Hospital Academic Status and the Volume-Outcome Association in Postoperative Patients Requiring Intensive Care: Results of a Nationwide Analysis of Intensive Care Units in the United States.

Objective: To determine whether the outcomes of postoperative patients admitted directly to an intensive care unit (ICU) differ based on the academic status of the institution and the total operative volume of the unit. Methods: This was a retrospective analysis using the eICU Collaborative Research Database v2.0, a national database from participating ICUs in the United States. All patients admitted directly to the ICU from the operating room were included. Transfer patients and patients readmitted to the ICU were excluded. Patients were stratified based on admission to an ICU in an academic medical center (AMC) versus non-AMC, and to ICUs with different operative volume experience, after stratification in quartiles (high, medium-high, medium-low, and low volume). Primary outcomes were ICU and hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included the need for continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) during ICU stay, ICU length of stay (LOS), and 30-day ventilator free days. Results: Our analysis included 22,180 unique patients; the majority of which (15,085[68%]) were admitted to ICUs in non-AMCs. Cardiac and vascular procedures were the most common types of procedures performed. Patients admitted to AMCs were more likely to be younger and less likely to be Hispanic or Asian. Multivariable logistic regression indicated no meaningful association between academic status and ICU mortality, hospital mortality, initiation of CRRT, duration of ICU LOS, or 30-day ventilator-free-days. Contrarily, medium-high operative volume units had higher ICU mortality (OR = 1.45, 95%CI = 1.10-1.91, p-value = 0.040), higher hospital mortality (OR = 1.33, 95%CI = 1.07-1.66, p-value = 0.033), longer ICU LOS (Coefficient = 0.23, 95%CI = 0.07-0.39, p-value = 0.038), and fewer 30-day ventilator-free-days (Coefficient = -0.30, 95%CI = -0.48 - -0.13, p-value = 0.015) compared to their high operative volume counterparts. Conclusions: This study found that a volume-outcome association in the management of postoperative patients requiring ICU level of care immediately after a surgical procedure may exist. The academic status of the institution did not affect the outcomes of these patients.

Intensive Care Unit Volume of Sepsis Patients Does Not Affect Mortality: Results of a Nationwide Retrospective Analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is little research evaluating outcomes from sepsis in intensive care units (ICUs) with lower sepsis patient volumes as compared to ICUs with higher sepsis patient volumes. Our objective was to compare the outcomes of septic patients admitted to ICUs with different sepsis patient volumes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We included all patients from the eICU-CRD database admitted for the management of sepsis with blood lactate ≥ 2mmol/L within 24 hours of admission. Our primary outcome was ICU mortality. Secondary outcomes included hospital mortality, 30-day ventilator free days, and initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT). ICUs were grouped in quartiles based on the number of septic patients treated at each unit. RESULTS: 10,716 patients were included in our analysis; 272 (2.5%) in low sepsis volume ICUs, 1,078 (10.1%) in medium-low sepsis volume ICUs, 2,608 (24.3%) in medium-high sepsis volume ICUs, and 6,758 (63.1%) in high sepsis volume ICUs. On multivariable analyses, no significant differences were documented regarding ICU and hospital mortality, and ventilator days in patients treated in lower versus higher sepsis volume ICUs. Patients treated at lower sepsis volume ICUs had lower rates of RRT initiation as compared to high volume units (medium-high vs. high: OR = 0.78, 95%CI = 0.66-0.91, P-value = 0.002 and medium-low vs. high: OR = 0.57, 95%CI = 0.44-0.73, P-value < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The previously described volume-outcome association in septic patients was not identified in an intensive care setting.

Dexmedetomidine for Acute Management of Intrathecal Baclofen Withdrawal.

BACKGROUND: Intrathecal baclofen (ITB) is a mainstay of treatment for patients with chronic spasticity. Up to 40% of all patients receiving ITB experience overdose or withdrawal symptoms, which in the most severe cases can lead to multisystem organ failure and death. There is currently no well-established treatment for ITB withdrawal. One previous case report details an intubated pediatric patient who underwent baclofen pump removal in which dexmedetomidine was used in combination with other medications to prevent baclofen withdrawal. CASE REPORT: We report a case of baclofen withdrawal where the decision was made to initiate a dexmedetomidine infusion, with subsequent improvement of the patient's hypertension and tachycardia. At no point during her stay did the patient require intubation for airway protection, and the patient was ultimately discharged to her previous nursing facility on hospital day 9 with no new neurologic deficits. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: Emergency physicians should be aware of dexmedetomidine as a promising option for the treatment of ITB withdrawal in the acute setting. Although little evidence is currently present, dexmedetomidine was used successfully in this case, and should be considered as a temporizing treatment for ITB withdrawal. Dexmedetomidine holds promise in the management of ITB withdrawal compared to other previously described treatments, including oral baclofen, cyproheptadine, and dantrolene. In addition, dexmedetomidine has a superior safety profile compared to propofol or large doses of benzodiazepines. Further research will be useful in supporting the use of dexmedetomidine for this purpose.