Hyperdynamic left ventricular ejection fraction in the intensive care unit.

INTRODUCTION: Limited information exists on the etiology, prevalence, and significance of hyperdynamic left ventricular ejection fraction (HDLVEF) in the intensive care unit (ICU). Our aim in the present study was to compare characteristics and outcomes of patients with HDLVEF with those of patients with normal left ventricular ejection fraction in the ICU using a large, public, deidentified critical care database. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal, single-center, retrospective cohort study of adult patients who underwent echocardiography during a medical or surgical ICU admission at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center using the Multiparameter Intelligent Monitoring in Intensive Care II database. The final cohort had 2867 patients, of whom 324 had HDLVEF, defined as an ejection fraction >70%. Patients with an ejection fraction <55% were excluded. RESULTS: Compared with critically ill patients with normal left ventricular ejection fraction, the finding of HDLVEF in critically ill patients was associated with female sex, increased age, and the diagnoses of hypertension and cancer. Patients with HDLVEF had increased 28-day mortality compared with those with normal ejection fraction in multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, sex, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, Elixhauser score for comorbidities, vasopressor use, and mechanical ventilation use (odds ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.039-1.842, p =0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of HDLVEF portended increased 28-day mortality, and may be helpful as a gravity marker for prognosis in patients admitted to the ICU. Further research is warranted to gain a better understanding of how these patients respond to common interventions in the ICU and to determine if pharmacologic modulation of HDLVEF improves outcomes.

Rapid Detection of Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus in BAL: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend empirical vancomycin or linezolid for patients with suspected pneumonia at risk for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). Unneeded vancomycin or linezolid use may unnecessarily alter host flora and expose patients to toxicity. We therefore sought to determine if rapid testing for MRSA in BAL can safely decrease use of vancomycin or linezolid for suspected MRSA pneumonia. METHODS: Operating characteristics of the assay were initially validated against culture on residual BAL. A prospective, unblinded, randomized clinical trial to assess the effect of antibiotic management made on the basis of rapid diagnostic testing (RDT) compared with usual care was subsequently conducted, with primary outcome of duration of vancomycin or linezolid administration. Secondary end points focused on safety. RESULTS: Sensitivity of RPCR was 95.7%, with a negative likelihood ratio of 0.04 for MRSA. The clinical trial randomized 45 patients: 22 to antibiotic management made on the basis of RDT and 23 to usual care. Duration of vancomycin or linezolid administration was significantly reduced in the intervention group (32 h [interquartile range, 22-48] vs 72 h [interquartile range, 50-113], P < .001). Proportions with complications and length of stay trended lower in the intervention group. Hospital mortality was 13.6% in the intervention group and 39.1% for usual care (95% CI of difference, -3.3 to 50.3, P = .06). Standardized mortality ratio was 0.48 for the intervention group and 1.18 for usual care. CONCLUSIONS: A highly sensitive BAL RDT for MRSA significantly reduced use of vancomycin and linezolid in ventilated patients with suspected pneumonia. Management made on the basis of RDT had no adverse effects, with a trend to lower hospital mortality. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No. NCT02660554; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.