Khanna, Ashish K.

Importance Patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass often require platelet transfusions for bleeding. Platelets are routinely stored at room temperature (20-24 °C) for up to 5 to 7 days; however, cold storage (1-6 °C) may allow for increased storage duration without loss of hemostatic function. Objective To determine the maximum cold-storage duration, up to 21 days, for which cold-stored platelets (CSPs) are noninferior or superior in hemostatic efficacy to room-temperature platelets (RTPs) when transfused in actively bleeding patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. Design, Setting, and Participants A phase 3, multicenter, randomized, partially blinded, adaptive, noninferiority, storage duration–ranging trial conducted in pediatric and adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery with planned cardiopulmonary bypass at 27 sites in the US and Australia from December 2021 to March 2025. Statistical analysis was conducted from September 9 to October 3, 2025. Intervention Patients were randomized 2:1 to receive CSPs with a maximum of 21 days of storage vs RTPs with a maximum of 7 days of storage. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcome was a hemostatic efficacy score with values ranging from 1 to 5 and higher values indicating greater bleeding. The noninferiority margin was 1 point. The success criterion was met if at least 1 cold-storage duration of 7 days or more had a posterior probability of noninferiority of at least 97.5%. The secondary outcome was 24-hour chest tube output. Results Of the 1000 patients who underwent platelet transfusion, 989 were included in the primary analysis (650 CSPs and 339 RTPs). The cohort had a mean (SD) age of 42.1 (30.1) years and 67.8% were male. CSPs were noninferior to RTPs for the primary outcome, with a probability of greater than 99.9% for all cold-storage durations. Pooled across storage durations, CSPs had a mean difference from RTPs of 0.09 (95% credible interval, −0.06 to 0.23). Median (IQR) chest tube output at 24 hours (8.9 mL/kg [5.2-15.4] for CSPs vs 8.4 mL/kg [5.5-15.9] for RTPs; difference in medians, 0.4 [95% CI, −1.0 to 1.5]) was not statistically different between study groups. In a post hoc analysis, as all storage durations were noninferior, considering the CSPs as a single group, the hemostatic efficacy score was similar between both groups: mean (SD) of 3.08 (1.15) CSPs vs 2.99 (1.10) RTPs. There were no differences in venous or arterial thrombotic events, transfusion-associated adverse events, acute respiratory distress syndrome, kidney failure, septic shock, and mortality between the study groups, except for increased reexploration rates in the CSP group. Conclusions and Relevance For patients undergoing cardiac surgery, CSPs stored up to 21 days are noninferior to RTPs for the control of active surgical bleeding. Use of CSPs may allow for increased availability of platelets by reducing wastage and shortages and may allow for incorporation of platelets into inventory at locations where platelets cannot be maintained due to the 5- to 7-day shelf life of RTPs. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04834414

Objectives: Consensus clinical criteria for refractory septic shock were recently developed, but the incidence and outcomes with these criteria are unknown. There were two aims: 1) to describe the incidence of refractory septic shock and 2) to assess outcomes of patients with septic shock meeting refractory septic shock criteria compared with those who did not. Design: Multicohort, retrospective study. For aim 1, a descriptive epidemiologic study was designed to ascertain the cumulative incidence of refractory septic shock in patients with septic shock. For aim 2, a cohort study was conducted to compare hospital mortality between patients meeting refractory septic shock clinical criteria compared with those who did not. Setting: Large U.S. health system from 2012 to 2024. Patients: Adults (age ≥ 18 yr) meeting both Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Adult Sepsis Event and Sepsis-3 clinical criteria for septic shock. Patients with missing hospital discharge disposition and incomplete vasopressor dosage information were excluded. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Clinical criteria for refractory septic shock were operationalized as concomitant occurrence of norepinephrine (base) equivalent greater than 0.5 µg/kg/min and lactate greater than 2 mmol/L. Risk-adjusted hospital mortality was assessed with a generalized linear mixed-effects model with a random effect for hospital and fixed effects for age, sex, Elixhauser Comorbidity Index, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (original description, without cardiovascular component). Of 35,914 patients assessed, 15,732 patients with septic shock were included. Refractory septic shock occurred in 3423 patients (21.8%), with a cumulative incidence of 218 cases (95% CI, 211–224) per 1000 patients with septic shock. Hospital mortality with refractory septic shock was 64.4%, and risk-adjusted hospital mortality odds were 4.87-fold higher (95% CI, 4.46–5.31) compared with patients without refractory septic shock. Conclusions: Clinical criteria for refractory septic shock were fulfilled in about one in five patients with septic shock and associated with substantially higher mortality.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of data science concepts, skills, and tools in critical care research and practice faces multiple, complex barriers. METHODS: We developed an implementation science-based framework and method for measuring the adoption, implementation, and sustainment of data science concepts, skills, and tools in critical care—the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) Discovery Data Science Campaign (DSC) Implementation Research Logic Model (IRLM). Our IRLM specifies constructs for: 1) key determinants (i.e., barriers and facilitators) influencing the implementation of data science concepts, skills, and tools in critical care; 2) implementation strategies deployed by the SCCM Discovery DSC to address these determinants; 3) theorized mechanisms of action by which these strategies affect outcomes; and 4) upstream and downstream implementation outcomes influenced by implementation strategies. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We believe that our model can facilitate more rigorous measurement of theoretically grounded, empirically assessable factors driving implementation of data science concepts, skills, and tools in critical care.

Objective: The specialty of critical care in the United States currently lacks a single, broad, unified database. We conducted a scoping review of existing established national ICU databases, describing national and international patterns of critical care delivery. Data Sources: A systematic literature search was undertaken using MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science search engines. Study Selection: Projects describing national critical care delivery (including any subspecialty) published in any language were included. Titles, abstracts, and full-text manuscripts were reviewed in duplicate for inclusion. Data Extraction: National database characteristics were collected, including the number and subspecialty of ICUs, the inaugural year, data entry methodology, the number of episodes of care included, and captured clinical data elements. Data Synthesis: Of 24,003 abstracts screened, 185 manuscripts were eligible for inclusion. Thirty countries were identified as having established national ICU registries: Argentina, Australia/New Zealand, Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, Germany, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Paraguay, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom, United States and Uruguay. Data entry commonly incorporates a combination of automated data abstraction from electronic healthcare systems and manual data entry, followed by independent validation. Frequently recorded variables include patient demographics; admission vital signs and laboratory data; comorbidities; admission source and diagnoses; ICU diagnoses, treatments, and complications; illness severity scores; and clinically relevant outcomes including discharge disposition, functional status, lengths of stay, and mortality. Conclusions: Insights and experience gained from the study of mature national ICU registries may be used to guide an equivalent U.S. multidisciplinary program aimed at benchmarking, needs assessment, quality improvement, and research facilitation

Objective Specific sedative hypnotic agents, administered to facilitate endotracheal intubation (ETI) in critically ill adults, may lead to adverse outcomes such as peri-intubation cardiovascular collapse. However, little is known from systematic investigations of the impact these individual agents have on cardiovascular function or other clinical outcomes. Data sources MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus and Web of science databases. Study selection We conducted a systematic search for randomized and non-randomized studies that evaluated adult (≥18 years) critically ill patients who were sedated to facilitate ETI with ketamine, propofol, ketamine/propofol, etomidate, or a benzodiazepine and who had data on peri-intubation hemodynamics and at least one other outcome involving acute kidney injury, delirium, opioid use, intubation difficulty, sequential organ failure assessment, length of stay, or mortality. Eighty-five studies were identified for eligibility assessment with 23 included in the analysis. Data extraction Two reviewers independently screened articles, extracted data from selected articles, and assessed risk of bias using ROBINS-I for observational studies and revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized controlled trials. Data synthesis Acute cardiovascular dysfunction (peri-intubation hemodynamic instability and/or cardiac arrest) was similar between etomidate and ketamine with more events seen when propofol versus non-propofol sedation was administered. However, exploratory meta-analysis demonstrated no difference between etomidate and ketamine (OR 1.05 [95%CI 0.60-1.84]) or between etomidate and propofol (OR 0.91 [95%CI 0.33-2.46]). Compared to ketamine, etomidate demonstrated lower survival to hospital discharge in the included studies in exploratory meta-analysis OR 0.76 (95%CI 0.62-0.92). Limited data existed for other outcomes with no discernible differences between sedative agents. Conclusions Acute cardiovascular dysfunction was more common when propofol, as compared to non-propofol sedation, was administered, although not statistically significant in exploratory meta-analysis. In addition, etomidate conferred lower survival to hospital discharge versus non-etomidate sedation, which was confirmed in exploratory meta-analysis of etomidate versus ketamine.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to establish a set of guiding principles for data sharing and harmonization in critical care, focusing on the use of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) to improve patient outcomes and research efficacy. The principles were developed through a systematic literature review and a modified Delphi process, with the goal of enhancing data accessibility, standardization, and interoperability across critical care settings. DATA SOURCES: Data sources included a comprehensive search of peer-reviewed literature, specifically studies related to the use of RWD and RWE in healthcare, guidelines, best practices, and recommendations on data sharing and harmonization. A total of 8150 articles were initially identified through databases such as MEDLINE and Web of Science, with 257 studies meeting inclusion criteria. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria focused on publications discussing health-related informatics, recommendations for RWD/RWE usage, data sharing, and harmonization principles. Exclusion criteria ruled out non-human studies, case studies, conference abstracts, and articles published before 2013, as well as those not available in English. DATA EXTRACTION: From the 257 selected studies, 322 statements were extracted. After removing irrelevant definitions and off-topic content, 232 statements underwent content validation and thematic analysis. These statements were then consolidated into 24 candidate guiding principles after rigorous review and consensus-building among the expert panel. DATA SYNTHESIS: A three-phase modified Delphi process was employed, involving a conceptualization group, a review group, and a Delphi group. In phase 1, experts identified key themes and search terms for the systematic review. Phase 2 involved validating and refining the prospective guiding principles, while phase 3 employed a Delphi panel to rate principles on acceptability, importance, and feasibility. This process resulted in 24 guiding principles, with high consensus achieved in rounds 2 and 3 on their relevance and applicability. CONCLUSIONS: The systematic review and Delphi process resulted in 24 guiding principles to improve data sharing and harmonization in critical care. These principles address challenges across the data lifecycle, including generation, storage, access, and usage of RWD and RWE. This framework is designed to promote more effective and equitable data practices, with relevance for the development of artificial intelligence-based decision support tools and clinical research. The principles are intended to guide the responsible use of data science in critical care, with emphasis on ethics and equity, while acknowledging the variability of resources across settings.

OBJECTIVES: To provide guidance on the reporting of norepinephrine formulation labeling, reporting in publications, and use in clinical practice. DESIGN: Review and task force position statements with necessary guidance. SETTING: A series of group conference calls were conducted from August 2023 to October 2023, along with a review of the available evidence and scope of the problem. SUBJECTS: A task force of multinational and multidisciplinary critical care experts assembled by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. INTERVENTIONS: The implications of a variation in norepinephrine labeled as conjugated salt (i.e., bitartrate or tartrate) or base drug in terms of effective concentration of norepinephrine were examined, and guidance was provided. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There were significant implications for clinical care, dose calculations for enrollment in clinical trials, and results of datasets reporting maximal norepinephrine equivalents. These differences were especially important in the setting of collaborative efforts across countries with reported differences. CONCLUSIONS: A joint task force position statement was created outlining the scope of norepinephrine-dose formulation variations, and implications for research, patient safety, and clinical care. The task force advocated for a uniform norepinephrine-base formulation for global use, and offered advice aimed at appropriate stakeholders.