Transatlantic transferability of a new reinforcement learning model for optimizing haemodynamic treatment for critically ill patients with sepsis.

INTRODUCTION: In recent years, reinforcement learning (RL) has gained traction in the healthcare domain. In particular, RL methods have been explored for haemodynamic optimization of septic patients in the Intensive Care Unit. Most hospitals however, lack the data and expertise for model development, necessitating transfer of models developed using external datasets. This approach assumes model generalizability across different patient populations, the validity of which has not previously been tested. In addition, there is limited knowledge on safety and reliability. These challenges need to be addressed to further facilitate implementation of RL models in clinical practice. METHOD: We developed and validated a new reinforcement learning model for hemodynamic optimization in sepsis on the MIMIC intensive care database from the USA using a dueling double deep Q network. We then transferred this model to the European AmsterdamUMCdb intensive care database. T-Distributed Stochastic Neighbor Embedding and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were used to explore the differences between the patient populations. We apply off-policy policy evaluation methods to quantify model performance. In addition, we introduce and apply a novel deep policy inspection to analyse how the optimal policy relates to the different phases of sepsis and sepsis treatment to provide interpretable insight in order to assess model safety and reliability. RESULTS: The off-policy evaluation revealed that the optimal policy outperformed the physician policy on both datasets despite marked differences between the two patient populations and physician's policies. Our novel deep policy inspection method showed insightful results and unveiled that the model could initiate therapy adequately and adjust therapy intensity to illness severity and disease progression which indicated safe and reliable model behaviour. Compared to current physician behavior, the developed policy prefers a more liberal use of vasopressors with a more restrained use of fluid therapy in line with previous work. CONCLUSION: We created a reinforcement learning model for optimal bedside hemodynamic management and demonstrated model transferability between populations from the USA and Europe for the first time. We proposed new methods for deep policy inspection integrating expert domain knowledge. This is expected to facilitate progression to bedside clinical decision support for the treatment of critically ill patients.

Outcomes of persons with coronavirus disease 2019 in hospitals with and without standard treatment with (hydroxy)chloroquine.

OBJECTIVE: To compare survival of individuals with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treated in hospitals that either did or did not routinely treat patients with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine. METHODS: We analysed data of COVID-19 patients treated in nine hospitals in the Netherlands. Inclusion dates ranged from 27 February to 15 May 2020, when the Dutch national guidelines no longer supported the use of (hydroxy)chloroquine. Seven hospitals routinely treated patients with (hydroxy)chloroquine, two hospitals did not. Primary outcome was 21-day all-cause mortality. We performed a survival analysis using log-rank test and Cox regression with adjustment for age, sex and covariates based on premorbid health, disease severity and the use of steroids for adult respiratory distress syndrome, including dexamethasone. RESULTS: Among 1949 individuals, 21-day mortality was 21.5% in 1596 patients treated in hospitals that routinely prescribed (hydroxy)chloroquine, and 15.0% in 353 patients treated in hospitals that did not. In the adjusted Cox regression models this difference disappeared, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 1.09 (95% CI 0.81-1.47). When stratified by treatment actually received in individual patients, the use of (hydroxy)chloroquine was associated with an increased 21-day mortality (HR 1.58; 95% CI 1.24-2.02) in the full model. CONCLUSIONS: After adjustment for confounders, mortality was not significantly different in hospitals that routinely treated patients with (hydroxy)chloroquine compared with hospitals that did not. We compared outcomes of hospital strategies rather than outcomes of individual patients to reduce the chance of indication bias. This study adds evidence against the use of (hydroxy)chloroquine in hospitalised patients with COVID-19.

Case Report: Bilateral reexpansion pulmonary edema following treatment of a unilateral hemothorax.

Bilateral re-expansion pulmonary edema (RPE) is an extremely rare entity. We report the unique case of bilateral RPE following a traumatic, unilateral hemopneumothorax in a young healthy male. Bilateral RPE occurred only one hour after drainage of a unilateral hemopneumothorax. The patient was treated with diuretics and supplemental oxygen. Diagnosis was confirmed by excluding other causes, using laboratory findings, chest radiography, pulmonary and cardiac ultrasound and high resolution computed tomography. His recovery was uneventful. The pathophysiology of bilateral RPE is not well known. Treatment is mainly supportive and consists of diuretics, mechanical ventilation, inotropes and steroids. In case of a pulmonary deterioration after the drainage of a traumatic pneumothorax, bilateral RPE should be considered after exclusion of more common causes of dyspnea.