Modelling the potential increase in eligible participants in clinical trials with inclusion of community intensive care unit patients in Alberta, Canada: a decision tree analysis.

PURPOSE: Critical care research in Canada is conducted primarily in academically affiliated intensive care units (ICUs) with established research infrastructure. Efforts are made to engage community hospital ICUs in research, although the impacts of their inclusion in clinical research have never been explicitly quantified. We therefore sought to determine the number of additional eligible patients that could be recruited into critical care trials and the change in time to study completion if community ICUs were included in clinical research. METHODS: We conducted a decision tree analysis using 2018 Alberta Health Services data. Patient demographics and clinical characteristics for all ICU patients were compared against eligibility criteria from ten landmark, randomized, multicentre critical care trials. Individual patients from academic and community ICUs were assessed for eligibility in each of the ten studies, and decision tree analysis models were built based on prior inclusion and exclusion criteria from those trials. RESULTS: The number of potentially eligible patients for the ten trials ranged from 2,082 to 10,157. Potentially eligible participants from community ICUs accounted for 40.0% of total potentially eligible participants. The recruitment of community ICU patients in trials would have increased potential enrolment by an average of 64.0%. The inclusion of community ICU patients was predicted to decrease time to trial completion by a mean of 14 months (43% reduction). CONCLUSION: Inclusion of community ICU patients in critical care research trials has the potential to substantially increase enrolment and decrease time to trial completion.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: La recherche en soins intensifs au Canada est principalement réalisée dans des unités de soins intensifs affiliées à des centres universitaires jouissant d'infrastructures de recherche bien établies. Des efforts ont été déployés pour engager les unités de soins intensifs des hôpitaux communautaires en recherche, mais les impacts de leur participation à la recherche clinique n'ont jamais été explicitement quantifiés. Nous avons conséquemment cherché à déterminer le nombre de patient·es additionnel·les pouvant être recruté·es dans des études de soins critiques ainsi que la variation du temps nécessaire pour compléter les études si la patientèle issue d'unités de soins intensifs d'hôpitaux communautaires participait à la recherche clinique. MéTHODE: Une analyse par arbre de décision a été réalisée à partir de données provenant des Alberta Health Services pour l'année 2018. Les données démographiques et les caractéristiques cliniques de tou·tes les patient·es admis·es aux soins intensifs ont été comparées avec les critères d'éligibilité de dix importantes études multicentriques, randomisées, contrôlées en soins intensifs. Les patient·es des unités de soins intensifs universitaires et communautaires ont tou·tes été évalué·es pour leur éligibilité à chacune des dix études, et des modèles d'arbres décisionnels ont été construits en se basant sur les critères originaux d'inclusion et d'exclusion. RéSULTATS: Le nombre de personnes potentiellement éligibles pour les dix études s'est situé entre 2082 et 10 157. Les patient·es potentiellement admissibles en provenance d'unités de soins intensifs communautaires ont représenté 40,0 % de toutes les personnes potentiellement admissibles. Le recrutement de patient·es en provenance d'unités de soins intensifs communautaires aurait permis une hausse moyenne du recrutement potentiel de 64,0 %. L'inclusion de patient·es des unités de soins intensifs communautaires pourrait également réduire le temps nécessaire à la complétion des études de 14 mois en moyenne (réduction de 43 %). CONCLUSION: L'inclusion de patient·es en provenance d'unités de soins intensifs d'hôpitaux communautaires dans la recherche clinique en soins critiques a le potentiel d'augmenter substantiellement le recrutement et de diminuer le temps nécessaire à la complétion des études.

Safety Outcomes of Direct Discharge Home From ICUs: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Direct From ICU Sent Home Study).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of direct discharge home (DDH) from ICUs compared with ward transfer on safety outcomes of readmissions, emergency department (ED) visits, and mortality. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception until March 28, 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized and nonrandomized studies of DDH patients compared with ward transfer were eligible. DATA EXTRACTION: We screened and extracted studies independently and in duplicate. We assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. A random-effects meta-analysis model and heterogeneity assessment was performed using pooled data (inverse variance) for propensity-matched and unadjusted cohorts. We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 10,228 citations identified, we included six studies. Of these, three high-quality studies, which enrolled 49,376 patients in propensity-matched cohorts, could be pooled using meta-analysis. For DDH from ICU, compared with ward transfers, there was no difference in the risk of ED visits at 30-day (22.4% vs 22.7%; relative risk [RR], 0.99; 95% CI, 0.95-1.02; p = 0.39; low certainty); hospital readmissions at 30-day (9.8% vs 9.6%; RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.15; p = 0.71; very low-to-low certainty); or 90-day mortality (2.8% vs 2.6%; RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.95-1.18; p = 0.29; very low-to-low certainty). There were no important differences in the unmatched cohorts or across subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Very low-to-low certainty evidence from observational studies suggests that DDH from ICU may have no difference in safety outcomes compared with ward transfer of selected ICU patients. In the future, this research question could be further examined by randomized control trials to provide higher certainty data.

Intrapulmonary and Intracardiac Shunts in Adult COVID-19 Versus Non-COVID Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome ICU Patients Using Echocardiography and Contrast Bubble Studies (COVID-Shunt Study): A Prospective, Observational Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Studies have suggested intrapulmonary shunts may contribute to hypoxemia in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with worse associated outcomes. We evaluated the presence of right-to-left (R-L) shunts in COVID-19 and non-COVID ARDS patients using a comprehensive hypoxemia workup for shunt etiology and associations with mortality. DESIGN: Prospective, observational cohort study. SETTING: Four tertiary hospitals in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. PATIENTS: Adult critically ill, mechanically ventilated, ICU patients admitted with COVID-19 or non-COVID (November 16, 2020, to September 1, 2021). INTERVENTIONS: Agitated-saline bubble studies with transthoracic echocardiography/transcranial Doppler ± transesophageal echocardiography assessed for R-L shunts presence. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcomes were shunt frequency and association with hospital mortality. Logistic regression analysis was used for adjustment. The study enrolled 226 patients (182 COVID-19 vs 42 non-COVID). Median age was 58 years (interquartile range [IQR], 47-67 yr) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores of 30 (IQR, 21-36). In COVID-19 patients, the frequency of R-L shunt was 31 of 182 COVID patients (17.0%) versus 10 of 44 non-COVID patients (22.7%), with no difference detected in shunt rates (risk difference [RD], -5.7%; 95% CI, -18.4 to 7.0; p = 0.38). In the COVID-19 group, hospital mortality was higher for those with R-L shunt compared with those without (54.8% vs 35.8%; RD, 19.0%; 95% CI, 0.1-37.9; p = 0.05). This did not persist at 90-day mortality nor after adjustment with regression. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of increased R-L shunt rates in COVID-19 compared with non-COVID controls. R-L shunt was associated with increased in-hospital mortality for COVID-19 patients, but this did not persist at 90-day mortality or after adjusting using logistic regression.

Long-term Safety of Directly Discharging Patients Home from the ICU Compared to Ward Transfer.

Purpose: To evaluate the long-term safety of directly discharging intensive care unit (ICU) survivors to their home. Methods: A retrospective observational cohort of 341 ICU survivors who were directly discharged home from the ICU ("direct discharge") or discharged home ≤72 hours after ICU transfer to the ward ("ward transfer") was conducted in Regina, Saskatchewan ICUs between September 1, 2016 and September 30, 2018. The primary outcome was 90-day hospital readmission. Secondary outcomes included 30-day, 90-day, and 365-day emergency department (ED) visits, 30-day and 365-day hospital readmissions, and 365-day mortality. All outcomes were evaluated by multivariable Cox regression after adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: Of 341 survivors (25.5% of total ICU visits), 148 (43.4%) patients were direct discharges and 193 (56.6%) were ward transfers. The median age was 46 years (interquartile range, 34-62), 38.4% were female, and 61.8% resided in Regina. Compared to the ward transfer cohort, more patients in the direct discharge cohort had at least one 90-day hospital readmission (30.4% versus 17.1% of patients, adjusted hazard ratio 2.09, 95% confidence interval 1.28-3.40, P = .003), after adjustment. Additionally, there were more 90-day ED visits (P = .045), and 30-day (P = .049) and 365-day hospital readmissions (P = .03), after adjustment. Conclusions: In Saskatchewan, direct discharge compared to ward transfer was associated with an increase in 90-day hospital readmissions, and potentially other clinical outcomes. Further study is necessary.

Needs Assessment Survey Identifying Research Processes Which may be Improved by Automation or Artificial Intelligence: ICU Community Modeling and Artificial Intelligence to Improve Efficiency (ICU-Comma).

BACKGROUND: Critical care research in Canada is conducted primarily in academically-affiliated intensive care units with established research infrastructure, including research coordinators (RCs). Recently, efforts have been made to engage community hospital ICUs in research albeit with barriers. Automation or artificial intelligence (AI) could aid the performance of routine research tasks. It is unclear which research study processes might be improved through AI automation. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of Canadian ICU research personnel. The survey contained items characterizing opinions regarding research processes that may be amenable to AI automation. We distributed the questionnaire via email distribution lists of 3 Canadian research societies. Open-ended questions were analyzed using a thematic content analysis approach. RESULTS: A total of 49 survey responses were received (response rate: 8%). Tasks that respondents felt were time-consuming/tedious/tiresome included: screening for potentially eligible patients (74%), inputting data into case report forms (65%), and preparing internal tracking logs (53%). Tasks that respondents felt could be performed by AI automation included: screening for eligible patients (59%), inputting data into case report forms (55%), preparing internal tracking logs (51%), and randomizing patients into studies (45%). Open-ended questions identified enthusiasm for AI automation to improve information accuracy and efficiency while freeing up RCs to perform tasks that require human interaction. This enthusiasm was tempered by the need for proper AI education and oversight. CONCLUSIONS: There were balanced supportive (increased efficiency and re-allocation of tasks) and challenges (informational accuracy and oversight) with regards to AI automation in ICU research.

Health economic evaluation alongside the Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (E-PROSPECT): a cost-effectiveness analysis.

PURPOSE: We sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of probiotics and usual care with usual care without probiotics in mechanically ventilated, intensive care unit patients alongside the Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (PROSPECT). METHODS: We conducted a health economic evaluation alongside the PROSPECT randomized control trial (October 2013-March 2019). We adopted a public healthcare payer's perspective. Forty-four intensive care units in three countries (Canada/USA/Saudi Arabia) with adult critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients (N = 2,650) were included. Interventions were probiotics (Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG) vs placebo administered enterally twice daily. We collected healthcare resource use and estimated unit costs in 2019 United States dollars (USD) over a time horizon from randomization to hospital discharge/death. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) comparing probiotics vs usual care. The primary outcome was incremental cost per ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) event averted; secondary outcomes were costs per Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD), antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD), and mortality averted. Uncertainty was investigated using nonparametric bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation [SD]) cost per patient was USD 66,914 (91,098) for patients randomized to probiotics, with a median [interquartile range (IQR)] of USD 42,947 [22,239 to 76,205]. By comparison, for those not receiving probiotics, mean (SD) cost per patient was USD 62,701 (78,676) (median [IQR], USD 41,102 [23,170 to 75,140]; incremental cost, USD 4,213; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2,269 to 10,708). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for VAP or AAD events averted, probiotics were dominated by usual care (more expensive, with similar effectiveness). The ICERs were USD 1,473,400 per CDAD event averted (95% CI, undefined) and USD 396,764 per death averted (95% CI, undefined). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves reveal that probiotics were not cost-effective across wide ranges of plausible willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses did not change the conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Probiotics for VAP prevention among critically ill patients were not cost-effective. Study registration data www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT01782755); registered 4 February 2013.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous avons cherché à comparer le rapport coût-efficacité d'un traitement avec probiotiques ajoutés aux soins habituels avec des soins habituels prodigués sans probiotiques chez les patients des soins intensifs sous ventilation mécanique dans le cadre de l'étude PROSPECT (Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial). MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une évaluation de l'économie de la santé parallèlement à l'étude randomisée contrôlée PROSPECT (octobre 2013-mars 2019). Nous avons adopté le point de vue d'un payeur public de services de santé. Quarante-quatre unités de soins intensifs dans trois pays (Canada/États-Unis/Arabie saoudite) prenant soin de patients adultes gravement malades sous ventilation mécanique (n = 2650) ont été inclus. Les interventions ont été les suivantes : probiotiques (Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG) vs placebo administrés par voie entérale deux fois par jour. Nous avons recueilli les données concernant l'utilisation des ressources en soins de santé et estimé les coûts unitaires en dollars américains (USD) de 2019 sur un horizon temporel allant de la randomisation au congé de l'hôpital / décès. Nous avons calculé des rapports coût-efficacité différentiels (RCED) en comparant les probiotiques vs les soins habituels. Le critère d'évaluation principal était le coût différentiel par événement évité de pneumonie associée au ventilateur (PAV); les critères d'évaluation secondaires étaient les coûts par diarrhée associée au Clostridioides difficile (DACD), diarrhée associée aux antibiotiques (DAA) et mortalité évitées. L'incertitude a été étudiée à l'aide d'analyses d'amorçage et de sensibilité non paramétriques. RéSULTATS: Le coût moyen (écart type [ÉT]) par patient était de 66 914 (91 098) USD pour les patients randomisés au groupe probiotiques, avec une médiane [écart interquartile (ÉIQ)] de 42 947 USD [22 239 à 76 205]. En comparaison, pour ceux ne recevant pas de probiotiques, le coût moyen (ÉT) par patient était de 62 701 USD (78 676) (médiane [ÉIQ], 41 102 USD [23 170 à 75 140]; coût différentiel, 4213 USD; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95%, -2269 à 10 708). En matière de rapports coût-efficacité différentiels pour les événements de PAV ou DAA évités, les probiotiques étaient dominés par les soins habituels (plus coûteux, avec une efficacité similaire). Les RCED étaient de 1 473 400 USD par événement de DACD évitée (IC 95 %, non défini) et de 396 764 USD par décès évité (IC 95 %, non défini). Les courbes d'acceptabilité coût-efficacité révèlent que les probiotiques n'étaient pas rentables dans de larges gammes de seuils plausibles de volonté de payer. Les analyses de sensibilité n'ont pas modifié les conclusions. CONCLUSION: Les probiotiques utilisés pour prévenir la PAV chez les patients gravement malades n'étaient pas rentables. Enregistrement de l'étude : www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01782755); enregistrée le 4 février 2013.

Health-Related Quality-of-Life and Cost Utility Analyses in Critical Care: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Cost utility analyses compare the costs and health outcome of interventions, with a denominator of quality-adjusted life year, a generic health utility measure combining both quality and quantity of life. Cost utility analyses are difficult to compare when methods are not standardized. It is unclear how cost utility analyses are measured/reported in critical care and what methodologic challenges cost utility analyses pose in this setting. This may lead to differences precluding cost utility analyses comparisons. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of cost utility analyses conducted in critical care. Our objectives were to understand: 1) methodologic characteristics, 2) how health-related quality-of-life was measured/reported, and 3) what costs were reported/measured. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched for cost utility analyses in critical care in MEDLINE, Embase, American College of Physicians Journal Club, CENTRAL, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews' selected subset of archived versions of UK National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and American Economic Association electronic databases from inception to April 30, 2020. SETTING: Adult ICUs. PATIENTS: Adult critically ill patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 8,926 citations, 80 cost utility analyse studies were eligible. The time horizon most commonly reported was lifetime (59%). For health utility reporting, health-related quality-of-life was infrequently measured (29% reported), with only 5% of studies reporting baseline health-related quality-of-life. Indirect utility measures (generic, preference-based health utility measurement tools) were reported in 85% of studies (majority Euro-quality-of-life-5 Domains, 52%). Methods of estimating health-related quality-of-life were seldom used when the patient was incapacitated: imputation (19%), assigning fixed utilities for incapacitation (19%), and surrogates reporting on behalf of incapacitated patients (5%). For cost utility reporting transparency, separate incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years were both reported in only 76% of studies. Disaggregated quality-adjusted life years (reporting separate health utility and life years) were described in only 34% of studies. CONCLUSIONS: We identified deficiencies which warrant recommendations (standardized measurement/reporting of resource use/unit costs/health-related quality-of-life/methodological preferences) for improved design, conduct, and reporting of future cost utility analyses in critical care.

Patient, Family, and Physician Satisfaction With Planning for Direct Discharge to Home From Intensive Care Units: Direct From ICU Sent Home Study.

BACKGROUND: In the new era of decreasing hospital bed availability, there is an increasing rate of direct discharge to home (DDH) from intensive care units (ICUs), despite sparse literature informing this practice. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patient, family, and ICU attending physician satisfaction with planning for DDH from the ICU and intensivists' current DDH practices and perceptions. METHODS: Prospective cohort study, using convenience sampling, of adult patients undergoing DDH from an ICU between February 2016 and February 2017 using a modified FS-ICU 24 satisfaction survey completed by patients, family members, and attending physicians at the time of patient discharge to home from the ICU. RESULTS: Seventy-two percent of patients, 37% of family members, and 100% of ICU physicians recruited completed the survey. A majority of patients (89%) and families (78%) were satisfied or very satisfied with DDH. Only 6% of patients and 8% of families were dissatisfied to very dissatisfied with DDH. Conversely, ICU physician satisfaction varied, with only 5% being very comfortable with DDH and the majority (50%) only somewhat comfortable. Twenty percent of staff consultants were uncomfortable to very uncomfortable with the practice of DDH. Thirty-one percent of staff physician respondents felt that patient and family discomfort would be barriers to DDH. Compared to physicians and other allied health professionals, nurses were identified as the most helpful members of the health-care team in preparation for DDH by 98% of patients and 92% of family members. The DDH rates have increased for the past 12 years in our ICUs but declined during the study period (February 2016 to February 2017). CONCLUSIONS: Patients and family members are satisfied with the practice of DDH from ICU, although ICU physician satisfaction is more variable. Physician comfort may be improved by data informing which patients may be safely DDH from the ICU.

Probiotics in hospitalized adult patients: a systematic review of economic evaluations.

PURPOSE: Probiotics may prevent healthcare-associated infections, such as ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea, and other adverse outcomes. Despite their potential benefits, there are no summative data examining the cost-effectiveness of probiotics in hospitalized patients. This systematic review summarized studies evaluating the economic impact of using probiotics in hospitalized adult patients. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, ACP Journal Club, and other EBM reviews (inception to January 31, 2019) for health economics evaluations examining the use of probiotics in hospitalized adults. Independently and in duplicate, we extracted data study characteristics, risk of bias, effectiveness and total costs (medications, diagnostics/procedures, devices, personnel, hospital) associated with healthcare-associated infections (ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea and antibiotic-associated diarrhea). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methods to assess certainty in the overall cost-effectiveness evidence. RESULTS: Of 721 citations identified, we included seven studies. For the clinical outcomes of interest, there was one randomized-controlled trial (RCT)-based health economic evaluation, and six model-based health economic evaluations. Probiotics showed favourable cost-effectiveness in six of seven (86%) economic evaluations. Three of the seven studies were manufacturer-supported, all which suggested cost-effectiveness. Certainty of cost-effectiveness evidence was very low because of risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. CONCLUSION: Probiotics may be an economically attractive intervention for preventing ventilator-associated pneumonia, Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea, and antibiotic-associated diarrhea in hospitalized adult patients. Nevertheless, certainty about their cost-effectiveness evidence is very low. Future RCTs examining probiotics should incorporate cost data to inform bedside practice, clinical guidelines, and healthcare policy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019129929; Registered 25 April, 2019.

Survival and Safety Outcomes of ICU Patients Discharged Directly Home-A Direct From ICU Sent Home Study.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate outcomes (mortality, morbidity, unplanned return visits) of patients who are discharged directly to home from the ICU. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Two tertiary care medical-surgical-trauma ICUs at Canadian hospitals over 1 year (February 2016-2017). SUBJECTS: All adult patients who were either discharged directly to home (Recruited and Nonrecruited cohorts) from ICU or discharged home within 24 hours after ward transfer (Ward Transfer cohort). INTERVENTIONS: Direct discharge home from ICU or discharge home within 24 hours of ward transfer from ICU. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One-hundred ninety-eight patients were in the study, 100 patients in the discharged directly to home Recruited arm, 37 patients in the discharged directly to home Nonrecruited arm, and 61 patients in the Ward cohort. All three patient cohorts had 0% mortality at 8 weeks post discharge. The unplanned return visit rate for the Recruited cohort was 24% (emergency department 18%, Ward 4%, ICU 1%), whereas the rate for the Nonrecruited cohort was 52% (emergency department 34%, Ward 14%, ICU 3%) and the Ward Transfer cohort was 46% (emergency department 17%, Ward 26%, ICU 3%) (p = 0.005). No home support was available for 7% of the discharged directly to home Recruited cohort. Twenty-four percent of patients had funded home care nursing, but the majority of patients (81%) relied on help from friends/family. CONCLUSIONS: Recruited discharged directly to home patients experienced very good 8-week postdischarge outcomes with 0% mortality and a low rate of ICU readmission (1%) or ward readmission (4%), but not an insignificant rate of emergency department visits (18%). Recruited discharged directly to home patients had better outcomes compared with nonrecruited discharged directly to home patients and patients transferred briefly to the ward prior to discharge home. Future work should include derivation of a clinical prediction tool to identify patient characteristics that make discharged directly to home safe and a randomized control trial to compare discharged directly to home with short stay ward transfers.

Factors Associated With the Increasing Rates of Discharges Directly Home From Intensive Care Units-A Direct From ICU Sent Home Study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the relationship between rates of discharge directly to home (DDH) from the intensive care unit (ICU) and bed availability (ward and ICU). Also to identify patient characteristics that make them candidates for safe DDH and describe transfer delay impact on length of stay (LOS). METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of all adult patients who survived their stay in our medical-surgical-trauma ICU between April 2003 and March 2015. RESULTS: Median age was 49 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 33.5-60.4), and the majority of the patients were males (54.8%). Median number of preexisting comorbidities was 5 (IQR: 2-7) diagnoses. Discharge directly to home increased from 28 (3.1% of all survivors) patients in 2003 to 120 (12.5%) patients in 2014. The mean annual rate of DDH was between 11% and 12% over the last 6 years. Approximately 62% (n = 397) of patients waited longer than 4 hours for a ward bed, with a median delay of 2.0 days (IQR: 0.5-4.7) before being DDH. There was an inverse correlation between ICU occupancy and DDH rates ( rP = -.55, P < .0001, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.36 to -0.69, R2 = .29). There was no correlation with ward occupancy and DDH rates ( rs = -.055, P = .64, 95% CI = -0.25 to 0.21). CONCLUSIONS: The DDH rates have been increasing over time at our institution and were inversely correlated with ICU bed occupancy but were not associated with ward occupancy. The DDH patients are young, have few comorbidities on admission, and few discharge diagnoses, which are usually reversible single system problems with low disease burden. Transfers to the ward are delayed in a majority of cases, leading to increased ICU LOS and likely increased overall hospital LOS as well.

Prospective Study of Ultrasound Markers of Organ Congestion in Critically Ill Patients With Acute Kidney Injury.

Introduction: Organ congestion may be a mediator of adverse outcomes in critically ill patients with severe acute kidney injury (AKI). The presence of abnormal venous Doppler waveforms could identify patients with clinically significant organ congestion who may benefit from a decongestive strategy. Methods: This prospective multicenter cohort study enrolled patients with severe AKI defined as Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes stage 2 or higher. Patients were not eligible if they received renal replacement therapy (RRT) for more than 72 hours at the time of screening. Participants underwent serial Doppler ultrasound examinations of the portal, hepatic and intrarenal veins during the week following enrolment. We calculated the venous excess ultrasound (VExUS) score based on these data. The primary outcome studied was major adverse kidney events at 30 days (MAKE30) defined as death, RRT dependence, or a persistent decrease in kidney function. Results: A total of 125 patients were included for whom 291 ultrasound assessments were performed. Severely abnormal venous waveforms were documented in 14.4% of portal vein assessments, 6.5% of intrarenal venous assessments, and 14.4% of hepatic vein assessments. The individual ultrasound markers were not associated with MAKE30. The VExUS score (grade 0-1: reference; grade 2: adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 4.03, confidence interval [CI]: 1.81-8.99; grade 3: aHR: 2.70, CI: 1.10-6.65; P = 0.03), as well as severely abnormal portal, hepatic and intrarenal vein Doppler were each independently associated with mortality. Conclusion: Although not significantly associated with MAKE30, venous Doppler abnormalities suggestive of venous congestion were associated with higher mortality in critically ill patients with severe AKI.

Patient and Family Experience With Discharge Directly Home From the Pediatric ICU.

BACKGROUND: Children are increasingly discharged directly from the PICU. Transitions have been recognized as a period of increased patient and caregiver stress and risk of adverse events. No study has evaluated patient and caregiver outcomes after direct discharge from the PICU. This study aimed to explore the family's experiences with discharge directly home (DDH) from the PICU. METHODS: This exploratory mixed-methods study was conducted in the PICU of the Institution is Sainte-Justine Hospital from February to July 2021. We included families of children expected to be DDH within 12 hours. Semistructured interviews were conducted at discharge, followed by telephone interviews 7 and 28 days post-PICU discharge. We measured comfort on a 5-point Likert scale and screened for anxiety using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 tool. RESULTS: Families of 25 patients were interviewed. Thematic analysis of the interviews revealed several themes, such as feeling stress and anxiety, feeling confident, anticipating home care, and needing support. These findings complemented the quantitative findings; the median comfort score was 4 (comfortable) (interquartile range 4-5) and 8 (interquartile range 4-12) for the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 on the day of discharge, with 16 reporting clinically significant anxiety. In the 28-day study period, 2 patients were readmitted and 6 had visited the emergency department. CONCLUSIONS: Despite feelings of anxiety, many families felt comfortable with DDH from the PICU. Increasing our understanding of the patient and family experiences of discharge from the PICU will help to better support these patients and their families during transition.

Systemic Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatories for Analgesia in Postoperative Critical Care Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials.

While opioids are part of usual care for analgesia in the ICU, there are concerns regarding excess use. This is a systematic review of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) use in postoperative critical care adult patients. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, trial registries, Google Scholar, and relevant systematic reviews through March 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed independently and induplicate by two investigators to identify eligible studies. We included randomized control trials (RCTs) that compared NSAIDs alone or as an adjunct to opioids for systemic analgesia. The primary outcome was opioid utilization. DATA EXTRACTION: In duplicate, investigators independently extracted study characteristics, patient demographics, intervention details, and outcomes of interest using predefined abstraction forms. Statistical analyses were conducted using Review Manager software Version 5.4. (The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 15 RCTs (n = 1,621 patients) for admission to the ICU for postoperative management after elective procedures. Adjunctive NSAID therapy to opioids reduced 24-hour oral morphine equivalent consumption by 21.4 mg (95% CI, 11.8-31.0 mg reduction; high certainty) and probably reduced pain scores (measured by Visual Analog Scale) by 6.1 mm (95% CI, 12.2 decrease to 0.1 increase; moderate certainty). Adjunctive NSAID therapy probably had no impact on the duration of mechanical ventilation (1.6 hr reduction; 95% CI, 0.4 hr to 2.7 reduction; moderate certainty) and may have no impact on ICU length of stay (2.1 hr reduction; 95% CI, 6.1 hr reduction to 2.0 hr increase; low certainty). Variability in reporting adverse outcomes (e.g., gastrointestinal bleeding, acute kidney injury) precluded their meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In postoperative critical care adult patients, systemic NSAIDs reduced opioid use and probably reduced pain scores. However, the evidence is uncertain for the duration of mechanical ventilation or ICU length of stay. Further research is required to characterize the prevalence of NSAID-related adverse outcomes.

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Shunt Detection With Bubble Studies: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a life-threatening respiratory injury with multiple physiological sequelae. Shunting of deoxygenated blood through intra- and extrapulmonary shunts may complicate ARDS management. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review to determine the prevalence of sonographically detected shunts, and their association with oxygenation and mortality in patients with ARDS. DATA SOURCES: Medical literature analysis and retrieval system online, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Cochrane Library, and database of abstracts of reviews of effects databases on March 26, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Articles relating to respiratory failure and sonographic shunt detection. DATA EXTRACTION: Articles were independently screened and extracted in duplicate. Data pertaining to study demographics and shunt detection were compiled for mortality and oxygenation outcomes. Risk of bias was appraised using the Joanna-Briggs Institute and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale tools with evidence rating certainty using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. DATA SYNTHESIS: From 4,617 citations, 10 observational studies met eligibility criteria. Sonographic detection of right-to-left shunt was present in 21.8% of patients (range, 14.4-30.0%) among included studies using transthoracic, transesophageal, and transcranial bubble Doppler ultrasonographies. Shunt prevalence may be associated with increased mortality (risk ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.01-1.49; p = 0.04, very low certainty evidence) with no difference in oxygenation as measured by Pao2:Fio2 ratio (mean difference, -0.7; 95% CI, -18.6 to 17.2; p = 0.94, very low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Intra- and extrapulmonary shunts are detected frequently in ARDS with ultrasound techniques. Shunts may increase mortality among patients with ARDS, but its association with oxygenation is uncertain.

Administration of Parenteral Vitamin C in Patients With Severe Infection: Protocol for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Severe infections are characterized by inflammation and oxidative damage. Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) administration may attenuate oxidative damage and, in turn, reduce vascular endothelial injury in pulmonary and systemic vasculature. OBJECTIVE: We aim to describe a protocol for a living systematic review that will evaluate the effectiveness and safety of parenteral vitamin C administration in adults with severe infections, including those with COVID-19. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to March 30, 2021, for randomized controlled trials evaluating parenteral vitamin C versus no parenteral vitamin C in hospitalized adults with severe infection. Eligible studies will include at least 1 arm involving any dose of parenteral vitamin C alone or in combination with other cointerventions and at least 1 arm not involving parenteral vitamin C. The primary outcomes of interest will include in-hospital, 30-day, and 90-day mortality. Title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction, and risk of bias evaluation via a modified Risk of Bias 2.0 tool will be conducted independently and in pairs. We will perform random effects modeling for meta-analyses, in which study weights will be generated by using the inverse variance method. We will assess certainty in effect estimates by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Meta-analyses will be updated iteratively as new trial evidence becomes available. RESULTS: Among the 1386 citations identified as of March 30, 2021, a total of 17 eligible randomized controlled trials have been identified as of September 2021. We are in the process of updating the search strategy and associated data analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The results will be of importance to critical care physicians and hospitalists who manage severe infection and COVID-19 in daily practice, and they may directly inform international clinical guidance. Although our systematic review will incorporate the most recent trial evidence, ongoing trials may change our confidence in the estimates of effects, thereby necessitating iterative updates in the form of a living review. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020209187; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=209187. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/33989.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) excess mortality outcomes associated with pandemic effects study (COPES): A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background and aim: With the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continuing to impact healthcare systems around the world, healthcare providers are attempting to balance resources devoted to COVID-19 patients while minimizing excess mortality overall (both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients). To this end, we conducted a systematic review (SR) to describe the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on all-cause excess mortality (COVID-19 and non-COVID-19) during the pandemic timeframe compared to non-pandemic times. Methods: We searched EMBASE, Cochrane Database of SRs, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL), from inception (1948) to December 31, 2020. We used a two-stage review process to screen/extract data. We assessed risk of bias using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). We used Critical Appraisal and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Of 11,581 citations, 194 studies met eligibility. Of these studies, 31 had mortality comparisons (n = 433,196,345 participants). Compared to pre-pandemic times, during the COVID-19 pandemic, our meta-analysis demonstrated that COVID-19 mortality had an increased risk difference (RD) of 0.06% (95% CI: 0.06-0.06% p < 0.00001). All-cause mortality also increased [relative risk (RR): 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38-1.70, p < 0.00001] alongside non-COVID-19 mortality (RR: 1.18, 1.07-1.30, p < 0.00001). There was "very low" certainty of evidence through GRADE assessment for all outcomes studied, demonstrating the evidence as uncertain. Interpretation: The COVID-19 pandemic may have caused significant increases in all-cause excess mortality, greater than those accounted for by increases due to COVID-19 mortality alone, although the evidence is uncertain. Systematic review registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails], identifier [CRD42020201256].

Cost-effectiveness of remdesivir plus usual care versus usual care alone for hospitalized patients with COVID-19: an economic evaluation as part of the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remains ill-defined. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) open-label, randomized clinical trial evaluating remdesivir. METHODS: Patients with COVID-19 in Canadian hospitals from Aug. 14, 2020, to Apr. 1, 2021, were randomly assigned to receive remdesivir plus usual care versus usual care alone. Taking a public health care payer's perspective, we collected in-hospital outcomes and health care resource utilization alongside estimated unit costs in 2020 Canadian dollars over a time horizon from randomization to hospital discharge or death. Data from 1281 adults admitted to 52 hospitals in 6 Canadian provinces were analyzed. RESULTS: The total mean cost per patient was $37 918 (standard deviation [SD] $42 413; 95% confidence interval [CI] $34 617 to $41 220) for patients randomly assigned to the remdesivir group and $38 026 (SD $46 021; 95% CI $34 480 to $41 573) for patients receiving usual care (incremental cost -$108 [95% CI -$4953 to $4737], p > 0.9). The difference in proportions of in-hospital deaths between remdesivir and usual care groups was -3.9% (18.7% v. 22.6%, 95% CI -8.3% to 1.0%, p = 0.09). The difference in proportions of incident invasive mechanical ventilation events between groups was -7.0% (8.0% v. 15.0%, 95% CI -10.6% to -3.4%, p = 0.006), whereas the difference in proportions of total mechanical ventilation events between groups was -5.7% (16.4% v. 22.1%, 95% CI -10.0% to -1.4%, p = 0.01). Remdesivir was the dominant intervention (but only marginally less costly, with mildly lower mortality) with an incalculable incremental cost effectiveness ratio; we report results of incremental costs and incremental effects separately. For willingness-to-pay thresholds of $0, $20 000, $50 000 and $100 000 per death averted, a strategy using remdesivir was cost-effective in 60%, 67%, 74% and 79% of simulations, respectively. The remdesivir costs were the fifth highest cost driver, offset by shorter lengths of stay and less mechanical ventilation. INTERPRETATION: From a health care payer perspective, treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with remdesivir and usual care appears to be preferrable to treating with usual care alone, albeit with marginal incremental cost and small clinical effects. The added cost of remdesivir was offset by shorter lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and less need for ventilation. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials. gov, no. NCT04330690.

Better With Ultrasound: Transcranial Doppler.

Transcranial Doppler (TCD) ultrasound is a noninvasive method of obtaining bedside neurologic information that can supplement the physical examination. In critical care, this can be of particular value in patients who are unconscious with an equivocal neurologic examination because TCD findings can help the physician in decisions related to more definitive imaging studies and potential clinical interventions. Although TCD is traditionally the domain of sonographers and radiologists, there is increasing adoption of goal-directed TCD at the bedside in the critical care environment. The value of this approach includes round-the-clock availability and a goal-directed approach allowing for repeatability, immediate interpretation, and quick clinical integration. This paper presents a systematic approach to incorporating the highest yield TCD techniques into critical care bedside practice, and includes a series of illustrative figures and narrated video presentations to demonstrate the techniques described.