Bansal, Vikas

The efficacy and safety of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) support during transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remains unknown. We conducted a meta-analysis to compare benefit and risk of ECMO in TAVR patients. Bibliographic databases were searched from inception to January 1, 2024. Included studies involved patients ≥18 years old undergoing TAVR and using ECMO emergently or prophylactically. Mortality and procedure success were primary outcomes. Peri- or postoperative complications were the secondary outcomes. We identified 11 observational studies, including 2,275 participants (415 ECMO and 1,860 non-ECMO). The unadjusted mortality risk in ECMO-supported patient was higher than non-ECMO patients (odds ratio [OR] 1.73). The mortality unadjusted risk remained high (OR 3.89) and statistically significant for prophylactic ECMO. Prophylactic ECMO had lower mortality risk compared with emergent ECMO (OR 0.17). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation-supported patients had lower procedural success rate (OR 0.10). Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation patients undergoing TAVR had significantly increased risk of bleeding (OR 3.32), renal failure (OR 2.38), postoperative myocardial infarction (OR 1.89), and stroke (OR 2.32) compared with non-ECMO patients. Clinical results are not improved by ECMO support in patients with high-risk TAVR. Prophylactic ECMO outperforms emergent. Overall, ECMO support increases mortality and postoperative complications. Transcatheter aortic valve replacement outcomes may improve with prophylactic ECMO in high-risk situations.

Introduction: Sepsis and its associated systemic inflammatory response syndrome in the heart can lead to septic cardiomyopathy. We aim to explore new onset cardiac dysfunction in septic shock patients and its association of right heart dysfunction with hospital outcomes. Hypothesis: Early development of correct ventricular abnormalities due to septic shock may lead to worse hospital outcomes. Methods: We conducted a retrospective study of 102 patients who were hospitalized at the Mayo Clinic between August 2018 and September 2022 with septic shock and had at least one pre-sepsis echo (within one year before admission) and one post-sepsis echo (within seven days of access). Information on patient demographics, comorbidities, echo parameters, and outcomes was collected from our sepsis database and retrospective chart review. Categorical variables were described as percentages and compared by Chi-square test, and continuous variables as medians and compared using an independent sample t-test. Statistical analysis was performed using BlueSky Statistics v10.3.1. Results: Our study included 102 patients with a median age of 68 (55, 78) years, the majority being men (68%) and Caucasians (80%). Between pre- and post-sepsis echos, there was a noticeable decrease in LVEF (60% vs 50.5 %; p=0.002). Moreover, there was an increase in reduced RV function (31.6% vs. 62.6%, p<0.001), reduced LV function (56.5% vs. 85.2%, p=0.048), and RV dilatation (35.8% vs. 51.5%, p=0.03). There was also a noticeable decrease in IVC collapsibility of more than 50% (65.9% vs 22.9%, p<0.001). There was no significance in terms of demographics, comorbidities, and baseline vitals and labs among patients with RV dysfunction and without RV dysfunction except for a lower LVEF (49% vs 62 %, p= 0.004) and decreased >50 % IVC collapsibility (14.5% vs 48%, p=0.005) in RV dysfunction group. We found no differences in hospital mortality, ICU and hospital LOS, or mechanical ventilation requirements amongst patients with RV abnormalities in function and size. Conclusions: Our retrospective study shows that abnormalities in RV function and RV size are commonly observed in the initial week of septic shock. However, such RV abnormalities did not translate into worse hospital 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: The scientific community debates Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT)-3.5’s article quality, authorship merit, originality, and ethical use in scientific writing. OBJECTIVES: Assess GPT-3.5’s ability to craft the background section of critical care clinical research questions compared to medical researchers with H-indices of 22 and 13. DESIGN: Observational cross-sectional study. SETTING: Researchers from 20 countries from six continents evaluated the backgrounds. PARTICIPANTS: Researchers with a Scopus index greater than 1 were included. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: In this study, we generated a background section of a critical care clinical research question on “acute kidney injury in sepsis” using three different methods: researcher with H-index greater than 20, researcher with H-index greater than 10, and GPT-3.5. The three background sections were presented in a blinded survey to researchers with an H-index range between 1 and 96. First, the researchers evaluated the main components of the background using a 5-point Likert scale. Second, they were asked to identify which background was written by humans only or with large language model-generated tools. RESULTS: A total of 80 researchers completed the survey. The median H-index was 3 (interquartile range, 1–7.25) and most (36%) researchers were from the Critical Care specialty. When compared with researchers with an H-index of 22 and 13, GPT-3.5 was marked high on the Likert scale ranking on main background components (median 4.5 vs. 3.82 vs. 3.6 vs. 4.5, respectively; p < 0.001). The sensitivity and specificity to detect researchers writing versus GPT-3.5 writing were poor, 22.4% and 57.6%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: GPT-3.5 could create background research content indistinguishable from the writing of a medical researcher. It was marked higher compared with medical researchers with an H-index of 22 and 13 in writing the background section of a critical care clinical research question.

Objective To provide insights into the nature, risk factors, impact and existing measures for reporting and preventing violence in the healthcare system. The under-reporting of violence against healthcare workers (HCWs) globally highlights the need for increased public awareness and education. Methods The Violence Study of Healthcare Workers and Systems study used a survey questionnaire created using Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) forms and distributed from 6 June to 9 August 2022. Logistic regression analysis evaluated violence predictors, including gender, age, years of experience, institution type, respondent profession and night shift frequency. A χ 2 test was performed to determine the association between gender and different violence forms. Results A total of 5405 responses from 79 countries were analysed. India, the USA and Venezuela were the top three contributors. Female respondents comprised 53%. The majority (45%) fell within the 26–35 age group. Medical students (21%), consultants (20%), residents/fellows (15%) and nurses (10%) constituted highest responders. Nearly 55% HCWs reported firsthand violence experience, and 16% reported violence against their colleagues. Perpetrators were identified as patients or family members in over 50% of cases, while supervisor-incited violence accounted for 16%. Around 80% stated that violence incidence either remained constant or increased during the COVID-19 pandemic. Among HCWs who experienced violence, 55% felt less motivated or more dissatisfied with their jobs afterward, and 25% expressed willingness to quit. Univariate analysis revealed that HCWs aged 26–65 years, nurses, physicians, ancillary staff, those working in public settings, with >1 year of experience, and frequent night shift workers were at significantly higher risk of experiencing violence. These results remained significant in multivariate analysis, except for the 55–65 age group, which lost statistical significance. Conclusion This global cross-sectional study highlights that a majority of HCWs have experienced violence, and the incidence either increased or remained the same during the COVID-19 pandemic. This has resulted in decreased job satisfaction.