Adult ICU Triage During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic: Who Will Live and Who Will Die? Recommendations to Improve Survival.

OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease 2019 patients are currently overwhelming the world's healthcare systems. This article provides practical guidance to front-line physicians forced to make critical rationing decisions. DATA SOURCES: PubMed and Medline search for scientific literature, reviews, and guidance documents related to epidemic ICU triage including from professional bodies. STUDY SELECTION: Clinical studies, reviews, and guidelines were selected and reviewed by all authors and discussed by internet conference and email. DATA EXTRACTION: References and data were based on relevance and author consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: We review key challenges of resource-driven triage and data from affected ICUs. We recommend that once available resources are maximally extended, triage is justified utilizing a strategy that provides the greatest good for the greatest number of patients. A triage algorithm based on clinical estimations of the incremental survival benefit (saving the most life-years) provided by ICU care is proposed. "First come, first served" is used to choose between individuals with equal priorities and benefits. The algorithm provides practical guidance, is easy to follow, rapidly implementable and flexible. It has four prioritization categories: performance score, ASA score, number of organ failures, and predicted survival. Individual units can readily adapt the algorithm to meet local requirements for the evolving pandemic. Although the algorithm improves consistency and provides practical and psychologic support to those performing triage, the final decision remains a clinical one. Depending on country and operational circumstances, triage decisions may be made by a triage team or individual doctors. However, an experienced critical care specialist physician should be ultimately responsible for the triage decision. Cautious discharge criteria are proposed acknowledging the difficulties to facilitate the admission of queuing patients. CONCLUSIONS: Individual institutions may use this guidance to develop prospective protocols that assist the implementation of triage decisions to ensure fairness, enhance consistency, and decrease provider moral distress.

Thromboelastographic assessment of the impact of mexiletine on coagulation abnormalities induced by air or normal saline intravenous injections in conscious rats.

BACKGROUND: Thromboelastography (TEG) in venous air embolism (VAE) has been poorly studied. We induced coagulation abnormalities by VAE in a rat model, assessed by TEG with and without mexiletine, a lidocaine analogue local anesthetic. METHODS: Twenty-three Sprague Dawley rats instrumented under isoflurane anesthesia and allowed to recover five days prior to the experiments were randomized into three experimental groups: 1) VAE (n = 6); 2) VAE and mexiletine (n = 9); and 3) normal saline (NS) alone (control group, n = 8). Blood samples were collected at baseline, one hour (h) and 24 h in all groups and analyzed by TEG to record the R, K, angle α and MA parameters. RESULTS: In Group 1, VAE decreased significantly R at 1 h (31%), K at 1 h (59%) and 24 h (34%); α increased significantly at 1 h (30%) and 24 h (22%). While R returned to baseline values within 24 h, K, MA and α did not. In group-2 (Mexiletine + VAE), K and R decreased at 1 h (48% and 29%, respectively) and at 24 h the changes were non-significant. Angle α increased at 1 h (28%) and remained increased for 24 h (25%). In group 3 (NS), only R was temporarily affected. MA increased significantly at 24 h only in the VAE alone group. CONCLUSION: As expected, VAE produced a consistent and significant hypercoagulable response diagnosed/confirmed by TEG. Mexiletine prevented the MA elevation seen with VAE and corrected R and K time at 24 h, whereas angle α remained unchanged. Mexiletine seemed to attenuate the hypercoagulability associated with VAE in this experiment. These results may have potential clinical applications and deserve further investigation.

Evidence-based guidelines for the use of tracheostomy in critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVES: To provide evidence-based guidelines for tracheostomy in critically ill adult patients and identify areas needing further research. METHODS: A taskforce composed of representatives of 10 member countries of the Pan-American and Iberic Federation of Societies of Critical and Intensive Therapy Medicine and of the Latin American Critical Care Trial Investigators Network developed recommendations based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. RESULTS: The group identified 23 relevant questions among 87 issues that were initially identified. In the initial search, 333 relevant publications were identified, of which 226 publications were chosen. The taskforce generated a total of 19 recommendations, 10 positive (1B, 3; 2C, 3; 2D, 4) and 9 negative (1B, 8; 2C, 1). A recommendation was not possible in 6 questions. CONCLUSIONS: Percutaneous techniques are associated with a lower risk of infections compared with surgical tracheostomy. Early tracheostomy only seems to reduce the duration of ventilator use but not the incidence of pneumonia, the length of stay, or the long-term mortality rate. The evidence does not support the use of routine bronchoscopy guidance or laryngeal masks during the procedure. Finally, proper prior training is as important or even a more significant factor in reducing complications than the technique used.

ICU Admission, Discharge, and Triage Guidelines: A Framework to Enhance Clinical Operations, Development of Institutional Policies, and Further Research.

OBJECTIVES: To update the Society of Critical Care Medicine's guidelines for ICU admission, discharge, and triage, providing a framework for clinical practice, the development of institutional policies, and further research. DESIGN: An appointed Task Force followed a standard, systematic, and evidence-based approach in reviewing the literature to develop these guidelines. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The assessment of the evidence and recommendations was based on the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. The general subject was addressed in sections: admission criteria and benefits of different levels of care, triage, discharge timing and strategies, use of outreach programs to supplement ICU care, quality assurance/improvement and metrics, nonbeneficial treatment in the ICU, and rationing considerations. The literature searches yielded 2,404 articles published from January 1998 to October 2013 for review. Following the appraisal of the literature, discussion, and consensus, recommendations were written. CONCLUSION: Although these are administrative guidelines, the subjects addressed encompass complex ethical and medico-legal aspects of patient care that affect daily clinical practice. A limited amount of high-quality evidence made it difficult to answer all the questions asked related to ICU admission, discharge, and triage. Despite these limitations, the members of the Task Force believe that these recommendations provide a comprehensive framework to guide practitioners in making informed decisions during the admission, discharge, and triage process as well as in resolving issues of nonbeneficial treatment and rationing. We need to further develop preventive strategies to reduce the burden of critical illness, educate our noncritical care colleagues about these interventions, and improve our outreach, developing early identification and intervention systems.

Cross-validation of a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score-based model to predict mortality in patients with cancer admitted to the intensive care unit.

PURPOSE: This study aims to validate the performance of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score to predict death of critically ill patients with cancer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a retrospective observational study including adults admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2008. We randomly selected training and validation samples in medical and surgical admissions to predict ICU and in-hospital mortality. By using logistic regression, we calculated the probabilities of death in the training samples and applied them to the validation samples to test the goodness-of-fit of the models, construct receiver operator characteristics curves, and calculate the areas under the curve (AUCs). RESULTS: In predicting mortality at discharge from the unit, the AUC from the validation group of medical admissions was 0.7851 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.7437-0.8264), and the AUC from the surgical admissions was 0.7847 (95% CI, 0.6319-0.937). The AUCs of the SOFA score to predict mortality in the hospital after ICU admission were 0.7789 (95% CI, 0.74-0.8177) and 0.7572 (95% CI, 0.6719-0.8424) for the medical and surgical validations groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The SOFA score had good discrimination to predict ICU and hospital mortality. However, the observed underestimation of ICU deaths and unsatisfactory goodness-of-fit test of the model in surgical patients to indicate calibration of the score to predict ICU mortality is advised in this group.

Costs and outcomes of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication in critically ill patients with cancer. The RIFLE criteria define three levels of AKI based on the percent increase in serum creatinine (Scr) from baseline: risk (> or = 50%), injury (> or = 100%), and failure (> or = 200% or requiring dialysis). The utility of the RIFLE criteria in critically ill patients with cancer is not known. OBJECTIVE: To examine the incidence, outcomes, and costs associated with AKI in critically ill patients with cancer. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed all patients admitted to a single-center ICU over a 13-month period with a baseline Scr < or = 1.5 mg/dL (n = 2,398). Kaplan-Meier estimates for survival by RIFLE category were calculated. Logistic regression was used to determine the association of AKI on 60-day mortality. A log-linear regression model was used for economic analysis. Costs were assessed by hospital charges from the provider's perspective. RESULTS: For the risk, injury, and failure categories of AKI, incidence rates were 6%, 2.8%, and 3.7%; 60-day survival estimates were 62%, 45%, and 14%; and adjusted odds ratios for 60-day mortality were 2.3, 3, and 14.3, respectively (P < or = 0.001 compared to patients without AKI). Hematologic malignancy and hematopoietic cell transplant were not associated with mortality in the adjusted analysis. Hospital cost increased by 0.16% per 1% increase in creatinine and by 21% for patients requiring dialysis. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective analysis. Single-center study. No adjustment by cost-to-charge ratios. CONCLUSIONS: AKI is associated with higher mortality and costs in critically ill patients with cancer.