Citations

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.

OBJECTIVE Pseudoaneurysms (PSAs) are complex vascular lesions. Flow diversion has been proposed as an alternative treatment to parent artery occlusion that preserves laminar flow. The authors of the present study investigated the safety and short-term (< 1 year) and long-term (≥ 1 year) aneurysm occlusion rates following the treatment of intracranial and extracranial PSAs using the Pipeline embolization device (PED). METHODS An electronic database search for full-text English-language articles in Ovid MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. Studies of any design including at least 4 patients with intracranial or extracranial PSAs treated using a PED were included in this analysis. The primary outcome of interest was the rate of peri- and postprocedural complications. Secondarily, the authors analyzed the incidence of complete aneurysm occlusion. RESULTS A total of 90 patients with 96 PSAs across 9 studies were included. The mean age was 38.2 (SD 15.14) years, and 37.8% of the patients were women. The mean PSA size was 4.9 mm. Most PSAs were unruptured, and the most common etiology was trauma (n = 32, 35.5%), followed by spontaneous formation (n = 21, 23.3%) and iatrogenic injury (n = 19, 21.1%). Among the 51 (53.1%) intracranial and 45 (46.9%) extracranial PSAs were 19 (19.8%) dissecting PSAs. Sixty-six (77.6%) PSAs were in the internal carotid artery and 10 (11.8%) in the vertebral artery. Thirty-three (34.4%) PSAs were treated with ≥ 2 devices, and 8 (8.3%) underwent adjunctive coiling. The mean clinical and angiographic follow-up durations were 10.7 and 12.9 months, respectively. The short-term (< 1 year) and long-term (≥ 1 year) complete occlusion rates were 79% (95% CI 66%–88%, p = 0.82) and 84% (95% CI 70%–92%, p = 0.95), respectively. Complication rates were 8% for iatrogenic dissection (95% CI 3%–16%, p = 0.94), 10% for silent thromboembolism (95% CI 5%–21%, p = 0.77), and 12% for symptomatic thromboembolism (95% CI 6%–23%, p = 0.48). No treatment-related hemorrhage was observed. The overall mortality rate at the last follow-up was 14%. CONCLUSIONS The complete occlusion rate for PSAs treated with the PED was high and increased over time. Although postprocedural complications and mortality were not insignificant, flow diversion represents a reasonably safe option for managing these complex lesions.

AbstractBackgroundQuestion prompt lists (QPLs) are structured sets of disease‐specific questions, intended to encourage question‐asking by patients and enhance patient‐physician communication. To date, a dysphagia‐specific QPL has not been developed for patients with esophageal dysphagia symptoms. We aim to develop a dysphagia‐specific QPL incorporating both esophageal expert and patient perspectives, applying rigorous methodology.MethodsThe QPL content was generated applying a two‐round modified Delphi (RAND/UCLA) method among 11 experts. In round one, experts provided five answers to the prompts: “What general questions should patients ask when being seen for dysphagia?” and “What questions do I not hear patients asking but, given my experience, I believe they should be asking?” In round two, experts rated proposed questions on a 5‐point Likert scale. Responses rated as “essential” or “important”, determined by an a priori median threshold of ≥4.0, were accepted for inclusion. Subsequently, 20 patients from Stanford Health Care were enrolled to modify the preliminary QPL, to incorporate their perspectives and opinions. Patients independently rated questions applying the same 5‐point Likert scale. At the end, patients were encouraged to propose additional questions to incorporate into the QPL by open‐endedly asking “Are there questions we didn't ask, that you think we should?”Key ResultsEleven experts participated in both voting rounds. Of 85 questions generated from round one, 60 (70.6%) were accepted for inclusion, meeting a median value of ≥4.0. Questions were combined to reduce redundancy, narrowing down to 44 questions. Questions were categorized into the following six themes: 1. “What is causing my dysphagia?”; 2. “Associated symptoms”; 3. “Testing for dysphagia”; 4. “Lifestyle modifications”; 5. “Treatment for dysphagia”; and 6. “Prognosis”. The largest number of questions covered “What is causing my dysphagia” (27.3%). Twenty patients participated and modified the QPL. Of the 44 questions experts agreed were important, only 30 questions (68.2%) were accepted for inclusion. Six patients proposed 10 additional questions and after incorporating the suggested questions, the final dysphagia‐specific QPL created by esophageal experts and modified by patients consisted of 40 questions.Conclusions & InferencesIncorporating expert and patient perspectives, we developed a dysphagia‐specific QPL to enhance patient‐physician communication. Our study highlights importance of incorporating patient perspective when developing such a communication tool. Further studies will measure the impact of this communication tool on patient engagement.