Analgesia and Sedation Use During Noninvasive Ventilation for Acute Respiratory Failure.

OBJECTIVES: To describe U.S. practice regarding administration of sedation and analgesia to patients on noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for acute respiratory failure (ARF) and to determine the association of this practice with odds of intubation or death. DESIGN: A retrospective multicenter cohort study. SETTING: A total of 1017 hospitals contributed data between January 2010 and September 2020 to the Premier Healthcare Database, a nationally representative healthcare database in the United States. PATIENTS: Adult (≥ 18 yr) patients admitted to U.S. hospitals requiring NIV for ARF. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified 433,357 patients on NIV of whom (26.7% [95% CI] 26.3%-27.0%) received sedation or analgesia. A total of 50,589 patients (11.7%) received opioids only, 40,646 (9.4%) received benzodiazepines only, 20,146 (4.6%) received opioids and benzodiazepines, 1.573 (0.4%) received dexmedetomidine only, and 2,639 (0.6%) received dexmedetomidine in addition to opioid and/or benzodiazepine. Of 433,357 patients receiving NIV, 50,413 (11.6%; 95% CI, 11.5-11.7%) patients underwent invasive mechanical ventilation on hospital days 2-5 or died on hospital days 2-30. Intubation was used in 32,301 patients (7.4%; 95% CI, 7.3-7.6%). Further, death occurred in 24,140 (5.6%; 95% CI, 5.5-5.7%). In multivariable analysis adjusting for relevant covariates, receipt of any medication studied was associated with increased odds of intubation or death. In inverse probability weighting, receipt of any study medication was also associated with increased odds of intubation or death (average treatment effect odds ratio 1.38; 95% CI, 1.35-1.40). CONCLUSIONS: The use of sedation and analgesia during NIV is common. Medication exposure was associated with increased odds of intubation or death. Further investigation is needed to confirm this finding and determine whether any subpopulations are especially harmed by this practice.

Cluster-randomized implementation trial of two facilitation strategies to implement a novel information and communications technology at the Veterans Health Administration.

BACKGROUND: Information and communication technologies (ICTs) improve quality and efficiency of healthcare, but effective practices for implementing new ICTs are unknown. From 2019 to 2021, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) implemented FLOW3, an ICT that facilitates prosthetic limb care. The goal of this study was to compare the impact of two facilitation strategies on FLOW3 adoption, implementation, and sustainment. METHODS: FLOW3 is a computerized workflow management system comprised of three applications that facilitate the three steps for prosthesis authorization. During VHA's implementation of FLOW3, we randomized 60 VHA sites to basic or enhanced facilitation groups. Basic facilitation included a manualized training toolkit and office hours. Enhanced facilitation included basic facilitation plus monthly learning collaboratives and site-specific performance reports. Outcomes included time to adoption of FLOW3 and complete FLOW3 utilization rates during implementation and sustainment periods. We compared outcomes between sites assigned to basic versus enhanced facilitation groups. Results were calculated using both intent-to-treat (ITT) and dose-response analyses. The dose-response analysis used a per-protocol approach and required sites in the enhanced facilitation group to join two of six learning collaboratives; sites that attended fewer were reassigned to the basic group. RESULTS: Randomization assigned 30 sites to enhanced facilitation and 30 to basic. Eighteen of 30 randomized sites were included in the enhanced facilitation group for dose-response analysis. During the implementation period, enhanced facilitation sites were significantly more likely to completely utilize FLOW3 than basic facilitation sites (HR: 0.17; 95% CI: 1.18, 4.53, p = 0.02) based on ITT analysis. In the dose-response analysis, the enhanced group was 2.32 (95% CI: 1.18, 4.53) times more likely to adopt FLOW3 than basic group (p = 0.014). CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced facilitation including a learning collaborative and customized feedback demonstrated greater likelihood for sites to complete a prosthetics consult using FLOW3 throughout our study. We identified statistically significant differences in likelihood of adoption using the dose-response analysis and complete utilization rate using ITT analysis during the implementation period. All sites that implemented FLOW3 demonstrated improvement in completion rate during the sustainment period, but the difference between facilitation groups was not statistically significant. Further study to understand sustainability is warranted.

Prognosis Communication in Heart Failure: Experiences and Preferences of End-Stage Heart Failure Patients and Care Partners.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure (HF) overestimate survival compared with model-predicted estimates, but the reasons for this discrepancy are poorly understood. We characterized how patients with end-stage HF and their care partners understand prognosis and elicited their preferences around prognosis communication. METHODS: We conducted in-depth, semistructured interviews with patients with end-stage HF and their care partners between 2021 and 2022 at a tertiary care center in Michigan. Participants were asked to describe barriers they faced to understanding prognosis. All interviews were coded and analyzed using an iterative content analysis approach. RESULTS: Fifteen patients with end-stage HF and 15 care partners participated, including 7 dyads. The median patient age was 66.5 years (range, 31-80) and included 9 of 15 (60%) White participants and 9 of 15 (60%) were males. Care partners included 10 of 15 (67%) White participants and 6 of 15 (40%) were males. Care partners were partners (n=7, 47%), siblings (n=4, 27%), parents (n=2, 13%), and children (n=2, 13%). Most patients demonstrated a poor understanding of their prognosis. In contrast, care partners commonly identified the patient's rapidly declining trajectory. Patients and care partners described ineffective prognosis communication with clinicians, common barriers to understanding prognosis, and similar suggestions on improving prognosis communication. Barriers to understanding prognosis included (1) conversation avoidance by physicians, (2) information inconsistency across different physicians, (3) distractions during prognosis communication due to emphasis on other conditions, and (4) confusion related to the use of medical jargon. Most patients and care partners wanted discussions around prognosis to begin early in the course of the disease, repeated routinely using layperson's terms, incorporating both quality of life and survival assessments, and involving care partners. Both patients and care partners did not expect precise survival estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with end-stage HF demonstrate a poor understanding of their prognosis compared with their care partners. Patients and care partners are open to discussing prognosis early, using direct and patient-centered language.

National Trends in Hospital Performance in Guideline-Recommended Pharmacologic Treatment for Heart Failure at Discharge.

BACKGROUND: The use of recommended heart failure (HF) medications has improved over time, but opportunities for improvement persist among women and at rural hospitals. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to characterize national trends in performance in the use of guideline-recommended pharmacologic treatment for HF at U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals, at which medication copayments are modest. METHODS: Among patients discharged from VA hospitals with HF between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2019, receipt of all guideline-recommended HF pharmacotherapy among eligible patients was assessed, consisting of evidence-based beta-blockers; angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, or angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors; mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists; and oral anticoagulation. RESULTS: Of 55,560 patients at 122 hospitals, 32,304 (58.1%) received all guideline-recommended HF medications for which they were eligible. The proportion of patients receiving all recommended medications was higher in 2019 relative to 2013 (OR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.44-1.65). The median of hospital performance was 59.1% (Q1-Q3: 53.2%-66.2%), improving with substantial variation across sites from 2013 (median 56.4%; Q1-Q3: 50.0%-62.0%) to 2019 (median 65.7%; Q1-Q3: 56.3%-73.5%). Women were less likely to receive recommended therapies than men (adjusted OR [aOR]: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.74-0.96). Compared with non-Hispanic White patients, non-Hispanic Black patients were less likely to receive recommended therapies (aOR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.79-0.87). Urban hospital location was associated with lower likelihood of medication receipt (aOR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.59-0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Forty-two percent of patients did not receive all recommended HF medications at discharge, particularly women, minority patients, and those receiving care at urban hospitals. Rates of use increased over time, with variation in performance across hospitals.

Association of Traditional and Nontraditional Risk Factors in the Development of Strokes Among Young Adults by Sex and Age Group: A Retrospective Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite women having fewer traditional risk factors (eg, hypertension, diabetes), strokes are more common in women than men aged ≤45 years. This study examined the contributions of traditional and nontraditional risk factors (eg, migraine, thrombophilia) in the development of strokes among young adults. METHODS: This retrospective case-control study used Colorado's All Payer Claims Database (2012-2019). We identified index stroke events in young adults (aged 18-55 years), matched 1:3 to stroke-free controls, by (1) sex, (2) age±2 years, (3) insurance type, and (4) prestroke period. All traditional and nontraditional risk factors were identified from enrollment until a stroke or proxy-stroke date (defined as the prestroke period). Conditional logistic regression models stratified by sex and age group first assessed the association of stroke with counts of risk factors by type and then computed their individual and aggregated population attributable risks. RESULTS: We included 2618 cases (52% women; 73.3% ischemic strokes) and 7827 controls. Each additional traditional and nontraditional risk factors were associated with an increased risk of stroke in all sex and age groups. In adults aged 18 to 34 years, more strokes were associated with nontraditional (population attributable risk: 31.4% men and 42.7% women) than traditional risk factors (25.3% men and 33.3% women). The contribution of nontraditional risk factors declined with age (19.4% men and 27.9% women aged 45-55 years). The contribution of traditional risk factors peaked among patients aged 35 to 44 years (32.8% men and 39.7% women). Hypertension was the most important traditional risk factor and increased in contribution with age (population attributable risk: 27.8% men and 26.7% women aged 45 to 55 years). Migraine was the most important nontraditional risk factor and decreased in contribution with age (population attributable risk: 20.1% men and 34.5% women aged 18-35 years). CONCLUSIONS: Nontraditional risk factors were as important as traditional risk factors in the development of strokes for both young men and women and have a stronger association with the development of strokes in adults younger than 35 years of age.

Collecting patient-reported outcome measures in the electronic health record: Lessons from the NIH pragmatic trials Collaboratory.

The NIH Pragmatic Trials Collaboratory supports the design and conduct of 27 embedded pragmatic clinical trials, and many of the studies collect patient reported outcome measures as primary or secondary outcomes. Study teams have encountered challenges in the collection of these measures, including challenges related to competing health care system priorities, clinician's buy-in for adoption of patient-reported outcome measures, low adoption and reach of technology in low resource settings, and lack of consensus and standardization of patient-reported outcome measure selection and administration in the electronic health record. In this article, we share case examples and lessons learned, and suggest that, when using patient-reported outcome measures for embedded pragmatic clinical trials, investigators must make important decisions about whether to use data collected from the participating health system's electronic health record, integrate externally collected patient-reported outcome data into the electronic health record, or collect these data in separate systems for their studies.