Impact of Geographical Cohorting in the ICU: An Academic Tertiary Care Center Experience.

ICU is a multifaceted organization where multiple teams care for critically ill patients. In the current era, collaboration between teams and efficient workflows form the backbone of value-based care. Geographical cohorting is a widespread model for hospitalist rounding, but its role in ICUs is unclear. This study evaluates the outcomes of geographical cohorting in a large ICU of an Academic Health Center. DESIGN: This is a retrospective analysis of quality metrics collected 12 months pre- and post-implementation of geographical cohorting. SETTING: A total of 130 bedded ICU at tertiary academic health center in Midwest. PATIENTS: All patients admitted to the ICU. INTERVENTIONS: Our institution piloted the geographical cohorting model for critical care physician rounding on September 1, 2018. MEASUREMENTS: The quality metrics were categorized as ICU harm events and ICU hospital metrics. Team of critical care providers were surveyed 12 months after implementation. MAIN RESULTS: The critical care utilization in the pre- and post-implementation numbers were similar for patient days (pre = 34,839, post = 35,155), central-line days (pre = 17,648, post = 19,224), and Foley catheter days (pre = 18,292, post = 17,364). The ICU length of stay was similar (4.9 d) in both pre- and post-intervention periods. Significant reduction in the incidence of Clostridium difficile infection (relative risk, -0.50; 95% CI, 0.25-0.96; p = 0.039), hospital-acquired pressure injury (relative risk, -0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.92; p = 0.020), central line-associated bloodstream infection incidence (relative risk, -0.19; 95% CI, 0.05-0.52; p = 0.008), and catheter-associated urinary tract infection (relative risk, -0.52; 95% CI, 0.29-0.93; p = 0.027). Healthcare providers perceived optimal utilization of their time, reduced interruptions, and improved coordination of care with geographical rounding. CONCLUSIONS: Geographical cohorting improves coordination of care, physician workflow, and critical care quality metrics in very large ICUs.

The presence of a dedicated cardiac surgical intensive care service impacts clinical outcomes in adult cardiac surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative critical care management is an integral part of cardiac surgery that contributes directly to clinical outcomes. In the United States there remains considerable variability in the critical care infrastructure for cardiac surgical programs. There is little published data investigating the impact of a dedicated cardiac surgical intensive care service. METHODS: A retrospective study examining postoperative outcomes in cardiac surgical patients before and after the implementation of a dedicated cardiac surgical intensive care service at a single academic institution. An institutional Society of Thoracic Surgeons database was queried for study variables. Primary endpoints were the postoperative length of stay, intensive care unit length of stay, and mechanical ventilation time. Secondary endpoints included mortality, readmission rates, and postoperative complications. The effect on outcomes based on procedure type was also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 1703 patients were included in this study-914 in the control group (before dedicated intensive care service) and 789 in the study group (after dedicated intensive care service). Baseline demographics were similar between groups. Length of stay, mechanical ventilation hours, and renal failure rate were significantly reduced in the study group. Coronary artery bypass grafting patients observed the greatest improvement in outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a dedicated cardiac surgical intensive care service leads to significant improvements in clinical outcomes. The greatest benefit is seen in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass, the most common cardiac surgical operation in the United States. Thus, developing a cardiac surgical intensive care service may be a worthwhile initiative for any cardiac surgical program.

Circulating endothelial and endothelial progenitor cells in patients with severe sepsis.

Elevated circulating endothelial cell (CEC) and circulating endothelial progenitor cell (CEPC) counts may indicate vascular damage and disease status, but data on these cell populations in patients with severe sepsis are limited. This study compared CEC and CEPC counts in patients with and without severe sepsis following intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Venous blood samples were collected within 24 h, 48-72 h, and 120-144 h. Baseline demographics, 28-day mortality, ICU and hospital days, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores were recorded. Patients with (n=18) and without (n=28) severe sepsis were balanced for mean age (63.7 and 61.3 years, respectively) and gender. There were no differences in 28-day mortality, ICU days, or hospital days. Baseline SOFA scores were higher in the sepsis group. At 48-72 h, patients with severe sepsis had significantly higher median CEC counts (51.5 vs. 28.0 cells/4 ml of blood, P=0.02). CEC values for all ICU patients were significantly (P<0.05) higher than in healthy volunteers. CEPC counts in both cohorts ranged from 0 to >21 colonies/4 ml blood (mean=1.13±2.25; median=0) without significant differences at any time point. This study demonstrates the ability to quantify CECs and CEPCs using consensus methodology. Understanding the relationship between CEC/CEPC counts and outcomes may provide insight into the mechanisms of endothelial cell changes in severe sepsis.

Efficacy and safety of LY315920Na/S-5920, a selective inhibitor of 14-kDa group IIA secretory phospholipase A2, in patients with suspected sepsis and organ failure.

OBJECTIVE: Concentrations of group IIA secretory phospholipase A, an inflammatory response mediator, are increased in the plasma of patients with sepsis and septic shock, and the extent of elevation is correlated with mortality. LY315920Na/S-5920 is a selective inhibitor of group IIA secretory phospholipase A that has been shown to inhibit serum group IIA secretory phospholipase A enzyme activity in patients with severe sepsis. The primary objectives of this study were to determine whether there was a dose-response relationship between two doses of LY315920Na/S-5920 compared with placebo in the reduction of 28-day all-cause mortality in patients with severe sepsis and to determine whether LY315920Na/S-5920 had an acceptable safety profile.(2) (2) (2) DESIGN: Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of two doses of LY315920Na/S-5920 in a parallel design. PATIENTS: A total of 586 patients with severe sepsis at 72 institutions in the United States. INTERVENTIONS Patients enrolled within 72 hrs from onset of first sepsis-induced organ failure were randomized (1:1:1) to low-dose LY315920Na/S-5920 (target plasma concentration of 200 ng/mL, n = 196), high-dose LY315920Na/S-5920 (800 ng/mL, n = 194), or placebo (n = 196). Study medication was administered as a constant-rate intravenous infusion for 168 hrs. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The study was stopped prematurely because it was unlikely that a statistically significant difference in mortality between LY315920Na/S-5920 and placebo would be found. There was no effect of LY315920Na/S-5920 on the primary end point of 28-day all-cause mortality across the entire study population. The 28-day all-cause mortality was distributed as follows: placebo group, 33.2% (65/196 patients); low-dose LY315920Na/S-5920, 37.2% (73/196); and high-dose LY315920Na/S-5920, 36.1% (70/194); p = .525. However, in a prospectively planned analysis, there was a favorable overall dose-response effect on 28-day all-cause mortality in patients administered LY315920Na/S-5920 within 18 hrs of onset of the first sepsis-induced organ failure. Among these patients, 28-day all-cause mortality was distributed as follows: placebo group, 43.5% (20/46 patients); low-dose LY315920Na/S-5920, 31.4% (16/51); and high-dose LY315920Na/S-5920, 20.8% (10/48); p = .018. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of LY315920Na/S-5920 had an acceptable safety profile in patients with severe sepsis. There was no overall survival benefit associated with the use of LY315920Na/S-5920 in this study. However, prospectively planned secondary analyses suggested that treatment with LY315920Na/S-5920 was associated with an improvement in survival in patients treated within 18 hrs of the first sepsis-induced organ failure.