The effect of computerised decision support alerts tailored to intensive care on the administration of high-risk drug combinations, and their monitoring: a cluster randomised stepped-wedge trial.

BACKGROUND: Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) can harm patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Yet, clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) aimed at helping physicians prevent DDIs are plagued by low-yield alerts, causing alert fatigue and compromising patient safety. The aim of this multicentre study was to evaluate the effect of tailoring potential DDI alerts to the ICU setting on the frequency of administered high-risk drug combinations. METHODS: We implemented a cluster randomised stepped-wedge trial in nine ICUs in the Netherlands. Five ICUs already used potential DDI alerts. Patients aged 18 years or older admitted to the ICU with at least two drugs administered were included. Our intervention was an adapted CDSS, only providing alerts for potential DDIs considered as high risk. The intervention was delivered at the ICU level and targeted physicians. We hypothesised that showing only relevant alerts would improve CDSS effectiveness and lead to a decreased number of administered high-risk drug combinations. The order in which the intervention was implemented in the ICUs was randomised by an independent researcher. The primary outcome was the number of administered high-risk drug combinations per 1000 drug administrations per patient and was assessed in all included patients. This trial was registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (identifier NL6762) on Nov 26, 2018, and is now closed. FINDINGS: In total, 10 423 patients admitted to the ICU between Sept 1, 2018, and Sept 1, 2019, were assessed and 9887 patients were included. The mean number of administered high-risk drug combinations per 1000 drug administrations per patient was 26·2 (SD 53·4) in the intervention group (n=5534), compared with 35·6 (65·0) in the control group (n=4353). Tailoring potential DDI alerts to the ICU led to a 12% decrease (95% CI 5-18%; p=0·0008) in the number of administered high-risk drug combinations per 1000 drug administrations per patient, after adjusting for clustering and prognostic factors. INTERPRETATION: This cluster randomised stepped-wedge trial showed that tailoring potential DDI alerts to the ICU setting significantly reduced the number of administered high-risk drug combinations. Our list of high-risk drug combinations can be used in other ICUs, and our strategy of tailoring alerts based on clinical relevance could be applied to other clinical settings. FUNDING: ZonMw.

Rapid Evaluation of Coronavirus Illness Severity (RECOILS) in intensive care: Development and validation of a prognostic tool for in-hospital mortality.

BACKGROUND: The prediction of in-hospital mortality for ICU patients with COVID-19 is fundamental to treatment and resource allocation. The main purpose was to develop an easily implemented score for such prediction. METHODS: This was an observational, multicenter, development, and validation study on a national critical care dataset of COVID-19 patients. A systematic literature review was performed to determine variables possibly important for COVID-19 mortality prediction. Using a logistic multivariable model with a LASSO penalty, we developed the Rapid Evaluation of Coronavirus Illness Severity (RECOILS) score and compared its performance against published scores. RESULTS: Our development (validation) cohort consisted of 1480 (937) adult patients from 14 (11) Dutch ICUs admitted between March 2020 and April 2021. Median age was 65 (65) years, 31% (26%) died in hospital, 74% (72%) were males, average length of ICU stay was 7.83 (10.25) days and average length of hospital stay was 15.90 (19.92) days. Age, platelets, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, pH, blood urea nitrogen, temperature, PaCO2, Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score measured within +/-24 h of ICU admission were used to develop the score. The AUROC of RECOILS score was 0.75 (CI 0.71-0.78) which was higher than that of any previously reported predictive scores (0.68 [CI 0.64-0.71], 0.61 [CI 0.58-0.66], 0.67 [CI 0.63-0.70], 0.70 [CI 0.67-0.74] for ISARIC 4C Mortality Score, SOFA, SAPS-III, and age, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Using a large dataset from multiple Dutch ICUs, we developed a predictive score for mortality of COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU, which outperformed other predictive scores reported so far.

Effect of Haloperidol on Survival Among Critically Ill Adults With a High Risk of Delirium: The REDUCE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Results of studies on use of prophylactic haloperidol in critically ill adults are inconclusive, especially in patients at high risk of delirium. Objective: To determine whether prophylactic use of haloperidol improves survival among critically ill adults at high risk of delirium, which was defined as an anticipated intensive care unit (ICU) stay of at least 2 days. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled investigator-driven study involving 1789 critically ill adults treated at 21 ICUs, at which nonpharmacological interventions for delirium prevention are routinely used in the Netherlands. Patients without delirium whose expected ICU stay was at least a day were included. Recruitment was from July 2013 to December 2016 and follow-up was conducted at 90 days with the final follow-up on March 1, 2017. Interventions: Patients received prophylactic treatment 3 times daily intravenously either 1 mg (n = 350) or 2 mg (n = 732) of haloperidol or placebo (n = 707), consisting of 0.9% sodium chloride. Main Outcome and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days that patients survived in 28 days. There were 15 secondary outcomes, including delirium incidence, 28-day delirium-free and coma-free days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU and hospital length of stay. Results: All 1789 randomized patients (mean, age 66.6 years [SD, 12.6]; 1099 men [61.4%]) completed the study. The 1-mg haloperidol group was prematurely stopped because of futility. There was no difference in the median days patients survived in 28 days, 28 days in the 2-mg haloperidol group vs 28 days in the placebo group, for a difference of 0 days (95% CI, 0-0; P = .93) and a hazard ratio of 1.003 (95% CI, 0.78-1.30, P=.82). All of the 15 secondary outcomes were not statistically different. These included delirium incidence (mean difference, 1.5%, 95% CI, -3.6% to 6.7%), delirium-free and coma-free days (mean difference, 0 days, 95% CI, 0-0 days), and duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU, and hospital length of stay (mean difference, 0 days, 95% CI, 0-0 days for all 3 measures). The number of reported adverse effects did not differ between groups (2 [0.3%] for the 2-mg haloperidol group vs 1 [0.1%] for the placebo group). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill adults at high risk of delirium, the use of prophylactic haloperidol compared with placebo did not improve survival at 28 days. These findings do not support the use of prophylactic haloperidol for reducing mortality in critically ill adults. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01785290.

Trends in hospital and intensive care admissions in the Netherlands attributable to the very elderly in an ageing population.

INTRODUCTION: The Dutch population is ageing and it is unknown how this is affecting trends in the percentage of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions attributable to patients aged 80 years or older, the very elderly. METHODS: We present data on the percentage of the very elderly in the general population and the percentage of hospital admissions attributable to the very elderly. We subsequently performed a longitudinal cross-sectional study on ICU admissions from hospitals participating in the National Intensive Care Evaluation registry for the period 2005 to 2014. We modeled the percentage of adult ICU admissions and treatment days attributable to the very elderly separately for ICU admissions following cardiac surgery and other reasons. RESULTS: The percentage of Dutch adults aged 80 years and older, increased from 4.5 % in 2005 to 5.4 % in 2014 (p-value < 0.0001) and with this ageing of the population, the percentage of hospital admissions attributable to very elderly increased from 9.0 % in 2005 to 10.6 % in 2014 (p-value < 0.0001). The percentage of ICU admissions following cardiac surgery attributable to the very elderly increased from 6.7 % in 2005 to 11.0 % in 2014 in nine hospitals (p-value < 0.0001), while the percentage of treatment days attributable to this group rose from 8.6 % in 2005 to 11.7 % in 2014 (p-value = 0.0157). In contrast, the percentage of very elderly patients admitted to the ICU for other reasons than following cardiac surgery remained stable at 13.8 % between 2005 and 2014 in 33 hospitals (p-value = 0.1315). The number of treatment days attributable to the very elderly rose from 11,810 in 2005 to 15,234 in 2014 (p-value = 0.0002), but the percentage of ICU treatment days attributable to this group remained stable at 12.0 % (p-value = 0.1429). CONCLUSIONS: As in many European countries the Dutch population is ageing and the percentage of hospital admissions attributable to the very elderly rose between 2005 and 2014. However, the percentage of ICU admissions and treatment days attributable to very elderly remained stable. The percentage of ICU admissions following cardiac surgery attributable to this group increased between 2005 and 2014.

Routine use of the confusion assessment method for the intensive care unit: a multicenter study.

RATIONALE: Delirium is often unrecognized in ICU patients and associated with poor outcome. Screening for ICU delirium is recommended by several medical organizations to improve early diagnosis and treatment. The Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU (CAM-ICU) has high sensitivity and specificity for delirium when administered by research nurses. However, test characteristics of the CAM-ICU as performed in routine practice are unclear. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the diagnostic value of the CAM-ICU in daily practice. METHODS: Teams of three delirium experts including psychiatrists, geriatricians, and neurologists visited 10 ICUs twice. Based on cognitive examination, inspection of medical files, and Diagnostic and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition, Text Revision criteria for delirium, the expert teams classified patients as awake and not delirious, delirious, or comatose. This served as a gold standard to which the CAM-ICU as performed by the bedside ICU-nurses was compared. Assessors were unaware of each other's conclusions. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen delirium experts assessed 282 patients of whom 101 (36%) were comatose and excluded. In the remaining 181 (64%) patients, the CAM-ICU had a sensitivity of 47% (95% confidence interval [CI], 35%-58%); specificity of 98% (95% CI, 93%-100%); positive predictive value of 95% (95% CI, 80%-99%); and negative predictive value of 72% (95% CI, 64%-79%). The positive likelihood ratio was 24.7 (95% CI, 6.1-100) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.5 (95% CI, 0.4-0.8). CONCLUSIONS: Specificity of the CAM-ICU as performed in routine practice seems to be high but sensitivity is low. This hampers early detection of delirium by the CAM-ICU.

Model-informed precision dosing of beta-lactam antibiotics and ciprofloxacin in critically ill patients: a multicentre randomised clinical trial.

PURPOSE: Individualising drug dosing using model-informed precision dosing (MIPD) of beta-lactam antibiotics and ciprofloxacin has been proposed as an alternative to standard dosing to optimise antibiotic efficacy in critically ill patients. However, randomised clinical trials (RCT) on clinical outcomes have been lacking. METHODS: This multicentre RCT, including patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) who were treated with antibiotics, was conducted in eight hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomised to MIPD with dose and interval adjustments based on monitoring serum drug levels (therapeutic drug monitoring) combined with pharmacometric modelling of beta-lactam antibiotics and ciprofloxacin. The primary outcome was ICU length of stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes were ICU mortality, hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, 6-month mortality, delta sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, adverse events and target attainment. RESULTS: In total, 388 (MIPD n = 189; standard dosing n = 199) patients were analysed (median age 64 [IQR 55-71]). We found no significant differences in ICU LOS between MIPD compared to standard dosing (10 MIPD vs 8 standard dosing; IRR = 1.16; 95% CI 0.96-1.41; p = 0.13). There was no significant difference in target attainment before intervention at day 1 (T1) (55.6% MIPD vs 60.9% standard dosing; p = 0.24) or at day 3 (T3) (59.5% vs 60.4%; p = 0.84). There were no significant differences in other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We could not show a beneficial effect of MIPD of beta-lactam antibiotics and ciprofloxacin on ICU LOS in critically ill patients. Our data highlight the need to identify other approaches to dose optimisation.

Effect of rivastigmine as an adjunct to usual care with haloperidol on duration of delirium and mortality in critically ill patients: a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is frequently diagnosed in critically ill patients and is associated with adverse outcome. Impaired cholinergic neurotransmission seems to have an important role in the development of delirium. We aimed to establish the effect of the cholinesterase inhibitor rivastigmine on the duration of delirium in critically ill patients. METHODS: Patients (aged ≥18 years) who were diagnosed with delirium were enrolled from six intensive care units in the Netherlands, and treated between November, 2008, and January, 2010. Patients were randomised (1:1 ratio) to receive an increasing dose of rivastigmine or placebo, starting at 0·75 mL (1·5 mg rivastigmine) twice daily and increasing in increments to 3 mL (6 mg rivastigmine) twice daily from day 10 onwards, as an adjunct to usual care based on haloperidol. The trial pharmacist generated the randomisation sequence by computer, and consecutively numbered bottles of the study drug according to this sequence to conceal allocation. The primary outcome was the duration of delirium during hospital admission. Analysis was by intention to treat. Duration of delirium was censored for patients who died or were discharged from hospital while delirious. Patients, medical staff, and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Members of the data safety and monitoring board (DSMB) were unmasked and did interim analyses every 3 months. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00704301. FINDINGS: Although a sample size of 440 patients was planned, after inclusion of 104 patients with delirium who were eligible for the intention-to-treat analysis (n=54 on rivastigmine, n=50 on placebo), the DSMB recommended that the trial be halted because mortality in the rivastigmine group (n=12, 22%) was higher than in the placebo group (n=4, 8%; p=0·07). Median duration of delirium was longer in the rivastigmine group (5·0 days, IQR 2·7-14·2) than in the placebo group (3·0 days, IQR 1·0-9·3; p=0·06). INTERPRETATION: Rivastigmine did not decrease duration of delirium and might have increased mortality so we do not recommend use of rivastigmine to treat delirium in critically ill patients. FUNDING: ZonMw, the Netherlands Brain Foundation, and Novartis.

Trends in short-term and 1-year mortality in very elderly intensive care patients in the Netherlands: a retrospective study from 2008 to 2014.

PURPOSE: To describe the trends in short-term and long-term mortality in very elderly intensive care unit (ICU) patients between 2008 and 2014. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from the National Intensive Care Evaluation Foundation from 31 Dutch ICUs. Generalized linear mixed-effects models were used to determine the change in adjusted short-term mortality (ICU/hospital deaths) and long-term mortality (3, 6, and 12 months after ICU admission) over the period 2008-2014 in very elderly patients and in patients less than 80 years old admitted to the ICU. RESULTS: A total of 216,196 patients admitted to 31 ICUs in the period from 2008 to 2014 were included in the study, including 28,284 (13.1%) very elderly patients (80 years or older). Follow-up data for determination of 3-, 6-, and 12-month mortality were available for, respectively, 210,005 (97.1%), 202,551 (93.7%), and 176,847 (81.8%) ICU admissions. The crude ICU and in-hospital mortality decreased, respectively, from 17.6% to 13.0% and from 30.7% to 21.0%. The annual risk-adjusted ICU and in-hospital mortality of very elderly patients (adjusted for APACHE III score, comorbidities, and admission type) decreased significantly during the study period [adjusted odds ratio 0.97 (0.95-0.99) and 0.92 (0.91-0.93), respectively]. Additionally, the annual risk-adjusted 3-, 6-, and 12-month mortality decreased significantly from 2008 to 2014 [adjusted odds ratio 0.96 (0.95-0.97), 0.96 (0.94-0.97), and 0.97 (0.95-0.98), respectively]. A similar significant annual decrease in risk-adjusted short-term and long-term mortality was observed in patients aged less than 80 years. CONCLUSIONS: Both short-term and long-term risk-adjusted mortality decreased significantly during the study period in both very elderly ICU patients and patients aged less than 80 years in the Netherlands. This study clearly shows that in our setting very elderly patients benefit almost as much as their younger counterparts from improvement in quality of care over time.