease, dysphagia, obstructive sleep apnea, gastric polyps, prior abdominal surgeries, autoimmune diseases, pain, ASA physical status classification, procedural factors (i.e., thyroid surgery associated with risk for nausea, ketamine associated with nausea and secretions), and/or medications associated with delayed gastric emptying (opioids, anticholinergics, antidepressants, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, DPP-IV inhibitors, and antacids). Of the eight studies (three prospective and five retrospective) that evaluated residual contents in both GLP-1 users and non-users, seven studies (n = 7/8) reported a significant increase in residual gastric contents in GLP-1 users compared to non-users (19–56% vs. 5–20%). In the three retrospective studies that evaluated for aspiration events, there was no significant difference in aspiration events, with one study reporting aspiration rates of 4.8 cases per 10,000 in GLP-1 RA users compared to 4.6 cases per 10,000 in nonusers and the remaining two studies reporting one aspiration event in the GLP-1 RA user group and none in the non-user group. In one study that evaluated for regurgitation or reflux by esophageal manometry and pH, there was no significant difference in reflux episodes but a reduction in gastric acidity in the GLP-1 RA user group compared to the non-user group. Conclusions: There is significant variability in the findings reported in the studies, and most of these studies include confounding factors that may influence the association between GLP-1 RAs and an increased risk of aspiration and related events. While GLP-1 RAs do increase residual gastric contents in line with their mechanism of action, the currently available data do not suggest a significant increase in aspiration and regurgitation events associated with their use and the withholding of GLP-1 RAs to reduce aspiration and regurgitation events, as is currently recommended by many major societal guidelines. Large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) may be helpful in further elucidating the impact of GLP-1 RAs on perioperative aspiration risk.