External Validation of Mortality Prediction Models for Critical Illness Reveals Preserved Discrimination but Poor Calibration.

OBJECTIVES: In a recent scoping review, we identified 43 mortality prediction models for critically ill patients. We aimed to assess the performances of these models through external validation. DESIGN: Multicenter study. SETTING: External validation of models was performed in the Simple Intensive Care Studies-I (SICS-I) and the Finnish Acute Kidney Injury (FINNAKI) study. PATIENTS: The SICS-I study consisted of 1,075 patients, and the FINNAKI study consisted of 2,901 critically ill patients. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: For each model, we assessed: 1) the original publications for the data needed for model reconstruction, 2) availability of the variables, 3) model performance in two independent cohorts, and 4) the effects of recalibration on model performance. The models were recalibrated using data of the SICS-I and subsequently validated using data of the FINNAKI study. We evaluated overall model performance using various indexes, including the (scaled) Brier score, discrimination (area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristics), calibration (intercepts and slopes), and decision curves. Eleven models (26%) could be externally validated. The Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II, APACHE IV, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS)-Reduced (SAPS-R)' and Simplified Mortality Score for the ICU models showed the best scaled Brier scores of 0.11' 0.10' 0.10' and 0.06' respectively. SAPS II, APACHE II, and APACHE IV discriminated best; overall discrimination of models ranged from area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristics of 0.63 (0.61-0.66) to 0.83 (0.81-0.85). We observed poor calibration in most models, which improved to at least moderate after recalibration of intercepts and slopes. The decision curve showed a positive net benefit in the 0-60% threshold probability range for APACHE IV and SAPS-R. CONCLUSIONS: In only 11 out of 43 available mortality prediction models, the performance could be studied using two cohorts of critically ill patients. External validation showed that the discriminative ability of APACHE II, APACHE IV, and SAPS II was acceptable to excellent, whereas calibration was poor.

Anticoagulants for thrombosis prophylaxis in acutely ill patients admitted to hospital: systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the benefits and harms of different types and doses of anticoagulant drugs for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients who are acutely ill and admitted to hospital. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, clinical trial registries, and national health authority databases. The search was last updated on 16 November 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials that evaluated low or intermediate dose low-molecular-weight heparin, low or intermediate dose unfractionated heparin, direct oral anticoagulants, pentasaccharides, placebo, or no intervention for the prevention of venous thromboembolism in acutely ill adult patients in hospital. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Random effects, bayesian network meta-analyses used four co-primary outcomes: all cause mortality, symptomatic venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and serious adverse events at or closest timing to 90 days. Risk of bias was also assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2.0 tool. The quality of evidence was graded using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework. RESULTS: 44 randomised controlled trials that randomly assigned 90 095 participants were included in the main analysis. Evidence of low to moderate quality suggested none of the interventions reduced all cause mortality compared with placebo. Pentasaccharides (odds ratio 0.32, 95% credible interval 0.08 to 1.07), intermediate dose low-molecular-weight heparin (0.66, 0.46 to 0.93), direct oral anticoagulants (0.68, 0.33 to 1.34), and intermediate dose unfractionated heparin (0.71, 0.43 to 1.19) were most likely to reduce symptomatic venous thromboembolism (very low to low quality evidence). Intermediate dose unfractionated heparin (2.63, 1.00 to 6.21) and direct oral anticoagulants (2.31, 0.82 to 6.47) were most likely to increase major bleeding (low to moderate quality evidence). No conclusive differences were noted between interventions regarding serious adverse events (very low to low quality evidence). When compared with no intervention instead of placebo, all active interventions did more favourably with regard to risk of venous thromboembolism and mortality, and less favourably with regard to risk of major bleeding. The results were robust in prespecified sensitivity and subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Low-molecular-weight heparin in an intermediate dose appears to confer the best balance of benefits and harms for prevention of venous thromboembolism. Unfractionated heparin, in particular the intermediate dose, and direct oral anticoagulants had the least favourable profile. A systematic discrepancy was noted in intervention effects that depended on whether placebo or no intervention was the reference treatment. Main limitations of this study include the quality of the evidence, which was generally low to moderate due to imprecision and within-study bias, and statistical inconsistency, which was addressed post hoc. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42020173088.

Identifying and characterizing high-risk clusters in a heterogeneous ICU population with deep embedded clustering.

Critically ill patients constitute a highly heterogeneous population, with seemingly distinct patients having similar outcomes, and patients with the same admission diagnosis having opposite clinical trajectories. We aimed to develop a machine learning methodology that identifies and provides better characterization of patient clusters at high risk of mortality and kidney injury. We analysed prospectively collected data including co-morbidities, clinical examination, and laboratory parameters from a minimally-selected population of 743 patients admitted to the ICU of a Dutch hospital between 2015 and 2017. We compared four clustering methodologies and trained a classifier to predict and validate cluster membership. The contribution of different variables to the predicted cluster membership was assessed using SHapley Additive exPlanations values. We found that deep embedded clustering yielded better results compared to the traditional clustering algorithms. The best cluster configuration was achieved for 6 clusters. All clusters were clinically recognizable, and differed in in-ICU, 30-day, and 90-day mortality, as well as incidence of acute kidney injury. We identified two high mortality risk clusters with at least 60%, 40%, and 30% increased. ICU, 30-day and 90-day mortality, and a low risk cluster with 25-56% lower mortality risk. This machine learning methodology combining deep embedded clustering and variable importance analysis, which we made publicly available, is a possible solution to challenges previously encountered by clustering analyses in heterogeneous patient populations and may help improve the characterization of risk groups in critical care.

A new tool to assess Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM) of interventions.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and validate Clinical Diversity In Meta-analyses (CDIM), a new tool for assessing clinical diversity between trials in meta-analyses of interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The development of CDIM was based on consensus work informed by empirical literature and expertise. We drafted the CDIM tool, refined it, and validated CDIM for interrater scale reliability and agreement in three groups. RESULTS: CDIM measures clinical diversity on a scale that includes four domains with 11 items overall: setting (time of conduct/country development status/units type); population (age, sex, patient inclusion criteria/baseline disease severity, comorbidities); interventions (intervention intensity/strength/duration of intervention, timing, control intervention, cointerventions); and outcome (definition of outcome, timing of outcome assessment). The CDIM is completed in two steps: first two authors independently assess clinical diversity in the four domains. Second, after agreeing upon scores of individual items a consensus score is achieved. Interrater scale reliability and agreement ranged from moderate to almost perfect depending on the type of raters. CONCLUSION: CDIM is the first tool developed for assessing clinical diversity in meta-analyses of interventions. We found CDIM to be a reliable tool for assessing clinical diversity among trials in meta-analysis.

Incidence, prognostic factors, and outcomes of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients: data from two prospective cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to describe the prevalence, incidence, prognostic factors, and outcomes of venous thromboembolism in critically ill patients receiving contemporary thrombosis prophylaxis. METHODS: We conducted a pooled analysis of two prospective cohort studies. The outcomes of interest were in-hospital pulmonary embolism or lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (PE-LDVT), in-hospital nonleg deep vein thrombosis (NLDVT), and 90-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between predefined baseline prognostic factors and PE-LDVT or NLDVT. Cox regression analysis was used to evaluate the association between PE-LDVT or NLDVT and 90-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 2208 patients were included. The prevalence of any venous thromboembolism during 3 months before ICU admission was 3.6% (95% CI 2.8-4.4%). Out of 2166 patients, 47 (2.2%; 95% CI 1.6-2.9%) developed PE-LDVT and 38 patients (1.8%; 95% CI 1.2-2.4%) developed NLDVT. Renal replacement therapy (OR 3.5 95% CI 1.4-8.6), respiratory failure (OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.1-3.8), and previous VTE (OR 3.6; 95% CI 1.7-7.7) were associated with PE-LDVT. Central venous catheters (OR 5.4; 95% CI 1.7-17.8) and infection (OR 2.2; 95% CI 1.1-4.3) were associated with NLDVT. Occurrence of PE-LDVT but not NLDVT was associated with increased 90-day mortality (HR 2.7; 95% CI 1.6-4.6, respectively, 0.92; 95% CI 0.41-2.1). CONCLUSION: Thrombotic events are common in critically ill patients, both before and after ICU admittance. Development of PE-LDVT but not NLDVT was associated with increased mortality. Prognostic factors for developing PE-LDVT or NLDVT despite prophylaxis can be identified at ICU admission and may be used to select patients at higher risk in future randomized clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03773939.

Different applications of the KDIGO criteria for AKI lead to different incidences in critically ill patients: a post hoc analysis from the prospective observational SICS-II study.

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a frequent and clinically relevant problem in critically ill patients. Various randomized controlled trials (RCT) have attempted to assess potentially beneficial treatments for AKI. Different approaches to applying the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria for AKI make a comparison of studies difficult. The objective of this study was to assess how different approaches may impact estimates of AKI incidence and whether the association between AKI and 90-day mortality varied by the approach used. METHODS: Consecutive acutely admitted adult intensive care patients were included in a prospective observational study. AKI was determined following the KDIGO criteria during the first 7 days of ICU admission. In this post hoc analysis, we assessed whether AKI incidence differed when applying the KDIGO criteria in 30 different possible methods, varying in (A) serum creatinine (sCr), (B) urine output (UO), and (C) the method of combining these two into an outcome, e.g., severe AKI. We assessed point estimates and 95% confidence intervals for each incidence. Univariable regression was used to assess the associations between AKI and 90-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 1010 patients were included. Baseline creatinine was available in 449 (44%) patients. The incidence of any AKI ranged from 28% (95%CI 25-31%) to 75% (95%CI 72-77%) depending on the approach used. Methods to estimate missing baseline sCr caused a variation in AKI incidence up to 15%. Different methods of handling UO caused a variation of up to 35%. At 90 days, 263 patients (26%) had died, and all 30 variations were associated with 90-day mortality. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of critically ill patients, AKI incidence varied from 28 to 75%, depending on the method used of applying the KDIGO criteria. A tighter adherence to KDIGO definitions is warranted to decrease the heterogeneity of AKI and increase the comparability of future studies.

Non-invasive oscillometric versus invasive arterial blood pressure measurements in critically ill patients: A post hoc analysis of a prospective observational study.

PURPOSE: The aim was to compare non-invasive blood pressure measurements with invasive blood pressure measurements in critically ill patients. METHODS: Non-invasive blood pressure was measured via automated brachial cuff oscillometry, and simultaneously the radial arterial catheter-derived measurement was recorded as part of a prospective observational study. Measurements of systolic arterial pressure (SAP), diastolic arterial pressure (DAP), and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were compared using Bland-Altman and error grid analyses. RESULTS: Paired measurements of blood pressure were available for 736 patients. Observed mean difference (±SD, 95% limits of agreement) between oscillometrically and invasively measured blood pressure was 0.8 mmHg (±15.7 mmHg, -30.2 to 31.7 mmHg) for SAP, -2.9 mmHg (±11.0 mmHg, -24.5 to 18.6 mmHg) for DAP, and -1.0 mmHg (±10.2 mmHg, -21.0 to 18.9 mmHg) for MAP. Error grid analysis showed that the proportions of measurements in risk zones A to E were 78.3%, 20.7%, 1.0%, 0%, and 0.1% for MAP. CONCLUSION: Non-invasive blood pressure measurements using brachial cuff oscillometry showed large limits of agreement compared to invasive measurements in critically ill patients. Error grid analysis showed that measurement differences between oscillometry and the arterial catheter would potentially have triggered at least low-risk treatment decisions in one in five patients.

Should the ultrasound probe replace your stethoscope? A SICS-I sub-study comparing lung ultrasound and pulmonary auscultation in the critically ill.

BACKGROUND: In critically ill patients, auscultation might be challenging as dorsal lung fields are difficult to reach in supine-positioned patients, and the environment is often noisy. In recent years, clinicians have started to consider lung ultrasound as a useful diagnostic tool for a variety of pulmonary pathologies, including pulmonary edema. The aim of this study was to compare lung ultrasound and pulmonary auscultation for detecting pulmonary edema in critically ill patients. METHODS: This study was a planned sub-study of the Simple Intensive Care Studies-I, a single-center, prospective observational study. All acutely admitted patients who were 18 years and older with an expected ICU stay of at least 24 h were eligible for inclusion. All patients underwent clinical examination combined with lung ultrasound, conducted by researchers not involved in patient care. Clinical examination included auscultation of the bilateral regions for crepitations and rhonchi. Lung ultrasound was conducted according to the Bedside Lung Ultrasound in Emergency protocol. Pulmonary edema was defined as three or more B lines in at least two (bilateral) scan sites. An agreement was described by using the Cohen κ coefficient, sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value, and overall accuracy. Subgroup analysis were performed in patients who were not mechanically ventilated. RESULTS: The Simple Intensive Care Studies-I cohort included 1075 patients, of whom 926 (86%) were eligible for inclusion in this analysis. Three hundred seven of the 926 patients (33%) fulfilled the criteria for pulmonary edema on lung ultrasound. In 156 (51%) of these patients, auscultation was normal. A total of 302 patients (32%) had audible crepitations or rhonchi upon auscultation. From 130 patients with crepitations, 86 patients (66%) had pulmonary edema on lung ultrasound, and from 209 patients with rhonchi, 96 patients (46%) had pulmonary edema on lung ultrasound. The agreement between auscultation findings and lung ultrasound diagnosis was poor (κ statistic 0.25). Subgroup analysis showed that the diagnostic accuracy of auscultation was better in non-ventilated than in ventilated patients. CONCLUSION: The agreement between lung ultrasound and auscultation is poor. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02912624. Registered on September 23, 2016.

Clinical examination findings as predictors of acute kidney injury in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Acute Kidney Injury (AKI) in critically ill patients is associated with a markedly increased morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to establish the predictive value of clinical examination for AKI in critically ill patients. METHODS: This was a sub-study of the SICS-I, a prospective observational cohort study of critically ill patients acutely admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Clinical examination was performed within 24 hours of ICU admission. The occurrence of AKI was determined at day two and three after admission according to the KDIGO definition including serum creatinine and urine output. Multivariable regression modeling was used to assess the value of clinical examination for predicting AKI, adjusted for age, comorbidities and the use of vasopressors. RESULTS: A total of 1003 of 1075 SICS-I patients (93%) were included in this sub-study. 414 of 1003 patients (41%) fulfilled the criteria for AKI. Increased heart rate (OR 1.12 per 10 beats per minute increase, 98.5% CI 1.04-1.22), subjectively cold extremities (OR 1.52, 98.5% CI 1.07-2.16) and a prolonged capillary refill time on the sternum (OR 1.89, 98.5% CI 1.01-3.55) were associated with AKI. This multivariable analysis yielded an area under the receiver-operating curve (AUROC) of 0.70 (98.5% CI 0.66-0.74). The model performed better when lactate was included (AUROC of 0.72, 95%CI 0.69-0.75), P = .04. CONCLUSION: Clinical examination findings were able to predict AKI with moderate accuracy in a large cohort of critically ill patients. Findings of clinical examination on ICU admission may trigger further efforts to help predict developing AKI.

Low Dose Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin for Thrombosis Prophylaxis: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

International guidelines recommend low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) as first-line pharmacological option for the prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in many patient categories. Guidance on the optimal prophylactic dose is lacking. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) of randomized controlled trials to assess benefits and harms of low-dose LMWH versus placebo or no treatment for thrombosis prophylaxis in patients at risk of VTE. PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase were searched up to June 2019. Results were presented as relative risk (RR) with conventional and TSA-adjusted confidence intervals (CI). Forty-four trials with a total of 22,579 participants were included. Six (14%) had overall low risk of bias. Low-dose LMWH was not statistically significantly associated with all-cause mortality (RR 0.99; 95%CI 0.85-1.14; TSA-adjusted CI 0.89-1.16) but did reduce symptomatic VTE (RR 0.62; 95%CI 0.48-0.81; TSA-adjusted CI 0.44-0.89) and any VTE (RR 0.61; 95%CI 0.50-0.75; TSA-adjusted CI 0.49-0.82). Analyses on major bleeding (RR 1.07; 95%CI 0.72-1.59), as well as serious adverse events (SAE) and clinically relevant non-major bleeding were inconclusive. There was very low to moderate-quality evidence that low-dose LMWH for thrombosis prophylaxis did not decrease all-cause mortality but reduced the incidence of symptomatic and asymptomatic VTE, while the analysis of the effects on bleeding and adverse events remained inconclusive.

Intermediate Dose Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin for Thrombosis Prophylaxis: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis.

Different doses of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) are registered and used for thrombosis prophylaxis. We assessed benefits and harms of thrombosis prophylaxis with a predefined intermediate-dose LMWH compared with placebo or no treatment in patients at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). We performed a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (TSA) following The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Medline, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Embase were searched up to December 2018. Trials were evaluated for risk of bias and quality of evidence was assessed following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Seventy randomized trials with 34,046 patients were included. Eighteen (26%) had overall low risk of bias. There was a small statistically significant effect of LMWH on all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR]: 0.96; TSA-adjusted confidence interval [TSA-adjusted CI]: 0.94-0.98) which disappeared in sensitivity analyses excluding ambulatory cancer patients (RR: 0.99; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.84-1.16). There was moderate-quality evidence for a statistically significant beneficial effect on symptomatic VTE (odds ratio [OR]: 0.59; TSA-adjusted CI: 0.53-0.67; number needed to treat [NNT]: 76; 95% CI: 60-106) and a statistically significant harmful effect on major bleeding (Peto OR: 1.66; TSA-adjusted CI: 1.31-2.10; number needed to harm [NNH]: 212; 95% CI: 142-393). There were no significant intervention effects on serious adverse events. The use of intermediate-dose LMWH for thrombosis prophylaxis compared with placebo or no treatment was associated with a small statistically significant reduction of all-cause mortality that disappeared in sensitivity analyses excluding trials that evaluated LMWH for anticancer treatment. Intermediate-dose LMWH provides benefits in terms of VTE prevention while it increases major bleeding.

Clinical Examination for the Prediction of Mortality in the Critically Ill: The Simple Intensive Care Studies-I.

OBJECTIVES: Caregivers use clinical examination to timely recognize deterioration of a patient, yet data on the prognostic value of clinical examination are inconsistent. In the Simple Intensive Care Studies-I, we evaluated the association of clinical examination findings with 90-day mortality in critically ill patients. DESIGN: Prospective single-center cohort study. SETTING: ICU of a single tertiary care level hospital between March 27, 2015, and July 22, 2017. PATIENTS: All consecutive adults acutely admitted to the ICU and expected to stay for at least 24 hours. INTERVENTIONS: A protocolized clinical examination of 19 clinical signs conducted within 24 hours of admission. MEASUREMENTS MAIN RESULTS: Independent predictors of 90-day mortality were identified using multivariable logistic regression analyses. Model performance was compared with established prognostic risk scores using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves. Robustness of our findings was tested by internal bootstrap validation and adjustment of the threshold for statistical significance. A total of 1,075 patients were included, of whom 298 patients (28%) had died at 90-day follow-up. Multivariable analyses adjusted for age and norepinephrine infusion rate demonstrated that the combination of higher respiratory rate, higher systolic blood pressure, lower central temperature, altered consciousness, and decreased urine output was independently associated with 90-day mortality (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.71-0.78). Clinical examination had a similar discriminative value as compared with the Simplified Acute Physiology Score-II (area under the receiver operating characteristic curves = 0.76; 95% CI, 0.73-0.79; p = 0.29) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-IV (using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.74-0.80; p = 0.16) and was significantly better than the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (using area under the receiver operating characteristic curves = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.64-0.71; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical examination has reasonable discriminative value for assessing 90-day mortality in acutely admitted ICU patients. In our study population, a single, protocolized clinical examination had similar prognostic abilities compared with the Simplified Acute Physiology Score-II and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation-IV and outperformed the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score.

Apparently conclusive meta-analyses on interventions in critical care may be inconclusive-a meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: Risks of random type I and II errors are associated with false positive and false negative findings. In conventional meta-analyses, the risks of random errors are insufficiently evaluated. Many meta-analyses, which appear conclusive, might, in fact, be inconclusive because of risks of random errors. We hypothesize that, for interventions in critical care, false positive and false negative findings frequently become apparent when accounting for the risks of random error. We aim to investigate to which extent apparently conclusive conventional meta-analyses remain conclusive when adjusting statistical significance levels and confidence intervals considering sparse data and repeated testing through Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA). METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE for reviews of interventions in critical care. We used TSA with the relative risk reduction from the estimated meta-analyzed intervention effects adjusted for heterogeneity based on the observed diversity. We report proportions of meta-analyses and potential inconclusive findings of positive, neutral, and negative conclusions based on conventional naïve meta-analyses, which use an alpha of 5% and 95% confidence intervals. In TSA-controlled meta-analyses showing a beneficial or harmful intervention effect, we assessed the risk of bias by six Cochrane domains. RESULTS: A total of 464 reviews containing 1,080 meta-analyses of (co-)primary outcomes were analyzed. From the 266 conventional meta-analyses suggesting a beneficial effect, 133 (50%) were true positive and 133 (50%) were potentially false positive according to TSA. From the 755 conventional meta-analyses suggesting a neutral effect, there were 214 (28%) true neutral and 541 (72%) were potentially false neutral according to TSA. From the 59 conventional meta-analyses suggesting a harmful effect, 17 (29%) were true negative and 42 (71%) were potentially false negative according to TSA. When the true beneficial and true harmful meta-analyses according to TSA were evaluated for risk of bias, new TSAs conducted on only trials with overall low risk of bias showed only firm evidence of a beneficial effect on one outcome and a harmful effect on one outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Of all meta-analyses in critical care, a large proportion may reach false conclusions because of unknown risks of random type I or type II errors. Future critical care meta-analyses should aim for establishing an effect of interventions accounting for risks of bias and random errors.

The diagnostic accuracy of clinical examination for estimating cardiac index in critically ill patients: the Simple Intensive Care Studies-I.

PURPOSE: Clinical examination is often the first step to diagnose shock and estimate cardiac index. In the Simple Intensive Care Studies-I, we assessed the association and diagnostic performance of clinical signs for estimation of cardiac index in critically ill patients. METHODS: In this prospective, single-centre cohort study, we included all acutely ill patients admitted to the ICU and expected to stay > 24 h. We conducted a protocolised clinical examination of 19 clinical signs followed by critical care ultrasonography for cardiac index measurement. Clinical signs were associated with cardiac index and a low cardiac index (< 2.2 L min-1 m2) in multivariable analyses. Diagnostic test accuracies were also assessed. RESULTS: We included 1075 patients, of whom 783 (73%) had a validated cardiac index measurement. In multivariable regression, respiratory rate, heart rate and rhythm, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, central-to-peripheral temperature difference, and capillary refill time were statistically independently associated with cardiac index, with an overall R2 of 0.30 (98.5% CI 0.25-0.35). A low cardiac index was observed in 280 (36%) patients. Sensitivities and positive and negative predictive values were below 90% for all signs. Specificities above 90% were observed only for 110/280 patients, who had atrial fibrillation, systolic blood pressures < 90 mmHg, altered consciousness, capillary refill times > 4.5 s, or skin mottling over the knee. CONCLUSIONS: Seven out of 19 clinical examination findings were independently associated with cardiac index. For estimation of cardiac index, clinical examination was found to be insufficient in multivariable analyses and in diagnostic accuracy tests. Additional measurements such as critical care ultrasonography remain necessary.

Burden of acute kidney injury and 90-day mortality in critically ill patients.

BACKGROUND: Mortality rates associated with acute kidney injury (AKI) vary among critically ill patients. Outcomes are often not corrected for severity or duration of AKI. Our objective was to analyse whether a new variable, AKI burden, would outperform 1) presence of AKI, 2) highest AKI stage, or 3) AKI duration in predicting 90-day mortality. METHODS: Kidney Diseases: Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria using creatinine, urine output and renal replacement therapy were used to diagnose AKI. AKI burden was defined as AKI stage multiplied with the number of days that each stage was present (maximum five), divided by the maximum possible score yielding a proportion. The AKI burden as a predictor of 90-day mortality was assessed in two independent cohorts (Finnish Acute Kidney Injury, FINNAKI and Simple Intensive Care Studies I, SICS-I) by comparing four multivariate logistic regression models that respectively incorporated either the presence of AKI, the highest AKI stage, the duration of AKI, or the AKI burden. RESULTS: In the FINNAKI cohort 1096 of 2809 patients (39%) had AKI and 90-day mortality of the cohort was 23%. Median AKI burden was 0.17 (IQR 0.07-0.50), 1.0 being the maximum. The model including AKI burden (area under the receiver operator curve (AUROC) 0.78, 0.76-0.80) outperformed the models using AKI presence (AUROC 0.77, 0.75-0.79, p = 0.026) or AKI severity (AUROC 0.77, 0.75-0.79, p = 0.012), but not AKI duration (AUROC 0.77, 0.75-0.79, p = 0.06). In the SICS-I, 603 of 1075 patients (56%) had AKI and 90-day mortality was 28%. Median AKI burden was 0.19 (IQR 0.08-0.46). The model using AKI burden performed better (AUROC 0.77, 0.74-0.80) than the models using AKI presence (AUROC 0.75, 0.71-0.78, p = 0.001), AKI severity (AUROC 0.76, 0.72-0.79. p = 0.008) or AKI duration (AUROC 0.76, 0.73-0.79, p = 0.009). CONCLUSION: AKI burden, which appreciates both severity and duration of AKI, was superior to using only presence or the highest stage of AKI in predicting 90-day mortality. Using AKI burden or other more granular methods may be helpful in future epidemiological studies of AKI.

Clinical examination, critical care ultrasonography and outcomes in the critically ill: cohort profile of the Simple Intensive Care Studies-I.

PURPOSE: In the Simple Intensive Care Studies-I (SICS-I), we aim to unravel the value of clinical and haemodynamic variables obtained by physical examination and critical care ultrasound (CCUS) that currently guide daily practice in critically ill patients. We intend to (1) measure all available clinical and haemodynamic variables, (2) train novices in obtaining values for advanced variables based on CCUS in the intensive care unit (ICU) and (3) create an infrastructure for a registry with the flexibility of temporarily incorporating specific (haemodynamic) research questions and variables. The overall purpose is to investigate the diagnostic and prognostic value of clinical and haemodynamic variables. PARTICIPANTS: The SICS-I includes all patients acutely admitted to the ICU of a tertiary teaching hospital in the Netherlands with an ICU stay expected to last beyond 24 hours. Inclusion started on 27 March 2015. FINDINGS TO DATE: On 31 December 2016, 791 eligible patients fulfilled our inclusion criteria of whom 704 were included. So far 11 substudies with additional variables have been designed, of which six were feasible to implement in the basic study, and two are planned and awaiting initiation. All researchers received focused training for obtaining specific CCUS images. An independent Core laboratory judged that 632 patients had CCUS images of sufficient quality. FUTURE PLANS: We intend to optimise the set of variables for assessment of the haemodynamic status of the critically ill patient used for guiding diagnostics, prognosis and interventions. Repeated evaluations of these sets of variables are needed for continuous improvement of the diagnostic and prognostic models. Future plans include: (1) more advanced imaging; (2) repeated clinical and haemodynamic measurements; (3) expansion of the registry to other departments or centres; and (4) exploring possibilities of integration of a randomised clinical trial superimposed on the registry. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02912624; Pre-results.

An acute oral intoxication with haloperidol decanoate.

Haloperidol decanoate is a typical antipsychotic drug used as maintenance therapy for schizophrenia and mood disorders formulated as an ester for intramuscular injection. Cases of oral haloperidol decanoate intoxications have not been described in literature. In this report, we present for the first time a case of an oral ingestion of haloperidol decanoate of a young woman who presented to the emergency department following an intentional oral ingestion of 1 ampoule of haloperidol decanoate 100mg. At presentation, she had a bilateral rest tremor of both hands and mild hypothermia. No other obvious signs of an intoxication were observed. She was treated with a single dose of activated charcoal and laxative and was admitted to the intensive care for rhythm monitoring and observation. During the night the QTc interval increased to 453ms, but stayed within the normal range. Haloperidol plasma levels increased as well, but also stayed within therapeutic ranges. These findings indicate that treatment with oral activated charcoal was sufficient to prevent any serious events.

Clinical examination for diagnosing circulatory shock.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In the acute setting of circulatory shock, physicians largely depend on clinical examination and basic laboratory values. The daily use of clinical examination for diagnostic purposes contrasts sharp with the limited number of studies. We aim to provide an overview of the diagnostic accuracy of clinical examination in estimating circulatory shock reflected by an inadequate cardiac output (CO). RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies showed poor correlations between CO and mottling, capillary refill time or central-to-peripheral temperature gradients in univariable analyses. The accuracy of physicians to perform an educated guess of CO based on clinical examination lies around 50% and the accuracy for recognizing a low CO is similar. Studies that used predefined clinical profiles composed of several clinical examination signs show more reliable estimations of CO with accuracies ranging from 81 up to 100%. SUMMARY: Single variables obtained by clinical examination should not be used when estimating CO. Physician's educated guesses of CO based on unstructured clinical examination are like the 'flip of a coin'. Structured clinical examination based on combined clinical signs shows the best accuracy. Future studies should focus on using a combination of signs in an unselected population, eventually to educate physicians in estimating CO by using predefined clinical profiles.