Lung Donation and Transplant Recipient Outcomes at Independent vs Hospital-Based Donor Care Units.

Importance: Centralizing deceased organ donor management and organ recovery into donor care units (DCUs) may mitigate the critical organ shortage by positively impacting donation and recipient outcomes. Objective: To compare donation and lung transplant outcomes between 2 common DCU models: independent (outside of acute-care hospitals) and hospital-based. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a retrospective cohort study of Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network deceased donor registry and lung transplant recipient files from 21 US donor service areas with an operating DCU. Characteristics and lung donation rates among deceased donors cared for in independent vs hospital-based DCUs were compared. Eligible participants included deceased organ donors (aged 16 years and older) after brain death, who underwent organ recovery procedures between April 26, 2017, and June 30, 2022, and patients who received lung transplants from those donors. Data analysis was conducted from May 2023 to March 2024. Exposure: Organ recovery in an independent DCU (vs hospital-based DCU). Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was duration of transplanted lung survival (through December 31, 2023) among recipients of lung(s) transplanted from cohort donors. A Cox proportional hazards model stratified by transplant year and program, adjusting for donor and recipient characteristics was used to compare graft survival. Results: Of 10 856 donors in the starting sample (mean [SD] age, 42.8 [15.2] years; 6625 male [61.0%] and 4231 female [39.0%]), 5149 (primary comparison group) underwent recovery procedures in DCUs including 1466 (28.4%) in 11 hospital-based DCUs and 3683 (71.5%) in 10 independent DCUs. Unadjusted lung donation rates were higher in DCUs than local hospitals, but lower in hospital-based vs independent DCUs (418 donors [28.5%] vs 1233 donors [33.5%]; P < .001). Among 1657 transplant recipients, 1250 (74.5%) received lung(s) from independent DCUs. Median (range) duration of follow-up after transplant was 734 (0-2292) days. Grafts recovered from independent DCUs had shorter restricted mean (SE) survival times than grafts from hospital-based DCUs (1548 [27] days vs 1665 [50] days; P = .04). After adjustment, graft failure remained higher among lungs recovered from independent DCUs than hospital-based DCUs (hazard ratio, 1.85; 95% CI, 1.28-2.65). Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective analysis of national donor and transplant recipient data, although lung donation rates were higher from deceased organ donors after brain death cared for in independent DCUs, lungs recovered from donors in hospital-based DCUs survived longer. These findings suggest that further work is necessary to understand which factors (eg, donor transfer, management, or lung evaluation and acceptance practices) differ between DCU models and may contribute to these differences.

Characterizing proximity and transfers of deceased organ donors to donor care units in the United States.

Some United States organ procurement organizations transfer deceased organ donors to donor care units (DCUs) for recovery procedures. We used Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network data, from April 2017 to June 2021, to describe the proximity of adult deceased donors after brain death to DCUs and understand the impact of donor service area (DSA) boundaries on transfer efficiency. Among 19 109 donors (56.1% of the cohort) in 25 DSAs with DCUs, a majority (14 593 [76.4%]) were in hospitals within a 2-hour drive. In areas with DCUs detectable in the study data set, a minority of donors (3582 of 11 532 [31.1%]) were transferred to a DCU; transfer rates varied between DSAs (median, 27.7%, range, 4.0%-96.5%). Median hospital-to-DCU driving times were not meaningfully shorter among transferred donors (50 vs 51 minutes for not transferred, P < .001). When DSA boundaries were ignored, 3241 cohort donors (9.5%) without current DCU access were managed in hospitals within 2 hours of a DCU and thus potentially eligible for transfer. In summary, approximately half of United States deceased donors after brain death are managed in hospitals in DSAs with a DCU. Transfer of donors between DSAs may increase DCU utilization and improve system efficiency.

Factors Influencing the Implementation of Prone Positioning during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study.

Rationale: The adoption of prone positioning for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has historically been poor. However, in mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) ARDS, proning has increased. Understanding the factors influencing this change is important for further expanding and sustaining the use of prone positioning in appropriate clinical settings. Objectives: To characterize factors influencing the implementation of prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS. Methods: We conducted a qualitative study using semistructured interviews with 40 intensive care unit (ICU) team members (physicians, nurses, advanced practice providers, respiratory therapists, and physical therapists) working at two academic hospitals. We used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, a widely used implementation science framework outlining important features of implementation, to structure the interview guide and thematic analysis of interviews. Results: ICU clinicians reported that during the COVID-19 pandemic, proning was viewed as standard early therapy for COVID-19 ARDS rather than salvage therapy for refractory hypoxemia. By caring for large volumes of proned patients, clinicians gained increased comfort with proning and now view proning as a low-risk, high-benefit intervention. Within ICUs, adequate numbers of trained staff members, increased team agreement around proning, and the availability of specific equipment (e.g., to limit pressure injuries) facilitated greater proning use. Hospital-level supports included proning teams, centralized educational resources specific to the management of COVID-19 (including a recommendation for prone positioning), and an electronic medical record proning order. Important implementation processes included informal dissemination of best practices through on-the-job learning and team interactions during routine bedside care. Conclusions: The implementation of prone positioning for COVID-19 ARDS took place in the context of evolving clinician viewpoints and ICU team cultures. Proning was facilitated by hospital support and buy-in and leadership from bedside clinicians. The successful implementation of prone positioning during the COVID-19 pandemic may serve as a model for the implementation of other evidence-based therapies in critical care.

Comparing Prone Positioning Use in COVID-19 Versus Historic Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Use of prone positioning in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from COVID-19 may be greater than in patients treated for ARDS before the pandemic. However, the magnitude of this increase, sources of practice variation, and the extent to which use adheres to guidelines is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To compare prone positioning practices in patients with COVID-19 ARDS versus ARDS treated before the pandemic. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of mechanically ventilated patients with early moderate-to-severe ARDS from COVID-19 (2020-2021) or ARDS from non-COVID-19 pneumonia (2018-2019) across 19 ICUs at five hospitals in Maryland. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was initiation of prolonged prone positioning (≥ 16 hr) within 48 hours of meeting oxygenation criteria. Comparisons were made between cohorts and within subgroups including academic versus community hospitals, and medical versus nonmedical ICUs. Other outcomes of interest included time to proning initiation, duration of prone sessions and temporal trends in proning frequency. RESULTS: Proning was initiated within 48 hours in 227 of 389 patients (58.4%) with COVID-19 and 11 of 123 patients (8.9%) with historic ARDS (49.4% absolute increase [95% CI for % increase, 41.7-57.1%]). Comparing COVID-19 to historic ARDS, increases in proning were similar in academic and community settings but were larger in medical versus nonmedical ICUs. Proning was initiated earlier in COVID-19 versus historic ARDS (median hours (hr) from oxygenation criteria, 12.9 vs 30.6; p = 0.002) and proning sessions were longer (median hr, 43.0 vs 28.0; p = 0.01). Proning frequency increased rapidly at the beginning of the pandemic and was sustained. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We observed greater overall use of prone positioning, along with shorter time to initiation and longer proning sessions in ARDS from COVID-19 versus historic ARDS. This rapid practice change can serve as a model for implementing evidence-based practices in critical care.

Understanding irresponsible use of intensive care unit resources in the USA.

Use of intensive care unit (ICU) resources in the USA far outpaces that of other countries. This increased use is not accompanied by superior clinical outcomes and is at times discordant with patient desires. This Series paper seeks to identify major drivers of ICU resource use in the USA, and to offer steps towards better aligning ICU resource use with clinical needs and patient preferences. After considering several factors, such as organisational, ethical, and economic factors, we suggest that there are four intersecting drivers of irresponsible use of ICU resources in the USA: first, excess ICU bed capacity and a scarcity of data to understand which patients that truly benefit from ICU compared with ward care; second, clinicians misinterpreting the goals and means of patient autonomy; third, an extreme fear of rationing by the general public; and fourth, fee-for-service driven use of advanced medical technologies and procedures that beget ICU expansion.

Google Glass Video Capture of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Events: A Pilot Simulation Study.

BACKGROUND: Video recording of resuscitation from fixed camera locations has been used to assess adherence to guidelines and provide feedback on performance. However, inpatient cardiac arrests often happen in unpredictable locations and crowded rooms, making video recording of these events problematic. OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand the feasibility of Google Glass (GG) as a method for recording inpatient cardiac arrests and capturing salient resuscitation factors for post-event review. METHODS: This observational study involved recording simulated cardiac arrest events on inpatient medical wards. Each simulation was reviewed by 3 methods: in-room physician direct observation, stationary video camera (SVC), and GG. Nurse and physician specialists analyzed the videos for global visibility and audibility, as well as recording quality of predefined resuscitation events and behaviors. Resident code leaders were surveyed regarding attitudes toward GG use in the clinical emergency setting. RESULTS: Of 11 simulated cardiac arrest events, 9 were successfully recorded by all observation methods (1 GG failure, 1 SVC failure). GG was judged slightly better than SVC recording for average global visualization (3.95 versus 3.15, P = .0003) and average global audibility (4.77 versus 4.42, P = .002). Of the GG videos, 19% had limitations in overall interpretability compared with 35% of SVC recordings (P = .039). All 10 survey respondents agreed that GG was easy to use; however, 2 found it distracting and 3 were uncomfortable with future use during actual resuscitations. CONCLUSIONS: GG is a feasible and acceptable method for capturing simulated resuscitation events in the inpatient setting.