Assessment of a Crisis Standards of Care Scoring System for Resource Prioritization and Estimated Excess Mortality by Race, Ethnicity, and Socially Vulnerable Area During a Regional Surge in COVID-19.

Importance: Crisis standards of care (CSOC) scores designed to allocate scarce resources during the COVID-19 pandemic could exacerbate racial disparities in health care. Objective: To analyze the association of a CSOC scoring system with resource prioritization and estimated excess mortality by race, ethnicity, and residence in a socially vulnerable area. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort analysis included adult patients in the intensive care unit during a regional COVID-19 surge from April 13 to May 22, 2020, at 6 hospitals in a health care network in greater Boston, Massachusetts. Participants were scored by acute severity of illness using the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and chronic severity of illness using comorbidity and life expectancy scores, and only participants with complete scores were included. The score was ordinal, with cutoff points suggested by the Massachusetts guidelines. Exposures: Race, ethnicity, Social Vulnerability Index. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was proportion of patients in the lowest priority score category stratified by self-reported race. Secondary outcomes were discrimination and calibration of the score overall and by race, ethnicity, and neighborhood Social Vulnerability Index. Projected excess deaths were modeled by race, using the priority scoring system and a random lottery. Results: Of 608 patients in the intensive care unit during the study period, 498 had complete data and were included in the analysis; this population had a median (IQR) age of 67 (56-75) years, 191 (38.4%) female participants, 79 (15.9%) Black participants, and 225 patients (45.7%) with COVID-19. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the priority score was 0.79 and was similar across racial groups. Black patients were more likely than others to be in the lowest priority group (12 [15.2%] vs 34 [8.1%]; P = .046). In an exploratory simulation model using the score for ventilator allocation, with only those in the highest priority group receiving ventilators, there were 43.9% excess deaths among Black patients (18 of 41 patients) and 28.6% (58 of 203 patients among all others (P = .05); when the highest and intermediate priority groups received ventilators, there were 4.9% (2 of 41 patients) excess deaths among Black patients and 3.0% (6 of 203) among all others (P = .53). A random lottery resulted in more excess deaths than the score. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, a CSOC priority score resulted in lower prioritization of Black patients to receive scarce resources. A model using a random lottery resulted in more estimated excess deaths overall without improving equity by race. CSOC policies must be evaluated for their potential association with racial disparities in health care.

Ultrasound versus Computed Tomography Assessment of Focal Lung Aeration in Invasively Ventilated ICU Patients.

It is unknown whether and to what extent the penetration depth of lung ultrasound (LUS) influences the accuracy of LUS findings. The current study evaluated and compared the LUS aeration score and two frequently used B-line scores with focal lung aeration assessed by chest computed tomography (CT) at different levels of depth in invasively ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. In this prospective observational study, patients with a clinical indication for chest CT underwent a 12-region LUS examination shortly before CT scanning. LUS images were compared with corresponding regions on the chest CT scan at different subpleural depths. For each LUS image, the LUS aeration score was calculated. LUS images with B-lines were scored as the number of separately spaced B-lines (B-line count score) and the percentage of the screen covered by B-lines divided by 10 (B-line percentage score). The fixed-effect correlation coefficient (ß) was presented per 100 Hounsfield units. A total of 40 patients were included, and 372 regions were analyzed. The best association between the LUS aeration score and CT was found at a subpleural depth of 5 cm for all LUS patterns (ß = 0.30, p < 0.001), 1 cm for A- and B1-patterns (ß = 0.10, p < 0.001), 6 cm for B1- and B2-patterns (ß = 0.11, p < 0.001) and 4 cm for B2- and C-patterns (ß = 0.07, p = 0.001). The B-line percentage score was associated with CT (ß = 0.46, p = 0.001), while the B-line count score was not (ß = 0.07, p = 0.305). In conclusion, the subpleural penetration depth of ultrasound increased with decreased aeration reflected by the LUS pattern. The LUS aeration score and the B-line percentage score accurately reflect lung aeration in ICU patients, but should be interpreted while accounting for the subpleural penetration depth of ultrasound.

Global Critical Care: Moving Forward in Resource-Limited Settings.

Caring for critically ill patients is challenging in resource-limited settings, where the burden of disease and mortality from potentially treatable illnesses is higher than in resource-rich areas. Barriers to delivering quality critical care in these settings include lack of epidemiologic data and context-specific evidence for medical decision-making, deficiencies in health systems organization and resources, and institutional obstacles to implementation of life-saving interventions. Potential solutions include the development of common definitions for intensive care unit (ICU), intensivist, and intensive care to create a universal ICU organization framework; development of educational programs for capacity building of health care professionals working in resource-limited settings; global prioritization of epidemiologic and clinical research in resource-limited settings to conduct timely and ethical studies in response to emerging threats; adaptation of international guidelines to promote implementation of evidence-based care; and strengthening of health systems that integrates these interventions. This manuscript reviews the field of global critical care, barriers to safe high-quality care, and potential solutions to existing challenges. We also suggest a roadmap for improving the treatment of critically ill patients in resource-limited settings.

Critical care in resource-poor settings: lessons learned and future directions.

CONTEXT: Critical care faces the same challenges as other aspects of healthcare in the developing world. However, critical care faces an additional challenge in that it has often been deemed too costly or complicated for resource-poor settings. This lack of prioritization is not justified. Hospital care for the sickest patients affects overall mortality, and public health interventions depend on community confidence in healthcare to ensure participation and adherence. Some of the most effective critical care interventions, including rapid fluid resuscitation, early antibiotics, and patient monitoring, are relatively inexpensive. Although cost-effectiveness studies on critical care in resource-poor settings have not been done, evidence from the surgical literature suggests that even resource-intensive interventions can be cost effective in comparison to immunizations and human immunodeficiency virus care. In the developing world, where many critically ill patients are younger and have fewer comorbidities, critical care presents a remarkable opportunity to provide significant incremental benefit, arguably much more so than in the developed world. ESSENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS: Key areas of consideration in developing critical care in resource-poor settings include: Personnel and training, equipment and support services, ethics, and research. Strategies for training and retaining skilled labor include tying education to service commitment and developing protocols for even complex processes. Equipment and support services need to focus on technologies that are affordable and sustainable. Ethical decision making must be based on data when possible and on transparent articulated policies always. Research should be performed in resource-poor settings and focus on needs assessment, prognostication, and cost effectiveness. FUTURE DIRECTIONS: The development of critical care in resource-poor settings will rely on the stepwise introduction of service improvements, leveraging human resources through training, a focus on sustainable technology, ongoing analysis of cost effectiveness, and the sharing of context-specific best practices. Although prevention, public health, and disease-specific agendas dominate many current conversations in global health, this is nonetheless a time ripe for the development of critical care. Leaders in global health funding hope to improve quality and length of life. Critical care is an integral part of the continuum of care necessary to make that possible.