Temporal Relationship and Clinical Outcomes of Acute Kidney Injury Following Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess prevalence and timing of acute kidney injury (AKI) development after acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and its association with mortality. DATA SOURCES: Ovid MEDLINE(R), Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid PsycINFO database, Scopus, and Web of Science thought April 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Titles and abstracts were screened independently and in duplicate to identify eligible studies. Randomized controlled trials and prospective or retrospective cohort studies reporting the development of AKI following ARDS were included. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently extracted data using a pre piloted abstraction form. We used Review Manager 5.4 software (Cochrane Library, Oxford, United Kingdom) and Open Meta software (Brown University, Providence, RI) for statistical analyses. DATA SYNTHESIS: Among the 3646 studies identified and screened, 17 studies comprising 9359 ARDS patients met the eligibility criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. AKI developed in 3287 patients (40%) after the diagnosis of ARDS. The incidence of AKI at least 48 hours after ARDS diagnosis was 20% (95% CI, 0.18-0.21%). The pooled risk ratio (RR) for the hospital (or 30-d) mortality among ARDS patients who developed AKI was 1.93 (95% CI, 1.71-2.18). AKI development after ARDS was identified as an independent risk factor for mortality in ARDS patients, with a pooled odds ratio from multivariable analysis of 3.69 (95% CI, 2.24-6.09). Furthermore, two studies comparing mortality between patients with late vs. early AKI initiation after ARDS revealed higher mortality in late AKI patients with RR of 1.46 (95% CI, 1.19-1.8). However, the certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low to very low. CONCLUSIONS: While our findings highlight a significant association between ARDS and subsequent development of AKI, the low to very low certainty of evidence underscores the need for cautious interpretation. This systematic review identified a significant knowledge gap, necessitating further research to establish a more definitive understanding of this relationship and its clinical implications.

Impact of SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Rollout on Hispanic and Non-Hispanic Admission and Mortality Trends: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Challenges with SARS-CoV-2 vaccine prioritization, access, and hesitancy have influenced vaccination uptake. RESEARCH QUESTION: Was the impact of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine rollout on COVID-19 monthly admission and mortality trends different between Hispanic and non-Hispanic populations? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We used interrupted time series analysis to conduct an ancillary study of the Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study registry supplemented by electronic health record data from five participating Mayo Clinic sites in Florida, Arizona, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. We included hospitalized patients with COVID-19 admitted between April 2020 and December 2021. Our primary outcome was the impact of vaccine rollout on admission trends. Our secondary outcome was the impact of vaccine rollout on mortality trends. RESULTS: This interrupted time series analysis includes 6,442 patients. Vaccine rollout was associated with improved monthly hospital admission trends among both Hispanic and non-Hispanic patients. Among Hispanic patients, pre-vaccine rollout, monthly admissions increased by 12.9% (95% CI, 8.1%-17.9%). Immediately after vaccine rollout, patient admissions declined by -66.3% (95% CI, -75.6% to -53.9%). Post-vaccine rollout, monthly admissions increased by 3.7% (95% CI, 0.2%-7.3%). Among non-Hispanic patients, pre-vaccine rollout, monthly admissions increased by 35.8% (95% CI, 33.4%-38.1%). Immediately after vaccine rollout, patient admissions declined by -75.2% (95% CI, -77.6% to -72.7%). Post-vaccine rollout, monthly admissions increased by 5.6% (95% CI, 4.5%-6.7%). These pre-vaccine rollout admission trends were significantly different (P < .001). Post-vaccine rollout, the change in admission trend was significantly different (P < .001). The associated beneficial impact from vaccine rollout on monthly hospital admission trends among Hispanic patients was significantly lower. The trend in monthly mortality rate was fourfold greater (worse) among Hispanic patients (8.3%; 95% CI, 3.6%-13.4%) vs non-Hispanic patients (2.2%; 95% CI, 0.6%-3.8%), but this was not shown to be related to vaccine rollout. INTERPRETATION: SARS-CoV-2 vaccine rollout was associated with improved COVID-19 admission trends among non-Hispanic vs Hispanic patients. Vaccine rollout was not shown to influence mortality trends in either group, which were four times higher among Hispanic patients. Improved vaccine rollout may have reduced disparities in admission trends for Hispanic patients, but other factors influenced their mortality trends.

Validation of automated data abstraction for SCCM discovery VIRUS COVID-19 registry: practical EHR export pathways (VIRUS-PEEP).

Background: The gold standard for gathering data from electronic health records (EHR) has been manual data extraction; however, this requires vast resources and personnel. Automation of this process reduces resource burdens and expands research opportunities. Objective: This study aimed to determine the feasibility and reliability of automated data extraction in a large registry of adult COVID-19 patients. Materials and methods: This observational study included data from sites participating in the SCCM Discovery VIRUS COVID-19 registry. Important demographic, comorbidity, and outcome variables were chosen for manual and automated extraction for the feasibility dataset. We quantified the degree of agreement with Cohen's kappa statistics for categorical variables. The sensitivity and specificity were also assessed. Correlations for continuous variables were assessed with Pearson's correlation coefficient and Bland-Altman plots. The strength of agreement was defined as almost perfect (0.81-1.00), substantial (0.61-0.80), and moderate (0.41-0.60) based on kappa statistics. Pearson correlations were classified as trivial (0.00-0.30), low (0.30-0.50), moderate (0.50-0.70), high (0.70-0.90), and extremely high (0.90-1.00). Measurements and main results: The cohort included 652 patients from 11 sites. The agreement between manual and automated extraction for categorical variables was almost perfect in 13 (72.2%) variables (Race, Ethnicity, Sex, Coronary Artery Disease, Hypertension, Congestive Heart Failure, Asthma, Diabetes Mellitus, ICU admission rate, IMV rate, HFNC rate, ICU and Hospital Discharge Status), and substantial in five (27.8%) (COPD, CKD, Dyslipidemia/Hyperlipidemia, NIMV, and ECMO rate). The correlations were extremely high in three (42.9%) variables (age, weight, and hospital LOS) and high in four (57.1%) of the continuous variables (Height, Days to ICU admission, ICU LOS, and IMV days). The average sensitivity and specificity for the categorical data were 90.7 and 96.9%. Conclusion and relevance: Our study confirms the feasibility and validity of an automated process to gather data from the EHR.

Pre-hospital Aspirin Use and Patient Outcomes in COVID-19: Results from the International Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study (VIRUS)

Introduction: The goal of this investigation is to assess the association between prehospital use of aspirin (ASA) and patient-centered outcomes in a large global cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients.Methods: This study utilizes data from the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study (VIRUS) Registry. Adult patients hospitalized from February 15th, 2020, to September 30th, 2021, were included. Multivariable regression analyses were utilized to assess the association between pre-hospital use of ASA and the primary outcome of overall hospital mortality.Results: 21,579 patients were included from 185 hospitals (predominantly US-based, 71.3%), with 4691 (21.7%) receiving pre-hospital ASA. Patients receiving ASA, compared to those without pre-admission ASA use, were generally older (median 70 vs. 59 years), more likely to be male (58.7 vs. 56.0%), caucasian (57.4 vs. 51.6%), and more commonly had higher rates of medical comorbidities. In multivariable analyses, patients receiving pre-hospital ASA had lower mortality (HR: 0.89, 95% CI 0.82–0.97, p=0.01) and reduced hazard for progression to severe disease or death (HR: 0.91, 95% CI 0.84–0.99, p=0.02) and more hospital free days (1.00 days, 95% CI 0.66–1.35, p=0.01) compared to those without pre-hospital ASA use. The overall direction and significance of the results remained the same in sensitivity analysis, after adjusting the multivariable model for time since pandemic.Conclusions: In this large international cohort, pre-hospital use of ASA was associated with a lower hazard for death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Randomized controlled trials may be warranted to assess the utility of pre-hospital use of ASA. (AU)

Neurologic Manifestations of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection in Hospitalized Patients During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

To describe the prevalence, associated risk factors, and outcomes of serious neurologic manifestations (encephalopathy, stroke, seizure, and meningitis/encephalitis) among patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: One hundred seventy-nine hospitals in 24 countries within the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study COVID-19 Registry. PATIENTS: Hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. INTERVENTIONS: None. RESULTS: Of 16,225 patients enrolled in the registry with hospital discharge status available, 2,092 (12.9%) developed serious neurologic manifestations including 1,656 (10.2%) with encephalopathy at admission, 331 (2.0%) with stroke, 243 (1.5%) with seizure, and 73 (0.5%) with meningitis/encephalitis at admission or during hospitalization. Patients with serious neurologic manifestations of COVID-19 were older with median (interquartile range) age 72 years (61.0-81.0 yr) versus 61 years (48.0-72.0 yr) and had higher prevalence of chronic medical conditions, including vascular risk factors. Adjusting for age, sex, and time since the onset of the pandemic, serious neurologic manifestations were associated with more severe disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.49; p < 0.001) as defined by the World Health Organization ordinal disease severity scale for COVID-19 infection. Patients with neurologic manifestations were more likely to be admitted to the ICU (OR, 1.45; p < 0.001) and require critical care interventions (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: OR, 1.78; p = 0.009 and renal replacement therapy: OR, 1.99; p < 0.001). Hospital, ICU, and 28-day mortality for patients with neurologic manifestations was higher (OR, 1.51, 1.37, and 1.58; p < 0.001), and patients had fewer ICU-free, hospital-free, and ventilator-free days (estimated difference in days, -0.84, -1.34, and -0.84; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Encephalopathy at admission is common in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and is associated with worse outcomes. While serious neurologic manifestations including stroke, seizure, and meningitis/encephalitis were less common, all were associated with increased ICU support utilization, more severe disease, and worse outcomes.

Shared Decision Making in Pediatrics: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the impact of interventions to support shared decision making (SDM) with pediatric patients. OBJECTIVES: To summarize the efficacy of SDM interventions in pediatrics on patient-centered outcomes. DATA SOURCES: We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and Ovid PsycInfo from database inception to December 30, 2013, and performed an environmental scan. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included interventions designed to engage pediatric patients, parents, or both in a medical decision, regardless of study design or reported outcomes. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: We reviewed all studies in duplicate for inclusion, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Meta-analysis was performed on 3 outcomes: knowledge, decisional conflict, and satisfaction. RESULTS: Sixty-one citations describing 54 interventions met eligibility criteria. Fifteen studies reported outcomes such that they were eligible for inclusion in meta-analysis. Heterogeneity across studies was high. Meta-analysis revealed SDM interventions significantly improved knowledge (standardized mean difference [SMD] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26 to 2.17, P = .01) and reduced decisional conflict (SMD -1.20, 95% CI -2.01 to -0.40, P = .003). Interventions showed a nonsignificant trend toward increased satisfaction (SMD 0.37, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.78, P = .08). LIMITATIONS: Included studies were heterogeneous in nature, including their conceptions of SDM. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS: A limited evidence base suggests that pediatric SDM interventions improve knowledge and decisional conflict, but their impact on other outcomes is unclear. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42013004761 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42013004761).

Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework.

BACKGROUND: There is growing attention towards increasing patient and service user engagement (PSUE) in biomedical and health services research. Existing variations in language and design inhibit reporting and indexing, which are crucial to comparative effectiveness in determining best practices. OBJECTIVE: This paper utilizes a systematic review and environmental scan to derive an evidence-based framework for PSUE. DESIGN: A metanarrative systematic review and environmental scan/manual search using scientific databases and other search engines, along with feedback from a patient advisory group (PAG). ELIGIBLE SOURCES: English-language studies, commentaries, grey literature and other sources (including systematic and non-systematic reviews) pertaining to patient and public involvement in biomedical and health services research. DATA EXTRACTED: Study description (e.g. participant demographics, research setting) and design, if applicable; frameworks, conceptualizations or planning schemes for PSUE-related endeavours; and methods for PSUE initiation and gathering patients'/service users' input or contributions. RESULTS: Overall, 202 sources were included and met eligibility criteria; 41 of these presented some framework or conceptualization of PSUE. Sources were synthesized into a two-part framework for PSUE: (i) integral PSUE components include patient and service user initiation, reciprocal relationships, colearning and re-assessment and feedback, (ii) sources describe PSUE at several research stages, within three larger phases: preparatory, execution and translational. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Efforts at developing a solid evidence base on PSUE are limited by the non-standard and non-empirical nature of much of the literature. Our proposed two-part framework provides a standard structure and language for reporting and indexing to support comparative effectiveness and optimize PSUE.

Study protocol: a systematic review of pediatric shared decision making.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making in pediatrics is unique because it often involves active participation of both the child or adolescent patient and his or her caregiver(s) in the decision making process with the clinician or care team, and the extent to which the patient is involved is commensurate with their developmental level. However, little is known about the nature of pediatric-specific shared decision making interventions and their impact. METHODS/DESIGN: We will perform a systematic review with the objective of summarizing the nature of shared decision making practices, tools, techniques and technologies in the pediatric setting as well as their effects. A literature search will include Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus and Ovid PsycInfo databases in addition to consultation of a group of shared decision making experts to identify unpublished or in-progress works. We will include original research studies involving patients <18 years, their caregivers, or both, and summarize methods and approaches designed to engage participants in the health care decision making process with clinicians. Perinatal and research participation decisions will be excluded. Descriptions of participants involved, interventions used and the measured outcomes will be reported. Quality assessment will be performed according to the design of each study, where possible. DISCUSSION: We anticipate that the paucity of published quantitative data and the heterogeneous nature of the reported results will preclude quantitative analysis. In this event, a meta-narrative approach will be undertaken. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42013004761.