Noninvasive Ventilation for Preoxygenation during Emergency Intubation.

BACKGROUND: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, hypoxemia increases the risk of cardiac arrest and death. The effect of preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation, as compared with preoxygenation with an oxygen mask, on the incidence of hypoxemia during tracheal intubation is uncertain. METHODS: In a multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 24 emergency departments and intensive care units in the United States, we randomly assigned critically ill adults (age, ≥18 years) undergoing tracheal intubation to receive preoxygenation with either noninvasive ventilation or an oxygen mask. The primary outcome was hypoxemia during intubation, defined by an oxygen saturation of less than 85% during the interval between induction of anesthesia and 2 minutes after tracheal intubation. RESULTS: Among the 1301 patients enrolled, hypoxemia occurred in 57 of 624 patients (9.1%) in the noninvasive-ventilation group and in 118 of 637 patients (18.5%) in the oxygen-mask group (difference, -9.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -13.2 to -5.6; P<0.001). Cardiac arrest occurred in 1 patient (0.2%) in the noninvasive-ventilation group and in 7 patients (1.1%) in the oxygen-mask group (difference, -0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.8 to -0.1). Aspiration occurred in 6 patients (0.9%) in the noninvasive-ventilation group and in 9 patients (1.4%) in the oxygen-mask group (difference, -0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.6 to 0.7). CONCLUSIONS: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, preoxygenation with noninvasive ventilation resulted in a lower incidence of hypoxemia during intubation than preoxygenation with an oxygen mask. (Funded by the U.S. Department of Defense; PREOXI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05267652.).

Thiamine administration in septic shock: a post hoc analysis of two randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: This is a post hoc analysis of combined cohorts from two previous Phase II clinical trials to assess the effect of thiamine administration on kidney protection and mortality in patients with septic shock. METHODS: Patient-level data from the Thiamine in Septic Shock Trial (NCT01070810) and the Thiamine for Renal Protection in Septic Shock Trial (NCT03550794) were combined in this analysis. The primary outcome for the current study was survival without the receipt of renal replacement therapy (RRT). Analyses were performed on the overall cohort and the thiamine-deficient cohort (thiamine < 8 nmol/L). RESULTS: Totally, 158 patients were included. Overall, thiamine administration was associated with higher odds of being alive and RRT-free (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.05 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-3.90]) and not needing RRT (aOR: 2.59 [95% CI 1.01-6.62]). In the thiamine-deficient group, thiamine administration was associated with higher odds of being alive and RRT-free (aOR: 8.17 [95% CI 1.79-37.22]) and surviving to hospital discharge (aOR: 6.84 [95% CI 1.54-30.36]). There was a significant effect modification by baseline thiamine deficiency for alive and RRT-free (interaction, p = 0.016) and surviving to hospital discharge (p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: In the combined analysis of two previous randomized trials, thiamine administration was associated with higher odds of being alive and RRT-free at hospital discharge in patients with septic shock. This signal was stronger in patients with thiamine deficiency.

Thiamine for Renal Protection in Septic Shock (TRPSS): A Randomized, Placebo-controlled, Clinical Trial.

Rationale: Kidney injury is common and associated with worse outcomes in patients with septic shock. Mitochondrial resuscitation with thiamine (vitamin B1) may attenuate septic kidney injury. Objectives: To assess whether thiamine supplementation attenuates kidney injury in septic shock. Methods: The TRPSS (Thiamine for Renal Protection in Septic Shock) trial was a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of thiamine versus placebo in septic shock. The primary outcome was change in serum creatinine between enrollment and 72 hours after enrollment. Measurements and Main Results: Eighty-eight patients were enrolled (42 patients received the intervention, and 46 received placebo). There was no significant between-groups difference in creatinine at 72 hours (mean difference, -0.57 mg/dl; 95% confidence interval, -1.18, 0.04; P = 0.07). There was no difference in receipt of kidney replacement therapy (14.3% vs. 21.7%, P = 0.34), acute kidney injury (as defined by stage 3 of the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes acute kidney injury scale; 54.7% vs. 73.9%, P = 0.07), or mortality (35.7% vs. 54.3%, P = 0.14) between the thiamine and placebo groups. Patients who received thiamine had more ICU-free days (median [interquartile range]: 22.5 [0.0-25.0] vs. 0.0 [0.0-23.0], P < 0.01). In the thiamine-deficient cohort (27.4% of patients), there was no difference in rates of kidney failure (57.1% thiamine vs. 81.5% placebo) or in-hospital mortality (28.6% vs. 68.8%) between groups. Conclusions: In the TRPSS trial, there was no statistically significant difference in the primary outcome of change in creatinine over time. Patients who received thiamine had more ICU-free days, but there was no difference in other secondary outcomes. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03550794).

Anticoagulation and Antiplatelet Therapy for Prevention of Venous and Arterial Thrombotic Events in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19: COVID-PACT.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of prophylactic full-dose anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy in critically ill COVID-19 patients remain uncertain. METHODS: COVID-PACT (Prevention of Arteriovenous Thrombotic Events in Critically-ill COVID-19 Patients Trial) was a multicenter, 2×2 factorial, open-label, randomized-controlled trial with blinded end point adjudication in intensive care unit-level patients with COVID-19. Patients were randomly assigned to a strategy of full-dose anticoagulation or standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation. Absent an indication for antiplatelet therapy, patients were additionally randomly assigned to either clopidogrel or no antiplatelet therapy. The primary efficacy outcome was the hierarchical composite of death attributable to venous or arterial thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, clinically evident deep venous thrombosis, type 1 myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, systemic embolic event or acute limb ischemia, or clinically silent deep venous thrombosis, through hospital discharge or 28 days. The primary efficacy analyses included an unmatched win ratio and time-to-first event analysis while patients were on treatment. The primary safety outcome was fatal or life-threatening bleeding. The secondary safety outcome was moderate to severe bleeding. Recruitment was stopped early in March 2022 (≈50% planned recruitment) because of waning intensive care unit-level COVID-19 rates. RESULTS: At 34 centers in the United States, 390 patients were randomly assigned between anticoagulation strategies and 292 between antiplatelet strategies (382 and 290 in the on-treatment analyses). At randomization, 99% of patients required advanced respiratory therapy, including 15% requiring invasive mechanical ventilation; 40% required invasive ventilation during hospitalization. Comparing anticoagulation strategies, a greater proportion of wins occurred with full-dose anticoagulation (12.3%) versus standard-dose prophylactic anticoagulation (6.4%; win ratio, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.08-3.55]; P=0.028). Results were consistent in time-to-event analysis for the primary efficacy end point (full-dose versus standard-dose incidence 19/191 [9.9%] versus 29/191 [15.2%]; hazard ratio, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.32-0.99]; P=0.046). The primary safety end point occurred in 4 (2.1%) on full dose and in 1 (0.5%) on standard dose (P=0.19); the secondary safety end point occurred in 15 (7.9%) versus 1 (0.5%; P=0.002). There was no difference in all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.56-1.48]; P=0.70). There were no differences in the primary efficacy or safety end points with clopidogrel versus no antiplatelet therapy. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with COVID-19, full-dose anticoagulation, but not clopidogrel, reduced thrombotic complications with an increase in bleeding, driven primarily by transfusions in hemodynamically stable patients, and no apparent excess in mortality. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04409834.

Decreased Utilization of Low Tidal Volume Ventilation Outside of the Intensive Care Unit as Compared to Inside.

Background: Investigations into the use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) have been performed for patients in emergency departments (EDs) or intensive care units (ICUs). Practice differences between the ICU and non-ICU care areas have not been described. We hypothesized that the initial implementation of LTVV would be better inside ICUs than outside. Methods: This is a retrospective observational study of patients initiated on invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) between January 1, 2016, and July 17, 2019. Initial recorded tidal volumes after intubation were used to compare the use of LTVV between care areas. Low tidal volume was considered 6.5 cc/kg of ideal body weight (IBW) or less. The primary outcome was the initiation of low tidal volume. Sensitivity analyses used a tidal volume of 8 cc/kg of IBW or less, and direct comparisons were performed between the ICU, ED, and wards. Results: There were 6392 initiations of IMV: 2217 (34.7%) in the ICU and 4175 (65.3%) outside. LTVV was more likely to be initiated in the ICU than outside (46.5% vs 34.2%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.56-0.71, P < .01). The ICU also had more implementation when PaO2/FiO2 ratio was less than 300, (48.0% vs 34.6%; aOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.48-0.71, P < .01). When comparing individual locations, wards had lower odds of LTVV than the ICU (aOR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70-0.96, P = .02), the ED had lower odds than the ICU (aOR 0.55, 95% CI 0.48-0.63, P < .01), and the ED had lower odds than the wards (aOR 0.66, 95% CI 0.56-0.77, P < .01). Interpretation: Initial low tidal volumes were more likely to be initiated in the ICU than outside. This finding remained when examining only patients with a PaO2/FiO2 ratio less than 300. Care areas outside of the ICU do not employ LTVV as often as ICUs and are, therefore, a possible target for process improvement.

Obesity is Unlikely to be an Impediment to First-Pass Success During the Intubation of Critically Ill Patients.

Background: Obesity has been described as a potential risk factor for difficult intubation among critically ill patients. Our primary aim was to further elucidate the association between obesity and first-pass success. Our secondary aim was to determine whether the use of hyper-angulated video laryngoscopy improves first-pass success compared to direct laryngoscopy when utilized for the intubation of critically ill obese patients. Study Design and Methods: A retrospective cohort study of adult patients undergoing endotracheal intubation outside of the operating room or emergency department between January 30, 2016 and May 1, 2020 at 3 campuses of an academic hospital system in the Bronx, NY. Our primary outcome was first-pass success of intubation. A multivariate logistic analysis was utilized to compare obesity status with first-pass success. Results: We identified 3791 critically ill patients who underwent endotracheal intubation of which 1417 were obese (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 30). The incidence of hyper-angulated video laryngoscopy increased over the study period. A total of 46.6% of obese patients underwent intubation with hyper-angulated video laryngoscopy as compared to 35.1% of the nonobese group. First-pass success was 79.2% among the entire cohort. Obesity status did not appear to be associated with first-pass success (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.07, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 090-1.27; P = .47). Hyper-angulated video laryngoscopy did not seem to improve first-pass success among obese patients as compared to nonobese patients (adjusted OR 1.21, 95% CI: 0.85-1.71; P = .29). These findings persisted even after redefining the obesity cutoff as BMI ≥ 40 and excluding patients intubated during cardiac arrests. Conclusion: We did not detect an association between obesity and first-pass success. Hyper-angulated video laryngoscopy did not appear offer additional benefit over direct laryngoscopy during the intubation of critically ill obese patients.

Thiamine Supplementation in Patients With Alcohol Use Disorder Presenting With Acute Critical Illness : A Nationwide Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Thiamine supplementation is recommended for patients with alcohol use disorder (AUD). The authors hypothesize that critically ill patients with AUD are commonly not given thiamine supplementation. OBJECTIVE: To describe thiamine supplementation incidence in patients with AUD and various critical illnesses (alcohol withdrawal, septic shock, traumatic brain injury [TBI], and diabetic ketoacidosis [DKA]) in the United States. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Cerner Health Facts database. PATIENTS: Adult patients with a diagnosis of AUD who were admitted to the intensive care unit with alcohol withdrawal, septic shock, TBI, or DKA between 2010 and 2017. MEASUREMENTS: Incidence and predicted probability of thiamine supplementation in alcohol withdrawal and other critical illnesses. RESULTS: The study included 14 998 patients with AUD. Mean age was 52.2 years, 77% of participants were male, and in-hospital mortality was 9%. Overall, 7689 patients (51%) received thiamine supplementation. The incidence of thiamine supplementation was 59% for alcohol withdrawal, 26% for septic shock, 41% for TBI, and 24% for DKA. Most of those receiving thiamine (n = 3957 [52%]) received it within 12 hours of presentation in the emergency department. The predominant route of thiamine administration was enteral (n = 3119 [41%]). LIMITATION: Specific dosing and duration were not completely captured. CONCLUSION: Thiamine supplementation was not provided to almost half of all patients with AUD, raising a quality-of-care issue for this cohort. Supplementation was numerically less frequent in patients with septic shock, DKA, or TBI than in those with alcohol withdrawal. These data will be important for the design of quality improvement studies in critically ill patients with AUD. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Institutes of Health.

Renin-Angiotensin System Modulation With Synthetic Angiotensin (1-7) and Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor-Biased Ligand in Adults With COVID-19: Two Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Preclinical models suggest dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection may increase the relative activity of angiotensin II compared with angiotensin (1-7) and may be an important contributor to COVID-19 pathophysiology. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of RAS modulation using 2 investigational RAS agents, TXA-127 (synthetic angiotensin [1-7]) and TRV-027 (an angiotensin II type 1 receptor-biased ligand), that are hypothesized to potentiate the action of angiotensin (1-7) and mitigate the action of the angiotensin II. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two randomized clinical trials including adults hospitalized with acute COVID-19 and new-onset hypoxemia were conducted at 35 sites in the US between July 22, 2021, and April 20, 2022; last follow-up visit: July 26, 2022. Interventions: A 0.5-mg/kg intravenous infusion of TXA-127 once daily for 5 days or placebo. A 12-mg/h continuous intravenous infusion of TRV-027 for 5 days or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was oxygen-free days, an ordinal outcome that classifies a patient's status at day 28 based on mortality and duration of supplemental oxygen use; an adjusted odds ratio (OR) greater than 1.0 indicated superiority of the RAS agent vs placebo. A key secondary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Safety outcomes included allergic reaction, new kidney replacement therapy, and hypotension. Results: Both trials met prespecified early stopping criteria for a low probability of efficacy. Of 343 patients in the TXA-127 trial (226 [65.9%] aged 31-64 years, 200 [58.3%] men, 225 [65.6%] White, and 274 [79.9%] not Hispanic), 170 received TXA-127 and 173 received placebo. Of 290 patients in the TRV-027 trial (199 [68.6%] aged 31-64 years, 168 [57.9%] men, 195 [67.2%] White, and 225 [77.6%] not Hispanic), 145 received TRV-027 and 145 received placebo. Compared with placebo, both TXA-127 (unadjusted mean difference, -2.3 [95% CrI, -4.8 to 0.2]; adjusted OR, 0.88 [95% CrI, 0.59 to 1.30]) and TRV-027 (unadjusted mean difference, -2.4 [95% CrI, -5.1 to 0.3]; adjusted OR, 0.74 [95% CrI, 0.48 to 1.13]) resulted in no difference in oxygen-free days. In the TXA-127 trial, 28-day all-cause mortality occurred in 22 of 163 patients (13.5%) in the TXA-127 group vs 22 of 166 patients (13.3%) in the placebo group (adjusted OR, 0.83 [95% CrI, 0.41 to 1.66]). In the TRV-027 trial, 28-day all-cause mortality occurred in 29 of 141 patients (20.6%) in the TRV-027 group vs 18 of 140 patients (12.9%) in the placebo group (adjusted OR, 1.52 [95% CrI, 0.75 to 3.08]). The frequency of the safety outcomes was similar with either TXA-127 or TRV-027 vs placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: In adults with severe COVID-19, RAS modulation (TXA-127 or TRV-027) did not improve oxygen-free days vs placebo. These results do not support the hypotheses that pharmacological interventions that selectively block the angiotensin II type 1 receptor or increase angiotensin (1-7) improve outcomes for patients with severe COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04924660.

Trends in Endotracheal Intubation During In-Hospital Cardiac Arrests: 2001-2018.

OBJECTIVES: Airway management during in-hospital cardiac arrest represents a fundamental component of resuscitative efforts, yet little is known about temporal trends in intubation during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Our objective was to investigate changes in in-hospital cardiac arrest airway management over time and in response to national guideline updates. DESIGN: Observational cohort study of a prospectively collected database. SETTING: Multicenter study of hospitals participating in the "Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation" registry from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2018. SUBJECTS: Adult patients who experienced an in-hospital cardiac arrest and did not have an invasive airway in place prior to the arrest. INTERVENTIONS: The primary outcome was the rate of intra-arrest intubation from 2001 to 2018. We constructed multivariable regression models with generalized estimating equations to determine the annual adjusted odds of intubation. We also assessed the timing of intubation relative to the onset of pulselessness and other arrest measures. We used an interrupted time-series analysis to assess the association between the 2010 Advanced Cardiac Life Support guideline update and intubation rates. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One thousand sixty-six eight hundred patients from 797 hospitals were included. From 2001 to 2018, the percentage of patients intubated during an arrest decreased from 69% to 55% for all rhythms, 73% to 60% for nonshockable rhythms, and 58% to 36% for shockable rhythms (p < 0.001 for trend for all 3 groups). The median time from onset of pulselessness to intubation increased from 5 minutes in 2001 (interquartile range, 2-8 min) to 6 minutes in 2018 (interquartile range, 4-10 min) (p < 0.001 for trend). Following the 2010 guideline update, there was a downward step change and a steeper decrease over time in the rate of intubation as compared to the preintervention period (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Endotracheal intubation rates during in-hospital cardiac arrest have decreased significantly over time, with a more substantial decline following the updated 2010 guideline that prioritized chest compressions over airway management.

How Would You Treat This Patient Hospitalized With Community-Acquired Pneumonia? : Grand Rounds Discussion From Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Community-acquired pneumonia is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States, leading to 1.5 million hospitalizations and at least 200 000 deaths annually. The 2019 American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America clinical practice guideline on diagnosis and treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia provides an evidence-based overview of this common illness. Here, 2 experts, a general internist who served as the co-primary author of the guidelines and a pulmonary and critical care physician, debate the management of a patient hospitalized with community-acquired pneumonia. They discuss disease severity stratification methods, whether to use adjunctive corticosteroids, and when to prescribe empirical treatment for multidrug-resistant organisms such as methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa.

Comparison between Patients Hospitalized with Influenza and COVID-19 at a Tertiary Care Center.

BACKGROUND: Widespread reports suggest the characteristics and disease course of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and influenza differ, yet detailed comparisons of their clinical manifestations are lacking. OBJECTIVE: Comparison of the epidemiology and clinical characteristics of COVID-19 patients during the pandemic with those of influenza patients in previous influenza seasons at the same hospital DESIGN: Admission rates, clinical measurements, and clinical outcomes from confirmed COVID-19 cases between March 1 and April 30, 2020, were compared with those from confirmed influenza cases in the previous five influenza seasons (8 months each) beginning September 1, 2014. SETTING: Large tertiary care teaching hospital in Boston, MA PARTICIPANTS: Laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and influenza inpatients MEASUREMENTS: Patient demographics and medical history, mortality, incidence and duration of mechanical ventilation, incidences of vasopressor support and renal replacement therapy, and hospital and intensive care admissions. RESULTS: Data was abstracted from medical records of 1052 influenza patients and 582 COVID-19 patients. An average of 210 hospital admissions for influenza occurred per 8-month season compared to 582 COVID-19 admissions over 2 months. The median weekly number of COVID-19 patients requiring mechanical ventilation was 17 (IQR: 4, 34) compared to a weekly median of 1 (IQR: 0, 2) influenza patient (p=0.001). COVID-19 patients were significantly more likely to require mechanical ventilation (31% vs 8%) and had significantly higher mortality (20% vs. 3%; p<0.001 for all). Relatively more COVID-19 patients on mechanical ventilation lacked pre-existing conditions compared with mechanically ventilated influenza patients (25% vs 4%, p<0.001). Pneumonia/ARDS secondary to the virus was the predominant cause of mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 patients (94%) as opposed to influenza (56%). LIMITATION: This is a single-center study which could limit generalization. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 resulted in more weekly hospitalizations, higher morbidity, and higher mortality than influenza at the same hospital.

Variation in SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) Score Performance in Different Infectious States.

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we investigated whether the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score performance differs based on the type of infection among patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with infection. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Single-center, retrospective study of adult ICU patients admitted with infection between January 2008 and April 2018 at an urban tertiary care center. Patients were uniquely classified into different infection types based on International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) and ICD-10 codes. Infection types included were pneumonia, meningitis, bacteremia, cellulitis, cholangitis/cholecystitis, intestinal and diarrheal disease, endocarditis, urinary tract infection (UTI), and peritonitis. The SOFA score performance and mortality in relation to SOFA score were compared across infection types. RESULTS: A total of 12 283 patients were included. Of these, 50.6% were female and the median age was 70 years (interquartile range: 57-82). The most common infection types were pneumonia (32.2%) and UTI (31.0%). Overall, 1703 (13.9%) patients died prior to hospital discharge. The median baseline SOFA score (within 24 hours of ICU admission) for the cohort was 5 (3-8). Patients with peritonitis had the highest median SOFA score, 7 (4-9), and patients with cellulitis and UTI had the lowest median SOFA score, 4 (2-7). The SOFA score discrimination to predict mortality was highest among patients with endocarditis (area under the receiver operating characteristic [AUC]: 0.79, 95% CI: 0.69-0.90) and lowest for patients with isolated bacteremia (AUC: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.49-0.70). Observed mortality by quartile of SOFA score differed substantially across infection types. CONCLUSIONS: Type of infection is an important consideration when interpreting the SOFA score. This is relevant as SOFA emerges as an important tool in the definition and prognostication of sepsis.

Identification, collection, and reporting of harms among non-industry-sponsored randomized clinical trials of pharmacologic interventions in the critically ill population: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Prescribing pharmacologic therapies for critically ill patients requires a careful balancing of risks and benefits. Defining, monitoring, and reporting harms that occur in clinical trials conducted in critically ill populations, however, is challenging given that the natural history of most critical illnesses includes progressive multiple organ failure and death. In this study, we assessed harms reporting in clinical trials performed in critically ill populations. METHODS: Randomized, non-industry-sponsored, human clinical trials of pharmacologic interventions in adult critically ill populations published between 2015 and 2018 in high-impact journals were included in this systematic review. Harms data, adherence to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) harms reporting guidelines, and restrictions on harms reporting were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 707 abstracts were screened with 40 trials ultimately being included in the analysis. Included trials represent 28,636 randomized patients with a median of 292 (IQR 100-546) patients per trial. The most common disease states were general critical care (33%) and sepsis (28%). Of 18 included CONSORT items, the median number met was 12 (IQR 9, 14). The most commonly missed items were adverse event (AE) severity grading definitions and AE attribution (relationship of AE to study drug), which were only reported in 35 and 38% of manuscripts, respectively. Half of the manuscripts (48%) provided definitions for recorded AEs. There were 5 studies investigating the effects of corticosteroids in sepsis, with the number of AEs reported per analyzed patient ranging from 0.01 to 1.89. AE definitions in studies of similar/equivalent interventions often varied substantially. Study protocols were available for 30/40 (75%) of studies, with 13 (43%) of those not providing any guidance regarding AE attribution. CONCLUSIONS: Randomized trials of pharmacologic interventions conducted in critically ill populations and published in high impact journals often fail to adequately describe AE definitions, severity, attribution, and collection procedures. Among trials of similar interventions in comparable populations, variation in AE collection and reporting procedures is substantial. These factors may limit a clinician's ability to accurately balance the potential benefits and harms of an intervention.

Effect of Ascorbic Acid, Corticosteroids, and Thiamine on Organ Injury in Septic Shock: The ACTS Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The combination of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine has been identified as a potential therapy for septic shock. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the combination of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine attenuates organ injury in patients with septic shock. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized, blinded, multicenter clinical trial of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine vs placebo for adult patients with septic shock. Two hundred five patients were enrolled between February 9, 2018, and October 27, 2019, at 14 centers in the United States. Follow-up continued until November 26, 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive parenteral ascorbic acid (1500 mg), hydrocortisone (50 mg), and thiamine (100 mg) every 6 hours for 4 days (n = 103) or placebo in matching volumes at the same time points (n = 102). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (range, 0-24; 0 = best) between enrollment and 72 hours. Key secondary outcomes included kidney failure and 30-day mortality. Patients who received at least 1 dose of study drug were included in analyses. RESULTS: Among 205 randomized patients (mean age, 68 [SD, 15] years; 90 [44%] women), 200 (98%) received at least 1 dose of study drug, completed the trial, and were included in the analyses (101 with intervention and 99 with placebo group). Overall, there was no statistically significant interaction between time and treatment group with regard to SOFA score over the 72 hours after enrollment (mean SOFA score change from 9.1 to 4.4 [-4.7] points with intervention vs 9.2 to 5.1 [-4.1] points with placebo; adjusted mean difference, -0.8; 95% CI, -1.7 to 0.2; P = .12 for interaction). There was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of kidney failure (31.7% with intervention vs 27.3% with placebo; adjusted risk difference, 0.03; 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.2; P = .58) or in 30-day mortality (34.7% vs 29.3%, respectively; hazard ratio, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.8-2.2; P = .26). The most common serious adverse events were hyperglycemia (12 patients with intervention and 7 patients with placebo), hypernatremia (11 and 7 patients, respectively), and new hospital-acquired infection (13 and 12 patients, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In patients with septic shock, the combination of ascorbic acid, corticosteroids, and thiamine, compared with placebo, did not result in a statistically significant reduction in SOFA score during the first 72 hours after enrollment. These data do not support routine use of this combination therapy for patients with septic shock. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03389555.

Trends Over Time in Drug Administration During Adult In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical providers have access to a number of pharmacologic agents during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Few studies have explored medication administration patterns during in-hospital cardiac arrest. Herein, we examine trends in use of pharmacologic interventions during in-hospital cardiac arrest both over time and with respect to the American Heart Association Advanced Cardiac Life Support guideline updates. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: Hospitals contributing data to the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation database between 2001 and 2016. PATIENTS: Adult in-hospital cardiac arrest patients. INTERVENTIONS: The percentage of patients receiving epinephrine, vasopressin, amiodarone, lidocaine, atropine, bicarbonate, calcium, magnesium, and dextrose each year were calculated in patients with shockable and nonshockable initial rhythms. Hierarchical multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the annual adjusted odds of medication administration. An interrupted time series analysis was performed to assess change in atropine use after the 2010 American Heart Association guideline update. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 268,031 index in-hospital cardiac arrests were included. As compared to 2001, the adjusted odds ratio of receiving each medication in 2016 were epinephrine (adjusted odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.3-1.8), vasopressin (adjusted odds ratio, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1-2.1), amiodarone (adjusted odds ratio, 3.4; 95% CI, 2.9-4.0), lidocaine (adjusted odds ratio, 0.2; 95% CI, 0.2-0.2), atropine (adjusted odds ratio, 0.07; 95% CI, 0.06-0.08), bicarbonate (adjusted odds ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.8-2.3), calcium (adjusted odds ratio, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.7-2.3), magnesium (adjusted odds ratio, 2.2; 95% CI, 1.9-2.7; p < 0.0001), and dextrose (adjusted odds ratio, 2.8; 95% CI, 2.3-3.4). Following the 2010 American Heart Association guideline update, there was a downward step change in the intercept and slope change in atropine use (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing patterns during in-hospital cardiac arrest have changed significantly over time. Changes to American Heart Association Advanced Cardiac Life Support guidelines have had a rapid and substantial effect on the use of a number of commonly used in-hospital cardiac arrest medications.

Performance of the CURB-65 Score in Predicting Critical Care Interventions in Patients Admitted With Community-Acquired Pneumonia.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Confusion, uremia, elevated respiratory rate, hypotension, and aged 65 years or older (CURB-65) is a clinical prediction rule intended to stratify patients with pneumonia by expected mortality. We assess the predictive performance of CURB-65 for the proximal endpoint of receipt of critical care intervention in emergency department (ED) patients admitted with community-acquired pneumonia. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of electronic health records from a single tertiary center for ED patients admitted as inpatients with a primary diagnosis of pneumonia from 2010 to 2014. Patients with a history of malignancy, tuberculosis, bronchiectasis, HIV, or readmission within 14 days were excluded. We assessed the predictive accuracy of CURB-65 for receipt of critical care interventions (ie, vasopressors, large-volume intravenous fluids, invasive catheters, assisted ventilation, insulin infusions, or renal replacement therapy) and inhospital mortality. Logistic regression was performed to assess the increase in odds of critical care intervention or inhospital mortality by increasing CURB-65 score. RESULTS: There were 2,322 patients admitted with community-acquired pneumonia in the study cohort; 630 (27.1%) were admitted to the ICU within 48 hours of ED triage and 343 (14.8%) received a critical care intervention. Of patients with a CURB-65 score of 0 to 1, 181 (15.6%) were admitted to the ICU, 74 (6.4%) received a critical care intervention, and 7 (0.6%) died. Of patients with a CURB-65 score of 2, 223 (27.0%) were admitted to the ICU, 127 (15.4%) received a critical care intervention, and 47 (5.7%) died. Among patients with CURB-65 score greater than or equal to 3, 226 (67.0%) were admitted to the ICU, 142 (42.1%) received a critical care intervention, and 43 (12.8%) died. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic for CURB-65 as a predictor of critical care intervention and mortality were 0.73 and 0.77, whereas sensitivity of CURB-65 score greater than or equal to 2 in predicting critical care intervention was 78.4%; for mortality, 92.8%. CONCLUSION: Patients with CURB-65 score less than or equal to 2 were often admitted to the ICU and received critical care interventions. Given this finding and the relatively low sensitivity of CURB-65 for critical care intervention, clinicians should exercise caution when using CURB-65 to guide disposition. Future ED-based clinical prediction rules may benefit from calibration to proximal endpoints.