Citations

AbstractBackgroundPatient Safety Indicator (PSI)‐12, a hospital quality measure designed by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to capture potentially preventable adverse events, captures perioperative venous thromboembolism (VTE). It is unclear how COVID‐19 has affected PSI‐12 performance.ObjectiveWe sought to compare the cumulative incidence of PSI‐12 in patients with and without acute COVID‐19 infection.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis was a retrospective cohort study including PSI‐12‐eligible events at three Mayo Clinic medical centers (4/1/2020‐10/5/2021).Exposure, Main Outcomes, and MeasuresWe compared the unadjusted rate and adjusted risk ratio (aRR) for PSI‐12 events among patients with and without COVID‐19 infection using Fisher's exact χ2 test and the AHRQ risk‐adjustment software, respectively. We summarized the clinical outcomes of COVID‐19 patients with a PSI‐12 event.ResultsOur cohort included 50,400 consecutive hospitalizations. Rates of PSI‐12 events were significantly higher among patients with acute COVID‐19 infection (8/257 [3.11%; 95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.35%–6.04%]) compared to patients without COVID‐19 (210/50,143 [0.42%; 95% CI, 0.36%–0.48%]) with a PSI‐12 event during the encounter (p < .001). The risk‐adjusted rate of PSI‐12 was significantly higher in patients with acute COVID‐19 infection (1.50% vs. 0.38%; aRR, 3.90; 95% CI, 2.12–7.17; p < .001). All COVID‐19 patients with PSI‐12 events had severe disease and 4 died. The most common procedure was tracheostomy (75%); the mean (SD) days from surgical procedure to VTE were 0.12 (7.32) days.ConclusionPatients with acute COVID‐19 infection are at higher risk for PSI‐12. The present definition of PSI‐12 does not account for COVID‐19. This may impact hospitals' quality performance if COVID‐19 infection is not accounted for by exclusion or risk adjustment.

Background: Ketamine, a dissociative anesthetic, induces improvement in depressive symptoms by antagonizing glutaminergic NMDA receptors. Ketamine has been used previously in outpatient setting for treatment-resistant depression, but we showcase its utility in depression management at the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Research Question: Can ketamine be used for depression treatment in ICU patients? Study Design and Methods: A retrospective chart review of ICU patients was done at a tertiary center from 2018 to 2021, to assess the ketamine usage. Among the patients reviewed, ketamine was used for depression in 12, and for analgesia & sedation in 2322 patients. Ketamine was administered in doses of 0.5mg/kg & 0.75mg/kg for depression. Each course consisted of 3 doses of ketamine administered over 3 days, and 7 in 12 patients received a single course of ketamine. The rest received 3–4 courses 1 week apart. Results: Ketamine was found to improve mood and affect in most of the patients with depression. 11 in 12 patients had a positive response with better sleep. It has a major advantage over conventional anti-depressants since it takes only a few hours to induce clinical improvement. Patients who were observably withdrawn from care team and family, were administered ketamine. Conclusion: A major drawback of ketamine is that the duration of clinical improvement is short, with the response lasting only up to seven days after a single dose. Hence, all the patients in our study were weaned off ketamine with a supporting antidepressant. Ketamine has been documented to cause cardio-neurotoxicity; however, only one patient had worsening lethargy in our study. To conclude, ketamine has a marked benefit in treating depression in the ICU. Although our study was associated with positive outcomes, there is a need for prospective studies with long-term follow-up assessments.

Background Hypotension with endotracheal intubation (ETI) is common and associated with adverse outcomes. We sought to evaluate whether a previously described hypotension prediction score (HYPS) for ETI is associated with worse patient outcomes and/or clinical conditions. Methods This study is a post hoc analysis of a prospective observational multicenter study involving adult (age ≥18 years) intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergoing ETI in which the HYPS was derived and validated on the entire cohort and a stable subset (ie, patients in stable condition). We evaluated the association between increasing HYPSs in both subsets and several patient-centered outcomes and clinical conditions. Results Complete data for HYPS calculations were available for 783 of 934 patients (84%). Logistic regression analysis showed increasing odds ratios (ORs) for the highest risk category for new-onset acute kidney injury (OR, 7.37; 95% CI, 2.58-21.08); new dialysis need (OR, 8.13; 95% CI, 1.74-37.91); ICU mortality (OR, 16.39; 95% CI, 5.99-44.87); and hospital mortality (OR, 18.65; 95% CI, 6.81-51.11). Although not increasing progressively, the OR for the highest risk group was significantly associated with new-onset hypovolemic shock (OR, 6.06; 95% CI, 1.47-25.00). With increasing HYPSs, median values (interquartile ranges) decreased progressively (lowest risk vs. highest risk) for ventilator-free days (23 [18-26] vs. 1 [0-21], P < .001) and ICU-free days (20 [11-24] vs. 0 [0-13], P < .001). Of the 729 patients in the stable subset, 598 (82%) had complete data for HYPS calculations. Logistic regression analysis showed significantly increasing ORs for the highest risk category for new-onset hypovolemic shock (OR, 7.41; 95% CI, 2.06-26.62); ICU mortality (OR, 5.08; 95% CI, 1.87-13.85); and hospital mortality (OR, 7.08; 95% CI, 2.63-19.07). Conclusions As the risk for peri-intubation hypotension increases, according to a validated hypotension prediction tool, so does the risk for adverse clinical events and certain clinical conditions. Trial Registration The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02508948).

AbstractBackgroundWhile COVID‐19 immunization programs attempted to reach targeted rates, cases rose significantly since the emergence of the delta variant. This retrospective cohort study describes the correlation between antispike antibodies and outcomes of hospitalized, breakthrough cases during the delta variant surge.MethodsAll patients with positive SARS‐CoV‐2 polymerase chain reaction hospitalized at Mayo Clinic Florida from 19 June 2021 to 11 November 2021 were considered for analysis. Cases were analyzed by vaccination status. Breakthrough cases were then analyzed by low and high antibody titers against SARS‐CoV‐2 spike protein, with a cut‐off value of ≥132 U/ml. Outcomes included hospital length of stay (LOS), need for intensive care unit (ICU), mechanical ventilation, and mortality. We used 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity score matching without replacement to assess for confounders.ResultsAmong 627 hospitalized patients with COVID‐19, vaccine breakthrough cases were older with more comorbidities compared to unvaccinated. After propensity score matching, the unvaccinated patients had higher mortality (27 [28.4%] vs. 12 [12.6%], p = 0.002) and LOS (7 [1.0–57.0] vs. 5 [1.0–31.0] days, p = 0.011). In breakthrough cases, low‐titer patients were more likely to be solid organ transplant recipients (16 [34.0%] vs. 9 [12.3%], p = 0.006), with higher need for ICU care (24 [51.1%] vs. 22 [11.0%], p = 0.034), longer hospital LOS (median 6 vs. 5 days, p = 0.013), and higher mortality (10 [21.3%] vs. 5 [6.8%], p = 0.025) than high‐titer patients.ConclusionsHospitalized breakthrough cases were more likely to have underlying risk factors than unvaccinated patients. Low‐spike antibody titers may serve as an indicator for poor prognosis in breakthrough cases admitted to the hospital.

Abstract We characterized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) breakthrough cases admitted to a single center in Florida. With the emergence of delta variant, an increased number of hospitalizations was seen due to breakthrough infections. These patients were older and more likely to have comorbidities. Preventive measures should be maintained even after vaccination.

Introduction In the unprecedented era of COVID-19, ongoing research and evolution of evidence has led to ever-changing guidelines for clinical monitoring and therapeutic options. Formulating treatment protocols requires the understanding and application of the evolving research. Objective The primary objective of this study is to present a systematic evidence-based approach to synthesize the necessary data in order to optimize the management of COVID-19. Methods At Mayo Clinic Florida, we developed a multidisciplinary centralized COVID Treatment Review Panel (TRP) of expert pulmonologists, intensivists, infectious disease specialists, anesthesiologists, hematologists, rheumatologists, and hospitalists that in real-time reviews the latest evidence in peer-reviewed journals, the available clinical trials, and help guide the rapid application of therapeutics or interventions to the patient and the bedside provider. Results/Conclusions The multi-disciplinary team approach of synthesizing clinical data and coordinating care is effective in responding to rapidly evolving and changing evidence. Systematic data collection and evidence-based treatment algorithms enable physicians to rapidly translate the current literature to clinical practice, and improve care and outcomes of patients.

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.