Endogenous Purulent Pericarditis Due to Klebsiella aerogenes in a Patient With Traumatic Chest Injury: A Case Report.

Purulent pericarditis is a rare but serious medical condition caused by an infection that spreads to the pericardial space surrounding the heart. Gram-positive organisms are the most common pathogens associated with purulent pericarditis. However, there has been a shift in recent years toward gram-negative bacteria. Klebsiella aerogenes is a rare pathogen that has never been linked to purulent pericarditis. In this report, we describe the case of a 40-year-old male patient with chronic bronchiectasis who, two months after suffering an injury, developed purulent pericarditis due to an uncommon organism, K. aerogenes. During his stay in the hospital, the patient developed several infections caused by K. aerogenes. These included bacteremia and ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP). Beta-lactamase-inducible K. aerogenes was grown in pericardial fluid culture following an emergency pericardiocentesis. The organism was resistant to carbapenems in a sputum culture, even though it was sensitive to meropenem in a blood culture. The patient had hypotension, requiring inotropes, and continued persistent bacteremia due to K. aerogenes. The patient had a heart attack with no pulse or electrical activity and died despite getting the best care possible. In light of this example, it is crucial to think about K. aerogenes and other rare organisms as possible pathogens in purulent pericarditis, especially in people who do not normally have known risk factors for this condition. Multidrug resistance patterns can make treatment more complicated, and aggressive care may be necessary in critically ill patients with chronic bacteremia.

Implementation of new ECMO centers during the COVID-19 pandemic: experience and results from the Middle East and India.

PURPOSE: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients has increased during the course of the pandemic. As uncertainty existed regarding patient's outcomes, early guidelines recommended against establishing new ECMO centers. We aimed to explore the epidemiology and outcomes of ECMO for COVID-19 related cardiopulmonary failure in five countries in the Middle East and India and to evaluate the results of ECMO in 5 new centers. METHODS: This is a retrospective, multicenter international, observational study conducted in 19 ECMO centers in five countries in the Middle East and India from March 1, 2020, to September 30, 2020. We included patients with COVID-19 who received ECMO for refractory hypoxemia and severe respiratory acidosis with or without circulatory failure. Data collection included demographic data, ECMO-related specific data, pre-ECMO patient condition, 24 h post-ECMO initiation data, and outcome. The primary outcome was survival to home discharge. Secondary outcomes included mortality during ECMO, survival to decannulation, and outcomes stratified by center type. RESULTS: Three hundred and seven COVID-19 patients received ECMO support during the study period, of whom 78 (25%) were treated in the new ECMO centers. The median age was 45 years (interquartile range IQR 37-52), and 81% were men. New center patients were younger, were less frequently male, had received higher PEEP, more frequently inotropes and prone positioning before ECMO and were less frequently retrieved from a peripheral center on ECMO. Survival to home discharge was 45%. In patients treated in new and established centers, survival was 55 and 41% (p = 0.03), respectively. Multivariable analysis retained only a SOFA score < 12 at ECMO initiation as associated with survival (odds ratio, OR 1.93 (95% CI 1.05-3.58), p = 0.034), but not treatment in a new center (OR 1.65 (95% CI 0.75-3.67)). CONCLUSIONS: During pandemics, ECMO may provide favorable outcomes in highly selected patients as resources allow. Newly formed ECMO centers with appropriate supervision of regional experts may have satisfactory results.

ICU Telemedicine Implementation and Risk-Adjusted Mortality Differences Between Daytime and Nighttime Coverage.

BACKGROUND: ICU telemedicine augmentation has been associated with improvements in clinical and financial outcomes in many cases, but not all. Understanding this discrepancy is of interest given the clinical impact and intervention cost. A recent meta-analysis noted an association with mortality reduction and standardized mortality ratio (SMR) before ICU telemedicine implementation of > 1. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does ICU telemedicine implementation affect adjusted mortality outcomes? If so, in what context? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective pre-post analysis comparing before vs after ICU telemedicine implementation on the outcome of risk-adjusted ICU mortality during am vs pm admissions as well as other objective measures of ICU telemedicine involvement. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred eighty-one patient-stays and 14,584 patient-stays were available for analysis in the implementation period before vs after ICU telemedicine implementation, respectively. The average Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IVa score was 46.6 vs 54.8 (P < .01) in the am group before ICU telemedicine implementation vs the am group after ICU telemedicine implementation, respectively. The average APACHE IVa score was 47.2 vs 56.3 (P < .01) in the pm group before ICU telemedicine implementation vs the pm group after ICU telemedicine implementation, respectively. Overall, the risk-adjusted ICU mortality was 8.7% before ICU telemedicine implementation vs 6.5% (P < .01) after implementation. When stratified by am and pm admission groups, no significant difference in risk-adjusted ICU mortality was seen in the am stratum. In the pm stratum, risk-adjusted mortality was 10.8% before ICU telemedicine implementation vs 7.0% (P < .01) after ICU telemedicine implementation. The preimplementation SMR in the am admission stratum was 0.95 vs 1.30 in the pm stratum. INTERPRETATION: We found a reduction in risk-adjusted ICU mortality with implementation of ICU telemedicine driven predominantly within the pm admission group. The pm admission SMR was 1.30, which may suggest an association with SMR of > 1 before ICU telemedicine implementation and mortality reduction. Future studies should seek to confirm this finding and should explore other important ICU telemedicine outcomes in the context of observed-to-expected ratios.

Hyperglycemia in Medically Critically Ill Patients: Risk Factors and Clinical Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to robustly categorize glycemic control in our medical intensive care unit (ICU) as either acceptable or suboptimal based on time-weighted daily blood glucose averages of <180 mg/dL or >180 mg/dL; identify clinical risk factors for suboptimal control; and compare clinical outcomes between the 2 glycemic control categories. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study in an academic tertiary and quaternary medical ICU. RESULTS: Out of total of 974 unit stays over a 2-year period, 920 had complete data sets available for analysis. Of unit stays 63% (575) were classified as having acceptable glycemic control and the remaining 37% were classified (345) as having suboptimal glycemic control. Adjusting for covariables, the odds of suboptimal glycemic control were highest for patients with diabetes mellitus (odds ratio [OR] 5.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.72-6.93), corticosteroid use during the ICU stay (OR 4.50, 95% CI 3.21-6.32), and catecholamine infusions (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.04-1.93). Adjusting for acuity, acceptable glycemic control was associated with decreased odds of hospital mortality but not ICU mortality (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48-0.88 and OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.55-1.17, respectively). Suboptimal glycemic control was associated with increased odds of longer-than-predicted ICU and hospital stays (OR 1.76, 95% CI 1.30-2.38 and OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.12-2.01, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: In our high-acuity medically critically ill patient population, achieving time-weighted average daily blood glucose levels <180 mg/dL reliably while in the ICU significantly decreased the odds of subsequent hospital mortality. Suboptimal glycemic control during the ICU stay, on the other hand, significantly increased the odds of longer-than-predicted ICU and hospital stay.

Position paper for the organization of ECMO programs for cardiac failure in adults.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used increasingly for both respiratory and cardiac failure in adult patients. Indications for ECMO use in cardiac failure include severe refractory cardiogenic shock, refractory ventricular arrhythmia, active cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest, and acute or decompensated right heart failure. Evidence is emerging to guide the use of this therapy for some of these indications, but there remains a need for additional evidence to guide best practices. As a result, the use of ECMO may vary widely across centers. The purpose of this document is to highlight key aspects of care delivery, with the goal of codifying the current use of this rapidly growing technology. A major challenge in this field is the need to emergently deploy ECMO for cardiac failure, often with limited time to assess the appropriateness of patients for the intervention. For this reason, we advocate for a multidisciplinary team of experts to guide institutional use of this therapy and the care of patients receiving it. Rigorous patient selection and careful attention to potential complications are key factors in optimizing patient outcomes. Seamless patient transport and clearly defined pathways for transition of care to centers capable of providing heart replacement therapies (e.g., durable ventricular assist device or heart transplantation) are essential to providing the highest level of care for those patients stabilized by ECMO but unable to be weaned from the device. Ultimately, concentration of the most complex care at high-volume centers with advanced cardiac capabilities may be a way to significantly improve the care of this patient population.