Factors Associated With Decision to Use and Dosing of Sugammadex in Children: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Sugammadex was initially approved for reversal of neuromuscular blockade in adults in the United States in 2015. Limited data suggest sugammadex is widely used in pediatric anesthesia practice however the factors influencing use are not known. We explore patient, surgical, and institutional factors associated with the decision to use sugammadex versus neostigmine or no reversal, and the decision to use 2 mg/kg vs 4 mg/kg dosing. METHODS: Using data from the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG) database, an EHR-derived registry, we conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study. Eligible cases were performed between January 1, 2016 and December 31, 2020, for children 0 to 17 years at US hospitals. Cases involved general anesthesia with endotracheal intubation and administration of rocuronium or vecuronium. Using generalized linear mixed models with institution and anesthesiologist-specific random intercepts, we measured the importance of a variety of patient, clinician, institution, anesthetic, and surgical risk factors in the decision to use sugammadex versus neostigmine, and the decision to use a 2 mg/kg vs 4 mg/kg dose. We then used intraclass correlation statistics to evaluate the proportion of variance contributed by institution and anesthesiologist specifically. RESULTS: There were 97,654 eligible anesthetics across 30 institutions. Of these 47.1% received sugammadex, 43.1% received neostigmine, and 9.8% received no reversal agent. Variability in the choice to use sugammadex was attributable primarily to institution (40.4%) and attending anesthesiologist (27.1%). Factors associated with sugammadex use (compared to neostigmine) include time from first institutional use of sugammadex (odds ratio [OR], 1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-1.09, per month, P < .001), younger patient age groups (0-27 days OR, 2.59 [2.00-3.34], P < .001; 28 days-1 year OR, 2.72 [2.16-3.43], P < .001 vs 12-17 years), increased American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] physical status (ASA III: OR, 1.32 [1.23-1.42], P < .001 ASA IV OR, 1.71 [1.46-2.00], P < .001 vs ASA I), neuromuscular disease (OR, 1.14 (1.04-1.26], P = .006), cardiac surgery (OR, 1.76 [1.40-2.22], P < .001), dose of neuromuscular blockade within the hour before reversal (>2 ED95s/kg OR, 4.58 (4.14-5.07], P < .001 vs none), and shorter case duration (case duration <60 minutes OR, 2.06 [1.75-2.43], P < .001 vs >300 minutes). CONCLUSIONS: Variation in sugammadex use was primarily explained by institution and attending anesthesiologist. Patient factors associated with the decision to use sugammadex included younger age, higher doses of neuromuscular blocking agents, and increased medical complexity.

Sugammadex use in pediatric patients with stage IV-V chronic kidney disease in a quaternary referral hospital: a case series.

BACKGROUND: Sugammadex is a pharmacologic agent that provides rapid reversal of neuromuscular blockade via encapsulation of the neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA). The sugammadex-NMBA complex is primarily cleared through glomerular filtration from the kidney, raising the possibility that alterations in renal function could affect its elimination. In pediatric patients, the benefits of sugammadex have led to widespread utilization; however, there is limited information on its application in pediatric renal impairment. This study examined sugammadex use and postoperative outcomes in pediatric patients with severe chronic renal impairment at our quaternary pediatric referral hospital. METHODS: After IRB approval, we performed a retrospective analysis in pediatric patients with stage IV and V chronic kidney disease who received sugammadex from January 2017 to March 2022. Postoperative outcomes studied included new or increased respiratory requirement, unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admission, postoperative pneumonia, anaphylaxis, and death within 48 h postoperatively, unplanned deferral of intraoperative extubation, and repeat administrations of NMBA reversal after leaving the operating room. RESULTS: The final cohort included 17 patients ranging from 8 months to 16 years old. One patient required new postoperative noninvasive ventilation on postoperative day 2, which was credited to hypervolemia. Another patient had bronchospasm intraoperatively resolving with medication, which could not definitively be associated sugammadex administration. There were no instances of deferred extubation, unplanned ICU or need for supplemental oxygen after tracheal extubation identified. CONCLUSION: No adverse effects directly attributable to sugammadex in pediatric patients with severe renal impairment were detected. There may be a role for utilization of sugammadex for neuromuscular reversal in this population.

Tracheostomy, Feeding-Tube, and In-Hospital Postoperative Mortality in Children: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Neuromuscular/neurologic disease confers increased risk of perioperative mortality in children. Some patients require tracheostomy and/or feeding tubes to ameliorate upper airway obstruction or respiratory failure and reduce aspiration risk. Empiric differences between patients with and without these devices and their association with postoperative mortality have not been previously assessed. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study using the Pediatric Health Information System measured 3- and 30-day in-hospital postsurgical mortality among children 1 month to 18 years of age with neuromuscular/neurologic disease at 44 US children's hospitals, from April 2016 to October 2018. We summarized differences between patients presenting for surgery with and without these devices using standardized differences. Then, we calculated 3- and 30-day mortality among patients with tracheostomy, feeding tube, both, and neither device, overall and stratified by important exposures, using Fisher exact test to test whether differences were significant. RESULTS: There were 43,193 eligible patients. Unadjusted 3-day mortality was 1.3% (549/43,193); 30-day mortality was 2.7% (1168/43,193). Most (79.1%) used neither a feeding tube or tracheostomy, 1.2% had tracheostomy only, 15.5% had feeding tube only, and 4.2% used both devices. Compared to children with neither device, children using either or both devices were more likely to have multiple CCCs, dysphagia, chronic pulmonary disease, cerebral palsy, obstructive sleep apnea, or malnutrition, and a prolonged intensive care unit (ICU) stay within the previous year. They were less likely to present for high-risk surgeries (33% vs 57%). Having a feeding tube was associated with decreased 3-day mortality overall compared to having neither device (0.9% vs 1.3%, P = .003), and among children having low-risk surgery, and surgery during urgent or emergent hospitalizations. Having both devices was associated with decreased 3-day mortality among children having low-risk surgery (0.8% vs 1.9%; P = .013), and during urgent or emergent hospitalizations (1.6% vs 2.9%; P = .023). For 30-day mortality, having a feeding tube or both devices was associated with lower mortality when the data were stratified by the number of CCCs. CONCLUSIONS: Patients requiring tracheostomy, feeding tube, or both are generally sicker than patients without these devices. Despite this, having a feeding tube was associated with lower 3-day mortality overall and lower 30-day mortality when the data were stratified by the number of CCCs. Having both devices was associated with lower 3-day mortality in patients presenting for low-risk surgery, and surgery during urgent or emergent hospitalizations.

Comparing Outcomes and Costs of Surgical Patients Treated at Major Teaching and Nonteaching Hospitals: A National Matched Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare outcomes and costs between major teaching and nonteaching hospitals on a national scale by closely matching on patient procedures and characteristics. BACKGROUND: Teaching hospitals have been shown to often have better quality than nonteaching hospitals, but cost and value associated with teaching hospitals remains unclear. METHODS: A study of Medicare patients at 340 teaching hospitals (resident-to-bed ratios ≥ 0.25) and matched patient controls from 2444 nonteaching hospitals (resident-to-bed ratios < 0.05).We studied 86,751 pairs admitted for general surgery (GS), 214,302 pairs of patients admitted for orthopedic surgery, and 52,025 pairs of patients admitted for vascular surgery. RESULTS: In GS, mortality was 4.62% in teaching hospitals versus 5.57%, (a difference of -0.95%, <0.0001), and overall paired cost difference = $915 (P < 0.0001). For the GS quintile of pairs with highest risk on admission, mortality differences were larger (15.94% versus 18.18%, difference = -2.24%, P < 0.0001), and paired cost difference = $3773 (P < 0.0001), yielding $1682 per 1% mortality improvement at 30 days. Patterns for vascular surgery outcomes resembled general surgery; however, orthopedics outcomes did not show significant differences in mortality across teaching and nonteaching environments, though costs were higher at teaching hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicare patients, as admission risk of mortality increased, the absolute mortality benefit of treatment at teaching hospitals also increased, though accompanied by marginally higher cost. Major teaching hospitals appear to return good value for the extra resources used in general surgery, and to some extent vascular surgery, but this was not apparent in orthopedic surgery.

Comparing Outcomes and Costs of Medical Patients Treated at Major Teaching and Non-teaching Hospitals: A National Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Teaching hospitals typically pioneer investment in new technology and cultivate workforce characteristics generally associated with better quality, but the value of this extra investment is unclear. OBJECTIVE: Compare outcomes and costs between major teaching and non-teaching hospitals by closely matching on patient characteristics. DESIGN: Medicare patients at 339 major teaching hospitals (resident-to-bed (RTB) ratios ≥ 0.25); matched patient controls from 2439 non-teaching hospitals (RTB ratios < 0.05). PARTICIPANTS: Forty-three thousand nine hundred ninety pairs of patients (one from a major teaching hospital and one from a non-teaching hospital) admitted for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), 84,985 pairs admitted for heart failure (HF), and 74,947 pairs admitted for pneumonia (PNA). EXPOSURE: Treatment at major teaching hospitals versus non-teaching hospitals. MAIN MEASURES: Thirty-day all-cause mortality, readmissions, ICU utilization, costs, payments, and value expressed as extra cost for a 1% improvement in survival. KEY RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality was lower in teaching than non-teaching hospitals (10.7% versus 12.0%, difference = - 1.3%, P < 0.0001). The paired cost difference (teaching - non-teaching) was $273 (P < 0.0001), yielding $211 per 1% mortality improvement. For the quintile of pairs with highest risk on admission, mortality differences were larger (24.6% versus 27.6%, difference = - 3.0%, P < 0.0001), and paired cost difference = $1289 (P < 0.0001), yielding $427 per 1% mortality improvement at 30 days. Readmissions and ICU utilization were lower in teaching hospitals (both P < 0.0001), but length of stay was longer (5.5 versus 5.1 days, P < 0.0001). Finally, individual results for AMI, HF, and PNA showed similar findings as in the combined results. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among Medicare patients admitted for common medical conditions, as admission risk of mortality increased, the absolute mortality benefit of treatment at teaching hospitals also increased, though accompanied by marginally higher cost. Major teaching hospitals appear to return good value for the extra resources used.

Structural, Nursing, and Physician Characteristics and 30-Day Mortality for Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery in Pennsylvania.

OBJECTIVE: Cardiac surgery ICU characteristics and clinician staffing patterns have not been well characterized. We sought to describe Pennsylvania cardiac ICUs and to determine whether ICU characteristics are associated with mortality in the 30 days after cardiac surgery. DESIGN: From 2012 to 2013, we conducted a survey of cardiac surgery ICUs in Pennsylvania to assess ICU structure, care practices, and clinician staffing patterns. ICU data were linked to an administrative database of cardiac surgery patient discharges. We used logistic regression to measure the association between ICU variables and death in 30 days. SETTING: Cardiac surgery ICUs in Pennsylvania. PATIENTS: Patients having coronary artery bypass grafting and/or cardiac valve repair or replacement from 2009 to 2011. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Of the 57 cardiac surgical ICUs in Pennsylvania, 43 (75.4%) responded to the facility survey. Rounds included respiratory therapists in 26 of 43 (60.5%) and pharmacists in 23 of 43 (53.5%). Eleven of 41 (26.8%) reported that at least 2/3 of their nurses had a bachelor's degree in nursing. Advanced practice providers were present in most of the ICUs (37/43; 86.0%) but residents (8/42; 18.6%) and fellows (7/43; 16.3%) were not. Daytime intensivists were present in 21 of 43 (48.8%) responding ICUs; eight of 43 (18.6%) had nighttime intensivists. Among 29,449 patients, there was no relationship between mortality and nurse ICU experience, presence of any intensivist, or absence of residents after risk adjustment. To exclude patients who may have undergone transcatheter aortic valve replacement, we conducted a subgroup analysis of patients undergoing only coronary artery bypass grafting, and results were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Pennsylvania cardiac surgery ICUs have variable structures, care practices, and clinician staffing, although none of these are statistically significantly associated with mortality in the 30 days following surgery after adjustment.

An empirical comparison of key statistical attributes among potential ICU quality indicators.

OBJECTIVE: Good quality indicators should have face validity, relevance to patients, and be able to be measured reliably. Beyond these general requirements, good quality indicators should also have certain statistical properties, including sufficient variability to identify poor performers, relative insensitivity to severity adjustment, and the ability to capture what providers do rather than patients' characteristics. We assessed the performance of candidate indicators of ICU quality on these criteria. Indicators included ICU readmission, mortality, several length of stay outcomes, and the processes of venous-thromboembolism and stress ulcer prophylaxis provision. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: One hundred thirty-eight U.S. ICUs from 2001-2008 in the Project IMPACT database. PATIENTS: Two hundred sixty-eight thousand eight hundred twenty-four patients discharged from U.S. ICUs. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We assessed indicators' (1) variability across ICU-years; (2) degree of influence by patient vs. ICU and hospital characteristics using the Omega statistic; (3) sensitivity to severity adjustment by comparing the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) between models including vs. excluding patient variables, and (4) correlation between risk adjusted quality indicators using a Spearman correlation. Large ranges of among-ICU variability were noted for all quality indicators, particularly for prolonged length of stay (4.7-71.3%) and the proportion of patients discharged home (30.6-82.0%), and ICU and hospital characteristics outweighed patient characteristics for stress ulcer prophylaxis (ω, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.34-0.54), venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (ω, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.53-0.61), and ICU readmissions (ω, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.90). Mortality measures were the most sensitive to severity adjustment (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve % difference, 29.6%); process measures were the least sensitive (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve % differences: venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, 3.4%; stress ulcer prophylaxis, 2.1%). None of the 10 indicators was clearly and consistently correlated with a majority of the other nine indicators. CONCLUSIONS: No indicator performed optimally across assessments. Future research should seek to define and operationalize quality in a way that is relevant to both patients and providers.

Outcomes among patients discharged from busy intensive care units.

BACKGROUND: Strains on the capacities of intensive care units (ICUs) may influence the quality of ICU-to-floor transitions. OBJECTIVE: To determine how 3 metrics of ICU capacity strain (ICU census, new admissions, and average acuity) measured on days of patient discharges influence ICU length of stay (LOS) and post-ICU discharge outcomes. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study from 2001 to 2008. SETTING: 155 ICUs in the United States. PATIENTS: 200 730 adults discharged from ICUs to hospital floors. MEASUREMENTS: Associations between ICU capacity strain metrics and discharged patient ICU LOS, 72-hour ICU readmissions, subsequent in-hospital death, post-ICU discharge LOS, and hospital discharge destination. RESULTS: Increases in the 3 strain variables on the days of ICU discharge were associated with shorter preceding ICU LOS (all P < 0.001) and increased odds of ICU readmissions (all P < 0.050). Going from the 5th to 95th percentiles of strain was associated with a 6.3-hour reduction in ICU LOS (95% CI, 5.3 to 7.3 hours) and a 1.0% increase in the odds of ICU readmission (CI, 0.6% to 1.5%). No strain variable was associated with increased odds of subsequent death, reduced odds of being discharged home from the hospital, or longer total hospital LOS. LIMITATION: Long-term outcomes could not be measured. CONCLUSION: When ICUs are strained, triage decisions seem to be affected such that patients are discharged from the ICU more quickly and, perhaps consequentially, have slightly greater odds of being readmitted to the ICU. However, short-term patient outcomes are unaffected. These results suggest that bed availability pressures may encourage physicians to discharge patients from the ICU more efficiently and that ICU readmissions are unlikely to be causally related to patient outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; and Society of Critical Care Medicine.

An empirical derivation of the optimal time interval for defining ICU readmissions.

BACKGROUND: Intensive care unit (ICU) readmission rates are commonly viewed as indicators of ICU quality. However, definitions of ICU readmissions vary, and it is unknown which, if any, readmissions are associated with ICU quality. OBJECTIVE: Empirically derive the optimal interval between ICU discharge and readmission for purposes of considering ICU readmission as an ICU quality indicator. RESEARCH DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SUBJECTS: A total of 214,692 patients discharged from 157 US ICUs participating in the Project IMPACT database, 2001-2008. MEASURES: We graphically examined how patient characteristics and ICU discharge circumstances (eg, ICU census) were related to the odds of ICU readmissions as the allowable interval between ICU discharge and readmission was lengthened. We defined the optimal interval by identifying inflection points where these relationships changed significantly and permanently. RESULTS: A total of 2242 patients (1.0%) were readmitted to the ICU within 24 hours; 9062 (4.2%) within 7 days. Patient characteristics exhibited stronger associations with readmissions after intervals >48-60 hours. By contrast, ICU discharge circumstances and ICU interventions (eg, mechanical ventilation) exhibited weaker relationships as intervals lengthened, with inflection points at 30-48 hours. Because of the predominance of afternoon readmissions regardless of time of discharge, using intervals defined by full calendar days rather than fixed numbers of hours produced more valid results. DISCUSSION: It remains uncertain whether ICU readmission is a valid quality indicator. However, having established 2 full calendar days (not 48 h) after ICU discharge as the optimal interval for measuring ICU readmissions, this study will facilitate future research designed to determine its validity.

The epidemiology of intensive care unit readmissions in the United States.

RATIONALE: The incidence of intensive care unit (ICU) readmissions across the United States is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine incidence of ICU readmissions in United States hospitals, and describe the distribution of time between ICU discharges and readmissions. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study used 196,202 patients in 156 medical and surgical ICUs in 106 community and academic hospitals participating in Project IMPACT from April 1, 2001, to December 31, 2007. We used mixed-effects logistic regression, adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics, to describe how ICU readmission rates differed across patient types, ICU models, and hospital types. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Measurements consisted of 48- and 120-hour ICU readmission rates and time to readmission. A total of 3,905 patients (2%) were readmitted to the ICU within 48 hours, and 7,171 (3.7%) within 120 hours. In adjusted analysis, there was no difference in ICU readmissions across patient types or ICU models. Among medical patients, those in academic hospitals had higher odds of 48- and 120-hour readmission than patients in community hospitals without residents (1.51 [95% confidence interval, 1.12-2.02] and 1.63 [95% confidence interval, 1.24-2.16]). Median time to ICU readmission was 3.07 days (interquartile range, 1.27-6.58). Closed ICUs had the longest times to readmission (3.55 d [interquartile range, 1.42-7.50]). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 2% and 4% of ICU patients discharged to the ward are readmitted within 48 and 120 hours, within a median time of 3 days. Medical patients in academic hospitals are more likely to be readmitted than patients in community hospitals without residents. ICU readmission rates could be useful for policy makers and investigations into their causes and consequences.

Rationing in the intensive care unit: to disclose or disguise?

INTRODUCTION: Growing pressures to ration intensive care unit beds and services pose novel challenges to clinicians. Whereas the question of how to allocate scarce intensive care unit resources has received much attention, the question of whether to disclose these decisions to patients and surrogates has not been explored. KEY CONSIDERATIONS: We explore how considerations of professionalism, dual agency, patients' and surrogates' preferences, beneficence, and healthcare efficiency and efficacy influence the propriety of disclosing rationing decisions in the intensive care unit. CONCLUSIONS: There are compelling conceptual reasons to support a policy of routine disclosure. Systematic disclosure of prevailing intensive care unit norms for making allocation decisions, and of at least the most consequential specific decisions, can promote transparent, professional, and effective healthcare delivery. However, many empiric questions about how best to structure and implement disclosure processes remain to be answered. Specifically, research is needed to determine how best to operationalize disclosure processes so as to maximize prospective benefits to patients and surrogates and minimize burdens on clinicians and intensive care units.

Positive and negative spillovers of the Health Disparities Collaboratives in federally qualified health centers: staff perceptions.

INTRODUCTION: Quality improvement (QI) interventions are usually evaluated for their intended effect; little is known about whether they generate significant positive or negative spillovers. METHODS: We mailed a 39-item self-administered survey to the 1256 staff at 135 federally qualified health centers (FQHC) implementing the Health Disparities Collaboratives (HDC), a large-scale QI collaborative intervention. We asked about the extent to which the HDC yielded improvements or detriments beyond its condition(s) of focus, particularly for non-HDC aspects of patient care and FQHC function. RESULTS: Response rate was 68.7%. The HDC was perceived to improve non-HDC patient care and general FQHC functioning more often than it was regarded as diminishing them. In all, 45% of respondents indicated that the HDC improved the quality of care for chronic conditions not being emphasized by the HDC; 5% responded that the HDC diminished that quality. Seventy-five percent stated that the HDC improved care provided to patients with multiple chronic conditions; 4% signified that the HDC diminished it. Fifty-five percent of respondents indicated that the HDC improved their FQHC's ability to move patients through their center, and 80% indicated that the HDC improved their FQHC's QI plan as a whole; 8% and 2% indicated that the HDC diminished these, respectively. DISCUSSION: On balance, the HDC was perceived to yield more positive spillovers than negative ones. This QI intervention appears to have generated effects beyond its condition of focus; QI's unintended effects should be included in evaluations to develop a better understanding of QI's net impact.

Pediatric Perioperative DNR Orders: A Case Series in a Children's Hospital.

CONTEXT: Do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders are common among children receiving palliative care, who may nevertheless benefit from surgery and other procedures. Although anesthesia, surgery, and pediatric guidelines recommend systematic reconsideration of DNR orders in the perioperative period, data regarding how clinicians evaluate and manage DNR orders in the perioperative period are limited. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate perioperative management of DNR orders at a tertiary care children's hospital. METHODS: We reviewed electronic medical records for all children with DNR orders in place within 30 days of surgery at a tertiary care pediatric hospital from February 1, 2016, to August 1, 2017. Using standardized case report forms, we abstracted the following from physician notes: 1) patient/family wishes with respect to the DNR, 2) whether preoperative DNR orders were continued, modified, or suspended during the perioperative period, and 3) whether life-threatening events occurred in the perioperative period. Based on data from these reports, we created a process flow diagram regarding DNR order decision-making in the perioperative period. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients aged six days to 17 years had a DNR order in place within 30 days of 29 procedures. No documented systematic reconsideration took place for 41% of procedures. DNR orders were modified for two (7%) procedures and suspended for 15 (51%). Three children (13%) suffered life-threatening events. We identified four time points in the perioperative period where systematic reconsideration should be documented in the medical record, and identified recommended personnel involved and important discussion points at each time point. CONCLUSION: Opportunities exist to improve how DNR orders are managed during the perioperative period.

Sustaining quality improvement in community health centers: perceptions of leaders and staff.

The Health Disparities Collaboratives are the largest national quality improvement (QI) initiatives in community health centers. This article identifies the incentives and assistance personnel believe are necessary to sustain QI. In 2004, 1006 survey respondents (response rate 67%) at 165 centers cited lack of resources, time, and staff burnout as common barriers. Release time was the most desired personal incentive. The highest funding priorities were direct patient care services (44% ranked no. 1), data entry (34%), and staff time for QI (26%). Participants also needed help with patient self-management (73%), information systems (77%), and getting providers to follow guidelines (64%).