A Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator-Derived Predictive Model for Postoperative Respiratory Failure in a Heterogeneous Adult Elective Surgery Patient Population.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative respiratory failure (PRF) is associated with increased hospital charges and worse patient outcomes. Reliable prediction models can help to guide postoperative planning to optimize care, to guide resource allocation, and to foster shared decision-making with patients. RESEARCH QUESTION: Can a predictive model be developed to accurately identify patients at high risk of PRF? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In this single-site proof-of-concept study, we used structured query language to extract, transform, and load electronic health record data from 23,999 consecutive adult patients admitted for elective surgery (2014-2021). Our primary outcome was PRF, defined as mechanical ventilation after surgery of > 48 h. Predictors of interest included demographics, comorbidities, and intraoperative factors. We used logistic regression to build a predictive model and the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator procedure to select variables and to estimate model coefficients. We evaluated model performance using optimism-corrected area under the receiver operating curve and area under the precision-recall curve and calculated sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and Brier scores. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-five patients (0.94%) demonstrated PRF. The 18-variable predictive model included: operations on the cardiovascular, nervous, digestive, urinary, or musculoskeletal system; surgical specialty orthopedic (nonspine); Medicare or Medicaid (as the primary payer); race unknown; American Society of Anesthesiologists class ≥ III; BMI of 30 to 34.9 kg/m2; anesthesia duration (per hour); net fluid at end of the operation (per liter); median intraoperative FIO2, end title CO2, heart rate, and tidal volume; and intraoperative vasopressor medications. The optimism-corrected area under the receiver operating curve was 0.835 (95% CI,0.808-0.862) and the area under the precision-recall curve was 0.156 (95% CI, 0.105-0.203). INTERPRETATION: This single-center proof-of-concept study demonstrated that a structured query language extract, transform, and load process, based on readily available patient and intraoperative variables, can be used to develop a prediction model for PRF. This PRF prediction model is scalable for multicenter research. Clinical applications include decision support to guide postoperative level of care admission and treatment decisions.

Overview of the Medical Management of the Critically Ill Patient.

The medical management of the critically ill patient focuses predominantly on treatment of the underlying condition (e g, sepsis or respiratory failure). However, in the past decade, the importance of initiating early prophylactic treatment for complications arising from care in the intensive care unit setting has become increasingly apparent. As survival from critical illness has improved, there is an increased prevalence of postintensive care syndrome-defined as a decline in physical, cognitive, or psychologic function among survivors of critical illness. The Intensive Care Unit Liberation Bundle, a major initiative of the Society of Critical Care Medicine, is centered on facilitating the return to normal function as early as possible, with the intent of minimizing iatrogenic harm during necessary critical care. These concepts are universally applicable to patients seen by nephrologists in the intensive care unit and may have particular relevance for patients with kidney failure either on dialysis or after kidney transplant. In this article, we will briefly summarize some known organ-based consequences associated with critical illness, review the components of the ABCDEF bundle (the conceptual framework for Intensive Care Unit Liberation), highlight the role nephrologists can play in implementing and complying with the ABCDEF bundle, and briefly discuss areas for additional research.

Outcomes and risk factors for delayed-onset postoperative respiratory failure: a multi-center case-control study by the University of California Critical Care Research Collaborative (UC3RC).

BACKGROUND: Few interventions are known to reduce the incidence of respiratory failure that occurs following elective surgery (postoperative respiratory failure; PRF). We previously reported risk factors associated with PRF that occurs within the first 5 days after elective surgery (early PRF; E-PRF); however, PRF that occurs six or more days after elective surgery (late PRF; L-PRF) likely represents a different entity. We hypothesized that L-PRF would be associated with worse outcomes and different risk factors than E-PRF. METHODS: This was a retrospective matched case-control study of 59,073 consecutive adult patients admitted for elective non-cardiac and non-pulmonary surgical procedures at one of five University of California academic medical centers between October 2012 and September 2015. We identified patients with L-PRF, confirmed by surgeon and intensivist subject matter expert review, and matched them 1:1 to patients who did not develop PRF (No-PRF) based on hospital, age, and surgical procedure. We then analyzed risk factors and outcomes associated with L-PRF compared to E-PRF and No-PRF. RESULTS: Among 95 patients with L-PRF, 50.5% were female, 71.6% white, 27.4% Hispanic, and 53.7% Medicare recipients; the median age was 63 years (IQR 56, 70). Compared to 95 matched patients with No-PRF and 319 patients who developed E-PRF, L-PRF was associated with higher morbidity and mortality, longer hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, and increased costs. Compared to No-PRF, factors associated with L-PRF included: preexisiting neurologic disease (OR 4.36, 95% CI 1.81-10.46), anesthesia duration per hour (OR 1.22, 95% CI 1.04-1.44), and maximum intraoperative peak inspiratory pressure per cm H20 (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.06-1.22). CONCLUSIONS: We identified that pre-existing neurologic disease, longer duration of anesthesia, and greater maximum intraoperative peak inspiratory pressures were associated with respiratory failure that developed six or more days after elective surgery in adult patients (L-PRF). Interventions targeting these factors may be worthy of future evaluation.

Risk Factors for Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injury in Adult Critical Care Patients.

BACKGROUND: Accurately measuring the risk of pressure injury remains the most important step for effective prevention and intervention. Relative contributions of risk factors for the incidence of pressure injury in adult critical care patients are not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate a model to identify risk factors associated with hospital-acquired pressure injuries among adult critical care patients. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 23 806 adult patients (28 480 encounters) with an intensive care unit stay at an academic quaternary care center. Patient encounters were randomly split (7:3) into training and validation sets. The training set was used to develop a multivariable logistic regression model using the least absolute shrinkage and selection operator method. The model's performance was evaluated with the validation set. RESULTS: Independent risk factors identified by logistic regression were length of hospital stay, preexisting diabetes, preexisting renal failure, maximum arterial carbon dioxide pressure, minimum arterial oxygen pressure, hypotension, gastrointestinal bleeding, cellulitis, and minimum Braden Scale score of 14 or less. On validation, the model differentiated between patients with and without pressure injury, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.85, and performed better than a model with Braden Scale score alone (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: A model that identified risk factors for hospital-acquired pressure injury among adult critical care patients was developed and validated using a large data set of clinical variables. This model may aid in selecting high-risk patients for focused interventions to prevent formation of hospital-acquired pressure injuries.

Dynamic Risk Prediction for Hospital-Acquired Pressure Injury in Adult Critical Care Patients.

Accurately measuring the risk of pressure injury remains the most important step for effective prevention and intervention. Time-dependent risk factors for pressure injury development in the adult intensive care unit setting are not well understood. OBJECTIVES: To develop and validate a dynamic risk prediction model to estimate the risk of developing a hospital-acquired pressure injury among adult ICU patients. DESIGN: ICU admission data were split into training and validation sets. With death as a competing event, both static and dynamic Fine-Gray models were developed to predict hospital-acquired pressure injury development less than 24, 72, and 168 hours postadmission. Model performance was evaluated using Wolbers' concordance index, Brier score, net reclassification improvement, and integrated discrimination improvement. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of ICU patients in a tertiary care hospital located in San Francisco, CA, from November 2013 to August 2017. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Data were extracted from electronic medical records of 18,019 ICU patients (age ≥ 18 yr; 21,220 encounters). Record of hospital-acquired pressure injury data was captured in our institution's incident reporting system. The information is periodically reviewed by our wound care team. Presence of hospital-acquired pressure injury during an encounter and hospital-acquired pressure injury diagnosis date were provided. RESULTS: The dynamic model predicting hospital-acquired pressure injury more than 24 hours postadmission, including predictors age, body mass index, lactate serum, Braden scale score, and use of vasopressor and antifungal medications, had adequate discrimination ability within 6 days from time of prediction (c = 0.73). All dynamic models produced more accurate risk estimates than static models within 26 days postadmission. There were no significant differences in Brier scores between dynamic and static models. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A dynamic risk prediction model predicting hospital-acquired pressure injury development less than 24 hours postadmission in ICU patients for up to 7 days postadmission was developed and validated using a large dataset of clinical variables readily available in the electronic medical record.

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Ventilator Management and Rescue Therapies.

This review describes the management of mechanical ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, including in those with coronavirus disease 2019. Low tidal volume ventilation with a moderate to high positive end-expiratory pressure remains the foundation of an evidence-based approach. We consider strategies for setting positive end-expiratory pressure levels, the use of recruitment maneuvers, and the potential role of driving pressure. Rescue therapies including prone positioning and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation are also discussed.

Risk Factors Associated With Early Postoperative Respiratory Failure: A Matched Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative respiratory failure is the most common serious postoperative pulmonary complication, yet little is known about factors that can reduce its incidence. We sought to elucidate modifiable factors associated with respiratory failure that developed within the first 5 d after an elective operation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Matched case-control study of adults who had an operation at five academic medical centers between October 1, 2012 and September 30, 2015. Cases were identified using administrative data and confirmed via chart review by critical care clinicians. Controls were matched 1:1 to cases based on hospital, age, and surgical procedure. RESULTS: Our total sample (n = 638) was 56.4% female, 71.3% white, and had a median age of 62 y (interquartile range 51, 70). Factors associated with early postoperative respiratory failure included male gender (odds ratio [OR] 1.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-2.63), American Society of Anesthesiologists class III or greater (OR 2.85, 95% CI 1.74-4.66), greater number of preexisting comorbidities (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.004-1.30), increased operative duration (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.06-1.22), increased intraoperative positive end-expiratory pressure (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.13-1.35) and tidal volume (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.004-1.27), and greater net fluid balance at 24 h (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.07-1.28). CONCLUSIONS: We found greater intraoperative ventilator volume and pressure and 24-h fluid balance to be potentially modifiable factors associated with developing early postoperative respiratory failure. Further studies are warranted to independently verify these risk factors, explore their role in development of early postoperative respiratory failure, and potentially evaluate targeted interventions.

Revisiting the Role of Health Care Proxies in Reproductive Choice.

In an effort to protect patients' reproductive rights, many states prohibit health care proxies from serving as surrogate decision makers for pregnancy termination in patients who lack capacity. We explore the case of a 24-year-old developmentally delayed woman with intractable seizures and complex psychosocial needs who was found to be pregnant. Her older sister was her health care proxy and declared that an abortion would be in her best interest, medically and socially; the patient herself lacked capacity to make this decision. Legally, her sister's judgment alone was insufficient to move forward with the procedure. Here we describe our multidisciplinary medical, ethical, and legal review of this case and how, despite agreeing with the patient's sister, legal barriers hindered our ability to obtain an abortion for this patient. Her situation illustrates the unintended consequences of our current approach to surrogate decision making in pregnancy termination. It highlights the need to reconsider the role of health care proxies in reproductive-choice decisions and emphasizes the value of a holistic evaluation of patients' social circumstances.

Treatment of immunocompromised COVID-19 patients with convalescent plasma.

Immunosuppressed patients such as solid organ transplant and hematologic malignancy patients appear to be at increased risk for morbidity and mortality due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Convalescent plasma, a method of passive immunization that has been applied to prior viral pandemics, holds promise as a potential treatment for COVID-19. Immunocompromised patients may experience more benefit from convalescent plasma given underlying deficits in B and T cell immunity as well as contraindications to antiviral and immunomodulatory therapy. We describe our institutional experience with four immunosuppressed patients (two kidney transplant recipients, one lung transplant recipient, and one chronic myelogenous leukemia patient) treated with COVID-19 convalescent plasma through the Expanded Access Program (NCT04338360). All patients clinically improved after administration (two fully recovered and two discharged to skilled nursing facilities) and none experienced a transfusion reaction. We also report the characteristics of convalescent plasma product from a local blood center including positive SARS-CoV-2 IgG and negative SARS-CoV-2 PCR in all samples tested. This preliminary evidence suggest that convalescent plasma may be safe among immunosuppressed patients with COVID-19 and emphasizes the need for further data on the efficacy of convalescent plasma as either primary or adjunctive therapy for COVID-19.

Postoperative respiratory failure: An update on the validity of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Indicator 11 in an era of clinical documentation improvement programs.

BACKGROUND: Administrative data can be used to identify cases of postoperative respiratory failure (PRF). We aimed to determine if recent changes to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Patient Safety Indicator 11 (PSI 11) and adoption of clinical documentation improvement programs have improved the validity of PSI 11. We also analyzed reasons why PSI 11 was falsely triggered. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study of all eligible discharges using health record data from five academic medical centers between October 1, 2012 and September 30, 2015. RESULTS: Of 437 flagged records, 434 (99.3%) were accurately coded and 414 (94.7%) represented true clinical PRF. None of the false positive records involved respiratory failure present on admission. Most (78.3%) false positive records required airway protection but did not have respiratory failure. CONCLUSION: The validity of PSI 11 has improved with recent changes to the code criterion and adoption of clinical documentation improvement programs.

Implementing the ABCDEF Bundle: Top 8 Questions Asked During the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative.

The ABCDEF bundle (A, assess, prevent, and manage pain; B, both spontaneous awakening and spontaneous breathing trials; C, choice of analgesic and sedation; D, delirium: assess, prevent, and manage; E, early mobility and exercise; and F, family engagement and empowerment) improves intensive care unit patient-centered outcomes and promotes interprofessional teamwork and collaboration. The Society of Critical Care Medicine recently completed the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative, a 20-month, multicenter, national quality improvement initiative that formalized dissemination and implementation strategies to promote effective adoption of the ABCDEF bundle. The purpose of this article is to describe 8 of the most frequently asked questions during the Collaborative and to provide practical advice from leading experts to other institutions implementing the ABCDEF bundle.

Common Challenges to Effective ABCDEF Bundle Implementation: The ICU Liberation Campaign Experience.

Although growing evidence supports the safety and effectiveness of the ABCDEF bundle (A, assess, prevent, and manage pain; B, both spontaneous awakening and spontaneous breathing trials; C, choice of analgesic and sedation; D, delirium: assess, prevent, and manage; E, early mobility and exercise; and F, family engagement and empowerment), intensive care unit providers often struggle with how to reliably and consistently incorporate this interprofessional, evidence-based intervention into everyday clinical practice. Recently, the Society of Critical Care Medicine completed the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative, a 20-month, nationwide, multicenter quality improvement initiative that formalized dissemination and implementation strategies and tracked key performance metrics to overcome barriers to ABCDEF bundle adoption. The purpose of this article is to discuss some of the most challenging implementation issues that Collaborative teams experienced, and to provide some practical advice from leading experts on ways to overcome these barriers.

Caring for Critically Ill Patients with the ABCDEF Bundle: Results of the ICU Liberation Collaborative in Over 15,000 Adults.

OBJECTIVE: Decades-old, common ICU practices including deep sedation, immobilization, and limited family access are being challenged. We endeavoured to evaluate the relationship between ABCDEF bundle performance and patient-centered outcomes in critical care. DESIGN: Prospective, multicenter, cohort study from a national quality improvement collaborative. SETTING: 68 academic, community, and federal ICUs collected data during a 20-month period. PATIENTS: 15,226 adults with at least one ICU day. INTERVENTIONS: We defined ABCDEF bundle performance (our main exposure) in two ways: 1) complete performance (patient received every eligible bundle element on any given day) and 2) proportional performance (percentage of eligible bundle elements performed on any given day). We explored the association between complete and proportional ABCDEF bundle performance and three sets of outcomes: patient-related (mortality, ICU and hospital discharge), symptom-related (mechanical ventilation, coma, delirium, pain, restraint use), and system-related (ICU readmission, discharge destination). All models were adjusted for a minimum of 18 a priori determined potential confounders. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: Complete ABCDEF bundle performance was associated with lower likelihood of seven outcomes: hospital death within 7 days (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.32; CI, 0.17-0.62), next-day mechanical ventilation (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 0.28; CI, 0.22-0.36), coma (AOR, 0.35; CI, 0.22-0.56), delirium (AOR, 0.60; CI, 0.49-0.72), physical restraint use (AOR, 0.37; CI, 0.30-0.46), ICU readmission (AOR, 0.54; CI, 0.37-0.79), and discharge to a facility other than home (AOR, 0.64; CI, 0.51-0.80). There was a consistent dose-response relationship between higher proportional bundle performance and improvements in each of the above-mentioned clinical outcomes (all p < 0.002). Significant pain was more frequently reported as bundle performance proportionally increased (p = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: ABCDEF bundle performance showed significant and clinically meaningful improvements in outcomes including survival, mechanical ventilation use, coma, delirium, restraint-free care, ICU readmissions, and post-ICU discharge disposition.

Improving Health Care for Critically Ill Patients Using an Evidence-Based Collaborative Approach to ABCDEF Bundle Dissemination and Implementation.

BACKGROUND: Patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) often experience pain, oversedation, prolonged mechanical ventilation, delirium, and weakness. These conditions are important in that they often lead to protracted physical, neurocognitive, and mental health sequelae now termed postintensive care syndrome. Changing current ICU practice will not only require the adoption of evidence-based interventions but the development of effective and reliable teams to support these new practices. OBJECTIVES: To build on the success of bundled care and bridge an ongoing evidence-practice gap, the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM) recently launched the ICU Liberation ABCDEF Bundle Improvement Collaborative. The Collaborative aimed to foster the bedside application of the SCCM's Pain, Agitation, and Delirium Guidelines via the ABCDEF bundle. The purpose of this paper is to describe the history of the Collaborative, the evidence-based implementation strategies used to foster change and teamwork, and the performance and outcome metrics used to monitor progress. METHODS: Collaborative participants were required to attend four in-person meetings, monthly colearning calls, database training sessions, an e-Community listserv, and select in-person site visits. Teams submitted patient-level data and completed pre- and postimplementation questionnaires focused on the assessment of teamwork and collaboration, work environment, and overall ICU care. Faculty shared the evidence used to derive each bundle element as well as team-based implementation strategies for improvement and sustainment. RESULTS: Retention in the Collaborative was high, with 67 of 69 adult and eight of nine pediatric ICUs fully completing the program. Baseline and prospective data were collected on over 17,000 critically ill patients. A variety of evidence-based professional behavioral change interventions and novel implementation techniques were utilized and shared among Collaborative members. LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Hospitals and health systems can use the Collaborative structure, strategies, and tools described in this paper to help successfully implement the ABCDEF bundle in their ICUs.

Interprofessional Care and Teamwork in the ICU.

OBJECTIVES: We describe the importance of interprofessional care in modern critical care medicine. This review highlights the essential roles played by specific members of the interprofessional care team, including patients and family members, and discusses quality improvement initiatives that require interprofessional collaboration for success. DATA SOURCES: Studies were identified through MEDLINE search using a variety of search phrases related to interprofessional care, critical care provider types, and quality improvement initiatives. Additional articles were identified through a review of the reference lists of identified articles. STUDY SELECTION: Original articles, review articles, and systematic reviews were considered. DATA EXTRACTION: Manuscripts were selected for inclusion based on expert opinion of well-designed or key studies and review articles. DATA SYNTHESIS: "Interprofessional care" refers to care provided by a team of healthcare professionals with overlapping expertise and an appreciation for the unique contribution of other team members as partners in achieving a common goal. A robust body of data supports improvement in patient-level outcomes when care is provided by an interprofessional team. Critical care nurses, advanced practice providers, pharmacists, respiratory care practitioners, rehabilitation specialists, dieticians, social workers, case managers, spiritual care providers, intensivists, and nonintensivist physicians each provide unique expertise and perspectives to patient care, and therefore play an important role in a team that must address the diverse needs of patients and families in the ICU. Engaging patients and families as partners in their healthcare is also critical. Many important ICU quality improvement initiatives require an interprofessional approach, including Awakening and Breathing Coordination, Delirium, Early Exercise/Mobility, and Family Empowerment bundle implementation, interprofessional rounding practices, unit-based quality improvement initiatives, Patient and Family Advisory Councils, end-of-life care, coordinated sedation awakening and spontaneous breathing trials, intrahospital transport, and transitions of care. CONCLUSIONS: A robust body of evidence supports an interprofessional approach as a key component in the provision of high-quality critical care to patients of increasing complexity and with increasingly diverse needs.

Special article: rescue therapies for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

The recent H1N1 epidemic has resulted in a large number of deaths, primarily from acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. We reviewed the current strategies to rescue patients with severe hypoxemia. Included in these strategies are high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, airway pressure release ventilation, inhaled vasodilators, and the use of extracorporeal life support. All of these strategies are targeted at improving oxygenation, but improved oxygenation alone has yet to be demonstrated to correlate with improved survival. The risks and benefits of these strategies, including cost-effectiveness data, are discussed.