Impact of computerized physician order entry (CPOE) system on the outcome of critically ill adult patients: a before-after study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems are recommended to improve patient safety and outcomes. However, their effectiveness has been questioned. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of CPOE implementation on the outcome of critically ill patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This was an observational before-after study carried out in a 21-bed medical and surgical intensive care unit (ICU) of a tertiary care center. It included all patients admitted to the ICU in the 24 months pre- and 12 months post-CPOE (Misys^®) implementation. Data were extracted from a prospectively collected ICU database and included: demographics, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II score, admission diagnosis and comorbid conditions. Outcomes compared in different pre- and post-CPOE periods included: ICU and hospital mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU and hospital length of stay. These outcomes were also compared in selected high risk subgroups of patients (age 12-17 years, traumatic brain injury, admission diagnosis of sepsis and admission APACHE II > 23). Multivariate analysis was used to adjust for imbalances in baseline characteristics and selected clinically relevant variables.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There were 1638 and 898 patients admitted to the ICU in the specified pre- and post-CPOE periods, respectively (age = 52 ± 22 vs. 52 ± 21 years, p = 0.74; APACHE II = 24 ± 9 vs. 24 ± 10, p = 0.83). During these periods, there were no differences in ICU (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7-1.3) and in hospital mortality (aOR 1.00, 95% CI 0.8-1.3). CPOE implementation was associated with similar duration of mechanical ventilation and of stay in the ICU and hospital. There was no increased mortality or stay in the high risk subgroups after CPOE implementation.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The implementation of CPOE in an adult medical surgical ICU resulted in no improvement in patient outcomes in the immediate phase and up to 12 months after implementation.</p

Thrombotic events following tocilizumab therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients: a Façade for prognostic markers

Background: Hospitals in the Middle East Gulf region have experienced an influx of COVID-19 patients to their medical wards and intensive care units. The hypercoagulability of these patients has been widely reported on a global scale. However, many of the experimental treatments used to manage the various complications of COVID-19 have not been widely studied in this context. The effect of the current treatment protocols on patients' diagnostic and prognostic biomarkers may thus impact the validity of the algorithms adopted.Case presentation: In this case series, we report four cases of venous thromboembolism and 1 case of arterial thrombotic event, in patients treated with standard or intensified prophylactic doses of unfractionated heparin or low molecular weight heparin at our institution. Tocilizumab has been utilized as an add-on therapy to the standard of care to treat patients with SARS-CoV-2 associated acute respiratory distress syndrome, in order to dampen the hyperinflammatory response. It is imperative to be aware that this drug may be masking the inflammatory markers (e.g. IL6, CRP, fibrinogen, and ferritin), without reducing the risk of thrombotic events in this population, creating instead a façade of an improved prognostic outcome. However, the D-dimer levels remained prognostically reliable in these cases, as they were not affected by the drug and continued to be at the highest level until event occurrence.Conclusions: In the setting of tocilizumab therapy, traditional prognostic markers of worsening infection and inflammation, and thus potential risk of acute thrombosis, should be weighed carefully as they may not be reliable for prognosis and may create a façade of an improved prognostic outcome insteasd. Additionally, the fact that thrombotic events continued to be observed despite decrease in inflammatory markers and the proactive anticoagulative approach adopted, raises more questions about the coagulative mechanisms at play in COVID-19, and the appropriate management strategy.</p