Decision-making in intensive care medicine - a review

Decision-making by intensivists around accepting patients to intensive care units is a complex area, with often high-stakes, difficult, emotive decisions being made with limited patient information, high uncertainty about outcomes and extreme pressure to make these decisions quickly. This is exacerbated by a lack of clear guidelines to help guide this difficult decision-making process, with the onus largely relying on clinical experience and judgement. In addition to uncertainty compounding decision-making at the individual clinical level, it is further complicated at the multi-speciality level for the senior doctors and surgeons referring to intensive care units. This is a systematic review of the existing literature about this decision-making process and the factors that help guide these decisions on both sides of the intensive care unit admission dilemma. We found many studies exist assessing the patient factors correlated with intensive care unit admission decisions. Analysing these together suggests that factors consistently found to be correlated with a decision to admit or refuse a patient from intensive care unit are bed availability, severity of illness, initial ward or team referred from, patient choice, do not resuscitate status, age and functional baseline. Less research has been done on the decision-making process itself and the factors that are important to the accepting intensivists; however, similar themes are seen. Even less research exists on referral decision and demonstrates that in addition to the factors correlated with intensive care unit admission decisions, other wider variables are considered by the referring non-intensivists. No studies are available that investigate the decision-making process in referring non-intensivists or the mismatch of processes and pressure between the two sides of the intensive care unit referral dilemma

Intensive care decision-making:Identifying the challenges and generating solutions to improve inter-specialty referrals to critical care

Introduction Decision-making regarding admission to UK intensive care units is challenging. Demand for beds exceeds capacity, yet the need to provide emergency cover creates pressure to build redundancy into the system. Guidelines to aid clinical decision-making are outdated, resulting in an over-reliance on professional judgement. Although clinicians are highly skilled, there is variability in intensive care unit decision-making, especially at the inter-specialty level wherein cognitive biases contribute to disagreement. Method This research is the first to explore intensive care unit referral and admission decision-making using the Critical Decision Method interviewing technique. We interviewed intensive care unit (n = 9) and non-intensive care unit (n = 6) consultants about a challenging referral they had dealt with in the past where there was disagreement about the patient’s suitability for intensive care unit. Results We present: (i) a description of the referral pathway; (ii) challenges that appear to derail referrals (i.e. process issues, decision biases, inherent stressors, post-decision consequences) and (iii) potential solutions to improve this process. Discussion This research provides a foundation upon which interventions to improve inter-specialty decision-making can be based

A user evaluation of speech/phrase recognition software in critically ill patients: a DECIDE-AI feasibility study

Objectives: Evaluating effectiveness of speech/phrase recognition software in critically ill patients with speech impairments. Design: Prospective study. Setting: Tertiary hospital critical care unit in the northwest of England. Participants: 14 patients with tracheostomies, 3 female and 11 male. Main outcome measures: Evaluation of dynamic time warping (DTW) and deep neural networks (DNN) methods in a speech/phrase recognition application. Using speech/phrase recognition app for voice impaired (SRAVI), patients attempted mouthing various supported phrases with recordings evaluated by both DNN and DTW processing methods. Then, a trio of potential recognition phrases was displayed on the screen, ranked from first to third in order of likelihood. Results: A total of 616 patient recordings were taken with 516 phrase identifiable recordings. The overall results revealed a total recognition accuracy across all three ranks of 86% using the DNN method. The rank 1 recognition accuracy of the DNN method was 75%. The DTW method had a total recognition accuracy of 74%, with a rank 1 accuracy of 48%. Conclusion: This feasibility evaluation of a novel speech/phrase recognition app using SRAVI demonstrated a good correlation between spoken phrases and app recognition. This suggests that speech/phrase recognition technology could be a therapeutic option to bridge the gap in communication in critically ill patients. What is already known about this topic: Communication can be attempted using visual charts, eye gaze boards, alphabet boards, speech/phrase reading, gestures and speaking valves in critically ill patients with speech impairments. What this study adds: Deep neural networks and dynamic time warping methods can be used to analyse lip movements and identify intended phrases. How this study might affect research, practice and policy: Our study shows that speech/phrase recognition software has a role to play in bridging the communication gap in speech impairment

Diagnostic accuracy of pulmonary host inflammatory mediators in the exclusion of ventilator-acquired pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Excessive use of empirical antibiotics is common in critically ill patients. Rapid biomarker-based exclusion of infection may improve antibiotic stewardship in ventilator-acquired pneumonia (VAP). However, successful validation of the usefulness of potential markers in this setting is exceptionally rare. OBJECTIVES: We sought to validate the capacity for specific host inflammatory mediators to exclude pneumonia in patients with suspected VAP. METHODS: A prospective, multicentre, validation study of patients with suspected VAP was conducted in 12 intensive care units. VAP was confirmed following bronchoscopy by culture of a potential pathogen in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) at >10(4) colony forming units per millilitre (cfu/mL). Interleukin-1 beta (IL-1β), IL-8, matrix metalloproteinase-8 (MMP-8), MMP-9 and human neutrophil elastase (HNE) were quantified in BALF. Diagnostic utility was determined for biomarkers individually and in combination. RESULTS: Paired BALF culture and biomarker results were available for 150 patients. 53 patients (35%) had VAP and 97 (65%) patients formed the non-VAP group. All biomarkers were significantly higher in the VAP group (p<0.001). The area under the receiver operator characteristic curve for IL-1β was 0.81; IL-8, 0.74; MMP-8, 0.76; MMP-9, 0.79 and HNE, 0.78. A combination of IL-1β and IL-8, at the optimal cut-point, excluded VAP with a sensitivity of 100%, a specificity of 44.3% and a post-test probability of 0% (95% CI 0% to 9.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Low BALF IL-1β in combination with IL-8 confidently excludes VAP and could form a rapid biomarker-based rule-out test, with the potential to improve antibiotic stewardship

Biomarker-guided antibiotic stewardship in suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAPrapid2) : a randomised controlled trial and process evaluation

Background Ventilator-associated pneumonia is the most common intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired infection, yet accurate diagnosis remains difficult, leading to overuse of antibiotics. Low concentrations of IL-1β and IL-8 in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid have been validated as effective markers for exclusion of ventilator-associated pneumonia. The VAPrapid2 trial aimed to determine whether measurement of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid IL-1β and IL-8 could effectively and safely improve antibiotic stewardship in patients with clinically suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. Methods VAPrapid2 was a multicentre, randomised controlled trial in patients admitted to 24 ICUs from 17 National Health Service hospital trusts across England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. Patients were screened for eligibility and included if they were 18 years or older, intubated and mechanically ventilated for at least 48 h, and had suspected ventilator-associated pneumonia. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to biomarker-guided recommendation on antibiotics (intervention group) or routine use of antibiotics (control group) using a web-based randomisation service hosted by Newcastle Clinical Trials Unit. Patients were randomised using randomly permuted blocks of size four and six and stratified by site, with allocation concealment. Clinicians were masked to patient assignment for an initial period until biomarker results were reported. Bronchoalveolar lavage was done in all patients, with concentrations of IL-1β and IL-8 rapidly determined in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from patients randomised to the biomarker-based antibiotic recommendation group. If concentrations were below a previously validated cutoff, clinicians were advised that ventilator-associated pneumonia was unlikely and to consider discontinuing antibiotics. Patients in the routine use of antibiotics group received antibiotics according to usual practice at sites. Microbiology was done on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from all patients and ventilator-associated pneumonia was confirmed by at least 104 colony forming units per mL of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid. The primary outcome was the distribution of antibiotic-free days in the 7 days following bronchoalveolar lavage. Data were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis, with an additional per-protocol analysis that excluded patients randomly assigned to the intervention group who defaulted to routine use of antibiotics because of failure to return an adequate biomarker result. An embedded process evaluation assessed factors influencing trial adoption, recruitment, and decision making. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN65937227, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01972425. Findings Between Nov 6, 2013, and Sept 13, 2016, 360 patients were screened for inclusion in the study. 146 patients were ineligible, leaving 214 who were recruited to the study. Four patients were excluded before randomisation, meaning that 210 patients were randomly assigned to biomarker-guided recommendation on antibiotics (n=104) or routine use of antibiotics (n=106). One patient in the biomarker-guided recommendation group was withdrawn by the clinical team before bronchoscopy and so was excluded from the intention-to-treat analysis. We found no significant difference in the primary outcome of the distribution of antibiotic-free days in the 7 days following bronchoalveolar lavage in the intention-to-treat analysis (p=0·58). Bronchoalveolar lavage was associated with a small and transient increase in oxygen requirements. Established prescribing practices, reluctance for bronchoalveolar lavage, and dependence on a chain of trial-related procedures emerged as factors that impaired trial processes

Procalcitonin Is Not a Reliable Biomarker of Bacterial Coinfection in People With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Undergoing Microbiological Investigation at the Time of Hospital Admission

Abstract Admission procalcitonin measurements and microbiology results were available for 1040 hospitalized adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (from 48 902 included in the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infections Consortium World Health Organization Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK study). Although procalcitonin was higher in bacterial coinfection, this was neither clinically significant (median [IQR], 0.33 [0.11–1.70] ng/mL vs 0.24 [0.10–0.90] ng/mL) nor diagnostically useful (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.56 [95% confidence interval, .51–.60]).</jats:p

Implementation of corticosteroids in treating COVID-19 in the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK:prospective observational cohort study

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone was the first intervention proven to reduce mortality in patients with COVID-19 being treated in hospital. We aimed to evaluate the adoption of corticosteroids in the treatment of COVID-19 in the UK after the RECOVERY trial publication on June 16, 2020, and to identify discrepancies in care. METHODS: We did an audit of clinical implementation of corticosteroids in a prospective, observational, cohort study in 237 UK acute care hospitals between March 16, 2020, and April 14, 2021, restricted to patients aged 18 years or older with proven or high likelihood of COVID-19, who received supplementary oxygen. The primary outcome was administration of dexamethasone, prednisolone, hydrocortisone, or methylprednisolone. This study is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN66726260. FINDINGS: Between June 17, 2020, and April 14, 2021, 47 795 (75·2%) of 63 525 of patients on supplementary oxygen received corticosteroids, higher among patients requiring critical care than in those who received ward care (11 185 [86·6%] of 12 909 vs 36 415 [72·4%] of 50 278). Patients 50 years or older were significantly less likely to receive corticosteroids than those younger than 50 years (adjusted odds ratio 0·79 [95% CI 0·70–0·89], p=0·0001, for 70–79 years; 0·52 [0·46–0·58], p80 years), independent of patient demographics and illness severity. 84 (54·2%) of 155 pregnant women received corticosteroids. Rates of corticosteroid administration increased from 27·5% in the week before June 16, 2020, to 75–80% in January, 2021. INTERPRETATION: Implementation of corticosteroids into clinical practice in the UK for patients with COVID-19 has been successful, but not universal. Patients older than 70 years, independent of illness severity, chronic neurological disease, and dementia, were less likely to receive corticosteroids than those who were younger, as were pregnant women. This could reflect appropriate clinical decision making, but the possibility of inequitable access to life-saving care should be considered. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research and UK Medical Research Council

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use and outcomes of COVID-19 in the ISARIC Clinical Characterisation Protocol UK cohort: a matched, prospective cohort study.

Background: Early in the pandemic it was suggested that pre-existing use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) could lead to increased disease severity in patients with COVID-19. NSAIDs are an important analgesic, particularly in those with rheumatological disease, and are widely available to the general public without prescription. Evidence from community studies, administrative data, and small studies of hospitalised patients suggest NSAIDs are not associated with poorer COVID-19 outcomes. We aimed to characterise the safety of NSAIDs and identify whether pre-existing NSAID use was associated with increased severity of COVID-19 disease. Methods: This prospective, multicentre cohort study included patients of any age admitted to hospital with a confirmed or highly suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection leading to COVID-19 between Jan 17 and Aug 10, 2020. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were disease severity at presentation, admission to critical care, receipt of invasive ventilation, receipt of non-invasive ventilation, use of supplementary oxygen, and acute kidney injury. NSAID use was required to be within the 2 weeks before hospital admission. We used logistic regression to estimate the effects of NSAIDs and adjust for confounding variables. We used propensity score matching to further estimate effects of NSAIDS while accounting for covariate differences in populations. Results: Between Jan 17 and Aug 10, 2020, we enrolled 78 674 patients across 255 health-care facilities in England, Scotland, and Wales. 72 179 patients had death outcomes available for matching; 40 406 (56·2%) of 71 915 were men, 31 509 (43·8%) were women. In this cohort, 4211 (5·8%) patients were recorded as taking systemic NSAIDs before admission to hospital. Following propensity score matching, balanced groups of NSAIDs users and NSAIDs non-users were obtained (4205 patients in each group). At hospital admission, we observed no significant differences in severity between exposure groups. After adjusting for explanatory variables, NSAID use was not associated with worse in-hospital mortality (matched OR 0·95, 95% CI 0·84–1·07; p=0·35), critical care admission (1·01, 0·87–1·17; p=0·89), requirement for invasive ventilation (0·96, 0·80–1·17; p=0·69), requirement for non-invasive ventilation (1·12, 0·96–1·32; p=0·14), requirement for oxygen (1·00, 0·89–1·12; p=0·97), or occurrence of acute kidney injury (1·08, 0·92–1·26; p=0·33). Interpretation: NSAID use is not associated with higher mortality or increased severity of COVID-19. Policy makers should consider reviewing issued advice around NSAID prescribing and COVID-19 severity. Funding: National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council

Vitamin D insufficiency in COVID-19 and influenza A, and critical illness survivors: a cross-sectional study

Objectives: The steroid hormone vitamin D has roles in immunomodulation and bone health. Insufficiency is associated with susceptibility to respiratory infections. We report 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25(OH)D) measurements in hospitalised people with COVID-19 and influenza A and in survivors of critical illness to test the hypotheses that vitamin D insufficiency scales with illness severity and persists in survivors. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting and participants: Plasma was obtained from 295 hospitalised people with COVID-19 (International Severe Acute Respiratory and emerging Infections Consortium (ISARIC)/WHO Clinical Characterization Protocol for Severe Emerging Infections UK study), 93 with influenza A (Mechanisms of Severe Acute Influenza Consortium (MOSAIC) study, during the 2009–2010 H1N1 pandemic) and 139 survivors of non-selected critical illness (prior to the COVID-19 pandemic). Total 25(OH)D was measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Free 25(OH)D was measured by ELISA in COVID-19 samples. Outcome measures: Receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and in-hospital mortality. Results: Vitamin D insufficiency (total 25(OH)D 25–50 nmol/L) and deficiency (<25 nmol/L) were prevalent in COVID-19 (29.3% and 44.4%, respectively), influenza A (47.3% and 37.6%) and critical illness survivors (30.2% and 56.8%). In COVID-19 and influenza A, total 25(OH)D measured early in illness was lower in patients who received IMV (19.6 vs 31.9 nmol/L (p<0.0001) and 22.9 vs 31.1 nmol/L (p=0.0009), respectively). In COVID-19, biologically active free 25(OH)D correlated with total 25(OH)D and was lower in patients who received IMV, but was not associated with selected circulating inflammatory mediators. Conclusions: Vitamin D deficiency/insufficiency was present in majority of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 or influenza A and correlated with severity and persisted in critical illness survivors at concentrations expected to disrupt bone metabolism. These findings support early supplementation trials to determine if insufficiency is causal in progression to severe disease, and investigation of longer-term bone health outcomes