Palliative Care Training During Surgical Critical Care Fellowship: A Preliminary Needs Assessment at a Major Academic Center.

Surgical palliative care (PC) facilitates communication between surgeons and patients/family about prognosis, symptom control, and therapeutic goals. Surgical critical care (SCC) fellows are at the forefront of the intensive care team; thus, we aim to assess previous and ongoing experiences in delivering PC by surveying fellows at a large academic center. Seventeen surveys were completed in which 59% of fellows reported no previous PC education. Six fellows (35%) reported participating in goals of care/end-of-life (GOC/EOL) discussions "a few times a year" during residency, while 41% responded the same for transitioning patients to comfort-focused care (CFC). When asked if respondents felt comfortable facilitating GOC/EOL discussions prior to fellowship, 7 (41%) answered "disagree" or "strongly disagree." Most fellows reported that more training in navigating GOC/EOL discussions (88%) and transitioning patients to CFC (76%) is needed. This assessment demonstrates variability in fellows' prior PC exposure and a strong desire for more structured training.

Early Restrictive or Liberal Fluid Management for Sepsis-Induced Hypotension.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous fluids and vasopressor agents are commonly used in early resuscitation of patients with sepsis, but comparative data for prioritizing their delivery are limited. METHODS: In an unblinded superiority trial conducted at 60 U.S. centers, we randomly assigned patients to either a restrictive fluid strategy (prioritizing vasopressors and lower intravenous fluid volumes) or a liberal fluid strategy (prioritizing higher volumes of intravenous fluids before vasopressor use) for a 24-hour period. Randomization occurred within 4 hours after a patient met the criteria for sepsis-induced hypotension refractory to initial treatment with 1 to 3 liters of intravenous fluid. We hypothesized that all-cause mortality before discharge home by day 90 (primary outcome) would be lower with a restrictive fluid strategy than with a liberal fluid strategy. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1563 patients were enrolled, with 782 assigned to the restrictive fluid group and 781 to the liberal fluid group. Resuscitation therapies that were administered during the 24-hour protocol period differed between the two groups; less intravenous fluid was administered in the restrictive fluid group than in the liberal fluid group (difference of medians, -2134 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2318 to -1949), whereas the restrictive fluid group had earlier, more prevalent, and longer duration of vasopressor use. Death from any cause before discharge home by day 90 occurred in 109 patients (14.0%) in the restrictive fluid group and in 116 patients (14.9%) in the liberal fluid group (estimated difference, -0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.4 to 2.6; P = 0.61); 5 patients in the restrictive fluid group and 4 patients in the liberal fluid group had their data censored (lost to follow-up). The number of reported serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with sepsis-induced hypotension, the restrictive fluid strategy that was used in this trial did not result in significantly lower (or higher) mortality before discharge home by day 90 than the liberal fluid strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; CLOVERS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03434028.).

COVID-19 Transmission to Health Care Personnel During Tracheostomy Under a Multidisciplinary Safety Protocol.

BACKGROUND: Tracheostomies are highly aerosolizing procedures yet are often indicated in patients with COVID-19 who require prolonged intubation. Robust investigations of the safety of tracheostomy protocols and provider adherence and evaluations are limited. OBJECTIVES: To determine the rate of COVID-19 infection of health care personnel involved in COVID-19 tracheostomies under a multidisciplinary safety protocol and to investigate health care personnel's attitudes and suggested areas for improvement concerning the protocol. METHODS: All health care personnel involved in tracheostomies in COVID-19-positive patients from April 9 through July 11, 2020, were sent a 22-item electronic survey. RESULTS: Among 107 health care personnel (80.5%) who responded to the survey, 5 reported a positive COVID-19 test result (n = 2) or symptoms of COVID-19 (n = 3) within 21 days of the tracheostomy. Respondents reported 100% adherence to use of adequate personal protective equipment. Most (91%) were familiar with the tracheostomy protocol and felt safe (92%) while performing tracheostomy. Suggested improvements included creating dedicated tracheostomy teams and increasing provider choices surrounding personal protective equipment. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary engagement in the development and implementation of a COVID-19 tracheostomy protocol is associated with acceptable safety for all members of the care team.

Analysis of Outcomes Associated With Outpatient Management of Nonoperatively Treated Patients With Appendicitis.

Importance: In the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, which found antibiotics to be noninferior, approximately half of participants randomized to receive antibiotics had outpatient management with hospital discharge within 24 hours. If outpatient management is safe, it could increase convenience and decrease health care use and costs. Objective: To assess the use and safety of outpatient management of acute appendicitis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study, which is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, included 776 adults with imaging-confirmed appendicitis who received antibiotics at 25 US hospitals from May 1, 2016, to February 28, 2020. Exposures: Participants randomized to antibiotics (intravenous then oral) could be discharged from the emergency department based on clinician judgment and prespecified criteria (hemodynamically stable, afebrile, oral intake tolerated, pain controlled, and follow-up confirmed). Outpatient management and hospitalization were defined as discharge within or after 24 hours, respectively. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes compared among patients receiving outpatient vs inpatient care included serious adverse events (SAEs), appendectomies, health care encounters, satisfaction, missed workdays at 7 days, and EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D) score at 30 days. In addition, appendectomy incidence among outpatients and inpatients, unadjusted and adjusted for illness severity, was compared. Results: Among 776 antibiotic-randomized participants, 42 (5.4%) underwent appendectomy within 24 hours and 8 (1.0%) did not receive their first antibiotic dose within 24 hours, leaving 726 (93.6%) comprising the study population (median age, 36 years; range, 18-86 years; 462 [63.6%] male; 437 [60.2%] White). Of these participants, 335 (46.1%; site range, 0-89.2%) were discharged within 24 hours, and 391 (53.9%) were discharged after 24 hours. Over 7 days, SAEs occurred in 0.9 (95% CI, 0.2-2.6) per 100 outpatients and 1.3 (95% CI, 0.4-2.9) per 100 inpatients; in the appendicolith subgroup, SAEs occurred in 2.3 (95% CI, 0.3-8.2) per 100 outpatients vs 2.8 (95% CI, 0.6-7.9) per 100 inpatients. During this period, appendectomy occurred in 9.9% (95% CI, 6.9%-13.7%) of outpatients and 14.1% (95% CI, 10.8%-18.0%) of inpatients; adjusted analysis demonstrated a similar difference in incidence (-4.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to 0.6). At 30 days, appendectomies occurred in 12.6% (95% CI, 9.1%-16.7%) of outpatients and 19.0% (95% CI, 15.1%-23.4%) of inpatients. Outpatients missed fewer workdays (2.6 days; 95% CI, 2.3-2.9 days) than did inpatients (3.8 days; 95% CI, 3.4-4.3 days) and had similar frequency of return health care visits and high satisfaction and EQ-5D scores. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings support that outpatient antibiotic management is safe for selected adults with acute appendicitis, with no greater risk of complications or appendectomy than hospital care, and should be included in shared decision-making discussions of patient preferences for outcomes associated with nonoperative and operative care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Unraveling the Treatment Effect of Baricitinib on Clinical Progression and Resource Utilization in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients: Secondary Analysis of the Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Randomized Trial-2.

Background: The Adaptive COVID Treatment Trial-2 (ACTT-2) found that baricitinib in combination with remdesivir therapy (BCT) sped recovery in hospitalized coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients vs remdesivir monotherapy (RMT). We examined how BCT affected progression throughout hospitalization and utilization of intensive respiratory therapies. Methods: We characterized the clinical trajectories of 891 ACTT-2 participants requiring supplemental oxygen or higher levels of respiratory support at enrollment. We estimated the effect of BCT on cumulative incidence of clinical improvement and deterioration using competing risks models. We developed multistate models to estimate the effect of BCT on clinical improvement and deterioration and on utilization of respiratory therapies. Results: BCT resulted in more linear improvement and lower incidence of clinical deterioration compared with RMT (hazard ratio [HR], 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.95). The benefit was pronounced among participants enrolled on high-flow oxygen or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation. In this group, BCT sped clinical improvement (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.99 to 1.51) while slowing clinical deterioration (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.48 to 1.02), which reduced the expected days in ordinal score (OS) 6 per 100 patients by 74 days (95% CI, -8 to 154 days) and the expected days in OS 7 per 100 patients by 161 days (95% CI, 46 to 291 days) compared with RMT. BCT did not benefit participants who were mechanically ventilated at enrollment. Conclusions: Compared with RMT, BCT reduces the clinical burden and utilization of intensive respiratory therapies for patients requiring low-flow oxygen or noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation compared with RMT and may thereby improve care for this patient population.

Baricitinib versus dexamethasone for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (ACTT-4): a randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Baricitinib and dexamethasone have randomised trials supporting their use for the treatment of patients with COVID-19. We assessed the combination of baricitinib plus remdesivir versus dexamethasone plus remdesivir in preventing progression to mechanical ventilation or death in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS: In this randomised, double-blind, double placebo-controlled trial, patients were enrolled at 67 trial sites in the USA (60 sites), South Korea (two sites), Mexico (two sites), Singapore (two sites), and Japan (one site). Hospitalised adults (≥18 years) with COVID-19 who required supplemental oxygen administered by low-flow (≤15 L/min), high-flow (>15 L/min), or non-invasive mechanical ventilation modalities who met the study eligibility criteria (male or non-pregnant female adults ≥18 years old with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection) were enrolled in the study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either baricitinib, remdesivir, and placebo, or dexamethasone, remdesivir, and placebo using a permuted block design. Randomisation was stratified by study site and baseline ordinal score at enrolment. All patients received remdesivir (≤10 days) and either baricitinib (or matching oral placebo) for a maximum of 14 days or dexamethasone (or matching intravenous placebo) for a maximum of 10 days. The primary outcome was the difference in mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 between the two treatment groups in the modified intention-to-treat population. Safety analyses were done in the as-treated population, comprising all participants who received one dose of the study drug. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04640168. FINDINGS: Between Dec 1, 2020, and April 13, 2021, 1047 patients were assessed for eligibility. 1010 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned, 516 (51%) to baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo and 494 (49%) to dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo. The mean age of the patients was 58·3 years (SD 14·0) and 590 (58%) of 1010 patients were male. 588 (58%) of 1010 patients were White, 188 (19%) were Black, 70 (7%) were Asian, and 18 (2%) were American Indian or Alaska Native. 347 (34%) of 1010 patients were Hispanic or Latino. Mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29 was similar between the study groups (Kaplan-Meier estimates of 87·0% [95% CI 83·7 to 89·6] in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 87·6% [84·2 to 90·3] in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group; risk difference 0·6 [95% CI -3·6 to 4·8]; p=0·91). The odds ratio for improved status in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group compared with the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group was 1·01 (95% CI 0·80 to 1·27). At least one adverse event occurred in 149 (30%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 179 (37%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·5% [1·6 to 13·3]; p=0·014). 21 (4%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group had at least one treatment-related adverse event versus 49 (10%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 6·0% [2·8 to 9·3]; p=0·00041). Severe or life-threatening grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 143 (28%) of 503 patients in the baricitinib plus remdesivir plus placebo group and 174 (36%) of 482 patients in the dexamethasone plus remdesivir plus placebo group (risk difference 7·7% [1·8 to 13·4]; p=0·012). INTERPRETATION: In hospitalised patients with COVID-19 requiring supplemental oxygen by low-flow, high-flow, or non-invasive ventilation, baricitinib plus remdesivir and dexamethasone plus remdesivir resulted in similar mechanical ventilation-free survival by day 29, but dexamethasone was associated with significantly more adverse events, treatment-related adverse events, and severe or life-threatening adverse events. A more individually tailored choice of immunomodulation now appears possible, where side-effect profile, ease of administration, cost, and patient comorbidities can all be considered. FUNDING: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

One-Year Functional, Cognitive, and Psychological Outcomes Following the Use of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Prospective Study.

To prospectively describe 1-year outcomes, with a focus on functional outcome, cognitive outcome, and the burden of anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder, in coronavirus disease 2019 patients managed with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. DESIGN: Prospective case series. SETTING: Tertiary extracorporeal membrane oxygenation center in the United States. PATIENTS: Adult coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients managed with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation March 1, 2020, to July 31, 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Baseline variables, treatment measures, and short-term outcomes were obtained from the medical record. Survivors were interviewed by telephone, a year following the index intensive care admission. Functional outcome was assessed using the modified Rankin Scale and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale 2.0. Cognitive status was assessed with the 5-minute Montreal Cognitive Assessment. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale was used to screen for anxiety and depression. Screening for post-traumatic stress disorder was performed with the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist 5 instrument. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were managed with extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, 14 (61%) survived to hospital discharge. Thirteen (57%) were alive at 1 year. One patient was dependent on mechanical ventilation, another intermittently required supplemental oxygen at 1 year. The median modified Rankin Scale score was 2 (interquartile range, 1-2), median World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale 2.0 impairment score was 21% (interquartile range, 6-42%). Six of 12 previously employed individuals (50%) had returned to work, and 10 of 12 (83%) were entirely independent in activities of daily living. The median Montreal Cognitive Assessment score was 14 (interquartile range, 13-14). Of 10 patients assessed with Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, 4 (40%) screened positive for depression and 6 (60%) for anxiety. Four of 10 (40%) screened positive for post-traumatic stress disorder. CONCLUSIONS: Functional impairment was common a year following the use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in coronavirus disease 2019, although the majority achieved independence in daily living and about half returned to work. Long-term anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder were common, but cognitive impairment was not.

Tracheostomy for COVID-19 respiratory failure: timing, ventilatory characteristics, and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Whereas data from the pre-pandemic era have demonstrated that tracheostomy can accelerate liberation from the ventilator, reduce need for sedation, and facilitate rehabilitation, concerns for healthcare worker safety have led to disagreement on tracheostomy placement in COVID-19 patients. Data on COVID-19 patients undergoing tracheostomy may inform best practices. Thus, we report a retrospective institutional cohort experience with tracheostomy in ventilated patients with COVID-19, examining associations between time to tracheostomy and duration of mechanical ventilation in relation to patient characteristics, clinical course, and survival. METHODS: Clinical data were extracted for all COVID-19 tracheostomies performed at a quaternary referral center from April-July 2020. Outcomes studied included mortality, adverse events, duration of mechanical ventilation, and time to decannulation. RESULTS: Among 64 COVID-19 tracheostomies (13% of COVID-19 hospitalizations), patients were 64% male and 42% African American, with a median age of 54 (range, 20-89). Median time to tracheostomy was 22 (range, 7-60) days and median duration of mechanical ventilation was 39.4 (range, 20-113) days. Earlier tracheostomy was associated with shortened mechanical ventilation (R2=0.4, P<0.01). Median decannulation time was 35.3 (range, 7-79) days. There was 19% mortality and adverse events in 45%, mostly from bleeding in therapeutically anticoagulated patients. CONCLUSIONS: Tracheostomy was associated with swifter liberation from the ventilator and acceptable safety for physicians in this series of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Patient mortality was not increased relative to historical data on acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Future studies are required to establish conclusions of causality regarding tracheostomy timing with mechanical ventilation, complications, or mortality in COVID-19 patients.

Variation in Early Management Practices in Moderate-to-Severe ARDS in the United States: The Severe ARDS: Generating Evidence Study.

BACKGROUND: Although specific interventions previously demonstrated benefit in patients with ARDS, use of these interventions is inconsistent, and patient mortality remains high. The impact of variability in center management practices on ARDS mortality rates remains unknown. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the impact of treatment variability on mortality in patients with moderate to severe ARDS in the United States? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, observational cohort study of mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS and Pao2 to Fio2 ratio of ≤ 150 with positive end-expiratory pressure of ≥ 5 cm H2O, who were admitted to 29 US centers between October 1, 2016, and April 30, 2017. The primary outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality. Center variation in ventilator management, adjunctive therapy use, and mortality also were assessed. RESULTS: A total of 2,466 patients were enrolled. Median baseline Pao2 to Fio2 ratio was 105 (interquartile range, 78.0-129.0). In-hospital 28-day mortality was 40.7%. Initial adherence to lung protective ventilation (LPV; tidal volume, ≤ 6.5 mL/kg predicted body weight; plateau pressure, or when unavailable, peak inspiratory pressure, ≤ 30 mm H2O) was 31.4% and varied between centers (0%-65%), as did rates of adjunctive therapy use (27.1%-96.4%), methods used (neuromuscular blockade, prone positioning, systemic steroids, pulmonary vasodilators, and extracorporeal support), and mortality (16.7%-73.3%). Center standardized mortality ratios (SMRs), calculated using baseline patient-level characteristics to derive expected mortality rate, ranged from 0.33 to 1.98. Of the treatment-level factors explored, only center adherence to early LPV was correlated with SMR. INTERPRETATION: Substantial center-to-center variability exists in ARDS management, suggesting that further opportunities for improving ARDS outcomes exist. Early adherence to LPV was associated with lower center mortality and may be a surrogate for overall quality of care processes. Future collaboration is needed to identify additional treatment-level factors influencing center-level outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03021824; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Predicting Intensive Care Transfers and Other Unforeseen Events: Analytic Model Validation Study and Comparison to Existing Methods.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has led to an unprecedented strain on health care facilities across the United States. Accurately identifying patients at an increased risk of deterioration may help hospitals manage their resources while improving the quality of patient care. Here, we present the results of an analytical model, Predicting Intensive Care Transfers and Other Unforeseen Events (PICTURE), to identify patients at high risk for imminent intensive care unit transfer, respiratory failure, or death, with the intention to improve the prediction of deterioration due to COVID-19. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to validate the PICTURE model's ability to predict unexpected deterioration in general ward and COVID-19 patients, and to compare its performance with the Epic Deterioration Index (EDI), an existing model that has recently been assessed for use in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: The PICTURE model was trained and validated on a cohort of hospitalized non-COVID-19 patients using electronic health record data from 2014 to 2018. It was then applied to two holdout test sets: non-COVID-19 patients from 2019 and patients testing positive for COVID-19 in 2020. PICTURE results were aligned to EDI and NEWS scores for head-to-head comparison via area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and area under the precision-recall curve. We compared the models' ability to predict an adverse event (defined as intensive care unit transfer, mechanical ventilation use, or death). Shapley values were used to provide explanations for PICTURE predictions. RESULTS: In non-COVID-19 general ward patients, PICTURE achieved an AUROC of 0.819 (95% CI 0.805-0.834) per observation, compared to the EDI's AUROC of 0.763 (95% CI 0.746-0.781; n=21,740; P<.001). In patients testing positive for COVID-19, PICTURE again outperformed the EDI with an AUROC of 0.849 (95% CI 0.820-0.878) compared to the EDI's AUROC of 0.803 (95% CI 0.772-0.838; n=607; P<.001). The most important variables influencing PICTURE predictions in the COVID-19 cohort were a rapid respiratory rate, a high level of oxygen support, low oxygen saturation, and impaired mental status (Glasgow Coma Scale). CONCLUSIONS: The PICTURE model is more accurate in predicting adverse patient outcomes for both general ward patients and COVID-19 positive patients in our cohorts compared to the EDI. The ability to consistently anticipate these events may be especially valuable when considering potential incipient waves of COVID-19 infections. The generalizability of the model will require testing in other health care systems for validation.

The effect of timing of initiation of renal replacement therapy on mortality: A retrospective case-control study.

PURPOSE: To determine if earlier initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT) is associated with improved survival in patients with severe acute kidney injury. METHODS: We performed a retrospective case-control study of propensity-matched groups with multivariable logistic regression using Akaike Information Criteria to adjust for non-matched variables in a surgical ICU in a tertiary care hospital. RESULTS: We matched 169 of 205 (82%) patients with new initiation of RRT (EARLY group) to 169 similar patients who did not initiate RRT on that day (DEFERRED group). Eighteen (11%) of DEFERRED eventually received RRT before discharge. By univariate analysis, ICU mortality was higher in EARLY (n = 60 (36%) vs. n = 23 (14%), p < 0.001) as was hospital mortality (n = 73 (43%) vs. n = 44 (26%), p = 0.001). Of the 18 RRT patients in DEFERRED, 12 (67%) died in ICU and 13 (72%) in hospital. After propensity matching and logistic regression, we found that EARLY initiation of RRT was associated with a more than doubling of ICU mortality (aOR = 2.310, 95% confidence interval = 1.254-4.257, p = 0.007). However, after similar adjustment, there was no difference in hospital mortality (aOR = 1.283, 95% CI = 0.753-2.186, p = 0.360). CONCLUSIONS: While ICU mortality was increased in the EARLY group, there was no difference in hospital mortality between EARLY and DEFERRED groups.

Expert consensus statements for the management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure using a Delphi method.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused unprecedented pressure on healthcare system globally. Lack of high-quality evidence on the respiratory management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory failure (C-ARF) has resulted in wide variation in clinical practice. METHODS: Using a Delphi process, an international panel of 39 experts developed clinical practice statements on the respiratory management of C-ARF in areas where evidence is absent or limited. Agreement was defined as achieved when > 70% experts voted for a given option on the Likert scale statement or > 80% voted for a particular option in multiple-choice questions. Stability was assessed between the two concluding rounds for each statement, using the non-parametric Chi-square (χ2) test (p < 0·05 was considered as unstable). RESULTS: Agreement was achieved for 27 (73%) management strategies which were then used to develop expert clinical practice statements. Experts agreed that COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is clinically similar to other forms of ARDS. The Delphi process yielded strong suggestions for use of systemic corticosteroids for critical COVID-19; awake self-proning to improve oxygenation and high flow nasal oxygen to potentially reduce tracheal intubation; non-invasive ventilation for patients with mixed hypoxemic-hypercapnic respiratory failure; tracheal intubation for poor mentation, hemodynamic instability or severe hypoxemia; closed suction systems; lung protective ventilation; prone ventilation (for 16-24 h per day) to improve oxygenation; neuromuscular blocking agents for patient-ventilator dyssynchrony; avoiding delay in extubation for the risk of reintubation; and similar timing of tracheostomy as in non-COVID-19 patients. There was no agreement on positive end expiratory pressure titration or the choice of personal protective equipment. CONCLUSION: Using a Delphi method, an agreement among experts was reached for 27 statements from which 20 expert clinical practice statements were derived on the respiratory management of C-ARF, addressing important decisions for patient management in areas where evidence is either absent or limited. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered with Clinical trials.gov Identifier: NCT04534569.

Resonance Raman Spectroscopy Derived Tissue Hemoglobin Oxygen Saturation in Critically Ill and Injured Patients.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we examined the ability of resonance Raman spectroscopy to measure tissue hemoglobin oxygenation (R-StO2) noninvasively in critically ill patients and compared its performance with conventional central venous hemoglobin oxygen saturation (ScvO2). METHODS: Critically ill patients (n = 138) with an indwelling central venous or pulmonary artery catheter in place were consented and recruited. R-StO2 measurements were obtained by placing a sensor inside the mouth on the buccal mucosa. R-StO2 was measured continuously for 5 min. Blood samples were drawn from the distal port of the indwelling central venous catheter or proximal port of the pulmonary artery catheter at the end of the test period to measure ScvO2 using standard co-oximetry analyzer. A regression algorithm was used to calculate the R-StO2 based on the observed spectra. RESULTS: Mean (SD) of pooled R-StO2 and ScvO2 were 64(7.6) % and 65(9.2) % respectively. A paired t test showed no significant difference between R-StO2 and ScvO2 with a mean(SD) difference of -1(7.5) % (95% CI: -2.2, 0.3%) with a Clarke Error Grid demonstrating 84.8% of the data residing within the accurate and acceptable grids. Area under the receiver operator curve for R-StO2's was 0.8(0.029) (95% CI: 0.7, 0.9 P < 0.0001) at different thresholds of ScvO2 (≤60%, ≤65%, and ≤70%). Clinical adjudication by five clinicians to assess the utility of R-StO2 and ScvO2 yielded Fleiss' Kappa agreement of 0.45 (P < 0.00001). CONCLUSIONS: R-StO2 has the potential to predict ScvO2 with high precision and might serve as a faster, safer, and noninvasive surrogate to these measures.

Effect of Hydroxychloroquine on Clinical Status at 14 Days in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Data on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are needed. Objective: To determine whether hydroxychloroquine is an efficacious treatment for adults hospitalized with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a multicenter, blinded, placebo-controlled randomized trial conducted at 34 hospitals in the US. Adults hospitalized with respiratory symptoms from severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection were enrolled between April 2 and June 19, 2020, with the last outcome assessment on July 17, 2020. The planned sample size was 510 patients, with interim analyses planned after every 102 patients were enrolled. The trial was stopped at the fourth interim analysis for futility with a sample size of 479 patients. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 2 doses, then 200 mg twice daily for 8 doses) (n = 242) or placebo (n = 237). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was clinical status 14 days after randomization as assessed with a 7-category ordinal scale ranging from 1 (death) to 7 (discharged from the hospital and able to perform normal activities). The primary outcome was analyzed with a multivariable proportional odds model, with an adjusted odds ratio (aOR) greater than 1.0 indicating more favorable outcomes with hydroxychloroquine than placebo. The trial included 12 secondary outcomes, including 28-day mortality. Results: Among 479 patients who were randomized (median age, 57 years; 44.3% female; 37.2% Hispanic/Latinx; 23.4% Black; 20.1% in the intensive care unit; 46.8% receiving supplemental oxygen without positive pressure; 11.5% receiving noninvasive ventilation or nasal high-flow oxygen; and 6.7% receiving invasive mechanical ventilation or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), 433 (90.4%) completed the primary outcome assessment at 14 days and the remainder had clinical status imputed. The median duration of symptoms prior to randomization was 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3 to 7 days). Clinical status on the ordinal outcome scale at 14 days did not significantly differ between the hydroxychloroquine and placebo groups (median [IQR] score, 6 [4-7] vs 6 [4-7]; aOR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.73 to 1.42]). None of the 12 secondary outcomes were significantly different between groups. At 28 days after randomization, 25 of 241 patients (10.4%) in the hydroxychloroquine group and 25 of 236 (10.6%) in the placebo group had died (absolute difference, -0.2% [95% CI, -5.7% to 5.3%]; aOR, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.54 to 2.09]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults hospitalized with respiratory illness from COVID-19, treatment with hydroxychloroquine, compared with placebo, did not significantly improve clinical status at day 14. These findings do not support the use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 among hospitalized adults. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04332991.

A Randomized Trial Comparing Antibiotics with Appendectomy for Appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Antibiotic therapy has been proposed as an alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, nonblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy (10-day course) with appendectomy in patients with appendicitis at 25 U.S. centers. The primary outcome was 30-day health status, as assessed with the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating better health status; noninferiority margin, 0.05 points). Secondary outcomes included appendectomy in the antibiotics group and complications through 90 days; analyses were prespecified in subgroups defined according to the presence or absence of an appendicolith. RESULTS: In total, 1552 adults (414 with an appendicolith) underwent randomization; 776 were assigned to receive antibiotics (47% of whom were not hospitalized for the index treatment) and 776 to undergo appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure). Antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of 30-day EQ-5D scores (mean difference, 0.01 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.001 to 0.03). In the antibiotics group, 29% had undergone appendectomy by 90 days, including 41% of those with an appendicolith and 25% of those without an appendicolith. Complications were more common in the antibiotics group than in the appendectomy group (8.1 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.98); the higher rate in the antibiotics group could be attributed to those with an appendicolith (20.2 vs. 3.6 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.11 to 15.38) and not to those without an appendicolith (3.7 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.43). The rate of serious adverse events was 4.0 per 100 participants in the antibiotics group and 3.0 per 100 participants in the appendectomy group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.50). CONCLUSIONS: For the treatment of appendicitis, antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of results of a standard health-status measure. In the antibiotics group, nearly 3 in 10 participants had undergone appendectomy by 90 days. Participants with an appendicolith were at a higher risk for appendectomy and for complications than those without an appendicolith. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; CODA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02800785.).

Variation in Fluid and Vasopressor Use in Shock With and Without Physiologic Assessment: A Multicenter Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize the association between the use of physiologic assessment (central venous pressure, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure, stroke volume variation, pulse pressure variation, passive leg raise test, and critical care ultrasound) with fluid and vasopressor administration 24 hours after shock onset and with in-hospital mortality. DESIGN: Multicenter prospective cohort study between September 2017 and February 2018. SETTINGS: Thirty-four hospitals in the United States and Jordan. PATIENTS: Consecutive adult patients requiring admission to the ICU with systolic blood pressure less than or equal to 90 mm Hg, mean arterial blood pressure less than or equal to 65 mm Hg, or need for vasopressor. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Of 1,639 patients enrolled, 39% had physiologic assessments. Use of physiologic assessment was not associated with cumulative fluid administered within 24 hours of shock onset, after accounting for baseline characteristics, etiology and location of shock, ICU types, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III, and hospital (beta coefficient, 0.04; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.15). In multivariate analysis, the use of physiologic assessment was associated with a higher likelihood of vasopressor use (adjusted odds ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.45-2.71) and higher 24-hour cumulative vasopressor dosing as norepinephrine equivalent (beta coefficient, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19-0.55). The use of vasopressor was associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.27-2.78). In-hospital mortality was not associated with the use of physiologic assessment (adjusted odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.63-1.18). CONCLUSIONS: The use of physiologic assessment in the 24 hours after shock onset is associated with increased use of vasopressor but not with fluid administration.