Beliefs of physician directors on the management of devastating brain injuries at the Canadian emergency department and intensive care unit interface: a national site-level survey.

PURPOSE: Insufficient evidence-based recommendations to guide care for patients with devastating brain injuries (DBIs) leave patients vulnerable to inconsistent practice at the emergency department (ED) and intensive care unit (ICU) interface. We sought to characterize the beliefs of Canadian emergency medicine (EM) and critical care medicine (CCM) physician site directors regarding current management practices for patients with DBI. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of EM and CCM physician directors of adult EDs and ICUs across Canada (December 2022 to March 2023). Our primary outcome was the proportion of respondents who manage (or consult on) patients with DBI in the ED. We conducted subgroup analyses to compare beliefs of EM and CCM physicians. RESULTS: Of 303 eligible respondents, we received 98 (32%) completed surveys (EM physician directors, 46; CCM physician directors, 52). Most physician directors reported participating in the decision to withdraw life-sustaining measures (WLSM) for patients with DBI in the ED (80%, n = 78), but 63% of these (n = 62) said this was infrequent. Physician directors reported that existing neuroprognostication methods are rarely sufficient to support WLSM in the ED (49%, n = 48) and believed that an ICU stay is required to improve confidence (99%, n = 97). Most (96%, n = 94) felt that providing caregiver visitation time prior to WLSM was a valid reason for ICU admission. CONCLUSION: In our survey of Canadian EM and CCM physician directors, 80% participated in WLSM in the ED for patients with DBI. Despite this, most supported ICU admission to optimize neuroprognostication and patient-centred end-of-life care, including organ donation.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'insuffisance des recommandations fondées sur des données probantes pour guider les soins aux individus atteints de lésions cérébrales dévastatrices rend ces personnes vulnérables à des pratiques incohérentes à la jonction entre le service des urgences et de l'unité de soins intensifs (USI). Nous avons cherché à caractériser les croyances des directeurs médicaux canadiens en médecine d'urgence et médecine de soins intensifs concernant les pratiques de prise en charge actuelles des personnes ayant subi une lésion cérébrale dévastatrice. MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé un sondage transversal auprès des directeurs médicaux des urgences et des unités de soins intensifs pour adultes du Canada (décembre 2022 à mars 2023). Notre critère d'évaluation principal était la proportion de répondant·es qui prennent en charge (ou jouent un rôle de consultation auprès) des personnes atteintes de lésions cérébrales dévastatrices à l'urgence. Nous avons effectué des analyses en sous-groupes pour comparer les croyances des médecins des urgences et des soins intensifs. RéSULTATS: Sur les 303 personnes répondantes admissibles, 98 (32 %) ont répondu aux sondages (directions médicales des urgences, 46; directions médicales d'USI, 52). La plupart des directeurs médicaux ont déclaré avoir participé à la décision de retirer des traitements de maintien des fonctions vitales (TFMV) pour des patient·es atteint·es de lésions cérébrales dévastatrices à l'urgence (80 %, n = 78), mais 63 % (n = 62) ont déclaré que c'était peu fréquent. Les directions médicales ont indiqué que les méthodes de neuropronostic existantes sont rarement suffisantes pour appuyer le retrait des TMFV à l'urgence (49 %, n = 48) et croyaient qu'un séjour aux soins intensifs était nécessaire pour améliorer leur confiance en ces méthodes (99 %, n = 97). La plupart (96 %, n = 94) estimaient que le fait d'offrir du temps de visite aux personnes soignantes avant le retrait des TMFV était un motif valable d'admission aux soins intensifs. CONCLUSION: Dans le cadre de notre sondage mené auprès des directions médicales des services d'urgence et des USI au Canada, 80 % d'entre elles ont participé au retrait de TMFV à l'urgence pour des patient·es souffrant de lésions cérébrales dévastatrices. Malgré cela, la plupart d'entre elles étaient en faveur d'une admission aux soins intensifs afin d'optimiser le neuropronostic et les soins de fin de vie axés sur les patient·es, y compris le don d'organes.

High-definition transcranial direct current stimulation desynchronizes refractory status epilepticus.

Recently, we showed that high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (hd-tDCS) can acutely reduce epileptic spike rates during and after stimulation in refractory status epilepticus (RSE), with a greater likelihood of patient discharge from the intensive care unit compared to historical controls. We investigate whether electroencephalographic (EEG) desynchronization during hd-tDCS can help account for observed anti-epileptic effects. Defining desynchronization as greater power in higher frequencies such as above 30 â€‹Hz ("gamma") and lesser power in frequency bands lower than 30 â€‹Hz, we analyzed 27 EEG sessions from 10 RSE patients who had received 20-minute session(s) of 2-milliamperes of transcranial direct current custom-targeted at the epileptic focus as previously determined by a clinical EEGer monitoring the EEG in real-time. During hd-tDCS, median relative power change over the EEG electrode chains in which power changes were maximal was +4.84%, -5.25%, -1.88%, -1.94%, and +4.99% for respective delta, theta, alpha, beta, and gamma frequency bands in the bipolar longitudinal montage (p â€‹= â€‹0.0001); and +4.13%, -5.44%, -1.81%, -3.23%, and +5.41% in the referential Laplacian montage (p â€‹= â€‹0.0012). After hd-tDCS, median relative power changes reversed over the EEG electrode chains in which power changes were maximal: -2.74%, +4.20%, +1.74%, +1.75%, and -4.68% for the respective delta, theta, alpha, beta, and gamma frequency bands in the bipolar longitudinal montage (p â€‹= â€‹0.0001); and +1.59%, +5.07%, +1.74%, +2.40%, and -5.12% in the referential Laplacian montage (p â€‹= â€‹0.0004). These findings are consistent with EEG desynchronization through theta-alpha-beta-gamma bands during hd-tDCS, helping account for the efficacy of hd-tDCS as an emerging novel anti-epileptic therapy against RSE.

A Pilot Study of High-Definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation in Refractory Status Epilepticus: The SURESTEP Trial.

Refractory status epilepticus (RSE) is a life-threatening emergency with high mortality and poor functional outcomes in survivors. Treatment is typically limited to intravenous anesthetic infusions and multiple anti-seizure medications. While ongoing seizures can cause permanent neurological damage, medical therapies also pose severe and life-threatening side effects. We tested the feasibility of using high-definition transcranial direct current stimulation (hd-tDCS) in the treatment of RSE. We conducted 20-min hd-tDCS sessions at an outward field orientation, intensity of 2-mA, 4 + 1 channels, and customized for deployment over the electrographic maximum of epileptiform activity ("spikes") determined by real-time clinical EEG monitoring. There were no adverse events from 32 hd-tDCS sessions in 10 RSE patients. Over steady dosing states of infusions and medications in 29 included sessions, median spike rates/patient fell by 50% during hd-tDCS on both automated (p = 0.0069) and human (p = 0.0277) spike counting. Median spike rates for any given stimulation session also fell by 50% during hd-tDCS on automated spike counting (p = 0.0032). Immediately after hd-tDCS, median spike rates/patient remained down by 25% on human spike counting (p = 0.018). Compared to historical controls, hd-tDCS subjects were successfully discharged from the intensive care unit (ICU) 45.8% more often (p = 0.004). When controls were selected using propensity score matching, the discharge rate advantage improved to 55% (p = 0.002). Customized EEG electrode targeting of hd-tDCS is a safe and non-invasive method of hyperacutely reducing epileptiform activity in RSE. Compared to historical controls, there was evidence of a cumulative chronic clinical response with more hd-tDCS subjects discharged from ICU.

Effect of Probiotics on Incident Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia in Critically Ill Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Growing interest in microbial dysbiosis during critical illness has raised questions about the therapeutic potential of microbiome modification with probiotics. Prior randomized trials in this population suggest that probiotics reduce infection, particularly ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), although probiotic-associated infections have also been reported. Objective: To evaluate the effect of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG on preventing VAP, additional infections, and other clinically important outcomes in the intensive care unit (ICU). Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized placebo-controlled trial in 44 ICUs in Canada, the United States, and Saudi Arabia enrolling adults predicted to require mechanical ventilation for at least 72 hours. A total of 2653 patients were enrolled from October 2013 to March 2019 (final follow-up, October 2020). Interventions: Enteral L rhamnosus GG (1 × 1010 colony-forming units) (n = 1321) or placebo (n = 1332) twice daily in the ICU. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was VAP determined by duplicate blinded central adjudication. Secondary outcomes were other ICU-acquired infections including Clostridioides difficile infection, diarrhea, antimicrobial use, ICU and hospital length of stay, and mortality. Results: Among 2653 randomized patients (mean age, 59.8 years [SD], 16.5 years), 2650 (99.9%) completed the trial (mean age, 59.8 years [SD], 16.5 years; 1063 women [40.1%.] with a mean Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score of 22.0 (SD, 7.8) and received the study product for a median of 9 days (IQR, 5-15 days). VAP developed among 289 of 1318 patients (21.9%) receiving probiotics vs 284 of 1332 controls (21.3%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.03 (95% CI, 0.87-1.22; P = .73, absolute difference, 0.6%, 95% CI, -2.5% to 3.7%). None of the 20 prespecified secondary outcomes, including other ICU-acquired infections, diarrhea, antimicrobial use, mortality, or length of stay showed a significant difference. Fifteen patients (1.1%) receiving probiotics vs 1 (0.1%) in the control group experienced the adverse event of L rhamnosus in a sterile site or the sole or predominant organism in a nonsterile site (odds ratio, 14.02; 95% CI, 1.79-109.58; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients requiring mechanical ventilation, administration of the probiotic L rhamnosus GG compared with placebo, resulted in no significant difference in the development of ventilator-associated pneumonia. These findings do not support the use of L rhamnosus GG in critically ill patients. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02462590.

Intravenous immune globulin in septic shock: a Canadian national survey of critical care medicine and infectious disease specialist physicians.

PURPOSE: This national survey evaluated the perceived efficacy and safety of intravenous immune globulin (IVIG) in septic shock, self-reported utilization patterns, barriers to use, the population of interest for further trials and willingness to participate in future research of IVIG in septic shock. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of critical care and infectious diseases physicians across Canada. We summarized categorical item responses as counts and proportions. We developed a multivariable logistic regression model to identify physician-level predictors of IVIG use in septic shock. RESULTS: Our survey was disseminated to 674 eligible respondents with a final response rate of 60%. Most (91%) respondents reported having prescribed IVIG to patients with septic shock at least once, 86% for septic shock due to necrotizing fasciitis, 52% for other bacterial toxin-mediated causes of septic shock, and 5% for undifferentiated septic shock. The majority of respondents expressed uncertainty regarding the impact of IVIG on mortality (97%) and safety (95%) in septic shock. Respondents were willing to participate in further IVIG research with 98% stating they would consider enrolling their patients into a trial of IVIG in septic shock. Familiarity with published evidence was the single greatest predictor of IVIG use in septic shock (odds ratio, 10.2; 95% confidence interval, 3.4 to 30.5; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Most Canadian critical care and infectious diseases specialist physicians reported previous experience using IVIG in septic shock. Respondents identified inadequacy of existing research as the greatest barrier to routine use of IVIG in septic shock. Most respondents support the need for further studies on IVIG in septic shock, and would consider enrolling their own patients into a trial of IVIG in septic shock.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF : Cette enquête nationale a évalué l'efficacité et l'innocuité perçues des immunoglobulines intraveineuses (IgIV) dans le contexte du choc septique, les habitudes d'utilisation autodéclarées, les obstacles à l'utilisation de cette modalité, les populations à explorer pour des études futures et la volonté de participer aux recherches futures sur les IgIV et le choc septique. MéTHODE : Nous avons mené une enquête transversale auprès de médecins intensivistes et spécialistes des maladies infectieuses au Canada. Nous avons résumé les réponses de chaque point catégorique en tant que dénombrement et proportions. Nous avons mis au point un modèle de régression logistique multivariée afin d'identifier les prédicteurs, au niveau des médecins, d'une utilisation des IgIV en cas de choc septique. RéSULTATS : Notre sondage a été acheminé à 674 médecins admissibles et nous avons obtenu un taux de réponse final de 60 %. La plupart (91%) des répondants ont indiqué avoir prescrit des IgIV aux patients en choc septique au moins une fois, 86 % pour un choc septique dû à une fasciite nécrosante, 52 % pour des chocs septiques d'autres étiologies médiées par des toxines bactériennes, et 5 % dans des cas de choc septique non différencié. La majorité des répondants ont exprimé de l'incertitude quant à l'incidence des IgIV sur la mortalité (97 %) et l'innocuité (95 %) lors de choc septique. Les répondants étaient disposés à participer à d'autres recherches sur les IgIV, 98 % déclarant qu'ils envisageraient d'inscrire leurs patients à une étude sur les IgIV et le choc septique. La familiarité avec les données probantes publiées était le plus grand prédicteur d'utilisation d'IgIV dans un contexte de choc septique (rapport de cotes, 10,2; intervalle de confiance à 95 %, 3,4 à 30,5; P < 0,001). CONCLUSION : La plupart des médecins intensivistes et spécialistes des maladies infectieuses canadiens ont rapporté avoir une expérience antérieure d'utilisation d'IgIV en cas de choc septique. Les répondants ont identifié l'insuffisance de la recherche existante comme le plus grand obstacle à l'utilisation systématique d'IgIV dans les cas de choc septique. La plupart des répondants appuient la nécessité d'études plus approfondies sur les IgIV et le choc septique et envisageraient d'inscrire leurs propres patients à une étude sur les IgIV dans un contexte de choc septique.

Outcomes With Severe Blastomycosis and Respiratory Failure in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes of patients with severe pulmonary blastomycosis requiring mechanical ventilation (MV) are not well understood in the modern era. Limited historical case series reported 50-90% mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by blastomycosis. The objective of this large retrospective cohort study was to describe the risk factors and outcomes of patients with severe pulmonary blastomycosis. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis utilizing the Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2006-2014. Patients aged >18 years with a diagnosis of blastomycosis who received MV were included. RESULTS: There were 1848 patients with a diagnosis of blastomycosis included in the study. Of these, 219 (11.9%) underwent MV with a mortality rate of 39.7% compared with 2.5% in patients not requiring ventilatory support (P < .01). The median (IQR) time to death for patients requiring MV was 12 (8-16) days. The median length of hospital stay for survivors of MV was 22 (14-37) days. The rate of MV was higher for patients treated in teaching hospitals (63.4% vs 57.2%, P = .05) and lower for those receiving care at a rural hospital (12.3% vs 17.2%, P = .04). In a multivariate model, female gender was associated with increased risk of mortality (OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.06-3.20; P = .03) as was increasing patient age (10-year age increase OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.33-2.02; P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: In the largest published cohort of patients with blastomycosis, mortality for patients on MV is high at ~40%, 16-fold higher than those without MV.

CAEP Position Statement - Management of devastating brain injuries in the emergency department: Enhancing neuroprognostication and maintaining the opportunity for organ and tissue donation.

The primary purpose of this statement is to improve neuroprognostication after devastating brain injury (DBI), with a secondary benefit of potential organ and tissue donation.

Canadian Critical Care Society clinical practice guideline: The use of vasopressin and vasopressin analogues in critically ill adults with distributive shock.

PURPOSE: Hemodynamic management of adults with distributive shock often includes the use of catecholamine-based vasoconstricting medications. It is unclear whether adding vasopressin or vasopressin analogues to catecholamine therapy is beneficial in the management of patients with distributive shock. The purpose of this guideline was to develop an evidence-based recommendation regarding the addition of vasopressin to catecholamine vasopressors in the management of adults with distributive shock. METHODS: We summarized the evidence informing this recommendation by updating a recently published meta-analysis. Then, a multidisciplinary panel from the Canadian Critical Care Society developed the recommendation using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. RESULTS: The updated systematic review identified 25 randomized controlled trials including a total of 3,737 patients with distributive shock. Compared with catecholamine therapy alone, the addition of vasopressin or its analogues was associated with a reduced risk of mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 0.99; low certainty), reduced risk of atrial fibrillation (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.88; high certainty), and increased risk of digital ischemia (RR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.24 to 5.25; moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: After considering certainty in the evidence, values and preferences, cost, and other factors, the expert guideline panel suggests using vasopressin or vasopressin analogues in addition to catecholamines over catecholamine vasopressors alone for the management of distributive shock (conditional recommendation, low certainty evidence).

Canadian Critical Care Society clinical practice guideline: The use of vasopressin and vasopressin analogues in critically ill adults with distributive shock / Recommandation de pratique clinique de la Société canadienne de soins intensifs: utilisation de vasopressine et d'analogues de la vasopressine chez l'adulte en état critique souffrant de choc distributif

Purpose: Hemodynamic management of adults with distributive shock often includes the use of catecholamine-based vasoconstricting medications. It is unclear whether adding vasopressin or vasopressin analogues to catecholamine therapy is beneficial in the management of patients with distributive shock. The purpose of this guideline was to develop an evidence-based recommendation regarding the addition of vasopressin to catecholamine vasopressors in the management of adults with distributive shock. Methods: We summarized the evidence informing this recommendation by updating a recently published meta-analysis. Then, a multidisciplinary panel from the Canadian Critical Care Society developed the recommendation using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: The updated systematic review identified 25 randomized controlled trials including a total of 3,737 patients with distributive shock. Compared with catecholamine therapy alone, the addition of vasopressin or its analogues was associated with a reduced risk of mortality (relative risk [RR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 0.99; low certainty), reduced risk of atrial fibrillation (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.88; high certainty), and increased risk of digital ischemia (RR, 2.56; 95% CI, 1.24 to 5.25; moderate certainty). Conclusions: After considering certainty in the evidence, values and preferences, cost, and other factors, the expert guideline panel suggests using vasopressin or vasopressin analogues in addition to catecholamines over catecholamine vasopressors alone for the management of distributive shock (conditional recommendation, low certainty evidence).

Objectif: La prise en charge hémodynamique des adultes atteints de choc distributif comprend souvent le recours à des agents vasoconstricteurs à base de catécholamines. Nous ne savons pas si l'ajout de vasopressine ou d'analogues de la vasopressine au traitement de catécholamines est bénéfique pour la prise en charge des patients atteints de choc distributif. L'objectif de cette ligne directrice était de mettre au point une recommandation fondée sur des données probantes concernant l'ajout de vasopressine aux vasopresseurs à base de catécholamines pour la prise en charge des adultes touchés par un choc distributif. Méthode: Nous avons résumé les données probantes sur lesquelles se fonde cette recommandation en mettant à jour une méta-analyse publiée récemment. Par la suite, un panel multidisciplinaire de la Société canadienne de soins intensifs a mis au point une recommandation en se fondant sur la méthodologie GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation). Résultats: La revue systématique mise à jour a identifié 25 études randomisées contrôlées, comptant un total de 3737 patients atteints de choc distributif. Par rapport à un traitement à base de catécholamines seulement, l'ajout de vasopressine ou de ses analogues a été associé à une réduction du risque de mortalité (risque relatif [RR], 0,91; intervalle de confiance [IC] 95 %, 0,85 à 0,99; certitude faible), une réduction du risque de fibrillation auriculaire (RR, 0,77; IC 95 %, 0,67 à 0,88; certitude forte), et une augmentation du risque d'ischémie digitale (RR, 2,56; IC 95 %, 1,24 à 5,25; certitude modérée). Conclusion: Après avoir examiné le niveau de certitude des données probantes, les valeurs et préférences, le coût et d'autres facteurs, le panel d'experts pour l'élaboration des directives suggère d'utiliser des vasopressines ou des analogues de la vasopressine en plus des catécholamines, plutôt que seulement des vasopresseurs à base de catécholamines, pour la prise en charge du choc distributif (recommandation conditionnelle, données probantes de certitude faible).

High-flow oxygen via nasal cannulae in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy and safety of high-flow oxygen via nasal cannulae (HFNC) compared to non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and/or standard oxygen in patients with acute, hypoxemic respiratory failure. METHODS: We reviewed randomized controlled trials from CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Scopus and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (inception to February 2016), conference proceedings, and relevant article reference lists. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted trial-level data from trials investigating HFNC in patients with acute, hypoxemic respiratory failure. Internal validity was assessed in duplicate using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. The strength of evidence was assessed in duplicate using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Our primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included dyspnea, PaO2:FiO2 ratio, PaCO2, and pH. Safety outcomes included respiratory arrest, intubation, delirium, and skin breakdown. RESULTS: From 2023 screened citations, we identified seven trials (1771 patients) meeting inclusion criteria. All trials were at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding. There was no evidence for a mortality difference in patients receiving HFNC vs. NIV and/or standard oxygen (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.48, I 2 = 63%, five trials, 1629 patients). In subgroup analyses of HFNC compared to NIV or standard oxygen individually, mortality differences were not observed. Measures of patient tolerability were heterogeneous. The PaO2:FiO2 ratio at 6-12 h was significantly lower in patients receiving oxygen via HFNC compared to NIV or standard oxygen for hypoxemic respiratory failure (MD - 53.34, 95% CI - 71.95 to - 34.72, I 2 = 61%, 1143 patients). There were no differences in pH, PaCO2, or rates of intubation or cardio-respiratory arrest. Delirium and skin breakdown were infrequently reported in included trials. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure HFNC was not associated with a difference in mortality compared to NIV or standard oxygen. Secondary outcomes including dyspnea, tolerance, and safety were not systematically reported. Residual heterogeneity and variable reporting of secondary outcomes limit the conclusions that can be made in this review. Prospective trials designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of HFNC in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure are required.

Barriers and facilitators of thromboprophylaxis for medical-surgical intensive care unit patients: a multicenter survey.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to identify the self-reported barriers to and facilitators of prescribing low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) thromboprophylaxis in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We conducted an interviewer-administered survey of 4 individuals per ICU (the ICU director, a bedside pharmacist, a thromboprophylaxis research coordinator, and physician site investigator) regarding LMWH thromboprophylaxis for medical-surgical patients in 27 ICUs in Canada and the United States. Items were generated by the research team and adapted from previous surveys, audits, qualitative studies, and quality improvement research. Respondents rated the barriers to LMWH use, facilitators (effectiveness, affordability, and acceptability thereof), and perceptions regarding LMWH use. RESULTS: Respondents had 14.5 (SD, 7.7) years of ICU experience (response rate, 99%). The 5 most common barriers in descending order were as follows: drug acquisition cost, fear of bleeding, lack of resident education, concern about bioaccumulation in renal failure, and habit. The top 5 rated facilitators were preprinted orders, education, daily reminders, audit and feedback, and local quality improvement committee endorsement. Centers using preprinted orders (mean difference [P<.01]) and computerized physician order entry (P<.01) compared with those centers not using those tools reported higher affordability for these 2 facilitators. Compared with physicians and pharmacists, research coordinators considered ICU-specific audit and feedback of thromboprophylaxis rates to be a more effective, acceptable, and affordable facilitator (odds ratio, 6.67; 95% confidence interval, 1.97-22.53; P<.01). Facilitator acceptability ratings were similar within centers but differed across centers (P≤.01). CONCLUSIONS: This multicenter survey found several barriers to use of LMWH including cost, concern about bleeding, and lack of resident knowledge of effectiveness. The diversity of reported facilitators suggests that large scale programs may address generic barriers but also need site-specific interprofessional knowledge translation activities.

Historical perspectives in critical care medicine: blood transfusion, intravenous fluids, inotropes/vasopressors, and antibiotics.

Significant progress in critical care medicine has been the result of tireless observation, dedicated research, and well-timed serendipity. This article provides a historical perspective for four meaningful therapies in critical care medicine: blood transfusion, fluid resuscitation, vasopressor/inotropic support, and antibiotics. For each therapy, key discoveries and events that have shaped medical history and helped define current practice are discussed. Prominent medical and social pressures that have catalyzed research and innovation in each domain are also addressed, as well as current and future challenges.