Clinical decision analysis of elective delivery vs expectant management for pregnant individuals with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Pregnant individuals are vulnerable to COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome. There is a lack of high-quality evidence on whether elective delivery or expectant management leads to better maternal and neonatal outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine whether elective delivery or expectant management are associated with higher quality-adjusted life expectancy for pregnant individuals with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome and their neonates. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a clinical decision analysis using a patient-level model in which we simulatedpregnant individuals and their unborn children. We used a patient-level model with parallel open-cohort structure, daily cycle length, continuous discounting, lifetime horizon, sensitivity analyses for key parameter values, and 1000 iterations for quantification of uncertainty. We simulated pregnant individuals at 32 weeks of gestation, invasively ventilated because of COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome. In the elective delivery strategy, pregnant individuals received immediate cesarean delivery. In the expectant management strategy, pregnancies continued until spontaneous labor or obstetrical decision to deliver. For both pregnant individuals and neonates, model outputs were hospital or perinatal survival, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life expectancy denominated in years, summarized by the mean and 95% credible interval. Maternal utilities incorporated neonatal outcomes in accordance with best practices in perinatal decision analysis. RESULTS: Model outputs for pregnant individuals were similar when comparing elective delivery at 32 weeks' gestation with expectant management, including hospital survival (87.1% vs 87.4%), life-years (difference, -0.1; 95% credible interval, -1.4 to 1.1), and quality-adjusted life expectancy denominated in years (difference, -0.1; 95% credible interval, -1.3 to 1.1). For neonates, elective delivery at 32 weeks' gestation was estimated to lead to a higher perinatal survival (98.4% vs 93.2%; difference, 5.2%; 95% credible interval, 3.5-7), similar life-years (difference, 0.9; 95% credible interval, -0.9 to 2.8), and higher quality-adjusted life expectancy denominated in years (difference, 1.3; 95% credible interval, 0.4-2.2). For pregnant individuals, elective delivery was not superior to expectant management across a range of scenarios between 28 and 34 weeks of gestation. Elective delivery in cases where intrauterine death or maternal mortality were more likely resulted in higher neonatal quality-adjusted life expectancy, as did elective delivery at 30 weeks' gestation (difference, 1.1 years; 95% credible interval, 0.1 - 2.1) despite higher long-term complications (4.3% vs 0.5%; difference, 3.7%; 95% credible interval, 2.4-5.1), and in cases where intrauterine death or maternal acute respiratory distress syndrome mortality were more likely. CONCLUSION: The decision to pursue elective delivery vs expectant management in pregnant individuals with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome should be guided by gestational age, risk of intrauterine death, and maternal acute respiratory distress syndrome severity. For the pregnant individual, elective delivery is comparable but not superior to expectant management for gestational ages from 28 to 34 weeks. For neonates, elective delivery was superior if gestational age was ≥30 weeks and if the rate of intrauterine death or maternal mortality risk were high. We recommend basing the decision for elective delivery vs expectant management in a pregnant individual with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome on gestational age and likelihood of intrauterine or maternal death.

Long-Term Effects of Phased Implementation of Antimicrobial Stewardship in Academic ICUs: 2007-2015.

OBJECTIVES: Antimicrobial stewardship is advocated to reduce antimicrobial resistance in ICUs by reducing unnecessary antimicrobial consumption. Evidence has been limited to short, single-center studies. We evaluated whether antimicrobial stewardship in ICUs could reduce antimicrobial consumption and costs. DESIGN: We conducted a phased, multisite cohort study of a quality improvement initiative. SETTING: Antimicrobial stewardship was implemented in four academic ICUs in Toronto, Canada beginning in February 2009 and ending in July 2012. PATIENTS: All patients admitted to each ICU from January 1, 2007, to December 31, 2015, were included. INTERVENTIONS: Antimicrobial stewardship was delivered using in-person coaching by pharmacists and physicians three to five times weekly, and supplemented with unit-based performance reports. Total monthly antimicrobial consumption (measured by defined daily doses/100 patient-days) and costs (Canadian dollars/100 patient-days) before and after antimicrobial stewardship implementation were measured. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 239,123 patient-days (57,195 patients) were analyzed, with 148,832 patient-days following introduction of antimicrobial stewardship. Antibacterial use decreased from 120.90 to 110.50 defined daily dose/100 patient-days following introduction of antimicrobial stewardship (adjusted intervention effect -12.12 defined daily dose/100 patient-days; 95% CI, -16.75 to -7.49; p < 0.001) and total antifungal use decreased from 30.53 to 27.37 defined daily doses/100 patient-days (adjusted intervention effect -3.16 defined daily dose/100 patient-days; 95% CI, -8.33 to 0.04; p = 0.05). Monthly antimicrobial costs decreased from $3195.56 to $1998.59 (adjusted intervention effect -$642.35; 95% CI, -$905.85 to -$378.84; p < 0.001) and total antifungal costs were unchanged from $1771.86 to $2027.54 (adjusted intervention effect -$355.27; 95% CI, -$837.88 to $127.33; p = 0.15). Mortality remained unchanged, with no consistent effects on antimicrobial resistance and candidemia. CONCLUSIONS: Antimicrobial stewardship in ICUs with coaching plus audit and feedback is associated with sustained improvements in antimicrobial consumption and cost. ICUs with high antimicrobial consumption or expenditure should consider implementing antimicrobial stewardship programs.

An antimicrobial stewardship program improves antimicrobial treatment by culture site and the quality of antimicrobial prescribing in critically ill patients.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing antimicrobial costs, reduced development of novel antimicrobials, and growing antimicrobial resistance necessitate judicious use of available agents. Antimicrobial stewardship programs (ASPs) may improve antimicrobial use in intensive care units (ICUs). Our objective was to determine whether the introduction of an ASP in an ICU altered the decision to treat cultures from sterile sites compared with nonsterile sites (which may represent colonization or contamination). We also sought to determine whether ASP education improved documentation of antimicrobial use, including an explicit statement of antimicrobial regimen, indication, duration, and de-escalation. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed consecutive patients with positive bacterial cultures admitted to a 16-bed medical-surgical ICU over 2-month periods before and after ASP introduction (April through May 2008 and 2009, respectively). We evaluated the antimicrobial treatment of positive sterile- versus nonsterile-site cultures, specified a priori. We reviewed patient charts for clinician documentation of three specific details regarding antimicrobials: an explicit statement of antimicrobial regimen/indication, duration, and de-escalation. We also analyzed cost and defined daily doses (DDDs) (a World Health Organization (WHO) standardized metric of use) before and after ASP. RESULTS: Patient demographic data between the pre-ASP (n = 139) and post-ASP (n = 130) periods were similar. No difference was found in the percentage of positive cultures from sterile sites between the pre-ASP period and post-ASP period (44.9% versus 40.2%; P = 0.401). A significant increase was noted in the treatment of sterile-site cultures after ASP (64% versus 83%; P = 0.01) and a reduction in the treatment of nonsterile-site cultures (71% versus 46%; P = 0.0002). These differences were statistically significant when treatment decisions were analyzed both at an individual patient level and at an individual culture level. Increased explicit antimicrobial regimen documentation was observed after ASP (26% versus 71%; P < 0.0001). Also observed were increases in formally documented stop dates (53% versus 71%; P < 0.0001), regimen de-escalation (15% versus 23%; P = 0.026), and an overall reduction in cost and mean DDDs after ASP implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of an ASP in the ICU was associated with improved microbiologically targeted therapy based on sterile or nonsterile cultures and improved documentation of antimicrobial use in the medical record.

Clinical information systems in the intensive care unit: primum non nocere.

Information and communication technology has the potential to address many problems encountered in intensive care unit (ICU) care, namely managing large amounts of patient and research data and reducing medical errors. The paper by Morrison and colleagues in the previous issue of Critical Care describes the adverse impact of introducing an electronic patient record in the ICU on multi-disciplinary communication during ward rounds. The importance of evaluation and technology assessment in the implementation and use of new computing technology is highlighted.

Medical informatics in the intensive care unit: overview of technology assessment.

Effective patient care in the intensive care unit (ICU) depends on the ability of clinicians to process large amounts of clinical and laboratory data. Recently, medical informatics applications have been developed to store and display patient information and assist clinical decision making. Despite the proliferation of these systems and their potential to improve patient care, there are no comprehensive health technology assessments incorporating considerations of safety, functionality, technical performance, clinical effectiveness, economics, and organizational implications. The objectives and methods of informatics evaluations depend on the type of application and the stage of development. Qualitative and quantitative nonrandomized evaluations of comprehensive information management systems like electronic medical records and picture archiving and communications systems should concentrate on technical and functional issues. Specific applications like clinical decision support systems and computerized patient care systems are designed to improve patient outcomes and clinical performance; randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess clinical effectiveness are important in their assessment. Although studies of these applications in the ICU setting are increasing, there are currently very few published randomized trials.

Handheld computing in medicine.

Handheld computers have become a valuable and popular tool in various fields of medicine. A systematic review of articles was undertaken to summarize the current literature regarding the use of handheld devices in medicine. A variety of articles were identified, and relevant information for various medical fields was summarized. The literature search covered general information about handheld devices, the use of these devices to access medical literature, electronic pharmacopoeias, patient tracking, medical education, research, business management, e-prescribing, patient confidentiality, and costs as well as specialty-specific uses for personal digital assistants (PDAs). The authors concluded that only a small number of articles provide evidence-based information about the use of PDAs in medicine. The majority of articles provide descriptive information, which is nevertheless of value. This article aims to increase the awareness among physicians about the potential roles for handheld computers in medicine and to encourage the further evaluation of their use.