Shared decision-making in advance care planning among hospitalized older COVID-19 patients:a multicenter, retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: In the Netherlands, it is customary to discuss directives regarding resuscitation, intubation, and ICU-admission with patients and/or their relatives upon hospital-admission. The outcome of this discussion is documented in a code status. Ideally, these advance care planning (ACP)-related decisions are made by a patient (and/or their relatives) and a professional together in a shared decision-making (SDM) process, to improve patient satisfaction and prevent undesired care. Given the bad outcomes in older COVID-19 patients, it is particularly important to discuss the code status upon admission. This study aims to describe the practice of SDM regarding code status during the COVID-pandemic. Specific aims were to find out to what extend patients took part in this decision-making process and whether all key elements of SDM for a shared decision were documented in medical reports. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we included COVID-19 patients aged 70 years and older, admitted to two large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands, during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Data about code status and the decision-making process were extracted from electronic healthcare records. RESULTS: Code status was documented for 274 of 275 included patients. Patient participation in the decision-making process was described in 48%. In 19% all key elements of shared decision-making have been described. Key elements of SDM were defined as the presence of a completed code status form, the presence of clinical notes showing that both patient’s wishes and values and the opinion of the healthcare professional about the predicted outcome was taken into consideration and clinical notes of a patient–healthcare professional interaction during the admission. CONCLUSION: Our results show that a proper SDM process regarding code status is possible, even in hectic times like the COVID-19-pandemic. However, shared decision-making was not common practice in older patients with COVID-19 regarding code status (an ACP-related decision) in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Only in 19% of the patients, all key elements of SDM regarding code status were described. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40520-022-02281-y

Noninvasive measurement of cardiac output: Two methods compared in patients with mitral regurgitation

In search for the origin of the less reliable cardiac output (CO) estimations by means of electrical impedance cardiography (EIC), the authors hypothesized that cardiac valve pathology might be one of the reasons. Twenty-six patients were examined by means of echo Doppler (ED) and EIC. The cardiac valve status was obtained by means of echocardiography and color Doppler flow, while CO was obtained by means of both methods. Seventeen patients had no valve pathology (nVP) while nine patients had mild to moderate mitral regurgitation (MVR). The overall correlation between the calculation of CO by means of the two methods was good (r = 0.85, p < 0.001, mean difference and standard deviation: 0.20 ± 0.74 L/min), while there was no significant difference between the paired values. After division into an nVP and an MVR population, the results showed an even closer agreement between the CO values in the nVP population (r = 0.88, p < 0.001, mean difference and standard deviation: 0.15 ± 0.68 L/min). Furthermore, significant differences were found in the first derivative of the impedance (dZ/dt) signals of these groups. Although the agreement between ED and EIC was slightly lower in the MVR population, EIC reliably estimated CO, even in case of MVR. The impedance signal itself gave an indication for the existence of MVR

Advanced Practice Providers as Leaders of a Rapid Response Team: A Prospective Cohort Study

In view of the shortage of medical staff, the quality and continuity of care may be improved by employing advanced practice providers (APPs). This study aims to assess the quality of these APPs in critical care. In a large teaching hospital, rapid response team (RRT) interventions led by APPs were assessed by independent observers and intensivists and compared to those led by medical residents MRs. In addition to mortality, the MAELOR tool (assessment of RRT intervention), time from RRT call until arrival at the scene and time until completion of clinical investigations were assessed. Process outcomes were assessed with the crisis management skills checklist, the Ottawa global rating scale and the Mayo high-performance teamwork scale. The intensivists assessed performance with the handoff CEX recipient scale. Mortality, MAELOR tool, time until arrival and clinical investigation in both groups were the same. Process outcomes and performance observer scores were also equal. The CEX recipient scores, however, showed differences between MRs and APPs that increased with experience. Experienced APPs had significantly better situational awareness, better organization, better evaluations and better judgment than MRs with equal experience (p < 0.05). This study shows that APPs perform well in leading an RRT and may provide added quality over a resident. RRTs should seriously consider the deployment of APPs instead of junior clinicians

Does impedance cardiography reliadly estimate left ventricular ejection fraction?

Objective. The objective of our study was to evaluate impedance cardiography (IMP) as a noninvasive method to determine the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Methods. A total of 24 patients, 8 men and 16 women, aged 45.0 ±12.9 years, participated in the study. They used cardiotoxic chemotherapeutic drugs or suffered from cardiac failure. LVEF was measured by means of IMP (LVEFimp) and radionuclide ventriculography (LVEFnuc). LVEFimp was calculated in three ways. Capan and colleagues [13] proposed a formula in which LVEF (LVEFCap) can be calculated from the systolic time intervals, namely, left ventricular ejection time and preejection time. Judy and colleagues [14] described a systolic (S) and a diastolic (D) part in the first derivative curve of the impedance signal. The ratio S/D might equal the LVEF (LVEFJud). A new LVEF calculation was introduced (LVEFimp) in this study based on the first derivative of the impedance signal, the thoracic impedance, and heart rate. Results. Mean LVEFCap was 59.9 ±8.4%, which did not differ from LVEFnuc (59.9 ±7.1%). However the correlation between both methods was not significant (r = 0.29). Mean LVEFJud was 63.9 ±17.4%, which was not significantly different from LVEFnuc, with a fair correlation (r = 0.55). Mean LVEFimp was 59.2 ± 9.4%, with a better correlation with , radionuclide ventriculography (r = 0.75). Conclusions. The results of this study indicate that the equations that have been used until now can be improved. The new equation provides reliable LVEF values in this group of patients

Preoperative anaemia and outcome after elective cardiac surgery: a Dutch national registry analysis

Background: Previous studies have shown that preoperative anaemia in patients undergoing cardiac surgery is associated with adverse outcomes. However, most of these studies were retrospective, had a relatively small sample size, and were from a single centre. The aim of this study was to analyse the relationship between the severity of preoperative anaemia and short- and long-term mortality and morbidity in a large multicentre national cohort of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Methods: A nationwide, prospective, multicentre registry (Netherlands Heart Registration) of patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery between January 2013 and January 2019 was used for this observational study. Anaemia was defined according to the WHO criteria, and the main study endpoint was 120-day mortality. The association was investigated using multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results: In total, 35 484 patients were studied, of whom 6802 (19.2%) were anaemic. Preoperative anaemia was associated with an increased risk of 120-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.7; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4–1.9; P<0.001). The risk of 120-day mortality increased with anaemia severity (mild anaemia aOR 1.6; 95% CI: 1.3–1.9; P<0.001; and moderate-to-severe anaemia aOR 1.8; 95% CI: 1.4–2.4; P<0.001). Preoperative anaemia was associated with red blood cell transfusion and postoperative morbidity, the causes of which included renal failure, pneumonia, and myocardial infarction. Conclusions: Preoperative anaemia was associated with mortality and morbidity after cardiac surgery. The risk of adverse outcomes increased with anaemia severity. Preoperative anaemia is a potential target for treatment to improve postoperative outcomes