Comparison of two individualized antithrombotic protocols in HeartWare HVAD recipients.

We previously reported low rates of pump thrombosis and hemorrhagic stroke, but increased bleeding, under our original antithrombosis protocol (P1) in HeartWare recipients. We designed and implemented a revised protocol (P2) to reduce complexity and bleeding. Thrombelastography and PFA-100 guide antiplatelet titration. Goals for P2 were altered to decrease antiplatelet use and anticoagulation intensity. We compared the incidence and rates of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB), embolic (eCVA) and hemorrhagic (hCVA) stroke, pump thrombosis (PT), and total bleeding (GIB+hCVA), total thrombosis (eCVA+PT), and total events between P1 and P2. Laboratory and medication data were assessed. Patients with and without hemocompatibility-related adverse events (HRAEs) were compared. The study included 123 patients (P1: 65; P2: 58). GIB rate decreased (P1: 0.66; P2 0.30 EPPY, P = .003). CVA rates and incidence were statistically similar, although hCVA incidence increased (P1: 3%; P2: 12%, P = .06). Incidence (P1: 3%; P2: 16%, P = .02) and rate (P1: 0.03; P2: 0.12 EPPY, P = .08) of PT increased. Incidence and rate of overall HRAEs and thrombotic events were similar, while bleeding rate decreased (P1: 0.69; P2: 0.40 EPPY, P = .02). Twelve-month medication burden decreased. Compared to non-HRAE patients, patients with bleeding HRAEs had more antiplatelet and pentoxifylline use, but less statin use; and lower PFAs. Patients with thrombotic HRAEs had less dual antiplatelet use, lower INRs, R-times, and PFA-ADP values. A revised antithrombotic protocol decreased GIB and overall hemorrhagic HRAE rate and medication burden. Unfortunately, PT increased. Non-HRAE and HRAE patients differed in anticoagulation and antiplatelet intensity. These differences will guide the revision of P2.

Validity and reliability of The Johns Hopkins Adapted Cognitive Exam for critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVE: To validate The Johns Hopkins Adapted Cognitive Exam designed to assess and quantify cognition in critically ill patients. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Neurosciences, surgical, and medical intensive care units at The Johns Hopkins Hospital. PATIENTS: One hundred six adult critically ill patients. INTERVENTIONS: One expert neurologic assessment and four measurements of the Adapted Cognitive Exam (all patients). Four measurements of the Folstein Mini-Mental State Examination in nonintubated patients only. Adapted Cognitive Exam and Mini-Mental State Examination were performed by 76 different raters. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred six patients were assessed, 46 intubated and 60 nonintubated, resulting in 424 Adapted Cognitive Exam and 240 Mini-Mental State Examination measurements. Criterion validity was assessed by comparing Adapted Cognitive Exam with a neurointensivist's assessment of cognitive status (ρ = 0.83, p < .001). Ordinal logistic regression established optimal predicted cut points for cognitive status classification (≤ 28 = severely impaired, 29-55 = moderately impaired, ≥ 56 = mildly impaired or normal). Using these cut points, the Adapted Cognitive Exam appropriately classified cognitive status 90% of the time. Construct validity was assessed by comparing Adapted Cognitive Exam with Mini-Mental State Examination in nonintubated patients (ρ = 0.81, p < .001). Face validity was assessed by surveying raters who used both the Adapted Cognitive Exam and Mini-Mental State Examination and indicated the Adapted Cognitive Exam was an accurate reflection of the patient's cognitive status, more sensitive a marker of cognition than the Mini-Mental State Examination, and easy to use. The Adapted Cognitive Exam demonstrated excellent interrater reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.997; 95% confidence interval 0.997-0.998) and interitem reliability of each of the five subscales of the Adapted Cognitive Exam and Mini-Mental State Examination (Cronbach's α: range for Adapted Cognitive Exam = 0.83-0.88; range for Mini-Mental State Examination = 0.72-0.81). CONCLUSION: The Adapted Cognitive Exam is the first valid and reliable examination for the assessment and quantification of cognition in critically ill patients. It provides a useful, objective tool that can be used by any member of the interdisciplinary critical care team to support clinical assessment and research efforts.

Validity and reliability of an intuitive conscious sedation scoring tool: the nursing instrument for the communication of sedation.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a symmetrical 7-level scale (+3, "dangerously agitated" to -3, "deeply sedated") that is both intuitive and easy to use, the Nursing Instrument for the Communication of Sedation (NICS). DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: University medical center. PATIENTS: Mixed surgical, medical intensive care unit (ICU) population. INTERVENTIONS: Patient assessment. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Criterion, construct, face validity, and interrater reliability of NICS over time and comparison of ease of use and nursing preference between NICS and four common intensive care unit sedation scales. A total of 395 observations were performed in 104 patients (20 intubated [INT], 84 non intubated) by 59 intensive care unit providers. Criterion validity was tested comparing NICS WITH the 8-point level of arousal scale, demonstrating excellent correlation (rs = .96 overall, .95 non intubated, 0.85 intubated, all p < .001). Construct validity was confirmed by comparing NICS with the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, demonstrating excellent correlation (rs = .98, p < .001). Face validity was determined in a blinded survey of 53 intensive care unit nurses evaluating NICS and four other sedation scales. NICS was highly rated as easy to score, intuitive, and a clinically relevant measure of sedation, and agitation and was preferred overall (74% NICS, 17% Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, 11% Other, p < .001 NICS vs. Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale). Interrater reliability was assessed, using the five scales at three timed intervals, during which 37% of patients received sedative medication. The mean NICS score consistently correlated with each of the other scales over time with an rs of >.9. Using the intraclass correlation coefficient as a measure of Interrater reliability, NICS scored as high, or higher than Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale, Riker Sedation-Agitation Scale, Motor Activity Assessment Scale, or Ramsay over the three time periods. CONCLUSION: NICS is a valid and reliable sedation scale for use in a mixed population of intensive care unit patients. NICS ranked highest in nursing preference and ease of communication and may thus permit more effective and interactive management of sedation.