Proposed public policies to improve outcomes in vascular surgery: an experts' forum.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate outcomes of vascular surgeries and identify strategies to improve public vascular care. METHODS: This was a descriptive, qualitative, and cross-sectional survey involving 30 specialists of the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein via Zoom. The outcomes of vascular procedures performed in the Public Health System extracted through Big Data analysis were discussed, and 53 potential strategies to improve public vascular care to improve public vascular care. RESULTS: There was a consensus on mandatory reporting of some key complications after complex arterial surgeries, such as stroke after carotid revascularization and amputations after lower limb revascularization. Participants agreed on the recommendation of screening for diabetic feet and infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. The use of Telemedicine as a tool for patient follow-up, auditing of centers for major arterial surgeries, and the concentration of complex arterial surgeries in reference centers were also points of consensus, as well as the need to reduce the values of endovascular materials. Regarding venous surgery, it was suggested that there should be incentives for simultaneous treatment of both limbs in cases of varicose veins of the lower limbs, in addition to the promotion of ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy in the public system. CONCLUSION: After discussing the data from the Brazilian Public System, proposals were defined for standardizing measures in population health care in the area of vascular surgery. Notification of complications of arterial surgeries is essential in identifying strategies to improve surgical outcomes. Screening of prevalent and/or morbid diseases allows early intervention and prevention of complications. Use of telemedicine in vascular follow-up allows optimizing the use of resources and reducing the burden on health services. Concentrating complex cases in reference hospitals leads to improved surgical outcomes.

Longer-term effectiveness of a heterologous coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine booster in healthcare workers in Brazil.

Objective: To compare the long-term vaccine effectiveness between those receiving viral vector [Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1)] or inactivated viral (CoronaVac) primary series (2 doses) and those who received an mRNA booster (Pfizer/BioNTech) (the third dose) among healthcare workers (HCWs). Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) in Brazil from January 2021 to July 2022. To assess the variation in the effectiveness of booster dose over time, we estimated the effectiveness rate by taking the log risk ratio as a function of time. Results: Of 14,532 HCWs, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was confirmed in 56.3% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine versus 23.2% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001), and 37.1% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine versus 22.7% among HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001). The highest vaccine effectiveness with mRNA booster was observed 30 days after vaccination: 91% for the CoronaVac vaccine group and 97% for the ChAdOx1 vaccine group. Vacine effectiveness declined to 55% and 67%, respectively, at 180 days. Of 430 samples screened for mutations, 49.5% were SARS-CoV-2 delta variants and 34.2% were SARS-CoV-2 omicron variants. Conclusions: Heterologous COVID-19 vaccines were effective for up to 180 days in preventing COVID-19 in the SARS-CoV-2 delta and omicron variant eras, which suggests the need for a second booster.

Risk factors for long coronavirus disease 2019 (long COVID) among healthcare personnel, Brazil, 2020-2022.

OBJECTIVE: To determine risk factors for the development of long coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in healthcare personnel (HCP). METHODS: We conducted a case-control study among HCP who had confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 working in a Brazilian healthcare system between March 1, 2020, and July 15, 2022. Cases were defined as those having long COVID according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention definition. Controls were defined as HCP who had documented COVID-19 but did not develop long COVID. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess the association between exposure variables and long COVID during 180 days of follow-up. RESULTS: Of 7,051 HCP diagnosed with COVID-19, 1,933 (27.4%) who developed long COVID were compared to 5,118 (72.6%) who did not. The majority of those with long COVID (51.8%) had 3 or more symptoms. Factors associated with the development of long COVID were female sex (OR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.05-1.39), age (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02), and 2 or more SARS-CoV-2 infections (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.07-1.50). Those infected with the SARS-CoV-2 δ (delta) variant (OR, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.17-0.50) or the SARS-CoV-2 o (omicron) variant (OR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.30-0.78), and those receiving 4 COVID-19 vaccine doses prior to infection (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.01-0.19) were significantly less likely to develop long COVID. CONCLUSIONS: Long COVID can be prevalent among HCP. Acquiring >1 SARS-CoV-2 infection was a major risk factor for long COVID, while maintenance of immunity via vaccination was highly protective.

Effectiveness of two coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccines (viral vector and inactivated viral vaccine) against severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in a cohort of healthcare workers.

OBJECTIVE: We investigated real-world vaccine effectiveness for Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) and CoronaVac against laboratory-confirmed severe acute respiratory coronavirus virus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil between January 1, 2021 and August 3, 2021, to assess vaccine effectiveness. We calculated vaccine effectiveness as 1 - rate ratio (RR), with RR determined by adjusting Poisson models with the occurrence of SARS-CoV-2 infection as the outcome and the vaccination status as the main variable. We used the logarithmic link function and simple models adjusting for sex, age, and job types. RESULTS: In total, 13,813 HCWs met the inclusion criteria for this analysis. Among them, 6,385 (46.2%) received the CoronaVac vaccine, 5,916 (42.8%) received the ChAdOx1 vaccine, and 1,512 (11.0%) were not vaccinated. Overall, COVID-19 occurred in 6% of unvaccinated HCWs, 3% of HCWs who received 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine, and 0.7% of HCWs who received 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine (P < .001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated vaccine effectiveness rates were 51.3% for CoronaVac, and 88.1% for ChAdOx1 vaccine. Both vaccines reduced the number of hospitalizations, the length of hospital stay, and the need for mechanical ventilation. In addition, 19 SARS-CoV-2 samples from 19 HCWs were screened for mutations of interest. Of 19 samples, 18 were the γ (gamma) variant. CONCLUSIONS: Although both COVID-19 vaccines (viral vector and inactivated virus) can significantly prevent COVID-19 among HCWs, CoronaVac was much less effective. The COVID-19 vaccines were also effective against the dominant γ variant.

Effectiveness of Heterologous Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Vaccine Booster Dosing in Brazilian Healthcare Workers, 2021.

BACKGROUND: Little is currently known about vaccine effectiveness (VE) for either 2 doses of Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) viral vector vaccine or CoronaVac (Instituto Butantan) inactivated viral vaccine followed by a third dose of mRNA vaccine (Pfizer/BioNTech) among healthcare workers (HCWs). METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study among HCWs (aged ≥18 years) working in a private healthcare system in Brazil from January to December 2021. VE was defined as 1 - incidence rate ratio (IRR), with IRR determined using Poisson models with the occurrence of laboratory-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection as the outcome, adjusting for age, sex, and job type. We compared those receiving viral vector or inactivated viral primary series (2 doses) with those who received an mRNA booster. RESULTS: A total of 11 427 HCWs met the inclusion criteria. COVID-19 was confirmed in 31.5% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine versus 0.9% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of CoronaVac vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001) and 9.8% of HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine versus 1% among HCWs receiving 2 doses of ChAdOx1 vaccine with mRNA booster (P < .001). In the adjusted analyses, the estimated VE was 92.0% for 2 CoronaVac vaccines plus mRNA booster and 60.2% for 2 ChAdOx1 vaccines plus mRNA booster, when compared with those with no mRNA booster. Of 246 samples screened for mutations, 191 (77.6%) were Delta variants. CONCLUSIONS: While 2 doses of ChAdOx1 or CoronaVac vaccines prevent COVID-19, the addition of a Pfizer/BioNTech booster provided significantly more protection.

Proposed public policies to improve outcomes in vascular surgery: an experts' forum

ABSTRACT Objective To evaluate outcomes of vascular surgeries and identify strategies to improve public vascular care. Methods This was a descriptive, qualitative, and cross-sectional survey involving 30 specialists of the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein via Zoom. The outcomes of vascular procedures performed in the Public Health System extracted through Big Data analysis were discussed, and 53 potential strategies to improve public vascular care to improve public vascular care. Results There was a consensus on mandatory reporting of some key complications after complex arterial surgeries, such as stroke after carotid revascularization and amputations after lower limb revascularization. Participants agreed on the recommendation of screening for diabetic feet and infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysms. The use of Telemedicine as a tool for patient follow-up, auditing of centers for major arterial surgeries, and the concentration of complex arterial surgeries in reference centers were also points of consensus, as well as the need to reduce the values of endovascular materials. Regarding venous surgery, it was suggested that there should be incentives for simultaneous treatment of both limbs in cases of varicose veins of the lower limbs, in addition to the promotion of ultrasound-guided foam sclerotherapy in the public system. Conclusion After discussing the data from the Brazilian Public System, proposals were defined for standardizing measures in population health care in the area of vascular surgery.

Influenza vaccination strategy in acute coronary syndromes: the VIP-ACS trial.

AIMS: To evaluate whether a strategy of double-dose influenza vaccination during hospitalization for an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) compared with standard-dose outpatient vaccination (as recommended by current guidelines) would further reduce the risk of major cardiopulmonary events. METHODS AND RESULTS: Vaccination against Influenza to Prevent cardiovascular events after Acute Coronary Syndromes (VIP-ACS) was a pragmatic, randomized, multicentre, active-comparator, open-label trial with blinded outcome adjudication comparing two strategies of influenza vaccination following an ACS: double-dose quadrivalent inactivated vaccine before hospital discharge vs. standard-dose quadrivalent inactivated vaccine administered in the outpatient setting 30 days after randomization. The primary outcome was a hierarchical composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, unstable angina, hospitalization for heart failure, urgent coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for respiratory causes, analysed by the win ratio method. Patients were followed for 12 months. During two influenza seasons, 1801 participants were included at 25 centres in Brazil. The primary outcome was not different between groups, with 12.7% wins in-hospital double-dose vaccine group and 12.3% wins in the standard-dose vaccine group {win ratio: 1.02 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.79-1.32], P = 0.84}. Results were consistent for the key secondary outcome, a hierarchical composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and stroke [win ratio: 0.94 (95% CI: 0.66-1.33), P = 0.72]. Time-to-first event analysis for the primary outcome showed results similar to those of the main analysis [hazard ratio 0.97 (95% CI: 0.75-1.24), P = 0.79]. Adverse events were infrequent and did not differ between groups. CONCLUSION: Among patients hospitalized with an ACS, double-dose influenza vaccination before discharge did not reduce cardiopulmonary outcomes compared with standard-dose vaccination in the outpatient setting. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT04001504.

Statistical analysis of a cluster-randomized clinical trial on adult general intensive care units in Brazil: TELE-critical care verSus usual Care On ICU PErformance (TELESCOPE) trial. / Plano de análise estatística de um ensaio clínico randomizado em cluster em unidades de terapia intensiva geral adulto no Brasil: TELE-critical care verSus usual Care On ICU PErformance (TELESCOPE).

OBJECTIVE: The TELE-critical Care verSus usual Care On ICU PErformance (TELESCOPE) trial aims to assess whether a complex telemedicine intervention in intensive care units, which focuses on daily multidisciplinary rounds performed by remote intensivists, will reduce intensive care unit length of stay compared to usual care. METHODS: The TELESCOPE trial is a national, multicenter, controlled, open label, cluster randomized trial. The study tests the effectiveness of daily multidisciplinary rounds conducted by an intensivist through telemedicine in Brazilian intensive care units. The protocol was approved by the local Research Ethics Committee of the coordinating study center and by the local Research Ethics Committee from each of the 30 intensive care units, following Brazilian legislation. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials. gov (NCT03920501). The primary outcome is intensive care unit length of stay, which will be analyzed accounting for the baseline period and cluster structure of the data and adjusted by prespecified covariates. Secondary exploratory outcomes included intensive care unit performance classification, in-hospital mortality, incidence of nosocomial infections, ventilator-free days at 28 days, rate of patients receiving oral or enteral feeding, rate of patients under light sedation or alert and calm, and rate of patients under normoxemia. CONCLUSION: According to the trial's best practice, we report our statistical analysis prior to locking the database and beginning analyses. We anticipate that this reporting practice will prevent analysis bias and improve the interpretation of the reported results.ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03920501.

OBJETIVO: O ensaio TELE-critical Care verSus usual Care On ICU PErformance (TELESCOPE) visa avaliar se uma intervenção complexa por telemedicina em unidades de terapia intensiva, que se concentra em rondas multidisciplinares diárias realizadas por intensivistas a distância, reduzirá o tempo de permanência na unidade de terapia intensiva em comparação com os cuidados habituais. MÉTODOS: O TELESCOPE é um ensaio nacional, multicêntrico, controlado, aberto, randomizado em cluster. O estudo testa a eficácia de rondas multidisciplinares diárias realizadas por um intensivista por meio de telemedicina em unidades de terapia intensiva brasileiras. O protocolo foi aprovado pelo Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa local do centro coordenador do estudo e pelo Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa local de cada uma das 30 unidades de terapia intensiva, de acordo com a legislação brasileira. O ensaio está registado no ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03920501). O desfecho primário é o tempo de internação na unidade de terapia intensiva, que será analisado considerando o período basal e a estrutura dos dados em cluster, sendo ajustado por covariáveis predefinidas. Os desfechos exploratórios secundários incluem a classificação de desempenho da unidade de terapia intensiva, a mortalidade hospitalar, a incidência de infecções nosocomiais, o número de dias sem ventilação mecânica aos 28 dias, a taxa de pacientes que recebem alimentação oral ou enteral, a taxa de pacientes sob sedação leve ou em alerta e calmos e a taxa de pacientes sob normoxemia. CONCLUSÃO: De acordo com as melhores práticas do ensaio, divulgamos nossa análise estatística antes de bloquear a base de dados e iniciar as análises. Esperamos que essa prática de notificação evite o viés das análises e aprimore a interpretação dos resultados apresentados.Registro no ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03920501.

Plano de análise estatística de um ensaio clínico randomizado em cluster em unidades de terapia intensiva geral adulto no Brasil: TELE-critical care verSus usual Care On ICU PErformance (TELESCOPE) / Statistical analysis of a cluster-randomized clinical trial on adult general intensive care units in Brazil: TELE-critical care verSus usual Care On ICU PErformance (TELESCOPE) trial

RESUMO Objetivo: O ensaio TELE-critical Care verSus usual Care On ICU PErformance (TELESCOPE) visa avaliar se uma intervenção complexa por telemedicina em unidades de terapia intensiva, que se concentra em rondas multidisciplinares diárias realizadas por intensivistas a distância, reduzirá o tempo de permanência na unidade de terapia intensiva em comparação com os cuidados habituais. Métodos: O TELESCOPE é um ensaio nacional, multicêntrico, controlado, aberto, randomizado em cluster. O estudo testa a eficácia de rondas multidisciplinares diárias realizadas por um intensivista por meio de telemedicina em unidades de terapia intensiva brasileiras. O protocolo foi aprovado pelo Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa local do centro coordenador do estudo e pelo Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa local de cada uma das 30 unidades de terapia intensiva, de acordo com a legislação brasileira. O ensaio está registado no ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03920501). O desfecho primário é o tempo de internação na unidade de terapia intensiva, que será analisado considerando o período basal e a estrutura dos dados em cluster, sendo ajustado por covariáveis predefinidas. Os desfechos exploratórios secundários incluem a classificação de desempenho da unidade de terapia intensiva, a mortalidade hospitalar, a incidência de infecções nosocomiais, o número de dias sem ventilação mecânica aos 28 dias, a taxa de pacientes que recebem alimentação oral ou enteral, a taxa de pacientes sob sedação leve ou em alerta e calmos e a taxa de pacientes sob normoxemia. Conclusão: De acordo com as melhores práticas do ensaio, divulgamos nossa análise estatística antes de bloquear a base de dados e iniciar as análises. Esperamos que essa prática de notificação evite o viés das análises e aprimore a interpretação dos resultados apresentados. Registro no ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT03920501

ABSTRACT Objective: The TELE-critical Care verSus usual Care On ICU PErformance (TELESCOPE) trial aims to assess whether a complex telemedicine intervention in intensive care units, which focuses on daily multidisciplinary rounds performed by remote intensivists, will reduce intensive care unit length of stay compared to usual care. Methods: The TELESCOPE trial is a national, multicenter, controlled, open label, cluster randomized trial. The study tests the effectiveness of daily multidisciplinary rounds conducted by an intensivist through telemedicine in Brazilian intensive care units. The protocol was approved by the local Research Ethics Committee of the coordinating study center and by the local Research Ethics Committee from each of the 30 intensive care units, following Brazilian legislation. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials. gov (NCT03920501). The primary outcome is intensive care unit length of stay, which will be analyzed accounting for the baseline period and cluster structure of the data and adjusted by prespecified covariates. Secondary exploratory outcomes included intensive care unit performance classification, in-hospital mortality, incidence of nosocomial infections, ventilator-free days at 28 days, rate of patients receiving oral or enteral feeding, rate of patients under light sedation or alert and calm, and rate of patients under normoxemia. Conclusion: According to the trial's best practice, we report our statistical analysis prior to locking the database and beginning analyses. We anticipate that this reporting practice will prevent analysis bias and improve the interpretation of the reported results. ClinicalTrials.gov registration:NCT03920501

TELE-critical Care verSus usual Care On ICU PErformance (TELESCOPE): protocol for a cluster-randomised clinical trial on adult general ICUs in Brazil.

INTRODUCTION: Daily multidisciplinary rounds (DMRs) consist of systematic patient-centred discussions aiming to establish joint therapeutic goals for the next 24 hours of intensive care unit (ICU) care. The aim of the present study protocol is to evaluate whether an intervention consisting of guided DMRs, supported by a remote specialist and audit/feedback on care performance will reduce ICU length of stay compared with a control group. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A multicentre, controlled, cluster-randomised superiority trial including 30 ICUs in Brazil (15 intervention and 15 control), from August 2019 to June 2021. In a parallel assignment, ICUs are randomised to a complex-intervention composed by daily rounds carried out through Tele-ICU by a remote ICU physician; development of local quality indicators dashboards coupled with monthly meetings with local leadership; and dissemination of evidence-based clinical protocols versus usual care. Primary outcome is ICU length of stay. Secondary outcomes include classification of the unit according to the profiles defined by the standardised resource use and the standardised mortality rate, hospital mortality, incidence of healthcare-associated infections, ventilator-free days at 28 days, patient-days receiving oral or enteral feeding, patient-days under light sedation or alert and calm, rate of patients under normoxaemia. All adult patients admitted after the beginning of the study in each participant ICU will be enrolled. Inclusion criteria (clusters): public Brazilian ICUs with a minimum of 8 ICU beds interested/committed to participating in the study. Exclusion criteria (clusters): units with fully established DMRs by an intensivist, specialised or step-down units. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study protocol was approved by the institutional review board (IRB) of the coordinator centre, and by IRBs of each enrolled hospital/ICU. Statistical analysis protocol is being prepared for submission before the end of patient's enrolment. Results will be disseminated through conferences, peer-reviewed journals and to each participating unit. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03920501; Pre-results.

Azithromycin in addition to standard of care versus standard of care alone in the treatment of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19 in Brazil (COALITION II): a randomised clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of azithromycin in the treatment of COVID-19 remain uncertain. We assessed whether adding azithromycin to standard of care, which included hydroxychloroquine, would improve clinical outcomes of patients admitted to the hospital with severe COVID-19. METHODS: We did an open-label, randomised clinical trial at 57 centres in Brazil. We enrolled patients admitted to hospital with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and at least one additional severity criteria as follows: use of oxygen supplementation of more than 4 L/min flow; use of high-flow nasal cannula; use of non-invasive mechanical ventilation; or use of invasive mechanical ventilation. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to azithromycin (500 mg via oral, nasogastric, or intravenous administration once daily for 10 days) plus standard of care or to standard of care without macrolides. All patients received hydroxychloroquine (400 mg twice daily for 10 days) because that was part of standard of care treatment in Brazil for patients with severe COVID-19. The primary outcome, assessed by an independent adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation, was clinical status at day 15 after randomisation, assessed by a six-point ordinal scale, with levels ranging from 1 to 6 and higher scores indicating a worse condition (with odds ratio [OR] greater than 1·00 favouring the control group). The primary outcome was assessed in all patients in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population who had severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection confirmed by molecular or serological testing before randomisation (ie, modified ITT [mITT] population). Safety was assessed in all patients according to which treatment they received, regardless of original group assignment. This trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04321278. FINDINGS: 447 patients were enrolled from March 28 to May 19, 2020. COVID-19 was confirmed in 397 patients who constituted the mITT population, of whom 214 were assigned to the azithromycin group and 183 to the control group. In the mITT population, the primary endpoint was not significantly different between the azithromycin and control groups (OR 1·36 [95% CI 0·94-1·97], p=0·11). Rates of adverse events, including clinically relevant ventricular arrhythmias, resuscitated cardiac arrest, acute kidney failure, and corrected QT interval prolongation, were not significantly different between groups. INTERPRETATION: In patients with severe COVID-19, adding azithromycin to standard of care treatment (which included hydroxychloroquine) did not improve clinical outcomes. Our findings do not support the routine use of azithromycin in combination with hydroxychloroquine in patients with severe COVID-19. FUNDING: COALITION COVID-19 Brazil and EMS.

Would you like to be admitted to the ICU? The preferences of intensivists and general public according to different outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Discussions about invasiveness of care (advanced directives) and end-of-life issues have become frequent among intensivists and patients. Nevertheless, there are considerable divergences in the attitudes between intensivists and patients toward end-of-life care in the intensive care units (ICU). METHODS: The goal was to compare the preferences between intensivists and general public regarding ICU admission of a hypothetical patient with six different clinical outcomes. For that, intensivists and the general public (university graduate professionals outside the area of health) were invited to participate in this study. A survey was conducted with a hypothetical patient with six different clinical outcomes ranging from ICU discharge without any neurological sequelae, nor dependence for daily activities, to death. The WHOQOL-BREF was applied. Comparisons were made between the answers provided by intensivists regarding what they would choose for themselves and their patients, and the preferences of general public. RESULTS: Between July 2013 and July 2016, 300 participants in 5 hospitals in São Paulo, Brazil were invited to participate in this study, of whom 257 (85.7%) responded the survey. Eighty-two intensivists responded what they would choose for themselves, 81 intensivists responded what they would choose for their patients, and 94 people from general public responded what they would choose for themselves. Quality of life did not differ among the groups. In all scenarios, except when the outcome was severe disability or death, intensivists were more likely to choose ICU admission for their patients than for themselves (p < .05 for all). Compared with general public, intensivists were more likely to choose ICU admission for themselves only when the best clinical scenario outcome is considered (p < .001). General public was significantly less prone to choosing ICU admission than intensivists when choosing for their patients, in three out of six scenarios (p < .001 for all). CONCLUSIONS: Considerable divergences exist between intensivists' and patients' preferences toward end-of-life care. Advanced care planning and effective ongoing communication among intensivists, patients and relatives are essential to improve end-of-life decisions and the quality of care.

Nighttime intensive care unit discharge and outcomes: A propensity matched retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Nighttime ICU discharge, i.e., discharge from the ICU during the night hours, has been associated with increased readmission rates, hospital length of stay (LOS) and in-hospital mortality. We sought to determine the frequency of nighttime ICU discharge and identify whether nighttime ICU discharge is associated with worse outcomes in a private adult ICU located in Brazil. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of a cohort study addressing the effect of ICU readmissions on outcomes. This retrospective, single center, propensity matched cohort study was conducted in a medical-surgical ICU located in a private tertiary care hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. Based on time of transfer, patients were categorized into nighttime (7:00 pm to 6:59 am) and daytime (7:00 am to 6:59 pm) ICU discharge and were propensity-score matched at a 1:2 ratio. The primary outcome of interest was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Among 4,313 eligible patients admitted to the ICU between June 2013 and May 2015, 1,934 patients were matched at 1:2 ratio [649 (33.6%) nighttime and 1,285 (66.4%) daytime discharged patients]. The median (IQR) cohort age was 66 (51-79) years and SAPS III score was 43 (33-55). In-hospital mortality was 6.5% (42/649) in nighttime compared to 5.6% (72/1,285) in daytime discharged patients (OR, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.73; p = 0.444). While frequency of ICU readmission (OR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.29; p = 0.741) and length of hospital stay did not differ between the groups, length of ICU stay was lower in nighttime compared to daytime ICU discharged patients [1 (1-3) days vs. 2 (1-3) days, respectively, p = 0.047]. CONCLUSION: In this propensity-matched retrospective cohort study, time of ICU discharge did not affect in-hospital mortality.

Mechanical power of ventilation is associated with mortality in critically ill patients: an analysis of patients in two observational cohorts.

PURPOSE: Mechanical power (MP) may unify variables known to be related to development of ventilator-induced lung injury. The aim of this study is to examine the association between MP and mortality in critically ill patients receiving invasive ventilation for at least 48 h. METHODS: This is an analysis of data stored in the databases of the MIMIC-III and eICU. Critically ill patients receiving invasive ventilation for at least 48 h were included. The exposure of interest was MP. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: Data from 8207 patients were analyzed. Median MP during the second 24 h was 21.4 (16.2-28.1) J/min in MIMIC-III and 16.0 (11.7-22.1) J/min in eICU. MP was independently associated with in-hospital mortality [odds ratio per 5 J/min increase (OR) 1.06 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01-1.11); p = 0.021 in MIMIC-III, and 1.10 (1.02-1.18); p = 0.010 in eICU]. MP was also associated with ICU mortality, 30-day mortality, and with ventilator-free days, ICU and hospital length of stay. Even at low tidal volume, high MP was associated with in-hospital mortality [OR 1.70 (1.32-2.18); p < 0.001] and other secondary outcomes. Finally, there is a consistent increase in the risk of death with MP higher than 17.0 J/min. CONCLUSION: High MP of ventilation is independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality and several other outcomes in ICU patients receiving invasive ventilation for at least 48 h.

Handovers Among Staff Intensivists: A Study of Information Loss and Clinical Accuracy to Anticipate Events.

OBJECTIVES: Handovers are associated with medical errors, and our primary objective is to identify missed diagnosis and goals immediately after a shift handover. Our secondary objective is to assess clinicians' diagnostic accuracy in anticipating clinical events during the night shift. DESIGN: Single-center prospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Thirty-bed tertiary ICU in Sao Paulo, Brazil. PATIENTS: Three-hundred fifty-two patient encounters over 44 day-to-night handovers. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We used a multimethods approach to measure transmission of information among staff physicians on diagnoses and goals for the night shift. We surveyed clinicians immediately after a handover and identified clinical events through chart abstractions and interviews with clinicians the next morning. Nighttime clinicians correctly identified 454 of 857 diagnoses (53%; 95% CI 50-56) and 123 of 304 goals (40%; 95% CI, 35-46). Daytime clinicians were more sensitive (65% vs 46%; p < 0.01) but less specific (82% vs 91%; p < 0.01) than nighttime clinicians in anticipating clinical events at night, resulting in similar accuracy (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.74 [95% CI, 0.68-0.79] vs 0.68 [95% CI 0.63-0.74]; p = 0.09). The positive predictive value of both daytime and nighttime clinicians was low (13% vs 17%; p = 0.2). Gaps in diagnosis and anticipation of events were more pronounced in neurologic diagnoses. CONCLUSIONS: Among staff intensivists, diagnoses and goals of treatment are either not conveyed or retained 50-60% of the cases immediately after a handover. Clinicians have limited ability to anticipate events, and the expectation that anticipatory guidance can inform handovers needs to be balanced against information overload. Handovers among staff intensivists showed more gaps in the identification of diagnostic uncertainty and for neurologic diagnoses, which could benefit from communication strategies such as cognitive checklists, prioritizing discussion of neurologic patients, and brief combined clinical examination at handover.

Readmission to the Intensive Care Unit: Incidence, Risk Factors, Resource Use, and Outcomes. A Retrospective Cohort Study.

RATIONALE: Readmission to the intensive care unit (ICU) is associated with poor clinical outcomes, increased length of ICU and hospital stay, and higher costs. Nevertheless, knowledge of epidemiology of ICU readmissions, risk factors, and attributable outcomes is restricted to developed countries. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of ICU readmissions on in-hospital mortality, determine incidence of ICU readmissions, identify predictors of ICU readmissions and hospital mortality, and compare resource use and outcomes between readmitted and nonreadmitted patients in a developing country. METHODS: This retrospective single-center cohort study was conducted in a 40-bed, open medical-surgical ICU of a private, tertiary care hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. The Local Ethics Committee at Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein approved the study protocol, and the need for informed consent was waived. All consecutive adult (≥18 yr) patients admitted to the ICU between June 1, 2013 and July 1, 2015 were enrolled in this study. RESULTS: Comparisons were made between patients readmitted and not readmitted to the ICU. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of ICU readmissions and hospital mortality. Out of 5,779 patients admitted to the ICU, 576 (10%) were readmitted to the ICU during the same hospitalization. Compared with nonreadmitted patients, patients readmitted to the ICU were more often men (349 of 576 patients [60.6%] vs. 2,919 of 5,203 patients [56.1%]; P = 0.042), showed a higher (median [interquartile range]) severity of illness (Simplified Acute Physiology III score) at index ICU admission (50 [41-61] vs. 42 [32-54], respectively, for readmitted and nonreadmitted patients; P < 0.001), and were more frequently admitted due to medical reasons (425 of 576 [73.8%] vs. 2,998 of 5,203 [57.6%], respectively, for readmitted and nonreadmitted patients; P < 0.001). Simplified Acute Physiology III score (P < 0.001), ICU admission from the ward (odds ratio [OR], 1.907; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.463-2.487; P < 0.001), vasopressors need during index ICU stay (OR, 1.391; 95% CI, 1.130-1.713; P = 0.002), and length of ICU stay (P = 0.001) were independent predictors of ICU readmission. After adjusting for severity of illness, ICU readmission (OR, 4.103; 95% CI, 3.226-5.518; P < 0.001), admission source, presence of cancer, use of vasopressors, mechanical ventilation or renal replacement therapy, length of ICU stay, and nighttime ICU discharge were associated with increased risk of in-hospital death. CONCLUSIONS: Readmissions to the ICU were frequent and strongly related to poor outcomes. The degree to which ICU readmissions are preventable as well as the main causes of preventable ICU readmissions need to be further determined.