Variation in Sedative and Analgesic Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Associated Outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Providing analgesia and sedation is an essential component of caring for many mechanically ventilated patients. The selection of analgesic and sedative medications during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the impact of these sedation practices on patient outcomes, remain incompletely characterized. RESEARCH QUESTION: What were the hospital patterns of analgesic and sedative use for patients with COVID-19 who received mechanical ventilation (MV), and what differences in clinical patient outcomes were observed across prevailing sedation practices? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study of hospitalized adults who received MV for COVID-19 from February 2020 through April 2021 within the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study (VIRUS) COVID-19 Registry. To describe common sedation practices, we used hierarchical clustering to group hospitals based on the percentage of patients who received various analgesic and sedative medications. We then used multivariable regression models to evaluate the association between hospital analgesia and sedation cluster and duration of MV (with a placement of death [POD] approach to account for competing risks). RESULTS: We identified 1,313 adults across 35 hospitals admitted with COVID-19 who received MV. Two clusters of analgesia and sedation practices were identified. Cluster 1 hospitals generally administered opioids and propofol with occasional use of additional sedatives (eg, benzodiazepines, alpha-agonists, and ketamine); cluster 2 hospitals predominantly used opioids and benzodiazepines without other sedatives. As compared with patients in cluster 2, patients admitted to cluster 1 hospitals underwent a shorter adjusted median duration of MV with POD (ß-estimate, -5.9; 95% CI, -11.2 to -0.6; P = .03). INTERPRETATION: Patients who received MV for COVID-19 in hospitals that prioritized opioids and propofol for analgesia and sedation experienced shorter adjusted median duration of MV with POD as compared with patients who received MV in hospitals that primarily used opioids and benzodiazepines.

Opioid, sedative, preadmission medication and iatrogenic withdrawal risk in UK adult critically ill patients: a point prevalence study.

BACKGROUND: Iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome, after exposure medication known to cause withdrawal is recognised, yet under described in adult intensive care. AIM: To investigate, opioid, sedation, and preadmission medication practice in critically ill adults with focus on aspects associated with iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome. METHOD: One-day point prevalence study in UK intensive care units (ICUs). We collected ICU admission medication and/or substances with withdrawal potential, sedation policy, opioid and sedative use, dose, and duration. RESULTS: Thirty-seven from 39 participating ICUs contributed data from 386 patients. The prevalence rate for parenteral opioid and sedative medication was 56.1% (212 patients). Twenty-three ICUs (59%) had no sedation/analgesia policy, and no ICUs screened for iatrogenic withdrawal. Patient admission medications with withdrawal-potential included antidepressants or antipsychotics (43, 20.3%) and nicotine (41, 19.3%). Of 212 patients, 202 (95.3%) received opioids, 163 (76.9%) sedatives and 153 (72.2%) both. Two hundred and two (95.3%) patients received opioids: 167 (82.7%) by continuous infusions and 90 (44.6%) patients for longer than 96-h. One hundred and sixty-three (76.9%) patients received sedatives: 157 (77.7%) by continuous infusions and 74 (45.4%) patients for longer than 96-h. CONCLUSION: Opioid sedative and admission medication with iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome potential prevalence rates were high, and a high proportion of ICUs had no sedative/analgesic policies. Nearly half of patients received continuous opioids and sedatives for longer than 96-h placing them at high risk of iatrogenic withdrawal. No participating unit reported using a validated tool for iatrogenic withdrawal assessment.

International Analgesia and Sedation Weaning and Withdrawal Practices in Critically Ill Adults: The Adult Iatrogenic Withdrawal Study in the ICU.

OBJECTIVES: Iatrogenic withdrawal syndrome (IWS) associated with opioid and sedative use for medical purposes has a reported high prevalence and associated morbidity. This study aimed to determine the prevalence, utilization, and characteristics of opioid and sedative weaning and IWS policies/protocols in the adult ICU population. DESIGN: International, multicenter, observational, point prevalence study. SETTING: Adult ICUs. PATIENTS: All patients aged 18 years and older in the ICU on the date of data collection who received parenteral opioids or sedatives in the previous 24 hours. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: ICUs selected 1 day for data collection between June 1 and September 30, 2021. Patient demographic data, opioid and sedative medication use, and weaning and IWS assessment data were collected for the previous 24 hours. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients weaned from opioids and sedatives using an institutional policy/protocol on the data collection day. There were 2,402 patients in 229 ICUs from 11 countries screened for opioid and sedative use; 1,506 (63%) patients received parenteral opioids, and/or sedatives in the previous 24 hours. There were 90 (39%) ICUs with a weaning policy/protocol which was used in 176 (12%) patients, and 23 (10%) ICUs with an IWS policy/protocol which was used in 9 (0.6%) patients. The weaning policy/protocol for 47 (52%) ICUs did not define when to initiate weaning, and the policy/protocol for 24 (27%) ICUs did not specify the degree of weaning. A weaning policy/protocol was used in 34% (176/521) and IWS policy/protocol in 9% (9/97) of patients admitted to an ICU with such a policy/protocol. Among 485 patients eligible for weaning policy/protocol utilization based on duration of opioid/sedative use initiation criterion within individual ICU policies/protocols 176 (36%) had it used, and among 54 patients on opioids and/or sedatives ≥ 72 hours, 9 (17%) had an IWS policy/protocol used by the data collection day. CONCLUSIONS: This international observational study found that a small proportion of ICUs use policies/protocols for opioid and sedative weaning or IWS, and even when these policies/protocols are in place, they are implemented in a small percentage of patients.

Impact of Pharmacist Monitoring of Serum Triglycerides for Critically Ill Patients Receiving Propofol.

Background: Elevated serum triglycerides due to the use of propofol for sedation in the ICU is associated with adverse effects and serum triglyceride monitoring may be improved by pharmacists. Objective: To determine if there was improvement in serum triglyceride monitoring in ICU patients receiving propofol for sedation after implementation of a pharmacist-driven triglyceride monitoring protocol. Methods: This was a single-center pre-post-intervention retrospective cohort study. The protocol was implemented on January 10 2019. Data were collected over 1 year, and patients were divided between those started on propofol before and after protocol implementation. Results: There were 412 patients included in the final analysis with no significant differences between groups. There was a significant increase in the number of patients who had a triglyceride concentration obtained after protocol implementation (31.1% pre-vs 64.0% post-protocol; P < .001). For patients on propofol greater than 24 h, there was a significant increase in baseline triglyceride concentration obtained (7.6% pre-vs 15.1% post-protocol; P = .043). More instances of elevated triglyceride concentrations were identified by pharmacists than other providers (9 vs 5; P < .001). Time between propofol being ordered and first triglyceride concentration ordered was shorter (.86 days pre-protocol vs .71 days post-protocol; P = .064), but not statistically significant. Conclusion: Implementation of a pharmacist-driven protocol in the ICU increased the number of serum triglyceride levels obtained for patients receiving propofol for sedation. Pharmacists can improve triglyceride monitoring in patients receiving propofol and future studies should investigate the impact on outcomes.

Variation in Use of High-Flow Nasal Cannula and Noninvasive Ventilation Among Patients With COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 are recommended by critical-care guidelines; however, apprehension about viral particle aerosolization and patient self-inflicted lung injury may have limited use. We aimed to describe hospital variation in the use and clinical outcomes of HFNC and NIV for the management of COVID-19. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 who received supplemental oxygen between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021, across 102 international and United States hospitals by using the COVID-19 Registry. Associations of HFNC and NIV use with clinical outcomes were evaluated by using multivariable adjusted hierarchical random-effects logistic regression models. Hospital variation was characterized by using intraclass correlation and the median odds ratio. RESULTS: Among 13,454 adults with COVID-19 who received supplemental oxygen, 8,143 (60%) received nasal cannula/face mask only, 2,859 (21%) received HFNC, 878 (7%) received NIV, 1,574 (12%) received both HFNC and NIV, with 3,640 subjects (27%) progressing to invasive ventilation. The hospital of admission contributed to 24% of the risk-adjusted variation in HFNC and 30% of the risk-adjusted variation in NIV. The median odds ratio for hospital variation of HFNC was 2.6 (95% CI 1.4-4.9) and of NIV was 3.1 (95% CI 1.2-8.1). Among 5,311 subjects who received HFNC and/or NIV, 2,772 (52%) did not receive invasive ventilation and survived to hospital discharge. Hospital-level use of HFNC or NIV were not associated with the rates of invasive ventilation or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital variation in the use of HFNC and NIV for acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 was great but was not associated with intubation or mortality. The wide variation and relatively low use of HFNC/NIV observed within our study signaled that implementation of increased HFNC/NIV use in patients with COVID-19 will require changes to current care delivery practices. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT04323787.).

Hospital Variation in Management and Outcomes of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Due to COVID-19.

OBJECTIVES: To describe hospital variation in use of "guideline-based care" for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study. SETTING: The Society of Critical Care Medicine's Discovery Viral Infection and RESPIRATORY ILLNESS UNIVERSAL STUDY COVID-19 REGISTRY. PATIENTS: Adult patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: Hospital-level use of "guideline-based care" for ARDS including low-tidal-volume ventilation, plateau pressure less than 30 cm H2O, and prone ventilation for a Pao2/Fio2 ratio less than 100. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 1,495 adults with COVID-19 ARDS receiving care across 42 hospitals, 50.4% ever received care consistent with ARDS clinical practice guidelines. After adjusting for patient demographics and severity of illness, hospital characteristics, and pandemic timing, hospital of admission contributed to 14% of the risk-adjusted variation in "guideline-based care." A patient treated at a randomly selected hospital with higher use of guideline-based care had a median odds ratio of 2.0 (95% CI, 1.1-3.4) for receipt of "guideline-based care" compared with a patient receiving treatment at a randomly selected hospital with low use of recommended therapies. Median-adjusted inhospital mortality was 53% (interquartile range, 47-62%), with a nonsignificantly decreased risk of mortality for patients admitted to hospitals in the highest use "guideline-based care" quartile (49%) compared with the lowest use quartile (60%) (odds ratio, 0.7; 95% CI, 0.3-1.9; p = 0.49). CONCLUSIONS: During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, only half of patients received "guideline-based care" for ARDS management, with wide practice variation across hospitals. Strategies that improve adherence to recommended ARDS management strategies are needed.

Disease and medication burden of medically complex adolescents seen in an interdisciplinary transitional care clinic.

PURPOSE: Transitional care for adolescents with complex diseases, who are entering adulthood, is challenging. The purpose of this study is to quantify the disease and medication burden of this population, who are transitioning though an interdisciplinary specialty clinic. METHODS: This study is a retrospective observational study of all patients seen in a transitional care clinic between July 2012 and March 2015. The main outcomes assessed included disease state and medication burden. Descriptive statistics, along with the paired t-test and McNemar's test, were used. RESULTS: The study cohort included 216 patients. The median patient age was 20.7 years, and the median number of clinic encounters was 6. Patients had at least 1 of 8 primary diagnoses. On average, patients took medications from 5 classes and used 3 dose forms. Among 163 patients who had medication reconciliation performed, the average number of medication classes increased by 0.44±1.53 (p = 0.0003). There was an average increase of 3.70%(SD±36.31%; p = 0.27) in the number of required medication lab assessments ordered for patients who had medication reconciliation performed. CONCLUSION: There is a high disease and medication burden among adolescent patients with complex disease states who are to transition to adult care.

Variation in Use of Repurposed Medications Among Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019. From The Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study: Coronavirus Disease 2019 Registry Investigator Group.

IMPORTANCE: At the start of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, medications repurposed for management of coronavirus disease 2019 were used in the absence of clinical trial evidence. OBJECTIVES: To describe the variation and evolution in use of repurposed medications for coronavirus disease 2019. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Observational cohort study of adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021, across 76 United States and international hospitals within the Society of Critical Care Medicine's Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study coronavirus disease 2019 registry. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Hospital variation was quantified using multivariable adjusted random effects logistic regression models and unsupervised clustering. Repurposed medications included antivirals, corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine, immunomodulators, and therapeutic dose anticoagulants. RESULTS: Among 7,069 adults hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019, 1,979 (28%) received antivirals, 2,876 (41%) received corticosteroids, 1,779 (25%) received hydroxychloroquine, 620 (9%) received immunomodulators, and 2,154 (31%) received therapeutic dose anticoagulants. Contribution of hospital site to risk-adjusted variation was 46% for antivirals, 30% for corticosteroids, 48% for hydroxychloroquine, 46% for immunomodulators, and 52% for therapeutic dose anticoagulants. Compared with the early pandemic, the later pandemic practice phenotypes converged with increased use of antivirals (odds ratio, 3.14; 95% CI, 2.40-4.10) and corticosteroids (odds ratio, 5.43; 95% CI, 4.23-6.97), with decreased use of hydroxychloroquine (odds ratio, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.01-0.04) and immunomodulators (odds ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.34-0.70). There was no clinically significant change in the use of therapeutic dose anticoagulants (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02). There were no differences in risk-adjusted mortality between hospitals with high rates of repurposed medication use compared with hospitals with low rates of use. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Hospital variation in the use of repurposed medications varied widely across hospitals early in the pandemic and later converged with the emergence of randomized clinical trials. Platforms developed for rapid activation and enrollment in clinical trials of repurposed medications are needed prior to the next pandemic to expedite effective, evidence-based practice.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-Associated Coronavirus 2 Infection and Organ Dysfunction in the ICU: Opportunities for Translational Research.

OBJECTIVES: Since the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, hundreds of thousands of patients have been treated in ICUs across the globe. The severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus 2 virus enters cells via the angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptor and activates several distinct inflammatory pathways, resulting in hematologic abnormalities and dysfunction in respiratory, cardiac, gastrointestinal renal, endocrine, dermatologic, and neurologic systems. This review summarizes the current state of research in coronavirus disease 2019 pathophysiology within the context of potential organ-based disease mechanisms and opportunities for translational research. DATA SOURCES: Investigators from the Research Section of the Society of Critical Care Medicine were selected based on expertise in specific organ systems and research focus. Data were obtained from searches conducted in Medline via the PubMed portal, Directory of Open Access Journals, Excerpta Medica database, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and Web of Science from an initial search from December 2019 to October 15, 2020, with a revised search to February 3, 2021. The medRxiv, Research Square, and clinical trial registries preprint servers also were searched to limit publication bias. STUDY SELECTION: Content experts selected studies that included mechanism-based relevance to the severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus 2 virus or coronavirus disease 2019 disease. DATA EXTRACTION: Not applicable. DATA SYNTHESIS: Not applicable. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to improve the care of critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 patients should be centered on understanding how severe acute respiratory syndrome-associated coronavirus 2 infection affects organ function. This review articulates specific targets for further research.

Outcomes of Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019 Receiving Organ Support Therapies: The International Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study Registry.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the outcomes of hospitalized patients in a multicenter, international coronavirus disease 2019 registry. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study including coronavirus disease 2019 patients hospitalized with laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection between February 15, 2020, and November 30, 2020, according to age and type of organ support therapies. SETTING: About 168 hospitals in 16 countries within the Society of Critical Care Medicine's Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness University Study coronavirus disease 2019 registry. PATIENTS: Adult hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 patients who did and did not require various types and combinations of organ support (mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, vasopressors, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes were discharge home with or without assistance and hospital length of stay. Risk-adjusted variation in hospital mortality for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation was assessed by using multilevel models with hospitals as a random effect, adjusted for age, race/ethnicity, sex, and comorbidities. Among 20,608 patients with coronavirus disease 2019, the mean (± sd) age was 60.5 (±17), 11,1887 (54.3%) were men, 8,745 (42.4%) were admitted to the ICU, and 3,906 (19%) died in the hospital. Hospital mortality was 8.2% for patients receiving no organ support (n = 15,001). The most common organ support therapy was invasive mechanical ventilation (n = 5,005; 24.3%), with a hospital mortality of 49.8%. Mortality ranged from 40.8% among patients receiving only invasive mechanical ventilation (n =1,749) to 71.6% for patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive drugs, and new renal replacement therapy (n = 655). Mortality was 39% for patients receiving extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (n = 389). Rates of discharge home ranged from 73.5% for patients who did not require organ support therapies to 29.8% for patients who only received invasive mechanical ventilation, and 8.8% for invasive mechanical ventilation, vasoactive drugs, and renal replacement; 10.8% of patients older than 74 years who received invasive mechanical ventilation were discharged home. Median hospital length of stay for patients on mechanical ventilation was 17.1 days (9.7-28 d). Adjusted interhospital variation in mortality among patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation was large (median odds ratio 1.69). CONCLUSIONS: Coronavirus disease 2019 prognosis varies by age and level of organ support. Interhospital variation in mortality of mechanically ventilated patients was not explained by patient characteristics and requires further evaluation.

Guiding Principles for the Conduct of Observational Critical Care Research for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemics and Beyond: The Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study Registry.

OBJECTIVES: Use of observational data to inform the response and care of patients during a pandemic faces unique challenges. DESIGN: The Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study COVID 2019 Registry Core data and research methodology team convened over virtual meetings throughout March to June 2020 to determine best practice goals for development of a pandemic disease registry to support rapid data collection and analysis. SETTING: International, multi-center registry of hospitalized patients. PATIENTS: None. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Large-scale observational data collection requires: 1) quality assurance and harmonization across many sites; 2) a transparent process for selecting from among many potential research questions; 3) the use of best practices in design of descriptive, predictive, and inferential studies; (4) innovative approaches to characterize random error in the setting of constantly updated data; (5) rapid peer-review and reporting; and (6) transitions from a focus on discovery to implementation. Herein, we describe the guiding principles to best practices and suggestions for innovations to study design and reporting within the coronavirus disease 2019 Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study pandemic registry. CONCLUSIONS: Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study coronavirus disease 2019 registry sought to develop and implement prespecified best practices combined with grassroots efforts from clinical sites worldwide in order to develop clinically useful knowledge in response to a pandemic.

Position Paper on Critical Care Pharmacy Services (Executive Summary): 2020 Update.

OBJECTIVES: Provide a multiorganizational statement to update the statement from a paper in 2000 about critical care pharmacy practice and makes recommendations for future practice. DESIGN: The Society of Critical Care Medicine, American College of Clinical Pharmacy Critical Care Practice and Research Network, and the American Society of Health-Systems Pharmacists convened a joint task force of 15 pharmacists representing a broad cross-section of critical care pharmacy practice and pharmacy administration, inclusive of geography, critical care practice setting, and roles. The Task Force chairs reviewed and organized primary literature, outlined topic domains, and prepared the methodology for group review and consensus. A modified Delphi method was used until consensus (> 66% agreement) was reached for each practice recommendation. Previous position statement recommendations were reviewed and voted to either retain, revise, or retire. Recommendations were categorized by level of ICU service to be applicable by setting, and grouped into five domains: patient care, quality improvement, research and scholarship, training and education, and professional development. MAIN RESULTS: There are 82 recommendation statements: forty-four original recommendations and 38 new recommendation statements. Thirty-four recommendations were made for patient care, primarily relating to critical care pharmacist duties and pharmacy services. In the quality improvement domain, 21 recommendations address the role of the critical care pharmacist in patient and medication safety, clinical quality programs, and analytics. Nine recommendations were made in the domain of research and scholarship. Ten recommendations are in the domain of training and education and eight recommendations regarding professional development. CONCLUSIONS: The statements recommended by this taskforce delineate the activities of a critical care pharmacist and the scope of pharmacy services within the ICU. Effort should be made from all stakeholders to implement the recommendations provided, with continuous effort toward improving the delivery of care for critically ill patients.

Position Paper on Critical Care Pharmacy Services: 2020 Update.

OBJECTIVES: To provide a multiorganizational statement to update recommendations for critical care pharmacy practice and make recommendations for future practice. A position paper outlining critical care pharmacist activities was last published in 2000. Since that time, significant changes in healthcare and critical care have occurred. DESIGN: The Society of Critical Care Medicine, American College of Clinical Pharmacy Critical Care Practice and Research Network, and the American Society of Health-Systems Pharmacists convened a joint task force of 15 pharmacists representing a broad cross-section of critical care pharmacy practice and pharmacy administration, inclusive of geography, critical care practice setting, and roles. The Task Force chairs reviewed and organized primary literature, outlined topic domains, and prepared the methodology for group review and consensus. A modified Delphi method was used until consensus (> 66% agreement) was reached for each practice recommendation. Previous position statement recommendations were reviewed and voted to either retain, revise, or retire. Recommendations were categorized by level of ICU service to be applicable by setting and grouped into five domains: patient care, quality improvement, research and scholarship, training and education, and professional development. MAIN RESULTS: There are 82 recommendation statements: 44 original recommendations and 38 new recommendation statements. Thirty-four recommendations represent the domain of patient care, primarily relating to critical care pharmacist duties and pharmacy services. In the quality improvement domain, 21 recommendations address the role of the critical care pharmacist in patient and medication safety, clinical quality programs, and analytics. Nine recommendations were made in the domain of research and scholarship. Ten recommendations were made in the domain of training and education and eight recommendations regarding professional development. CONCLUSIONS: Critical care pharmacists are essential members of the multiprofessional critical care team. The statements recommended by this taskforce delineate the activities of a critical care pharmacist and the scope of pharmacy services within the ICU. Effort should be made from all stakeholders to implement the recommendations provided, with continuous effort toward improving the delivery of care for critically ill patients.

Position Paper on Critical Care Pharmacy Services (Executive Summary): 2020 Update.

OBJECTIVES: Provide a multiorganizational statement to update the statement from a paper in 2000 about critical care pharmacy practice and make recommendations for future practice. DESIGN: The Society of Critical Care Medicine, American College of Clinical Pharmacy Critical Care Practice and Research Network, and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists convened a joint task force of 15 pharmacists representing a broad cross-section of critical care pharmacy practice and pharmacy administration, inclusive of geography, critical care practice setting, and roles. The Task Force chairs reviewed and organized primary literature, outlined topic domains, and prepared the methodology for group review and consensus. A modified Delphi method was used until consensus (>66% agreement) was reached for each practice recommendation. Previous position statement recommendations were reviewed and voted to either retain, revise, or retire. Recommendations were categorized by level of ICU service to be applicable by setting, and grouped into five domains: patient care, quality improvement, research and scholarship, training and education, and professional development. MAIN RESULTS: There are 82 recommendation statements: forty-four original recommendations and 38 new recommendation statements. Thirty-four recommendations were made for patient care, primarily relating to critical care pharmacist duties and pharmacy services. In the quality improvement domain, 21 recommendations address the role of the critical care pharmacist in patient and medication safety, clinical quality programs, and analytics. Nine recommendations were made in the domain of research and scholarship. Ten recommendations are in the domain of training and education and eight recommendations regarding professional development. CONCLUSIONS: The statements recommended by this taskforce delineate the activities of a critical care pharmacist and the scope of pharmacy services within the ICU. Effort should be made from all stakeholders to implement the recommendations provided, with continuous effort toward improving the delivery of care for critically ill patients.

The Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study (VIRUS): An International Registry of Coronavirus 2019-Related Critical Illness.

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has disproportionally strained intensive care services worldwide. Large areas of uncertainly regarding epidemiology, physiology, practice patterns, and resource demands for patients with coronavirus disease 2019 require rapid collection and dissemination of data. We describe the conception and implementation of an intensive care database rapidly developed and designed to meet data analytic needs in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic-the multicenter, international Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Network Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study and disease registry. SETTING: Multinational cohort of ICUs. PATIENTS: Critically ill patients with a diagnosis of coronavirus disease 2019. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Within 2 weeks of conception of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Network Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study, study leadership was convened, registry case report forms were designed, electronic data entry set up, and more than 250 centers had submitted the protocol for institutional review board approval, with more than 100 cases entered. CONCLUSIONS: The Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Network Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study provides an example of a rapidly deployed, international, pandemic registry that seeks to provide near real-time analytics and information regarding intensive care treatments and outcomes for patients with coronavirus disease 2019.

Perceived Motivating Factors and Barriers for the Completion of Postgraduate Training Among American Pharmacy Students Prior to Beginning Advanced Pharmacy Practice Experiences.

Objective. To examine perceived motivating factors and barriers (MFB) to postgraduate training (PGT) pursuit among pharmacy students. Methods. Third-year pharmacy students at 13 schools of pharmacy provided demographics and their plan and perceived MFBs for pursuing PGT. Responses were characterized using descriptive statistics. Kruskal-Wallis equality-of-proportions rank tests determined if differences in perceived MFBs existed between students based on plan to pursue PGT. Results. Among 1218 (69.5%) respondents, 37.1% planned to pursue PGT (32.9% did not, 30% were undecided). Students introduced to PGT prior to beginning pharmacy school more frequently planned to pursue PGT. More students who planned to pursue PGT had hospital work experience. The primary PGT rationale was, "I desire to gain more knowledge and experience." Student debt was the most commonly cited barrier. Conclusion. Introducing pharmacy students early to PGT options and establishing work experiences in the hospital setting may increase students' desire to pursue PGT.

Drug Class Combination-Associated Acute Kidney Injury.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the quality of available evidence of drug class combinations and their association with the development of acute kidney injury (AKI). DATA SOURCES: A search of MEDLINE and Embase databases was completed using the following terms: "risk factor AND (acute kidney injury or acute kidney failure) AND (drug or medication)." STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Inclusion criteria were the following: English language, full-text availability, and at least 1 drug-combination. Each citation was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. The literature was evaluated using the quality of evidence component of GRADE. No standardized definition of AKI was applied throughout.. DATA SYNTHESIS: Out of 2139 total citations, 151 were assessed for full-text review, with 121 citations (6%) meeting inclusion criteria, producing76 unique drug class combinations. Overall, 56 combinations (73.7%) were considered very low quality; 12 (15.8%) were considered low quality. There were 8 (10.5%) of moderate quality, and no combination was considered high quality. 58 (76%) combinations that had a single citation,with a mean of 1.6 citations per drug class combination. The combination of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and diuretics was reported in 10 citations, the largest number of citations. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates a lack of well-designed studies addressing drug class combination-associated AKI. The combination of NSAIDs and diuretics with or without additional renin-angiotensin aldosterone agents had the strongest level of evidence. Despite limitations, the information included in this review may result in additional scrutiny about combining certain individual nephrotoxic drugs.

Effect of Statins on the Incidence of Postoperative Atrial Fibrillation after Cardiac Valve Surgery.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of preoperative statin use on the incidence of postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) in patients undergoing isolated cardiac valve surgery. DESIGN: Single-center retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Mixed medical-surgical intensive care unit in a community hospital. PATIENTS: A total of 244 adults who underwent isolated cardiac valve surgery between April 2007 and July 2012; of these patients, 102 received preoperative statins (defined as receiving at least one dose of a statin within 24 hours prior to surgery), and 142 did not receive preoperative statins (control group). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was the occurrence of POAF. Logistic regression was used to determine the association between preoperative statin use and occurrence of POAF. A propensity score-matched (PSM) analysis was also performed. Patients in the statin group were older, had a higher body mass index, frequency of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral artery disease, myocardial infarction, and preoperative ß-blocker use. POAF occurred in 35 patients (34.3%) in the statin group and 39 patients (27.5%) in the control group. Univariate analysis demonstrated no association between statin use and the occurrence of POAF (odds ratio [OR] 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.796-2.39). Multivariable analysis also showed no association between POAF and preoperative statin use (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.566-2.09). Repeating the analysis in 128 PSM patients demonstrated no association (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.507-2.29). CONCLUSION: Preoperative statin use was not associated with a decreased incidence of POAF in patients undergoing isolated cardiac valve surgery. Additional studies are needed to further elucidate the pharmacodynamics of statins in patients undergoing cardiac surgery because statins have demonstrated a decrease in the risk of POAF in other cardiac surgery populations.

Interprofessional education among student health professionals using human patient simulation.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the planning, implementation, and outcomes of an interprofessional education clinical laboratory facilitated through human patient simulation. DESIGN: An interprofessional education clinical laboratory was developed with a patient-care scenario of acute exacerbation of heart failure that incorporated the use of a high-fidelity patient simulator. Pharmacy and nursing students assumed clinical roles in this realistic scenario and collaborated to diagnose and treat the patient. ASSESSMENT: Student attitudes toward and readiness to participate in interprofessional education improved following participation in the laboratory. Students reported that the greatest benefit of the experience was in their communication skills. CONCLUSION: Students' ability to participate in interprofessional education experiences and their attitudes toward them improved following participation in this curricular initiative. Further evaluation of the impact of interprofessional education on student learning outcomes and changes in practice is warranted.