Boarding in the emergency department: challenges and mitigation strategies.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Herein, we conducted a review of the literature to better understand the issue of prolonged emergency department (ED) boarding by providing an overview of the current evidence on the available causes, consequences, and mitigation strategies. RECENT FINDINGS: Severely ill patients awaiting transfer to intensive care units (ICU) imposes additional burdens on the emergency care team from both a clinical and management perspective. The reasons for prolonged ED boarding are multifactorial. ED boarding compromises patients' safety and outcomes, and is associated with increased team burnout and dissatisfaction. Mitigation strategies include the optimization of patients' flow, the establishment of resuscitative care units, deployment of mobile critical care teams, and improvements in training. Staffing adjustments, changes in hospital operations, and quality improvement initiatives are required to improve this situation, while active bed management and implementation of capacity command centers may also help. SUMMARY: Considering the characteristics of healthcare systems, such as funding mechanisms, organizational structures, delivery models, access and quality of care, the challenge of ED boarding of critically ill patients requires a nuanced and adaptable approach. Solutions are complex but must involve the entirety of the hospital system, emergency department, staff adjustment, and education.

Hierarchical endpoint analysis using win ratio in critical care: An exploration using the balanced solutions in intensive care study (BaSICS).

PURPOSE: To reanalyze the results of the Balanced Solutions in Intensive Care Study (BaSICS) through hierarchical endpoint analysis with win ratio. METHODS: All patients with full data in BaSICS trial were elected for the analysis. BaSICS compared balanced solutions (Plasma Lye 148) versus 0.9% saline in critically ill patients requiring fluid challenge. The win ratio was defined as a hierarchical endpoint of 90-day mortality, recepit of kidney replacement therapy, hospital length-of-stay (LOS), and intensive care unit (ICU) LOS. Both unstratified and stratified (by admission type: planned admission, unplanned admission with sepsis, and unplanned admission without sepsis) approaches were used. A subgroup analysis was performed in patients with traumatic brain injury. RESULTS: A total of 10,490 patients were included in the analysis, resulting in 27,587,566 unique combinations for unstratified WR. Unstratified Win ratio was 1.02 (95% confidence interval 0.97; 1.07), which was similar to stratified WR. No stratum in the stratified analysis resulted in significant results. Subgroup analysis confirmed the possible harm of balanced solutions in traumatic brain injury patients (WR 0.80; 95% confidence interval 0.64; 0.99). CONCLUSION: In this reanalysis of BaSICS, a win ratio analysis largely replicated the results of the main trial, yielding neutral results except for the subgroup of patients with traumatic brain injury where a signal of harm was found.

Association between Type of Fluid Received Prior to Enrollment, Type of Admission, and Effect of Balanced Crystalloid in Critically Ill Adults: A Secondary Exploratory Analysis of the BaSICS Clinical Trial.

Rationale: The effects of balanced crystalloid versus saline on clinical outcomes for ICU patients may be modified by the type of fluid that patients received for initial resuscitation and by the type of admission. Objectives: To assess whether the results of a randomized controlled trial could be affected by fluid use before enrollment and admission type. Methods: Secondary post hoc analysis of the BaSICS (Balanced Solution in Intensive Care Study) trial, which compared a balanced solution (Plasma-Lyte 148) with 0.9% saline in the ICU. Patients were categorized according to fluid use in the 24 hours before enrollment in four groups (balanced solutions only, 0.9% saline only, a mix of both, and no fluid before enrollment) and according to admission type (planned, unplanned with sepsis, and unplanned without sepsis). The association between 90-day mortality and the randomization group was assessed using a hierarchical logistic Bayesian model. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 10,520 patients were included. There was a low probability that the balanced solution was associated with improved 90-day mortality in the whole trial population (odds ratio [OR], 0.95; 89% credible interval [CrI], 0.66-10.51; probability of benefit, 0.58); however, probability of benefit was high for patients who received only balanced solutions before enrollment (regardless of admission type, OR, 0.78; 89% CrI, 0.56-1.03; probability of benefit, 0.92), mostly because of a benefit in unplanned admissions due to sepsis (OR, 0.70; 89% CrI, 0.50-0.97; probability of benefit, 0.96) and planned admissions (OR, 0.79; 89% CrI, 0.65-0.97; probability of benefit, 0.97). Conclusions: There is a high probability that balanced solution use in the ICU reduces 90-day mortality in patients who exclusively received balanced fluids before trial enrollment. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02875873).

Effect of Slower vs Faster Intravenous Fluid Bolus Rates on Mortality in Critically Ill Patients: The BaSICS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Slower intravenous fluid infusion rates could reduce the formation of tissue edema and organ dysfunction in critically ill patients; however, there are no data to support different infusion rates during fluid challenges for important outcomes such as mortality. Objective: To determine the effect of a slower infusion rate vs control infusion rate on 90-day survival in patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: Unblinded randomized factorial clinical trial in 75 ICUs in Brazil, involving 11 052 patients requiring at least 1 fluid challenge and with 1 risk factor for worse outcomes were randomized from May 29, 2017, to March 2, 2020. Follow-up was concluded on October 29, 2020. Patients were randomized to 2 different infusion rates (reported in this article) and 2 different fluid types (balanced fluids or saline, reported separately). Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive fluid challenges at 2 different infusion rates; 5538 to the slower rate (333 mL/h) and 5514 to the control group (999 mL/h). Patients were also randomized to receive balanced solution or 0.9% saline using a factorial design. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was 90-day survival. Results: Of all randomized patients, 10 520 (95.2%) were analyzed (mean age, 61.1 years [SD, 17.0 years]; 44.2% were women) after excluding duplicates and consent withdrawals. Patients assigned to the slower rate received a mean of 1162 mL on the first day vs 1252 mL for the control group. By day 90, 1406 of 5276 patients (26.6%) in the slower rate group had died vs 1414 of 5244 (27.0%) in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.96-1.11; P = .46). There was no significant interaction between fluid type and infusion rate (P = .98). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients in the intensive care unit requiring fluid challenges, infusing at a slower rate compared with a faster rate did not reduce 90-day mortality. These findings do not support the use of a slower infusion rate. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02875873.

Effect of Intravenous Fluid Treatment With a Balanced Solution vs 0.9% Saline Solution on Mortality in Critically Ill Patients: The BaSICS Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: Intravenous fluids are used for almost all intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Clinical and laboratory studies have questioned whether specific fluid types result in improved outcomes, including mortality and acute kidney injury. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of a balanced solution vs saline solution (0.9% sodium chloride) on 90-day survival in critically ill patients. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Double-blind, factorial, randomized clinical trial conducted at 75 ICUs in Brazil. Patients who were admitted to the ICU with at least 1 risk factor for worse outcomes, who required at least 1 fluid expansion, and who were expected to remain in the ICU for more than 24 hours were randomized between May 29, 2017, and March 2, 2020; follow-up concluded on October 29, 2020. Patients were randomized to 2 different fluid types (a balanced solution vs saline solution reported in this article) and 2 different infusion rates (reported separately). INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive either a balanced solution (n = 5522) or 0.9% saline solution (n = 5530) for all intravenous fluids. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was 90-day survival. RESULTS: Among 11 052 patients who were randomized, 10 520 (95.2%) were available for the analysis (mean age, 61.1 [SD, 17] years; 44.2% were women). There was no significant interaction between the 2 interventions (fluid type and infusion speed; P = .98). Planned surgical admissions represented 48.4% of all patients. Of all the patients, 60.6% had hypotension or vasopressor use and 44.3% required mechanical ventilation at enrollment. Patients in both groups received a median of 1.5 L of fluid during the first day after enrollment. By day 90, 1381 of 5230 patients (26.4%) assigned to a balanced solution died vs 1439 of 5290 patients (27.2%) assigned to saline solution (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.90-1.05]; P = .47). There were no unexpected treatment-related severe adverse events in either group. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Among critically ill patients requiring fluid challenges, use of a balanced solution compared with 0.9% saline solution did not significantly reduce 90-day mortality. The findings do not support the use of this balanced solution. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02875873.

Effect of Dexamethasone on Days Alive and Ventilator-Free in Patients With Moderate or Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and COVID-19: The CoDEX Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with substantial mortality and use of health care resources. Dexamethasone use might attenuate lung injury in these patients. Objective: To determine whether intravenous dexamethasone increases the number of ventilator-free days among patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized, open-label, clinical trial conducted in 41 intensive care units (ICUs) in Brazil. Patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe ARDS, according to the Berlin definition, were enrolled from April 17 to June 23, 2020. Final follow-up was completed on July 21, 2020. The trial was stopped early following publication of a related study before reaching the planned sample size of 350 patients. Interventions: Twenty mg of dexamethasone intravenously daily for 5 days, 10 mg of dexamethasone daily for 5 days or until ICU discharge, plus standard care (n =151) or standard care alone (n = 148). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was ventilator-free days during the first 28 days, defined as being alive and free from mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes were all-cause mortality at 28 days, clinical status of patients at day 15 using a 6-point ordinal scale (ranging from 1, not hospitalized to 6, death), ICU-free days during the first 28 days, mechanical ventilation duration at 28 days, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (range, 0-24, with higher scores indicating greater organ dysfunction) at 48 hours, 72 hours, and 7 days. Results: A total of 299 patients (mean [SD] age, 61 [14] years; 37% women) were enrolled and all completed follow-up. Patients randomized to the dexamethasone group had a mean 6.6 ventilator-free days (95% CI, 5.0-8.2) during the first 28 days vs 4.0 ventilator-free days (95% CI, 2.9-5.4) in the standard care group (difference, 2.26; 95% CI, 0.2-4.38; P = .04). At 7 days, patients in the dexamethasone group had a mean SOFA score of 6.1 (95% CI, 5.5-6.7) vs 7.5 (95% CI, 6.9-8.1) in the standard care group (difference, -1.16; 95% CI, -1.94 to -0.38; P = .004). There was no significant difference in the prespecified secondary outcomes of all-cause mortality at 28 days, ICU-free days during the first 28 days, mechanical ventilation duration at 28 days, or the 6-point ordinal scale at 15 days. Thirty-three patients (21.9%) in the dexamethasone group vs 43 (29.1%) in the standard care group experienced secondary infections, 47 (31.1%) vs 42 (28.3%) needed insulin for glucose control, and 5 (3.3%) vs 9 (6.1%) experienced other serious adverse events. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and moderate or severe ARDS, use of intravenous dexamethasone plus standard care compared with standard care alone resulted in a statistically significant increase in the number of ventilator-free days (days alive and free of mechanical ventilation) over 28 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04327401.

Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin in Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin have been used to treat patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). However, evidence on the safety and efficacy of these therapies is limited. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, three-group, controlled trial involving hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 who were receiving either no supplemental oxygen or a maximum of 4 liters per minute of supplemental oxygen. Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive standard care, standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily, or standard care plus hydroxychloroquine at a dose of 400 mg twice daily plus azithromycin at a dose of 500 mg once daily for 7 days. The primary outcome was clinical status at 15 days as assessed with the use of a seven-level ordinal scale (with levels ranging from one to seven and higher scores indicating a worse condition) in the modified intention-to-treat population (patients with a confirmed diagnosis of Covid-19). Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 667 patients underwent randomization; 504 patients had confirmed Covid-19 and were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. As compared with standard care, the proportional odds of having a higher score on the seven-point ordinal scale at 15 days was not affected by either hydroxychloroquine alone (odds ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 2.11; P = 1.00) or hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin (odds ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.73; P = 1.00). Prolongation of the corrected QT interval and elevation of liver-enzyme levels were more frequent in patients receiving hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, than in those who were not receiving either agent. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care. (Funded by the Coalition Covid-19 Brazil and EMS Pharma; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04322123.).

Predictive Accuracy of the Quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment Score in Brazil. A Prospective Multicenter Study.

Rationale: Although proposed as a clinical prompt to sepsis based on predictive validity for mortality, the Quick Sepsis-related Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) score is often used as a screening tool, which requires high sensitivity.Objectives: To assess the predictive accuracy of qSOFA for mortality in Brazil, focusing on sensitivity.Methods: We prospectively collected data from two cohorts of emergency department and ward patients. Cohort 1 included patients with suspected infection but without organ dysfunction or sepsis (22 hospitals: 3 public and 19 private). Cohort 2 included patients with sepsis (54 hospitals: 24 public and 28 private). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. The predictive accuracy of qSOFA was examined considering only the worst values before the suspicion of infection or sepsis.Measurements and Main Results: Cohort 1 contained 5,460 patients (mortality rate, 14.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 13.1-15.0), among whom 78.3% had a qSOFA score less than or equal to 1 (mortality rate, 8.3%; 95% CI, 7.5-9.1). The sensitivity of a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 2 for predicting mortality was 53.9% and the 95% CI was 50.3 to 57.5. The sensitivity was higher for a qSOFA greater than or equal to 1 (84.9%; 95% CI, 82.1-87.3), a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 1 or lactate greater than 2 mmol/L (91.3%; 95% CI, 89.0-93.2), and systemic inflammatory response syndrome plus organ dysfunction (68.7%; 95% CI, 65.2-71.9). Cohort 2 contained 4,711 patients, among whom 62.3% had a qSOFA score less than or equal to 1 (mortality rate, 17.3%; 95% CI, 15.9-18.7), whereas in public hospitals the mortality rate was 39.3% (95% CI, 35.5-43.3).Conclusions: A qSOFA score greater than or equal to 2 has low sensitivity for predicting death in patients with suspected infection in a developing country. Using a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 2 as a screening tool for sepsis may miss patients who ultimately die. Using a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 1 or adding lactate to a qSOFA score greater than or equal to 1 may improve sensitivity.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03158493).

Controversies of surviving sepsis campaign bundles: should we use them?

Sepsis accounts for a huge number of deaths in intensive care units all over the world. In 2002, Surviving Sepsis Campaign (SSC) was launched, targeting a mortality reduction of 25% in 5 years. Treatment guidelines were developed, published in 2004 and revised in 2007. An educational program was initiated based on bundles in which 11 of those guidelines were put together to facilitate their assimilation and use. More than 10,000 patients have been enrolled worldwide. However, the SSC and its bundles have been harshly criticized both because of an industry funding and by the presumed fragility of the studies from where they were based. In this review, the main arguments of the SSC critics are discussed and refuted, and the main controversial issues of the resuscitation and management bundles are analyzed, taking into account the new evidence in the literature.

The impact of duration of organ dysfunction on the outcome of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the impact of the duration of organ dysfunction on the outcome of patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. METHODS: Clinical data were collected from hospital charts of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock admitted to a mixed intensive care unit from November 2003 to February 2004. The duration of organ dysfunction prior to diagnosis was correlated with mortality. Results were considered significant if p<0.05. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were enrolled. Mean age was 55.6+/-20.7 years, mean APACHE II score was 20.6+/-6.9, and mean SOFA score was 7.9+/-3.7. Thirty-six patients (64.3%) had septic shock. The mean duration of organ dysfunction was 1.9+/-1.9 days. Within the univariate analysis, the variables correlated with hospital mortality were: age (p=0.015), APACHE II (p=0.008), onset outside the intensive care unit (p=0.05), blood glucose control (p=0.05) and duration of organ dysfunction (p=0.0004). In the multivariate analysis, only a duration of organ dysfunction persisting longer than 48 hours correlated with mortality (p=0.004, OR: 8.73 (2.37-32.14)), whereas the APACHE II score remained only a slightly significant factor (p=0.049, OR: 1.11 (1.00-1.23)). Patients who received therapeutic interventions within the first 48 hours after the onset of organ dysfunction exhibited lower mortality (32.1% vs. 82.1%, p=0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the diagnosis of organ dysfunction is not being made in a timely manner. The time elapsed between the onset of organ dysfunction and initiation of therapeutic intervention can be quite long, and this represents an important determinant of survival in cases of severe sepsis and septic shock.

The impact of duration of organ dysfunction on the outcome of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to assess the impact of the duration of organ dysfunction on the outcome of patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. METHODS: Clinical data were collected from hospital charts of patients with severe sepsis and septic shock admitted to a mixed intensive care unit from November 2003 to February 2004. The duration of organ dysfunction prior to diagnosis was correlated with mortality. Results were considered significant if p<0.05. RESULTS: Fifty-six patients were enrolled. Mean age was 55.6 ± 20.7 years, mean APACHE II score was 20.6 ± 6.9, and mean SOFA score was 7.9 ± 3.7. Thirty-six patients (64.3 percent) had septic shock. The mean duration of organ dysfunction was 1.9 ± 1.9 days. Within the univariate analysis, the variables correlated with hospital mortality were: age (p=0.015), APACHE II (p=0.008), onset outside the intensive care unit (p=0.05), blood glucose control (p=0.05) and duration of organ dysfunction (p=0.0004). In the multivariate analysis, only a duration of organ dysfunction persisting longer than 48 hours correlated with mortality (p=0.004, OR: 8.73 (2.37-32.14)), whereas the APACHE II score remained only a slightly significant factor (p=0.049, OR: 1.11 (1.00-1.23)). Patients who received therapeutic interventions within the first 48 hours after the onset of organ dysfunction exhibited lower mortality (32.1 percent vs. 82.1 percent, p=0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the diagnosis of organ dysfunction is not being made in a timely manner. The time elapsed between the onset of organ dysfunction and initiation of therapeutic intervention can be quite long, and this represents an important determinant of survival in cases of severe sepsis and septic shock.