Serial Assessment of Shock Severity in Cardiac Intensive Care Unit Patients.

BACKGROUND: One-time assessment of the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) shock classification robustly predicts mortality in the cardiac intensive care unit (CICU). We sought to determine whether serial SCAI shock classification could improve risk stratification. METHODS AND RESULTS: Unique admissions to a single academic level 1 CICU from 2015 to 2018 were included in this retrospective cohort study. Electronic health record data were used to assign the SCAI shock stage during 4-hour blocks of the first 24 hours of CICU admission. Shock was defined as hypoperfusion (SCAI shock stage C, D, or E). In-hospital death was evaluated using logistic regression. Among 2918 unique CICU patients, 1537 (52.7%) met criteria for shock during ≥1 block, and 266 (9.1%) died in the hospital. The SCAI shock stage on admission was: A, 37.6%; B, 31.5%; C, 25.9%; D, 1.8%; and E, 3.3%. Patients who met SCAI criteria for shock on admission (first 4 hours) and those with worsening SCAI shock stage after admission were at higher risk for in-hospital death. Each higher admission (adjusted odds ratio, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.18-1.56]; area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.70), maximum (adjusted odds ratio, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.37-1.85]; area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.73) and mean (adjusted odds ratio, 2.42 [95% CI, 1.99-2.95]; area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.78) SCAI shock stage was incrementally associated with a higher in-hospital mortality rate. Discrimination was highest for the mean SCAI shock stage (P<0.05). Each additional 4-hour block meeting SCAI criteria for shock predicted a higher mortality rate (adjusted odds ratio, 1.15 [95% CI, 1.07-1.24]). CONCLUSIONS: Dynamic assessment of shock using serial SCAI shock classification assignment can improve mortality risk stratification in CICU patients by quantifying the magnitude and duration of shock.

Digital health utilities in acute kidney injury management.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a highly prevalent clinical syndrome that substantially impacts patient outcomes. It is accepted by the clinical communities that the management of AKI is time-sensitive. Unfortunately, despite growing proof of its preventability, AKI management remains suboptimal in community, acute care, and postacute care settings. Digital health solutions comprise various tools and models to improve care processes and patient outcomes in multiple medical fields. AKI development, progression, recovery, or lack thereof, offers tremendous opportunities for developing, validating, and implementing digital health solutions in multiple settings. This article will review the definitions and components of digital health, the characteristics of AKI that allow digital health solutions to be considered, and the opportunities and threats in implementing these solutions. RECENT FINDINGS: Over the past two decades, the academic output related to the use of digital health solutions in AKI has exponentially grown. While this indicates the growing interest in the topic, most topics are primarily related to clinical decision support by detecting AKI within hospitals or using artificial intelligence or machine learning technologies to predict AKI within acute care settings. However, recently, projects to assess the impact of digital health solutions in more complex scenarios, for example, managing nephrotoxins among adults of pediatric patients who already have AKI, is increasing. Depending on the type of patients, chosen digital health solution intervention, comparator groups, and selected outcomes, some of these studies showed benefits, while some did not indicate additional gain in care processes or clinical outcomes. SUMMARY: Careful needs assessment, selection of the correct digital health solution, and appropriate clinical validation of the benefits while avoiding additional health disparities are moral, professional, and ethical obligations for all individuals using these healthcare tools, including clinicians, data scientists, and administrators.

Shock Severity Assessment in Cardiac Intensive Care Unit Patients With Sepsis and Mixed Septic-Cardiogenic Shock.

We sought to validate the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) cardiogenic shock classification for mortality risk stratification in patients with sepsis and concomitant cardiovascular disease or mixed septic-cardiogenic shock. We conducted a single-center retropective cohort study of cardiac intensive care unit patients with an admission diagnosis of sepsis. We used clinical, vital sign, and laboratory data during the first 24 hours after admission to assign SCAI shock stage. We included 605 patients with a median age of 69.4 years (interquartile range, 57.9 to 79.8 years), 222 of whom (36.7%) were female. Acute coronary syndrome or heart failure was present in 480 patients (79.3%), and cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest was present in 271 patients (44.8%). The median day 1 Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) cardiovascular subscore was 1.5 (interquartile range, 1 to 4), and the admission SCAI shock stage distribution was stage B, 40.7% (246); stage C, 19.3% (117); stage D, 32.9% (199); and stage E, 7.1% (43). In-hospital mortality occurred in 177 of the 605 patients (29.3%) and increased incrementally with higher SCAI shock stage. After multivariable adjustment, admission SCAI shock stage was associated with in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio per stage, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.88; P=.003). Admission SCAI shock stage had higher discrimination for in-hospital mortality than the day 1 SOFA cardiovascular subscore (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.68 vs 0.64; P=.04 by the DeLong test). Admission SCAI shock stage was associated with 1-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio per stage, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.37; P=.02). The SCAI shock classification provides improved mortality risk stratification over the day 1 SOFA cardiovascular subscore in cardiac intensive care unit patients with sepsis and concomitant cardiovascular disease or mixed septic-cardiogenic shock.

Assessment of respiratory support decision and the outcome of invasive mechanical ventilation in severe COVID-19 with ARDS.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an ongoing pandemic. Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) is essential for the management of COVID-19 with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We aimed to assess the impact of compliance with a respiratory decision support system on the outcomes of patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS who required IMV. Methods: In this retrospective, single-center, case series study, patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS who required IMV at Zhongnan Hospital of Wuhan University, China, from January 8th, 2020, to March 24th, 2020, with the final follow-up date of April 20th, 2020, were included. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, imaging, and management information were collected and analyzed. Compliance with the respiratory support decision system was documented, and its relationship with 28-day mortality was evaluated. Results: The study included 46 COVID-19-associated ARDS patients who required IMV. The median age of the 46 patients was 68.5 years, and 31 were men. The partial pressure of arterial oxygen (PaO2)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2) ratio at intensive care unit (ICU) admission was 104 mmHg. The median total length of IMV was 12.0 (interquartile range [IQR]: 6.0-27.3) days, and the median respiratory support decision score was 11.0 (IQR: 7.8-16.0). To 28 days after ICU admission, 18 (39.1%) patients died. Survivors had a significantly higher respiratory support decision score than non-survivors (15.0 [10.3-17.0] vs. 8.5 (6.0-10.3), P = 0.001). Using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve to assess the discrimination of respiratory support decision score to 28-day mortality, the area under the curve (AUC) was 0.796 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.657-0.934, P = 0.001) and the cut-off was 11.5 (sensitivity = 0.679, specificity = 0.889). Patients with a higher score (>11.5) were more likely to survive at 28 days after ICU admission (log-rank test, P < 0.001). Conclusions: For severe COVID-19-associated ARDS with IMV, following the respiratory support decision and assessing completion would improve the progress of ventilation. With a decision score of >11.5, the mortality at 28 days after ICU admission showed an obvious decrease.

Ultrasonographic Assessment of Extravascular Lung Water in Hospitalized Patients Requiring Hemodialysis: A Prospective Observational Study.

INTRODUCTION: Sonographic technologies can estimate extravascular lung water (EVLW) in hemodialysis (HD) patients. This study investigated the suitability of a handheld scanner in contrast to a portable scanner for quantifying EVLW in hospitalized patients requiring HD. METHODS: In this prospective study, 54 hospitalized HD patients were enrolled. Bedside lung ultrasound was performed within 30 min before and after dialysis using handheld (phased array transducer, 1.7-3.8 MHz) and portable (curved probe, 5-2 MHz) ultrasound devices. Eight lung zones were scanned for total B-lines number (TBLN). The maximum diameter of inferior vena cava (IVC) was measured. We performed Passing-Bablok regression, Deming regression, Bland-Altman, and logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: The 2 devices did not differ in measuring TBLN and IVC (p > 0.05), showing a high correlation (r = 0.92 and r = 0.51, respectively). Passing-Bablok regression had a slope of 1.11 and an intercept of 0 for TBLN, and the slope of Deming regression was 1.02 within the CI bands of 0.94 and 1.11 in the full cohort. TBLN was logarithmically transformed for Bland-Altman analysis, showing a bias of 0.06 (TBLN = 1.2) between devices. The slope and intercept of the Deming regression in IVC measurements were 0.77 and 0.46, respectively; Bland-Altman plot showed a bias of -0.07. Compared with predialysis, TBLN significantly (p < 0.001) decreased after dialysis, while IVC was unchanged (p = 0.16). Univariate analysis showed that cardiovascular disease (odds ratio [OR] 8.94 [2.13-61.96], p = 0.002), smoking history (OR 5.75 [1.8-20.46], p = 0.003), and right pleural effusion (OR 5.0 [1.2-25.99], p = 0.03) were strong predictors of EVLW indicated by TBLN ≥ 4. CONCLUSION: The lung and IVC findings obtained from handheld and portable ultrasound scanners are comparable and concordant. Cardiovascular disease and smoking history were strong predictors of EVLW. The use of TBLN to assess EVLW in hospitalized HD patients is feasible. Further studies are needed to determine if TBLN can help guide volume removal in HD patients.

Cost-effectiveness of second-line vasopressors for the treatment of septic shock.

PURPOSE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of escalating doses of norepinephrine or norepinephrine plus the adjunctive use of vasopressin or angiotensin II as a second-line vasopressor for septic shock. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Decision tree analysis was performed to compare costs and outcomes associated with norepinephrine monotherapy or the two adjunctive second-line vasopressors. Short- and long-term outcomes modeled included ICU survival and lifetime quality-adjusted-life-years (QALY) gained. Costs were modeled from a payer's perspective, with a willingness-to-pay threshold set at $100,000/unit gained. One-way (tornado diagrams) and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS: Adjunctive vasopressin was the most cost-effective therapy, and dominated both norepinephrine monotherapy and adjunctive angiotensin II by producing higher ICU survival at less cost. For the lifetime horizon, while norepinephrine monotherapy was least expensive, adjunctive vasopressin was the most cost-effective with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $19,762 / QALY gained. Although adjunctive angiotensin II produced more QALYs compared to norepinephrine monotherapy, it was dominated in the long-term evaluation by second-line vasopressin. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated model robustness and medication costs were not significant drivers of model results. CONCLUSIONS: Vasopressin is the most cost-effective second-line vasopressor in both the short- and long-term evaluations. Vasopressor price is a minor contributor to overall cost.

Key Controversies in Colloid and Crystalloid Fluid Utilization.

Nearly 2 centuries have passed since the use of intravenous fluid became a foundational component of clinical practice. Despite a steady stream of published investigations on the topic, questions surrounding the choice, dose, timing, targets, and cost-effectiveness of various fluid options remain insufficiently answered. In recent years, 2 of the most debated topics reference the role of albumin in acute care and the safety of normal saline. Although albumin has a place in therapy for specific patient populations, its high cost relative to other fluids makes it a less desirable option for hospitals and health systems with escalating formulary scrutiny. Pharmacists bear responsibility for reconciling this disparity and supporting the rational use of albumin in acute care through a careful evaluation of recently published literature. In parallel, it has become clear that crystalloids should no longer be considered a homogenous class of fluids. The past reliance on normal saline has been questioned due to recent findings of renal dysfunction attributable to the solution's supraphysiologic chloride concentration. These safety concerns with 0.9% sodium chloride may result in a practice shift toward more routine use of "balanced crystalloids," such as lactated Ringer's or Plasma-Lyte, that mimic the composition of extracellular fluid. The purpose of this review is to summarize the evidence regarding these 2 important fluid controversies that are likely to affect hospital pharmacists in the coming decades - the evidence-based use of human albumin and the rising role of balanced salt solutions in clinical practice.

Quality improvement education incorporated as an integral part of critical care fellows training at the Mayo Clinic.

PROBLEM: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education emphasizes quality improvement (QI) education in residency/fellowship training programs. The Mayo Clinic Combined Critical Care Fellowship (CCF) program conducted a pilot QI education program to incorporate QI training as a required curriculum for the 2010-2011 academic year. APPROACH: CCF collaborated with the Mayo Quality Academy to customize and teach the existing Mayo Quality Fellows curriculum to the CCF fellows with the help of two quality coaches over five months starting July 2010. All fellows were to achieve Bronze and Silver certification prior to graduation. Silver required passing four written exams and submitting a health care QI project. Five projects were selected on the basis of the Impact-Effort Prioritization matrix, and DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control) methodology was used to complete the projects. The primary outcome was to assess learners' satisfaction, knowledge, and skill transfer. OUTCOMES: All 20 fellows were Bronze certified, and 14 (70%) were Silver certified by the time of graduation. All five QI projects were completed and showed positive impacts on patient safety and care. Surveys showed improved learner satisfaction. Graduates felt the QI training improved their QI skills and employment and career advancement. The QI curriculum had appropriate content and teaching pace and did not significantly displace other important clinical core curriculum topics. NEXT STEPS: The pilot was successfully implemented in the CCF program and now is in the fourth academic year as an established and integral part of the fellowship core curriculum.

Simulation-based objective assessment discerns clinical proficiency in central line placement: a construct validation.

BACKGROUND: Central venous catheterization (CVC) is associated with patient risks known to be inversely related to clinician experience. We developed and evaluated a performance assessment tool for use in a simulation-based central line workshop. We hypothesized that instrument scores would discriminate between less experienced and more experienced clinicians. METHODS: Participants included trainees enrolled in an institutionally mandated CVC workshop and a convenience sample of faculty attending physicians. The workshop integrated several experiential learning techniques, including practice on cadavers and part-task trainers. A group of clinical and education experts developed a 15-point CVC Proficiency Scale using national and institutional guidelines. After the workshop, participants completed a certification exercise in which they independently performed a CVC in a part-task trainer. Two authors reviewed videotapes of the certification exercise to rate performance using the CVC Proficiency Scale. Participants were grouped by self-reported CVC experience. RESULTS: One hundred and five participants (92 trainees and 13 attending physicians) participated. Interrater reliability on a subset of 40 videos was 0.71, and Cronbach a was 0.81. The CVC Proficiency Scale Composite score varied significantly by experience: mean of 85%, median of 87% (range 47%-100%) for low experience (0-1 CVCs in the last 2 years, n = 27); mean of 88%, median of 87% (range 60%-100%) for moderate experience (2-49 CVCs, n = 62); and mean of 94%, median of 93% (range 73%-100%) for high experience (> 49 CVCs, n = 16) (P = .02, comparing low and high experience). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from multiple sources, including appropriate content, high interrater and internal consistency reliability, and confirmation of hypothesized relations to other variables, supports the validity of using scores from this 15-item scale for assessing trainee proficiency following a central line workshop.