Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for analgesia in intensive care units: a survey of Canadian critical care physicians.

PURPOSE: Opioids remain the mainstay of analgesia for critically ill patients, but its exposure is associated with negative effects including persistent use after discharge. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may be an effective alternative to opioids with fewer adverse effects. We aimed to describe beliefs and attitudes towards the use of NSAIDs in adult intensive care units (ICUs). METHODS: Our survey of Canadian ICU physicians was conducted using a web-based platform and distributed through the Canadian Critical Care Society (CCCS) email distribution list. We used previously described survey development methodology including question generation and reduction, pretesting, and clinical sensibility and pilot testing. RESULTS: We received 115 completed surveys from 321 CCCS members (36%). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs use was most described as "rarely" (59 respondents, 51%) with the primary concern being adverse events (acute kidney injury [108 respondents, 94%] and gastrointestinal bleeding [92 respondents, 80%]). The primary preferred analgesic was acetaminophen (75 respondents, 65%) followed by opioids (40 respondents, 35%). Most respondents (91 respondents, 80%) would be willing to participate in a randomized controlled trial examining NSAID use in critical care. CONCLUSIONS: In our survey, Canadian critical care physicians did not mention commonly using NSAIDs primarily because of concerns about adverse events. Nevertheless, respondents were interested in further studying ketorolac, a commonly used NSAID outside of the ICU, in critically ill patients.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les opioïdes restent le pilier de l'analgésie pour les patient·es gravement malades, mais l'exposition à ces agents est associée à des effets négatifs, notamment à leur utilisation persistante après le congé de l'hôpital. Les anti-inflammatoires non stéroïdiens (AINS) pourraient constituer une alternative efficace aux opioïdes avec moins d'effets indésirables. Nous avons cherché à décrire les croyances et les attitudes à l'égard de l'utilisation des AINS dans les unités de soins intensifs (USI) pour adultes. MéTHODE: Notre sondage auprès des médecins intensivistes au Canada a été mené à l'aide d'une plateforme Web et distribué aux personnes sur la liste de distribution électronique de la Société canadienne de soins intensifs (SCSI). Nous avons utilisé une méthodologie d'élaboration d'enquêtes décrite précédemment, y compris la génération et la réduction de questions, les tests préalables, la sensibilité clinique et les tests pilotes. RéSULTATS: Nous avons reçu 115 sondages remplis par 321 membres de la SCSI (36 %). L'utilisation d'anti-inflammatoires non stéroïdiens a été décrite comme « rare ¼ (59 répondant·es, 51 %), la principale préoccupation étant les événements indésirables (insuffisance rénale aiguë [108 répondant·es, 94 %] et saignements gastro-intestinaux [92 répondant·es, 80 %]). Le principal analgésique préféré était l'acétaminophène (75 répondant·es, 65 %), suivi des opioïdes (40 répondant·es, 35 %). La plupart des répondant·es (91 répondant·es, 80 %) seraient prêt·es à participer à une étude randomisée contrôlée examinant l'utilisation des AINS en soins intensifs. CONCLUSION: Dans notre sondage, les médecins intensivistes au Canada n'ont pas mentionné l'utilisation courante d'AINS, principalement en raison de préoccupations concernant leurs effets indésirables. Néanmoins, les répondant·es étaient intéressé·es à étudier plus avant le kétorolac, un AINS couramment utilisé en dehors des soins intensifs, chez les patient·es gravement malades.

A prospective multicenter cohort study of frailty in younger critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a multidimensional syndrome characterized by loss of physiologic and cognitive reserve that heightens vulnerability. Frailty has been well described among elderly patients (i.e., 65 years of age or older), but few studies have evaluated frailty in nonelderly patients with critical illness. We aimed to describe the prevalence, correlates, and outcomes associated with frailty among younger critically ill patients. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study of 197 consecutive critically ill patients aged 50-64.9 years admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) at six hospitals across Alberta, Canada. Frailty was defined as a score ≥5 on the Clinical Frailty Scale before hospitalization. Multivariable analyses were used to evaluate factors independently associated with frailty before ICU admission and the independent association between frailty and outcome. RESULTS: In the 197 patients in the study, mean (SD) age was 58.5 (4.1) years, 37 % were female, 73 % had three or more comorbid illnesses, and 28 % (n = 55; 95 % CI 22-35) were frail. Factors independently associated with frailty included not being completely independent (adjusted OR [aOR] 4.4, 95 % CI 1.8-11.1), connective tissue disease (aOR 6.0, 95 % CI 2.1-17.0), and hospitalization within the preceding year (aOR 3.3, 95 % CI 1.3-8.1). There were no significant differences between frail and nonfrail patients in reason for admission, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, preference for life support, or treatment intensity. Younger frail patients did not have significantly longer (median [interquartile range]) hospital stay (26 [9-68] days vs. 19 [10-43] days; p = 0.4), but they had greater 1-year rehospitalization rates (61 % vs. 40 %; p = 0.02) and higher 1-year mortality (33 % vs. 20 %; adjusted HR 1.8, 95 % CI 1.0-3.3; p = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: Prehospital frailty is common among younger critically ill patients, and in this study it was associated with higher rates of mortality at 1 year and with rehospitalization. Our data suggest that frailty should be considered in younger adults admitted to the ICU, not just in the elderly. Additional research is needed to further characterize frailty in younger critically ill patients, along with the ideal instruments for identification.

Sequential Organ Failure Assessment in H1N1 pandemic planning.

OBJECTIVE: The H1N1 pandemic has highlighted the importance of reliable and valid triage instruments. A Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of >11 has been proposed to exclude patients from critical care resources quoting an associated mortality of >90%. We sought to assess the mortality associated with this Sequential Organ Failure Assessment threshold and the resource implications of such a triage protocol. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Three multisystem intensive care units. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients admitted from January 2003 to December 2008. Subsequently, a comparison H1N1 cohort was assembled consisting of all patients admitted in 2009 with confirmed H1N1. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was collected daily by use of an electronic bedside clinical information system (n = 10,204 patients, 69,913 patient days). Mean admission Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation was 19.1. 13.4% of the cohort (9% of total patient days) had an initial Sequential Organ Failure Assessment of >11. Mortality in patients with an initial Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of >11 was 59% (95% confidence interval: 56%, 62%). The mortality associated with an initial Sequential Organ Failure Assessment >11 across diagnostic categories varied from 29% for poisoning to 67% for neurologic patients. Hospital mortality exceeded 90% only when initial Sequential Organ Failure Assessment was >20 (0.2% of patients). H1N1 patients were younger, had a longer intensive care unit length of stay, and more commonly had a respiratory admission diagnosis than the nonH1N1 cohort. Hospital mortality in H1N1 patients with an initial Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of >11 was 31% (95% confidence interval: 5%, 56%). CONCLUSIONS: A Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score of >11 was not associated with a hospital mortality of >90% at any time during intensive care unit stay. Only a small proportion of patients have the extreme initial Sequential Organ Failure Assessment values associated with a hospital mortality of >90% limiting the usefulness of Sequential Organ Failure Assessment as a triage instrument for pandemic planning. Application of a Sequential Organ Failure Assessment threshold of >11 to the recent H1N1 pandemic would have excluded patients with a markedly lower mortality than seen in a large regional cohort of intensive care unit patients.

Intensivists' base specialty of training is associated with variations in mortality and practice patterns.

INTRODUCTION: Current evidence regarding whether the staffing of intensive care units (ICUs) with a trained Intensivist benefits patient outcomes is discordant. We sought to determine whether, among certified Intensivists, base specialty of training could contribute to variation in practice patterns and patient outcomes in ICUs. METHODS: The records of all patients who were admitted to one of three closed multi-system ICUs within tertiary care centers in the Calgary Health Region, Alberta, Canada, during a five year period were retrospectively reviewed. Outcomes for patients admitted by Intensivists with base training in General Internal Medicine, Pulmonary Medicine, or other eligible base specialties (Anesthesia, General Surgery, and Emergency Medicine combined) were compared. RESULTS: ICU mortality in the entire cohort (n = 9,808) was 17.2% and in-hospital mortality was 32.0%. After controlling for potential confounders, ICU mortality (odds ratio (OR): 0.69; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.52 to 0.94) was significantly lower for patients admitted by Intensivists with Pulmonary Medicine as a base specialty of training, but not ICU length of stay (LOS) (coefficient: 0.11; -0.20 to 0.42) or hospital mortality (OR: 0.88; 0.68 to 1.13). There was no difference in ICU or hospital mortality or length of stay between the three base specialty groups for patients who were admitted and managed by a single Intensivist for their entire ICU admission (n = 4,612). However, we identified significant variation in practice patterns between the three specialty groups for the number of invasive procedures performed and decisions to limit life-sustaining therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Intensivists' base specialty of training is associated with practice pattern variations. This may contribute to differences in processes and outcomes of patient care.

A modified Delphi process to identify process of care indicators for the identification, prevention and management of acute kidney injury after major surgery.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of acute kidney injury (AKI) are well appreciated. However, valid indicators of high quality processes of care for AKI after major surgery are lacking. OBJECTIVES: To identify indicators of high quality processes of care related to AKI prevention, identification, and management after major surgery. DESIGN: A three stage modified Delphi process. SETTING: The study was conducted in Alberta, Canada using an online format. PARTICIPANTS: A panel of care providers from surgery, critical care, and nephrology. MEASUREMENTS: The degree of validity of candidate indicators were rated by panelists on a 7-point Likert scale that ranged from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree". METHODS: A focused literature review was performed to identify candidate indicators. A modified Delphi process, with three rounds, was used to obtain expert consensus on the validity of potential process of care quality indicators. RESULTS: Thirty-three physicians participated (6 from surgery, 10 from critical care, and 17 from nephrology). A list of 58 potential process of care quality indicators for AKI after surgery was generated including 28 indicators from the initial literature review and 30 indicators suggested by panelists. Following the third round of questioning, 40 process of care indicators were identified with a high level of agreement for face validity; 16 of these reached high consensus among all panelists. LIMITATIONS: The consensus of panelists from Alberta, Canada may not be generalizable to other settings. The modified Delphi process did not focus on the feasibility of measuring these process indicators. CONCLUSIONS: These indicators can be used to measure and improve the quality of care for AKI after major surgery.

CONTEXTE: Les répercussions engendrées par l'insuffisance rénale aiguë (IRA) sont bien connues. Cependant, il n'existe toujours pas d'indicateurs de la qualité du processus de soin de l'IRA valides en phase postopératoire. OBJECTIFS DE L'ÉTUDE: Élaborer des indicateurs de la qualité des processus de soin en matière de prévention, d'identification et de prise en charge de l'IRA en phase postopératoire d'une chirurgie majeure. TYPE D'ÉTUDE: Processus Delphi modifié à trois étapes. LIEU DE L'ÉTUDE: L'étude a été effectuée en Alberta, Canada, par l'intermédiaire de questionnaires en ligne. PARTICIPANTS: Panel de professionnels de la santé des milieux suivants : chirurgie, soins intensifs et néphrologie. MESURES: Les panelistes ont évalué le degré de validité des indicateurs potentiels avec une échelle de Likert à 7 éléments, dont l'étendue se situait entre « fortement en désaccord ¼ (valeur originale : strongly disagree) et « fortement en accord ¼ (valeur originale : strongly agree). MÉTHODE: Une revue de la littérature ciblée a été effectuée pour faire ressortir les indicateurs pertinents. Une version modifiée du processus Delphi, comprenant trois étapes, a été utilisée dans le but d'obtenir l'avis des experts sur la validité des indicateurs potentiels en matière de qualité des processus de soin. RÉSULTATS: Trente-trois médecins ont participé au panel (6 chirurgiens, 10 intensivistes et 17 néphrologues). Une liste de 58 indicateurs potentiels de la qualité des processus de soin pour l'IRA en période postopératoire a été élaborée; celle-ci comprenait 28 indicateurs qui provenaient de la revue de la littérature et 30 qui avaient été suggérés par les panelistes. Après la troisième ronde de questionnaires, 40 indicateurs des processus de soins avaient été retenus pour leur validité apparente, avec un haut niveau d'accord parmi le panel, et 16 de ces indicateurs avaient atteint un fort consensus. LIMITES DE L'ÉTUDE: Le consensus qui provient du panel formé en Alberta, Canada, n'est peut-être pas généralisable à d'autres contextes. Le processus Delphi modifié ne s'est pas penché sur la faisabilité de la mesure des indicateurs de processus de soin. CONCLUSION: Ces indicateurs peuvent être utilisés pour mesurer et améliorer la qualité des soins de l'IRA en période postopératoire d'une chirurgie majeure.

Antipyretic therapy in febrile critically ill adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To determine whether fever control with antipyretic therapy effects the mortality of febrile critically ill adults. METHODS: Systematic review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register for Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Google Scholar, and 2 clinical trial registries from inception to April 2012. Randomized clinical trials comparing treatment of fever with no treatment or comparing different thresholds for fever control in adults without acute neurological injury admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) were selected for review. The effect of fever control on all-cause ICU-mortality was determined using a random effects meta-analysis. RESULTS: Five randomized clinical trials in 399 patients were included. The temperature threshold for treatment in the intervention group was commonly 38.3°C to 38.5°C, whereas it was typically 40.0°C for controls. Four studies used physical measures and 3 used pharmacologic measures for temperature control. There was no significant heterogeneity among the included studies (I(2) = 12.5%, P = .3). Fever control did not significantly effect ICU mortality with a pooled risk ratio of 0.98 (95% confidence interval 0.58-1.63, P = .9). CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis found no evidence that fever treatment influences mortality in critically ill adults without acute neurological injury. However, studies were underpowered to detect clinically important differences.

Assessment of the safety and feasibility of administering antipyretic therapy in critically ill adults: a pilot randomized clinical trial.

PURPOSE: To assess the safety and feasibility of treating critically ill adults with different fever control strategies. METHODS: This was a pilot, open-label clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01173367) that randomized febrile patients to an aggressive or permissive fever control strategy. For the aggressive and permissive groups, antipyretic therapy (acetaminophen, physical cooling) was administered when the temperature was ≥ 38.3°C and ≥ 40.0°C respectively. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. RESULTS: Two hundred patients experienced a fever (31% of the originally projected estimate), among which 26 were randomized to the aggressive (n = 14) or permissive (n = 12) arm. The aggressive group received a greater dose of acetaminophen (2275 mg vs 0 mg, P = .0001), and more frequently received physical cooling than patients in the permissive group (57% vs 8%, P = .01). The mean daily temperature was lower in the aggressive group (37.8°C vs 38.0°C, P = .02). There was no difference in the primary outcome (21% vs 17%, P = 1.0) or in any safety outcome between the treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrated the safety and feasibility of administering antipyretic therapy in critically ill adults. The key finding was a lower than expected incidence of fever.

Assessment of the safety and feasibility of administering anti-pyretic therapy in critically ill adults: study protocol of a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Fever is one of the most commonly observed abnormal signs in patients with critical illness. However, there is a paucity of evidence to guide the management of febrile patients without acute brain injury and little is known about the biologic response to treatment of fever. As such, observational studies suggest that the treatment of fever is inconsistent. This pilot clinical trial will assess the safety and feasibility of treating febrile critically ill adult patients with an aggressive versus a permissive temperature control strategy. The biologic response to these two different temperature control strategies will also be assessed through analysis of a panel of inflammatory mediators. FINDINGS: The study population will include febrile adult patients admitted to one of two general medical-surgical intensive care units (ICUs) in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Patients will be randomized to either an aggressive or permissive fever treatment strategy. The aggressive group will receive acetaminophen 650 mg enterally every 6 hours upon reaching a temperature ≥ 38.3 °C and external cooling will be initiated for temperatures ≥ 39.5 °C, whereas the permissive group will receive acetaminophen 650 mg every 6 hours upon reaching a temperature ≥ 40.0 °C and external cooling for temperatures ≥ 40.5 °C. The study will take place over 12 months with the goal of enrolling 120 patients. The primary outcome will be 28-day mortality after study enrolment, with secondary outcomes that will include markers of feasibility (e.g. the enrolment rate, and the number of protocol violations), and levels of select inflammatory and anti-inflammatory mediators. DISCUSSION: Results from this study will lead to a better understanding of the inflammatory effects of anti-pyretic therapy and will evaluate the feasibility of a future clinical trial to establish the best treatment of fever observed in nearly one half of patients admitted to adult ICUs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01173367.

What is the value and impact of quality and safety teams? A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to conduct a scoping review of the literature about the establishment and impact of quality and safety team initiatives in acute care. METHODS: Studies were identified through electronic searches of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ABI Inform, Cochrane databases. Grey literature and bibliographies were also searched. Qualitative or quantitative studies that occurred in acute care, describing how quality and safety teams were established or implemented, the impact of teams, or the barriers and/or facilitators of teams were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data on study design, sample, interventions, and outcomes. Quality assessment of full text articles was done independently by two reviewers. Studies were categorized according to dimensions of quality. RESULTS: Of 6,674 articles identified, 99 were included in the study. The heterogeneity of studies and results reported precluded quantitative data analyses. Findings revealed limited information about attributes of successful and unsuccessful team initiatives, barriers and facilitators to team initiatives, unique or combined contribution of selected interventions, or how to effectively establish these teams. CONCLUSIONS: Not unlike systematic reviews of quality improvement collaboratives, this broad review revealed that while teams reported a number of positive results, there are many methodological issues. This study is unique in utilizing traditional quality assessment and more novel methods of quality assessment and reporting of results (SQUIRE) to appraise studies. Rigorous design, evaluation, and reporting of quality and safety team initiatives are required.