Duggal, Abhijit

Abstract Introduction Delirium occurrence is common and preventive strategies are resource intensive. Screening tools can prioritize patients at risk. Using machine learning, we can capture time and treatment effects that pose a challenge to delirium prediction. We aim to develop a delirium prediction model that can be used as a screening tool. Methods From the eICU Collaborative Research Database (eICU-CRD) and the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care version III (MIMIC-III) database, patients with one or more Confusion Assessment Method-Intensive Care Unit (CAM-ICU) values and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay greater than 24 h were included in our study. We validated our model using 21 quantitative clinical parameters and assessed performance across a range of observation and prediction windows, using different thresholds and applied interpretation techniques. We evaluate our models based on stratified repeated cross-validation using 3 algorithms, namely Logistic Regression, Random Forest, and Bidirectional Long Short-Term Memory (BiLSTM). BiLSTM represents an evolution from recurrent neural network-based Long Short-Term Memory, and with a backward input, preserves information from both past and future. Model performance is measured using Area Under Receiver Operating Characteristic, Area Under Precision Recall Curve, Recall, Precision (Positive Predictive Value), and Negative Predictive Value metrics. Results We evaluated our results on 16 546 patients (47% female) and 6294 patients (44% female) from eICU-CRD and MIMIC-III databases, respectively. Performance was best in BiLSTM models where, precision and recall changed from 37.52% (95% confidence interval [CI], 36.00%–39.05%) to 17.45 (95% CI, 15.83%–19.08%) and 86.1% (95% CI, 82.49%–89.71%) to 75.58% (95% CI, 68.33%–82.83%), respectively as prediction window increased from 12 to 96 h. After optimizing for higher recall, precision and recall changed from 26.96% (95% CI, 24.99%–28.94%) to 11.34% (95% CI, 10.71%–11.98%) and 93.73% (95% CI, 93.1%–94.37%) to 92.57% (95% CI, 88.19%–96.95%), respectively. Comparable results were obtained in the MIMIC-III cohort. Conclusions Our model performed comparably to contemporary models using fewer variables. Using techniques like sliding windows, modification of threshold to augment recall and feature ranking for interpretability, we addressed shortcomings of current models.

Abstract Background Since its emergence in late 2019, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) continues to pose a risk to healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Although all clinical interactions likely carry some risk of transmission, human actions, such as coughing, and care activities, such as aerosol-generating procedures, likely have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 continues to create significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with shortages of the personal protective equipment (PPE) used by HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care continue to be needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators. The purpose of the current study was to develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel including frontline clinicians, infectious disease specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists, with representation from the disciplines of public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results The IDSA guideline panel agreed on 8 recommendations, including 2 updated recommendations and 1 new recommendation added since the first version of the guideline. Narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations are also included. Conclusions Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for 8 specific questions on the use of PPE by HCP providing care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. There remain significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2, and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence. These recommendations should serve as a minimum for PPE use in healthcare facilities and do not preclude decisions based on local risk assessments or requirements of local health jurisdictions or other regulatory bodies.

Abstract Background: Previous studies have found various incidences of right ventricular dysfunction (RVD) and its association with clinical outcome. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to investigate the impact of the presence of RVD on mortality in patients with ARDS.Method: We searched Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for studies investigating the association between RVD and mortality. Two authors independently evaluated whether studies meet eligibility criteria and extracted the selected patients’ and studies’ characteristics and outcomes. The primary outcome was the association between mortality and the presence of RVD in patients with ARDS. Results: We included 9 studies (N = 1,861 patients) in this meta-analysis. RVD was present in 21.0% (391/1,861). In the pooled meta-analysis, the presence of RVD in patients with ARDS was associated with significantly higher overall mortality (OR: 1.45, 95%CI: 1.13-1.86, p-value = 0.003, I2 = 0%), as well as short-term mortality (OR: 1.48, 95%CI: 1.14-1.93, p-value = 0.003, I2 = 0%).Conclusion: In this systematic review and meta-analysis including 1,861 patients with ARDS, the presence of RVD was significantly associated with increased overall and short-term mortality.Trial registration: The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020206521).

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a highly transmissible virus that can infect healthcare personnel (HCP) and patients in healthcare settings. Specific care activities, in particular, aerosol-generating procedures, may have a higher risk of transmission. The rapid emergence and global spread of SARS-CoV-2 has created significant challenges in healthcare facilities, particularly with severe shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) used to protect HCP. Evidence-based recommendations for what PPE to use in conventional, contingency, and crisis standards of care are needed. Where evidence is lacking, the development of specific research questions can help direct funders and investigators. Objective Our objective was to develop evidence-based rapid guidelines intended to support HCP in their decisions about infection prevention when caring for patients with suspected or known coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Methods The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included front-line clinicians, infectious diseases specialists, experts in infection control, and guideline methodologists with representation from the disciplines of preventive care, public health, medical microbiology, pediatrics, critical care medicine, and gastroenterology. The process followed a rapid recommendation checklist. The panel prioritized questions and outcomes. Then, a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature was conducted. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence and make recommendations. Results The IDSA guideline panel agreed on 8 recommendations and provided narrative summaries of other interventions undergoing evaluations. Conclusions Using a combination of direct and indirect evidence, the panel was able to provide recommendations for 8 specific questions on the use of PPE for HCP who provide care for patients with suspected or known COVID-19. Where evidence was lacking, attempts were made to provide potential avenues for investigation. Significant gaps in the understanding of the transmission dynamics of SARS-CoV-2 remain, and PPE recommendations may need to be modified in response to new evidence.

Objectives: The objectives of this study were to: 1) determine the association between vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 6 hours and first 24 hours after the onset of septic shock and 30-day in-hospital mortality; 2) determine whether the effect of vasopressor dosing intensity varies by fluid resuscitation volume; and 3) determine whether the effect of vasopressor dosing intensity varies by dosing titration pattern. Design: Multicenter prospective cohort study between September 2017 and February 2018. Vasopressor dosing intensity was defined as the total vasopressor dose infused across all vasopressors in norepinephrine equivalents. Setting: Thirty-three hospital sites in the United States ( n = 32) and Jordan ( n = 1). Patients: Consecutive adults requiring admission to the ICU with septic shock treated with greater than or equal to 1 vasopressor within 24 hours of shock onset. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Out of 1,639 patients screened, 616 were included. Norepinephrine (93%) was the most common vasopressor. Patients received a median of 3,400 mL (interquartile range, 1,851–5,338 mL) during the 24 hours after shock diagnosis. The median vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 24 hours of shock onset was 8.5 μg/min norepinephrine equivalents (3.4–18.1 μg/min norepinephrine equivalents). In the first 6 hours, increasing vasopressor dosing intensity was associated with increased odds ratio of 30-day in-hospital mortality, with the strength of association dependent on concomitant fluid administration. Over the entire 24 hour period, every 10 μg/min increase in vasopressor dosing intensity was associated with an increased risk of 30-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.16–1.53), and this association did not vary with the amount of fluid administration. Compared to an early high/late low vasopressor dosing strategy, an early low/late high or sustained high vasopressor dosing strategy was associated with higher mortality. Conclusions: Increasing vasopressor dosing intensity during the first 24 hours after septic shock was associated with increased mortality. This association varied with the amount of early fluid administration and the timing of vasopressor titration.

Objectives: To characterize the association between the use of physiologic assessment (central venous pressure, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure, stroke volume variation, pulse pressure variation, passive leg raise test, and critical care ultrasound) with fluid and vasopressor administration 24 hours after shock onset and with in-hospital mortality. Design: Multicenter prospective cohort study between September 2017 and February 2018. Settings: Thirty-four hospitals in the United States and Jordan. Patients: Consecutive adult patients requiring admission to the ICU with systolic blood pressure less than or equal to 90 mm Hg, mean arterial blood pressure less than or equal to 65 mm Hg, or need for vasopressor. Interventions: None. Measurement and Main Results: Of 1,639 patients enrolled, 39% had physiologic assessments. Use of physiologic assessment was not associated with cumulative fluid administered within 24 hours of shock onset, after accounting for baseline characteristics, etiology and location of shock, ICU types, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III, and hospital (beta coefficient, 0.04; 95% CI, −0.07 to 0.15). In multivariate analysis, the use of physiologic assessment was associated with a higher likelihood of vasopressor use (adjusted odds ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.45−2.71) and higher 24-hour cumulative vasopressor dosing as norepinephrine equivalent (beta coefficient, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19−0.55). The use of vasopressor was associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.27−2.78). In-hospital mortality was not associated with the use of physiologic assessment (adjusted odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.63−1.18). Conclusions: The use of physiologic assessment in the 24 hours after shock onset is associated with increased use of vasopressor but not with fluid administration.