ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Asthma exacerbations with respiratory failure (AERF) are associated with hospital mortality of 7% to 15%. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has been used as salvage therapy for refractory AERF, but controlled studies showing its association with mortality have not been performed. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is treatment with ECMO associated with lower mortality in refractory AERF compared with standard care? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This is a retrospective, epidemiologic, observational cohort study using a national, administrative data set from 2010 to 2020 that includes 25% of US hospitalizations. People were included if they were admitted to an ECMO-capable hospital with an asthma exacerbation, and were treated with short-acting bronchodilators, systemic corticosteroids, and invasive ventilation. People were excluded for age < 18 years, no ICU stay, nonasthma chronic lung disease, COVID-19, or multiple admissions. The main exposure was ECMO vs No ECMO. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Key secondary outcomes were ICU length of stay (LOS), hospital LOS, time receiving invasive ventilation, and total hospital costs. RESULTS: The study analyzed 13,714 patients with AERF, including 127 with ECMO and 13,587 with No ECMO. ECMO was associated with reduced mortality in the covariate-adjusted (OR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.17-0.64; P = .001), propensity score-adjusted (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.16-0.81; P = .01), and propensity score-matched models (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.24-0.98; P = .04) vs No ECMO. Sensitivity analyses showed that mortality reduction related to ECMO ranged from OR 0.34 to 0.61. ECMO was also associated with increased hospital costs in all three models (P < .0001 for all) vs No ECMO, but not with decreased ICU LOS, hospital LOS, or time receiving invasive ventilation. INTERPRETATION: ECMO was associated with lower mortality and higher hospital costs, suggesting that it may be an important salvage therapy for refractory AERF following confirmatory clinical trials.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Lung ultrasound (LUS) is a clinician-performed evidence-based imaging modality that has multiple advantages in the evaluation of dyspnea caused by multiple disease processes, including COVID-19. Despite these advantages, few hospitalists have been trained to perform LUS. The aim of this study was to increase adoption and implementation of LUS during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic by using recurrent assessments of RE-AIM outcomes to iteratively revise our implementation strategies. METHODS: In an academic hospital, we implemented guidelines for the use of LUS in patients with COVID-19 in July 2020. Using a novel "RE-AIM dashboard," we used an iterative process of evaluating the high-priority outcomes of Reach, Adoption, and Implementation at twice monthly intervals to inform revisions of our implementation strategies for LUS delivery (i.e., Iterative RE-AIM process). Using a convergent mixed methods design, we integrated quantitative RE-AIM outcomes with qualitative hospitalist interview data to understand the dynamic determinants of LUS Reach, Adoption, and Implementation. RESULTS: Over the 1-year study period, 453 LUSs were performed in 298 of 12,567 eligible inpatients with COVID-19 (Reach = 2%). These 453 LUS were ordered by 43 out of 86 eligible hospitalists (LUS order adoption = 50%). However, the LUSs were performed/supervised by only 8 of these 86 hospitalists, 4 of whom were required to complete LUS credentialing as members of the hospitalist procedure service (proceduralist adoption 75% vs 1.2% non-procedural hospitalists adoption). Qualitative and quantitative data obtained to evaluate this Iterative RE-AIM process led to the deployment of six sequential implementation strategies and 3 key findings including (1) there were COVID-19-specific barriers to LUS adoption, (2) hospitalists were more willing to learn to make clinical decisions using LUS images than obtain the images themselves, and (3) mandating the credentialing of a strategically selected sub-group may be a successful strategy for improving Reach. CONCLUSIONS: Mandating use of a strategically selected subset of clinicians may be an effective strategy for improving Reach of LUS. Additionally, use of Iterative RE-AIM allowed for timely adjustments to implementation strategies, facilitating higher levels of LUS Adoption and Reach. Future studies should explore the replicability of these preliminary findings.
ABSTRACT
There is growing interest from multiple specialties, including internal medicine, to incorporate diagnostic point of care ultrasound (POCUS) into standard clinical care. However, few internists currently use POCUS. The objective of this study was to understand the current determinants of POCUS adoption at both the health system and clinician level at a U.S. academic medical center from the perspective of multi-level stakeholders. We performed semi-structured interviews of multi-level stakeholders including hospitalists, subspecialists, and hospital leaders at an academic medical center in the U.S. Questions regarding the determinants of POCUS adoption were asked of study participants. Using the framework method, team-based analysis of interview transcripts were guided by the contextual domains of the Practical Robust Implementation and Sustainability Model (PRISM). Thirty-one stakeholders with diverse roles in POCUS adoption were interviewed. Analysis of interviews revealed three overarching themes that stakeholders considered important to adoption by clinicians and health systems: clinical impact, efficiency and cost. Subthemes included two that were deemed essential to high-fidelity implementation: the development of credentialing policies and robust quality assurance processes. These findings identify potential determinants of system and clinician level adoption that may be leveraged to achieve high-fidelity implementation of POCUS applications that result in improved patient outcomes.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation compared with no anticoagulation was associated with decreased risk of death among patients admitted to hospital with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19) in the United States. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: Nationwide cohort of patients receiving care in the Department of Veterans Affairs, a large integrated national healthcare system. PARTICIPANTS: All 4297 patients admitted to hospital from 1 March to 31 July 2020 with laboratory confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and without a history of anticoagulation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main outcome was 30 day mortality. Secondary outcomes were inpatient mortality, initiating therapeutic anticoagulation (a proxy for clinical deterioration, including thromboembolic events), and bleeding that required transfusion. RESULTS: Of 4297 patients admitted to hospital with covid-19, 3627 (84.4%) received prophylactic anticoagulation within 24 hours of admission. More than 99% (n=3600) of treated patients received subcutaneous heparin or enoxaparin. 622 deaths occurred within 30 days of hospital admission, 513 among those who received prophylactic anticoagulation. Most deaths (510/622, 82%) occurred during hospital stay. Using inverse probability of treatment weighted analyses, the cumulative incidence of mortality at 30 days was 14.3% (95% confidence interval 13.1% to 15.5%) among those who received prophylactic anticoagulation and 18.7% (15.1% to 22.9%) among those who did not. Compared with patients who did not receive prophylactic anticoagulation, those who did had a 27% decreased risk for 30 day mortality (hazard ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.66 to 0.81). Similar associations were found for inpatient mortality and initiation of therapeutic anticoagulation. Receipt of prophylactic anticoagulation was not associated with increased risk of bleeding that required transfusion (hazard ratio 0.87, 0.71 to 1.05). Quantitative bias analysis showed that results were robust to unmeasured confounding (e-value lower 95% confidence interval 1.77 for 30 day mortality). Results persisted in several sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Early initiation of prophylactic anticoagulation compared with no anticoagulation among patients admitted to hospital with covid-19 was associated with a decreased risk of 30 day mortality and no increased risk of serious bleeding events. These findings provide strong real world evidence to support guidelines recommending the use of prophylactic anticoagulation as initial treatment for patients with covid-19 on hospital admission.