Association of Early Dexmedetomidine Utilization With Clinical and Functional Outcomes Following Moderate-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Transforming Clinical Research and Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury Study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine early sedation patterns, as well as the association of dexmedetomidine exposure, with clinical and functional outcomes among mechanically ventilated patients with moderate-severe traumatic brain injury (msTBI). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study with prospectively collected data. SETTING: Eighteen Level-1 Trauma Centers, United States. PATIENTS: Adult (age > 17) patients with msTBI (as defined by Glasgow Coma Scale < 13) who required mechanical ventilation from the Transforming Clinical Research and Knowledge in TBI (TRACK-TBI) study. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Using propensity-weighted models, we examined the association of early dexmedetomidine exposure (within the first 5 d of ICU admission) with the primary outcome of 6-month Glasgow Outcomes Scale Extended (GOS-E) and the following secondary outcomes: length of hospital stay, hospital mortality, 6-month Disability Rating Scale (DRS), and 6-month mortality. The study population included 352 subjects who required mechanical ventilation within 24 hours of admission. The initial sedative medication was propofol for 240 patients (68%), midazolam for 59 patients (17%), ketamine for 6 patients (2%), dexmedetomidine for 3 patients (1%), and 43 patients (12%) never received continuous sedation. Early dexmedetomidine was administered in 77 of the patients (22%), usually as a second-line agent. Compared with unexposed patients, early dexmedetomidine exposure was not associated with better 6-month GOS-E (weighted odds ratio [OR] = 1.48; 95% CI, 0.98-2.25). Early dexmedetomidine exposure was associated with lower DRS (weighted OR = -3.04; 95% CI, -5.88 to -0.21). In patients requiring ICP monitoring within the first 24 hours of admission, early dexmedetomidine exposure was associated with higher 6-month GOS-E score (OR 2.17; 95% CI, 1.24-3.80), lower DRS score (adjusted mean difference, -5.81; 95% CI, -9.38 to 2.25), and reduced length of hospital stay (hazard ratio = 1.50; 95% CI, 1.02-2.20). CONCLUSION: Variation exists in early sedation choice among mechanically ventilated patients with msTBI. Early dexmedetomidine exposure was not associated with improved 6-month functional outcomes in the entire population, although may have clinical benefit in patients with indications for ICP monitoring.

Soft phenotyping for sepsis via EHR time-aware soft clustering.

OBJECTIVE: Sepsis is one of the most serious hospital conditions associated with high mortality. Sepsis is the result of a dysregulated immune response to infection that can lead to multiple organ dysfunction and death. Due to the wide variability in the causes of sepsis, clinical presentation, and the recovery trajectories, identifying sepsis sub-phenotypes is crucial to advance our understanding of sepsis characterization, to choose targeted treatments and optimal timing of interventions, and to improve prognostication. Prior studies have described different sub-phenotypes of sepsis using organ-specific characteristics. These studies applied clustering algorithms to electronic health records (EHRs) to identify disease sub-phenotypes. However, prior approaches did not capture temporal information and made uncertain assumptions about the relationships among the sub-phenotypes for clustering procedures. METHODS: We developed a time-aware soft clustering algorithm guided by clinical variables to identify sepsis sub-phenotypes using data available in the EHR. RESULTS: We identified six novel sepsis hybrid sub-phenotypes and evaluated them for medical plausibility. In addition, we built an early-warning sepsis prediction model using logistic regression. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that these novel sepsis hybrid sub-phenotypes are promising to provide more accurate information on sepsis-related organ dysfunction and sepsis recovery trajectories which can be important to inform management decisions and sepsis prognosis.

Early Beta-Blocker Utilization in Critically Ill Patients With Moderate-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: There is limited evidence that beta-blockers may provide benefit for patients with moderate-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) during the acute injury period. Larger studies on utilization patterns and impact on outcomes in clinical practice are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The present study uses a large, national hospital claims-based dataset to examine early beta-blocker utilization patterns and its association with clinical outcomes among critically ill patients with moderate-severe TBI. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of the administrative claims Premier Healthcare Database of adults (≥17 years) with moderate-severe TBI admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) from 2016 to 2020. The exposure was receipt of a beta-blocker during day 1 or 2 of ICU stay (BB+). The primary outcome was hospital mortality, and secondary outcomes were: hospital length of stay (LOS), ICU LOS, discharge to home, and vasopressor utilization. In a sensitivity analysis, we explored the association of beta-blocker class (cardioselective and noncardioselective) with hospital mortality. We used propensity weighting methods to address possible confounding by treatment indication. RESULTS: A total of 109 665 participants met inclusion criteria and 39% (n = 42 489) were exposed to beta-blockers during the first 2 days of hospitalization. Of those, 42% received cardioselective only, 43% received noncardioselective only, and 14% received both. After adjustment, there was no association with hospital mortality in the BB+ group compared to the BB- group (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.99, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.94, 1.04). The BB+ group had longer hospital stays, lower chance of discharged home, and lower risk of vasopressor utilization, although these difference were clinically small. Beta-blocker class was not associated with hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective cohort study, we found variation in use of beta-blockers and early exposure was not associated with hospital mortality. Further research is necessary to understand the optimal type, dose, and timing of beta-blockers for this population.

Association of Early Dexmedetomidine Utilization With Clinical Outcomes After Moderate-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is an expensive and common public health problem. Management of TBI oftentimes includes sedation to facilitate mechanical ventilation (MV) for airway protection. Dexmedetomidine has emerged as a potential candidate for improved patient outcomes when used for early sedation after TBI due to its potential modulation of autonomic dysfunction. We examined early sedation patterns, as well as the association of dexmedetomidine exposure with clinical and functional outcomes among mechanically ventilated patients with moderate-severe TBI (msTBI) in the United States. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from the Premier dataset and identified a cohort of critically ill adult patients with msTBI who required MV from January 2016 to June 2020. msTBI was defined by head-neck abbreviated injury scale (AIS) values of 3 (serious), 4 (severe), and 5 (critical). We described early continuous sedative utilization patterns. Using propensity-matched models, we examined the association of early dexmedetomidine exposure (within 2 days of intensive care unit [ICU] admission) with the primary outcome of hospital mortality and the following secondary outcomes: hospital length of stay (LOS), days on MV, vasopressor use after the first 2 days of admission, hemodialysis (HD) after the first 2 days of admission, hospital costs, and discharge disposition. All medications, treatments, and procedures were identified using date-stamped hospital charge codes. RESULTS: The study population included 19,751 subjects who required MV within 2 days of ICU admission. The patients were majority male and white. From 2016 to 2020, the annual percent utilization of dexmedetomidine increased from 4.05% to 8.60%. After propensity score matching, early dexmedetomidine exposure was associated with reduced odds of hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.59; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.47-0.74; P < .0001), increased risk for liberation from MV (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.09-1.33; P = .0003), and reduced LOS (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.01-1.22; P = .033). Exposure to early dexmedetomidine was not associated with odds of HD (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.73-1.78; P = .56), vasopressor utilization (OR, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.78-1.55; P = .60), or increased hospital costs (relative cost ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 0.93-1.03; P = .66). CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine is being utilized increasingly as a sedative for mechanically ventilated patients with msTBI. Early dexmedetomidine exposure may lead to improved patient outcomes in this population.

Design and implementation of community consultation for research conducted under exception from informed consent regulations for the PreVent and the PreVent 2 trials: Changes over time and during the COVID-19 pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Emergency clinical research has played an important role in improving outcomes for acutely ill patients. This is due in part to regulatory measures that allow Exception From Informed Consent (EFIC) trials. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires sponsor-investigators to engage in community consultation and public disclosure activities prior to initiating an Exception From Informed Consent trial. Various approaches to community consultation and public disclosure have been described and adapted to local contexts and Institutional Review Board (IRB) interpretations. The COVID-19 pandemic has precluded the ability to engage local communities through direct, in-person public venues, requiring research teams to find alternative ways to inform communities about emergency research. METHODS: The PreVent and PreVent 2 studies were two Exception From Informed Consent trials of emergency endotracheal intubation, conducted in one geographic location for the PreVent Study and in two geographic locations for the PreVent 2 Study. During the period of the two studies, there was a substantial shift in the methodological approach spanning across the periods before and after the pandemic from telephone, to in-person, to virtual settings. RESULTS: During the 10 years of implementation of Exception From Informed Consent activities for the two PreVent trials, there was overall favorable public support for the concept of Exception From Informed Consent trials and for the importance of emergency clinical research. Community concerns were few and also did not differ much by method of contact. Attendance was higher with the implementation of virtual technology to reach members of the community, and overall feedback was more positive compared with telephone contacts or in-person events. However, the proportion of survey responses received after completion of the remote, live event was substantially lower, with a greater proportion of respondents having higher education levels. This suggests less active engagement after completion of the synchronous activity and potentially higher selection bias among respondents. Importantly, we found that engagement with local community leaders was a key component to develop appropriate plans to connect with the public. CONCLUSION: The PreVent experience illustrated operational advantages and disadvantages to community consultation conducted primarily by telephone, in-person events, or online activities. Approaches to enhance community acceptance included partnering with community leaders to optimize the communication strategies and trust building with the involvement of Institutional Review Board representatives during community meetings. Researchers might need to pivot from in-person planning to virtual techniques while maintaining the ability to engage with the public with two-way communication approaches. Due to less active engagement, and potential for selection bias in the responders, further research is needed to address the costs and benefits of virtual community consultation and public disclosure activities compared to in-person events.

Pro-Con Debate: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Industry-Sponsored Research.

Pro: Nearly all new devices and drugs come from industry that provides two-thirds of the funding for medical research, and a much higher fraction of clinical research. Realistically, without corporate-funded studies, perioperative research would stagnate with little innovation and few new products. Opinions are ubiquitous and normal, but do not constitute epidemiologic bias. Competent clinical research includes many protections against selection and measurement bias, and the publication process provides at least moderate protection against misinterpretation of results. Trial registries largely prevent selective data presentation. Sponsored trials are particularly protected against inappropriate corporate influence because they are usually codesigned with the US Food and Drug Administration, and analyses are based on formal predefined statistical plans, as well as being conducted with rigorous external monitoring. Novel products, which are essential for advances in clinical care, largely come from industry, and industry appropriately funds much of the required research. We should celebrate industry's contribution to improvements in clinical care. Con: While industry funding contributes to research and discovery, examples of industry-funded research demonstrate bias. In the setting of financial pressures and potential conflict of interest, bias can influence the type of study design, hypotheses being tested, rigor and transparency in data analysis, interpretation, as well as reporting of the results. Unlike public granting agencies, industry does not necessarily provide funding based on unbiased peer review following an open call for proposals. The focus on success can influence the choice of a comparator, which might not be ideal among the possible alternatives, the language used in the publication, and even the ability to publish. Unpublished negative trials can result in selected information being withheld from the scientific community and the public. Appropriate safeguards are needed to ensure that research addresses the most important and relevant questions, that results are available even when they do not support the use of a product produced by the funding company, that populations studied reflect the relevant patients, that the most rigorous approaches are applied, that studies have the appropriate power to address the question posed, and that conclusions are presented in an unbiased manner.

Evaluation of a Protocol for the Management of Maintenance and Reversal of Rocuronium Block Using Neostigmine or Sugammadex.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade (PRNB) is defined as an adductor pollicis train-of-four ratio (TOFR) <0.9. It is a common postoperative complication when nondepolarizing muscle relaxants are either not reversed or reversed with neostigmine. PRNB has been reported in 25% to 58% of patients who receive intermediate-acting nondepolarizing muscle relaxants, and it is associated with increased morbidity and decreased patient satisfaction. We conducted a prospective descriptive cohort study during the implementation of a practice guideline that included the selective use of sugammadex or neostigmine. The primary study aim of this pragmatic study was to estimate the incidence of PRNB at arrival to the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) when the practice guideline is followed. METHODS: We enrolled patients undergoing orthopedic or abdominal surgery requiring neuromuscular blockade. Rocuronium administration was guided by surgical requirements and based on ideal body weight, with dose reductions for women and/or age >55 years. Only qualitative monitoring was available to the anesthesia providers, and selection of sugammadex or neostigmine was guided by tactile assessments of the response to train-of-four (TOF) stimulation by a peripheral nerve stimulator. Neostigmine was administered if no fade was detected in the TOF response at the thumb. Deeper blocks were reversed with sugammadex. The prespecified primary and secondary end points were the incidence of PRNB at arrival to the PACU, defined as a normalized TOFR (nTOFR) < 0.9, and severe PRNB, defined as nTOFR <0.7 on arrival to the PACU. Anesthesia providers were blinded to all quantitative measurements made by research staff. RESULTS: Analysis included 163 patients, and 145 underwent orthopedic and 18 abdominal surgeries. Of the 163 patients, 92 (56%) were reversed with neostigmine and 71 (44%) with sugammadex. The overall incidence of PRNB at PACU arrival was 5 of 163 or 3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1-7). The incidence of severe PRNB in PACU was 1% (95% CI, 0-4). Three of the 5 subjects with PRNB had TOFR <0.4 at time of reversal but were given neostigmine since anesthesia providers detected no fade by qualitative assessment. CONCLUSIONS: The use of a protocol that specifies rocuronium dosing and selective use of sugammadex versus neostigmine based on qualitative assessment of TOF count and fade allowed us to achieve an incidence of PRNB of 3% (95% CI, 1-7) at PACU arrival. Quantitative monitoring may be needed to further reduce this incidence.

Management of Muscle Relaxation With Rocuronium and Reversal With Neostigmine or Sugammadex Guided by Quantitative Neuromuscular Monitoring.

BACKGROUND: The optimal pharmacological reversal strategy for neuromuscular blockade remains undefined even in the setting of strong recommendations for quantitative neuromuscular monitoring by several national and international anesthesiology societies. We evaluated a protocol for managing rocuronium blockade and reversal, using quantitative monitoring to guide choice of reversal agent and to confirm full reversal before extubation. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study and enrolled 200 patients scheduled for elective surgery involving the intraoperative use of rocuronium. Providers were asked to adhere to a protocol that was similar to local practice recommendations for neuromusculalr block reversal that had been used for >2 years; the protocol added quantitative monitoring that had not previously been routinely used at our institution. In this study, providers used electromyography-based quantitative monitoring. Pharmacological reversal was accomplished with neostigmine if the train-of-four (TOF) ratio was 0.40 to 0.89 and with sugammadex for deeper levels of blockade. The primary end point was the incidence of postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade (PRNB), defined as TOF ratio <0.9 at time of extubation. We further evaluated the difference in pharmacy costs had all patients been treated with sugammadex. RESULTS: A total of 189 patients completed the study: 66 patients (35%) were reversed with neostigmine, 90 patients (48%) with sugammadex, and 33 (17%) patients recovered spontaneously without pharmacological reversal. The overall incidence of residual paralysis was 0% (95% CI, 0-1.9). The total acquisition cost for all reversal drugs was United States dollar (USD) 11,358 (USD 60 per patient) while the cost would have been USD 19,312 (USD 103 per patient, 70% higher) if sugammadex had been used in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: A protocol that includes quantitative monitoring to guide reversal with neostigmine or sugammadex and to confirm TOF ratio ≥0.9 before extubation resulted in the complete prevention of PRNB. With current pricing of drugs, the selective use of sugammadex reduced the total cost of reversal drugs compared to the projected cost associated with routine use of sugammadex for all patients.

Hemodynamic Management in the Prevention and Treatment of Delayed Cerebral Ischemia After Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.

One of the most serious complications after subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is delayed cerebral ischemia, the cause of which is multifactorial. Delayed cerebral ischemia considerably worsens neurological outcome and increases the risk of death. The targets of hemodynamic management of SAH have widely changed over the past 30 years. Hypovolemia and hypotension were favored prior to the era of early aneurysmal surgery but were subsequently replaced by the use of hypervolemia and hypertension. More recently, the concept of goal-directed therapy targeting euvolemia, with or without hypertension, is gaining preference. Despite the evolving concepts and the vast literature, fundamental questions related to hemodynamic optimization and its effects on cerebral perfusion and patient outcomes remain unanswered. In this review, we explain the rationale underlying the approaches to hemodynamic management and provide guidance on contemporary strategies related to fluid administration and blood pressure and cardiac output manipulation in the management of SAH.

Guidelines for the Neurocritical Care Management of Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: The neurointensive care management of patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) is one of the most critical components contributing to short-term and long-term patient outcomes. Previous recommendations for the medical management of aSAH comprehensively summarized the evidence based on consensus conference held in 2011. In this report, we provide updated recommendations based on appraisal of the literature using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. METHODS: The Population/Intervention/Comparator/Outcome (PICO) questions relevant to the medical management of aSAH were prioritized by consensus from the panel members. The panel used a custom-designed survey instrument to prioritize clinically relevant outcomes specific to each PICO question. To be included, the study design qualifying criteria were as follows: prospective randomized controlled trials (RCTs), prospective or retrospective observational studies, case-control studies, case series with a sample larger than 20 patients, meta-analyses, restricted to human study participants. Panel members first screened titles and abstracts, and subsequently full text review of selected reports. Data were abstracted in duplicate from reports meeting inclusion criteria. Panelists used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Risk of Bias tool for assessment of RCTs and the "Risk of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies - of Interventions" tool for assessment of observational studies. The summary of the evidence for each PICO was presented to the full panel, and then the panel voted on the recommendations. RESULTS: The initial search retrieved 15,107 unique publications, and 74 were included for data abstraction. Several RCTs were conducted to test pharmacological interventions, and we found that the quality of evidence for nonpharmacological questions was consistently poor. Five PICO questions were supported by strong recommendations, one PICO question was supported by conditional recommendations, and six PICO questions did not have sufficient evidence to provide a recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: These guidelines provide recommendations for or against interventions proven to be effective, ineffective, or harmful in the medical management of patients with aSAH based on a rigorous review of the available literature. They also serve to highlight gaps in knowledge that should guide future research priorities. Despite improvements in the outcomes of patients with aSAH over time, many important clinical questions remain unanswered.

Pro-Con Debate: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Industry-Sponsored Research.

PRO: Nearly all new devices and drugs come from industry that provides two-thirds of the funding for medical research, and a much higher fraction of clinical research. Realistically, without corporate-funded studies, perioperative research would stagnate with little innovation and few new products. Opinions are ubiquitous and normal but do not constitute epidemiologic bias. Competent clinical research includes many protections against selection and measurement bias, and the publication process provides at least moderate protection against misinterpretation of results. Trial registries largely prevent selective data presentation. Sponsored trials are particularly protected against inappropriate corporate influence because they are usually codesigned with the US Food and Drug Administration, and analyses are based on formal predefined statistical plans, as well as being conducted with rigorous external monitoring. Novel products, which are essential for advances in clinical care, largely come from industry, and industry appropriately funds much of the required research. We should celebrate industry's contribution to improvements in clinical care. CON: While industry funding contributes to research and discovery, examples of industry-funded research demonstrate bias. In the setting of financial pressures and potential conflict of interest, bias can influence the type of study design, hypotheses being tested, rigor and transparency in data analysis, interpretation, as well as reporting of the results. Unlike public granting agencies, industry does not necessarily provide funding based on unbiased peer review following an open call for proposals. The focus on success can influence the choice of a comparator, which might not be ideal among the possible alternatives, the language used in the publication, and even the ability to publish. Unpublished negative trials can result in selected information being withheld from the scientific community and the public. Appropriate safeguards are needed to ensure that research addresses the most important and relevant questions, that results are available even when they do not support the use of a product produced by the funding company, that populations studied reflect the relevant patients, that the most rigorous approaches are applied, that studies have the appropriate power to address the question posed, and that conclusions are presented in an unbiased manner.

Pharmacokinetics and Tolerability of Intraperitoneal Chloroprocaine After Fetal Extraction in Women Undergoing Cesarean Delivery.

BACKGROUND: Intraperitoneal chloroprocaine has been used during cesarean delivery to supplement suboptimal neuraxial anesthesia for decades. The short in vitro half-life of chloroprocaine (11-21 seconds) has been cited to support the safety of this approach. However, there are no data regarding the rate of absorption, representing patient drug exposure, through this route of administration. Accordingly, we designed a study to determine the in vivo half-life of intraperitoneal chloroprocaine and assess clinical tolerability. METHODS: We designed a single-center, prospective, cohort, multiple-dose escalation study of women 18 to 50 years of age undergoing cesarean delivery with spinal anesthesia. Chloroprocaine (40 mL) was administered after delivery of the newborn and before uterine closure. The first cohort (n = 5) received 1%, the second cohort (n = 5) received 2%, and the third cohort (n = 5) received 3% chloroprocaine solution. Maternal blood samples were obtained before administration and 1, 5, 10, 20, and 30 minutes after dosing. The primary objective was to define the pharmacokinetic profile of intraperitoneal chloroprocaine, including in vivo half-life. The secondary objective was to evaluate tolerability through determination of peak plasma concentration and prospective assessment for local anesthetic systemic toxicity. RESULTS: The peak plasma concentration occurred 5 minutes after intraperitoneal administration in all 3 cohorts: 64.8 ng/mL (6.5 µg/kg), 28.7 ng/mL (2.9 µg/kg), and 799.2 ng/mL (79.9 µg/kg) for 1%, 2%, and 3% chloroprocaine, respectively. The in vivo half-life of chloroprocaine after intraperitoneal administration was estimated to be 5.3 minutes (95% confidence interval, 4.0-6.6). We did not detect clinical signs of local anesthetic systemic toxicity in any of the 3 cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: The in vivo half-life of intraperitoneal chloroprocaine (5.3 minutes) is more than an order of magnitude greater than the in vitro half-life (11-21 seconds). However, maximum plasma concentrations of chloroprocaine (C max range, 0.05-79.9 µg/kg) were not associated with local anesthetic systemic toxicity and remain well below our predefined safe level of exposure (970 µg/kg) and levels associated with clinical symptoms (2.6-2.9 mg/kg). Therefore, our study suggests that intraperitoneal chloroprocaine, in a dosage ≤1200 mg, administered after fetal extraction, is well tolerated during cesarean delivery.

A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Soluble Epoxide Hydrolase Inhibition in Patients with Aneurysmal Subarachnoid Hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Epoxyeicosatrienoates (EETs) are endogenous regulators of neuroinflammation and cerebral blood flow. Their metabolism to dihydroxyeicosatrienoates (DHETs) is catalyzed by soluble epoxide hydrolase (sEH). After subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH), EETs' pathway amplification may be a therapeutic target for the prevention of delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI). We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase Ib randomized trial of GSK2256294, a pharmacologic inhibitor of sEH, to evaluate the safety profile and to assess biomarkers of neurovascular inflammation in patients with aneurysmal SAH. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive 10 mg of GSK2256294 or a placebo treatment once daily for 10 days, beginning within 72 hours after aneurysm rupture. The primary study end point was safety. Secondary end points included serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) EETs-to-DHETs ratio, cytokine levels, and serum endothelial injury biomarkers, measured at day 7 and day 10 after SAH. Tertiary end points included neurologic status, disposition, length of stay, incidence of DCI, and mortality; these were assessed at hospital discharge and at 90 days. RESULTS: Ten patients received GSK2256294 and nine patients received a placebo. There were no adverse events related to the study drug. GSK2256294 administration resulted in a significant increase in the EET/DHET ratio at day 7 and day 10 in serum, but not in the CSF. There was a trend for decreased CSF inflammatory cytokines following GSK2256294 administration, but this did not reach statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: GSK2256294 administration was safe and well tolerated in critically ill patients with SAH, producing an increase in serum EETs and the EET-to-DHET ratio. Our findings support future studies in a larger population to evaluate the role of sEH inhibition in the prevention of DCI after SAH and other forms of brain injury and inflammatory conditions. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03318783.

Treatments Associated with Lower Mortality among Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients remains high. Although randomized controlled trials must continue to definitively evaluate treatments, further hypothesis-generating efforts to identify candidate treatments are required. This study's hypothesis was that certain treatments are associated with lower COVID-19 mortality. METHODS: This was a 1-yr retrospective cohort study involving all COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units in six hospitals affiliated with Yale New Haven Health System from February 13, 2020, to March 4, 2021. The exposures were any COVID-19-related pharmacologic and organ support treatments. The outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: This study analyzed 2,070 patients after excluding 23 patients who died within 24 h after intensive care unit admission and 3 patients who remained hospitalized on the last day of data censoring. The in-hospital mortality was 29% (593 of 2,070). Of 23 treatments analyzed, apixaban (hazard ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.363 to 0.48; corrected CI, 0.336 to 0.52) and aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.87; corrected CI, 0.54 to 0.96) were associated with lower mortality based on the multivariable analysis with multiple testing correction. Propensity score-matching analysis showed an association between apixaban treatment and lower mortality (with vs. without apixaban, 27% [96 of 360] vs. 37% [133 of 360]; hazard ratio, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.337 to 0.69) and an association between aspirin treatment and lower mortality (with vs. without aspirin, 26% [121 of 473] vs. 30% [140 of 473]; hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.78). Enoxaparin showed similar associations based on the multivariable analysis (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.69 to 0.97; corrected CI, 0.61 to 1.05) and propensity score-matching analysis (with vs. without enoxaparin, 25% [87 of 347] vs. 34% [117 of 347]; hazard ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.367 to 0.77). CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with the known hypercoagulability in severe COVID-19, the use of apixaban, enoxaparin, or aspirin was independently associated with lower mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Assisted Fluid Management Software Guidance for Intraoperative Fluid Administration.

BACKGROUND: Excessive or inadequate fluid administration causes complications, but despite this, fluid administration during noncardiac surgery is highly variable. Goal-directed management helps optimize the amount and timing of fluid administration; however, implementation is difficult because algorithms are complex. The authors therefore tested the performance of the Acumen Assisted Fluid Management software (Edwards Lifesciences, USA), which is designed to guide optimal intravenous fluid administration during surgery. METHODS: In this multicenter, prospective, single-arm cohort evaluation, the authors enrolled 330 adults scheduled for moderate- to high-risk noncardiac surgery that required arterial catheter insertion and mechanical ventilation. Clinicians chose a fluid strategy based on a desired 10%, 15%, or 20% increase in stroke volume (SV) in response to a fluid bolus. Dedicated fluid management software prompted "test" or "recommended" boluses, and clinicians were free to initiate a "user" bolus of 100 to 500 ml of crystalloid or colloid. Clinicians were free to accept or decline the software prompts. The authors primarily compared the fraction of software-recommended boluses that produced suitable increases in SV to a 30% reference rate. On an exploratory basis, we compared responses to software-recommended and clinician-initiated boluses. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-four of 479 (89%) software-recommended fluid boluses and 508 of 592 (86%) clinician-initiated fluid boluses were analyzed per protocol. Of those, 66% (95% CI, 62 to 70%) of delivered fluid boluses recommended by the software resulted in desired increases in SV, compared with the 30% reference rate, whereas only 41% (95% CI, 38 to 44%) of clinician-initiated boluses did (P < 0.0001). The mean ± SD increase in SV after boluses recommended by the software was 14.2 ± 13.9% versus 8.3 ± 12.1% (P < 0.0001) for those initiated by clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Fluid boluses recommended by the software resulted in desired SV increases more often, and with greater absolute SV increase, than clinician-initiated boluses. Automated assessment of fluid responsiveness may help clinicians optimize intraoperative fluid management during noncardiac surgery.

The Role of Anesthesiologists in Perioperative Limitation of Potentially Life-Sustaining Medical Treatments: A Narrative Review and Perspective.

No patient arrives at the hospital to undergo general anesthesia for its own sake. Anesthesiology is a symbiont specialty, with the primary mission of preventing physical and psychological pain, easing anxiety, and shepherding physiologic homeostasis so that other care may safely progress. For most elective surgeries, the patient-anesthesiologist relationship begins shortly before and ends after the immediate perioperative period. While this may tempt anesthesiologists to defer goals of care discussions to our surgical or primary care colleagues, we have both an ethical and a practical imperative to share this responsibility. Since the early 1990s, the American College of Surgeons (ACS), the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), and the Association of Perioperative Registered Nurses (AORN) have mandated a "required reconsideration" of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders. Key ethical considerations and guiding principles informing this "required reconsideration" have been extensively discussed in the literature and include respect for patient autonomy, beneficence, and nonmaleficence. In this article, we address how well these principles and guidelines are translated into daily clinical practice and how often anesthesiologists actually discuss goals of care or potential limitations to life-sustaining medical treatments (LSMTs) before administering anesthesia or sedation. Having done so, we review how often providers implement goal-concordant care, that is, care that reflects and adheres to the stated patient wishes. We conclude with describing several key gaps in the literature on goal-concordance of perioperative care for patients with limitations on LSMT and summarize novel strategies and promising efforts described in recent literature to improve goal-concordance of perioperative care.

Agreement Between the Mini-Cog in the Preoperative Clinic and on the Day of Surgery and Association With Postanesthesia Care Unit Delirium: A Cohort Study of Cognitive Screening in Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is common in older surgical patients and is associated with postoperative delirium. However, cognitive function is inconsistently assessed preoperatively, leading to missed opportunities to recognize vulnerable patients. We designed a prospective cohort study to assess the agreement of the Mini-Cog screening tool administered in the preoperative clinic (clinic-day test) or immediately before surgery (surgery-day test) and to determine whether a positive screening for cognitive dysfunction in the surgery-day test is associated with postoperative delirium in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). METHODS: This was a cohort study of patients aged 65-89 years, scheduled for elective, inpatient surgery under general anesthesia between June 20, 2018 and August 3, 2018. Mini-Cog test scores were obtained during a clinic-day test and surgery-day test. The Short Confusion Assessment Method was performed in the PACU. Agreement between Mini-Cog clinic-day and surgery-day test scores was estimated using an ordinally weighted kappa statistic, κ. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine whether there was an association between a positive screen for cognitive impairment and PACU delirium. Odds ratio analysis was performed to determine whether the Mini-Cog score was associated with PACU delirium. RESULTS: Of 128 patients meeting eligibility criteria, 80 patients were enrolled. Ten had cognitive impairment based on the Mini-Cog clinic-day test score, while 70 did not. Age, sex, race, education level, subjective memory impairment, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status were equivalent in the 2 groups. The mean number of days between the clinic-day score and the surgery-day score was 8.4 days (standard deviation [SD] = 6.9). Mini-Cog clinic-day and surgery-day scores had high agreement (κ = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-0.87; P < .001), and both scores were highly predictive of PACU delirium. Patients with Mini-Cog surgery-day scores compatible with cognitive impairment (Mini-Cog scores ≤2) had an estimated 12.8 times higher odds of PACU delirium compared to patients with normal cognitive function or Mini-Cog scores >2 (odds ratio [OR] = 12.8; 95% CI, 2.6-63.8, P = .002). Similarly, patients with Mini-Cog clinic-day test scores compatible with cognitive impairment had an estimated 29 times higher odds of PACU delirium compared to patients with normal cognitive function (OR = 29.0; 95% CI, 2.6-63.8, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: These data support the approach of using the Mini-Cog on the day of surgery to screen for cognitive impairment in older patients. Importantly, Mini-Cog surgery-day test scores compatible with cognitive impairment (≤2) were strongly associated with PACU delirium.

Randomised controlled trial of sugammadex or neostigmine for reversal of neuromuscular block on the incidence of pulmonary complications in older adults undergoing prolonged surgery.

BACKGROUND: Residual neuromuscular block has been associated with postoperative pulmonary complications. We hypothesised that sugammadex reduces postoperative pulmonary complications in patients aged ≥70 yr having surgery ≥3 h, compared with neostigmine. METHODS: Patients were enrolled in an open-label, assessor-blinded, randomised, controlled trial. At surgical closure, subjects were equally randomised to receive sugammadex 2 mg kg-1 or neostigmine 0.07 mg kg-1 (maximum 5 mg) for rocuronium reversal. The primary endpoint was incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications. Secondary endpoints included residual paralysis (train-of-four ratio <0.9 in the PACU) and Phase 1 recovery (time to attain pain control and stable respiratory, haemodynamic, and neurological status). The analysis was by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: Of the 200 subjects randomised, 98 received sugammadex and 99 received neostigmine. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of postoperative pulmonary complications despite a signal towards reduced incidence for sugammadex (33% vs 40%; odds ratio [OR]=0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]=[0.40, 1.37]; P=0.30) compared with neostigmine. Sugammadex decreased residual neuromuscular block (10% vs 49%; OR=0.11, 95% CI=[0.04, 0.25]; P<0.001). Phase 1 recovery time was comparable between sugammadex (97.3 min [standard deviation, sd=54.3]) and neostigmine (110.0 min [sd=62.0]), difference -12.7 min (95% CI, [-29.2, 3.9], P=0.13). In an exploratory analysis, there were fewer 30 day hospital readmissions in the sugammadex group compared with the neostigmine group (5% vs 15%; OR=0.30, 95% CI=[0.08, 0.91]; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: In older adults undergoing prolonged surgery, sugammadex was associated with a 40% reduction in residual neuromuscular block, a 10% reduction in 30 day hospital readmission rate, but no difference in the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications. Based on this exploratory study, larger studies should determine whether sugammadex may reduce postoperative pulmonary complications and 30 day hospital readmissions. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02861131.

COVID-19 mortality risk for older men and women.

BACKGROUND: Case-fatality from COVID-19 has been reported to be relatively high in patients age 65 years or older. We sought to determine the age-specific rates of COVID-19 mortality at the population level. METHODS: We obtained information regarding the total number of COVID-19 reported deaths for six consecutive weeks beginning at the 50th recorded death, among 16 countries that reported a relatively high number of COVID-19 cases as of April 12, 2020. We performed an ecological study to model COVID-19 mortality rates per week by age group (54 years or younger, 55-64 years, and 65 years or older) and sex using a Poisson mixed effects regression model. RESULTS: Over the six-week period of data, there were 178,568 COVID-19 deaths from a total population of approximately 2.4 billion people. Age and sex were associated with COVID-19 mortality. Compared with individuals ages 54 years or younger, the incident rate ratio (IRR) was 8.1, indicating that the mortality rate of COVID-19 was 8.1 times higher (95%CI = 7.7, 8.5) among those 55 to 64 years, and more than 62 times higher (IRR = 62.1; 95%CI = 59.7, 64.7) among those ages 65 or older. Mortality rates from COVID-19 were 77% higher in men than in women (IRR = 1.77, 95%CI = 1.74, 1.79). CONCLUSIONS: In the 16 countries examined, persons age 65 years or older had strikingly higher COVID-19 mortality rates compared to younger individuals, and men had a higher risk of COVID-19 death than women.

Implementation of the TaperGuard™ endotracheal tube in an unselected surgical population to reduce postoperative pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Endotracheal tube (ETT) designs to decrease the risk of ventilator associated pneumonia (VAP) include supraglottic suctioning, and/or modifications of the cuff shape. The TaperGuard™ ETT has a tapered, polyvinylchloride cuff designed to reduce microaspiration around channels that form with a standard barrel-shaped cuff. We compared risk of postoperative pneumonia using the TaperGuard™ ETT and the standard ETT in surgical patients requiring general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation. METHODS: We used an interrupted time-series design to compare endotracheal intubation using the TaperGuard™ ETT (intervention cohort), and a historic cohort using the standard ETT (baseline cohort), among surgical patients requiring hospital admission. We compared the incidence of postoperative pneumonia in the intervention and baseline cohorts. Data were collected from the electronic health record and linked to patient-level data from National Surgical Quality Improvement Project. Additionally, we performed secondary analyses in a subgroup of patients at high risk of postoperative pneumonia. RESULTS: 15,388 subjects were included; 6351 in the intervention cohort and 9037 in the baseline cohort. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative pneumonia between the intervention cohort (1.62%) and the baseline cohort (1.79%). The unadjusted odds ratio (OR) of postoperative pneumonia was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.70, 1.16; p = 0.423) and the OR adjusted for patient characteristics and potential confounders was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.69, 1.19; p = 0.469), comparing the intervention and baseline cohorts. There was no a priori selected subgroup of patients for whom the use of the TaperGuard™ ETT was associated with decreased odds of postoperative pneumonia relative to the standard ETT. Hospital mortality was higher in the intervention cohort (1.5%) compared with the baseline cohort (1.0%; OR 1.46, 95% CI: 1.09, 1.95; p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: The broad implementation of the use of the TaperGuard™ ETT for intubation of surgical patients was not associated with a reduction in the risk of postoperative pneumonia. In the setting of a low underlying postoperative pneumonia risk and the use of recommended preventative VAP bundles, further risk reduction may not be achievable by simply modifying the ETT cuff design in unselected or high-risk populations undergoing inpatient surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID NCT02450929 .