Citations

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether a novel acute care multipatient viewer (AMP), created with an understanding of clinician information and process requirements, could reduce time to clinical decision-making among clinicians caring for populations of acutely ill patients compared with a widely used commercial electronic medical record (EMR). DESIGN: Single center randomized crossover study. SETTING: Quaternary care academic hospital. SUBJECTS: Attending and in-training critical care physicians, and advanced practice providers. INTERVENTIONS: AMP. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We compared ICU clinician performance in structured clinical task completion using two electronic environments—the standard commercial EMR (Epic) versus the novel AMP in addition to Epic. Twenty subjects (10 pairs of clinicians) participated in the study. During the study session, each participant completed the tasks on two ICUs (7–10 beds each) and eight individual patients. The adjusted time for assessment of the entire ICU and the adjusted total time to task completion were significantly lower using AMP versus standard commercial EMR (–6.11; 95% CI, –7.91 to –4.30 min and –5.38; 95% CI, –7.56 to –3.20 min, respectively; p < 0.001). The adjusted time for assessment of individual patients was similar using both the EMR and AMP (0.73; 95% CI, –0.09 to 1.54 min; p = 0.078). AMP was associated with a significantly lower adjusted task load (National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index) among clinicians performing the task versus the standard EMR (22.6; 95% CI, –32.7 to –12.4 points; p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in adjusted total errors when comparing the two environments (0.68; 95% CI, 0.36–1.30; p = 0.078). CONCLUSIONS: When compared with the standard EMR, AMP significantly reduced time to assessment of an entire ICU, total time to clinical task completion, and clinician task load. Additional research is needed to assess the clinicians’ performance while using AMP in the live ICU setting.

OBJECTIVES: Assess clinical outcomes following PICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle utilization. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, cohort study. SETTING: Eight academic PICUs. PATIENTS: Children greater than 2 months with expected PICU stay greater than 2 days and need for mechanical ventilation (MV). INTERVENTIONS: ABCDEF Bundle implementation. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Over an 11-month period (3-mo baseline, 8-mo implementation), Bundle utilization was measured for 622 patients totaling 5,017 PICU days. Risk of mortality was quantified for 532 patients (4,275 PICU days) for correlation between Bundle utilization and MV duration, PICU length of stay (LOS), delirium incidence, and mortality. Utilization was analyzed as subject-specific (entire PICU stay) and day-specific (single PICU day). Median overall subject-specific utilization increased from 50% during the 3-month baseline to 63.9% during the last four implementation months ( p < 0.001). Subject-specific utilization for elements A and C did not change; utilization improved for B (0–12.5%; p = 0.007), D (22.2–61.1%; p < 0.001), E (17.7–50%; p = 0.003), and F (50–79.2%; p = 0.001). We observed no association between Bundle utilization and MV duration, PICU LOS, or delirium incidence. In contrast, on adjusted analysis, every 10% increase in subject-specific utilization correlated with mortality odds ratio (OR) reduction of 34%, p < 0.001; every 10% increase in day-specific utilization correlated with a mortality OR reduction of 1.4% ( p = 0.006). CONCLUSIONS: ABCDEF Bundle is applicable to children. Although enhanced Bundle utilization correlated with decreased mortality, increased utilization did not correlate with duration of MV, PICU LOS, or delirium incidence. Additional research in the domains of comparative effectiveness, implementation science, and human factors engineering is required to understand this clinical inconsistency and optimize PICU Liberation concept integration into clinical practice.

Background: Beta-lactam therapeutic drug monitoring (BL TDM; drug level testing) can facilitate improved outcomes in critically ill patients. However, only 10%–20% of hospitals have implemented BL TDM. This study aimed to characterize provider perceptions and key considerations for successfully implementing BL TDM. Methods: This was a sequential mixed-methods study from 2020 to 2021 of diverse stakeholders at 3 academic medical centers with varying degrees of BL TDM implementation (not implemented, partially implemented, and fully implemented). Stakeholders were surveyed, and a proportion of participants completed semistructured interviews. Themes were identified, and findings were contextualized with implementation science frameworks. Results: Most of the 138 survey respondents perceived that BL TDM was relevant to their practice and improved medication effectiveness and safety. Integrated with interview data from 30 individuals, 2 implementation themes were identified: individual internalization and organizational features. Individuals needed to internalize, make sense of, and agree to BL TDM implementation, which was positively influenced by repeated exposure to evidence and expertise. The process of internalization appeared more complex with BL TDM than with other antibiotics (ie, vancomycin). Organizational considerations relevant to BL TDM implementation (eg, infrastructure, personnel) were similar to those identified in other TDM settings. Conclusions: Broad enthusiasm for BL TDM among participants was found. Prior literature suggested that assay availability was the primary barrier to implementation; however, the data revealed many more individual and organizational attributes, which impacted the BL TDM implementation. Internalization should particularly be focused on to improve the adoption of this evidence-based practice.

Tris-hydroxymethyl aminomethane (THAM) is an amino alcohol used clinically to buffer acid loads and raise pH in acidotic conditions. Unlike sodium bicarbonate, which increases plasma sodium levels with use and produces carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) as part of the buffering process, THAM does neither. Although not widely used in modern critical care and unavailable for clinical use in 2016, THAM has been available in the United States since 2020. Clinical experience and existing literature suggest that THAM may have clinical utility in acid-base management in conditions such as liver transplantation where rising sodium levels during perioperative care may be dangerous, and in managing acid-base derangements during care of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). To clarify the evidence base supporting the clinical use of THAM, we conducted a systematic review to assess the efficacy and safety of THAM as a buffering agent in critically ill adults using Ovid EBM Reviews, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection. Randomized-, crossover-, retrospective cohort-, parallel-designed clinical trials, case series, and case reports of adult patients who received THAM in the operative or critical care setting were included. Conference abstracts of qualifying study designs were also included. Two independent reviewers extracted the data regarding the study details, demographics, treatment, and outcomes data. A third reviewer adjudicated discrepancies. A total of 21 studies including 3 randomized controlled trials, 5 observational studies, 4 case series, and 9 case reports met inclusion criteria. Eight studies (38%) were abstracts published in conference proceedings. In total, 417 critically ill patients received THAM to treat acidosis in critically ill surgical and nonsurgical patients, during liver transplantation, and in ARDS. In general, THAM corrected acidosis with an efficacy equivalent to sodium bicarbonate and did so with less hypercarbia and hypernatremia. Adverse effects of THAM included hyperkalemia, hypoglycemia, ventilator depression, and tissue damage with extravasation. We conclude that THAM may have potential advantages in some critical care settings, but that clinical evidence is limited, and high-quality evaluations are necessary.

Background: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is associated with significant short- and long-term morbidity and mortality. In critically ill patients with sepsis, AKI tends to be more severe, more likely to require kidney replacement therapy (KRT), with less chance of recovery. Consequently, critically ill patients with sepsis-associated AKI (SA-AKI) have extended intensive care unit (ICU) stays and higher mortality rates. This study evaluated the predictive value of clinical and transthoracic echocardiographic (TTE) parameters for recovery from moderate-to-severe SA-AKI in critically ill patients. Methods: This single-center historical cohort study was conducted at a tertiary academic medical center. We analyzed the data of all adults (age ≥ 18 years) admitted to the ICU at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, from June 1, 2018, to December 31, 2020. We included all patients who developed sepsis within the initial 24 h of their ICU stay. Results: We identified 2,919 eligible septic patients with available TTE, among which 1,431 patients (49%) had moderate-to-severe SA-AKI. The mean age of the patients was 68 ± 15 years, and the male-to-female ratio was 1.3:1. The most common comorbidities were diabetes mellitus and chronic lung and kidney diseases. Clinical predictors associated with SA-AKI non-recovery were the presence of stage III AKI (HR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.1, p = 0.03) and utilization of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) (HR 6.8, 95% CI 3.6-12.4, p = 0.01). On the other hand, higher TAPSE was the only TTE variable associated with SA-AKI recovery (HR 1.1; 95% CI 1.08-1.15; p = 0.01). Conclusion: Our data from a single-center provide new information on the clinical (AKI stage, utilization of KRT, BMI, and peak serum creatinine) and echocardiographic features (TAPSE) associated with improved recovery in SA-AKI. There is a definite knowledge gap in the current literature regarding optimizing recovery in moderate-to-severe SA-AKI. Larger, multi-center studies are required to confirm these findings.

AbstractBackgroundCommunity-onset bacterial coinfection in adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is reportedly uncommon, though empiric antibiotic use has been high. However, data regarding empiric antibiotic use and bacterial coinfection in children with critical illness from COVID-19 are scarce.MethodsWe evaluated children and adolescents aged &lt;19 years admitted to a pediatric intensive care or high-acuity unit for COVID-19 between March and December 2020. Based on qualifying microbiology results from the first 3 days of admission, we adjudicated whether patients had community-onset bacterial coinfection. We compared demographic and clinical characteristics of those who did and did not (1) receive antibiotics and (2) have bacterial coinfection early in admission. Using Poisson regression models, we assessed factors associated with these outcomes.ResultsOf the 532 patients, 63.3% received empiric antibiotics, but only 7.1% had bacterial coinfection, and only 3.0% had respiratory bacterial coinfection. In multivariable analyses, empiric antibiotics were more likely to be prescribed for immunocompromised patients (adjusted relative risk [aRR], 1.34 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.01–1.79]), those requiring any respiratory support except mechanical ventilation (aRR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.05–1.90]), or those requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (aRR, 1.83 [95% CI, 1.36–2.47]) (compared with no respiratory support). The presence of a pulmonary comorbidity other than asthma (aRR, 2.31 [95% CI, 1.15–4.62]) was associated with bacterial coinfection.ConclusionsCommunity-onset bacterial coinfection in children with critical COVID-19 is infrequent, but empiric antibiotics are commonly prescribed. These findings inform antimicrobial use and support rapid de-escalation when evaluation shows coinfection is unlikely.