Hypoxemia Trajectory of Non-COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Patients. An Observational Study Focusing on Hypoxemia Resolver Status.

IMPORTANCE: Most studies on acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) group patients by severity based on their initial degree of hypoxemia. However, this grouping has limitations, including inconsistent hypoxemia trajectories and outcomes. OBJECTIVES: This study explores the benefits of grouping patients by resolver status based on their hypoxemia progression over the first 7 days. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This is an observational study from a large single-center database. Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC)-IV and MIMIC Chest X-ray JPEG databases were used. Mechanically ventilated patients that met the Berlin ARDS criteria were included. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of hypoxemia resolvers vs. nonresolvers in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients. Nonresolvers were defined as those whose hypoxemia worsened or remained moderate or severe over the first 7 days. Secondary outcomes included baseline admission characteristics, initial blood gases and ventilation settings, length of invasive mechanical ventilation, length of ICU stay, and ICU survival rates across resolver groups. RESULTS: A total of 894 ICU admissions were included in the study. Of these, 33.9% were hypoxemia nonresolvers. The resolver groups showed no significant difference in age, body mass index, comorbidities, or Charlson score. There was no significant difference in the percentage of those with initial severe hypoxemia between the two groups (8.1% vs. 9.2%; p = 0.126). The initial Pao2/Fio2 ratio did not significantly increase the odds ratio (OR) of being a nonresolver (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.65-1.10). Nonresolver mortality was 61.4%, comparable to the survival rates seen in nonresolvers in a previous large COVID-19 ARDS study. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our study shows that resolver status is a valuable grouping in ARDS. It has significant advantages over grouping by initial degree of hypoxemia, including better mapping of trajectory and comparable outcomes across other studies. While it may offer insights into disease-specific associations, future studies should include resolver status analysis for more definitive conclusions.

Is it possible to implement a rare disease case-finding tool in primary care? A UK-based pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: This study implemented MendelScan, a primary care rare disease case-finding tool, into a UK National Health Service population. Rare disease diagnosis is challenging due to disease complexity and low physician awareness. The 2021 UK Rare Diseases Framework highlights as a key priority the need for faster diagnosis to improve clinical outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: A UK primary care locality with 68,705 patients was examined. MendelScan encodes diagnostic/screening criteria for multiple rare diseases, mapping clinical terms to appropriate SNOMED CT codes (UK primary care standardised clinical terminology) to create digital algorithms. These algorithms were applied to a pseudo-anonymised structured data extract of the electronic health records (EHR) in this locality to "flag" at-risk patients who may require further evaluation. All flagged patients then underwent internal clinical review (a doctor reviewing each EHR flagged by the algorithm, removing all cases with a clear diagnosis/diagnoses that explains the clinical features that led to the patient being flagged); for those that passed this review, a report was returned to their GP. 55 of 76 disease criteria flagged at least one patient. 227 (0.33%) of the total 68,705 of EHR were flagged; 18 EHR were already diagnosed with the disease (the highlighted EHR had a diagnostic code for the same RD it was screened for, e.g. Behcet's disease algorithm identifying an EHR with a SNOMED CT code Behcet's disease). 75/227 (33%) EHR passed our internal review. Thirty-six reports were returned to the GP. Feedback was available for 28/36 of the reports sent. GP categorised nine reports as "Reasonable possible diagnosis" (advance for investigation), six reports as "diagnosis has already been excluded", ten reports as "patient has a clear alternative aetiology", and three reports as "Other" (patient left study locality, unable to re-identify accurately). All the 9 cases considered as "reasonable possible diagnosis" had further evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot demonstrates that implementing such a tool is feasible at a population level. The case-finding tool identified credible cases which were subsequently referred for further investigation. Future work includes performance-based validation studies of diagnostic algorithms and the scalability of the tool.

Animation supported communication on intensive care; a service improvement initiative.

Objective: COVID-19 has created unique challenges for families of patients admitted to intensive care units. Restricted visiting, language barriers and time constraints have limited communication, resulting in a lack of understanding and anxiety. We introduced digital animations to support communication and assessed the impact on families of patients admitted to intensive care. Methods: Multi-language animations explaining mechanical ventilation, (www.explainmyprocedure.com/icu) were introduced at two London intensive care units during the COVID-19 pandemic. Web-links were sent by email. Reported understanding of the treatment, its benefits, risks and alternatives was assessed among family contacts of 71 consecutive patients admitted to intensive care; 39 before the animations were introduced (no animation group) and 32 afterwards (animation group). Reported understanding in the two groups was assessed by telephone questionnaire and compared. Results: Following introduction, all relatives reported they had watched the animation. The proportions who reported complete understanding of mechanical ventilation, its benefits, risks and alternatives, in the no animation group (n = 39) were, respectively, 15%, 28%, 0% and 3% and in the animation group (n = 32), 94%, 97%, 84% and 66% (p < 0.0001 for all comparisons). Conclusion: Family use of online multi-language animations explaining mechanical ventilation is feasible, acceptable and associated with substantial improvement in understanding. The approach is not limited to mechanical ventilation, or to use in a pandemic, and has the potential to be applied to a wide range of treatment and recovery pathways on intensive care.

What are the requirements for developing a successful national registry of auditory implants? A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: Hearing loss is an area of unmet need, and industry is targeting this field with a growing range of surgically implanted hearing devices. Currently, there is no comprehensive UK registry capturing data on these devices; in its absence, it is difficult to monitor clinical and cost-effectiveness and develop national policy. Recognising that developing such a registry faces considerable challenges, it is important to gather opinions from stakeholders and patients. This paper builds on our systematic review on surgical registry development and aims to identify the specific requirements for developing a successful national registry of auditory implants. DESIGN: Qualitative study. PARTICIPANTS: Data were collected in two ways: (1) semistructured interviews with UK professional stakeholders; and (2) focus groups with patients with hearing loss. The interview and focus group schedules were informed by our systematic review on registry development. Data were analysed using directed content analysis. Judges mapped the themes obtained against a conceptual framework developed from our systematic review on registry development. The conceptual framework consisted of five categories for successful registry development: (1) planning, (2) registry governance, (3) registry dataset, (4) anticipating challenges, (5) implementing solutions. RESULTS: Twenty-seven themes emerged from 40 semistructured interviews with professional stakeholders and 18 themes emerged from three patient focus groups. The most important factor for registry success was high rates of data completion. Benefits of developing a successful registry of auditory implants include: strengthening the evidence base and regulation of auditory implants, driving quality and safety improvements, increased transparency, facilitating patient decision-making and informing policy and guidelines development. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies the requirements for developing a successful national registry of auditory implants, benefiting from the involvement of numerous professional stakeholder groups and patients with hearing loss. Our approach may be used internationally to inform successful registry development.