Andrews, Adair

OBJECTIVES: Accurate glomerular filtration rate (GFR) assessment is essential in critically ill patients. GFR is often estimated using creatinine-based equations, which require surrogates for muscle mass such as age and sex. Race has also been included in GFR equations, based on the assumption that Black individuals have genetically determined higher muscle mass. However, race-based GFR estimation has been questioned with the recognition that race is a poor surrogate for genetic ancestry, and racial health disparities are driven largely by socioeconomic factors. The American Society of Nephrology and the National Kidney Foundation (ASN/NKF) recommend widespread adoption of new “race-free” creatinine equations, and increased use of cystatin C as a race-agnostic GFR biomarker. DATA SOURCES: Literature review and expert consensus. STUDY SELECTION: English language publications evaluating GFR assessment and racial disparities. DATA EXTRACTION: We provide an overview of the ASN/NKF recommendations. We then apply an Implementation science methodology to identify facilitators and barriers to implementation of the ASN/NKF recommendations into critical care settings and identify evidence-based implementation strategies. Last, we highlight research priorities for advancing GFR estimation in critically ill patients. DATA SYNTHESIS: Implementation of the new creatinine-based GFR equation is facilitated by low cost and relative ease of incorporation into electronic health records. The key barrier to implementation is a lack of direct evidence in critically ill patients. Additional barriers to implementing cystatin C-based GFR estimation include higher cost and lack of test availability in most laboratories. Further, cystatin C concentrations are influenced by inflammation, which complicates interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of direct evidence in critically ill patients is a key barrier to broad implementation of newly developed “race-free” GFR equations. Additional research evaluating GFR equations in critically ill patients and novel approaches to dynamic kidney function estimation is required to advance equitable GFR assessment in this vulnerable population.

Background: After critical illness, new or worsening impairments in physical, cognitive, and/or mental health function are common among patients who have survived. Who should be screened for long-term impairments, what tools to use, and when remain unclear. Objectives: Provide pragmatic recommendations to clinicians caring for adult survivors of critical illness related to screening for postdischarge impairments. Participants: Thirty-one international experts in risk-stratification and assessment of survivors of critical illness, including practitioners involved in the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Thrive Post-ICU Collaboratives, survivors of critical illness, and clinical researchers. Design: Society of Critical Care Medicine consensus conference on post-intensive care syndrome prediction and assessment, held in Dallas, in May 2019. A systematic search of PubMed and the Cochrane Library was conducted in 2018 and updated in 2019 to complete an original systematic review and to identify pre-existing systematic reviews. Meeting Outcomes: We concluded that existing tools are insufficient to reliably predict post-intensive care syndrome. We identified factors before (e.g., frailty, preexisting functional impairments), during (e.g., duration of delirium, sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome), and after (e.g., early symptoms of anxiety, depression, or post-traumatic stress disorder) critical illness that can be used to identify patients at high-risk for cognitive, mental health, and physical impairments after critical illness in whom screening is recommended. We recommend serial assessments, beginning within 2–4 weeks of hospital discharge, using the following screening tools: Montreal Cognitive Assessment test; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; Impact of Event Scale-Revised (post-traumatic stress disorder); 6-minute walk; and/or the EuroQol-5D-5L, a health-related quality of life measure (physical function). Conclusions: Beginning with an assessment of a patient’s pre-ICU functional abilities at ICU admission, clinicians have a care coordination strategy to identify and manage impairments across the continuum. As hospital discharge approaches, clinicians should use brief, standardized assessments and compare these results to patient’s pre-ICU functional abilities (“functional reconciliation”). We recommend serial assessments for post-intensive care syndrome-related problems continue within 2–4 weeks of hospital discharge, be prioritized among high-risk patients, using the identified screening tools to prompt referrals for services and/or more detailed assessments.

Objectives: Patients and caregivers can experience a range of physical, psychologic, and cognitive problems following critical care discharge. The use of peer support has been proposed as an innovative support mechanism. Design: We sought to identify technical, safety, and procedural aspects of existing operational models of peer support, among the Society of Critical Care Medicine Thrive Peer Support Collaborative. We also sought to categorize key distinctions between these models and elucidate barriers and facilitators to implementation. Subjects and Setting: Seventeen Thrive sites from the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia were represented by a range of healthcare professionals. Measurements and Main Results: Via an iterative process of in-person and email/conference calls, members of the Collaborative defined the key areas on which peer support models could be defined and compared, collected detailed self-reports from all sites, reviewed the information, and identified clusters of models. Barriers and challenges to implementation of peer support models were also documented. Within the Thrive Collaborative, six general models of peer support were identified: community based, psychologist-led outpatient, models-based within ICU follow-up clinics, online, groups based within ICU, and peer mentor models. The most common barriers to implementation were recruitment to groups, personnel input and training, sustainability and funding, risk management, and measuring success. Conclusions: A number of different models of peer support are currently being developed to help patients and families recover and grow in the postcritical care setting.