Vespa, Paul

Objectives: In the United States, training for physicians who manage critically ill adult patients (intensivists) evolved through parallel subspecialty critical care medicine (CCM) pathways with significant commonality. The Society of Critical Care Medicine Adult Critical Care Physician Core Knowledge and Skills Task Force aimed to delineate the common core knowledge and skills required of all intensivists. Design: A master list of content areas and procedural skills was compiled from all CCM subspecialty program requirements and blueprints of the certification examinations. Using a modified Delphi approach, participants were asked to categorize the knowledge items as “advanced knowledge is essential,” “general, but not advanced, knowledge is essential,” or “knowledge is not essential.” Procedures were categorized as “intensivist performs routinely,” “intensivist only performs in an emergency,” or “intensivist knows” about the procedure. Setting: Representatives from CCM stakeholder organizations, including accreditation and certification organizations, critical care societies, and program directors’ societies, were invited to participate. SUBJECTS: Members of the Adult Critical Care Physician Core Knowledge and Skills Task Force of the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Interventions: For the first two rounds of the modified Delphi process, Research Electronic Data Capture was used. For the third and fourth rounds, the process was completed through online meetings with Zoom (Zoom Video Corporations, San Jose, CA) utilizing Zoom’s polling feature. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 541 items were determined to be essential, with 145 requiring advanced knowledge and 323 requiring general knowledge. For 73 items, consensus regarding advanced vs. general could not be achieved, but they remained essential. Only eight items were felt to be nonessential. Of the 16 procedures, most were categorized as “intensivist performs.” Conclusions: The large number of items included in the list of essential knowledge and skills demonstrates the complexity of modern CCM. Utilization of a common framework across the subspecialties of CCM could lead to greater harmonization among the fellowship program requirements and certification examinations.

Glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP) is cleared by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to determine need for head computed tomography (CT) within 12 h after mild traumatic brain injury (TBI) (Glasgow Coma Score [GCS] 13–15); S100 calcium-binding protein B (S100B) serves this function in Europe. This phase 1 biomarker cohort analysis of the multi-center, observational Transforming Research and Clinical Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury (TRACK-TBI) study compares GFAP's diagnostic performance, measured on a rapid point-of-care platform, against protein S100B to predict intracranial abnormalities on CT within 24 h post-injury across the spectrum of TBI (GCS 3–15). Head CT scan performed in TBI subjects and blood was collected for all consenting subjects presenting to 18 United States level 1 trauma centers. Plasma was analyzed on a point-of-care device prototype assay for GFAP and serum was analyzed for S100B. In 1359 patients with TBI (GCS 3–15), mean (standard deviation [SD]) age = 40.1 (17.0) years; 68% were male. Plasma GFAP levels were significantly higher in CT+ TBI subjects (median = 1358 pg/mL, interquartile range [IQR]: 472–3803) than in CT- TBI subjects (median = 116 pg/mL, IQR: 26–397) or orthopedic trauma controls ( n = 122; median = 13 pg/mL, IQR: 7–20), p < 0.001. Serum S100B levels were likewise higher in CT+ TBI subjects (median = 0.17 μg/L, IQR: 0.09–0.38) than in CT- TBI subjects (median = 0.10 μg/L, IQR: 0.06–0.18), p < 0.001. Receiver operating characteristic curves were generated for prediction of intracranial injury on admission CT scan; area under the curve (AUC) for GFAP was significantly higher than for S100B in the same cohort (GFAP AUC – 0.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83–0.87; S100B AUC – 0.67, 95% CI 0.64-0.70; p < 0.001). GFAP, measured on a point-of-care platform prototype assay, has high discriminative ability to predict intracranial abnormalities on CT scan in patients with TBI across the full injury spectrum of GCS 3–15 through 24 h post-injury. GFAP substantially outperforms S100B.

Background and Purpose— The ABC/2 score estimates intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) volume, yet validations have been limited by small samples and inappropriate outcome measures. We determined accuracy of the ABC/2 score calculated at a specialized reading center (RC-ABC) or local site (site-ABC) versus the reference-standard computed tomography–based planimetry (CTP). Methods— In Minimally Invasive Surgery Plus Recombinant Tissue-Type Plasminogen Activator for Intracerebral Hemorrhage Evacuation-II (MISTIE-II), Clot Lysis Evaluation of Accelerated Resolution of Intraventricular Hemorrhage (CLEAR-IVH) and CLEAR-III trials. ICH volume was prospectively calculated by CTP, RC-ABC, and site-ABC. Agreement between CTP and ABC/2 was defined as an absolute difference up to 5 mL and relative difference within 20%. Determinants of ABC/2 accuracy were assessed by logistic regression. Results— In 4369 scans from 507 patients, CTP was more strongly correlated with RC-ABC ( r 2 =0.93) than with site-ABC ( r 2 =0.87). Although RC-ABC overestimated CTP-based volume on average (RC-ABC, 15.2 cm 3 ; CTP, 12.7 cm3), agreement was reasonable when categorized into mild, moderate, and severe ICH (κ=0.75; P <0.001). This was consistent with overestimation of ICH volume in 6 of 8 previous studies. Agreement with CTP was greater for RC-ABC (84% within 5 mL; 48% of scans within 20%) than for site-ABC (81% within 5 mL; 41% within 20%). RC-ABC had moderate accuracy for detecting ≥5 mL change in CTP volume between consecutive scans (sensitivity, 0.76; specificity, 0.86) and was more accurate with smaller ICH, thalamic hemorrhage, and homogeneous clots. Conclusions— ABC/2 scores at local or central sites are sufficiently accurate to categorize ICH volume and assess eligibility for the CLEAR-III and MISTIE III studies and moderately accurate for change in ICH volume. However, accuracy decreases with large, irregular, or lobar clots. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: MISTIE-II NCT00224770; CLEAR-III NCT00784134.