Delayed CCL23 response is associated with poor outcomes after cardiac arrest.

Chemokines, a family of chemotactic cytokines, mediate leukocyte migration to and entrance into inflamed tissue, contributing to the intensity of local inflammation. We performed an analysis of chemokine and immune cell responses to cardiac arrest (CA). Forty-two patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest were analyzed, and twenty-two patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery were enrolled. Quantitative antibody array, chemokines, and endotoxin quantification were performed using the patients blood. Analysis of CCL23 production in neutrophils obtained from CA patients and injected into immunodeficient mice after CA and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) were done using flow cytometry. The levels of CCL2, CCL4, and CCL23 are increased in CA patients. Temporal dynamics were different for each chemokine, with early increases in CCL2 and CCL4, followed by a delayed elevation in CCL23 at forty-eight hours after CA. A high level of CCL23 was associated with an increased number of neutrophils, neuron-specific enolase (NSE), worse cerebral performance category (CPC) score, and higher mortality. To investigate the role of neutrophil activation locally in injured brain tissue, we used a mouse model of CA/CPR. CCL23 production was increased in human neutrophils that infiltrated mouse brains compared to those in the peripheral circulation. It is known that an early intense inflammatory response (within hours) is associated with poor outcomes after CA. Our data indicate that late activation of neutrophils in brain tissue may also promote ongoing injury via the production of CCL23 and impair recovery after cardiac arrest.

International Analgesia and Sedation Weaning and Withdrawal Practices in Critically Ill Adults: The Adult Iatrogenic Withdrawal Study in the ICU.

OBJECTIVES: Iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome (IWS) associated with opioid and sedative use for medical purposes has a reported high prevalence and associated morbidity. This study aimed to determine the prevalence, utilization, and characteristics of opioid and sedative weaning and IWS policies/protocols in the adult ICU population. DESIGN: International, multicenter, observational, point prevalence study. SETTING: Adult ICUs. PATIENTS: All patients aged 18 years and older in the ICU on the date of data collection who received parenteral opioids or sedatives in the previous 24 hours. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: ICUs selected 1 day for data collection between June 1 and September 30, 2021. Patient demographic data, opioid and sedative medication use, and weaning and IWS assessment data were collected for the previous 24 hours. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients weaned from opioids and sedatives using an institutional policy/protocol on the data collection day. There were 2,402 patients in 229 ICUs from 11 countries screened for opioid and sedative use; 1,506 (63%) patients received parenteral opioids, and/or sedatives in the previous 24 hours. There were 90 (39%) ICUs with a weaning policy/protocol which was used in 176 (12%) patients, and 23 (10%) ICUs with an IWS policy/protocol which was used in 9 (0.6%) patients. The weaning policy/protocol for 47 (52%) ICUs did not define when to initiate weaning, and the policy/protocol for 24 (27%) ICUs did not specify the degree of weaning. A weaning policy/protocol was used in 34% (176/521) and IWS policy/protocol in 9% (9/97) of patients admitted to an ICU with such a policy/protocol. Among 485 patients eligible for weaning policy/protocol utilization based on duration of opioid/sedative use initiation criterion within individual ICU policies/protocols 176 (36%) had it used, and among 54 patients on opioids and/or sedatives ≥ 72 hours, 9 (17%) had an IWS policy/protocol used by the data collection day. CONCLUSIONS: This international observational study found that a small proportion of ICUs use policies/protocols for opioid and sedative weaning or IWS, and even when these policies/protocols are in place, they are implemented in a small percentage of patients.

The number of circulating CD26 expressing cells is decreased in critical COVID-19 illness.

We evaluated the number of CD26 expressing cells in peripheral blood of patients with COVID-19 within 72 h of admission and on day 4 and day 7 after enrollment. The majority of CD26 expressing cells were presented by CD3+ CD4+ lymphocytes. A low number of CD26 expressing cells were found to be associated with critical-severity COVID-19 disease. Conversely, increasing numbers of CD26 expressing T cells over the first week of standard treatment was associated with good outcomes. Clinically, the number of circulating CD26 cells might be a marker of recovery or the therapeutic efficacy of anti-COVID-19 treatment. New therapies aimed at preserving and increasing the level of CD26 expressing T cells may prove useful in the treatment of COVID-19 disease.

Standardizing post-cardiac arrest care across rural-urban settings - qualitative findings on proposed post-cardiac arrest learning community intervention.

BACKGROUND: Standardization of post-cardiac arrest care between emergency department arrival and intensive care unit admission can be challenging, particularly for rural centers, which can experience significant delays in interfacility transfer. One approach to addressing this issue is to form a post-cardiac arrest learning community (P-CALC) consisting of emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) physicians and nurses who use data, shared resources, and collaboration to improve post-cardiac arrest care. MaineHealth, the largest regional health system in Maine, launched its P-CALC in 2022. OBJECTIVE: To explore P-CALC participants' perspectives on current post-cardiac arrest care, attitudes toward implementing a P-CALC intervention, perceived barriers and facilitators to intervention implementation, and implementation strategies. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured, individual, qualitative interviews with 16 staff from seven system EDs spanning the rural-urban spectrum. Directed content analysis was used to discern key themes in transcribed interviews. RESULTS: Participants highlighted site- and system-level factors influencing current post-cardiac arrest care. They expressed both positive attitudes and concerns about the P-CALC intervention. Multiple facilitators and barriers were identified in regard to the intervention implementation. Five proposed implementation strategies emerged as important factors to move the intervention forward. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a P-CALC intervention to effect system-wide improvements in post-cardiac arrest care is complex. Understanding providers' perspectives on current care practices, feasibility of quality improvement, and potential intervention impacts is essential for program development.

Cardiac Arrest Treatment Center Differences in Sedation and Analgesia Dosing During Targeted Temperature Management.

BACKGROUND: Sedation and analgesia are recommended during targeted temperature management (TTM) after cardiac arrest, but there are few data to provide guidance on dosing to bedside clinicians. We evaluated differences in patient-level sedation and analgesia dosing in an international multicenter TTM trial to better characterize current practice and clinically important outcomes. METHODS: A total 950 patients in the international TTM trial were randomly assigned to a TTM of 33 °C or 36 °C after resuscitation from cardiac arrest in 36 intensive care units. We recorded cumulative doses of sedative and analgesic drugs at 12, 24, and 48 h and normalized to midazolam and fentanyl equivalents. We compared number of medications used, dosing, and titration among centers by using multivariable models, including common severity of illness factors. We also compared dosing with time to awakening, incidence of clinical seizures, and survival. RESULTS: A total of 614 patients at 18 centers were analyzed. Propofol (70%) and fentanyl (51%) were most frequently used. The average dosages of midazolam and fentanyl equivalents were 0.13 (0.07, 0.22) mg/kg/h and 1.16 (0.49, 1.81) µg/kg/h, respectively. There were significant differences in number of medications (p < 0.001), average dosages (p < 0.001), and titration at all time points between centers (p < 0.001), and the outcomes of patients in these centers were associated with all parameters described in the multivariate analysis, except for a difference in the titration of sedatives between 12 and 24 h (p = 0.40). There were associations between higher dosing at 48 h (p = 0.003, odds ratio [OR] 1.75) and increased titration of analgesics between 24 and 48 h (p = 0.005, OR 4.89) with awakening after 5 days, increased titration of sedatives between 24 and 48 h with awakening after 5 days (p < 0.001, OR > 100), and increased titration of sedatives between 24 and 48 h with a higher incidence of clinical seizures in the multivariate analysis (p = 0.04, OR 240). There were also significant associations between decreased titration of analgesics and survival at 6 months in the multivariate analysis (p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variation in choice of drug, dosing, and titration when providing sedation and analgesics between centers. Sedation and analgesia dosing and titration were associated with delayed awakening, incidence of clinical seizures, and survival, but the causal relation of these findings cannot be proven.

Design of Clinical Trials Evaluating Sedation in Critically Ill Adults Undergoing Mechanical Ventilation: Recommendations From Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research (SCEPTER) Recommendation III.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of sedative medication use in critically ill adults undergoing mechanical ventilation differ considerably in their methodological approach. This heterogeneity impedes the ability to compare results across studies. The Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research Recommendations convened a meeting of multidisciplinary experts to develop recommendations for key methodologic elements of sedation trials in the ICU to help guide academic and industry clinical investigators. DESIGN: A 2-day in-person meeting was held in Washington, DC, on March 28-29, 2019, followed by a three-round, online modified Delphi consensus process. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-six participants from academia, industry, and the Food and Drug Administration with expertise in relevant content areas, including two former ICU patients attended the in-person meeting, and the majority completed an online follow-up survey and participated in the modified Delphi process. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The final recommendations were iteratively refined based on the survey results, participants' reactions to those results, summaries written by panel moderators, and a review of the meeting transcripts made from audio recordings. Fifteen recommendations were developed for study design and conduct, subject enrollment, outcomes, and measurement instruments. Consensus recommendations included obtaining input from ICU survivors and/or their families, ensuring adequate training for personnel using validated instruments for assessments of sedation, pain, and delirium in the ICU environment, and the need for methodological standardization. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations are intended to assist researchers in the design, conduct, selection of endpoints, and reporting of clinical trials involving sedative medications and/or sedation protocols for adult ICU patients who require mechanical ventilation. These recommendations should be viewed as a starting point to improve clinical trials and help reduce methodological heterogeneity in future clinical trials.

Amantadine and Modafinil as Neurostimulants Following Acute Stroke: A Retrospective Study of Intensive Care Unit Patients.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE: Neurostimulants may improve or accelerate cognitive and functional recovery after intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), ischemic stroke (IS), or subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), but few studies have described their safety and effectiveness in the intensive care unit (ICU). The objective of this study was to describe amantadine and modafinil administration practices during acute stroke care starting in the ICU and to evaluate safety and effectiveness. METHODS: Consecutive adult ICU patients treated with amantadine and/or modafinil following acute non-traumatic IS, ICH, or SAH were evaluated. Neurostimulant administration data were extracted from the electronic medication administration record, including medication (amantadine, modafinil, or both), starting dose, time from stroke to initiation, and whether the neurostimulant was continued at hospital discharge. Patients were considered responders if they met two of three criteria within 9 days of neurostimulant initiation: increase in Glasgow coma scale (GCS) score ≥ 3 points from pre-treatment baseline, improved wakefulness or participation documented in caregiver notes, or clinical improvement documented in physical or occupational therapy notes. Potential confounders of the effectiveness assessment and adverse drug effects were also recorded. RESULTS: A total of 87 patients were evaluable during the 3.7-year study period, including 41 (47%) with ICH, 29 (33%) with IS, and 17 (20%) with SAH. The initial neurostimulant administered was amantadine in 71 (82%) patients, modafinil in 13 (15%), or both in 3 (3%) patients. Neurostimulants were initiated a median of 7 (4.25, 12.75) days post-stroke (range 1-27 days) for somnolence (77%), not following commands (32%), lack of eye opening (28%), or low GCS (17%). The most common starting dose was 100 mg twice daily for both amantadine (86%) and modafinil (54%). Of the 79 patients included in the effectiveness evaluation, 42 (53%) were considered responders, including 34/62 (55%) receiving amantadine monotherapy and 8/24 (33%) receiving both amantadine and modafinil at the time they met the definition of a responder. No patient receiving modafinil monotherapy was considered a responder. The median time from initiation to response was 3 (2, 5) days. Responders were more frequently discharged home or to acute rehabilitation compared to non-responders (90% vs 62%, p = 0.006). Among survivors, 63/72 (88%) were prescribed a neurostimulant at hospital discharge. The most common potential adverse drug effect was sleep disruption (16%). CONCLUSIONS: Neurostimulant administration during acute stroke care may improve wakefulness. Future controlled studies with a neurostimulant administration protocol, prospective evaluation, and discretely defined response and safety criteria are needed to confirm these encouraging findings.

Tele-Critical Care: An Update From the Society of Critical Care Medicine Tele-ICU Committee.

OBJECTIVES: In 2014, the Tele-ICU Committee of the Society of Critical Care Medicine published an article regarding the state of ICU telemedicine, one better defined today as tele-critical care. Given the rapid evolution in the field, the authors now provide an updated review. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: We searched PubMed and OVID for peer-reviewed literature published between 2010 and 2018 related to significant developments in tele-critical care, including its prevalence, function, activity, and technologies. Search terms included electronic ICU, tele-ICU, critical care telemedicine, and ICU telemedicine with appropriate descriptors relevant to each sub-section. Additionally, information from surveys done by the Society of Critical Care Medicine was included given the relevance to the discussion and was referenced accordingly. DATA EXTRACTION AND DATA SYNTHESIS: Tele-critical care continues to evolve in multiple domains, including organizational structure, technologies, expanded-use case scenarios, and novel applications. Insights have been gained in economic impact and human and organizational factors affecting tele-critical care delivery. Legislation and credentialing continue to significantly influence the pace of tele-critical care growth and adoption. CONCLUSIONS: Tele-critical care is an established mechanism to leverage critical care expertise to ICUs and beyond, but systematic research comparing different models, approaches, and technologies is still needed.

Neurological Pupil Index and Pupillary Light Reflex by Pupillometry Predict Outcome Early After Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: The absence of the pupillary light reflex (PLR) 3 days after cardiac arrest predicts poor outcome, but quantitative PLR assessment with pupillometry early after recovery of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) and throughout targeted temperature management (TTM) has rarely been evaluated. METHODS: Fifty-five adult patients treated with TTM with available pupillometry data from the NeurOptics NPi-200 were studied. Discharge outcome was classified good if the cerebral performance category score was 1-2, poor if 3-5. Pupil size, PLR percent constriction (%PLR), and constriction velocity (CV) were determined at TTM start and 6 (± 2)-h post-ROSC ("early"), and throughout TTM using data from the worst eye at each assessment. The Neurological Pupil index (NPi) was also determined at each pupil assessment; the NPi is scored from 0 (nonreactive) to 5 (brisk) with values < 3 considered sluggish or abnormal. Prognostic performance to predict poor outcome was assessed with receiver operator characteristic curves. RESULTS: All nine patients with ≥ 1 nonreactive pupil (NPi = 0) within 6 (± 2) h after ROSC died, and 12/14 (86%) with sluggish pupils (0 < NPi < 3) had poor outcomes. 15/29 (52%) patients with normal pupil reactivity (NPi ≥ 3) had poor outcomes, four survived with cerebral performance category = 3, three died of cardiac causes, and eight died of neurologic causes. During TTM, 20/21 (95%) patients with nonreactive pupils had poor outcomes, 9/14 (64%) of patients with sluggish pupils had poor outcomes, and 9/20 (45%) with normal pupil reactivity had poor outcomes. Pupil size did not predict outcome, but NPi (AUC = 0.72 [0.59-0.86], p < 0.001), %PLR (AUC = 0.75 [0.62-0.88], p < 0.001) and CV (AUC = 0.78 [0.66-0.91], p < 0.001) at 6 h predicted poor outcome. When nonreactive pupils were first detected, 75% were < 5 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Very early after resuscitation from cardiac arrest, abnormal Neurological Pupil index and pupillary light reflex measurements by pupillometer are predictive of poor outcome, and are not usually associated with dilated pupils.

Amantadine and Modafinil as Neurostimulants During Post-stroke Care: A Systematic Review.

Amantadine and modafinil are neurostimulants that may improve cognitive and functional recovery post-stroke, but the existing study results vary, and no comprehensive review has been published. This systematic review describes amantadine and modafinil administration practices post-stroke, evaluates timing and impact on clinical effectiveness measures, and identifies the incidence of potential adverse drug effects. A librarian-assisted search of the MEDLINE (PubMed) and EMBASE databases identified all English-language publications with "amantadine" or "modafinil" in the title or abstract from inception through February 1, 2020. Publications meeting predefined Patient, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) criteria were included: Patients (≥ 18 years of age post-stroke); Intervention (amantadine or modafinil administration); Comparison (pretreatment baseline or control group); Outcomes (cognitive or functional outcome). Amantadine and modafinil administration practices, cognitive and functional outcomes, and incidence of potential adverse drug effects were collected following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidance. Quantitative analyses were not performed due to heterogeneity in the clinical effectiveness measures; descriptive data are presented as number (percent) or median (interquartile range). Of 12,620 publications initially identified, 10 amantadine publications (n = 121 patients) and 12 modafinil publications (n = 120 patients) were included. Amantadine was initiated 39 (16, 385) days post-stroke, with most common initial doses of 100 mg once or twice daily (range 100-200 mg/day), and final daily dose of 200 (188, 200) mg/day. Modafinil was initiated 170 (17, 496) days post-stroke, with initial and final daily doses of 100 (100, 350) mg/day and 200 (100, 350) mg/day, respectively. The most common indication was consciousness disorders for amantadine (n = 3/10 publications; 30%) and fatigue for modafinil (n = 5/12; 42%). Forty unique clinical effectiveness measures (1.8 per study) with 141 domains (6.4 per study) were described across all studies. A positive response in at least one clinical effectiveness measure was reported in 70% of amantadine publications and 83% of modafinil publications. Only one publication each for amantadine (10%; n = 5 patients) and modafinil (8%; n = 21 patients) studied acutely hospitalized or ICU patients; both were randomized studies showing improvements in neurocognitive function for amantadine and fatigue for modafinil. Potential adverse drug effects were reported in approximately 50% of publications, most commonly visual hallucinations with amantadine (2% of patients) and dizziness (5% of patients) and dry eyes or mouth (5% of patients). Amantadine and modafinil may improve cognitive and functional recovery post-stroke, but higher-quality data are needed to confirm this conclusion, especially in the acute care setting.

Effect of Hydroxychloroquine on Clinical Status at 14 Days in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Data on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed. Objective: To determine whether hydroxychloroquine is an efficacious treatment for adults hospitalized with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial conducted at 34 hospitals in the US. Adults hospitalized with respiratory symptoms from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were enrolled between April 2 and June 19, 2020, with the last outcome assessment on July 17, 2020. The planned sample size was 510 patients, with interim analyses planned after every 102 patients were enrolled. The trial was stopped at the fourth interim analysis for futility with a sample size of 479 patients. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 2 doses, then 200 mg twice daily for 8 doses) (n = 242) or placebo (n = 237). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was clinical status 14 days after randomization as assessed with a 7-category ordinal scale ranging from 1 (death) to 7 (discharged from the hospital and able to perform normal activities). The primary outcome was analyzed with a multivariable proportional odds model, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) greater than 1.0 indicating more favorable outcomes with hydroxychloroquine than placebo. The trial included 12 secondary outcomes, including 28-day mortality. Results: Among 479 patients who were randomized (median age, 57 years; 44.3% female; 37.2% Hispanic/Latinx; 23.4% Black; 20.1% in the intensive care unit; 46.8% receiving supplemental oxygen without positive pressure; 11.5% receiving noninvasive ventilation or nasal high-flow oxygen; and 6.7% receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), 433 (90.4%) completed the primary outcome assessment at 14 days and the remainder had clinical status imputed. The median duration of symptoms prior to randomization was 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 7 days). Clinical status on the ordinal outcome scale at 14 days did not significantly differ between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (median [IQR] score, 6 [4-7] vs 6 [4-7]; aOR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.42]). None of the 12 secondary outcomes were significantly different between groups. At 28 days after randomization, 25 of 241 patients (10.4%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and 25 of 236 (10.6%) in the placebo group had died (absolute difference, -0.2% [95% CI, -5.7% to 5.3%]; aOR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.54 to 2.09]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults hospitalized with respiratory illness from COVID-19, treatment with hydroxychloroquine, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve clinical status at day 14. These findings do not support the use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 among hospitalized adults. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04332991.

Derivation and Validation of the CREST Model for Very Early Prediction of Circulatory Etiology Death in Patients Without ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction After Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: No practical tool quantitates the risk of circulatory-etiology death (CED) immediately after successful cardiopulmonary resuscitation in patients without ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. We developed and validated a prediction model to rapidly determine that risk and facilitate triage to individualized treatment pathways. METHODS: With the use of INTCAR (International Cardiac Arrest Registry), an 87-question data set representing 44 centers in the United States and Europe, patients were classified as having had CED or a combined end point of neurological-etiology death or survival. Demographics and clinical factors were modeled in a derivation cohort, and backward stepwise logistic regression was used to identify factors independently associated with CED. We demonstrated model performance using area under the curve and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test in the derivation and validation cohorts, and assigned a simplified point-scoring system. RESULTS: Among 638 patients in the derivation cohort, 121 (18.9%) had CED. The final model included preexisting coronary artery disease (odds ratio [OR], 2.86; confidence interval [CI], 1.83-4.49; P≤0.001), nonshockable rhythm (OR, 1.75; CI, 1.10-2.77; P=0.017), initial ejection fraction<30% (OR, 2.11; CI, 1.32-3.37; P=0.002), shock at presentation (OR, 2.27; CI, 1.42-3.62; P<0.001), and ischemic time >25 minutes (OR, 1.42; CI, 0.90-2.23; P=0.13). The derivation model area under the curve was 0.73, and Hosmer-Lemeshow test P=0.47. Outcomes were similar in the 318-patient validation cohort (area under the curve 0.68, Hosmer-Lemeshow test P=0.41). When assigned a point for each associated factor in the derivation model, the average predicted versus observed probability of CED with a CREST score (coronary artery disease, initial heart rhythm, low ejection fraction, shock at the time of admission, and ischemic time >25 minutes) of 0 to 5 was: 7.1% versus 10.2%, 9.5% versus 11%, 22.5% versus 19.6%, 32.4% versus 29.6%, 38.5% versus 30%, and 55.7% versus 50%. CONCLUSIONS: The CREST model stratified patients immediately after resuscitation according to risk of a circulatory-etiology death. The tool may allow for estimation of circulatory risk and improve the triage of survivors of cardiac arrest without ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction at the point of care.

Variation in Sedation and Neuromuscular Blockade Regimens on Outcome After Cardiac Arrest.

OBJECTIVES: Sedation and neuromuscular blockade protocols in patients undergoing targeted temperature management after cardiac arrest address patient discomfort and manage shivering. These protocols vary widely between centers and may affect outcomes. DESIGN: Consecutive patients admitted to 20 centers after resuscitation from cardiac arrest were prospectively entered into the International Cardiac Arrest Registry between 2006 and 2016. Additional data about each center's sedation and shivering management practice were obtained via survey. Sedation and shivering practices were categorized as escalating doses of sedation and minimal or no neuromuscular blockade (sedation and shivering practice 1), sedation with continuous or scheduled neuromuscular blockade (sedation and shivering practice 2), or sedation with as-needed neuromuscular blockade (sedation and shivering practice 3). Good outcome was defined as Cerebral Performance Category score of 1 or 2. A logistic regression hierarchical model was created with two levels (patient-level data with standard confounders at level 1 and hospitals at level 2) and sedation and shivering practices as a fixed effect at the hospital level. The primary outcome was dichotomized Cerebral Performance Category at 6 months. SETTING: Cardiac arrest receiving centers in Europe and the United states from 2006 to 2016 PATIENTS:: Four-thousand two-hundred sixty-seven cardiac arrest patients 18 years old or older enrolled in the International Cardiac Arrest Registry. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The mean age was 62 ± 15 years, 36% were female, 77% out-of-hospital arrests, and mean ischemic time was 24 (± 18) minutes. Adjusted odds ratio (for age, return of spontaneous circulation, location of arrest, witnessed, initial rhythm, bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation, defibrillation, medical history, country, and size of hospital) was 1.13 (0.74-1.73; p = 0.56) and 1.45 (1.00-2.13; p = 0.046) for sedation and shivering practice 2 and sedation and shivering practice 3, respectively, referenced to sedation and shivering practice 1. CONCLUSION: Cardiac arrest patients treated at centers using as-needed neuromuscular blockade had increased odds of good outcomes compared with centers using escalating sedation doses and avoidance of neuromuscular blockade, after adjusting for potential confounders. These findings should be further investigated in prospective studies.

Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Prevention and Management of Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep Disruption in Adult Patients in the ICU.

OBJECTIVE: To update and expand the 2013 Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Pain, Agitation, and Delirium in Adult Patients in the ICU. DESIGN: Thirty-two international experts, four methodologists, and four critical illness survivors met virtually at least monthly. All section groups gathered face-to-face at annual Society of Critical Care Medicine congresses; virtual connections included those unable to attend. A formal conflict of interest policy was developed a priori and enforced throughout the process. Teleconferences and electronic discussions among subgroups and whole panel were part of the guidelines' development. A general content review was completed face-to-face by all panel members in January 2017. METHODS: Content experts, methodologists, and ICU survivors were represented in each of the five sections of the guidelines: Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption). Each section created Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome, and nonactionable, descriptive questions based on perceived clinical relevance. The guideline group then voted their ranking, and patients prioritized their importance. For each Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome question, sections searched the best available evidence, determined its quality, and formulated recommendations as "strong," "conditional," or "good" practice statements based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation principles. In addition, evidence gaps and clinical caveats were explicitly identified. RESULTS: The Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) panel issued 37 recommendations (three strong and 34 conditional), two good practice statements, and 32 ungraded, nonactionable statements. Three questions from the patient-centered prioritized question list remained without recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: We found substantial agreement among a large, interdisciplinary cohort of international experts regarding evidence supporting recommendations, and the remaining literature gaps in the assessment, prevention, and treatment of Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) in critically ill adults. Highlighting this evidence and the research needs will improve Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (mobilization/rehabilitation), and Sleep (disruption) management and provide the foundation for improved outcomes and science in this vulnerable population.

Evaluating Patient-Centered Outcomes in Clinical Trials of Procedural Sedation, Part 2 Safety: Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research Recommendations.

The Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research, established by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks, a public-private partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration, convened a second meeting of sedation experts from a variety of clinical specialties and research backgrounds to develop recommendations for procedural sedation research. The previous meeting addressed efficacy and patient- and/or family-centered outcomes. This meeting addressed issues of safety, which was defined as "the avoidance of physical or psychological harm." A literature review identified 133 articles addressing safety measures in procedural sedation clinical trials. After basic reporting of vital signs, the most commonly measured safety parameter was oxygen saturation. Adverse events were inconsistently defined throughout the studies. Only 6 of the 133 studies used a previously validated measure of safety. The meeting identified methodological problems associated with measuring infrequent adverse events. With a consensus discussion, a set of core and supplemental measures were recommended to code for safety in future procedural clinical trials. When adopted, these measures should improve the integration of safety data across studies and facilitate comparisons in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Hemodynamic, Biochemical, and Ventilatory Parameters are Independently Associated with Outcome after Cardiac Arrest.

BACKGROUND: Hypotension, hyperglycemia, dysoxia, and dyscarbia may contribute to reperfusion injury, and each is independently associated with poor outcome (PO) after cardiac arrest. We investigated whether the combined effects of these physiological derangements are associated with cardiac arrest outcomes. METHODS: This institutional review board-approved retrospective cohort study included consecutive resuscitated cardiac arrest patients that received targeted temperature management at Maine Medical Center from 2013 to 2015. We abstracted demographics, intra-arrest factors, and physiological parameters. The primary outcome was dichotomized cerebral performance category (CPC 1-2 vs 3-5) at hospital discharge. After comparing demographics, clinical factors, and persistent post-arrest physiological derangements in patients with good and PO, we constructed a logistic regression model comprised of clinical and demographic factors separately associated with severity, and physiology variables, attempting to evaluate the independent effects of persistent physiological derangements on outcome. RESULTS: Sixty-eight of 222 (31%) patients had CPC 1-2 (good outcome [GO]) at discharge. In bivariate analysis, factors associated with PO included increased time from collapse to resuscitation, non-shockable rhythm, and age-combined Charlson comorbidity index. In multivariate analysis, each persistent physiological derangement incrementally decreased the likelihood of GO [OR GO per derangement 0.71 (interquartile range [IQR] 0.51-0.99), p = 0.042, area under the curve (AUC) for final model 0.769]. CONCLUSIONS: Uncorrected physiological derangements in the first 24 h after cardiac arrest are independently associated with PO. Although causality cannot be established, these findings support preclinical models suggesting that aggressive normalization of physiology after resuscitation may be a reasonable strategy to decrease reperfusion injury.

Cefepime-induced neurotoxicity: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Cefepime is a widely used antibiotic with neurotoxicity attributed to its ability to cross the blood-brain barrier and exhibit concentration-dependent ϒ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) antagonism. Neurotoxic symptoms include depressed consciousness, encephalopathy, aphasia, myoclonus, seizures, and coma. Data suggest that up to 15% of ICU patients treated with cefepime may experience these adverse effects. Risk factors include renal dysfunction, excessive dosing, preexisting brain injury, and elevated serum cefepime concentrations. We aimed to characterize the clinical course of cefepime neurotoxicity and response to interventions. METHODS: A librarian-assisted search identified publications describing cefepime-associated neurotoxicity from January 1980 to February 2016 using the CINAHL and MEDLINE databases. Search terms included cefepime, neurotoxicity, encephalopathy, seizures, delirium, coma, non-convulsive status epilepticus, myoclonus, confusion, aphasia, agitation, and death. Two reviewers independently assessed identified articles for eligibility and used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) for data reporting. RESULTS: Of the 123 citations identified, 37 (representing 135 patient cases) were included. Patients had a median age of 69 years, commonly had renal dysfunction (80%) and required intensive care (81% of patients with a reported location). All patients exhibited altered mental status, with reduced consciousness (47%), myoclonus (42%), and confusion (42%) being the most common symptoms. All 98 patients (73% of cohort) with electroencephalography had abnormalities, including non-convulsive status epilepticus (25%), myoclonic status epilepticus (7%), triphasic waves (40%), and focal sharp waves (39%). As per Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved dosing guidance, 48% of patients were overdosed; however, 26% experienced neurotoxicity despite appropriate dosing. Median cefepime serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) concentrations were 45 mg/L (n = 21) and 13 mg/L (n = 4), respectively. Symptom improvement occurred in 89% of patients, and 87% survived to hospital discharge. The median delay from starting the drug to symptom onset was 4 days, and resolution occurred a median of 2 days after the intervention, which included cefepime discontinuation, antiepileptic administration, or hemodialysis. CONCLUSIONS: Cefepime-induced neurotoxicity is challenging to recognize in the critically ill due to widely varying symptoms that are common in ICU patients. This adverse reaction can occur despite appropriate dosing, usually resolves with drug interruption, but may require additional interventions such as antiepileptic drug administration or dialysis.

Evaluating Patient-Centered Outcomes in Clinical Trials of Procedural Sedation, Part 1 Efficacy: Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research Recommendations.

The Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research, established by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks public-private partnership with the US Food and Drug Administration, convened a meeting of sedation experts from a variety of clinical specialties and research backgrounds with the objective of developing recommendations for procedural sedation research. Four core outcome domains were recommended for consideration in sedation clinical trials: (1) safety, (2) efficacy, (3) patient-centered and/or family-centered outcomes, and (4) efficiency. This meeting identified core outcome measures within the efficacy and patient-centered and/or family-centered domains. Safety will be addressed in a subsequent meeting, and efficiency will not be addressed at this time. These measures encompass depth and levels of sedation, proceduralist and patient satisfaction, patient recall, and degree of pain experienced. Consistent use of the recommended outcome measures will facilitate the comprehensive reporting across sedation trials, along with meaningful comparisons among studies and interventions in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.