The Effect of Hospital Volume on Mortality in Patients Admitted with Severe Sepsis

Importance The association between hospital volume and inpatient mortality for severe sepsis is unclear. Objective: To assess the effect of severe sepsis case volume and inpatient mortality. Design Setting and Participants Retrospective cohort study from 646,988 patient discharges with severe sepsis from 3,487 hospitals in the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2002 to 2011. Exposures The exposure of interest was the mean yearly sepsis case volume per hospital divided into tertiles. Main Outcomes and Measures Inpatient mortality. Results: Compared with the highest tertile of severe sepsis volume (>60 cases per year), the odds ratio for inpatient mortality among persons admitted to hospitals in the lowest tertile (≤10 severe sepsis cases per year) was 1.188 (95% CI: 1.074–1.315), while the odds ratio was 1.090 (95% CI: 1.031–1.152) for patients admitted to hospitals in the middle tertile. Similarly, improved survival was seen across the tertiles with an adjusted inpatient mortality incidence of 35.81 (95% CI: 33.64–38.03) for hospitals with the lowest volume of severe sepsis cases and a drop to 32.07 (95% CI: 31.51–32.64) for hospitals with the highest volume. Conclusions and Relevance We demonstrate an association between a higher severe sepsis case volume and decreased mortality. The need for a systems-based approach for improved outcomes may require a high volume of severely septic patients

Effect of Cardiogenic Shock Hospital Volume on Mortality in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock

Background: Cardiogenic shock (CS) is associated with significant morbidity, and mortality rates approach 40% to 60%. Treatment for CS requires an aggressive, sophisticated, complex, goal‐oriented, therapeutic regimen focused on early revascularization and adjunctive supportive therapies, suggesting that hospitals with greater CS volume may provide better care. The association between CS hospital volume and inpatient mortality for CS is unclear. Methods and Results: We used the Nationwide Inpatient Sample to examine 533 179 weighted patient discharges from 2675 hospitals with CS from 2004 to 2011 and divided them into quartiles of mean annual hospital CS case volume. The primary outcome was in‐hospital mortality. Multivariate adjustments were performed to account for severity of illness, relevant comorbidities, hospital characteristics, and differences in treatment. Compared with the highest volume quartile, the adjusted odds ratio for inpatient mortality for persons admitted to hospitals in the lowest‐volume quartile (≤27 weighted cases per year) was 1.27 (95% CI 1.15 to 1.40), whereas for admission to hospitals in the low‐volume and medium‐volume quartiles, the odds ratios were 1.20 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.32) and 1.12 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.24), respectively. Similarly, improved survival was observed across quartiles, with an adjusted inpatient mortality incidence of 41.97% (95% CI 40.87 to 43.08) for hospitals with the lowest volume of CS cases and a drop to 37.01% (95% CI 35.11 to 38.96) for hospitals with the highest volume of CS cases. Analysis of treatments offered between hospital quartiles revealed that the centers with volumes in the highest quartile demonstrated significantly higher numbers of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, percutaneous coronary intervention, or intra‐aortic balloon pump counterpulsation. A similar relationship was demonstrated with the use of mechanical circulatory support (ventricular assist devices and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), for which there was significantly higher use in the higher volume quartiles. Conclusions: We demonstrated an association between lower CS case volume and higher mortality. There is more frequent use of both standard supportive and revascularization techniques at the higher volume centers. Future directions may include examining whether early stabilization and transfer improve outcomes of patients with CS who are admitted to lower volume centers

Reduced anticoagulation strategy is associated with a lower incidence of intracerebral hemorrhage in COVID-19 patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation

Background Optimal anticoagulation strategies for COVID-19 patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) on venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) remain uncertain. A higher incidence of intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) during VV ECMO support compared to non-COVID-19 viral ARDS patients has been reported, with increased bleeding rates in COVID-19 attributed to both intensified anticoagulation and a disease-specific endotheliopathy. We hypothesized that lower intensity of anticoagulation during VV ECMO would be associated with a lower risk of ICH. In a retrospective, multicenter study from three academic tertiary intensive care units, we included patients with confirmed COVID-19 ARDS requiring VV ECMO support from March 2020 to January 2022. Patients were grouped by anticoagulation exposure into higher intensity, targeting anti-factor Xa activity (anti-Xa) of 0.3–0.4 U/mL, versus lower intensity, targeting anti-Xa 0.15–0.3 U/mL, cohorts. Mean daily doses of unfractionated heparin (UFH) per kg bodyweight and effectively measured daily anti-factor Xa activities were compared between the groups over the first 7 days on ECMO support. The primary outcome was the rate of ICH during VV ECMO support. Results 141 critically ill COVID-19 patients were included in the study. Patients with lower anticoagulation targets had consistently lower anti-Xa activity values over the first 7 ECMO days (p < 0.001). ICH incidence was lower in patients in the lower anti-Xa group: 4 (8%) vs 32 (34%) events. Accounting for death as a competing event, the adjusted subhazard ratio for the occurrence of ICH was 0.295 (97.5% CI 0.1–0.9, p = 0.044) for the lower anti-Xa compared to the higher anti-Xa group. 90-day ICU survival was higher in patients in the lower anti-Xa group, and ICH was the strongest risk factor associated with mortality (odds ratio [OR] 6.8 [CI 2.1–22.1], p = 0.001). Conclusions For COVID-19 patients on VV ECMO support anticoagulated with heparin, a lower anticoagulation target was associated with a significant reduction in ICH incidence and increased survival

Outcomes of critically ill solid organ transplant patients with COVID‐19 in the United States

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163464/2/ajt16280.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/163464/1/ajt16280_am.pd

An examination of factors influencing the choice of therapy for patients with coronary artery disease

BACKGROUND: A diverse range of factors influence clinicians' decisions regarding the allocation of patients to different treatments for coronary artery disease in routine cardiology clinics. These include demographic measures, risk factors, co-morbidities, measures of objective cardiac disease, symptom reports and functional limitations. This study examined which of these factors differentiated patients receiving angioplasty from medication; bypass surgery from medication; and bypass surgery from angioplasty. METHODS: Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted on patient data from 214 coronary artery disease patients who at the time of recruitment had been received a clinical assessment and were reviewed by their cardiologist in order to determine the form of treatment they were to undergo: 70 would receive/continue medication, 71 were to undergo angioplasty and 73 were to undergo bypass surgery. RESULTS: Analyses differentiating patients receiving angioplasty from medication produced 9 significant univariate predictors, of which 5 were also multivariately significant (left anterior descending artery disease, previous coronary interventions, age, hypertension and frequency of angina). The analyses differentiating patients receiving surgery from angioplasty produced 12 significant univariate predictors, of which 4 were multivariately significant (limitations in mobility range, circumflex artery disease, previous coronary interventions and educational level). The analyses differentiating patients receiving surgery from medication produced 14 significant univariate predictors, of which 4 were multivariately significant (left anterior descending artery disease, previous cerebral events, limitations in mobility range and circumflex artery disease). CONCLUSION: Variables emphasised in clinical guidelines are clearly involved in coronary artery disease treatment decisions. However, variables beyond these may also be important factors when therapy decisions are undertaken thus their roles require further investigation

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

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

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

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

Sedation for flexible bronchoscopy: current and emerging evidence

Flexible bronchoscopy is commonly performed by respiratory physicians and is the gold standard for directly visualising the airways, allowing for numerous diagnostic and therapeutic interventions. With the widespread use of flexible bronchoscopy and the evolution of interventional bronchoscopy with more complex and longer procedures, physicians are placing increasing importance on the use of sedation as a necessary adjunct to topical anaesthesia. There is no standardised practice for the use of sedation in bronchoscopy with a good deal of variation among physicians regarding the use of pre-procedure medication and pharmacological sedatives. In addition, there is ongoing debate and controversy about proceduralist-administered versus anaesthetist-administered sedation whilst at the same time there is a growing body of evidence that nonanaesthetist administered sedation is safe and cost-effective. In this review we summarise the evidence for the use of sedation as an adjunct to topical anaesthesia in bronchoscopy and provide the clinician with up-to-date concise guidance for the use of pharmacological sedatives in bronchoscopy and future directions for sedation in the bronchoscopy suite