Patients' Preference for Participation in Medical Decision-Making: Secondary Analysis of the BEDSIDE-OUTSIDE Trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients may prefer different levels of involvement in decision-making regarding their medical care which may influence their medical knowledge. OBJECTIVE: We investigated associations of patients' decisional control preference (DCP) with their medical knowledge, ward round performance measures (e.g., duration, occurrence of sensitive topics), and perceived quality of care measures (e.g., trust in the healthcare team, satisfaction with hospital stay). DESIGN: This is a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled multicenter trial conducted between 2017 and 2019 at 3 Swiss teaching hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients that were hospitalized for inpatient care. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was patients' subjective average knowledge of their medical care (rated on a visual analog scale from 0 to 100). We classified patients as active, collaborative, and passive according to the Control Preference Scale. Data collection was performed before, during, and after the ward round. KEY RESULTS: Among the 761 included patients, those with a passive DCP had a similar subjective average (mean ± SD) knowledge (81.3 ± 19.4 points) compared to patients with a collaborative DCP (78.7 ± 20.3 points) and active DCP (81.3 ± 21.5 points), p = 0.25. Regarding patients' trust in physicians and nurses, we found that patients with an active vs. passive DCP reported significantly less trust in physicians (adjusted difference, - 5.08 [95% CI, - 8.69 to - 1.48 points], p = 0.006) and in nurses (adjusted difference, - 3.41 [95% CI, - 6.51 to - 0.31 points], p = 0.031). Also, patients with an active vs. passive DCP were significantly less satisfied with their hospital stay (adjusted difference, - 7.17 [95% CI, - 11.01 to - 3.34 points], p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Patients with active DCP have lower trust in the healthcare team and lower overall satisfaction despite similar perceived medical knowledge. The knowledge of a patient's DCP may help to individualize patient-centered care. A personalized approach may improve the patient-physician relationship and increase patients' satisfaction with medical care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03210987).

Predicting neurological outcome in adult patients with cardiac arrest: systematic review and meta-analysis of prediction model performance.

This work aims to assess the performance of two post-arrest (out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, OHCA, and cardiac arrest hospital prognosis, CAHP) and one pre-arrest (good outcome following attempted resuscitation, GO-FAR) prediction model for the prognostication of neurological outcome after cardiac arrest in a systematic review and meta-analysis. A systematic search was conducted in Embase, Medline, and Web of Science Core Collection from November 2006 to December 2021, and by forward citation tracking of key score publications. The search identified 1'021 records, of which 25 studies with a total of 124'168 patients were included in the review. A random-effects meta-analysis of C-statistics and overall calibration (total observed vs. expected [O:E] ratio) was conducted. Discriminatory performance was good for the OHCA (summary C-statistic: 0.83 [95% CI 0.81-0.85], 16 cohorts) and CAHP score (summary C-statistic: 0.84 [95% CI 0.82-0.87], 14 cohorts) and acceptable for the GO-FAR score (summary C-statistic: 0.78 [95% CI 0.72-0.84], five cohorts). Overall calibration was good for the OHCA (total O:E ratio: 0.78 [95% CI 0.67-0.92], nine cohorts) and the CAHP score (total O:E ratio: 0.78 [95% CI 0.72-0.84], nine cohorts) with an overestimation of poor outcome. Overall calibration of the GO-FAR score was poor with an underestimation of good outcome (total O:E ratio: 1.62 [95% CI 1.28-2.04], five cohorts). Two post-arrest scores showed good prognostic accuracy for predicting neurological outcome after cardiac arrest and may support early discussions about goals-of-care and therapeutic planning on the intensive care unit. A pre-arrest score showed acceptable prognostic accuracy and may support code status discussions.

Post-intensive care syndrome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: A prospective observational cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Intensive care unit patients are at risk for post-intensive care syndrome (PICS), which includes psychological, physical and/or cognitive sequelae after their hospital stay. Our aim was to investigate PICS in adult patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). METHODS: In this prospective observational cohort study, we assessed risks for PICS at 3 and 12-month follow-up within the following domains: a) physical impairment (EuroQol [EQ-5D-3L]), b) cognitive functioning (Cerebral Performance Category [CPC] score >1, modified Rankin Scale [mRS] >2) and c) psychological burden (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS], Impact of Event Scale-Revised [IES-R]). RESULTS: At 3 months, 69/139 patients (50%) met the definition of PICS including 37% in the physical domain, 25% in the cognitive domain and 13% in the psychological domain. Intubation (OR 2.3, 95%CI 1.1 to 5,0 p = 0.03), sedatives (OR 3.4, 95%CI 1 to 11, p = 0.045), mRS at discharge (OR 4.3, 95%CI 1.70 to 11.01, p = 0.002), CPC at discharge (OR 3.3, 95%CI 1.4 to 7.6, p = 0.005) and post-discharge work loss (OR 13.4, 95%CI 1.7 to 107.5, p = 0.014) were significantly associated with PICS. At 12 months, 52/110 (47%) patients had PICS, which was associated with prolonged duration of rehabilitation, higher APACHE scores, and higher mRS and CPC scores at hospital discharge. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly half of long-term OHCA survivors show PICS after 3 and 12 months. These high numbers call for more emphasis on appropriate screening and treatment in this patient population. Future studies should evaluate whether early identification of these patients enables preventive strategies and treatment options.

Comparison of different clinical risk scores to predict long-term survival and neurological outcome in adults after cardiac arrest: results from a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Several scoring systems have been used to predict short-term outcome in patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA), including the disease-specific OHCA and CAHP (Cardiac Arrest Hospital Prognosis) scores, as well as the general severity-of-illness scores Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) and Simplified Acute Physiology Score II (SAPS II). This study aimed to assess the prognostic performance of these four scores to predict long-term outcomes (≥ 2 years) in adult cardiac arrest patients. METHODS: This is a prospective single-centre cohort study including consecutive cardiac arrest patients admitted to intensive care in a Swiss tertiary academic medical centre. The primary endpoint was 2-year mortality. Secondary endpoints were neurological outcome at 2 years post-arrest assessed by Cerebral Performance Category with CPC 1-2 defined as good and CPC 3-5 as poor neurological outcome, and 6-year mortality. RESULTS: In 415 patients admitted to intensive care, the 2-year mortality was 58.1%, with 96.7% of survivors showing good neurological outcome. The 6-year mortality was 82.5%. All four scores showed good discriminatory performance for 2-year mortality, with areas under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AUROC) of 0.82, 0.87, 0.83 and 0.81 for the OHCA, CAHP, APACHE II and SAPS II scores. The results were similar for poor neurological outcome at 2 years and 6-year mortality. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that two established cardiac arrest-specific scores and two severity-of-illness scores provide good prognostic value to predict long-term outcome after cardiac arrest and thus may help in early goals-of-care discussions.

Long-term Survival After Out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Data on long-term survival beyond 12 months after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) of a presumed cardiac cause are scarce. Objective: To investigate the long-term survival of adult patients after surviving the initial hospital stay for an OHCA. Data Sources: A systematic search of the EMBASE and MEDLINE databases was performed from database inception to March 25, 2021. Study Selection: Clinical studies reporting long-term survival after OHCA were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria according to a preregistered study protocol. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Patient data were reconstructed from Kaplan-Meier curves using an iterative algorithm and then pooled to generate survival curves. As a separate analysis, an aggregate data meta-analysis was performed. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was long-term survival (>12 months) after OHCA for patients surviving to hospital discharge or 30 days after OHCA. Results: The search identified 15 347 reports, of which 21 studies (11 800 patients) were included in the Kaplan-Meier-based meta-analysis and 33 studies (16 933 patients) in an aggregate data meta-analysis. In the Kaplan-Meier-based analysis, the median survival time for patients surviving to hospital discharge was 5.0 years (IQR, 2.3-7.9 years). The estimated survival rates were 82.8% (95% CI, 81.9%-83.7%) at 3 years, 77.0% (95% CI, 75.9%-78.0%) at 5 years, 63.9% (95% CI, 62.3%-65.4%) at 10 years, and 57.5% (95% CI, 54.8%-60.1%) at 15 years. Compared with patients with a nonshockable initial rhythm, patients with a shockable rhythm had a lower risk of long-term mortality (hazard ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.23-0.39; P < .001). Different analyses, including an aggregate data meta-analysis, confirmed these results. Conclusions and Relevance: In this comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis, long-term survival after 10 years in patients surviving the initial hospital stay after OHCA was between 62% and 64%. Additional research is needed to understand and improve the long-term survival in this vulnerable patient population.

Perception of physicians and nursing staff members regarding outside versus bedside ward rounds: ancillary analysis of the randomised BEDSIDE-OUTSIDE trial.

BACKGROUND: We recently compared the effects of bedside and outside the room ward rounds on patients' knowledge about their medical care. Here, we report preferences of medical and nursing staff members regarding outside versus bedside ward rounds. METHODS: Within this ancillary project of a large multicentre randomised controlled trial, we prospectively conducted a survey of medical and nursing staff members participating in the weekly consultant ward rounds in the internal medicine division of three Swiss teaching hospitals between July 2017 and October 2019. Participants were asked about their preferences on outside versus bedside ward rounds. The primary endpoint was satisfaction of healthcare workers with the ward round measured with a visual analogue scale from 0 to 100. RESULTS: Between July 2017 and October 2019, 919 patients were included in the trial, and we received 891 survey responses (nurses 15.6%, residents 26.8%, attending physicians 29.6%, consultants 7.8% and chief physicians 20.2%. In the overall analysis, mean (± standard deviation) satisfaction of healthcare workers was higher with outside the room than bedside ward rounds (78.03 ± 16.96 versus 68.25 ± 21.10 respectively; age-, gender- and centre-adjusted difference of -10.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] -12.73 to -8.19; p <0.001). Healthcare workers reported better time management, more discussion of sensitive topics and less discomfort when case presentations were conducted outside the room. A stratified subgroup analysis considering the profession, however, showed strong differences, with nurses being more satisfied with bedside rounds (69.20 ± 20.32 versus 65.32 ± 20.92, respectively; adjusted difference 4.35, 95% CI -1.79 to 10.51; p <0.001), whereas attending physicians showed higher satisfaction with outside the room rounds (82.63 ± 13.87 versus 66.59 ± 21.82; adjusted difference -16.51, 95% CI -20.29 to -12.72; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: While bedside ward rounds are considered more patient centred and are preferred by the nursing staff, physicians prefer outside the room presentation of patients during ward rounds because of the perceived better discussion of sensitive topics, better time management and less staff discomfort. Continuous training including medical communication techniques may help to increase satisfaction of physicians with bedside ward rounds. Trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03210987.

Medical futility regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation in in-hospital cardiac arrests of adult patients: A systematic review and Meta-analysis.

AIM: For some patients, survival with good neurologic function after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is highly unlikely, thus CPR would be considered medically futile. Yet, in clinical practice, there are no well-established criteria, guidelines or measures to determine futility. We aimed to investigate how medical futility for CPR in adult patients is defined, measured, and associated with do-not-resuscitate (DNR) code status as well as to evaluate the predictive value of clinical risk scores through meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched Embase, PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from the inception of each database up to January 22, 2021. Data were pooled using a fixed-effects model. Data collection and reporting followed the PRISMA guidelines. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies were included in the systematic review and 11 in the meta-analysis. Medical futility defined by risk scores was associated with a significantly higher risk of in-hospital mortality (5 studies, 3102 participants with Pre-Arrest Morbidity (PAM) and Prognosis After Resuscitation (PAR) score; overall RR 3.38 [95% CI 1.92-5.97]) and poor neurologic outcome/in-hospital mortality (6 studies, 115,213 participants with Good Outcome Following Attempted Resuscitation (GO-FAR) and Prediction of Outcome for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (PIHCA) score; RR 6.93 [95% CI 6.43-7.47]). All showed high specificity (>90%) for identifying patients with poor outcome. CONCLUSION: There is no international consensus and a lack of specific definitions of CPR futility in adult patients. Clinical risk scores might aid decision-making when CPR is assumed to be futile. Future studies are needed to assess their clinical value and reliability as a measure of futility regarding CPR.

Neuron-Specific Enolase (NSE) Predicts Long-Term Mortality in Adult Patients after Cardiac Arrest: Results from a Prospective Trial.

BACKGROUND: We investigated whether Neuron-specific enolase (NSE) serum concentration predicts long-term mortality and poor neurological outcome in adult cardiac arrest patients. METHODS: Within this prospective observational study, we included consecutive adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) after cardiac arrest. NSE was measured upon ICU admission and on days 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7. RESULTS: Of 403 patients, 176 (43.7%) survived. Median follow-up duration was 43.7 months (IQR 14.3 to 63.0 months). NSE levels on day 3 were increased more than threefold in non-survivors compared to survivors (median NSE (ng/mL) 19.8 (IQR 15.7 to 27.8) vs. 72.6 (IQR 26 to 194)) and showed the highest prognostic performance for mortality compared to other days of measurement, with an AUC of 0.81 and an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.55 (95% CI 1.41 to 1.71, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis showed an excellent sensitivity and negative predictive value of 100% of NSE in patients <54 years of age. CONCLUSION: NSE measured three days after cardiac arrest is associated with long-term mortality and neurological outcome and may provide prognostic information that improves clinical decision making. Particularly in the subgroup of younger patients (<54 years), NSE showed excellent negative predictive value.

Long COVID 1 year after hospitalisation for COVID-19: a prospective bicentric cohort study.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: There is increasing interest in better understanding of long COVID, a condition characterised by long-term sequelae ­ appearing or persisting after the typical convalescence period ­ of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Herein, we describe long-term outcomes regarding residual symptoms and psychological distress in hospitalised patients 1 year after COVID-19. METHODS: This prospective cohort study included consecutive adult patients hospitalised for confirmed COVID-19 in two Swiss tertiary-care hospitals between March and June 2020. The primary endpoint was evidence of long COVID 1 year after discharge, defined as ≥1 persisting or new symptom related to COVID-19, from a predefined list of symptoms. Secondary endpoints included psychological distress and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). RESULTS: Among 90 patients included in the study, 63 (70%) had symptoms of long COVID 1 year after hospitalisation, particularly fatigue (46%), concentration difficulties (31%), shortness of breath (21%) and post-exertion malaise (20%). Three predictors, namely duration of hospitalisation (odds ratio [OR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00­1.22; p = 0.041), severity of illness (OR 1.19, 95% CI 1.04­1.37; p = 0.013), and self-perceived overall health status 30 days after hospitalisation (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.94­1.00; p = 0.027) were associated with long COVID. Regarding secondary endpoints, 16 (18%) experienced psychological distress and 3 (3.3%) patients had symptoms of PTSD. CONCLUSION: A high proportion of COVID-19 patients report symptoms of long COVID 1 year after hospitalisation, which negatively affects their quality of life. The most important risk factors were severe initial presentation of COVID-19 with long hospital stays.