Pub Date : 2023-09-01DOI: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000970
Howard Rodenberg, Theodore Glasser, Alison Bartfield, Shalika Katugaha
Competing definitions of sepsis have significant clinical implications and impact both medical coding and hospital payment. Although clinicians may prefer Sepsis-2, payer use of Sepsis-3 to validate clinical diagnoses may result in denial of payment or requests to recoup previously paid funds from healthcare providers. The Sepsis-2.5 project was a cooperative effort between a hospital system and a private payer to develop a community-based, literature-supported consensus definition for sepsis characterized by the presence of clinical illness, a source of infection, and evidence of organ dysfunction. This new definition ("Sepsis-2.5") has been instrumental in resolving provider-payer conflicts in defining clinical sepsis and reimbursing care.
{"title":"Sepsis-2.5: Resolving Conflicts Between Payers and Providers.","authors":"Howard Rodenberg, Theodore Glasser, Alison Bartfield, Shalika Katugaha","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000970","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000970","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Competing definitions of sepsis have significant clinical implications and impact both medical coding and hospital payment. Although clinicians may prefer Sepsis-2, payer use of Sepsis-3 to validate clinical diagnoses may result in denial of payment or requests to recoup previously paid funds from healthcare providers. The Sepsis-2.5 project was a cooperative effort between a hospital system and a private payer to develop a community-based, literature-supported consensus definition for sepsis characterized by the presence of clinical illness, a source of infection, and evidence of organ dysfunction. This new definition (\"Sepsis-2.5\") has been instrumental in resolving provider-payer conflicts in defining clinical sepsis and reimbursing care.</p>","PeriodicalId":10759,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Explorations","volume":"5 9","pages":"e0970"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/28/19/cc9-5-e0970.PMC10462079.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10122595","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-01DOI: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000953
Venkatakrishna Rajajee, Reza Soroushmehr, Craig A Williamson, Kayvan Najarian, Kevin Ward, Hakam Tiba
Objectives: Transcranial Doppler (TCD) has been evaluated as a noninvasive intracranial pressure (ICP) assessment tool. Correction for insonation angle, a potential source of error, with transcranial color-coded sonography (TCCS) has not previously been reported while evaluating ICP with TCD. Our objective was to study the accuracy of TCCS for detection of ICP elevation, with and without the use of angle correction.
Design: Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy.
Setting: Academic neurocritical care unit.
Patients: Consecutive adults with invasive ICP monitors.
Interventions: Ultrasound assessment with TCCS.
Measurements and main results: End-diastolic velocity (EDV), time-averaged peak velocity (TAPV), and pulsatility index (PI) were measured in the bilateral middle cerebral arteries with and without angle correction. Concomitant mean arterial pressure (MAP) and ICP were recorded. Estimated cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) was calculated as estimated CPP (CPPe) = MAP × (EDV/TAPV) + 14, and estimated ICP (ICPe) = MAP-CPPe. Sixty patients were enrolled and 55 underwent TCCS. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of ICPe for detection of invasive ICP greater than 22 mm Hg revealed area under the curve (AUC) 0.51 (0.37-0.64) without angle correction and 0.73 (0.58-0.84) with angle correction. The optimal threshold without angle correction was ICPe greater than 18 mm Hg with sensitivity 71% (29-96%) and specificity 28% (16-43%). With angle correction, the optimal threshold was ICPe greater than 21 mm Hg with sensitivity 100% (54-100%) and specificity 30% (17-46%). The AUC for PI was 0.61 (0.47-0.74) without angle correction and 0.70 (0.55-0.92) with angle correction.
Conclusions: Angle correction improved the accuracy of TCCS for detection of elevated ICP. Sensitivity was high, as appropriate for a screening tool, but specificity remained low.
目的:经颅多普勒(TCD)作为一种无创颅内压(ICP)评估工具。用经颅彩色编码超声(TCCS)校正超声角度,这是一个潜在的误差来源,以前没有报道过用TCD评估颅内压。我们的目的是研究TCCS检测ICP升高的准确性,无论是否使用角度校正。设计:诊断准确性的前瞻性研究。环境:学术神经危重症监护室。患者:连续使用有创ICP监护仪的成年人。干预措施:超声评估与TCCS。测量方法及主要结果:测量双侧大脑中动脉舒张末期速度(EDV)、时间平均峰值速度(TAPV)和脉搏指数(PI)。同时记录平均动脉压(MAP)和颅内压(ICP)。估算脑灌注压(CPP)计算为估算CPP (CPPe) = MAP × (EDV/TAPV) + 14,估算ICP (ICPe) = MAP-CPPe。60例患者入组,55例接受TCCS。ICPe检测大于22 mm Hg有侵入性ICP的受试者工作特征曲线分析显示,无角度校正的曲线下面积(AUC)为0.51(0.37 ~ 0.64),有角度校正的AUC为0.73(0.58 ~ 0.84)。无角度校正的最佳阈值为ICPe大于18 mm Hg,敏感性71%(29-96%),特异性28%(16-43%)。角度校正后,最佳阈值为ICPe大于21 mm Hg,灵敏度100%(54-100%),特异性30%(17-46%)。无角度校正的PI AUC为0.61(0.47 ~ 0.74),有角度校正的PI AUC为0.70(0.55 ~ 0.92)。结论:角度校正提高了TCCS检测颅内压升高的准确性。灵敏度高,作为合适的筛选工具,但特异性仍然很低。
{"title":"Transcranial Color-Coded Sonography With Angle Correction As a Screening Tool for Raised Intracranial Pressure.","authors":"Venkatakrishna Rajajee, Reza Soroushmehr, Craig A Williamson, Kayvan Najarian, Kevin Ward, Hakam Tiba","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000953","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000953","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Transcranial Doppler (TCD) has been evaluated as a noninvasive intracranial pressure (ICP) assessment tool. Correction for insonation angle, a potential source of error, with transcranial color-coded sonography (TCCS) has not previously been reported while evaluating ICP with TCD. Our objective was to study the accuracy of TCCS for detection of ICP elevation, with and without the use of angle correction.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Prospective study of diagnostic accuracy.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Academic neurocritical care unit.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Consecutive adults with invasive ICP monitors.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>Ultrasound assessment with TCCS.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>End-diastolic velocity (EDV), time-averaged peak velocity (TAPV), and pulsatility index (PI) were measured in the bilateral middle cerebral arteries with and without angle correction. Concomitant mean arterial pressure (MAP) and ICP were recorded. Estimated cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) was calculated as estimated CPP (CPPe) = MAP × (EDV/TAPV) + 14, and estimated ICP (ICPe) = MAP-CPPe. Sixty patients were enrolled and 55 underwent TCCS. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of ICPe for detection of invasive ICP greater than 22 mm Hg revealed area under the curve (AUC) 0.51 (0.37-0.64) without angle correction and 0.73 (0.58-0.84) with angle correction. The optimal threshold without angle correction was ICPe greater than 18 mm Hg with sensitivity 71% (29-96%) and specificity 28% (16-43%). With angle correction, the optimal threshold was ICPe greater than 21 mm Hg with sensitivity 100% (54-100%) and specificity 30% (17-46%). The AUC for PI was 0.61 (0.47-0.74) without angle correction and 0.70 (0.55-0.92) with angle correction.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Angle correction improved the accuracy of TCCS for detection of elevated ICP. Sensitivity was high, as appropriate for a screening tool, but specificity remained low.</p>","PeriodicalId":10759,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Explorations","volume":"5 9","pages":"e0953"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/12/ea/cc9-5-e0953.PMC10461938.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10120541","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-01DOI: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000958
Margot Kelly-Hedrick, Sunny Yang Liu, Nancy Temkin, Jason Barber, Jordan Komisarow, Geoffrey Manley, Tetsu Ohnuma, Katharine Colton, Miriam M Treggiari, Eric E Monson, Monica S Vavilala, Ramesh Grandhi, Daniel T Laskowitz, Joseph P Mathew, Adrian Hernandez, Michael L James, Karthik Raghunathan, Ben Goldstein, Amy J Markowitz, Vijay Krishnamoorthy
Objectives: We aimed to 1) describe patterns of beta-blocker utilization among critically ill patients following moderate-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and 2) examine the association of early beta-blocker exposure with functional and clinical outcomes following injury.
Design: Retrospective cohort study.
Setting: ICUs at 18 level I, U.S. trauma centers in the Transforming Clinical Research and Knowledge in TBI (TRACK-TBI) study.
Patients: Greater than or equal to 17 years enrolled in the TRACK-TBI study with moderate-severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale of <13) were admitted to the ICU after a blunt TBI.
Interventions: None.
Measurements: Primary exposure was a beta blocker during the first 7 days in the ICU, with a primary outcome of 6-month Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE). Secondary outcomes included: length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, 6-month and 12-month mortality, 12-month GOSE score, and 6-month and 12-month measures of disability, well-being, quality of life, and life satisfaction.
Main results: Of the 450 eligible participants, 57 (13%) received early beta blockers (BB+ group). The BB+ group was on average older, more likely to be on a preinjury beta blocker, and more likely to have a history of hypertension. In the BB+ group, 34 participants (60%) received metoprolol only, 19 participants (33%) received propranolol only, 3 participants (5%) received both, and 1 participant (2%) received atenolol only. In multivariable regression, there was no difference in the odds of a higher GOSE score at 6 months between the BB+ group and BB- group (odds ratio = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.48-1.53). There was no association between BB exposure and secondary outcomes.
Conclusions: About one-sixth of subjects in our study received early beta blockers, and within this group, dose, and timing of beta-blocker administration varied substantially. No significant differences in GOSE score at 6 months were demonstrated, although our ability to draw conclusions is limited by overall low total doses administered compared with prior studies.
{"title":"Association of Early Beta-Blocker Exposure and Functional Outcomes in Critically Ill Patients With Moderate to Severe Traumatic Brain Injury: A Transforming Clinical Research and Knowledge in Traumatic Brain Injury Study.","authors":"Margot Kelly-Hedrick, Sunny Yang Liu, Nancy Temkin, Jason Barber, Jordan Komisarow, Geoffrey Manley, Tetsu Ohnuma, Katharine Colton, Miriam M Treggiari, Eric E Monson, Monica S Vavilala, Ramesh Grandhi, Daniel T Laskowitz, Joseph P Mathew, Adrian Hernandez, Michael L James, Karthik Raghunathan, Ben Goldstein, Amy J Markowitz, Vijay Krishnamoorthy","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000958","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000958","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We aimed to 1) describe patterns of beta-blocker utilization among critically ill patients following moderate-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) and 2) examine the association of early beta-blocker exposure with functional and clinical outcomes following injury.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>ICUs at 18 level I, U.S. trauma centers in the Transforming Clinical Research and Knowledge in TBI (TRACK-TBI) study.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Greater than or equal to 17 years enrolled in the TRACK-TBI study with moderate-severe TBI (Glasgow Coma Scale of <13) were admitted to the ICU after a blunt TBI.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurements: </strong>Primary exposure was a beta blocker during the first 7 days in the ICU, with a primary outcome of 6-month Glasgow Outcome Scale-Extended (GOSE). Secondary outcomes included: length of hospital stay, in-hospital mortality, 6-month and 12-month mortality, 12-month GOSE score, and 6-month and 12-month measures of disability, well-being, quality of life, and life satisfaction.</p><p><strong>Main results: </strong>Of the 450 eligible participants, 57 (13%) received early beta blockers (BB<sup>+</sup> group). The BB<sup>+</sup> group was on average older, more likely to be on a preinjury beta blocker, and more likely to have a history of hypertension. In the BB<sup>+</sup> group, 34 participants (60%) received metoprolol only, 19 participants (33%) received propranolol only, 3 participants (5%) received both, and 1 participant (2%) received atenolol only. In multivariable regression, there was no difference in the odds of a higher GOSE score at 6 months between the BB<sup>+</sup> group and BB<sup>-</sup> group (odds ratio = 0.86; 95% CI, 0.48-1.53). There was no association between BB exposure and secondary outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>About one-sixth of subjects in our study received early beta blockers, and within this group, dose, and timing of beta-blocker administration varied substantially. No significant differences in GOSE score at 6 months were demonstrated, although our ability to draw conclusions is limited by overall low total doses administered compared with prior studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":10759,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Explorations","volume":"5 9","pages":"e0958"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/08/ff/cc9-5-e0958.PMC10484371.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10225169","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-01DOI: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000959
Christian P Fischer, Emili Kastoft, Bente Ruth Scharvik Olesen, Bjarne Myrup
Objectives: To identify factors associated with antibiotic treatment delay in patients admitted with bloodstream infections (BSIs).
Design: Retrospective cohort study.
Setting: North Zealand Hospital, Denmark.
Patients: Adult patients with positive blood cultures obtained within the first 48 hours of admission between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015 (n = 926).
Measurements and main results: First recorded Early Warning Score (EWS), patient characteristics, time to antibiotic treatment, and survival at day 60 after admission were obtained from electronic health records and medicine module. Presence of contaminants and the match between the antibiotic treatment and susceptibility of the cultured microorganism were included in the analysis. Data were stratified according to EWS quartiles. Overall, time from admission to prescription of antibiotic treatment was 3.7 (3.4-4.0) hours, whereas time from admission to antibiotic treatment was 5.7 (5.4-6.1) hours. A gap between prescription and administration of antibiotic treatment was present across all EWS quartiles. Importantly, 23.4% of patients admitted with BSI presented with an initial EWS 0-1. Within this group of patients, time to antibiotic treatment was markedly higher among nonsurvivors at day 60 compared with survivors. Furthermore, time to antibiotic treatment later than 6 hours was associated with increased mortality at day 60. Among patients with an initial EWS of 0-1, 51.3% of survivors received antibiotic treatment within 6 hours, whereas only 19.0% of nonsurvivors received antibiotic treatment within 6 hours.
Conclusions: Among patients with initial low EWS, delay in antibiotic treatment of BSIs was associated with increased mortality at day 60. Lag from prescription to administration may contribute to delayed antibiotic treatment. A more frequent reevaluation of patients with infections with a low initial EWS and reduction of time from prescription to administration may reduce the time to antibiotic treatment, thus potentially improving survival.
{"title":"Delayed Treatment of Bloodstream Infection at Admission is Associated With Initial Low Early Warning Score and Increased Mortality.","authors":"Christian P Fischer, Emili Kastoft, Bente Ruth Scharvik Olesen, Bjarne Myrup","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000959","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000959","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To identify factors associated with antibiotic treatment delay in patients admitted with bloodstream infections (BSIs).</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>North Zealand Hospital, Denmark.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Adult patients with positive blood cultures obtained within the first 48 hours of admission between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2015 (<i>n</i> = 926).</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>First recorded Early Warning Score (EWS), patient characteristics, time to antibiotic treatment, and survival at day 60 after admission were obtained from electronic health records and medicine module. Presence of contaminants and the match between the antibiotic treatment and susceptibility of the cultured microorganism were included in the analysis. Data were stratified according to EWS quartiles. Overall, time from admission to prescription of antibiotic treatment was 3.7 (3.4-4.0) hours, whereas time from admission to antibiotic treatment was 5.7 (5.4-6.1) hours. A gap between prescription and administration of antibiotic treatment was present across all EWS quartiles. Importantly, 23.4% of patients admitted with BSI presented with an initial EWS 0-1. Within this group of patients, time to antibiotic treatment was markedly higher among nonsurvivors at day 60 compared with survivors. Furthermore, time to antibiotic treatment later than 6 hours was associated with increased mortality at day 60. Among patients with an initial EWS of 0-1, 51.3% of survivors received antibiotic treatment within 6 hours, whereas only 19.0% of nonsurvivors received antibiotic treatment within 6 hours.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Among patients with initial low EWS, delay in antibiotic treatment of BSIs was associated with increased mortality at day 60. Lag from prescription to administration may contribute to delayed antibiotic treatment. A more frequent reevaluation of patients with infections with a low initial EWS and reduction of time from prescription to administration may reduce the time to antibiotic treatment, thus potentially improving survival.</p>","PeriodicalId":10759,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Explorations","volume":"5 9","pages":"e0959"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/39/f1/cc9-5-e0959.PMC10461960.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10117763","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-01DOI: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000963
Anthony J Duncan, Lucas M Holkup, Hilla I Sang, Sheryl M Sahr
Objectives: To determine the effects of palliative care consultation if performed within 72 hours of admission on length of stay (LOS), mortality, and invasive procedures.
Design: Retrospective observational study.
Setting: Single-center level 1 trauma center.
Patients: Trauma patients, admitted to ICU with palliative care consultation.
Intervention: None.
Measurements and main results: The ICU LOS was decreased in the early palliative care (EPC) group compared with the late palliative care (LPC) group, by 6 days versus 12 days, respectively. Similarly, the hospital LOS was also shorter in the EPC group by 8 days versus 17 days in the LPC group. In addition, the EPC group had lower rates of tracheostomy (4% vs 14%) and percutaneous gastrostomy tubes (4% vs 15%) compared with the LPC group. There was no difference in mortality or discharge disposition between patients in the EPC versus LPC groups. It is noteworthy that the patients who received EPC were slightly older, but there were no other significant differences in demographics.
Conclusions: EPC is associated with fewer procedures and a shorter amount of time spent in the hospital, with no immediate effect on mortality. These outcomes are consistent with studies that show patients' preferences toward the end of life, which typically involve less time in the hospital and fewer invasive procedures.
{"title":"Benefits of Early Utilization of Palliative Care Consultation in Trauma Patients.","authors":"Anthony J Duncan, Lucas M Holkup, Hilla I Sang, Sheryl M Sahr","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000963","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000963","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine the effects of palliative care consultation if performed within 72 hours of admission on length of stay (LOS), mortality, and invasive procedures.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective observational study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Single-center level 1 trauma center.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Trauma patients, admitted to ICU with palliative care consultation.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>The ICU LOS was decreased in the early palliative care (EPC) group compared with the late palliative care (LPC) group, by 6 days versus 12 days, respectively. Similarly, the hospital LOS was also shorter in the EPC group by 8 days versus 17 days in the LPC group. In addition, the EPC group had lower rates of tracheostomy (4% vs 14%) and percutaneous gastrostomy tubes (4% vs 15%) compared with the LPC group. There was no difference in mortality or discharge disposition between patients in the EPC versus LPC groups. It is noteworthy that the patients who received EPC were slightly older, but there were no other significant differences in demographics.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>EPC is associated with fewer procedures and a shorter amount of time spent in the hospital, with no immediate effect on mortality. These outcomes are consistent with studies that show patients' preferences toward the end of life, which typically involve less time in the hospital and fewer invasive procedures.</p>","PeriodicalId":10759,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Explorations","volume":"5 9","pages":"e0963"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/14/b6/cc9-5-e0963.PMC10465097.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10500942","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-01DOI: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000969
Madeleine Böhrer, Cai Long, Adrienne Thompson, Stasa Veroukis, Gurpreet Khaira
Background: Ingestion and aspiration of caustic substances is a common problem in pediatrics and carries the risk of associated aspiration pneumonitis, laryngeal injury, and esophageal injury. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used to support adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from aspiration of cement dust, however, literature outlining pediatric management in cases of alkali lung and airway injuries is lacking.
Case summary: A 6-year-old boy presented with ARDS from cement aspiration requiring high-pressure ventilation. He had further complications of tracheal injury with subsequent pneumomediastinum secondary to the alkali burn. He required ECMO to facilitate repeat bronchoscopy for cement particle washout and to enable recovery from ARDS and tracheal injury.
Conclusion: This case highlights the need to perform early bronchoscopy and gastrointestinal endoscopy for injury assessment and foreign body removal in alkali burns. It also emphasizes the value of ECMO support for respiratory failure and facilitating bronchoalveolar lavage when it is not otherwise tolerated.
{"title":"Pediatric Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Tracheal Injury in a Patient Requiring Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Following Cement Aspiration: A Case Report.","authors":"Madeleine Böhrer, Cai Long, Adrienne Thompson, Stasa Veroukis, Gurpreet Khaira","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000969","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000969","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Ingestion and aspiration of caustic substances is a common problem in pediatrics and carries the risk of associated aspiration pneumonitis, laryngeal injury, and esophageal injury. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used to support adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from aspiration of cement dust, however, literature outlining pediatric management in cases of alkali lung and airway injuries is lacking.</p><p><strong>Case summary: </strong>A 6-year-old boy presented with ARDS from cement aspiration requiring high-pressure ventilation. He had further complications of tracheal injury with subsequent pneumomediastinum secondary to the alkali burn. He required ECMO to facilitate repeat bronchoscopy for cement particle washout and to enable recovery from ARDS and tracheal injury.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This case highlights the need to perform early bronchoscopy and gastrointestinal endoscopy for injury assessment and foreign body removal in alkali burns. It also emphasizes the value of ECMO support for respiratory failure and facilitating bronchoalveolar lavage when it is not otherwise tolerated.</p>","PeriodicalId":10759,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Explorations","volume":"5 9","pages":"e0969"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/93/d7/cc9-5-e0969.PMC10461942.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10119713","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-01DOI: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000967
Adrian Wong, Lucas A Berenbrok, Lauren Snader, Yu Hyeon Soh, Vishakha K Kumar, Muhammad Ali Javed, David W Bates, Lauren R Sorce, Sandra L Kane-Gill
Objectives: Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are used in various aspects of healthcare to improve clinical decision-making, including in the ICU. However, there is growing evidence that CDSS are not used to their full potential, often resulting in alert fatigue which has been associated with patient harm. Clinicians in the ICU may be more vulnerable to desensitization of alerts than clinicians in less urgent parts of the hospital. We evaluated facilitators and barriers to appropriate CDSS interaction and provide methods to improve currently available CDSS in the ICU.
Design: Sequential explanatory mixed-methods study design, using the BEhavior and Acceptance fRamework.
Setting: International survey study.
Patient/subjects: Clinicians (pharmacists, physicians) identified via survey, with recent experience with clinical decision support.
Interventions: An initial survey was developed to evaluate clinician perspectives on their interactions with CDSS. A subsequent in-depth interview was developed to further evaluate clinician (pharmacist, physician) beliefs and behaviors about CDSS. These interviews were then qualitatively analyzed to determine themes of facilitators and barriers with CDSS interactions.
Measurements and main results: A total of 48 respondents completed the initial survey (estimated response rate 15.5%). The majority believed that responding to CDSS alerts was part of their job (75%) but felt they experienced alert fatigue (56.5%). In the qualitative analysis, a total of five facilitators (patient safety, ease of response, specificity, prioritization, and feedback) and four barriers (excess quantity, work environment, difficulty in response, and irrelevance) were identified from the in-depth interviews.
Conclusions: In this mixed-methods survey, we identified areas that institutions should focus on to improve appropriate clinician interactions with CDSS, specific to the ICU. Tailoring of CDSS to the ICU may lead to improvement in CDSS and subsequent improved patient safety outcomes.
{"title":"Facilitators and Barriers to Interacting With Clinical Decision Support in the ICU: A Mixed-Methods Approach.","authors":"Adrian Wong, Lucas A Berenbrok, Lauren Snader, Yu Hyeon Soh, Vishakha K Kumar, Muhammad Ali Javed, David W Bates, Lauren R Sorce, Sandra L Kane-Gill","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000967","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000967","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are used in various aspects of healthcare to improve clinical decision-making, including in the ICU. However, there is growing evidence that CDSS are not used to their full potential, often resulting in alert fatigue which has been associated with patient harm. Clinicians in the ICU may be more vulnerable to desensitization of alerts than clinicians in less urgent parts of the hospital. We evaluated facilitators and barriers to appropriate CDSS interaction and provide methods to improve currently available CDSS in the ICU.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Sequential explanatory mixed-methods study design, using the BEhavior and Acceptance fRamework.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>International survey study.</p><p><strong>Patient/subjects: </strong>Clinicians (pharmacists, physicians) identified via survey, with recent experience with clinical decision support.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>An initial survey was developed to evaluate clinician perspectives on their interactions with CDSS. A subsequent in-depth interview was developed to further evaluate clinician (pharmacist, physician) beliefs and behaviors about CDSS. These interviews were then qualitatively analyzed to determine themes of facilitators and barriers with CDSS interactions.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>A total of 48 respondents completed the initial survey (estimated response rate 15.5%). The majority believed that responding to CDSS alerts was part of their job (75%) but felt they experienced alert fatigue (56.5%). In the qualitative analysis, a total of five facilitators (patient safety, ease of response, specificity, prioritization, and feedback) and four barriers (excess quantity, work environment, difficulty in response, and irrelevance) were identified from the in-depth interviews.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this mixed-methods survey, we identified areas that institutions should focus on to improve appropriate clinician interactions with CDSS, specific to the ICU. Tailoring of CDSS to the ICU may lead to improvement in CDSS and subsequent improved patient safety outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":10759,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Explorations","volume":"5 9","pages":"e0967"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/69/64/cc9-5-e0967.PMC10461946.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10117765","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-01DOI: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000962
Omar Abdel-Razek, Pietro Di Santo, Richard G Jung, Simon Parlow, Pouya Motazedian, Graeme Prosperi-Porta, Sarah Visintini, Jeffrey A Marbach, F Daniel Ramirez, Trevor Simard, Marino Labinaz, Rebecca Mathew, Benjamin Hibbert
Objectives: Inotropic support is commonly used in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). High-quality data guiding the use of dobutamine or milrinone among this patient population is limited. We compared the efficacy and safety of these two inotropes among patients with low cardiac output states (LCOS) or CS.
Data sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to February 1, 2023, using key terms and index headings related to LCOS or CS and inotropes.
Data extraction: Two independent reviewers included studies that compared dobutamine to milrinone on all-cause in-hospital mortality, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, and significant arrhythmias in hospitalized patients.
Data synthesis: A total of eleven studies with 21,084 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Only two randomized controlled trials were identified. The primary outcome, all-cause mortality, favored milrinone in observational studies only (odds ratio [OR] 1.19 (95% CI, 1.02-1.39; p = 0.02). In-hospital length of stay (LOS) was reduced with dobutamine in observational studies only (mean difference -1.85 d; 95% CI -3.62 to -0.09; p = 0.04). There was no difference in the prevalence of significant arrhythmias or in ICU LOS.
Conclusions: Only limited data exists supporting the use of one inotropic agent over another exists. Dobutamine may be associated with a shorter hospital LOS; however, there is also a potential for increased all-cause mortality. Larger randomized studies sufficiently powered to detect a difference in these outcomes are required to confirm these findings.
目的:肌力支持常用于心源性休克(CS)患者。指导在该患者群体中使用多巴酚丁胺或米力酮的高质量数据有限。我们比较了这两种肌力药物在低心输出量状态(LCOS)或CS患者中的疗效和安全性。数据来源:MEDLINE、Embase和Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials检索截止到2023年2月1日,使用与LCOS或CS和肌力相关的关键术语和索引标题。资料提取:两名独立评论者纳入了比较多巴酚丁胺与米力酮在住院患者全因死亡率、ICU住院时间、住院时间和显著心律失常方面的研究。数据综合:荟萃分析共纳入11项研究,21,084例患者。仅确定了两项随机对照试验。主要结局,全因死亡率,仅在观察性研究中有利于米力农(优势比[OR] 1.19 (95% CI, 1.02-1.39;P = 0.02)。仅在观察性研究中,多巴酚丁胺可降低住院时间(LOS)(平均差-1.85 d;95% CI为-3.62 ~ -0.09;P = 0.04)。在重症监护病房的LOS中,显著性心律失常的发生率没有差异。结论:只有有限的数据支持一种肌力药物的使用优于另一种。多巴酚丁胺可能与较短的医院LOS有关;然而,也有可能增加全因死亡率。需要更大规模的随机研究来证实这些结果的差异。
{"title":"Efficacy of Milrinone and Dobutamine in Cardiogenic Shock: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.","authors":"Omar Abdel-Razek, Pietro Di Santo, Richard G Jung, Simon Parlow, Pouya Motazedian, Graeme Prosperi-Porta, Sarah Visintini, Jeffrey A Marbach, F Daniel Ramirez, Trevor Simard, Marino Labinaz, Rebecca Mathew, Benjamin Hibbert","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000962","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000962","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Inotropic support is commonly used in patients with cardiogenic shock (CS). High-quality data guiding the use of dobutamine or milrinone among this patient population is limited. We compared the efficacy and safety of these two inotropes among patients with low cardiac output states (LCOS) or CS.</p><p><strong>Data sources: </strong>MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to February 1, 2023, using key terms and index headings related to LCOS or CS and inotropes.</p><p><strong>Data extraction: </strong>Two independent reviewers included studies that compared dobutamine to milrinone on all-cause in-hospital mortality, length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, and significant arrhythmias in hospitalized patients.</p><p><strong>Data synthesis: </strong>A total of eleven studies with 21,084 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Only two randomized controlled trials were identified. The primary outcome, all-cause mortality, favored milrinone in observational studies only (odds ratio [OR] 1.19 (95% CI, 1.02-1.39; <i>p</i> = 0.02). In-hospital length of stay (LOS) was reduced with dobutamine in observational studies only (mean difference -1.85 d; 95% CI -3.62 to -0.09; <i>p</i> = 0.04). There was no difference in the prevalence of significant arrhythmias or in ICU LOS.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Only limited data exists supporting the use of one inotropic agent over another exists. Dobutamine may be associated with a shorter hospital LOS; however, there is also a potential for increased all-cause mortality. Larger randomized studies sufficiently powered to detect a difference in these outcomes are required to confirm these findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":10759,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Explorations","volume":"5 9","pages":"e0962"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/40/64/cc9-5-e0962.PMC10465094.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10500944","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-01DOI: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000968
Joaquin Pérez, Matías Accoce, Javier H Dorado, Daniela I Gilgado, Emiliano Navarro, Gimena P Cardoso, Irene Telias, Pablo O Rodriguez, Laurent Brochard
Objectives: To describe the rate of failure of the first transition to pressure support ventilation (PSV) after systematic spontaneous awakening trials (SATs) in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) and to assess whether the failure is higher in COVID-19 compared with AHRF of other etiologies. To determine predictors and potential association of failure with outcomes.
Design: Retrospective cohort study.
Setting: Twenty-eight-bedded medical-surgical ICU in a private hospital (Argentina).
Patients: Subjects with arterial pressure of oxygen (AHRF to Fio2 [Pao2/Fio2] < 300 mm Hg) of different etiologies under controlled mechanical ventilation (MV).
Interventions: None.
Measurements and main results: We collected data during controlled ventilation within 24 hours before SAT followed by the first PSV transition. Failure was defined as the need to return to fully controlled MV within 3 calendar days of PSV start. A total of 274 patients with AHRF (189 COVID-19 and 85 non-COVID-19) were included. The failure occurred in 120 of 274 subjects (43.7%) and was higher in COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 (49.7% and 30.5%; p = 0.003). COVID-19 diagnosis (odds ratio [OR]: 2.22; 95% CI [1.15-4.43]; p = 0.020), previous neuromuscular blockers (OR: 2.16; 95% CI [1.15-4.11]; p = 0.017) and higher fentanyl dose (OR: 1.29; 95% CI [1.05-1.60]; p = 0.018) increased the failure chances. Higher BMI (OR: 0.95; 95% CI [0.91-0.99]; p = 0.029), Pao2/Fio2 (OR: 0.87; 95% CI [0.78-0.97]; p = 0.017), and pH (OR: 0.61; 95% CI [0.38-0.96]; p = 0.035) were protective. Failure groups had higher 60-day ventilator dependence (p < 0.001), MV duration (p < 0.0001), and ICU stay (p = 0.001). Patients who failed had higher mortality in COVID-19 group (p < 0.001) but not in the non-COVID-19 (p = 0.083).
Conclusions: In patients with AHRF of different etiologies, the failure of the first PSV attempt was 43.7%, and at a higher rate in COVID-19. Independent risk factors included COVID-19 diagnosis, fentanyl dose, previous neuromuscular blockers, acidosis and hypoxemia preceding SAT, whereas higher BMI was protective. Failure was associated with worse outcomes.
目的:描述急性低氧性呼吸衰竭(AHRF)患者在系统自发觉醒试验(SATs)后首次过渡到压力支持通气(PSV)的失败率,并评估COVID-19患者的失败率是否高于其他病因的AHRF患者。确定失败与结果的预测因素和潜在关联。设计:回顾性队列研究。环境:一家私人医院(阿根廷)设有28张床位的内科-外科ICU。患者:受控机械通气(MV)下不同病因的动脉氧压(AHRF to Fio2 [Pao2/Fio2] < 300 mm Hg)受试者。干预措施:没有。测量和主要结果:我们收集了在SAT前24小时内控制通气期间的数据,随后是第一次PSV过渡。失败被定义为需要在PSV开始后的3个日历天内返回到完全控制的MV。共纳入274例AHRF患者(189例COVID-19, 85例非COVID-19)。274名受试者中有120人(43.7%)失败,COVID-19患者的失败率高于非COVID-19患者(49.7%和30.5%);P = 0.003)。COVID-19诊断(优势比[OR]: 2.22;95% ci [1.15-4.43];p = 0.020),既往神经肌肉阻滞剂(OR: 2.16;95% ci [1.15-4.11];p = 0.017)和较高芬太尼剂量(OR: 1.29;95% ci [1.05-1.60];P = 0.018)增加了失败的机会。较高的BMI (OR: 0.95;95% ci [0.91-0.99];p = 0.029), Pao2/Fio2 (OR: 0.87;95% ci [0.78-0.97];p = 0.017), pH值(OR: 0.61;95% ci [0.38-0.96];P = 0.035)具有保护作用。失败组60天呼吸机依赖性(p < 0.001)、MV持续时间(p < 0.0001)和ICU住院时间(p = 0.001)较高。失败患者的死亡率在COVID-19组较高(p < 0.001),而在非COVID-19组无此差异(p = 0.083)。结论:在不同病因的AHRF患者中,首次PSV尝试的失败率为43.7%,COVID-19患者的失败率更高。独立危险因素包括COVID-19诊断、芬太尼剂量、既往神经肌肉阻滞剂、酸中毒和SAT前低氧血症,而较高的BMI具有保护作用。失败与更糟糕的结果相关。
{"title":"Failure of First Transition to Pressure Support Ventilation After Spontaneous Awakening Trials in Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: Influence of COVID-19.","authors":"Joaquin Pérez, Matías Accoce, Javier H Dorado, Daniela I Gilgado, Emiliano Navarro, Gimena P Cardoso, Irene Telias, Pablo O Rodriguez, Laurent Brochard","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000968","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000968","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To describe the rate of failure of the first transition to pressure support ventilation (PSV) after systematic spontaneous awakening trials (SATs) in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) and to assess whether the failure is higher in COVID-19 compared with AHRF of other etiologies. To determine predictors and potential association of failure with outcomes.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>Twenty-eight-bedded medical-surgical ICU in a private hospital (Argentina).</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Subjects with arterial pressure of oxygen (AHRF to Fio<sub>2</sub> [Pao<sub>2</sub>/Fio<sub>2</sub>] < 300 mm Hg) of different etiologies under controlled mechanical ventilation (MV).</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>We collected data during controlled ventilation within 24 hours before SAT followed by the first PSV transition. Failure was defined as the need to return to fully controlled MV within 3 calendar days of PSV start. A total of 274 patients with AHRF (189 COVID-19 and 85 non-COVID-19) were included. The failure occurred in 120 of 274 subjects (43.7%) and was higher in COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 (49.7% and 30.5%; <i>p</i> = 0.003). COVID-19 diagnosis (odds ratio [OR]: 2.22; 95% CI [1.15-4.43]; <i>p</i> = 0.020), previous neuromuscular blockers (OR: 2.16; 95% CI [1.15-4.11]; <i>p</i> = 0.017) and higher fentanyl dose (OR: 1.29; 95% CI [1.05-1.60]; <i>p</i> = 0.018) increased the failure chances. Higher BMI (OR: 0.95; 95% CI [0.91-0.99]; <i>p</i> = 0.029), Pao<sub>2</sub>/Fio<sub>2</sub> (OR: 0.87; 95% CI [0.78-0.97]; <i>p</i> = 0.017), and pH (OR: 0.61; 95% CI [0.38-0.96]; <i>p</i> = 0.035) were protective. Failure groups had higher 60-day ventilator dependence (<i>p</i> < 0.001), MV duration (<i>p</i> < 0.0001), and ICU stay (<i>p</i> = 0.001). Patients who failed had higher mortality in COVID-19 group (<i>p</i> < 0.001) but not in the non-COVID-19 (<i>p</i> = 0.083).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In patients with AHRF of different etiologies, the failure of the first PSV attempt was 43.7%, and at a higher rate in COVID-19. Independent risk factors included COVID-19 diagnosis, fentanyl dose, previous neuromuscular blockers, acidosis and hypoxemia preceding SAT, whereas higher BMI was protective. Failure was associated with worse outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":10759,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Explorations","volume":"5 9","pages":"e0968"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d9/d6/cc9-5-e0968.PMC10461949.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10111477","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-09-01DOI: 10.1097/CCE.0000000000000972
Mikita Fuchita, Caitlin Blaine, Alexis Keyworth, Kathryn Morfin, Blake Primi, Kyle Ridgeway, Nikki Stake, Helen Watson, Dan Matlock, Anuj B Mehta
Objective: To explore the interdisciplinary team members' beliefs and attitudes about sedation when caring for mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU.
Design: Cross-sectional survey.
Setting: A 17-bed cardiothoracic ICU at a tertiary care academic hospital in Colorado.
Subjects: All nurses, physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), respiratory therapists, physical therapists (PTs), and occupational therapists (OTs) who work in the cardiothoracic ICU.
Interventions: None.
Measurements and main results: We modified a validated survey instrument to evaluate perspectives on sedation across members of the interdisciplinary ICU team. Survey responses were collected anonymously from 111 members (81% response rate). Respondents were predominantly female (70 [63%]). Most respondents across disciplines (94%) believed that their sedation practice made a difference in patients' outcomes. More nurses (48%), APPs (62%), and respiratory therapists (50%) believed that sedation could help alleviate the psychologic stress that patients experience on the ventilator than physicians (19%) and PTs/OTs (0%) (p = 0.008). The proportion of respondents who preferred to be sedated if they were mechanically ventilated themselves varied widely by discipline: respiratory therapists (88%), nurses (83%), APPs (54%), PTs/OTs (38%), and physicians (19%) (p < 0.001). In our exploratory analysis, listeners of an educational podcast had beliefs and attitudes more aligned with best evidence-based practices than nonlisteners.
Conclusions: We discovered significant interdisciplinary differences in the beliefs and attitudes regarding sedation use in the ICU. Since all ICU team members are involved in managing mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU, aligning the mental models of sedation may be essential to enhance interprofessional collaboration and promote sedation best practices.
{"title":"Perspectives on Sedation Among Interdisciplinary Team Members in ICU: A Survey Study.","authors":"Mikita Fuchita, Caitlin Blaine, Alexis Keyworth, Kathryn Morfin, Blake Primi, Kyle Ridgeway, Nikki Stake, Helen Watson, Dan Matlock, Anuj B Mehta","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000972","DOIUrl":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000000972","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To explore the interdisciplinary team members' beliefs and attitudes about sedation when caring for mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Cross-sectional survey.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>A 17-bed cardiothoracic ICU at a tertiary care academic hospital in Colorado.</p><p><strong>Subjects: </strong>All nurses, physicians, advanced practice providers (APPs), respiratory therapists, physical therapists (PTs), and occupational therapists (OTs) who work in the cardiothoracic ICU.</p><p><strong>Interventions: </strong>None.</p><p><strong>Measurements and main results: </strong>We modified a validated survey instrument to evaluate perspectives on sedation across members of the interdisciplinary ICU team. Survey responses were collected anonymously from 111 members (81% response rate). Respondents were predominantly female (70 [63%]). Most respondents across disciplines (94%) believed that their sedation practice made a difference in patients' outcomes. More nurses (48%), APPs (62%), and respiratory therapists (50%) believed that sedation could help alleviate the psychologic stress that patients experience on the ventilator than physicians (19%) and PTs/OTs (0%) (<i>p</i> = 0.008). The proportion of respondents who preferred to be sedated if they were mechanically ventilated themselves varied widely by discipline: respiratory therapists (88%), nurses (83%), APPs (54%), PTs/OTs (38%), and physicians (19%) (<i>p</i> < 0.001). In our exploratory analysis, listeners of an educational podcast had beliefs and attitudes more aligned with best evidence-based practices than nonlisteners.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We discovered significant interdisciplinary differences in the beliefs and attitudes regarding sedation use in the ICU. Since all ICU team members are involved in managing mechanically ventilated patients in the ICU, aligning the mental models of sedation may be essential to enhance interprofessional collaboration and promote sedation best practices.</p>","PeriodicalId":10759,"journal":{"name":"Critical Care Explorations","volume":"5 9","pages":"e0972"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10476798/pdf/cc9-5-e0972.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10168377","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}