Nokes, Brandon T

ABSTRACT Background Evaluation and interpretation of the literature on obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) allows for consolidation and determination of the key factors important for clinical management of the adult OSA patient. Toward this goal, an international collaborative of multidisciplinary experts in sleep apnea evaluation and treatment have produced the International Consensus statement on Obstructive Sleep Apnea (ICS:OSA). Methods Using previously defined methodology, focal topics in OSA were assigned as literature review (LR), evidence‐based review (EBR), or evidence‐based review with recommendations (EBR‐R) formats. Each topic incorporated the available and relevant evidence which was summarized and graded on study quality. Each topic and section underwent iterative review and the ICS:OSA was created and reviewed by all authors for consensus. Results The ICS:OSA addresses OSA syndrome definitions, pathophysiology, epidemiology, risk factors for disease, screening methods, diagnostic testing types, multiple treatment modalities, and effects of OSA treatment on multiple OSA‐associated comorbidities. Specific focus on outcomes with positive airway pressure (PAP) and surgical treatments were evaluated. Conclusion This review of the literature consolidates the available knowledge and identifies the limitations of the current evidence on OSA. This effort aims to create a resource for OSA evidence‐based practice and identify future research needs. Knowledge gaps and research opportunities include improving the metrics of OSA disease, determining the optimal OSA screening paradigms, developing strategies for PAP adherence and longitudinal care, enhancing selection of PAP alternatives and surgery, understanding health risk outcomes, and translating evidence into individualized approaches to therapy.

Objectives: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) are increasingly recognized as an alternative to centrally inserted central catheters (CICCs) in critical care, yet the data regarding the safety and feasibility of this choice in septic shock management is growing but still lacking. In this study, we aimed to determine the feasibility, safety, and impact on outcomes of using dedicated vascular access specialist (VAS) teams to insert PICCs versus CICCs on patients admitted to the ICU with septic shock. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Setting: Mayo Clinic Rochester Medical ICU and Mayo Clinic Arizona Multidisciplinary ICU from 2013 to 2016. Patients: All adult patients hospitalized with diagnosis of septic shock excluding patients who declined authorization for review of their medical records, mixed shock states, and readmissions. Interventions: None. Measurement and main results: Comprehensive data regarding septic shock diagnosis and resuscitation were abstracted from electronic medical records. A total of 562 patients with septic shock were included in the study; 215 patients were resuscitated utilizing a PICC and 347 were resuscitated using a CICC. On univariate analysis, the time to central line insertion and time to vasopressor initiation were found to be reduced in those who received PICC at time of ICU admission versus CICC. Other favorable outcomes were also observed in those who received PICC versus CICC including shorter ICU length of stay and lower unadjusted hospital mortality. A multivariable analysis for hospital mortality showed that after adjusting for important covariates, neither the time to central line insertion nor the time to vasopressor initiation was associated with a lower hospital mortality. Conclusions: Across two tertiary referral centers within the same enterprise, use of a dedicated VAS team for insertion of PICCs for initial resuscitation in patients with septic shock was feasible and associated with shorter time to central venous access and initiation of vasopressors; however, adjusted hospital mortality was not different between the two groups.