Oxygen-Saturation Targets for Critically Ill Adults Receiving Mechanical Ventilation.

BACKGROUND: Invasive mechanical ventilation in critically ill adults involves adjusting the fraction of inspired oxygen to maintain arterial oxygen saturation. The oxygen-saturation target that will optimize clinical outcomes in this patient population remains unknown. METHODS: In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, cluster-crossover trial conducted in the emergency department and medical intensive care unit at an academic center, we assigned adults who were receiving mechanical ventilation to a lower target for oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry (Spo2) (90%; goal range, 88 to 92%), an intermediate target (94%; goal range, 92 to 96%), or a higher target (98%; goal range, 96 to 100%). The primary outcome was the number of days alive and free of mechanical ventilation (ventilator-free days) through day 28. The secondary outcome was death by day 28, with data censored at hospital discharge. RESULTS: A total of 2541 patients were included in the primary analysis. The median number of ventilator-free days was 20 (interquartile range, 0 to 25) in the lower-target group, 21 (interquartile range, 0 to 25) in the intermediate-target group, and 21 (interquartile range, 0 to 26) in the higher-target group (P = 0.81). In-hospital death by day 28 occurred in 281 of the 808 patients (34.8%) in the lower-target group, 292 of the 859 patients (34.0%) in the intermediate-target group, and 290 of the 874 patients (33.2%) in the higher-target group. The incidences of cardiac arrest, arrhythmia, myocardial infarction, stroke, and pneumothorax were similar in the three groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill adults receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, the number of ventilator-free days did not differ among groups in which a lower, intermediate, or higher Spo2 target was used. (Supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and others; PILOT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03537937.).

Dexmedetomidine or Propofol for Sedation in Mechanically Ventilated Adults with Sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines currently recommend targeting light sedation with dexmedetomidine or propofol for adults receiving mechanical ventilation. Differences exist between these sedatives in arousability, immunity, and inflammation. Whether they affect outcomes differentially in mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis undergoing light sedation is unknown. METHODS: In a multicenter, double-blind trial, we randomly assigned mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis to receive dexmedetomidine (0.2 to 1.5 µg per kilogram of body weight per hour) or propofol (5 to 50 µg per kilogram per minute), with doses adjusted by bedside nurses to achieve target sedation goals set by clinicians according to the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS, on which scores range from -5 [unresponsive] to +4 [combative]). The primary end point was days alive without delirium or coma during the 14-day intervention period. Secondary end points were ventilator-free days at 28 days, death at 90 days, and age-adjusted total score on the Telephone Interview for Cognitive Status questionnaire (TICS-T; scores range from 0 to 100, with a mean of 50±10 and lower scores indicating worse cognition) at 6 months. RESULTS: Of 432 patients who underwent randomization, 422 were assigned to receive a trial drug and were included in the analyses - 214 patients received dexmedetomidine at a median dose of 0.27 µg per kilogram per hour, and 208 received propofol at a median dose of 10.21 µg per kilogram per minute. The median duration of receipt of the trial drugs was 3.0 days (interquartile range, 2.0 to 6.0), and the median RASS score was -2.0 (interquartile range, -3.0 to -1.0). We found no difference between dexmedetomidine and propofol in the number of days alive without delirium or coma (adjusted median, 10.7 vs. 10.8 days; odds ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 1.26), ventilator-free days (adjusted median, 23.7 vs. 24.0 days; odds ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.51), death at 90 days (38% vs. 39%; hazard ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.74 to 1.52), or TICS-T score at 6 months (adjusted median score, 40.9 vs. 41.4; odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.33). Safety end points were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among mechanically ventilated adults with sepsis who were being treated with recommended light-sedation approaches, outcomes in patients who received dexmedetomidine did not differ from outcomes in those who received propofol. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01739933.).

Physical and Chemical Compatibility of Medications Commonly Used in Critically Ill Patients With Balanced Crystalloids: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate available evidence of physical and/or chemical compatibility of commonly used medications in critically ill patients with balanced crystalloids. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were queried from inception to September 2022. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. English-language studies reporting physical and/or chemical compatibility data between 50 selected medications and balanced crystalloids were included. A previously designed tool to assess risk of bias was adapted for use. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-nine studies encompassing 39 (78%) medications and 188 unique combinations with balanced crystalloids were included. Combinations included 35 (70%) medications with lactated Ringer's, 26 (52%) medications with Plasma-Lyte, 10 (20%) medications with Normosol, and one (2%) medication with Isolyte. Studies commonly evaluated physical and chemical compatibility (55.2%). More medications were evaluated via Y-site than admixture. Incompatibilities were identified in 18% of combinations comprising 13 individual drugs. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: This systematic review evaluates the compatibility of select critical care medications with balanced crystalloid solutions. Results may be used as a tool to guide clinicians on balanced crystalloid compatibility, potentially increasing ubiquitous use and reducing patient exposure to normal saline. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Data are limited regarding chemical/physical compatibility of commonly used medications in critically ill patients with balanced crystalloids. Additional compatibility studies are warranted, particularly methodologically rigorous studies assessing Plasma-Lyte, Normosol, and Isolyte. Of the evaluated medications, there was a low frequency of incompatibilities with balanced crystalloids.

Correlation of the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool and Numeric Rating Scale in Intensive Care Unit Patients.

PURPOSE: We sought to determine the correlation between the Numeric Rating Scale (NRS) and Critical-Care Pain Observation Tool (CPOT) to determine whether clinical factors modified the relationship between NRS and CPOT assessments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included nonventilated adults admitted to the MICU or SICU who could self-report pain and had at least 3 paired NRS and CPOT assessments. We performed Spearman correlation to assess overall correlation and performed proportional odds logistic regression to evaluate whether the relationship between NRS and CPOT assessments was modified by clinical factors. RESULTS: Nursing staff performed NRS and CPOT assessments every 4 h in 1302 patients, leading to 61,142 matched assessments. We found that the NRS and CPOT have a Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.56 and an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.32 in intensive care unit patients. Factors that modified the relationship between the NRS and CPOT included the presence of delirium (P < .001) and lower mean daily Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The correlation coefficient between the NRS and the CPOT was found to be 0.56. The presence of delirium, decreased level of arousal, modified the relationship between the NRS and CPOT. Self-reported and behavioral pain assessments cannot be used interchangeably in critically ill adults.

Prescription of potentially inappropriate medications after an intensive care unit stay for acute respiratory failure.

BACKGROUND: Among survivors of critical illness, prescription of potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) at hospital discharge is thought to be an important, modifiable patient safety concern. To date, there are little empirical data evaluating this issue. RESEARCH QUESTION: The objective of this study was to determine the frequency of PIM prescribed to survivors of acute respiratory failure (ARF) at hospital discharge and explore their association with readmissions or death within 90 days of hospital discharge. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Prospective multicenter cohort study of ARF survivors admitted to ICUs and discharged home. Prospective of new PIMs with a high-adverse-effect profile ("high impact") at discharge was the primary exposure. Potential inappropriateness was determined by a structured consensus process using Screening Tool of Older Persons' Prescriptions-Screening Tool to Alert to Right Treatment, Beers' criteria, and clinical context of prescriptions by a multidisciplinary team. Covariate balancing propensity score was used for the primary analysis. RESULTS: Of the 195 Addressing Post Intensive Care Syndrome-01 (APICS-01) patients, 169 (87%) had ≥1 new medications prescribed at discharge, with 154 (91.1%) prescribed with one or more high-impact (HI) medications. Patients were prescribed a median of 5 [3-7] medications, of which 3 [1-4] were HI. Twenty percent of HI medications were potentially inappropriate. Medications with significant central nervous system side-effects were most prescribed potentially inappropriately. Forty-six (30%) patients experienced readmission or death within 90 days of hospital discharge. After adjusting for prespecified covariates, the association between prescription of potentially inappropriate HI medications and the composite primary outcome did not meet the prespecified threshold for statistical significance (risk ratio: 0.54; 0.26-1.13; p = 0.095) or with the constituent endpoints: readmission (risk ratio: 0.57, 0.27-1.11) or death (0.7, 0.05-9.32). CONCLUSION: At hospital discharge, most ARF survivors are prescribed medications with a high-adverse-effect profile and approximately one-fifth are potentially inappropriate. Although prescription of such medications was not associated with 90-day readmissions and mortality, these results highlight an area for additional investigation.

Effect of Inpatient Pharmacist-Led Medication Reconciliations on Medication-Related Interventions in Intensive Care Unit Recovery Centers.

Background: Critical care pharmacists complete comprehensive medication reviews in Post Intensive Care Syndrome (PICS) patients at Intensive Care Unit Recovery Centers (ICU-RCs) to optimize medication therapies after hospital discharge. Inpatient pharmacists often complete medication reconciliations prior to hospital discharge, which could affect interventions at an ICU-RC. However, this association remains ill-described. Objective: The purpose of this study was to, in patients with PICS, describe the effect of an inpatient, pharmacist-led medication reconciliation on the number of clinical pharmacist interventions at the first ICU-RC visit. Methods: This was a post-hoc subgroup analysis of an international, multicenter cohort study of adults who had a pharmacist-led comprehensive medication reconciliation conducted in 12 ICU-RCs. Only patients' first ICU-RC visit was eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was the number of medication interventions made at initial ICU-RC visit in PICS patients who had an inpatient, pharmacist-led medication reconciliation compared to those who did not. Results: Of 323 patients included, 83 received inpatient medication reconciliations and 240 did not. No difference was observed in the median number of medication interventions between groups (2 vs 2, p = .06). However, a higher incidence of any intervention (86.3% vs 78.3%, p = .09) and dose adjustment (20.4% vs 9.6%; p = .03) was observed in the no medication reconciliation group. Only ICU Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was associated with an increased odds of medication intervention at ICU-RC visit (aOR 1.15, 95% CI 1.05-1.25, p < .01). Conclusion and Relevance: No difference in the total number of medication interventions made by ICU-RC clinical pharmacists was observed in patients who received an inpatient, pharmacist-led medication reconciliation before hospital discharge compared to those who did not. Still, clinical observations within this study highlight the continued importance and study of clinical pharmacist involvement during transitions of care, including ICU-RC visits.

Identifying Predictors of Extubation on the day of Passing an SBT in Critically ill Adults.

INTRODUCTION: Many patients who pass a spontaneous awakening trial (SAT) and spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) do not undergo extubation that day. We aimed to identify predictors of extubation on the day of passing an SBT and to develop prediction models for extubation among mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: In a cohort of mechanically ventilated patients who had passed an SBT in a single, academic medical intensive care unit (ICU) from 2018 to 2019, we developed a logistic regression model for identifying predictors of extubation. RESULTS: Of 745 patients in our study, 77% were extubated the day they passed a SBT. Independent predictors of extubation included higher Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) (-2 compared to -4: odds ratio (OR) 1.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.56 to 2.14), receipt of sedation on the day prior (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.63 to 2.74), absence of diagnosis of sepsis or septic shock (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.59 to 1), absence of neurological illness (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.96), indication for intubation of altered mental status, seizure, or agitation (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.65), and absence of hemodynamic instability or cardiac arrest (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.95). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Patients on mechanical ventilation were more likely to be extubated on the day they passed an SBT if they had higher RASS scores, received sedation the day prior, or did not have diagnosis of sepsis, neurological illness, or hemodynamic instability. Future research should attempt to identify and address modifiable risk factors for failure to extubate after passing an SBT.

Comparison of SAT and SBT Conduct During the ABC Trial and PILOT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of the "B" element-both spontaneous awakening trials (SATs) and spontaneous breathing trials (SBTs)-of the ABCDEF bundle improves the outcomes for mechanically ventilated patients. In 2021, the Pragmatic Investigation of optimal Oxygen Targets (PILOT) trial investigating optimal oxygenation targets in patients on mechanical ventilation was completed. OBJECTIVES: To compare SAT and SBT conduct between a randomized controlled trial and current clinical care. METHODS: The 2008 Awakening and Breathing Controlled (ABC) Trial (2003-2006) randomized mechanically ventilated patients to paired SATs and SBTs versus sedation per usual care plus SBTs. The PILOT trial (2018-2021) enrolled patients years later where SAT + SBT conduct was observed. We compared SAT and SBT conduct in ABC's interventional group (SAT + SBT; n = 167, 1140 patient days) to that in PILOT (n = 2083, 8355 patient days). RESULTS: Spontaneous awakening trial safety screens were done in all 1140 ABC patient-days on sedation and/or analgesia and in 3889 of 4228 (92%) in PILOT. Spontaneous awakening trial safety screens were passed in 939 of 1140 (82%) instances in ABC versus only 1897 of 3889 (49%) in PILOT. Interestingly, SAT was performed in ≥95% of passed SAT safety screens in both trials and was passed in 837 of 895 (94%) in ABC versus 1145 of 1867 (61%) in PILOT. SBT safety screens were performed in all 983 ABC instances and 8031 of 8370 (96%) in PILOT. SBT safety screens were passed in 647 of 983 (66%) in ABC versus 4475 of 8031 (56%) in PILOT. Spontaneous breathing trial was performed in ≥93% of passed SBT safety screens in both trials and was passed in 319 of 603 (53%) in ABC versus 3337 of 4454 (75%) in PILOT. CONCLUSION: This study compared SAT/SBT conduction in an ideal setting to real-world practice, 13 years later. Performance of SAT/SBT safety screens, SATs, and SBTs between a definitive clinical trial (ABC) as compared to current clinical care (PILOT) remained high.

Piperacillin-Tazobactam Versus Anti-Pseudomonal Cephalosporins and Renal and Neurologic Outcomes in Critically Ill Adults: A Secondary Analysis of the SMART Trial.

Background: Prior studies suggest associations between receipt of piperacillin-tazobactam and development of acute kidney injury and receipt of anti-pseudomonal cephalosporins and neurotoxicity. We compared clinically-relevant renal and neurologic outcomes in critically ill patients who received piperacillin-tazobactam versus anti-pseudomonal cephalosporins. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from the Isotonic Solutions and Major Adverse Renal Events Trial examining patients who received piperacillin-tazobactam or an anti-pseudomonal cephalosporin within 24 h of intensive care unit admission. We performed multivariable analysis using a proportional odds model to examine the association between the first antibiotic received and the outcomes of Major Adverse Kidney Events within 30 days (MAKE30) and days alive and free of delirium and coma to day 28. Results: 3199 were included in the study; 2375 (74%) receiving piperacillin-tazobactam and 824 (26%) receiving anti-pseudomonal cephalosporin. After adjustment for prespecified confounders, initial receipt of piperacillin-tazobactam, compared to anti-pseudomonal cephalosporins, was not associated with higher incidence of MAKE30 (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.83-1.27; P = .80) but was associated with a greater number of days alive and free of delirium and coma (adjusted odds ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.00-1.38; P = .04). In a sensitivity analysis adjusting for baseline receipt of medications which may impact neuro function, this finding was not significant. Conclusion: Among critically ill adults, receipt of piperacillin-tazobactam was not associated with an increased incidence of death, renal replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction or a greater number of days alive and free of delirium and coma. Randomized trials are needed to inform the choice of antibiotics for empiric treatment infection in critically ill adults.

Quantifying Critical Care Pharmacist Interventions in COVID-19.

Purpose/Background: Pharmacists have been shown to play an important role in the medication management of critically ill patients. Pharmacist interventions in the care of critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have not been quantitatively described. Methodology: A single center, retrospective, observational study was conducted at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, Tennessee. All adult patients admitted to the COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) or Medical ICU with a COVID-19 diagnosis between March 1, 2020, and June 30, 2021, were included. All interventions made by pharmacists were documented electronically, collected, categorized, and analyzed. The primary outcome of this study was the median number of interventions by pharmacists per patient. The secondary outcome was the number of different types of interventions performed. Results: A total of 768 patients were included in the analysis. The median age was 63 years old; 63% of patients were male and 71% were Caucasian. Median hospital length of stay (LOS) was 12 days (interquartile range (IQR) 7-21) and ICU LOS was 5 days (IQR 1-11). The median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score was 4 (IQR 2-7) and Charlson Comorbidity Index was 3 (IQR 2-5). Mortality at 60 days occurred in 352 patients (46%). Pharmacists performed a total of 7027 interventions for 655 patients with a median number of pharmacist interventions per patient of 6 (IQR 3-14). The most common pharmacist interventions were medication discontinuation (24%), completion of components of the ICU liberation bundle (19%), medication dose adjustment (18%), therapeutic drug monitoring (15%), and medication initiation (10%). Conclusions: Pharmacists made multiple interventions related to medication use and management in critically ill patients with COVID-19. This study adds important information of the evolving role clinical pharmacists play in the care of critical illness, specifically during the COVID-19 pandemic.

An International, Multicenter Evaluation of Comprehensive Medication Management by Pharmacists in ICU Recovery Centers.

BACKGROUND: Post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) is defined as a new or worsening impairment in physical, cognitive, or mental health following critical illness. Intensive care unit recovery centers (ICU-RC) are one means to treat patients who have PICS. The purpose of this study is to describe the role of pharmacists in ICU-RCs. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the number and type of medication interventions made by a pharmacist at an ICU-RC at 12 different centers? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This prospective, observational study was conducted in 12 intensive care units (ICUs)/ICU-RCs between September 2019 and July 2021. A full medication review was conducted by a pharmacist on patients seen at the ICU-RC. RESULTS: 507 patients were referred to the ICU-RC. Of these patients, 474 attended the ICU-RC and 472 had a full medication review performed by a pharmacist. Baseline demographic and hospital course data were obtained from the electronic health record and at the ICU-RC appointment. Pharmacy interventions were made in 397 (84%) patients. The median number of pharmacy interventions per patient was 2 (interquartile range [IQR] = 1,3). Medications were stopped and started in 124 (26%) and 91 (19%) patients, respectively. The number of patients that had a dose decreased and a dose increased was 51 (11%) and 43 (9%), respectively. There was no difference in the median total number of medications that the patient was prescribed at the start and end of the patient visit (10, IQR = 5, 15). Adverse drug event (ADE) preventive measures were implemented in 115 (24%) patients. ADE events were identified in 69 (15%) patients. Medication interactions were identified in 30 (6%) patients. INTERPRETATION: A pharmacist plays an integral role in an ICU-RC resulting in the identification, prevention, and treatment of medication-related problems. This paper should serve as a call to action on the importance of the inclusion of a pharmacist in ICU-RC clinics.

Cefepime vs Piperacillin-Tazobactam in Adults Hospitalized With Acute Infection: The ACORN Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam are commonly administered to hospitalized adults for empirical treatment of infection. Although piperacillin-tazobactam has been hypothesized to cause acute kidney injury and cefepime has been hypothesized to cause neurological dysfunction, their comparative safety has not been evaluated in a randomized clinical trial. Objective: To determine whether the choice between cefepime and piperacillin-tazobactam affects the risks of acute kidney injury or neurological dysfunction. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Antibiotic Choice on Renal Outcomes (ACORN) randomized clinical trial compared cefepime vs piperacillin-tazobactam in adults for whom a clinician initiated an order for antipseudomonal antibiotics within 12 hours of presentation to the hospital in the emergency department or medical intensive care unit at an academic medical center in the US between November 10, 2021, and October 7, 2022. The final date of follow-up was November 4, 2022. Interventions: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to cefepime or piperacillin-tazobactam. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the highest stage of acute kidney injury or death by day 14, measured on a 5-level ordinal scale ranging from no acute kidney injury to death. The 2 secondary outcomes were the incidence of major adverse kidney events at day 14 and the number of days alive and free of delirium and coma within 14 days. Results: There were 2511 patients included in the primary analysis (median age, 58 years [IQR, 43-69 years]; 42.7% were female; 16.3% were Non-Hispanic Black; 5.4% were Hispanic; 94.7% were enrolled in the emergency department; and 77.2% were receiving vancomycin at enrollment). The highest stage of acute kidney injury or death was not significantly different between the cefepime group and the piperacillin-tazobactam group; there were 85 patients (n = 1214; 7.0%) in the cefepime group with stage 3 acute kidney injury and 92 (7.6%) who died vs 97 patients (n = 1297; 7.5%) in the piperacillin-tazobactam group with stage 3 acute kidney injury and 78 (6.0%) who died (odds ratio, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.80 to 1.13], P = .56). The incidence of major adverse kidney events at day 14 did not differ between groups (124 patients [10.2%] in the cefepime group vs 114 patients [8.8%] in the piperacillin-tazobactam group; absolute difference, 1.4% [95% CI, -1.0% to 3.8%]). Patients in the cefepime group experienced fewer days alive and free of delirium and coma within 14 days (mean [SD], 11.9 [4.6] days vs 12.2 [4.3] days in the piperacillin-tazobactam group; odds ratio, 0.79 [95% CI, 0.65 to 0.95]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among hospitalized adults in this randomized clinical trial, treatment with piperacillin-tazobactam did not increase the incidence of acute kidney injury or death. Treatment with cefepime resulted in more neurological dysfunction. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05094154.

Medication Changes and Diagnosis of New Chronic Illnesses in COVID-19 Intensive Care Unit Survivors.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is limited literature on the impact of the COVID-19 infection on medications and medical conditions in COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) survivors. Our study is, to our knowledge, the first multicenter study to describe the prevalence of new medical conditions and medication changes at hospital discharge in COVID-19 ICU survivors. OBJECTIVE: To determine the number of medical conditions and medications at hospital admission compared to at hospital discharge in COVID-19 ICU survivors. METHODS: Retrospective multicenter observational study (7 ICUs) evaluated new medical conditions and medication changes at hospital discharge in patients with COVID-19 infection admitted to an ICU between March 1, 2020, to March 1, 2021. Patient and hospital characteristics, baseline and hospital discharge medication and medical conditions, ICU and hospital length of stay, and Charlson comorbidity index were collected. Descriptive statistics were used to describe patient characteristics and number and type of medical conditions and medications. Paired t-test was used to compare number of medical conditions and medications from hospital discharge to admission. RESULTS: Of the 973 COVID-19 ICU survivors, 67.4% had at least one new medical condition and 88.2% had at least one medication change. Median number of medical conditions (increased from 3 to 4, P < .0001) and medications (increased from 5 to 8, P < .0001) increased from admission to discharge. Most common new medical conditions at discharge were pulmonary disorders, venous thromboembolism, psychiatric disorders, infection, and diabetes. Most common therapeutic categories associated with medication change were cardiology, gastroenterology, pain, hematology, and endocrinology. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Our study found that the number of medical conditions and medications increased from hospital admission to discharge. Our results provide additional data to help guide providers on using targeted approaches to manage medications and diseases in COVID-19 ICU survivors after hospital discharge.

Research Needs for Inpatient Management of Severe Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome: An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

Background: Severe alcohol withdrawal syndrome (SAWS) is highly morbid, costly, and common among hospitalized patients, yet minimal evidence exists to guide inpatient management. Research needs in this field are broad, spanning the translational science spectrum. Goals: This research statement aims to describe what is known about SAWS, identify knowledge gaps, and offer recommendations for research in each domain of the Institute of Medicine T0-T4 continuum to advance the care of hospitalized patients who experience SAWS. Methods: Clinicians and researchers with unique and complementary expertise in basic, clinical, and implementation research related to unhealthy alcohol consumption and alcohol withdrawal were invited to participate in a workshop at the American Thoracic Society 2019 International Conference. The committee was subdivided into four groups on the basis of interest and expertise: T0-T1 (basic science research with translation to humans), T2 (research translating to patients), T3 (research translating to clinical practice), and T4 (research translating to communities). A medical librarian conducted a pragmatic literature search to facilitate this work, and committee members reviewed and supplemented the resulting evidence, identifying key knowledge gaps. Results: The committee identified several investigative opportunities to advance the care of patients with SAWS in each domain of the translational science spectrum. Major themes included 1) the need to investigate non-γ-aminobutyric acid pathways for alcohol withdrawal syndrome treatment; 2) harnessing retrospective and electronic health record data to identify risk factors and create objective severity scoring systems, particularly for acutely ill patients with SAWS; 3) the need for more robust comparative-effectiveness data to identify optimal SAWS treatment strategies; and 4) recommendations to accelerate implementation of effective treatments into practice. Conclusions: The dearth of evidence supporting management decisions for hospitalized patients with SAWS, many of whom require critical care, represents both a call to action and an opportunity for the American Thoracic Society and larger scientific communities to improve care for a vulnerable patient population. This report highlights basic, clinical, and implementation research that diverse experts agree will have the greatest impact on improving care for hospitalized patients with SAWS.

Balanced Crystalloids versus Saline in Critically Ill Adults.

BACKGROUND: Both balanced crystalloids and saline are used for intravenous fluid administration in critically ill adults, but it is not known which results in better clinical outcomes. METHODS: In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, multiple-crossover trial conducted in five intensive care units at an academic center, we assigned 15,802 adults to receive saline (0.9% sodium chloride) or balanced crystalloids (lactated Ringer's solution or Plasma-Lyte A) according to the randomization of the unit to which they were admitted. The primary outcome was a major adverse kidney event within 30 days - a composite of death from any cause, new renal-replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction (defined as an elevation of the creatinine level to ≥200% of baseline) - all censored at hospital discharge or 30 days, whichever occurred first. RESULTS: Among the 7942 patients in the balanced-crystalloids group, 1139 (14.3%) had a major adverse kidney event, as compared with 1211 of 7860 patients (15.4%) in the saline group (marginal odds ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 0.99; conditional odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.82 to 0.99; P=0.04). In-hospital mortality at 30 days was 10.3% in the balanced-crystalloids group and 11.1% in the saline group (P=0.06). The incidence of new renal-replacement therapy was 2.5% and 2.9%, respectively (P=0.08), and the incidence of persistent renal dysfunction was 6.4% and 6.6%, respectively (P=0.60). CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill adults, the use of balanced crystalloids for intravenous fluid administration resulted in a lower rate of the composite outcome of death from any cause, new renal-replacement therapy, or persistent renal dysfunction than the use of saline. (Funded by the Vanderbilt Institute for Clinical and Translational Research and others; SMART-MED and SMART-SURG ClinicalTrials.gov numbers, NCT02444988 and NCT02547779 .).

Haloperidol and Ziprasidone for Treatment of Delirium in Critical Illness.

BACKGROUND: There are conflicting data on the effects of antipsychotic medications on delirium in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium to receive intravenous boluses of haloperidol (maximum dose, 20 mg daily), ziprasidone (maximum dose, 40 mg daily), or placebo. The volume and dose of a trial drug or placebo was halved or doubled at 12-hour intervals on the basis of the presence or absence of delirium, as detected with the use of the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU, and of side effects of the intervention. The primary end point was the number of days alive without delirium or coma during the 14-day intervention period. Secondary end points included 30-day and 90-day survival, time to freedom from mechanical ventilation, and time to ICU and hospital discharge. Safety end points included extrapyramidal symptoms and excessive sedation. RESULTS: Written informed consent was obtained from 1183 patients or their authorized representatives. Delirium developed in 566 patients (48%), of whom 89% had hypoactive delirium and 11% had hyperactive delirium. Of the 566 patients, 184 were randomly assigned to receive placebo, 192 to receive haloperidol, and 190 to receive ziprasidone. The median duration of exposure to a trial drug or placebo was 4 days (interquartile range, 3 to 7). The median number of days alive without delirium or coma was 8.5 (95% confidence interval [CI], 5.6 to 9.9) in the placebo group, 7.9 (95% CI, 4.4 to 9.6) in the haloperidol group, and 8.7 (95% CI, 5.9 to 10.0) in the ziprasidone group (P=0.26 for overall effect across trial groups). The use of haloperidol or ziprasidone, as compared with placebo, had no significant effect on the primary end point (odds ratios, 0.88 [95% CI, 0.64 to 1.21] and 1.04 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.48], respectively). There were no significant between-group differences with respect to the secondary end points or the frequency of extrapyramidal symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: The use of haloperidol or ziprasidone, as compared with placebo, in patients with acute respiratory failure or shock and hypoactive or hyperactive delirium in the ICU did not significantly alter the duration of delirium. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the VA Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center; MIND-USA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01211522 .).

Time to First Culture Positivity for Gram-Negative Rods Resistant to Ceftriaxone in Critically Ill Adults.

BACKGROUND: The optimal timing for the de-escalation of broad-spectrum antibiotics with activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and resistant Gram-negative rods (GNRs) in critically ill adults remains unknown. RESEARCH QUESTION: We tested the hypothesis that cultures will identify GNRs that ultimately demonstrate resistance to ceftriaxone within 48 hours, potentially allowing safe de-escalation at this time point. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from the Isotonic Solutions and Major Adverse Renal Events Trial: a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, multiple-crossover trial comparing balanced crystalloids versus saline for intravenous fluid administration in 15,802 critically ill adults at 5 intensive care units (ICUs) at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, TN, USA. The primary endpoint was the time-to-positivity of respiratory and blood cultures that ultimately demonstrated growth of GNRs resistant to ceftriaxone. Multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to examine risk factors for the growth of cultures after 48 hours. RESULTS: A total of 524 respiratory cultures had growth of GNRs, of which 284 (54.2%) had resistance to ceftriaxone. A total of 376 blood cultures grew GNRs, of which 70 (18.6%) had resistance to ceftriaxone. At 48 hours, 87% of respiratory cultures and 85% of blood cultures that ultimately grew GNRs resistant to ceftriaxone had demonstrated growth. Age, gender, predicted risk of inpatient mortality and prior use of antibiotics did not predict the growth of cultures after 48 hours. INTERPRETATION: Among a cohort of critically ill adults, 13% of respiratory cultures and 15% of blood cultures that ultimately grew GNRs resistant to ceftriaxone did not demonstrate growth until at least 48 hours after collection. Further work is needed to determine the ideal time for critically ill adults to de-escalate from broad-spectrum antibiotics targeting Pseudomonas aeruginosa and extended-spectrum ß-lactamase-producing gram-negative pathogens.

Pharmacologic Management of Intensive Care Unit Delirium: Clinical Prescribing Practices and Outcomes in More Than 8500 Patient Encounters.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacologic agents are frequently utilized for management of intensive care unit (ICU) delirium, yet prescribing patterns and impact of medication choices on patient outcomes are poorly described. We sought to describe prescribing practices for management of ICU delirium and investigate the independent association of medication choice on key in-hospital outcomes including delirium resolution, in-hospital mortality, and days alive and free of the ICU or hospital. METHODS: A retrospective study of delirious adult ICU patients at a tertiary academic medical center. Data were obtained regarding daily mental status (normal, delirious, and comatose), pharmacologic treatment, hospital course, and survival via electronic health record. Daily transition models were constructed to assess the independent association of previous day mental status and medication administration on mental status the following day and in-hospital mortality, after adjusting for prespecified covariates. Linear regression models investigated the association of medication administration on days alive and free of the ICU or the hospital during the first 30 days after ICU admission. RESULTS: We identified 8591 encounters of ICU delirium. Half (45.6%) of patients received pharmacologic treatment for delirium, including 45.4% receiving antipsychotics, 2.2% guanfacine, and 0.84% valproic acid. Median highest Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score was 1 (0, 1) in patients initiated on medications and 0 (-1, 0) for nonrecipients. Haloperidol, olanzapine, and quetiapine comprised >97% of antipsychotics utilized with 48% receiving 2 or more and 20.6% continued on antipsychotic medications at hospital discharge. Haloperidol and olanzapine were associated with greater odds of continued delirium (odds ratio [OR], 1.48; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.30-1.65; P < .001 and OR, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.20-1.56; P = .003, respectively) and increased hazard of in-hospital mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.46; 95% CI, 1.10-1.93; P = .01 and HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.14-2.45; P = .01, respectively) while quetiapine showed a decreased hazard of in-hospital mortality (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.40-0.84; P = .01). Haloperidol, olanzapine, and quetiapine were associated with fewer days alive and free of hospitalization (all P < .001). There was no significant association of any antipsychotic medication with days alive and free of the ICU. Neither guanfacine nor valproic acid were associated with in-hospital outcomes examined. CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacologic interventions for management of ICU delirium are common, most often with antipsychotics, and frequently continued at hospital discharge. These medications may not portend benefit, may introduce additional harm, and should be used with caution for delirium management. Continuation of these medications through hospitalization and discharge draws into question their safety and role in patient recovery.

Best Practices for Conducting Interprofessional Team Rounds to Facilitate Performance of the ICU Liberation (ABCDEF) Bundle.

OBJECTIVES: Daily ICU interprofessional team rounds, which incorporate the ICU Liberation ("A" for Assessment, Prevention, and Manage Pain; "B" for Both Spontaneous Awakening Trials and Spontaneous Breathing Trials; "C" for Choice of Analgesia and Sedation; "D" for Delirium Assess, Prevent, and Manage; "E" for Early Mobility and Exercise; "F" for Family Engagement and Empowerment [ABCDEF]) Bundle, support both the care coordination and regular provider communication necessary for Bundle execution. This article describes evidence-based practices for conducting effective interprofessional team rounds in the ICU to improve Bundle performance. DESIGN: Best practice synthesis. METHODS: The authors, each extensively involved in the Society of Critical Care Medicine's ICU Liberation Campaign, reviewed the pertinent literature to identify how ICU interprofessional team rounds can be optimized to increase ICU Liberation adherence. RESULTS: Daily ICU interprofessional team rounds that foster ICU Liberation Bundle use support both care coordination and regular provider communication within and between teams. Evidence-based best practices for conducting effective interprofessional team rounds in the ICU include the optimal structure for ICU interprofessional team rounds; the importance of conducting rounds at patients' bedside; essential participants in rounds; the inclusion of ICU patients and their families in rounds-based discussions; and incorporation of the Bundle into the Electronic Health Record. Interprofessional team rounds in the ICU ideally employ communication strategies to foster inclusive and supportive behaviors consistent with interprofessional collaboration in the ICU. Patient care discussions during interprofessional team rounds benefit from being patient-centered and goal-oriented. Documentation of ICU Liberation Bundle elements in the Electronic Health Record may help facilitate team communication and decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting high-quality interprofessional team rounds in the ICU is a key strategy to support ICU Liberation Bundle use.

Position Paper on Critical Care Pharmacy Services (Executive Summary): 2020 Update.

OBJECTIVES: Provide a multiorganizational statement to update the statement from a paper in 2000 about critical care pharmacy practice and makes recommendations for future practice. DESIGN: The Society of Critical Care Medicine, American College of Clinical Pharmacy Critical Care Practice and Research Network, and the American Society of Health-Systems Pharmacists convened a joint task force of 15 pharmacists representing a broad cross-section of critical care pharmacy practice and pharmacy administration, inclusive of geography, critical care practice setting, and roles. The Task Force chairs reviewed and organized primary literature, outlined topic domains, and prepared the methodology for group review and consensus. A modified Delphi method was used until consensus (> 66% agreement) was reached for each practice recommendation. Previous position statement recommendations were reviewed and voted to either retain, revise, or retire. Recommendations were categorized by level of ICU service to be applicable by setting, and grouped into five domains: patient care, quality improvement, research and scholarship, training and education, and professional development. MAIN RESULTS: There are 82 recommendation statements: forty-four original recommendations and 38 new recommendation statements. Thirty-four recommendations were made for patient care, primarily relating to critical care pharmacist duties and pharmacy services. In the quality improvement domain, 21 recommendations address the role of the critical care pharmacist in patient and medication safety, clinical quality programs, and analytics. Nine recommendations were made in the domain of research and scholarship. Ten recommendations are in the domain of training and education and eight recommendations regarding professional development. CONCLUSIONS: The statements recommended by this taskforce delineate the activities of a critical care pharmacist and the scope of pharmacy services within the ICU. Effort should be made from all stakeholders to implement the recommendations provided, with continuous effort toward improving the delivery of care for critically ill patients.