Walkey, Allan J.

Background: Propofol is a first-line sedative for critically ill adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). However, it can contribute to hemodynamic instability, especially in the setting of intubation. The magnitude, timing, risk factors, and variability of sedation-associated mean arterial pressure (MAP) changes remain poorly characterized in ICU settings. Objectives: To quantify MAP changes following propofol sedation, identify risk factors for hemodynamic instability, and characterize associated interventions. Methods: We included adults (≥18 years old) across 11 ICUs in the Mayo Clinic Enterprise who required IMV and received ≥6 consecutive hours of propofol infusion between 05/05/2018 and 07/31/2024. The primary outcome was MAP change within 2-hours following sedation. Secondary outcomes included vasopressor use and hypotension (MAP ≤60 mmHg). Mixed-effects modeling was utilized to account for individual patient differences. The main model used a “neutral” adjustment, estimating a 5 mmHg MAP increase per 0.05 mcg/kg/min of norepinephrine equivalents, reduced to 3 mmHg per 0.05 mcg/kg/min after reaching a dose of 0.20 mcg/kg/min. Those on any vasopressors prior to propofol sedation initiation were analyzed separately. Results: Across 16,418 patients, 25.2% were on vasopressors before sedation initiation. Among the remaining 12,281 patients, 40.3% required vasopressors and 7.7% experienced hypotension within 2 hours of sedation ( Image 1 ). Post-intubation sedation was associated with a MAP reduction within the first 30 minutes (-6.58 mmHg; 95% CI: -6.85 to -6.32; P<0.001; Images 2 and 3 ). There was substantial inter-patient variability in both baseline MAP (9.5% variation attributable to between-patient differences) and MAP decline after sedation (40.9% between-patient differences). Higher SOFA scores (-0.31 mmHg per point), older age (-0.04 mmHg per year), and male sex (-0.47 mmHg) were associated with lower MAP. Patients with higher illness severity experienced progressively greater MAP changes over time (-0.20 mmHg per hour per increasing SOFA point; P<0.001). Conclusions: Propofol sedation is associated with clinically significant hemodynamic effects requiring intervention in the early post-intubation period. The marked inter-patient variability in hemodynamic responses highlights the importance of personalized management approaches. Risk stratification may help identify patients who could benefit from preemptive hemodynamic optimization.

Introduction: Life-support limits (i.e., code status), the first step in the continuum of palliation and end-of-life (EoL) care, stem from decisions made by patients and their providers to align care near the EoL with patients’ wishes. The pandemic created health care strain that may have influenced life-support limitation practices among patients with serious COVID-19. In this study, we examine variations in life-support limitations (do-not-resuscitate, DNR; do-not-intubate, DNI) depending on the hospital and period of hospitalization. Methods: We included all adults admitted to a hospital in the United States with COVID-19 from January 2020 to December 2021 using the VIRUS registry. Our outcome was any life-support limitation on admission (DNR, DNI, or both) using regression modeling. Main exposures were hospital and period of hospitalization (early vs. late pandemic). Covariates included age, sex, race/ethnicity, comorbidities, and hospitalization diagnoses. Results: There were 42,383 patients from 75 hospitals in the US. The median age was 63 (interquartile range: 50–75), 46.5% were female, and 37.5% were non-Hispanic White. The life-support limitation rate was 7.9%, and the palliative care consultation rate was 2.3%. The odds of life-support limitation were 1.86 (95% CI: 1.6–2.1) depending on the hospital, but the period of hospitalization was not associated with odds of life-support limitation. Older age was associated with the greatest increased odds (4.1 per standard deviation ∼ 17.9 years, 95% CI: 3.9–4.4), followed by comorbidities including paralysis (2.4, 95% CI: 1.8–3.0) and dementia (2.3, 95% CI: 2.0–2.6). Conclusions: After adjusting for patient-level factors, we report significant inter-hospital but no temporal variation in life-support limitation upon admission with COVID-19. Future studies should investigate specific practices that led to health care resilience to temporal practice variations in life-support limitation during the pandemic.

IMPORTANCE: Propofol is a first-line sedative for adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). However, it can contribute to hemodynamic instability, especially during intubation. The magnitude, timing, risk factors, and variability of sedation-associated mean arterial pressure (MAP) changes remain poorly characterized in ICU settings. OBJECTIVES: To quantify MAP changes following propofol sedation, identify risk factors for hemodynamic instability, and characterize associated interventions. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. The primary outcome was MAP change within 2 hours following sedation. Secondary outcomes included vasopressor use and hypotension (MAP ≤ 60 mm Hg). Mixed-effects modeling was used to account for individual patient differences. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Adults (≥ 18 yrs old) who required IMV and received greater than or equal to 6 consecutive hours of propofol infusion, between May 5th, 2018, and July 31st, 2024, in 11 ICUs across the Mayo Clinic, spanning 5 hospitals in 4 states. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the change in MAP within 2 hours following the initiation of propofol-based sedation. RESULTS: Across 16,418 patients, 25.2% were on vasopressors before sedation initiation. Among the remaining 12,281 patients, 40.3% required vasopressors and 7.7% experienced hypotension within 2 hours of sedation. Propofol-based sedation was associated with a MAP reduction within the first 30 minutes (–6.58 mm Hg; 95% CI, –6.85 to –6.32; p < 0.001). There was substantial interpatient variability in both baseline MAP, and MAP decline after sedation (9.5 and 40.9% between-patient differences, respectively). Higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (–0.31 mm Hg/point), older age (–0.04 mm Hg/yr), and male sex (–0.47 mm Hg) were associated with lower MAP. Patients with higher illness severity experienced progressively greater MAP decline over time (–0.20 mm Hg/hr/SOFA point; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Propofol-based sedation was associated with clinically significant hemodynamic effects requiring intervention in the early post-intubation period. The marked interpatient variability in hemodynamic responses highlights the importance of personalized management approaches, including risk stratification based on age, sex, and illness severity.

INTRODUCTION A retrospective cohort study on patients aged &lt; 18 years included in the Society of Critical Care Medicine: Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study registry from March 2020 to April 2024 with an objective of calculating the prevalence of sepsis as defined by the Phoenix Sepsis Score (PSS) and to validate the PSS with respect to outcomes in children with COVID-19. METHODS Linear mixed-effects regression was used to examine the relationship between the PSS and hospital length of stay after controlling for confounding factors. The performance of the PSS was assessed using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and the precision-recall curve (PRC). Cross-validation was performed using leave-one-out cross-validation. RESULTS Out of 1731 patients (58 hospitals), 326 (18.8%) met criteria for sepsis and 167 (9.7%) for septic shock. The overall mortality was 1.4% (25/1731), with significant differences between nonseptic (10/1405, 0.7%) and both sepsis (15/326, 4.6%) and septic shock (9/167, 5.4%) groups. After adjusting for confounders, the septic group was associated with a longer hospital length of stay than the nonseptic group. One unit increase in the numeric PSS led to a 70% increase in risk of mortality (odds ratio 1.70; P &lt; .001). The area under the ROC curve was 0.80 and the area under the PRC curve was 0.13. The threshold of ≥ 2 for detection of mortality had a sensitivity of 0.63, specificity of 0.82, and positive predictive value of 0.05. CONCLUSION Phoenix Sepsis Criteria retain its validity in identifying sepsis in children with COVID-19 and can be used in further epidemiological studies in this population

ImportanceChronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is often undiagnosed. Although genetic risk plays a significant role in COPD susceptibility, its utility in guiding spirometry testing and identifying undiagnosed cases is unclear.ObjectiveTo determine whether a COPD polygenic risk score (PRS) enhances the identification of undiagnosed COPD beyond a case-finding questionnaire (eg, the Lung Function Questionnaire) using conventional risk factors and respiratory symptoms.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional analysis of participants 35 years or older who reported no history of physician-diagnosed COPD was conducted using data from 2 observational studies: the community-based Framingham Heart Study (FHS) and the COPD-enriched Genetic Epidemiology of COPD (COPDGene) study.ExposuresModified Lung Function Questionnaire (mLFQ) scores and COPD PRS.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was spirometry-defined moderate to severe COPD (forced expiratory volume in the first second of expiration/forced vital capacity [FEV1/FVC] &amp;lt;0.7 and FEV1 [percent predicted] &amp;lt;80%). The performance of logistic models was assessed using the PRS, mLFQ score, and PRS plus mLFQ score for predicting spirometry-defined COPD.ResultsAmong 3385 FHS participants (median age, 52.0 years; 45.9% male) and 4095 COPDGene participants (median age, 56.8 years; 55.5% male) who reported no history of COPD, 160 (4.7%) FHS and 775 (18.9%) COPDGene participants had spirometry-defined COPD. Adding the PRS to the mLFQ score significantly improved the area under the curve from 0.78 to 0.84 (P &amp;lt; .001) in FHS, 0.69 to 0.72 (P = .04) in COPDGene non-Hispanic African American, and 0.75 to 0.78 (P &amp;lt; .001) in COPDGene non-Hispanic White participants. At a risk threshold for spirometry referral of 10%, the addition of the PRS to the mLFQ score correctly reclassified 13.8% (95% CI, 6.6%-21.0%) of COPD cases in FHS, but not in COPDGene.Conclusions and RelevanceA COPD PRS enhances the identification of undiagnosed COPD beyond a conventional case-finding approach in the general population. Further research is needed to assess its impact on COPD diagnosis and outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: There is a paucity of literature regarding administrative approvals required for clinical studies during a pandemic. We aimed to evaluate variation in duration of administrative approvals within the Viral Infection and Respiratory illness Universal Study (VIRUS): A Global COVID-19 Registry. DESIGN, SETTING, AND SUBJECTS: Survey analysis of 188 investigators who participated in the VIRUS: COVID-19 registry, a prospective, observational global registry database of 287 sites. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For each study site approved through December 8, 2020, we assessed the duration in days: 1) from institutional review board (IRB) submission to IRB approval, 2) from IRB approval to Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) access, 3) from REDCap access to first patient data entry in REDCap, and 4) total duration from IRB submission to first patient data entry in REDCap. Analysis of variance and Wilcoxon rank-sum test were used to compare time durations. Of 287 sites, 188 sites (United States = 155, non-United States = 33) provided complete administrative data. There was considerable variability in duration from IRB submission to first patient data entry with median (interquartile range) of 28 days (16–50 d), with differences not significantly different by country (United States: 30 [17–50] vs non-United States: 23 d [8–46 d]; p = 0.08) or previous “multisite trial experience” (experienced: 27 [15–51] vs not experienced: 29 d [13–47 d]; p = 0.67). The U.S. sites had a higher proportion of female principal investigators (n = 77; 50%), compared with non-U.S. sites (n = 7; 21%; p = 0.002). Non-U.S. sites had a significantly shorter time to first patient data entry after REDCap access: 7 (1–28) versus 3 days (1–6 d) (p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In this Society of Critical Care Medicine global VIRUS: COVID-19 Registry, we identified considerable variability in time from IRB submission to first patient data entry with no significant differences by country or prior multicenter trial experience. However, there was a significant difference between US and non-U.S. sites in the time from REDCap access to first data entry.

IMPORTANCE: Initial Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory illness Universal Study (VIRUS) Registry analysis suggested that improvements in critical care processes offered the greatest modifiable opportunity to improve critically ill COVID-19 patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The Structured Team-based Optimal Patient-Centered Care for Virus COVID-19 ICU Collaborative was created to identify and speed implementation of best evidence based COVID-19 practices. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This 6-month project included volunteer interprofessional teams from VIRUS Registry sites, who received online training on the Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and iNjury approach, a structured and systematic method for delivering evidence based critical care. Collaborators participated in weekly 1-hour videoconference sessions on high impact topics, monthly quality improvement (QI) coaching sessions, and received extensive additional resources for asynchronous learning. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes included learner engagement, satisfaction, and number of QI projects initiated by participating teams. RESULTS: Eleven of 13 initial sites participated in the Collaborative from March 2, 2021, to September 29, 2021. A total of 67 learners participated in the Collaborative, including 23 nurses, 22 physicians, 10 pharmacists, nine respiratory therapists, and three nonclinicians. Site attendance among the 11 sites in the 25 videoconference sessions ranged between 82% and 100%, with three sites providing at least one team member for 100% of sessions. The majority reported that topics matched their scope of practice (69%) and would highly recommend the program to colleagues (77%). A total of nine QI projects were initiated across three clinical domains and focused on improving adherence to established critical care practice bundles, reducing nosocomial complications, and strengthening patient- and family-centered care in the ICU. Major factors impacting successful Collaborative engagement included an engaged interprofessional team; an established culture of engagement; opportunities to benchmark performance and accelerate institutional innovation, networking, and acclaim; and ready access to data that could be leveraged for QI purposes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Use of a virtual platform to establish a learning collaborative to accelerate the identification, dissemination, and implementation of critical care best practices for COVID-19 is feasible. Our experience offers important lessons for future collaborative efforts focused on improving ICU processes of care.

Background Although corticosteroids have become the standard of care for patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) on supplemental oxygen, there is growing evidence of differential treatment response. This study aimed to evaluate if there was an association between biomarker-concordant corticosteroid treatment and COVID-19 outcomes. Methods This registry-based cohort study included adult COVID-19 hospitalized patients between January 2020 and December 2021 from 109 institutions. Patients with available C-reactive protein (CRP) levels within 48 h of admission were evaluated. Those on steroids before admission, stayed in the hospital for <48 h, or were not on oxygen support were excluded. Corticosteroid treatment was biomarker-concordant if given with high baseline CRP ≥150 mg/L or withheld with low CRP (<150 mg/L) and vice-versa was considered discordant (low CRP with steroids, high CRP without steroids). Hospital mortality was the primary outcome. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using varying CRP level thresholds. The model interaction was tested to determine steroid effectiveness with increasing CRP levels. Results Corticosteroid treatment was biomarker-concordant in 1778 (49%) patients and discordant in 1835 (51%). The concordant group consisted of higher-risk patients than the discordant group. After adjusting for covariates, the odds of in-hospital mortality were significantly lower in the concordant group than the discordant (odds ratio [95% confidence interval (C.I.)] = 0.71 [0.51, 0.98]). Similarly, adjusted mortality difference was significant at the CRP thresholds of 100 and 200 mg/L (odds ratio [95% C.I.] = 0.70 [0.52, 0.95] and 0.57 [0.38, 0.85], respectively), and concordant steroid use was associated with lower need for invasive ventilation for 200 mg/L threshold (odds ratio [95% C.I.] = 0.52 [0.30, 0.91]). In contrast, no outcome benefit was observed at CRP threshold of 50. When the model interaction was tested, steroids were more effective at reducing mortality as CRP levels increased. Conclusion Biomarker-concordant corticosteroid treatment was associated with lower odds of in-hospital mortality in severe COVID-19.