An Approach to Diversifying the Selection of a Guideline Panel-The Process Utilized for the Updated Adult Critical Care Ultrasound Guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice guidelines are essential for promoting evidence-based healthcare. While diversification of panel members can reduce disparities in care, processes for panel selection lack transparency. We aim to share our approach in forming a diverse expert panel for the updated Adult Critical Care Ultrasound Guidelines. DESIGN: This process evaluation aims to understand whether the implementation of a transparent and intentional approach to guideline panel selection would result in the creation of a diverse expert guideline panel. SETTING: This study was conducted in the setting of creating a guideline panel for the updated Adult Critical Care Ultrasound Guidelines. PATIENTS: Understanding that family/patient advocacy in guideline creations can promote the impact of a clinical practice guideline, patient representation on the expert panel was prioritized. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions included creation of a clear definition of expertise, an open invitation to the Society of Critical Care Medicine membership to apply for the panel, additional panel nomination by guideline leadership, voluntary disclosure of pre-identified diversity criteria by potential candidates, and independent review of applications including diversity criteria. This resulted in an overall score per candidate per reviewer and an open forum for discussion and final consensus. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The variables of diversity were collected and analyzed after panel selection. These were compared with historical data on panel composition. The final guideline panel comprised of 33 panelists from six countries: 45% women and 79% historically excluded people and groups. The panel has representation from nonphysician professionals and patients advocates. Of the healthcare professionals, there is representation from early, mid, and late career stages. CONCLUSIONS: Our intentional and transparent approach resulted in a panel with improved gender parity and robust diversity along ethnic, racial, and professional lines. We hope it can serve as a starting point as we strive to become a more inclusive and diverse discipline that creates globally representative guidelines.

Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Glycemic Control for Critically Ill Children and Adults 2024.

RATIONALE: Maintaining glycemic control of critically ill patients may impact outcomes such as survival, infection, and neuromuscular recovery, but there is equipoise on the target blood levels, monitoring frequency, and methods. OBJECTIVES: The purpose was to update the 2012 Society of Critical Care Medicine and American College of Critical Care Medicine (ACCM) guidelines with a new systematic review of the literature and provide actionable guidance for clinicians. PANEL DESIGN: The total multiprofessional task force of 22, consisting of clinicians and patient/family advocates, and a methodologist applied the processes described in the ACCM guidelines standard operating procedure manual to develop evidence-based recommendations in alignment with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Approach (GRADE) methodology. Conflict of interest policies were strictly followed in all phases of the guidelines, including panel selection and voting. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes question related to glycemic management in critically ill children (≥ 42 wk old adjusted gestational age to 18 yr old) and adults, including triggers for initiation of insulin therapy, route of administration, monitoring frequency, role of an explicit decision support tool for protocol maintenance, and methodology for glucose testing. We identified the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak or as a good practice statement. In addition, "In our practice" statements were included when the available evidence was insufficient to support a recommendation, but the panel felt that describing their practice patterns may be appropriate. Additional topics were identified for future research. RESULTS: This guideline is an update of the guidelines for the use of an insulin infusion for the management of hyperglycemia in critically ill patients. It is intended for adult and pediatric practitioners to reassess current practices and direct research into areas with inadequate literature. The panel issued seven statements related to glycemic control in unselected adults (two good practice statements, four conditional recommendations, one research statement) and seven statements for pediatric patients (two good practice statements, one strong recommendation, one conditional recommendation, two "In our practice" statements, and one research statement), with additional detail on specific subset populations where available. CONCLUSIONS: The guidelines panel achieved consensus for adults and children regarding a preference for an insulin infusion for the acute management of hyperglycemia with titration guided by an explicit clinical decision support tool and frequent (≤ 1 hr) monitoring intervals during glycemic instability to minimize hypoglycemia and against targeting intensive glucose levels. These recommendations are intended for consideration within the framework of the patient's existing clinical status. Further research is required to evaluate the role of individualized glycemic targets, continuous glucose monitoring systems, explicit decision support tools, and standardized glycemic control metrics.

An Echocardiographic Approach for the Management of Shock: The Subcostal to Apical, Respiratory to Parasternal-Cardiac to Respiratory, Aortic to Stomach Protocol.

Point of care ultrasound has become an integral part of critical care medicine, particularly for recognizing shock etiologies and guiding management. Most of the current ultrasonography guided shock protocols have been tailored towards a qualitative assessment of patients on presentation with shock. Unfortunately, the evolving nature of shock, particularly in the face of resuscitation and physiologic changes, demands a more sophisticated approach. This manuscript serves to present a comprehensive algorithm called the transthoracic Subcostal To Apical, Respiratory to paraSternal and transesophageal Cardiac to Respiratory, Aortic to StomacH ultrasonographic evaluations for the assessment of shock. This protocol is better suited for the critically ill patient in its ability to move beyond pattern recognition and focus on monitoring shock states from their presentation through their evolution. Not only is importance placed on the sequence of the exam, but also the identification of signs of chronic disease, the early incorporation of pulmonary evaluation, and the role for transesophageal imaging in critically ill patients with difficult surface imaging. Given the broad capabilities of bedside ultrasound, the Subcostal To Apical, Respiratory to paraSternal-Cardiac to Respiratory, Aortic to StomacH protocol serves as a multifaceted algorithm allowing for a nuanced and dynamic approach for the resuscitation of critically ill patients in shock.

Early Serial Echocardiographic and Ultrasonographic Findings in Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19.

Background: Cardiac function of critically ill patients with COVID-19 generally has been reported from clinically obtained data. Echocardiographic deformation imaging can identify ventricular dysfunction missed by traditional echocardiographic assessment. Research Question: What is the prevalence of ventricular dysfunction and what are its implications for the natural history of critical COVID-19? Study Design and Methods: This is a multicenter prospective cohort of critically ill patients with COVID-19. We performed serial echocardiography and lower extremity vascular ultrasound on hospitalization days 1, 3, and 8. We defined left ventricular (LV) dysfunction as the absolute value of longitudinal strain of < 17% or left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) of < 50%. Primary clinical outcome was inpatient survival. Results: We enrolled 110 patients. Thirty-nine (35.5%) died before hospital discharge. LV dysfunction was present at admission in 38 patients (34.5%) and in 21 patients (36.2%) on day 8 (P = .59). Median baseline LVEF was 62% (interquartile range [IQR], 52%-69%), whereas median absolute value of baseline LV strain was 16% (IQR, 14%-19%). Survivors and nonsurvivors did not differ statistically significantly with respect to day 1 LV strain (17.9% vs 14.4%; P = .12) or day 1 LVEF (60.5% vs 65%; P = .06). Nonsurvivors showed worse day 1 right ventricle (RV) strain than survivors (16.3% vs 21.2%; P = .04). Interpretation: Among patients with critical COVID-19, LV and RV dysfunction is common, frequently identified only through deformation imaging, and early (day 1) RV dysfunction may be associated with clinical outcome.

Correlation between tissue Doppler-derived left ventricular systolic velocity (S') and left ventricle ejection fraction in sepsis and septic shock: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Tissue Doppler-derived left ventricular systolic velocity (mitral S') has shown excellent correlation to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in non-critically patients. However, their correlation in septic patients remains poorly understood and its impact on mortality is undetermined. We investigated the relationship between mitral S' and LVEF in a large cohort of critically-ill septic patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study between 01/2011 and 12/2020. All adult patients (≥ 18 years) who were admitted to the medical intensive care unit (MICU) with sepsis and septic shock that underwent a transthoracic echocardiogram (TTE) within 72 h were included. Pearson correlation test was used to assess correlation between average mitral S' and LVEF. Pearson correlation was used to assess correlation between average mitral S' and LVEF. We also assessed the association between mitral S', LVEF and 28-day mortality. RESULTS: 2519 patients met the inclusion criteria. The study population included 1216 (48.3%) males with a median age of 64 (IQR: 53-73), and a median APACHE III score of 85 (IQR: 67, 108). The median septal, lateral, and average mitral S' were 8 cm/s (IQR): 6.0, 10.0], 9 cm/s (IQR: 6.0, 10.0), and 8.5 cm/s (IQR: 6.5, 10.5), respectively. Mitral S' was noted to have moderate correlation with LVEF (r = 0.46). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, average mitral S' was associated with an increase in both 28-day ICU and in-hospital mortality with odds ratio (OR) 1.04 (95% CI 1.01-1.08, p = 0.02) and OR 1.04 (95% CI 1.01-1.07, p = 0.02), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Even though mitral S' and LVEF may be related, they are not exchangeable and were only found to have moderate correlation in this study. LVEF is U-shaped, while mitral S' has a linear relation with 28-day ICU mortality. An increase in average mitral S' was associated with higher 28-day mortality.

Right Ventricular Dysfunction Patterns among Patients with COVID-19 in the Intensive Care Unit: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis.

Rationale: Right ventricular (RV) dysfunction is common among patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease (COVID-19); however, its epidemiology may depend on the echocardiographic parameters used to define it. Objectives: To evaluate the prevalence of abnormalities in three common echocardiographic parameters of RV function among patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), as well as the effect of RV dilatation on differential parameter abnormality and the association of RV dysfunction with 60-day mortality. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of ICU patients with COVID-19 between March 4, 2020, and March 4, 2021, who received a transthoracic echocardiogram within 48 hours before to at most 7 days after ICU admission. RV dysfunction and dilatation, respectively, were defined by guideline thresholds for tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), RV fractional area change, RV free wall longitudinal strain (RVFWS), and RV basal dimension or RV end-diastolic area. Association of RV dysfunction with 60-day mortality was assessed through logistic regression adjusting for age, prior history of congestive heart failure, invasive ventilation at the time of transthoracic echocardiogram, and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score. Results: A total of 116 patients were included, of whom 69% had RV dysfunction by one or more parameters, and 36.3% of these had RV dilatation. The three most common patterns of RV dysfunction were the presence of three abnormalities, the combination of abnormal RVFWS and TAPSE, and isolated TAPSE abnormality. Patients with RV dilatation had worse RV fractional area change (24% vs. 36%; P = 0.001), worse RVFWS (16.3% vs. 19.1%; P = 0.005), higher RV systolic pressure (45 mm Hg vs. 31 mm Hg; P = 0.001) but similar TAPSE (13 mm vs. 13 mm; P = 0.30) compared with those with normal RV size. After multivariable adjustment, 60-day mortality was significantly associated with RV dysfunction (odds ratio, 2.91; 95% confidence interval, 1.01-9.44), as was the presence of at least two parameter abnormalities. Conclusions: ICU patients with COVID-19 had significant heterogeneity in RV function abnormalities present with different patterns associated with RV dilatation. RV dysfunction by any parameter was associated with increased mortality. Therefore, a multiparameter evaluation may be critical in recognizing RV dysfunction in COVID-19.

Alveolar macrophages from EVALI patients and e-cigarette users: a story of shifting phenotype.

Exposure to e-cigarette vapors alters important biologic processes including phagocytosis, lipid metabolism, and cytokine activity in the airways and alveolar spaces. Little is known about the biologic mechanisms underpinning the conversion to e-cigarette, or vaping, product use-associated lung injury (EVALI) from normal e-cigarette use in otherwise healthy individuals. We compared cell populations and inflammatory immune populations from bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in individuals with EVALI to e-cigarette users without respiratory disease and healthy controls and found that e-cigarette users with EVALI demonstrate a neutrophilic inflammation with alveolar macrophages skewed towards inflammatory (M1) phenotype and cytokine profile. Comparatively, e-cigarette users without EVALI demonstrate lower inflammatory cytokine production and express features associated with a reparative (M2) phenotype. These data indicate macrophage-specific changes are occurring in e-cigarette users who develop EVALI.

Intravenous aviptadil and remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19-associated hypoxaemic respiratory failure in the USA (TESICO): a randomised, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a clinical need for therapeutics for COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure whose 60-day mortality remains at 30-50%. Aviptadil, a lung-protective neuropeptide, and remdesivir, a nucleotide prodrug of an adenosine analog, were compared with placebo among patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. METHODS: TESICO was a randomised trial of aviptadil and remdesivir versus placebo at 28 sites in the USA. Hospitalised adult patients were eligible for the study if they had acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and were within 4 days of the onset of respiratory failure. Participants could be randomly assigned to both study treatments in a 2 × 2 factorial design or to just one of the agents. Participants were randomly assigned with a web-based application. For each site, randomisation was stratified by disease severity (high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventilation vs invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation [ECMO]), and four strata were defined by remdesivir and aviptadil eligibility, as follows: (1) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil and remdesivir in the 2 × 2 factorial design; participants were equally randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to intravenous aviptadil plus remdesivir, aviptadil plus remdesivir matched placebo, aviptadil matched placebo plus remdesvir, or aviptadil placebo plus remdesivir placebo; (2) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was started before randomisation; (3) eligible for randomisation to aviptadil only because remdesivir was contraindicated; and (4) eligible for randomisation to remdesivir only because aviptadil was contraindicated. For participants in strata 2-4, randomisation was 1:1 to the active agent or matched placebo. Aviptadil was administered as a daily 12-h infusion for 3 days, targeting 600 pmol/kg on infusion day 1, 1200 pmol/kg on day 2, and 1800 pmol/kg on day 3. Remdesivir was administered as a 200 mg loading dose, followed by 100 mg daily maintenance doses for up to a 10-day total course. For participants assigned to placebo for either agent, matched saline placebo was administered in identical volumes. For both treatment comparisons, the primary outcome, assessed at day 90, was a six-category ordinal outcome: (1) at home (defined as the type of residence before hospitalisation) and off oxygen (recovered) for at least 77 days, (2) at home and off oxygen for 49-76 days, (3) at home and off oxygen for 1-48 days, (4) not hospitalised but either on supplemental oxygen or not at home, (5) hospitalised or in hospice care, or (6) dead. Mortality up to day 90 was a key secondary outcome. The independent data and safety monitoring board recommended stopping the aviptadil trial on May 25, 2022, for futility. On June 9, 2022, the sponsor stopped the trial of remdesivir due to slow enrolment. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04843761. FINDINGS: Between April 21, 2021, and May 24, 2022, we enrolled 473 participants in the study. For the aviptadil comparison, 471 participants were randomly assigned to aviptadil or matched placebo. The modified intention-to-treat population comprised 461 participants who received at least a partial infusion of aviptadil (231 participants) or aviptadil matched placebo (230 participants). For the remdesivir comparison, 87 participants were randomly assigned to remdesivir or matched placebo and all received some infusion of remdesivir (44 participants) or remdesivir matched placebo (43 participants). 85 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analyses for both agents (ie, those enrolled in the 2 x 2 factorial). For the aviptadil versus placebo comparison, the median age was 57 years (IQR 46-66), 178 (39%) of 461 participants were female, and 246 (53%) were Black, Hispanic, Asian or other (vs 215 [47%] White participants). 431 (94%) of 461 participants were in an intensive care unit at baseline, with 271 (59%) receiving high-flow nasal oxygen or non-invasive ventiliation, 185 (40%) receiving invasive mechanical ventilation, and five (1%) receiving ECMO. The odds ratio (OR) for being in a better category of the primary efficacy endpoint for aviptadil versus placebo at day 90, from a model stratified by baseline disease severity, was 1·11 (95% CI 0·80-1·55; p=0·54). Up to day 90, 86 participants in the aviptadil group and 83 in the placebo group died. The cumulative percentage who died up to day 90 was 38% in the aviptadil group and 36% in the placebo group (hazard ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·77-1·41; p=0·78). The primary safety outcome of death, serious adverse events, organ failure, serious infection, or grade 3 or 4 adverse events up to day 5 occurred in 146 (63%) of 231 patients in the aviptadil group compared with 129 (56%) of 230 participants in the placebo group (OR 1·40, 95% CI 0·94-2·08; p=0·10). INTERPRETATION: Among patients with COVID-19-associated acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, aviptadil did not significantly improve clinical outcomes up to day 90 when compared with placebo. The smaller than planned sample size for the remdesivir trial did not permit definitive conclusions regarding safety or efficacy. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health.

Renin-Angiotensin System Modulation With Synthetic Angiotensin (1-7) and Angiotensin II Type 1 Receptor-Biased Ligand in Adults With COVID-19: Two Randomized Clinical Trials.

Importance: Preclinical models suggest dysregulation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection may increase the relative activity of angiotensin II compared with angiotensin (1-7) and may be an important contributor to COVID-19 pathophysiology. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of RAS modulation using 2 investigational RAS agents, TXA-127 (synthetic angiotensin [1-7]) and TRV-027 (an angiotensin II type 1 receptor-biased ligand), that are hypothesized to potentiate the action of angiotensin (1-7) and mitigate the action of the angiotensin II. Design, Setting, and Participants: Two randomized clinical trials including adults hospitalized with acute COVID-19 and new-onset hypoxemia were conducted at 35 sites in the US between July 22, 2021, and April 20, 2022; last follow-up visit: July 26, 2022. Interventions: A 0.5-mg/kg intravenous infusion of TXA-127 once daily for 5 days or placebo. A 12-mg/h continuous intravenous infusion of TRV-027 for 5 days or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was oxygen-free days, an ordinal outcome that classifies a patient's status at day 28 based on mortality and duration of supplemental oxygen use; an adjusted odds ratio (OR) greater than 1.0 indicated superiority of the RAS agent vs placebo. A key secondary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality. Safety outcomes included allergic reaction, new kidney replacement therapy, and hypotension. Results: Both trials met prespecified early stopping criteria for a low probability of efficacy. Of 343 patients in the TXA-127 trial (226 [65.9%] aged 31-64 years, 200 [58.3%] men, 225 [65.6%] White, and 274 [79.9%] not Hispanic), 170 received TXA-127 and 173 received placebo. Of 290 patients in the TRV-027 trial (199 [68.6%] aged 31-64 years, 168 [57.9%] men, 195 [67.2%] White, and 225 [77.6%] not Hispanic), 145 received TRV-027 and 145 received placebo. Compared with placebo, both TXA-127 (unadjusted mean difference, -2.3 [95% CrI, -4.8 to 0.2]; adjusted OR, 0.88 [95% CrI, 0.59 to 1.30]) and TRV-027 (unadjusted mean difference, -2.4 [95% CrI, -5.1 to 0.3]; adjusted OR, 0.74 [95% CrI, 0.48 to 1.13]) resulted in no difference in oxygen-free days. In the TXA-127 trial, 28-day all-cause mortality occurred in 22 of 163 patients (13.5%) in the TXA-127 group vs 22 of 166 patients (13.3%) in the placebo group (adjusted OR, 0.83 [95% CrI, 0.41 to 1.66]). In the TRV-027 trial, 28-day all-cause mortality occurred in 29 of 141 patients (20.6%) in the TRV-027 group vs 18 of 140 patients (12.9%) in the placebo group (adjusted OR, 1.52 [95% CrI, 0.75 to 3.08]). The frequency of the safety outcomes was similar with either TXA-127 or TRV-027 vs placebo. Conclusions and Relevance: In adults with severe COVID-19, RAS modulation (TXA-127 or TRV-027) did not improve oxygen-free days vs placebo. These results do not support the hypotheses that pharmacological interventions that selectively block the angiotensin II type 1 receptor or increase angiotensin (1-7) improve outcomes for patients with severe COVID-19. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04924660.

Implementation of Lung-Protective Ventilation in Patients With Acute Respiratory Failure.

OBJECTIVES: We implemented a computerized protocol for low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) to improve management and outcomes of mechanically ventilated patients with, and without, the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). DESIGN: Pragmatic, nonrandomized stepped wedge type II hybrid implementation/effectiveness trial. SETTING: Twelve hospitals in an integrated healthcare system over a 2-year period. PATIENTS: Patients greater than or equal to 18 years old who had initiation of mechanical ventilation in the emergency department or ICU. We excluded patients who died or transitioned to comfort care on the day of admission to the ICU. We defined a subgroup of patients with ARDS for analysis. INTERVENTIONS: Implementation of ventilator protocols for LTVV in the ICU. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Our primary clinical outcome was ventilator-free days (VFDs) to day 28. Our primary process outcome was median initial set tidal volume. We included 8,692 mechanically ventilated patients, 3,282 (38%) of whom had ARDS. After implementation, set tidal volume reported as mL/kg predicted body weight decreased from median 6.1 mL/kg (interquartile range [IQR], 6.0-6.8 mL/kg) to 6.0 mL/kg (IQR, 6.0-6.6 mL/kg) ( p = 0.009). The percent of patients receiving LTVV (tidal volume ≤ 6.5 mL/kg) increased from 69.8% ( n = 1,721) to 72.5% ( n = 1,846) ( p = 0.036) after implementation. The percent of patients receiving greater than 8 mL/kg initial set tidal volume was reduced from 9.0% ( n = 222) to 6.7% ( n = 174) ( p = 0.005) after implementation. Among patients with ARDS, day 1 positive end-expiratory pressure increased from 6.7 to 8.0 cm H 2 O ( p < 0.001). We observed no difference in VFD (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.91-1.24; p = 0.44), or in secondary outcomes of length of stay or mortality, either within the main cohort or the subgroup of patients with ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: We observed improved adherence to optimal ventilator management with implementation of a computerized protocol and reduction in the number of patients receiving tidal volumes greater than 8 mL/kg. We did not observe improvement in clinical outcomes.

Is Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction Associated With Increased Mortality Among Patients With Sepsis and Septic Shock?

BACKGROUND: The impact of left ventricular (LV) systolic function on outcomes in patients with sepsis and septic shock remains uncertain. The association, if any, may be nonlinear. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is LV systolic dysfunction associated with increased mortality among patients with sepsis and septic shock? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study comprising all adult patients admitted to the medical ICU from January 1, 2011, through December 31, 2020, with sepsis and septic shock as defined by the Third International Consensus Definitions for Sepsis and Septic Shock guidelines. All adult patients with sepsis or septic shock who underwent transthoracic echocardiography within 3 days from admission to the medical ICU were included. We divided patients into five groups based on LV ejection fraction (LVEF). In addition to univariate analysis, we also performed multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusting for patients' baseline characteristics and severity of illness. The primary outcome was the association between each classification of LVEF and in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: A total of 3,151 patients were included in this study (LVEF < 25%, 133 patients; 25% ≤ LVEF < 40%, 305 patients; 40% ≤ LVEF < 55%, 568 patients; 55% ≤ LVEF < 70%, 1,792 patients; and LVEF ≥ 70%, 353 patients). In-hospital mortalities in each LVEF category were 51.1%, 34.8%, 26.6%, 26.2%, and 41.9%, respectively. In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, LVEF of < 25% (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.82-4.17; P < .001) and LVEF of ≥ 70% (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.09-1.88; P = .010) were associated independently with significantly higher in-hospital mortality compared with the reference LVEF category of 55% to 70%. INTERPRETATION: The association of LVEF to in-hospital mortality in sepsis and septic shock was U-shaped. Both severe LV systolic dysfunction (LVEF < 25%) and hyperdynamic LVEF (LVEF ≥ 70%) were associated independently with significantly higher in-hospital mortality.

Delivery of Lung-protective Ventilation for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Hybrid Implementation-Effectiveness Trial.

Rationale: Lung-protective ventilation (LPV) improves outcomes for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), but adherence remains inadequate. Objectives: To measure the process and clinical impacts of implementation of a science-based intervention to improve LPV adherence for patients with ARDS, in part by increased use of clinical decision support (CDS). Methods: We conducted a type III hybrid implementation/effectiveness pilot trial enrolling adult patients with ARDS admitted to three hospitals before and after the launch of a multimodal implementation intervention to increase the use of mechanical ventilation CDS and improve LPV adherence. The primary outcome was patients' percentage of time adherent to low tidal volume (⩽6.5 ml/kg predicted body weight) ventilation (LTVV). Secondary outcomes included adherence to prescribed oxygenation settings, the use of the CDS tool's independent oxygenation and ventilation components, ventilator-free days, and mortality. Analyses employed multivariable regression to compare adjusted pre- versus postintervention outcomes after the exclusion of a postintervention wash-in period. A sensitivity analysis measured process outcomes' level and trend change postintervention using segmented regression. Results: The 446 included patients had a mean age of 60 years, and 43% were female. Demographic and clinical characteristics were similar pre- versus postintervention. The adjusted proportion of adherent time increased postintervention for LTVV (9.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.8-14.5%) and prescribed oxygenation settings (11.9%; 95% CI, 7.2-16.5%), as did the probability patients spent ⩾90% of ventilated time on LTVV (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.58; 95% CI, 1.64-4.10) and use of ventilation CDS (aOR, 41.3%; 95% CI, 35.9-46.7%) and oxygenation CDS (aOR, 54.3%; 95% CI, 50.9-57.7%). Ventilator-free days (aOR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.81-1.62) and 28-day mortality (aOR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.50-1.20) did not change significantly after intervention. Segmented regression analysis supported a causal relationship between the intervention and improved CDS usage but suggested trends before intervention rather than the studied intervention could explain increased LPV adherence after the intervention. Conclusions: In this pilot trial, a multimodal implementation intervention was associated with increased use of ventilator management CDS for patients with ARDS but was not associated with differences in clinical outcomes and may not have independently caused the observed postintervention improvements in LPV adherence. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03984175).

Computer clinical decision support that automates personalized clinical care: a challenging but needed healthcare delivery strategy.

How to deliver best care in various clinical settings remains a vexing problem. All pertinent healthcare-related questions have not, cannot, and will not be addressable with costly time- and resource-consuming controlled clinical trials. At present, evidence-based guidelines can address only a small fraction of the types of care that clinicians deliver. Furthermore, underserved areas rarely can access state-of-the-art evidence-based guidelines in real-time, and often lack the wherewithal to implement advanced guidelines. Care providers in such settings frequently do not have sufficient training to undertake advanced guideline implementation. Nevertheless, in advanced modern healthcare delivery environments, use of eActions (validated clinical decision support systems) could help overcome the cognitive limitations of overburdened clinicians. Widespread use of eActions will require surmounting current healthcare technical and cultural barriers and installing clinical evidence/data curation systems. The authors expect that increased numbers of evidence-based guidelines will result from future comparative effectiveness clinical research carried out during routine healthcare delivery within learning healthcare systems.

Doppler-derived haemodynamics performed during admission echocardiography predict in-hospital mortality in cardiac intensive care unit patients.

AIMS: Cardiac point-of-care ultrasound (CV-POCUS) has become a fundamental part for the assessment of patients admitted to cardiac intensive care units (CICU). We sought to refine the practice of CV-POCUS by identifying 2D and Doppler-derived measurements from bedside transthoracic echocardiograms (TTEs) performed in the CICU that are associated with mortality. METHODS AND RESULTS: We retrospectively included Mayo Clinic CICU patients admitted from 2007 to 2018 and assessed the TTEs performed within 1 day of CICU admission, including Doppler and 2D measurements of left and right ventricular function. Logistic regression and classification and regression tree (CART) analysis were used to determine the association between TTE variables with in-hospital mortality. A total of 6957 patients were included with a mean age of 68.0 ± 14.9 years (37.0% females). A total of 609 (8.8%) patients died in the hospital. Inpatient deaths group had worse biventricular systolic function [left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 48.2 ± 16.0% vs. 38.7 ± 18.2%, P < 0.0001], higher filling pressures, and lower forward flow. The strongest TTE predictors of hospital mortality were left ventricular outflow tract velocity-time integral [LVOT VTI, adjusted OR 0.912 per 1 cm higher, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.883-0.942, P < 0.0001] followed by medial mitral E/e' ratio (adjusted OR 1.024 per 1 unit higher, 95% CI 1.010-1.039, P = 0.0011). Classification and regression tree analysis identified LVOT VTI <16 cm as the most important TTE predictor of mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Doppler-derived haemodynamic TTE parameters have a strong association with mortality in the CICU, particularly LVOT VTI <16 cm or mitral E/e' ratio >15. The incorporation of these simplified Doppler-derived haemodynamics into admission CV-POCUS facilitates early risk stratification and strengthens the clinical yield of the ultrasound exam.

Prospectively Assessed Long-Term Outcomes of Patients with E-Cigarette- or Vaping-associated Lung Injury.

Rationale: E-cigarette- or vaping-associated lung injury (EVALI) was first identified in 2019. The long-term respiratory, cognitive, mood disorder, and vaping behavior outcomes of patients with EVALI remain unknown. Objectives: To determine the long-term respiratory, cognitive, mood disorder, and vaping behavior outcomes of patients with EVALI. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with EVALI from two health systems. We assessed outcomes at 1 year after onset of EVALI using validated instruments measuring cognitive function, depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, respiratory disability, coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection, pulmonary function, and vaping behaviors. We used multivariable regression to identify risk factors of post-EVALI vaping behaviors and to identify whether admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) was associated with cognitive, respiratory, or mood symptoms. Results: Seventy-three patients completed 12-month follow-up. Most patients were male (66.7%), young (mean age, 31 ± 11 yr), and White (85%) and did not need admission to the ICU (59%). At 12 months, 39% (25 of 64) had cognitive impairment, whereas 48% (30 of 62) reported respiratory limitations. Mood disorders were common, with 59% (38 of 64) reporting anxiety and/or depression and 62% (39 of 63) having post-traumatic stress. Four (6.4%) of 64 reported a history of COVID-19 infection. Despite the history of EVALI, many people continued to vape. Only 38% (24 of 64) reported quitting all vaping and smoking behaviors. Younger age was associated with reduced vaping behavior after EVALI (odds ratio, 0.93; P = 0.02). ICU admission was not associated with cognitive impairment, dyspnea, or mood symptoms. Conclusions: Patients with EVALI, despite their youth, commonly have significant long-term respiratory disability; cognitive impairment; symptoms of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress; and persistent vaping.

Effect of COVID 19 pneumonia on hyperglycemia: Is it different from non COVID pneumonia?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Glycemic control in critical illness has been linked to outcomes. We sought to investigate if COVID pneumonia was causing disrupted glycemic control compared to historically similar diseases. METHODS: At Intermountain Healthcare, a 23-hospital healthcare system in the intermountain west, we performed a multicenter, retrospective cohort observational study. We compared 13,268 hospitalized patients with COVID pneumonia to 6673 patients with non -COVID-pneumonia. RESULTS: Patients with COVID-19 were younger had fewer comorbidities, had lower mortality and greater length of hospital stay. Our regression models demonstrated that daily insulin dose, indexed for weight, was associated with COVID-19, age, diabetic status, HgbA1c, admission SOFA, ICU length of stay and receipt of corticosteroids. There was significant interaction between a diagnosis of diabetes and having COVID-19. Time in range for our IV insulin protocol was not correlated with having COVID after adjustment. It was correlated with ICU length of stay, diabetic control (HgbA1C) and prior history of diabetes. Among patients with subcutaneous (SQ) insulin only percent of glucose checks in range was correlated with diabetic status, having Covid-19, HgbA1c, total steroids given and Elixhauser comorbidity score even when controlled for other factors. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who receive insulin for glycemic control require both more SQ and IV insulin than the non-COVID-19 pneumonia counterparts. Patients with COVID-19 who received SQ insulin only had a lower percent of glucose checks in range.