Integrative Physiology of Pneumonia.

Pneumonia is a type of acute lower respiratory infection that is common and severe. The outcome of lower respiratory infection is determined by the degrees to which immunity is protective and inflammation is damaging. Intercellular and interorgan signaling networks coordinate these actions to fight infection and protect the tissue. Cells residing in the lung initiate and steer these responses, with additional immunity effectors recruited from the bloodstream. Responses of extrapulmonary tissues, including the liver, bone marrow, and others, are essential to resistance and resilience. Responses in the lung and extrapulmonary organs can also be counterproductive and drive acute and chronic comorbidities after respiratory infection. This review discusses cell-specific and organ-specific roles in the integrated physiological response to acute lung infection, and the mechanisms by which intercellular and interorgan signaling contribute to host defense and healthy respiratory physiology or to acute lung injury, chronic pulmonary disease, and adverse extrapulmonary sequelae. Pneumonia should no longer be perceived as simply an acute infection of the lung. Pneumonia susceptibility reflects ongoing and poorly understood chronic conditions, and pneumonia results in diverse and often persistent deleterious consequences for multiple physiological systems.

Effectiveness of Fludrocortisone Plus Hydrocortisone versus Hydrocortisone Alone in Septic Shock: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Rationale: The use of hydrocortisone in adult patients with septic shock is controversial, and the effectiveness of adding fludrocortisone to hydrocortisone remains uncertain. Objectives: To assess the comparative effectiveness and safety of fludrocortisone plus hydrocortisone, hydrocortisone alone, and placebo or usual care in adults with septic shock. Methods: A systematic review and a Bayesian network meta-analysis of peer-reviewed randomized trials were conducted. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at last follow-up. Treatment effects are presented as relative risks (RRs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). Placebo or usual care was the reference treatment. Measurements and Main Results: Among 7,553 references, we included 17 trials (7,688 patients). All-cause mortality at last follow-up was lowest with fludrocortisone plus hydrocortisone (RR, 0.85; 95% CrI, 0.72-0.99; 98.3% probability of superiority, moderate-certainty evidence), followed by hydrocortisone alone (RR, 0.97; 95% CrI, 0.87-1.07; 73.1% probability of superiority, low-certainty evidence). The comparison of fludrocortisone plus hydrocortisone versus hydrocortisone alone was based primarily on indirect evidence (only two trials with direct evidence). Fludrocortisone plus hydrocortisone was associated with a 12% lower risk of all-cause mortality compared with hydrocortisone alone (RR, 0.88; 95% CrI, 0.74-1.03; 94.2% probability of superiority, moderate-certainty evidence). Conclusions: In adult patients with septic shock, fludrocortisone plus hydrocortisone was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality at last follow-up than placebo and hydrocortisone alone. The scarcity of head-to-head trials comparing fludrocortisone plus hydrocortisone versus hydrocortisone alone led our network meta-analysis to rely primarily on indirect evidence for this comparison. Although we undertook several sensitivity analyses and assessments, these findings should be considered while also acknowledging the heterogeneity of included trials.

Variation in Use of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in Critically Ill Patients Across the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To describe practice patterns surrounding the use of medications to treat opioid use disorder (MOUD) in critically ill patients. DESIGN: Retrospective, multicenter, observational study using the Premier AI Healthcare Database. SETTING: The study was conducted in U.S. ICUs. PATIENTS: Adult (≥ 18 yr old) patients with a history of opioid use disorder (OUD) admitted to an ICU between 2016 and 2020. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 108,189 ICU patients (658 hospitals) with a history of OUD, 20,508 patients (19.0%) received MOUD. Of patients receiving MOUD, 13,745 (67.0%) received methadone, 2,950 (14.4%) received buprenorphine, and 4,227 (20.6%) received buprenorphine/naloxone. MOUD use occurred in 37.9% of patients who received invasive mechanical ventilation. The median day of MOUD initiation was hospital day 2 (interquartile range [IQR] 1-3) and the median duration of MOUD use was 4 days (IQR 2-8). MOUD use per hospital was highly variable (median 16.0%; IQR 10-24; range, 0-70.0%); admitting hospital explained 8.9% of variation in MOUD use. A primary admitting diagnosis of unintentional poisoning (aOR 0.41; 95% CI, 0.38-0.45), presence of an additional substance use disorder (aOR 0.66; 95% CI, 0.64-0.68), and factors indicating greater severity of illness were associated with reduced odds of receiving MOUD in the ICU. CONCLUSIONS: In a large multicenter, retrospective study, there was large variation in the use of MOUD among ICU patients with a history of OUD. These results inform future studies seeking to optimize the approach to MOUD use during critical illness.

A novel measure to summarize blood transfusion practice during critical illness.

BACKGROUND: Large-scale observational studies have summarized transfusion practice using traditional measures of central tendency (e.g., the mean hemoglobin concentration at the time of transfusion). However, the mean hemoglobin concentration fails to identify specific hemoglobin concentration thresholds that drive practice. In the following brief report, we propose a novel measure of "practice discontinuity" that identifies specific practice-defining hemoglobin thresholds. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We used the PINC AI Database (2016-2022) to identify adult patients admitted to an intensive care unit with at least one hemoglobin concentration measurement. For each day that hemoglobin was measured, we identified whether the patient received a red blood cell transfusion using hospital charge codes. We defined the "practice discontinuity" measure as the hemoglobin concentration at which there was the largest increase in transfusion use going from a higher to an incrementally lower hemoglobin concentration. We also calculated the mean and median pretransfusion hemoglobin concentrations. RESULTS: We identified 1,298,367 patients and 4,905,839 patient-days for inclusion. RBC transfusion occurred in a total of 530,654 (10.8%) patient-days. The overall pre-transfusion mean and median hemoglobin concentrations were 8.4 and 8.0 g/dL, respectively. The practice discontinuity measure identified 7.0 g/dL as the hemoglobin concentration at which transfusion use increased the most, from 46.6% of patient-days at a concentration of 7.0 g/dL to 74.8% of patient-days at a concentration of 6.9 g/dL. DISCUSSION: We propose that future studies of red blood cell transfusion practice consider inclusion of the practice discontinuity measure to more fully summarize clinical practice.

SNAP: Supportive non-invasive ventilation for acute chest syndrome prevention for hospitalized children with sickle cell disease: Perspectives of patients, parents, and the healthcare team.

RATIONALE: Acute chest syndrome (ACS) often develops during hospitalizations for sickle cell disease (SCD) vaso-occlusive episodes and may be triggered by a combination of chest wall splinting, opioid use, hypoventilation, and atelectasis. In 2017, Boston Medical Center's general pediatric inpatient unit instituted the novel use of bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) as "supportive non-invasive ventilation for ACS prevention" (SNAP) to prevent ACS and respiratory decompensation. OBJECTIVE: The goals of this qualitative study were to identify perceived benefits, harms, facilitators, and barriers to use of SNAP. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured key informant interviews at three sites with different levels of SNAP implementation (Site 1: extensive implementation; Site 2: limited implementation; Site 3: not yet implemented) regarding experiences with and/or perceptions of SNAP. Interviews and coding were guided by the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) framework. RESULTS: Thirty-four participants (physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, child life specialists, psychologists, youth with SCD, and parents) completed interviews. Major themes included: (i) participants perceive BiPAP as effective at preventing ACS, and for those with medically stable ACS, for preventing respiratory decompensation. (ii) BiPAP use is appropriate on the general pediatric inpatient unit for medically stable patients with SCD. (iii) Improving the patient experience is the most important factor to optimize acceptance of BiPAP by patients and families. CONCLUSION/FUTURE DIRECTIONS: SNAP is perceived as effective and appropriate for hospitalized pediatric patients with SCD. Improving the patient experience is the biggest challenge. These data will inform a future protocol for a multicenter hybrid effectiveness/implementation trial of SNAP.

Hospital Variation in Mortality and Ventilator Management among Mechanically Ventilated Patients with ARDS.

RATIONALE: Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is associated with significant mortality. Despite the mortality benefits of lung protective ventilation, adherence rates to evidence-based ventilator practice have remained low and ARDS mortality has remained high. OBJECTIVE: Determine variation in ARDS mortality and adherence to low tidal volume ventilation (LTV) across US hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS using data from Philips eICU (2014-2015). We then used multi-variable hierarchical logistic regression models with hospital site as the random effect and patient and hospital level factors as fixed effects to assess the hospital risk adjusted mortality rate and median odds ratio for the association between mortality and hospital site. We then assessed associations between adherence to LTV (defined as 4-8 mL/kg PBW) and hospital risk adjusted mortality rates using Spearman correlation. RESULTS: Among 4441 patients admitted at 110 hospitals with ARDS, the hospital risk-adjusted mortality rate ranged from 19% to 39%, and the MOR for hospital of admission was 1.33 (95% CI 1.25-1.41). Among 3070 patients at 72 hospitals with available ventilator data, 73% of patients had a median set Vt between 4 to 8 mL/kg PBW; hospital adherence rates to LTV ranged from 13% to 95%. There was no association between hospital adherence to LTV and risk-adjusted mortality rate (spearman correlation coefficient -0.01, p = .93). Similarly, among 956 patients who started with a Vt > 8 mL/kg PBW, there was no association between the percent of patients at each hospital whose Vt was decreased to ≤ 8 mL/kg PBW and risk adjusted mortality rate (spearman correlation coefficient .05, p = .73). CONCLUSION: Risk adjusted mortality and use of LTV for patients with ARDS varied widely across hospitals. However, hospital adherence to LTV was not associated with ARDS mortality rates. Further evaluation of hospital practices associated with lower ARDS mortality are warranted.

Biomarker-Concordant Steroid Administration in Severe Coronavirus Disease-2019.

BACKGROUND: Although corticosteroids have become the standard of care for patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) on supplemental oxygen, there is growing evidence of differential treatment response. This study aimed to evaluate if there was an association between biomarker-concordant corticosteroid treatment and COVID-19 outcomes. METHODS: This registry-based cohort study included adult COVID-19 hospitalized patients between January 2020 and December 2021 from 109 institutions. Patients with available C-reactive protein (CRP) levels within 48 h of admission were evaluated. Those on steroids before admission, stayed in the hospital for <48 h, or were not on oxygen support were excluded. Corticosteroid treatment was biomarker-concordant if given with high baseline CRP ≥150 mg/L or withheld with low CRP (<150 mg/L) and vice-versa was considered discordant (low CRP with steroids, high CRP without steroids). Hospital mortality was the primary outcome. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using varying CRP level thresholds. The model interaction was tested to determine steroid effectiveness with increasing CRP levels. RESULTS: Corticosteroid treatment was biomarker-concordant in 1778 (49%) patients and discordant in 1835 (51%). The concordant group consisted of higher-risk patients than the discordant group. After adjusting for covariates, the odds of in-hospital mortality were significantly lower in the concordant group than the discordant (odds ratio [95% confidence interval (C.I.)] = 0.71 [0.51, 0.98]). Similarly, adjusted mortality difference was significant at the CRP thresholds of 100 and 200 mg/L (odds ratio [95% C.I.] = 0.70 [0.52, 0.95] and 0.57 [0.38, 0.85], respectively), and concordant steroid use was associated with lower need for invasive ventilation for 200 mg/L threshold (odds ratio [95% C.I.] = 0.52 [0.30, 0.91]). In contrast, no outcome benefit was observed at CRP threshold of 50. When the model interaction was tested, steroids were more effective at reducing mortality as CRP levels increased. CONCLUSION: Biomarker-concordant corticosteroid treatment was associated with lower odds of in-hospital mortality in severe COVID-19.

Facilitators and barriers to the implementation of new critical care practices during COVID-19: a multicenter qualitative study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic produced unprecedented demands and rapidly changing evidence and practices within critical care settings. The purpose of this study was to identify factors and strategies that hindered and facilitated effective implementation of new critical care practices and policies in response to the pandemic. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional, qualitative study design to conduct semi-structured in-depth interviews with critical care leaders across the United States. The interviews were audio-taped and professionally transcribed verbatim. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), three qualitative researchers used rapid analysis methods to develop relevant codes and identify salient themes. RESULTS: Among the 17 hospitals that agreed to participate in this study, 31 clinical leaders were interviewed. The CFIR-driven rapid analysis of the interview transcripts generated 12 major themes, which included six implementation facilitators (i.e., factors that promoted the implementation of new critical care practices) and six implementation barriers (i.e., factors that hindered the implementation of new critical care practices). These themes spanned the five CFIR domains (Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, Characteristics of Individuals, and Process) and 11 distinct CFIR constructs. Salient facilitators to implementation efforts included staff resilience, commitment, and innovation, which were supported through collaborative feedback and decision-making mechanisms between leadership and frontline staff. Major identified barriers included lack of access to reliable and transferable information, available resources, uncollaborative leadership and communication styles. CONCLUSIONS: Through applying the CFIR to organize and synthesize our qualitative data, this study revealed important insights into implementation determinants that influenced the uptake of new critical care practices during COVID-19. As the pandemic continues to burden critical care units, clinical leaders should consider emulating the effective change management strategies identified. The cultivation of streamlined, engaging, and collaborative leadership and communication mechanisms not only supported implementation of new care practices across sites, but it also helped reduce salient implementation barriers, particularly resource and staffing shortages. Future critical care implementation studies should seek to capitalize on identified facilitators and reduce barriers.

Association of Renin Angiotensin Aldosterone System Inhibitors and Outcomes of Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the association of prior use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASIs) with mortality and outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Multicenter, international COVID-19 registry. SUBJECTS: Adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients on antihypertensive agents (AHAs) prior to admission, admitted from March 31, 2020, to March 10, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data were compared between three groups: patients on RAASIs only, other AHAs only, and those on both medications. Multivariable logistic and linear regressions were performed after controlling for prehospitalization characteristics to estimate the effect of RAASIs on mortality and other outcomes during hospitalization. Of 26,652 patients, 7,975 patients were on AHAs prior to hospitalization. Of these, 1,542 patients (19.3%) were on RAASIs only, 3,765 patients (47.2%) were on other AHAs only, and 2,668 (33.5%) patients were on both medications. Compared with those taking other AHAs only, patients on RAASIs only were younger (mean age 63.3 vs 66.9 yr; p < 0.0001), more often male (58.2% vs 52.4%; p = 0.0001) and more often White (55.1% vs 47.2%; p < 0.0001). After adjusting for age, gender, race, location, and comorbidities, patients on combination of RAASIs and other AHAs had higher in-hospital mortality than those on RAASIs only (odds ratio [OR] = 1.28; 95% CI [1.19-1.38]; p < 0.0001) and higher mortality than those on other AHAs only (OR = 1.09; 95% CI [1.03-1.15]; p = 0.0017). Patients on RAASIs only had lower mortality than those on other AHAs only (OR = 0.87; 95% CI [0.81-0.94]; p = 0.0003). Patients on ACEIs only had higher mortality compared with those on ARBs only (OR = 1.37; 95% CI [1.20-1.56]; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who were taking AHAs, prior use of a combination of RAASIs and other AHAs was associated with higher in-hospital mortality than the use of RAASIs alone. When compared with ARBs, ACEIs were associated with significantly higher mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

Association of hypothyroidism with outcomes in hospitalized adults with COVID-19: Results from the International SCCM Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study (VIRUS): COVID-19 Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with high rates of morbidity and mortality. Primary hypothyroidism is a common comorbid condition, but little is known about its association with COVID-19 severity and outcomes. This study aims to identify the frequency of hypothyroidism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 as well as describe the differences in outcomes between patients with and without pre-existing hypothyroidism using an observational, multinational registry. METHODS: In an observational cohort study we enrolled patients 18 years or older, with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection between March 2020 and February 2021. The primary outcomes were (1) the disease severity defined as per the World Health Organization Scale for Clinical Improvement, which is an ordinal outcome corresponding with the highest severity level recorded during a patient's index COVID-19 hospitalization, (2) in-hospital mortality and (3) hospital-free days. Secondary outcomes were the rate of intensive care unit (ICU) admission and ICU mortality. RESULTS: Among the 20,366 adult patients included in the study, pre-existing hypothyroidism was identified in 1616 (7.9%). The median age for the Hypothyroidism group was 70 (interquartile range: 59-80) years, and 65% were female and 67% were White. The most common comorbidities were hypertension (68%), diabetes (42%), dyslipidemia (37%) and obesity (28%). After adjusting for age, body mass index, sex, admission date in the quarter year since March 2020, race, smoking history and other comorbid conditions (coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidemia), pre-existing hypothyroidism was not associated with higher odds of severe disease using the World Health Organization disease severity index (odds ratio [OR]: 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.92, 1.13; p = .69), in-hospital mortality (OR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.92, 1.15; p = .58) or differences in hospital-free days (estimated difference 0.01 days; 95% CI: -0.45, 0.47; p = .97). Pre-existing hypothyroidism was not associated with ICU admission or ICU mortality in unadjusted as well as in adjusted analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In an international registry, hypothyroidism was identified in around 1 of every 12 adult hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Pre-existing hypothyroidism in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was not associated with higher disease severity or increased risk of mortality or ICU admissions. However, more research on the possible effects of COVID-19 on the thyroid gland and its function is needed in the future.

Attention to Immortal Time Bias in Critical Care Research.

Observational studies in critical care medicine offer a popular and practical approach to questions of treatment effectiveness. Although observational research is widely understood to be susceptible to design and interpretation challenges, one well-described source of bias-immortal time bias (ITB)-is frequently present yet often overlooked. ITB may be introduced by study design oversights or mishandled during data analysis. When present, ITB can create inappropriate estimates of the benefit or harm of an exposure or intervention. Studies examining treatments in critically ill patients may be particularly susceptible to ITB, with consequences for clinical adoption and design and initiation of randomized trials. In this Critical Care Perspective, we illustrate the persistent problem of ITB in observational research using recent studies of hydrocortisone, ascorbic acid, and thiamine therapy in patients with sepsis and septic shock. Of the eight studies examined, none contained enough design or reporting elements to rule out the presence of ITB. To mitigate the influence of ITB in future observational studies, we present a novel checklist to help readers assess the features of study design, analysis, and reporting that introduce ITB or obscure its presence. We recommend that commonly used tools designed to evaluate observational research studies should include an ITB assessment.

Association between Troponin I Levels during Sepsis and Postsepsis Cardiovascular Complications.

Rationale: Sepsis commonly results in elevated serum troponin levels and increased risk for postsepsis cardiovascular complications; however, the association between troponin levels during sepsis and cardiovascular complications after sepsis is unclear.Objectives: To evaluate the association between serum troponin levels during sepsis and 1 year after sepsis cardiovascular events.Methods: We analyzed adults aged ⩾40 years without preexisting cardiovascular disease within 5 years, admitted with sepsis across 21 hospitals from 2011 to 2017. Peak serum troponin I levels during sepsis were grouped as normal (⩽0.04 ng/ml) or tertiles of abnormal (>0.04 to ⩽0.09 ng/ml, >0.09 to ⩽0.42 ng/ml, or >0.42 ng/ml). Multivariable adjusted cause-specific Cox proportional hazards models with death as a competing risk were used to assess associations between peak troponin I levels and a composite cardiovascular outcome (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, atrial fibrillation, and heart failure) in the year following sepsis. Models were adjusted for presepsis and intrasepsis factors considered potential confounders.Measurements and Main Results: Among 14,046 eligible adults with troponin I measured, 2,012 (14.3%) experienced the composite cardiovascular outcome, including 832 (10.9%) patients with normal troponin levels, as compared with 370 (17.3%), 376 (17.6%), and 434 (20.3%) patients within each sequential abnormal troponin tertile, respectively (P < 0.001). Patients within the elevated troponin tertiles had increased risks of adverse cardiovascular events (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]troponin0.04-0.09 = 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-1.55; aHRtroponin0.09-0.42 = 1.44; 95% CI, 1.27-1.63; and aHRtroponin>0.42 = 1.77; 95% CI, 1.56-2.00).Conclusions: Among patients without preexisting cardiovascular disease, troponin elevation during sepsis identified patients at increased risk for postsepsis cardiovascular complications. Strategies to mitigate cardiovascular complications among this high-risk subset of patients are warranted.

Informing Healthcare Decisions with Observational Research Assessing Causal Effect. An Official American Thoracic Society Research Statement.

Rationale: Decisions in medicine are made on the basis of knowledge and reasoning, often in shared conversations with patients and families in consideration of clinical practice guideline recommendations, individual preferences, and individual goals. Observational studies can provide valuable knowledge to inform guidelines, decisions, and policy.Objectives: The American Thoracic Society (ATS) created a multidisciplinary ad hoc committee to develop a research statement to clarify the role of observational studies-alongside randomized controlled trials (RCTs)-in informing clinical decisions in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine.Methods: The committee examined the strengths of observational studies assessing causal effects, how they complement RCTs, factors that impact observational study quality, perceptions of observational research, and, finally, the practicalities of incorporating observational research into ATS clinical practice guidelines.Measurements and Main Results: There are strengths and weakness of observational studies as well as RCTs. Observational studies can provide evidence in representative and diverse patient populations. Quality observational studies should be sought in the development of ATS clinical practice guidelines, and medical decision-making in general, when 1) no RCTs are identified or RCTs are appraised as being of low- or very low-quality (replacement); 2) RCTs are of moderate quality because of indirectness, imprecision, or inconsistency, and observational studies mitigate the reason that RCT evidence was downgraded (complementary); or 3) RCTs do not provide evidence for outcomes that a guideline committee considers essential for decision-making (e.g., rare or long-term outcomes; "sequential").Conclusions: Observational studies should be considered in developing clinical practice guidelines and in making clinical decisions.

SARS-CoV-2 infection increases risk of acute kidney injury in a bimodal age distribution.

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV2 develop acute kidney injury (AKI) frequently, yet gaps remain in understanding why adults seem to have higher rates compared to children. Our objectives were to evaluate the epidemiology of SARS-CoV2-related AKI across the age spectrum and determine if known risk factors such as illness severity contribute to its pattern. METHODS: Secondary analysis of ongoing prospective international cohort registry. AKI was defined by KDIGO-creatinine only criteria. Log-linear, logistic and generalized estimating equations assessed odds ratios (OR), risk differences (RD), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for AKI and mortality adjusting for sex, pre-existing comorbidities, race/ethnicity, illness severity, and clustering within centers. Sensitivity analyses assessed different baseline creatinine estimators. RESULTS: Overall, among 6874 hospitalized patients, 39.6% (n = 2719) developed AKI. There was a bimodal distribution of AKI by age with peaks in older age (≥60 years) and middle childhood (5-15 years), which persisted despite controlling for illness severity, pre-existing comorbidities, or different baseline creatinine estimators. For example, the adjusted OR of developing AKI among hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV2 was 2.74 (95% CI 1.66-4.56) for 10-15-year-olds compared to 30-35-year-olds and similarly was 2.31 (95% CI 1.71-3.12) for 70-75-year-olds, while adjusted OR dropped to 1.39 (95% CI 0.97-2.00) for 40-45-year-olds compared to 30-35-year-olds. CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV2-related AKI is common with a bimodal age distribution that is not fully explained by known risk factors or confounders. As the pandemic turns to disproportionately impacting younger individuals, this deserves further investigation as the presence of AKI and SARS-CoV2 infection increases hospital mortality risk.

Stability of Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders in Hospitalized Adults: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Prior work has shown substantial between-hospital variation in do-not-resuscitate orders, but stability of do-not-resuscitate preferences between hospitalizations and the institutional influence on do-not-resuscitate reversals are unclear. We determined the extent of do-not-resuscitate reversals between hospitalizations and the association of the readmission hospital with do-not-resuscitate reversal. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: California Patient Discharge Database, 2016-2018. PATIENTS: Nonsurgical patients admitted to an acute care hospital with an early do-not-resuscitate order (within 24 hr of admission). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified nonsurgical adult patients who survived an initial hospitalization with an early-do-not-resuscitate order and were readmitted within 30 days. The primary outcome was the association of do-not-resuscitate reversal with readmission to the same or different hospital from the initial hospital. Secondary outcomes included association of readmission to a low versus high do-not-resuscitate-rate hospital with do-not-resuscitate reversal. Among 49,336 patients readmitted within 30 days following a first do-not-resuscitate hospitalization, 22,251 (45.1%) experienced do-not-resuscitate reversal upon readmission. Patients readmitted to a different hospital versus the same hospital were at higher risk of do-not-resuscitate reversal (59.5% vs 38.5%; p < 0.001; adjusted odds ratio = 2.4; 95% CI, 2.3-2.5). Patients readmitted to low versus high do-not-resuscitate-rate hospitals were more likely to have do-not-resuscitate reversals (do-not-resuscitate-rate quartile 1 77.0% vs quartile 4 27.2%; p < 0.001; adjusted odds ratio = 11.9; 95% CI, 10.7-13.2). When readmitted to a different versus the same hospital, patients with do-not-resuscitate reversal had higher rates of mechanical ventilation (adjusted odds ratio = 1.9; 95% CI, 1.6-2.1) and hospital death (adjusted odds ratio = 1.2; 95% CI, 1.1-1.3). CONCLUSIONS: Do-not-resuscitate reversals at the time of readmission are more common than previously reported. Although changes in patient preferences may partially explain between-hospital differences, we observed a strong hospital effect contributing to high do-not-resuscitate-reversal rates with significant implications for patient outcomes and resource.

Long-Term Implications of Abnormal Left Ventricular Strain During Sepsis.

OBJECTIVES: Septic cardiomyopathy develops frequently in patients with sepsis and likely increases short-term mortality. However, whether septic cardiomyopathy is associated with long-term outcomes after sepsis is unknown. We investigated whether septic patients with septic cardiomyopathy have worse long-term outcomes than septic patients without septic cardiomyopathy. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Adult ICU. PATIENTS: Adult ICU patients with sepsis. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Left ventricular global longitudinal systolic strain was our primary measure of septic cardiomyopathy. We employed a suite of multivariable survival analyses to explore linear and nonlinear associations between left ventricular global longitudinal systolic strain and major adverse cardiovascular events, which included death, stroke, and myocardial infarction. Our primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular event through 24 months after ICU discharge. Among 290 study patients, median left ventricular global longitudinal systolic strain was -16.8% (interquartile range, -20.4% to -12.6%), and 38.3% of patients (n = 111) experienced a major adverse cardiovascular event within 24 months after discharge. On our primary, linear analysis, there was a trend (p = 0.08) toward association between left ventricular global longitudinal systolic strain and major adverse cardiovascular event (odds ratio, 1.03; CI, < 1 to 1.07). On our nonlinear analysis, the association was highly significant (p < 0.001) with both high and low left ventricular global longitudinal systolic strain associated with major adverse cardiovascular event among patients with pre-existing cardiac disease. This association was pronounced among patients who were younger (age < 65 yr) and had Charlson Comorbidity Index greater than 5. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with sepsis and pre-existing cardiac disease who survived to ICU discharge, left ventricular global longitudinal systolic strain demonstrated a U-shaped association with cardiovascular outcomes through 24 months. The relationship was especially strong among younger patients with more comorbidities. These observations are likely of use to design of future trials.

Outcomes of Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Receiving Organ Support Therapies: The International Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study Registry.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the outcomes of hospitalized patients in a multicenter, international coronavirus disease 2019 registry. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study including coronavirus disease 2019 patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection between February 15, 2020, and November 30, 2020, according to age and type of organ support therapies. SETTING: About 168 hospitals in 16 countries within the Society of Critical Care Medicine's Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness University Study coronavirus disease 2019 registry. PATIENTS: Adult hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients who did and did not require various types and combinations of organ support (mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, vasopressors, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were discharge home with or without assistance and hospital length of stay. Risk-adjusted variation in hospital mortality for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation was assessed by using multilevel models with hospitals as a random effect, adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, sex, and comorbidities. Among 20,608 patients with coronavirus disease 2019, the mean (± sd) age was 60.5 (±17), 11,1887 (54.3%) were men, 8,745 (42.4%) were admitted to the ICU, and 3,906 (19%) died in the hospital. Hospital mortality was 8.2% for patients receiving no organ support (n = 15,001). The most common organ support therapy was invasive mechanical ventilation (n = 5,005; 24.3%), with a hospital mortality of 49.8%. Mortality ranged from 40.8% among patients receiving only invasive mechanical ventilation (n =1,749) to 71.6% for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive drugs, and new renal replacement therapy (n = 655). Mortality was 39% for patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (n = 389). Rates of discharge home ranged from 73.5% for patients who did not require organ support therapies to 29.8% for patients who only received invasive mechanical ventilation, and 8.8% for invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive drugs, and renal replacement; 10.8% of patients older than 74 years who received invasive mechanical ventilation were discharged home. Median hospital length of stay for patients on mechanical ventilation was 17.1 days (9.7-28 d). Adjusted interhospital variation in mortality among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation was large (median odds ratio 1.69). CONCLUSIONS: Coronavirus disease 2019 prognosis varies by age and level of organ support. Interhospital variation in mortality of mechanically ventilated patients was not explained by patient characteristics and requires further evaluation.

Guideline-Concordant Insulin Infusion Initiation Among Critically Ill Patients With Sepsis.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to benchmark rates of guideline-concordant insulin infusion initiation, identify factors associated with guideline-concordant insulin practices, and examine the association between hospital-level guideline concordance and mortality among critically ill patients with sepsis. METHODS: We performed a multicenter retrospective cohort study of intensive care patients with sepsis who were eligible for insulin infusion initiation according to American Diabetes Association and Surviving Sepsis guidelines (persistent blood sugar ≥180 mg/dL). We then identified patients who were initiated on insulin infusions within 24 hours of eligibility. We examined patient- and hospital-level factors associated with guideline-concordant insulin infusion initiation and explored the association between the hospital-level proportion of patients who received guideline-concordant insulin infusions and hospital mortality. RESULTS: Among 5453 guideline-eligible patients with sepsis, 13.4% were initiated on insulin infusions. Factors most strongly associated with guideline-concordant insulin infusion initiation were mechanical ventilation and hospital of admission. The hospital-level proportion of patients who received guideline-concordant insulin infusions were not associated with mortality. Among 1501 intensive care unit patients with sepsis who were started on insulin infusions, 37.0% were initiated at a blood glucose level below 180 mg/dL, the guideline-recommended starting threshold. CONCLUSION: Guideline-concordant insulin infusion initiation was uncommon among patients with sepsis admitted to U.S. intensive care units and was determined in large part by hospital of admission. The degree to which hospitals were guideline-concordant were not associated with mortality.

Use of Hydrocortisone, Ascorbic Acid, and Thiamine in Adults with Septic Shock.

Rationale: In December 2016, a single-center study describing significant improvements in mortality among a small group of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock treated with hydrocortisone, high-dose ascorbic acid, and thiamine (HAT therapy) was published online.Objectives: This study aims to describe the administration of HAT therapy among U.S. adults with septic shock before and after study publication and to compare outcomes between patients who received and did not receive HAT therapy.Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 379 acute care hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database including patients discharged from October 1, 2015, to September 30, 2018. Exposure was quarter year of hospital discharge; postpublication was defined as January 2017 onward (July 2017 for effectiveness analyses). The primary outcome was receipt of HAT at least once during hospitalization. We conducted unadjusted segmented regression analyses to examine temporal trends in HAT administration. In patients with early septic shock, we compared the association of early HAT therapy (within 2 d of hospitalization) with hospital mortality using multivariable modeling and propensity score matching.Measurements and Main Results: Among 338,597 patients, 3,574 (1.1%) received HAT therapy, 98.7% in the postpublication period. HAT administration increased from 0.03% of patients (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02-0.04) before publication to 2.65% (95% CI, 2.46-2.83) in the last quarter, with a significant step up in use after December 2016 (P < 0.001). Receipt of early HAT was associated with higher hospital mortality (28.2% vs. 19.7%; P < 0.001; adjusted odds ratio, 1.17 [95% CI, 1.02-1.33]; primary propensity-matched model adjusted odds ratio, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.02-1.40]).Conclusions: Publication of a single-center retrospective study was associated with significantly increased administration of HAT. Among patients with early septic shock, receipt of HAT was not associated with mortality benefit.

Guiding Principles for the Conduct of Observational Critical Care Research for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemics and Beyond: The Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study Registry.

OBJECTIVES: Use of observational data to inform the response and care of patients during a pandemic faces unique challenges. DESIGN: The Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study COVID 2019 Registry Core data and research methodology team convened over virtual meetings throughout March to June 2020 to determine best practice goals for development of a pandemic disease registry to support rapid data collection and analysis. SETTING: International, multi-center registry of hospitalized patients. PATIENTS: None. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Large-scale observational data collection requires: 1) quality assurance and harmonization across many sites; 2) a transparent process for selecting from among many potential research questions; 3) the use of best practices in design of descriptive, predictive, and inferential studies; (4) innovative approaches to characterize random error in the setting of constantly updated data; (5) rapid peer-review and reporting; and (6) transitions from a focus on discovery to implementation. Herein, we describe the guiding principles to best practices and suggestions for innovations to study design and reporting within the coronavirus disease 2019 Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study pandemic registry. CONCLUSIONS: Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study coronavirus disease 2019 registry sought to develop and implement prespecified best practices combined with grassroots efforts from clinical sites worldwide in order to develop clinically useful knowledge in response to a pandemic.