Air or Ground Transport to the Critical Care Resuscitation Unit: Does It Really Matter?

OBJECTIVE: Critically ill patients requiring urgent interventions or subspecialty care often require transport over significant distances to tertiary care centers. The optimal method of transportation (air vs. ground) is unknown. We investigated whether air transport was associated with lower mortality for patients being transferred to a specialized critical care resuscitation unit (CCRU). METHODS: This was a retrospective study of all adult patients transferred to the CCRU at the University of Maryland Medical Center in 2018. Our primary outcome was hospital mortality. The secondary outcomes included the length of stay and the time to the operating room (OR) for patients undergoing urgent procedures. We performed optimal 1:2 propensity score matching for each patient's need for air transport. RESULTS: We matched 198 patients transported by air to 382 patients transported by ground. There was no significant difference between demographics, the initial Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, or hospital outcomes between groups. One hundred sixty-four (83%) of the patients transported via air survived to hospital discharge compared with 307 (80%) of those transported by ground (P = .46). Patients transported via air arrived at the CCRU more quickly (127 [100-178] vs. 223 [144-332] minutes, P < .001) and were more likely (60 patients, 30%) to undergo urgent surgical operation within 12 hours of CCRU arrival (30% vs. 17%, P < .001). For patients taken to the OR within 12 hours of arriving at the CCRU, patients transported by air were more likely to go to the OR after 200 minutes since the transfer request (P = .001). CONCLUSION: The transportation mode used to facilitate interfacility transfer was not significantly associated with hospital mortality or the length of stay for critically ill patients.

Examining Predictors of Early Admission and Transfer to the Critical Care Resuscitation Unit.

INTRODUCTION: Previous studies have demonstrated that rapid transfer to definitive care improves the outcomes for many time-sensitive conditions. The critical care resuscitation unit (CCRU) improves the operations of the University of Maryland Medical Center (UMMC) by expediting the transfers and resuscitations for critically ill patients who exceed the resources at other facilities. In this study we investigated CCRU transfer patterns to determine patient characteristics and logistical factors that influence bed assignments and transfer to the CCRU. We hypothesized that CCRU physicians prioritize transfer for critically ill patients. Therefore, those patients would be transferred faster. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of all non-traumatic adult patients transferred to the CCRU from other hospitals between January 1-December 31, 2018. The primary outcome was the interval from transfer request to CCRU bed assignment. The secondary outcome was the interval from transfer request to CCRU arrival. We used multivariate logistic regressions to determine associations with the outcomes of interest. RESULTS: A total of 1,741 patients were admitted to the CCRU during the 2018 calendar year. Of those patients, 1,422 were transferred from other facilities and were included in the final analysis. Patients' mean age was 57 ± 17 years with a median Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score of 3 [interquartile range 1-6]. Median time from transfer request to CCRU bed assignment was 8 (0-70) minutes. A total of 776 (55%) patients underwent surgical intervention after arrival. Using the median transfer request to bed assignment time, we found that patients requiring stroke neurology (odds ratio [OR] 5.49, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.85-10.86), having higher SOFA score (OR 1.04, 95% CI 1.001-1.07), and needing an immediate operation (OR 2.85, 95% CI 1.98-4.13) were associated with immediate bed assignment time (≤8 minutes). Patients who were operated on (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.55-0.99) were significantly less likely to have an immediate bed assignment time. CONCLUSION: The CCRU expedited the transfer of critically ill patients who needed urgent interventions from outside facilities. Higher SOFA scores and the need for urgent neurological or surgical intervention were associated with near-immediate CCRU bed assignment. Other institutions with similar models to the CCRU should perform studies to confirm our observations.

Most patients with non-hypertensive diseases at a critical care resuscitation unit require arterial pressure monitoring: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Blood pressure (BP) monitoring is essential for patient care. Invasive arterial BP (IABP) is more accurate than non-invasive BP (NIBP), although the clinical significance of this difference is unknown. We hypothesized that IABP would result in a change of management (COM) among patients with non-hypertensive diseases in the acute phase of resuscitation. METHODS: This prospective study included adults admitted to the Critical Care Resuscitation Unit (CCRU) with non-hypertensive disease from February 1, 2019, to May 31, 2021. Management plans to maintain a mean arterial pressure >65 mmHg (1 mmHg=0.133 kPa) were recorded in real time for both NIBP and IABP measurements. A COM was defined as a discrepancy between IABP and NIBP that resulted in an increase/decrease or addition/discontinuation of a medication/infusion. Classification and regression tree analysis identified significant variables associated with a COM and assigned relative variable importance (RVI) values. RESULTS: Among the 206 patients analyzed, a COM occurred in 94 (45.6% [94/206]) patients. The most common COM was an increase in current infusion dosages (40 patients, 19.4%). Patients receiving norepinephrine at arterial cannulation were more likely to have a COM compared with those without (45 [47.9%] vs. 32 [28.6%], P=0.004). Receiving norepinephrine (relative variable importance [RVI] 100%) was the most significant factor associated with a COM. No complications were identified with IABP use. CONCLUSION: A COM occurred in 94 (45.6%) non-hypertensive patients in the CCRU. Receiving vasopressors was the greatest factor associated with COM. Clinicians should consider IABP monitoring more often in non-hypertensive patients requiring norepinephrine in the acute resuscitation phase. Further studies are necessary to confirm the risk-to-benefit ratios of IABP among these high-risk patients.

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.

Emergent Endoscopy for Esophageal Foreign Body Removal: The Impact of Location.

Background Timely intervention is essential for the successful removal of ingested foreign bodies. Emergent endoscopy (EGD) is usually performed in the emergency department (ED), operating room (OR), intensive care unit (ICU), or endoscopy suite. However, because the endoscopy suite is not always available, this study investigated the impact of location outside of the endoscopy suite on the successful removal of ingested foreign bodies and other patient outcomes. Methodology We reviewed charts of patients who underwent EGD for foreign body removal at an academic quaternary center between January 01, 2012, and December 31, 2020. We defined successful EGD as retrieval of the foreign body at the first attempt and not requiring subsequent endoscopy or surgical intervention. We performed descriptive and inferential statistical analyses and conducted classification and regression trees to compare endoscopy procedure length (EPL) and hospital length of stay (HLOS) between different locations. Results We analyzed 77 patients, of whom 13 (17%) underwent endoscopy in the ICU, 46 (60%) in the OR, and 18 (23%) in the ED. Endoscopic removal failed in four (5%) patients. Endoscopy length was significantly shorter in the OR (67 (48-122) minutes) versus the ICU (158 (95-166) minutes, P = 0.004) and the ED (111 (92-155) minutes, P = 0.009). Time to procedure was similar if the procedure was performed in the ED (278 minutes), the ICU (331 minutes), or the OR (378 minutes). The median (interquartile range) of HLOS for the OR group (0.87 (0.54-2.03) days) was significantly shorter than the ICU group (2.26 (1.47-6.91) days, P = 0.007). Conclusions While performing endoscopy for esophageal foreign body removal in the OR may be associated with a shorter EPL and HLOS, no location was inferior for overall outcomes. Further prospective and randomized studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Severe Bandemia Is Not Associated With Increased Risk for Adverse Events in General Pediatric Emergency Department Patients.

INTRODUCTION:  The presence of band cells > 10% of the total white blood cell (WBC) count ("bandemia") is often used as an indicator of serious bacterial illness (SBI). Results from studies of bandemia as a predictor of SBI were conflicting and little is known about the relationship between severe bandemia (SB) and clinical outcomes from SBI in children. We hypothesized that SB (band level > 20%) is not associated with adverse outcomes in an emergency department (ED) pediatric population. METHODS: Medical records from children between the ages of two months and 18 years with SB who presented to a tertiary referral regional hospital were studied. Outcomes were categorized as severe adverse events (SAEs) or moderate adverse events (MAEs). Multivariate logistic regressions were used to assess the association between SB and outcomes. RESULTS:  We analyzed 102 patients. Mean age (standard deviation, SD) was 5.25 (0.5) years, 18 (18%) had MAE, 21 (21%) had SAE, and no patients died. Mean band levels were similar between groups: no adverse events 28 (10) vs. SAE 31 (9) vs. MAE 27 (8), p=0.64. Multivariate logistic regressions showed SB was not associated with any adverse events (odds ratio (OR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9-1.1, p=0.27). Non-normal X-ray (XR) (OR 17, 95% CI 3.3-90, p<0.001) was associated with MAE, while non-normal computerized tomography (CT) scan (OR 15.4, 95% CI 2.2-100+, p=0.002) was associated with SAE. CONCLUSION:  SB was not associated with higher odds of adverse events among the general ED pediatric population. Clinicians should base their clinical judgment on the overall context of history, physical examinations, and other laboratory and imaging data.