Early Restrictive or Liberal Fluid Management for Sepsis-Induced Hypotension.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous fluids and vasopressor agents are commonly used in early resuscitation of patients with sepsis, but comparative data for prioritizing their delivery are limited. METHODS: In an unblinded superiority trial conducted at 60 U.S. centers, we randomly assigned patients to either a restrictive fluid strategy (prioritizing vasopressors and lower intravenous fluid volumes) or a liberal fluid strategy (prioritizing higher volumes of intravenous fluids before vasopressor use) for a 24-hour period. Randomization occurred within 4 hours after a patient met the criteria for sepsis-induced hypotension refractory to initial treatment with 1 to 3 liters of intravenous fluid. We hypothesized that all-cause mortality before discharge home by day 90 (primary outcome) would be lower with a restrictive fluid strategy than with a liberal fluid strategy. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1563 patients were enrolled, with 782 assigned to the restrictive fluid group and 781 to the liberal fluid group. Resuscitation therapies that were administered during the 24-hour protocol period differed between the two groups; less intravenous fluid was administered in the restrictive fluid group than in the liberal fluid group (difference of medians, -2134 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2318 to -1949), whereas the restrictive fluid group had earlier, more prevalent, and longer duration of vasopressor use. Death from any cause before discharge home by day 90 occurred in 109 patients (14.0%) in the restrictive fluid group and in 116 patients (14.9%) in the liberal fluid group (estimated difference, -0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.4 to 2.6; P = 0.61); 5 patients in the restrictive fluid group and 4 patients in the liberal fluid group had their data censored (lost to follow-up). The number of reported serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with sepsis-induced hypotension, the restrictive fluid strategy that was used in this trial did not result in significantly lower (or higher) mortality before discharge home by day 90 than the liberal fluid strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; CLOVERS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03434028.).

The Use and Impact of a Decision Support Tool for Appendicitis Treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Since introducing new and alternative treatment options may increase decisional conflict, we aimed to describe the use of the decision support tool (DST) and its impact on treatment preference and decisional conflict. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: For the treatment of appendicitis, antibiotics are an effective alternative to appendectomy, with both approaches associated with a different set of risks (e.g., recurrence vs surgical complications) and benefits (e.g., more rapid return to work vs decreased chance of readmission). Patients often have limited knowledge of these treatment options and decision support tools that include video-based educational materials and questions to elicit patient preferences about outcomes may be helpful. Concurrent to the Comparing Outcomes of Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, our group developed a DST for appendicitis treatment (www.appyornot.org). METHODS: A retrospective cohort including people who self-reported current appendicitis and used the AppyOrNot DST between 2021-2023. Treatment preferences before- and after- use of the DST, demographic information, and Ottawa Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) were reported after completing the DST. RESULTS: 8,243 people from 66 countries and all 50 US states accessed the DST. Before the DST, 14% had a strong preference for antibiotics and 31% for appendectomy, with 55% undecided. After using the DST, the proportion in the undecided category decreased to 49% (P<0.0001). 52% of those who completed the Ottawa Decisional Conflict Score (DCS) (n=356) reported the lowest level of decisional conflict (<25) after using the DST; 43% had a DCS score of 25-50, 5.1% had a DCS score of >50 and 2.5% had and DCS score of >75. CONCLUSION: The publicly available DST appyornot.org reduced the proportion that was undecided about which treatment they favored and had a modest influence on those with strong treatment preferences. Decisional conflict was not common after use. The use of this DST is now a component of a nationwide implementation program aimed at improving the way surgeons share information about appendicitis treatment options. If its use can be successfully implemented, this may be a model for improving communication about treatment for patients experiencing emergency health conditions.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Antibiotics with Appendectomy for Appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic therapy has been proposed as an alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, nonblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy (10-day course) with appendectomy in patients with appendicitis at 25 U.S. centers. The primary outcome was 30-day health status, as assessed with the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating better health status; noninferiority margin, 0.05 points). Secondary outcomes included appendectomy in the antibiotics group and complications through 90 days; analyses were prespecified in subgroups defined according to the presence or absence of an appendicolith. RESULTS: In total, 1552 adults (414 with an appendicolith) underwent randomization; 776 were assigned to receive antibiotics (47% of whom were not hospitalized for the index treatment) and 776 to undergo appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure). Antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of 30-day EQ-5D scores (mean difference, 0.01 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.001 to 0.03). In the antibiotics group, 29% had undergone appendectomy by 90 days, including 41% of those with an appendicolith and 25% of those without an appendicolith. Complications were more common in the antibiotics group than in the appendectomy group (8.1 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.98); the higher rate in the antibiotics group could be attributed to those with an appendicolith (20.2 vs. 3.6 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.11 to 15.38) and not to those without an appendicolith (3.7 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.43). The rate of serious adverse events was 4.0 per 100 participants in the antibiotics group and 3.0 per 100 participants in the appendectomy group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.50). CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of appendicitis, antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of results of a standard health-status measure. In the antibiotics group, nearly 3 in 10 participants had undergone appendectomy by 90 days. Participants with an appendicolith were at a higher risk for appendectomy and for complications than those without an appendicolith. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; CODA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02800785.).

Early High-Dose Vitamin D3 for Critically Ill, Vitamin D-Deficient Patients.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D deficiency is a common, potentially reversible contributor to morbidity and mortality among critically ill patients. The potential benefits of vitamin D supplementation in acute critical illness require further study. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of early vitamin D3 supplementation in critically ill, vitamin D-deficient patients who were at high risk for death. Randomization occurred within 12 hours after the decision to admit the patient to an intensive care unit. Eligible patients received a single enteral dose of 540,000 IU of vitamin D3 or matched placebo. The primary end point was 90-day all-cause, all-location mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1360 patients were found to be vitamin D-deficient during point-of-care screening and underwent randomization. Of these patients, 1078 had baseline vitamin D deficiency (25-hydroxyvitamin D level, <20 ng per milliliter [50 nmol per liter]) confirmed by subsequent testing and were included in the primary analysis population. The mean day 3 level of 25-hydroxyvitamin D was 46.9±23.2 ng per milliliter (117±58 nmol per liter) in the vitamin D group and 11.4±5.6 ng per milliliter (28±14 nmol per liter) in the placebo group (difference, 35.5 ng per milliliter; 95% confidence interval [CI], 31.5 to 39.6). The 90-day mortality was 23.5% in the vitamin D group (125 of 531 patients) and 20.6% in the placebo group (109 of 528 patients) (difference, 2.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -2.1 to 7.9; P = 0.26). There were no clinically important differences between the groups with respect to secondary clinical, physiological, or safety end points. The severity of vitamin D deficiency at baseline did not affect the association between the treatment assignment and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Early administration of high-dose enteral vitamin D3 did not provide an advantage over placebo with respect to 90-day mortality or other, nonfatal outcomes among critically ill, vitamin D-deficient patients. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; VIOLET ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03096314.).

Expert consensus statements for the management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure using a Delphi method.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice. METHODS: Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ2) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable). RESULTS: Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16-24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment. CONCLUSION: Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Clinical Trial Oversight at a Major Academic Medical Center: Approach of Michigan Medicine.

Clinicians, eager to offer the best care in the absence of guiding data, have provided patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diverse clinical interventions. This usage has led to perceptions of efficacy of some interventions that, while receiving media coverage, lack robust evidence. Moving forward, randomized controlled clinical trials are necessary to ensure that clinicians can treat patients effectively during this outbreak and the next. To do so, academic medical centers must address 2 key research issues: (1) how to effectively and efficiently determine which trials have the best chance of benefiting current and future patients and (2) how to establish a transparent and ethical process for subject recruitment while maintaining research integrity and without overburdening patients or staff. We share here the current methods used by Michigan Medicine to address these issues.

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.

Immune Checkpoint Inhibition in Sepsis: A Phase 1b Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Single Ascending Dose Study of Antiprogrammed Cell Death-Ligand 1 Antibody (BMS-936559).

OBJECTIVES: To assess for the first time the safety and pharmacokinetics of an antiprogrammed cell death-ligand 1 immune checkpoint inhibitor (BMS-936559; Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, NJ) and its effect on immune biomarkers in participants with sepsis-associated immunosuppression. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation. SETTING: Seven U.S. hospital ICUs. STUDY POPULATION: Twenty-four participants with sepsis, organ dysfunction (hypotension, acute respiratory failure, and/or acute renal injury), and absolute lymphocyte count less than or equal to 1,100 cells/µL. INTERVENTIONS: Participants received single-dose BMS-936559 (10-900 mg; n = 20) or placebo (n = 4) infusions. Primary endpoints were death and adverse events; key secondary endpoints included receptor occupancy and monocyte human leukocyte antigen-DR levels. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The treated group was older (median 62 yr treated pooled vs 46 yr placebo), and a greater percentage had more than 2 organ dysfunctions (55% treated pooled vs 25% placebo); other baseline characteristics were comparable. Overall mortality was 25% (10 mg dose: 2/4; 30 mg: 2/4; 100 mg: 1/4; 300 mg: 1/4; 900 mg: 0/4; placebo: 0/4). All participants had adverse events (75% grade 1-2). Seventeen percent had a serious adverse event (3/20 treated pooled, 1/4 placebo), with none deemed drug-related. Adverse events that were potentially immune-related occurred in 54% of participants; most were grade 1-2, none required corticosteroids, and none were deemed drug-related. No significant changes in cytokine levels were observed. Full receptor occupancy was achieved for 28 days after BMS-936559 (900 mg). At the two highest doses, an apparent increase in monocyte human leukocyte antigen-DR expression (> 5,000 monoclonal antibodies/cell) was observed and persisted beyond 28 days. CONCLUSIONS: In this first clinical evaluation of programmed cell death protein-1/programmed cell death-ligand 1 pathway inhibition in sepsis, BMS-936559 was well tolerated, with no evidence of drug-induced hypercytokinemia or cytokine storm, and at higher doses, some indication of restored immune status over 28 days. Further randomized trials on programmed cell death protein-1/programmed cell death-ligand 1 pathway inhibition are needed to evaluate its clinical safety and efficacy in patients with sepsis.

Computed Tomography Evidence of Psoas Muscle Atrophy Without Concomitant Tendon Wasting in Early Sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Morphomic studies have demonstrated a correlation between sarcopenia and clinical outcomes in septic patients. However, tendon morphomics has not yet been studied in this context. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate tendon morphology in septic patients through analytic morphomics. We hypothesized that morphomic analyses would reveal concomitant muscle and tendon wasting in sepsis patients. The results of this study may help to implement different rehabilitation modalities for critically ill patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The volume and fat content of bilateral psoas muscles and tendons were measured on abdominal computed tomography scans of 25 ICU septic and 25 control trauma patients admitted to the University of Michigan between 2011 and 2012. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine the relationship between psoas muscle and tendon morphometric data, and the association with clinical variables such as smoking and comorbidities. RESULTS: Average psoas muscle volume was 12.21 ± 5.6 cm3 for control patients and 9.318 ± 3.3 cm3 in septic patients (P = 0.0023). The average psoas muscle/fat ratio for septic patients was 0.0288 ± 0.071 cm3, compared with 0.0107 ± 0.008 cm3 in the control group (P = 0.075). Average tendon volume in the septic population (0.508 ± 0.191 cm3) was not different than the control cohort (0.493 ± 0.182 cm3) (P = 0.692). CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate significantly smaller psoas muscle volume in septic patients than in age-, gender-, and BMI-matched trauma patients but no demonstrable change in tendon morphology between patient groups. These findings begin to define the boundaries of clinical application within the field of morphomics.

Liberal Versus Restrictive Intravenous Fluid Therapy for Early Septic Shock: Rationale for a Randomized Trial.

Prompt intravenous fluid therapy is a fundamental treatment for patients with septic shock. However, the optimal approach for administering intravenous fluid in septic shock resuscitation is unknown. Two competing strategies are emerging: a liberal fluids approach, consisting of a larger volume of initial fluid (50 to 75 mL/kg [4 to 6 L in an 80-kg adult] during the first 6 hours) and later use of vasopressors, versus a restrictive fluids approach, consisting of a smaller volume of initial fluid (≤30 mL/kg [≤2 to 3 L]), with earlier reliance on vasopressor infusions to maintain blood pressure and perfusion. Early fluid therapy may enhance or maintain tissue perfusion by increasing venous return and cardiac output. However, fluid administration may also have deleterious effects by causing edema within vital organs, leading to organ dysfunction and impairment of oxygen delivery. Conversely, a restrictive fluids approach primarily relies on vasopressors to reverse hypotension and maintain perfusion while limiting the administration of fluid. Both strategies have some evidence to support their use but lack robust data to confirm the benefit of one strategy over the other, creating clinical and scientific equipoise. As part of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury Network, we designed a randomized clinical trial to compare the liberal and restrictive fluids strategies, the Crystalloid Liberal or Vasopressor Early Resuscitation in Sepsis trial. The purpose of this article is to review the current literature on approaches to early fluid resuscitation in adults with septic shock and outline the rationale for the upcoming trial.

Nonlinear Imputation of PaO2/FIO2 From SpO2/FIO2 Among Mechanically Ventilated Patients in the ICU: A Prospective, Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: In the contemporary ICU, mechanically ventilated patients may not have arterial blood gas measurements available at relevant timepoints. Severity criteria often depend on arterial blood gas results. Retrospective studies suggest that nonlinear imputation of PaO2/FIO2 from SpO2/FIO2 is accurate, but this has not been established prospectively among mechanically ventilated ICU patients. The objective was to validate the superiority of nonlinear imputation of PaO2/FIO2 among mechanically ventilated patients and understand what factors influence the accuracy of imputation. DESIGN: Simultaneous SpO2, oximeter characteristics, receipt of vasopressors, and skin pigmentation were recorded at the time of a clinical arterial blood gas. Acute respiratory distress syndrome criteria were recorded. For each imputation method, we calculated both imputation error and the area under the curve for patients meeting criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome (PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 300) and moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 150). SETTING: Nine hospitals within the Prevention and Early Treatment of Acute Lung Injury network. PATIENTS: We prospectively enrolled 703 mechanically ventilated patients admitted to the emergency departments or ICUs of participating study hospitals. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We studied 1,034 arterial blood gases from 703 patients; 650 arterial blood gases were associated with SpO2 less than or equal to 96%. Nonlinear imputation had consistently lower error than other techniques. Among all patients, nonlinear had a lower error (p < 0.001) and higher (p < 0.001) area under the curve (0.87; 95% CI, 0.85-0.90) for PaO2/FIO2 less than or equal to 300 than linear/log-linear (0.80; 95% CI, 0.76-0.83) imputation. All imputation methods better identified moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (PaO2/FIO2 ≤ 150); nonlinear imputation remained superior (p < 0.001). For PaO2/FIO2 less than or equal to 150, the sensitivity and specificity for nonlinear imputation were 0.87 (95% CI, 0.83-0.90) and 0.91 (95% CI, 0.88-0.93), respectively. Skin pigmentation and receipt of vasopressors were not associated with imputation accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: In mechanically ventilated patients, nonlinear imputation of PaO2/FIO2 from SpO2/FIO2 seems accurate, especially for moderate-severe hypoxemia. Linear and log-linear imputations cannot be recommended.

Outcome of Adult Respiratory Failure Patients Receiving Prolonged (≥14 Days) ECMO.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the outcomes of prolonged (≥14 days) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (P-ECMO) for adult severe respiratory failure and to assess characteristics associated with survival. BACKGROUND: The use of ECMO for treatment of severe respiratory adult patients is associated with overall survival rates of 50% to 70% with median ECMO duration of 10 days. No prior multi-institutional studies have examined outcomes of P-ECMO for severe respiratory failure. METHODS: Data on all adult (≥18 years) patients who required P-ECMO for severe respiratory failure from 1989 to 2013 were extracted from the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization international multi-institutional registry. We examined outcomes over 23 years and compared the 2 more recent time periods of 1989 to 2006 versus 2007 to 2013. RESULTS: Up to 974 patients, mean age 40.2 (18-83) years, had ECMO duration of mean 25.2 days/median 21.0 days (range: 14-208 days). Venovenous ECMO support was most common (venovenous: 79.5%, venoarterial: 9.9%). Reason for ECMO discontinuation included native lung recovery (54%), organ failure (23.7%), family request (6.7%), hemorrhage (2.7%), and diagnosis incompatible with life (5.6%). Forty patients (4.1%) underwent lung transplant with 50% postoperative in-hospital mortality. Increased prevalence of P-ECMO was noted with 72% (701/974) of all cases reported since 2008. Survival to hospital discharge was 45.4% (443/974) and did not vary with ECMO duration. Multivariate logistic regression analysis confirmed that P-ECMO patients 2007 to 2013 had a lower risk of death [odds ratio (OR): 0.650; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.454-0.929; P = 0.010] compared with 1989 to 2006. Factors independently associated with survival were younger age (OR: 0.983; 95% CI, 0.974-0.993; P < 0.001) and lower PaCO2 (OR, 0.991; 95% CI, 0.986-0.996; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Prolonged ECMO use for adult respiratory failure was associated with a lower (45.4%) hospital survival rate, compared with prior reported survival rates of short duration ECMO. Prolonged ECMO survival significantly increased in recent years, and increasing ECMO duration did not alter the survival fraction in the 1989 to 2013 study cohort. Although P-ECMO survival rates are less than short ECMO runs, P-ECMO support is justified.

Lung Injury Prediction Score in Hospitalized Patients at Risk of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: The Lung Injury Prediction Score identifies patients at risk for acute respiratory distress syndrome in the emergency department, but it has not been validated in non-emergency department hospitalized patients. We aimed to evaluate whether Lung Injury Prediction Score identifies non-emergency department hospitalized patients at risk of developing acute respiratory distress syndrome at the time of critical care contact. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Five academic medical centers. PATIENTS: Nine hundred consecutive patients (≥ 18 yr old) with at least one acute respiratory distress syndrome risk factor at the time of critical care contact. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Lung Injury Prediction Score was calculated using the worst values within the 12 hours before initial critical care contact. Patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome at the time of initial contact were excluded. Acute respiratory distress syndrome developed in 124 patients (13.7%) a median of 2 days (interquartile range, 2-3) after critical care contact. Hospital mortality was 22% and was significantly higher in acute respiratory distress syndrome than non-acute respiratory distress syndrome patients (48% vs 18%; p < 0.001). Increasing Lung Injury Prediction Score was significantly associated with development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.21-1.42) and the composite outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome or death (odds ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.18-1.34). A Lung Injury Prediction Score greater than or equal to 4 was associated with the development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (odds ratio, 4.17; 95% CI, 2.26-7.72), composite outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome or death (odds ratio, 2.43; 95% CI, 1.68-3.49), and acute respiratory distress syndrome after accounting for the competing risk of death (hazard ratio, 3.71; 95% CI, 2.05-6.72). For acute respiratory distress syndrome development, the Lung Injury Prediction Score has an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.70 and a Lung Injury Prediction Score greater than or equal to 4 has 90% sensitivity (misses only 10% of acute respiratory distress syndrome cases), 31% specificity, 17% positive predictive value, and 95% negative predictive value. CONCLUSIONS: In a cohort of non-emergency department hospitalized patients, the Lung Injury Prediction Score and Lung Injury Prediction Score greater than or equal to 4 can identify patients at increased risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome and/or death at the time of critical care contact but it does not perform as well as in the original emergency department cohort.

Too Little Oxygen: Ventilation, Prone Positioning, and Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Severe Hypoxemia.

Severe hypoxemia is associated with untoward outcomes in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. Nevertheless, in and of itself, correction of hypoxemia is not an adequate surrogate outcome for mortality and clear evidence-based targets for correction of hypoxemia remain to be determined. At present, clinical management is directed toward achieving sufficient oxygenation while minimizing toxicity of ventilator-induced lung injury. The gold standard remains lung-protective mechanical ventilation, using lower-tidal volumes and pressure-limited ventilator titration. Notable progress in care includes further refinements in mechanical ventilation, consideration of salutatory effects of early prone positioning and neuromuscular blockade, and exploration of adjunctive extrapulmonary support with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. This review focuses on three specific aspects: the evolving trend toward open lung ventilation, tempered by the recent cautionary experience with high-frequency oscillation ventilation; the evolution of prone positioning as a treatment for the most hypoxemic patients; and the continued future promise of extracorporeal support as a true rescue therapy.

Effect of Aspirin on Development of ARDS in At-Risk Patients Presenting to the Emergency Department: The LIPS-A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains largely supportive. Whether early intervention can prevent development of ARDS remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of early aspirin administration for the prevention of ARDS. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial conducted at 16 US academic hospitals. Between January 2, 2012, and November 17, 2014, 7673 patients at risk for ARDS (Lung Injury Prediction Score ≥4) in the emergency department were screened and 400 were randomized. Ten patients were excluded, leaving 390 in the final modified intention-to-treat analysis cohort. INTERVENTIONS: Administration of aspirin, 325-mg loading dose followed by 81 mg/d (n = 195) or placebo (n = 195) within 24 hours of emergency department presentation and continued to hospital day 7, discharge, or death. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the development of ARDS by study day 7. Secondary measures included ventilator-free days, hospital and intensive care unit length of stay, 28-day and 1-year survival, and change in serum biomarkers associated with ARDS. A final α level of .0737 (α = .10 overall) was required for statistical significance of the primary outcome. RESULTS: Among 390 analyzed patients (median age, 57 years; 187 [48%] women), the median (IQR) hospital length of stay was 6 3-10) days. Administration of aspirin, compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce the incidence of ARDS at 7 days (10.3% vs 8.7%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.24 [92.6% CI, 0.67 to 2.31], P = .53). No significant differences were seen in secondary outcomes: ventilator-free to day 28, mean (SD), 24.9 (7.4) days vs 25.2 (7.0) days (mean [90% CI] difference, -0.26 [-1.46 to 0.94] days; P = .72); ICU length of stay, mean (SD), 5.2 (7.0) days vs 5.4 (7.0) days (mean [90% CI] difference, -0.16 [-1.75 to 1.43] days; P = .87); hospital length of stay, mean (SD), 8.8 (10.3) days vs 9.0 (9.9) days (mean [90% CI] difference, -0.27 [-1.96 to 1.42] days; P = .79); or 28-day survival, 90% vs 90% (hazard ratio [90% CI], 1.03 [0.60 to 1.79]; P = .92) or 1-year survival, 73% vs 75% (hazard ratio [90% CI], 1.06 [0.75 to 1.50]; P = .79). Bleeding-related adverse events were infrequent in both groups (aspirin vs placebo, 5.6% vs 2.6%; odds ratio [90% CI], 2.27 [0.92 to 5.61]; P = .13). RESULTS: Among 390 analyzed patients (median age, 57 years; 187 [48%] women), median (IQR) hospital length of stay was 6 (3-10) days. Administration of aspirin, compared with placebo, did not significantly reduce the incidence of ARDS at 7 days (OR, 1.24; 92.6%CI, 0.67-2.31). No significant differences were seen in secondary outcomes or adverse events. [table: see text] CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among at-risk patients presenting to the ED, the use of aspirin compared with placebo did not reduce the risk of ARDS at 7 days. The findings of this phase 2b trial do not support continuation to a larger phase 3 trial. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01504867.

Protocols and Hospital Mortality in Critically Ill Patients: The United States Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group Critical Illness Outcomes Study.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical protocols may decrease unnecessary variation in care and improve compliance with desirable therapies. We evaluated whether highly protocolized ICUs have superior patient outcomes compared with less highly protocolized ICUs. DESIGN: Observational study in which participating ICUs completed a general assessment and enrolled new patients 1 day each week. PATIENTS: A total of 6,179 critically ill patients. SETTING: Fifty-nine ICUs in the United States Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group Critical Illness Outcomes Study. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary exposure was the number of ICU protocols; the primary outcome was hospital mortality. A total of 5,809 participants were followed prospectively, and 5,454 patients in 57 ICUs had complete outcome data. The median number of protocols per ICU was 19 (interquartile range, 15-21.5). In single-variable analyses, there were no differences in ICU and hospital mortality, length of stay, use of mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or continuous sedation among individuals in ICUs with a high versus low number of protocols. The lack of association was confirmed in adjusted multivariable analysis (p = 0.70). Protocol compliance with two ventilator management protocols was moderate and did not differ between ICUs with high versus low numbers of protocols for lung protective ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome (47% vs 52%; p = 0.28) and for spontaneous breathing trials (55% vs 51%; p = 0.27). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical protocols are highly prevalent in U.S. ICUs. The presence of a greater number of protocols was not associated with protocol compliance or patient mortality.

Structure, process, and annual ICU mortality across 69 centers: United States Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group Critical Illness Outcomes Study.

OBJECTIVE: Hospital-level variations in structure and process may affect clinical outcomes in ICUs. We sought to characterize the organizational structure, processes of care, use of protocols, and standardized outcomes in a large sample of U.S. ICUs. DESIGN: We surveyed 69 ICUs about organization, size, volume, staffing, processes of care, use of protocols, and annual ICU mortality. SETTING: ICUs participating in the United States Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group Critical Illness Outcomes Study. SUBJECTS: Sixty-nine intensivists completed the survey. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We characterized structure and process variables across ICUs, investigated relationships between these variables and annual ICU mortality, and adjusted for illness severity using Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II. Ninety-four ICU directors were invited to participate in the study and 69 ICUs (73%) were enrolled, of which 25 (36%) were medical, 24 (35%) were surgical, and 20 (29%) were of mixed type, and 64 (93%) were located in teaching hospitals with a median number of five trainees per ICU. Average annual ICU mortality was 10.8%, average Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score was 19.3, 58% were closed units, and 41% had a 24-hour in-house intensivist. In multivariable linear regression adjusted for Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II and multiple ICU structure and process factors, annual ICU mortality was lower in surgical ICUs than in medical ICUs (5.6% lower [95% CI, 2.4-8.8%]) or mixed ICUs (4.5% lower [95% CI, 0.4-8.7%]). We also found a lower annual ICU mortality among ICUs that had a daily plan of care review (5.8% lower [95% CI, 1.6-10.0%]) and a lower bed-to-nurse ratio (1.8% lower when the ratio decreased from 2:1 to 1.5:1 [95% CI, 0.25-3.4%]). In contrast, 24-hour intensivist coverage (p = 0.89) and closed ICU status (p = 0.16) were not associated with a lower annual ICU mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In a sample of 69 ICUs, a daily plan of care review and a lower bed-to-nurse ratio were both associated with a lower annual ICU mortality. In contrast to 24-hour intensivist staffing, improvement in team communication is a low-cost, process-targeted intervention strategy that may improve clinical outcomes in ICU patients.

Predicting risk of postoperative lung injury in high-risk surgical patients: a multicenter cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains a serious postoperative complication. Although ARDS prevention is a priority, the inability to identify patients at risk for ARDS remains a barrier to progress. The authors tested and refined the previously reported surgical lung injury prediction (SLIP) model in a multicenter cohort of at-risk surgical patients. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a multicenter, prospective cohort investigation evaluating high-risk patients undergoing surgery. Preoperative ARDS risk factors and risk modifiers were evaluated for inclusion in a parsimonious risk-prediction model. Multiple imputation and domain analysis were used to facilitate development of a refined model, designated SLIP-2. Area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test were used to assess model performance. RESULTS: Among 1,562 at-risk patients, ARDS developed in 117 (7.5%). Nine independent predictors of ARDS were identified: sepsis, high-risk aortic vascular surgery, high-risk cardiac surgery, emergency surgery, cirrhosis, admission location other than home, increased respiratory rate (20 to 29 and ≥30 breaths/min), FIO2 greater than 35%, and SpO2 less than 95%. The original SLIP score performed poorly in this heterogeneous cohort with baseline risk factors for ARDS (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [95% CI], 0.56 [0.50 to 0.62]). In contrast, SLIP-2 score performed well (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [95% CI], 0.84 [0.81 to 0.88]). Internal validation indicated similar discrimination, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.84. CONCLUSIONS: In this multicenter cohort of patients at risk for ARDS, the SLIP-2 score outperformed the original SLIP score. If validated in an independent sample, this tool may help identify surgical patients at high risk for ARDS.