Is the Critical Care Resuscitation Unit Sustainable: A 5-Year Experience of a Beneficial and Novel Model.

Background: The 6-bed critical care resuscitation unit (CCRU) is a unique and specialized intensive care unit (ICU) that streamlines the interhospital transfer (IHT-transfer between different hospitals) process for a wide range of patients with critical illness or time-sensitive disease. Previous studies showed the unit successfully increased the number of ICU admissions while reducing the time of transfer in the first year of its establishment. However, its sustainability is unknown. Methods: This was a descriptive retrospective analysis of adult, non-trauma patients who were transferred to an 800-bed quaternary medical center. Patients transferred to our medical center between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018 were eligible. We used interrupted time series (ITS) and descriptive analyses to describe the trend and compare the transfer process between patients who were transferred to the CCRU versus those transferred to other adult inpatient units. Results: From 2014 to 2018, 50,599 patients were transferred to our medical center; 31,582 (62%) were non-trauma adults. Compared with the year prior to the opening of the CCRU, ITS showed a significant increase in IHT after the establishment of the CCRU. The CCRU received a total of 7,788 (25%) IHTs during this period or approximately 20% of total transfers per year. Most transfers (41%) occurred via ground. Median and interquartile range [IQR] of transfer times to other ICUs (156 [65-1027] minutes) were longer than the CCRU (46 [22-139] minutes, P < 0.001). For the CCRU, the most common accepting services were cardiac surgery (16%), neurosurgery (11%), and emergency general surgery (10%). Conclusions: The CCRU increases the overall number of transfers to our institution, improves patient access to specialty care while decreasing transfer time, and continues to be a sustainable model over time. Additional research is needed to determine if transferring patients to the CCRU would continue to improve patients' outcomes and hospital revenue.

Preventing seizure occurrence following spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage: A systematic review and meta-analysis of seizure prophylaxis.

INTRODUCTION: Spontaneous intracerebral haemorrhage (ICH) is associated with high mortality and high morbidity, including seizures. Seizure prophylaxis is "not recommended" by the American Stroke Association, but practice variation still exists due to inconclusive data. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the current relevant literature to determine the efficacy of seizure prophylaxis following ICH. METHODS: We performed searches of PubMed, Scopus, and Embase up to September 15, 2020. We included observational and randomized controlled studies reporting seizure prophylaxis and occurrence in adults with ICH. Outcomes were seizures, as defined by the authors, within 14 days of ICH and at the longest point of follow-up. We used random-effects models to estimate the odds ratios (ORs) for seizure prophylaxis and outcomes. The PROSPERO registration was CRD42019140493. RESULTS: We included 8 studies (2852 patients) in our analysis. The mean (± standard deviation) age of the pooled patients was 65 (±4) years; 39 % (± 5%) were female. Seizure prophylaxis did not prevent seizures at the longest follow-up time (OR 0.708, 95 % CI 0.438-1.143, p = 0.158, I2 = 34 %). This result was confirmed in subgroup analyses using categorical variables and in meta-regressions using continuous variables. Additionally, seizure prophylaxis was not associated with preventing early seizures, defined as < 14 days of ICH (OR 0.66, 95 % CI 0.21-2.08, p = 0.48, I2 = 35 %). CONCLUSION: Seizure prophylaxis following ICH was not associated with seizure prevention in adults. Most included studies were observational. Further randomized controlled trials examining the efficacy of seizure prophylaxis in high-risk patients and different types of antiepileptic drugs are needed.

Complication of vasopressor infusion through peripheral venous catheter: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Vasopressors are mainstay treatment for patients in shock and are usually infused through central venous catheters (CVCs). However, CVCs are associated with risk of infection or delay from the needs of confirmation of placement. Infusing vasopressor through peripheral venous catheter (PIVs) could be an alternative in the Emergency Departments (ED) but data regarding complications is inconclusive. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to assess literature involving prevalence of complications from infusing vasopressors via PIVs. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE and Scopus databases from beginnings to 02/02/2020 to identify relevant randomized control trials, cohort, case-control studies. We excluded case reports. Authors assessed studies' quality with Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Kappa score was used to assess interrater agreement. Outcome was complications as direct results from infusing vasopressors through PIVs. RESULTS: We identified 325 articles and included 9 studies after reviewing 16 full text articles. Our analysis included 1835 patients whose mean age was 63 (Standard Deviation 12) years and 48% was female. There were 122 (7%) complications, of which 117 (96%) were minor. The meta-analysis with random effects showed the pooled prevalence of complications as 0.086 (95%CI 0.031-0.21). Studies reporting infusion safety guidelines had significantly lower prevalence of complications (0.029, 95%CI 0.018-0.045), compared to those not reporting a safety guideline (0.12, 95%CI 0.038-0.30, p = 0.024). CONCLUSION: There was low prevalence of complications as a direct result from infusing vasopressors through PIVs. Studies with safety guidelines were associated with significantly lower prevalence of complications. Further studies are needed to confirm our observations.