Burst Suppression: Causes and Effects on Mortality in Critical Illness.

BACKGROUND: Burst suppression in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients is associated with increased mortality. However, the relative contributions of propofol use and critical illness itself to burst suppression; of burst suppression, propofol, and critical illness to mortality; and whether preventing burst suppression might reduce mortality, have not been quantified. METHODS: The dataset contains 471 adults from seven ICUs, after excluding anoxic encephalopathy due to cardiac arrest or intentional burst suppression for therapeutic reasons. We used multiple prediction and causal inference methods to estimate the effects connecting burst suppression, propofol, critical illness, and in-hospital mortality in an observational retrospective study. We also estimated the effects mediated by burst suppression. Sensitivity analysis was used to assess for unmeasured confounding. RESULTS: The expected outcomes in a "counterfactual" randomized controlled trial (cRCT) that assigned patients to mild versus severe illness are expected to show a difference in burst suppression burden of 39%, 95% CI [8-66]%, and in mortality of 35% [29-41]%. Assigning patients to maximal (100%) burst suppression burden is expected to increase mortality by 12% [7-17]% compared to 0% burden. Burst suppression mediates 10% [2-21]% of the effect of critical illness on mortality. A high cumulative propofol dose (1316 mg/kg) is expected to increase burst suppression burden by 6% [0.8-12]% compared to a low dose (284 mg/kg). Propofol exposure has no significant direct effect on mortality; its effect is entirely mediated through burst suppression. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis clarifies how important factors contribute to mortality in ICU patients. Burst suppression appears to contribute to mortality but is primarily an effect of critical illness rather than iatrogenic use of propofol.

Real-Time, Automated Detection of Ventilator-Associated Events: Avoiding Missed Detections, Misclassifications, and False Detections Due to Human Error.

OBJECTIVETo validate a system to detect ventilator associated events (VAEs) autonomously and in real time.DESIGNRetrospective review of ventilated patients using a secure informatics platform to identify VAEs (ie, automated surveillance) compared to surveillance by infection control (IC) staff (ie, manual surveillance), including development and validation cohorts.SETTINGThe Massachusetts General Hospital, a tertiary-care academic health center, during January-March 2015 (development cohort) and January-March 2016 (validation cohort).PATIENTSVentilated patients in 4 intensive care units.METHODSThe automated process included (1) analysis of physiologic data to detect increases in positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2); (2) querying the electronic health record (EHR) for leukopenia or leukocytosis and antibiotic initiation data; and (3) retrieval and interpretation of microbiology reports. The cohorts were evaluated as follows: (1) manual surveillance by IC staff with independent chart review; (2) automated surveillance detection of ventilator-associated condition (VAC), infection-related ventilator-associated complication (IVAC), and possible VAP (PVAP); (3) senior IC staff adjudicated manual surveillance-automated surveillance discordance. Outcomes included sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and manual surveillance detection errors. Errors detected during the development cohort resulted in algorithm updates applied to the validation cohort.RESULTSIn the development cohort, there were 1,325 admissions, 479 ventilated patients, 2,539 ventilator days, and 47 VAEs. In the validation cohort, there were 1,234 admissions, 431 ventilated patients, 2,604 ventilator days, and 56 VAEs. With manual surveillance, in the development cohort, sensitivity was 40%, specificity was 98%, and PPV was 70%. In the validation cohort, sensitivity was 71%, specificity was 98%, and PPV was 87%. With automated surveillance, in the development cohort, sensitivity was 100%, specificity was 100%, and PPV was 100%. In the validation cohort, sensitivity was 85%, specificity was 99%, and PPV was 100%. Manual surveillance detection errors included missed detections, misclassifications, and false detections.CONCLUSIONSManual surveillance is vulnerable to human error. Automated surveillance is more accurate and more efficient for VAE surveillance.Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2018;826-833.