Citations

Objectives: Our preliminary data and observational studies suggested an increasing “off label” use of oral midodrine as a vasopressor sparing agent in various groups of critically ill patients, including those with sepsis. We designed this clinical trial to evaluate the feasibility of use of midodrine hydrochloride in early sepsis to reduce the duration for IV vasopressors and decrease ICU and hospital length of stay. Design: Pilot, two-center, placebo-controlled, double blinded randomized clinical trial. Setting: Medical ICUs at Mayo Clinic Rochester and Cleveland Clinic Abu Dhabi were the study sites. Patients and Methods: Adult patients (≥ 18 yr old) were included within 24 hours of meeting the Sepsis-3 definition if the mean arterial pressure remained less than 70 mm Hg despite receiving timely antibiotics and initial IV fluid bolus of 30 cc/kg. Intervention: Three doses of 10 mg midodrine versus placebo were administered. Measurements and Main Results: Total 32 patients were randomized into midodrine (n = 17) and placebo groups (n = 15). There were no major differences in baseline variables between the groups except for higher baseline creatinine in the midodrine group (2.0 ± 0.9 mg/dL) versus placebo group (1.4 ± 0.6 mg /dL), p = 0.03. The median duration of IV vasopressor requirement was 14.5 ± 8.1 hours in midodrine group versus 18.8 ± 7.1 hours in the placebo group, p value equals to 0.19. Patients in the midodrine group needed 729 ± 963 norepinephrine equivalent compared with 983 ± 1,569 norepinephrine equivalent in the placebo group, p value equals to 0.59. ICU length of stay was 2.29 days (interquartile range, 1.65–3.9 d) in the midodrine group, compared with 2.45 days (interquartile range, 1.6–3.2 d) in the placebo group, p value equals to 0.36. No serious adverse events were observed in either group. Conclusions: Phase II clinical trial powered for clinical outcomes (duration of vasopressor use, need for central venous catheter, and ICU and hospital length of stay) is justified.

Background. Remote simulation training provides a unique opportunity to captivate providers despite language, distance, and cultural barriers. Previously we developed a novel electronic decision support and rounding tool, the Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness in Pediatrics (CERTAINp). This study was conducted to determine the feasibility and impact of remote simulation training of international PICU providers using CERTAINp. Methods. We conducted train-the-trainer sessions in 7 hospitals based in 5 countries (China, Congo, Croatia, India, and Turkey) between 11/2015 and 11/2016. Providers first took part in a base line simulation session to assess their clinical performance. They had structured hands-on training using CERTAINp, which was done remotely using video conference with recording capabilities. Performance in PICU “admission” and “rounding” scenarios was assessed by their adherence to standard of care guidelines using CERTAINp. After this training, the providers were re-evaluated for performance using a validated instrument by 2 independent trained reviewers. Results. A total of 7 hospitals completed both baseline and post simulation sessions. We observed improved critical task (total 14) completion in the admission scenarios where pre training task completion was 8.2 ± 2.6, while after remote training was 11.2 ± 1.8, P = .01. In rounding scenarios, compliance to standard of care guidelines improved overall from 45% to 95% ( P < .01). Conclusion. We observed an improvement in compliance for measures determined as best practice guidelines in simulation rounding and overall improvement in critical tasks for simulated admission cases after remote training.

Objectives This study aimed to explore clinicians’ perceptions of the occurrence of and factors associated with diagnostic errors in patients evaluated during a rapid response team (RRT) activation or unplanned admission to the intensive care unit (ICU). Methods A multicenter prospective survey study was conducted among multiprofessional clinicians involved in the care of patients with RRT activations and/or unplanned ICU admissions (UIAs) at 2 academic hospitals and 1 community-based hospital between April 2019 and March 2020. A study investigator screened eligible patients every day. Within 24 hours of the event, a research coordinator administered the survey to clinicians, who were asked the following: whether diagnostic errors contributed to the reason for RRT/UIA, whether any new diagnosis was made after RRT/UIA, if there were any failures to communicate the diagnosis, and if involvement of specialists earlier would have benefited that patient. Patient clinical data were extracted from the electronic health record. Results A total of 1815 patients experienced RRT activations, and 1024 patients experienced UIA. Clinicians reported that 18.2% (95/522) of patients experienced diagnostic errors, 8.0% (42/522) experienced a failure of communication, and 16.7% (87/522) may have benefitted from earlier involvement of specialists. Compared with academic settings, clinicians in the community hospital were less likely to report diagnostic errors (7.0% versus 22.8%, P = 0.002). Conclusions Clinicians report a high rate of diagnostic errors in patients they evaluate during RRT or UIAs.

Abstract Here we analyze hospitalized andintensive care unit coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) patient outcomes from the international VIRUS registry ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04323787 ). We find that COVID‐19 patients administered unfractionated heparin but not enoxaparin have a higher mortality‐rate (390 of 1012 = 39%) compared to patients administered enoxaparin but not unfractionated heparin (270 of 1939 = 14%), presenting a risk ratio of 2.79 (95% confidence interval [CI]: [2.42, 3.16]; p = 4.45e−52). This difference persists even after balancing on a number of covariates including demographics, comorbidities, admission diagnoses, and method of oxygenation, with an increased mortality rate on discharge from the hospital of 37% (268 of 733) for unfractionated heparin versus 22% (154 of 711) for enoxaparin, presenting a risk ratio of 1.69 (95% CI: [1.42, 2.00]; p = 1.5e−8). In these balanced cohorts, a number of complications occurred at an elevated rate for patients administered unfractionated heparin compared to patients administered enoxaparin, including acute kidney injury, acute cardiac injury, septic shock, and anemia. Furthermore, a higher percentage of Black/African American COVID patients (414 of 1294 [32%]) were noted to receive unfractionated heparin compared to White/Caucasian COVID patients (671 of 2644 [25%]), risk ratio 1.26 (95% CI: [1.14, 1.40]; p = 7.5e−5). After balancing upon available clinical covariates, this difference in anticoagulant use remained statistically significant (311 of 1047 [30%] for Black/African American vs. 263 of 1047 [25%] for White/Caucasian, p = .02, risk ratio 1.18; 95% CI: [1.03, 1.36]). While retrospective studies cannot suggest any causality, these findings motivate the need for follow‐up prospective research into the observed racial disparity in anticoagulant use and outcomes for severe COVID‐19 patients.

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether the “Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and Injury” decision support tool during ICU admission and rounding is associated with improvements in nonadherence to evidence-based daily care processes and outcomes in variably resourced ICUs. DESIGN, SETTINGS, PATIENTS: This before-after study was performed in 34 ICUs (15 countries) from 2013 to 2017. Data were collected for 3 months before and 6 months after Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and Injury implementation. INTERVENTIONS: Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and Injury implementation using remote simulation training. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The coprimary outcomes, modified from the original protocol before data analysis, were nonadherence to 10 basic care processes and ICU and hospital length of stay. There were 1,447 patients in the preimplementation phase and 2,809 patients in the postimplementation phase. After adjusting for center effect, Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and Injury implementation was associated with reduced nonadherence to care processes (adjusted incidence rate ratio [95% CI]): deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis (0.74 [0.68–0.81), peptic ulcer prophylaxis (0.46 [0.38–0.57]), spontaneous breathing trial (0.81 [0.76–0.86]), family conferences (0.86 [0.81–0.92]), and daily assessment for the need of central venous catheters (0.85 [0.81–0.90]), urinary catheters (0.84 [0.80–0.88]), antimicrobials (0.66 [0.62–0.71]), and sedation (0.62 [0.57–0.67]). Analyses adjusted for baseline characteristics showed associations of Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and Injury implementation with decreased ICU length of stay (adjusted ratio of geometric means [95% CI]) 0.86 [0.80–0.92]), hospital length of stay (0.92 [0.85–0.97]), and hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [95% CI], 0.81 (0.69–0.95). CONCLUSIONS: A quality-improvement intervention with remote simulation training to implement a decision support tool was associated with decreased nonadherence to daily care processes, shorter length of stay, and decreased mortality.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the outcomes of hospitalized patients in a multicenter, international coronavirus disease 2019 registry. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study including coronavirus disease 2019 patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection between February 15, 2020, and November 30, 2020, according to age and type of organ support therapies. SETTING: About 168 hospitals in 16 countries within the Society of Critical Care Medicine’s Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness University Study coronavirus disease 2019 registry. PATIENTS: Adult hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients who did and did not require various types and combinations of organ support (mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, vasopressors, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were discharge home with or without assistance and hospital length of stay. Risk-adjusted variation in hospital mortality for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation was assessed by using multilevel models with hospitals as a random effect, adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, sex, and comorbidities. Among 20,608 patients with coronavirus disease 2019, the mean (± sd ) age was 60.5 (±17), 11,1887 (54.3%) were men, 8,745 (42.4%) were admitted to the ICU, and 3,906 (19%) died in the hospital. Hospital mortality was 8.2% for patients receiving no organ support ( n = 15,001). The most common organ support therapy was invasive mechanical ventilation ( n = 5,005; 24.3%), with a hospital mortality of 49.8%. Mortality ranged from 40.8% among patients receiving only invasive mechanical ventilation ( n =1,749) to 71.6% for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive drugs, and new renal replacement therapy ( n = 655). Mortality was 39% for patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation ( n = 389). Rates of discharge home ranged from 73.5% for patients who did not require organ support therapies to 29.8% for patients who only received invasive mechanical ventilation, and 8.8% for invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive drugs, and renal replacement; 10.8% of patients older than 74 years who received invasive mechanical ventilation were discharged home. Median hospital length of stay for patients on mechanical ventilation was 17.1 days (9.7-28 d). Adjusted interhospital variation in mortality among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation was large (median odds ratio 1.69). CONCLUSIONS: Coronavirus disease 2019 prognosis varies by age and level of organ support. Interhospital variation in mortality of mechanically ventilated patients was not explained by patient characteristics and requires further evaluation.

Introduction: In the absence of high-quality evidence for Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), supportive care is advocated during this pandemic. We aim to develop a consensus statement from global experts for pharmacological management, based on the pathophysiology of COVID-19. Material and Methods: We used a modified Delphi methodology in three steps: 1) Formulation of the steering committee and questionnaire; 2) Delphi methodology and selection of experts; 3) Final meeting of the steering committee and analysis, discussion, preparation, and presentation of captured data. Results: 34 (73·9%) experts accepted the invitation for the study. We conducted two rounds of Delphi and consensus (>70% votes) was achieved on 11 out of 24 statements after the end of round two. Conclusion: This global consensus suggests that “Anti-viral therapy should be administered in the early infection phase of COVID-19 followed by low dose steroid therapy in pulmonary phase. Prophylactic dose anticoagulation should be used in hospitalized, mild to moderate COVID-19 patients. We make no suggestions for the use of immune modulation therapy”.