169 research outputs found

    USE OF PERIPHERAL VASOPRESSORS IN EARLY SEPSIS-INDUCED HYPOTENSION ACROSS MICHIGAN HOSPITALS

    Get PDF
    INTRODUCTION: Recent data suggest it may be safe to administer vasopressors via peripheral IV (PIV), challenging convention that vasopressors must be delivered centrally. Surviving Sepsis Campaign 2021 guidelines suggest using peripheral vasopressors as a bridge to central access. However, little is known about vasopressor initiation in practice. METHODS: Cohort study of patients hospitalized with community-onset sepsis at 12 hospitals in the Hospital Medicine Safety Consortium (HMS) sepsis initiative. HMS is a Collaborative Quality Initiative sponsored by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan. A random sample of adult sepsis hospitalizations between 11/2020-1/2022 were included. Data were abstracted by trained abstractors. We sought to determine how commonly vasopressors were initiated via PIV vs central access across hospitals. HMS-Sepsis is expanding to 69 hospitals. Here we present pilot data; full cohort analysis is in process. RESULTS: of 1,901 patients in the HMS-Sepsis registry at the time of pilot data analysis, 440 (23.1%) had hypotension (defined by mean arterial pressure\u3c 65mmHg, systolic blood pressure\u3c 90mmHg, and/or vasopressor initiation) within 3 hours of hospital arrival. of these, 160 (36.4%) received vasopressors within 6 hours of hospital arrival. Route of initial vasopressor was PIV in 122 (76.3%), central access in 30 (18.8%), midline catheter in 1 (0.6%), oral (ie, midodrine) in 5 (3.1%), and unknown in 2 (1.3%). Across all hospitals, 50.0% to 91.7% of vasopressor initiation was via PIV (median 83.3%). Among 122 patients with vasopressor initiation via PIV, 66 (54.1%) received a 2nd vasopressor, after a median of 2.8 hrs [IQR 1, 8] from 1st vasopressor. Route of 2nd vasopressor was PIV in 27 (40.9%) and central access in 30 (45.4%). Time from hypotension to vasopressor initiation did not differ between patients receiving initial vasopressor via PIV vs central access (median 1.9 vs 2.1 hrs, p=0.79). Likewise, IV fluids within 6 hrs (median 2.0 vs 2.1L, p=0.78), hospitalization length (median 7 vs 6 days, p=0.31), and inhospital mortality (33.6% vs 40.0%, p=0.51) were similar. CONCLUSIONS: In this 12-hospital cohort, vasopressors were most frequently initiated peripherally. Outcomes were similar between patients in whom vasopressors were initiated via peripheral vs central access

    Predicting the emergence of drug-resistant HSV-2: new predictions

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Mathematical models can be used to predict the emergence and transmission of antiviral resistance. Previously it has been predicted that high usage of antivirals (in immunocompetent populations) to treat Herpes Simplex Virus type 2 (HSV-2) would only lead to fairly low levels of antiviral resistance. The HSV-2 predictions were based upon the assumption that drug-resistant strains of HSV-2 would be less infectious than drug-sensitive strains but that the drug-resistant strains would not be impaired in their ability to reactivate. Recent data suggest that some drug-resistant strains of HSV-2 are likely to be impaired in their ability to reactivate. Objectives: (1) To predict the effect of a high usage of antivirals on the prevalence of drug-resistant HSV-2 under the assumption that drug-resistant strains will be less infectious than drug-sensitive strains of HSV-2 and also have an impaired ability to reactivate. (2) To compare predictions with previous published predictions. METHODS: We generated theoretical drug-resistant HSV-2 strains that were attenuated (in comparison with drug-sensitive strains) in both infectivity and ability to reactivate. We then used a transmission model to predict the emergence and transmission of drug-resistant HSV-2 in the immunocompetent population assuming a high usage of antivirals. RESULTS: Our predictions are an order of magnitude lower than previous predictions; we predict that even after 25 years of high antiviral usage only 5 out of 10,000 immunocompetent individuals will be shedding drug-resistant virus. Furthermore, after 25 years, 52 cases of HSV-2 would have been prevented for each prevalent case of drug-resistant HSV-2. CONCLUSIONS: The predicted levels of drug-resistant HSV-2 for the immunocompetent population are so low that it seems unlikely that cases of drug-resistant HSV-2 will be detected

    Assessment of Disparities Associated with a Crisis Standards of Care Resource Allocation Algorithm for Patients in 2 US Hospitals during the COVID-19 Pandemic

    Get PDF
    Importance: Significant concern has been raised that crisis standards of care policies aimed at guiding resource allocation may be biased against people based on race/ethnicity. Objective: To evaluate whether unanticipated disparities by race or ethnicity arise from a single institution\u27s resource allocation policy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study included adults (aged ≥18 years) who were cared for on a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ward or in a monitored unit requiring invasive or noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula between May 26 and July 14, 2020, at 2 academic hospitals in Miami, Florida. Exposures: Race (ie, White, Black, Asian, multiracial) and ethnicity (ie, non-Hispanic, Hispanic). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was based on a resource allocation priority score (range, 1-8, with 1 indicating highest and 8 indicating lowest priority) that was assigned daily based on both estimated short-term (using Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score) and longer-term (using comorbidities) mortality. There were 2 coprimary outcomes: maximum and minimum score for each patient over all eligible patient-days. Standard summary statistics were used to describe the cohort, and multivariable Poisson regression was used to identify associations of race and ethnicity with each outcome. Results: The cohort consisted of 5613 patient-days of data from 1127 patients (median [interquartile range {IQR}] age, 62.7 [51.7-73.7]; 607 [53.9%] men). Of these, 711 (63.1%) were White patients, 323 (28.7%) were Black patients, 8 (0.7%) were Asian patients, and 31 (2.8%) were multiracial patients; 480 (42.6%) were non-Hispanic patients, and 611 (54.2%) were Hispanic patients. The median (IQR) maximum priority score for the cohort was 3 (1-4); the median (IQR) minimum score was 2 (1-3). After adjustment, there was no association of race with maximum priority score using White patients as the reference group (Black patients: incidence rate ratio [IRR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89-1.12; Asian patients: IRR, 0.95; 95% CI. 0.62-1.45; multiracial patients: IRR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.72-1.19) or of ethnicity using non-Hispanic patients as the reference group (Hispanic patients: IRR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88-1.10); similarly, no association was found with minimum score for race, again with White patients as the reference group (Black patients: IRR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.90-1.14; Asian patients: IRR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.62-1.49; multiracial patients: IRR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.61-1.07) or ethnicity, again with non-Hispanic patients as the reference group (Hispanic patients: IRR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.89-1.13). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of adult patients admitted to a COVID-19 unit at 2 US hospitals, there was no association of race or ethnicity with the priority score underpinning the resource allocation policy. Despite this finding, any policy to guide altered standards of care during a crisis should be monitored to ensure equitable distribution of resources

    Factors Associated With Death in Critically Ill Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 in the US

    Get PDF
    Importance: The US is currently an epicenter of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, yet few national data are available on patient characteristics, treatment, and outcomes of critical illness from COVID-19. Objectives: To assess factors associated with death and to examine interhospital variation in treatment and outcomes for patients with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study assessed 2215 adults with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 who were admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) at 65 hospitals across the US from March 4 to April 4, 2020. Exposures: Patient-level data, including demographics, comorbidities, and organ dysfunction, and hospital characteristics, including number of ICU beds. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality. Multilevel logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with death and to examine interhospital variation in treatment and outcomes. Results: A total of 2215 patients (mean [SD] age, 60.5 [14.5] years; 1436 [64.8%] male; 1738 [78.5%] with at least 1 chronic comorbidity) were included in the study. At 28 days after ICU admission, 784 patients (35.4%) had died, 824 (37.2%) were discharged, and 607 (27.4%) remained hospitalized. At the end of study follow-up (median, 16 days; interquartile range, 8-28 days), 875 patients (39.5%) had died, 1203 (54.3%) were discharged, and 137 (6.2%) remained hospitalized. Factors independently associated with death included older age (≥80 vs <40 years of age: odds ratio [OR], 11.15; 95% CI, 6.19-20.06), male sex (OR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.19-1.90), higher body mass index (≥40 vs <25: OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.01-2.25), coronary artery disease (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.07-2.02), active cancer (OR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.35-3.43), and the presence of hypoxemia (Pao2:Fio2<100 vs ≥300 mm Hg: OR, 2.94; 95% CI, 2.11-4.08), liver dysfunction (liver Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 2 vs 0: OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.30–5.25), and kidney dysfunction (renal Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of 4 vs 0: OR, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.46–4.05) at ICU admission. Patients admitted to hospitals with fewer ICU beds had a higher risk of death (<50 vs ≥100 ICU beds: OR, 3.28; 95% CI, 2.16-4.99). Hospitals varied considerably in the risk-adjusted proportion of patients who died (range, 6.6%-80.8%) and in the percentage of patients who received hydroxychloroquine, tocilizumab, and other treatments and supportive therapies. Conclusions and Relevance: This study identified demographic, clinical, and hospital-level risk factors that may be associated with death in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and can facilitate the identification of medications and supportive therapies to improve outcomes.Dr. Gupta reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and is a scientific coordinator for GlaxoSmithKline’s ASCEND (Anemia Studies in Chronic Kidney Disease: Erythropoiesis via a Novel Prolyl Hydroxylase Inhibitor Daprodustat) trial. Dr. Chan reported receiving grants from the Renal Research Institute outside the submitted work. Dr. Mathews reported receiving grants from the NIH/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) during the conduct of the study and serves on the steering committee for the BREATHE trial (Breathing Retraining for Asthma–Trial of Home Exercises), funded by Roivant/Kinevant Sciences. Dr. Melamed reported receiving honoraria from the American Board of Internal Medicine and Icon Medical Consulting. Dr. Reiser reported receiving personal fees from Biomarin, TRISAQ, Thermo BCT, Astellas, Massachusetts General Hospital, Genentech, UptoDate, Merck, Inceptionsci, GLG, and Clearview and grants from the NIH and Nephcure outside the submitted work. Dr. Srivastava reported receiving personal fees from Horizon Pharma PLC, AstraZeneca, and CVS Caremark outside the submitted work. Dr. Vijayan reported receiving personal fees from NxStage, Boeringer Ingelheim, and Sanofi outside the submitted work. Dr. Velez reported receiving personal fees from Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, Retrophin, and Otsuka Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr. Shaefi reported receiving grants from the NIH/National Institute on Aging and NIH/National Institute of General Medical Sciences outside the submitted work. Dr. Admon reported receiving grants from the NIH/NHLBI during the conduct of the study. Dr. Donnelly reported receiving grants from the NIH/NHLBI during the conduct of the study and personal fees from the American College of Emergency Physicians/Annals of Emergency Medicine outside the submitted work. Dr. Hernán reported receiving grants from the NIH during the conduct of the study. Dr. Semler reported receiving grants from the NIH/NHLBI during the conduct of the study. No other disclosures were reported

    Association Between Early Treatment With Tocilizumab and Mortality Among Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

    Get PDF
    Importance: Therapies that improve survival in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed. Tocilizumab, a monoclonal antibody against the interleukin 6 receptor, may counteract the inflammatory cytokine release syndrome in patients with severe COVID-19 illness. Objective: To test whether tocilizumab decreases mortality in this population. Design, Setting, and Participants: The data for this study were derived from a multicenter cohort study of 4485 adults with COVID-19 admitted to participating intensive care units (ICUs) at 68 hospitals across the US from March 4 to May 10, 2020. Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were categorized according to whether they received or did not receive tocilizumab in the first 2 days of admission to the ICU. Data were collected retrospectively until June 12, 2020. A Cox regression model with inverse probability weighting was used to adjust for confounding. Exposures: Treatment with tocilizumab in the first 2 days of ICU admission. Main Outcomes and Measures: Time to death, compared via hazard ratios (HRs), and 30-day mortality, compared via risk differences. Results: Among the 3924 patients included in the analysis (2464 male [62.8%]; median age, 62 [interquartile range {IQR}, 52-71] years), 433 (11.0%) received tocilizumab in the first 2 days of ICU admission. Patients treated with tocilizumab were younger (median age, 58 [IQR, 48-65] vs 63 [IQR, 52-72] years) and had a higher prevalence of hypoxemia on ICU admission (205 of 433 [47.3%] vs 1322 of 3491 [37.9%] with mechanical ventilation and a ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen of <200 mm Hg) than patients not treated with tocilizumab. After applying inverse probability weighting, baseline and severity-of-illness characteristics were well balanced between groups. A total of 1544 patients (39.3%) died, including 125 (28.9%) treated with tocilizumab and 1419 (40.6%) not treated with tocilizumab. In the primary analysis, during a median follow-up of 27 (IQR, 14-37) days, patients treated with tocilizumab had a lower risk of death compared with those not treated with tocilizumab (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.56-0.92). The estimated 30-day mortality was 27.5% (95% CI, 21.2%-33.8%) in the tocilizumab-treated patients and 37.1% (95% CI, 35.5%-38.7%) in the non-tocilizumab–treated patients (risk difference, 9.6%; 95% CI, 3.1%-16.0%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 in this cohort study, the risk of in-hospital mortality in this study was lower in patients treated with tocilizumab in the first 2 days of ICU admission compared with patients whose treatment did not include early use of tocilizumab. However, the findings may be susceptible to unmeasured confounding, and further research from randomized clinical trials is needed.The writing committee was supported by grants F32HL149337 (Dr. Admon), K23DK120811 (Dr. Srivastava), R01HL085757 (Dr. Parikh), R01HL144566 and R01DK125786 (Dr. Leaf), K12HL138039 (Dr. Donnelly), K23HL130648 (Dr. Mathews), R37AI102634 (Dr. Hernán), F32DC017342 (Dr. Gupta), K08GM134220 and R03AG060179 (Dr. Shaefi), K23HL143053 (Dr. Semler), and R01HL153384 (Dr. Hayek) from the NIH and grant U-M G024231 from the Frankel Cardiovascular Center COVID-19: Impact Research Ignitor (Dr. Hayek)

    Thrombosis, Bleeding, and the Observational Effect of Early Therapeutic Anticoagulation on Survival in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19

    Get PDF
    This article is made available for unrestricted research re-use and secondary analysis in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for the duration of the World Health Organization (WHO) declaration of COVID-19 as a global pandemic.Background: Hypercoagulability may be a key mechanism of death in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To evaluate the incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and major bleeding in critically ill patients with COVID-19 and examine the observational effect of early therapeutic anticoagulation on survival. Design: In a multicenter cohort study of 3239 critically ill adults with COVID-19, the incidence of VTE and major bleeding within 14 days after intensive care unit (ICU) admission was evaluated. A target trial emulation in which patients were categorized according to receipt or no receipt of therapeutic anticoagulation in the first 2 days of ICU admission was done to examine the observational effect of early therapeutic anticoagulation on survival. A Cox model with inverse probability weighting to adjust for confounding was used. Setting: 67 hospitals in the United States. Participants: Adults with COVID-19 admitted to a participating ICU. Measurements: Time to death, censored at hospital discharge, or date of last follow-up. Results: Among the 3239 patients included, the median age was 61 years (interquartile range, 53 to 71 years), and 2088 (64.5%) were men. A total of 204 patients (6.3%) developed VTE, and 90 patients (2.8%) developed a major bleeding event. Independent predictors of VTE were male sex and higher D-dimer level on ICU admission. Among the 2809 patients included in the target trial emulation, 384 (11.9%) received early therapeutic anticoagulation. In the primary analysis, during a median follow-up of 27 days, patients who received early therapeutic anticoagulation had a similar risk for death as those who did not (hazard ratio, 1.12 [95% CI, 0.92 to 1.35]). Limitation: Observational design. Conclusion: Among critically ill adults with COVID-19, early therapeutic anticoagulation did not affect survival in the target trial emulation

    Is it Safe to Extubate Patients Overnight?

    No full text
    Mechanical ventilation can be a life-saving intervention for some critically ill patients, but it is associated with significant complications. Efforts to shorten durations of mechanical ventilation to mitigate against these morbidities, especially in the current climate of heightened staffing of US intensive care units overnight, may make overnight extubation more commonplace. Understanding the safety and effectiveness of this practice is, therefore, of paramount importance. The published literature that informs this issue is limited to 2 retrospective studies published in 2016 with inconsistent findings. In this perspective, I will review this literature, consider its interpretation, explore the next steps, and, finally, describe my current practice to address the following question“Is it safe to extubate patients overnight?

    Hyperoxemia – too much of a good thing?

    No full text
    While avoiding hypoxemia has long been a goal of critical care practitioners, less attention has been paid to the potential for excessive oxygenation. Interest has mounted recently in understanding the clinical effects of hyperoxemia during critical illness, in particular its impact following cardiac arrest. In this issue of Critical Care, Dell’Anna and colleagues review available animal and human data evaluating the impact of hyperoxemia after cardiac arrest. They conclude that while hyperoxemia during cardiopulmonary resuscitation is probably desirable, it should probably be avoided during post-resuscitation care. These conclusions are in line with two broader themes in contemporary critical care: that less may be more; and that it is time to look beyond simply preventing short-term mortality towards longer-term outcomes
    corecore