Reducing the burden of preventable deaths from sepsis in Canada: A need for a national sepsis action plan.

Sepsis is a global health threat with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite clinical practice guidelines and developed health systems, sepsis is often unrecognized or misdiagnosed, leading to preventable harm. In Canada, sepsis is responsible for 1 in 20 deaths and is a significant driver of health system costs. Despite being a signatory to the World Health Organization's Resolution WHA 70.7, adopted in 2017, Canada has not lived up to its commitment. Many existing sepsis policies were developed in response to a specific tragedy, and there is no national sepsis action plan. In this article, we describe the burden of sepsis, provide examples of existing, context-specific, reactionary sepsis policies, and urge a coordinated, proactive Canadian sepsis action plan to reduce the burden of sepsis.

Economic Evaluation of Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is increasingly being used to support patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, but its cost-effectiveness is unknown. We assessed the cost-utility of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome in adults compared with standard lung protective ventilation from the perspective of the healthcare system. DESIGN: We conducted a cost-utility analysis with a cohort state transition decision model using a lifetime time horizon, 1.5% discount rate, and outcomes reported as cost per quality-adjusted life year. Literature reviews were conducted to inform the model variables. Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess uncertainty in the model. SETTING: Canadian publicly funded healthcare system. PATIENTS: Hypothetical cohort of adults with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. INTERVENTIONS: Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or standard lung protective ventilation. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: In our model, the use of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation compared with lung protective ventilation resulted in a gain of 5.2 life years and 4.05 quality-adjusted life years, at an additional lifetime cost of $145,697 Canadian dollars. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was $36,001/quality-adjusted life year. Sensitivity analyses show that the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio is sensitive to the efficacy of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation therapy and costs. CONCLUSIONS: Based on current data, venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is cost-effective for patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. Additional evidence on the efficacy of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for acute respiratory distress syndrome and in different subgroups of patients will allow for greater certainty in its cost-effectiveness.

Surrogate decision makers' attitudes towards research decision making for critically ill patients.

PURPOSE: To examine the attitudes and preferences of surrogate decision makers (SDMs) regarding their involvement in the consent to research process for ICU patients. METHODS: We presented 136 SDMs of critically ill patients in five ICUs with four hypothetical research scenarios: baseline interventional study of a placebo controlled RCT; study with higher risk of treatment complication; study comparing two accepted treatments; study with shorter enrolment window. For each we asked SDMs if they would want to be involved in the consent to research decision, and to rate the acceptability of their comfort with, and their sense of burden with their involvement. Participants were screened for symptoms of anxiety and depression using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. RESULTS: For the baseline scenario, most SDMs wished to be involved in research decision making (90 %; 95 % CI 84-95 %); responses varied little across study permutations. The majority considered their involvement to be acceptable (85 %; 95 % CI 77-90 %), whereas, a small minority rated it as being unacceptable (2 %; 95 % CI 1-6 %). Many were comfortable with being involved (50 %; 95 % CI 41-59 %), but the number decreased when risk of harm was higher (34 %; 95 % CI 26-43 %) or enrolment window was shorter (41 %; 95 % CI 33-50 %). A majority (62 %) reported symptoms of anxiety and many (38 %) had symptoms of depression. CONCLUSION: Most of the interviewed SDMs wished to be involved in research decision making for critically ill and incapable loved ones. Variability existed, however, in their desire to be involved when decisions were time-sensitive or perceived risk was greater.

Patients' preferences for enrolment into critical-care trials.

BACKGROUND: Most critically ill patients are incapable of providing informed consent for research. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine patients' preferences for different consent frameworks for enrolling incapable patients into critical-care trials. DESIGN: Prospective observational and structured interview study. SETTING: Five university-affiliated hospitals in Ontario. PATIENTS: Two-hundred and forty consecutive capable and consenting survivors of critical illness. INTERVENTION: Participants considered four frameworks for enrolling incapable patients into clinical trials using a baseline scenario and three permutations for: risk (very low vs. high), treatment type (new vs. currently available), and availability of substitute decision-maker (yes vs. no). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For each scenario, patients chose their preferred framework and rated the acceptability of each framework using a seven-point Likert scale. Most (180/240; 76%) patients selected "consent by substitute prior to enrolment" as their preferred framework; this also received the highest baseline acceptability ratings ("acceptable" or "highly acceptable" 207/240; 87%). Modifying risk or treatment type did not substantially change these ratings. A minority of patients rated delayed consent as unacceptable or highly unacceptable in both the baseline scenario (48/240, 20% delayed to substitute; 57/240, 24% delayed to patient) and when a substitute was unavailable (34/240; 15%). CONCLUSIONS: Most survivors of critical illness found the usual practice of obtaining informed consent from a substitute decision-maker prior to enrolment in a clinical trial to be acceptable. Nearly half of patients considered foregoing informed consent to be unacceptable, whereas a minority considered enrolment followed by delayed consent to be unacceptable even when a substitute was unavailable. These approaches should, therefore, only be considered when deviating from the usual practice of obtaining consent from a substitute decision-maker is truly justified, such as where treatments being tested need to be delivered as soon as possible in order to be effective.