Use of Intravenous Albumin: A Guideline From the International Collaboration for Transfusion Medicine Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Albumin is used commonly across a wide range of clinical settings to improve hemodynamics, to facilitate fluid removal, and to manage complications of cirrhosis. The International Collaboration for Transfusion Medicine Guidelines developed guidelines for the use of albumin in patients requiring critical care, undergoing cardiovascular surgery, undergoing kidney replacement therapy, or experiencing complications of cirrhosis. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Cochairs oversaw the guideline development process and the panel included researchers, clinicians, methodologists, and a patient representative. The evidence informing this guideline arises from a systematic review of randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews, in which multiple databases were searched (inception through November 23, 2022). The panel reviewed the data and formulated the guideline recommendations using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology. The guidelines were revised after public consultation. RESULTS: The panel made 14 recommendations on albumin use in adult critical care (three recommendations), pediatric critical care (one recommendation), neonatal critical care (two recommendations), cardiovascular surgery (two recommendations), kidney replacement therapy (one recommendation), and complications of cirrhosis (five recommendations). Of the 14 recommendations, two recommendations had moderate certainty of evidence, five recommendations had low certainty of evidence, and seven recommendations had very low certainty of evidence. Two of the 14 recommendations suggested conditional use of albumin for patients with cirrhosis undergoing large-volume paracentesis or with spontaneous bacterial peritonitis. Twelve of 14 recommendations did not suggest albumin use in a wide variety of clinical situations where albumin commonly is transfused. INTERPRETATION: Currently, few evidence-based indications support the routine use of albumin in clinical practice to improve patient outcomes. These guidelines provide clinicians with actionable recommendations on the use of albumin.

Forecasting disease trajectories in critical illness: comparison of probabilistic dynamic systems to static models to predict patient status in the intensive care unit.

OBJECTIVE: Conventional prediction models fail to integrate the constantly evolving nature of critical illness. Alternative modelling approaches to study dynamic changes in critical illness progression are needed. We compare static risk prediction models to dynamic probabilistic models in early critical illness. DESIGN: We developed models to simulate disease trajectories of critically ill COVID-19 patients across different disease states. Eighty per cent of cases were randomly assigned to a training and 20% of the cases were used as a validation cohort. Conventional risk prediction models were developed to analyse different disease states for critically ill patients for the first 7 days of intensive care unit (ICU) stay. Daily disease state transitions were modelled using a series of multivariable, multinomial logistic regression models. A probabilistic dynamic systems modelling approach was used to predict disease trajectory over the first 7 days of an ICU admission. Forecast accuracy was assessed and simulated patient clinical trajectories were developed through our algorithm. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We retrospectively studied patients admitted to a Cleveland Clinic Healthcare System in Ohio, for the treatment of COVID-19 from March 2020 to December 2022. RESULTS: 5241 patients were included in the analysis. For ICU days 2-7, the static (conventional) modelling approach, the accuracy of the models steadily decreased as a function of time, with area under the curve (AUC) for each health state below 0.8. But the dynamic forecasting approach improved its ability to predict as a function of time. AUC for the dynamic forecasting approach were all above 0.90 for ICU days 4-7 for all states. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that modelling critical care outcomes as a dynamic system improved the forecasting accuracy of the disease state. Our model accurately identified different disease conditions and trajectories, with a <10% misclassification rate over the first week of critical illness.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities 2023.

OBJECTIVES: To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome, and pathophysiology of sepsis and septic shock. DESIGN: Shortly after publication of the most recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines, the Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine, convened virtually and iteratively developed the article and recommendations, which represents an update from the 2018 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities. METHODS: Each task force member submitted five research questions on any sepsis-related subject. Committee members then independently ranked their top three priorities from the list generated. The highest rated clinical and basic science questions were developed into the current article. RESULTS: A total of 81 questions were submitted. After merging similar questions, there were 34 clinical and ten basic science research questions submitted for voting. The five top clinical priorities were as follows: 1) what is the best strategy for screening and identification of patients with sepsis, and can predictive modeling assist in real-time recognition of sepsis? 2) what causes organ injury and dysfunction in sepsis, how should it be defined, and how can it be detected? 3) how should fluid resuscitation be individualized initially and beyond? 4) what is the best vasopressor approach for treating the different phases of septic shock? and 5) can a personalized/precision medicine approach identify optimal therapies to improve patient outcomes? The five top basic science priorities were as follows: 1) How can we improve animal models so that they more closely resemble sepsis in humans? 2) What outcome variables maximize correlations between human sepsis and animal models and are therefore most appropriate to use in both? 3) How does sepsis affect the brain, and how do sepsis-induced brain alterations contribute to organ dysfunction? How does sepsis affect interactions between neural, endocrine, and immune systems? 4) How does the microbiome affect sepsis pathobiology? 5) How do genetics and epigenetics influence the development of sepsis, the course of sepsis and the response to treatments for sepsis? CONCLUSIONS: Knowledge advances in multiple clinical domains have been incorporated in progressive iterations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, allowing for evidence-based recommendations for short- and long-term management of sepsis. However, the strength of existing evidence is modest with significant knowledge gaps and mortality from sepsis remains high. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

Perceptions regarding vasopressin use and practices in septic shock, and cost containment strategies.

Background: Clinician preferences and practices regarding appropriate vasopressin use in light of its increased acquisition cost secondary to rebranding has not been evaluated or described since the most recent iteration of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guideline was published. Objective: To assess vasopressin cost containment initiatives and pharmacists' opinions regarding appropriate vasopressin use. Methods: A scenario-based survey was distributed to critical care and emergency medicine pharmacists. Responses were characterized using frequency and descriptive statistics. Categorical variables between those who implemented changes (Vasopressin Cost Consideration) and those who did not (Usual Care) were compared using chi-square or Fisher's exact tests. McNemar's test was used to compare responses in clinical scenarios between Vasopressin Cost Consideration and Usual Care groups. Results: Among 1757 pharmacists surveyed, 200 (11.3%) responded. When respondents considered vasopressin cost and evidence (vs evidence alone), fewer respondents would use vasopressin adjunctively with norepinephrine (21% vs 26.6%, P = 0.031), to raise mean arterial pressure compared with epinephrine (65.2% vs 72.3%, P = 0.012), or to reduce norepinephrine infusion rates (71.4% vs 81.4%, P < 0.001), but would use with steroids (62.4% vs 28.3%, P < 0.001). Most (72%) respondents had implemented vasopressin cost containment and/or education initiatives. The Vasopressin Cost Consideration group respondents were more likely to initiate vasopressin at 0.03 units/minute without titrating (47.9% vs 33.9%, P = 0.045). Conclusion: Since vasopressin was generically rebranded, most institutions have implemented at least one initiative to reduce vasopressin use and/or educate clinicians about its appropriate use. When vasopressin acquisition costs were considered, pharmacists recommended its use less frequently, particularly in clinical scenarios where its use is controversial.

Initial Care for Patients with Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock: The Next ICU Quality Measure.

In 2001, the landmark trial of early goal-directed therapy versus standard care for the treatment of severe sepsis and septic shock was published. The marked decrease in mortality with early recognition of sepsis and quantitative resuscitation revolutionized the treatment of patients with these conditions. Specific pieces of the early goal-directed therapy protocol have not been routinely adopted into bedside care; however, early administration of antibiotics, resuscitation with intravenous fluids, and attainment of hemodynamic stability to achieve end-organ perfusion have become the standard of care. To help ensure all patients receive optimal therapy at the first signs of severe sepsis or septic shock, the Surviving Sepsis Campaign has developed a core set of initial process steps and treatment goals grouped into a care bundle. Recognizing the benefit of early quantitative resuscitation on patient care, the National Quality Forum adopted a severe sepsis and septic shock care bundle that is similar to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign bundle. This care bundle has been adopted by the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, with reimbursement to be influenced beginning in 2017. The purpose of this review is to summarize evidence supporting the sepsis quality measure and care bundle and simplify key components of the care bundle where pharmacists can be impactful in ensuring optimal patient care and bundle compliance.