Desirability of Outcome Ranking and Response Adjusted for Antibiotic Risk (DOOR/RADAR) Post Hoc Analysis Supports Equipoise for Antibiotic Initiation Strategies in Intensive Care Unit-Acquired Pneumonia.

Background: Pneumonia is the most common intensive care unit (ICU)-acquired infection and source of potential sepsis in ICU populations but can be difficult to diagnose in real-time. Despite limited data, rapid initiation of antibiotic agents is endorsed by society guidelines. We hypothesized that a post hoc analysis of a recent randomized pilot study would show no difference between two antibiotic initiation strategies. Patients and Methods: The recent Trial of Antibiotic Restraint in Presumed Pneumonia (TARPP) was a pragmatic cluster-randomized pilot of antibiotic initiation strategies for patients with suspected ICU-acquired pneumonia. Participating ICUs were cluster-randomized to either an immediate initiation protocol or a specimen-initiated protocol where a gram stain was required for initiation of antibiotics. Patients in the study were divided into one of seven mutually exclusive outcome rankings (desirability of outcome ranking; DOOR): (1) Survival, No Pneumonia, No adverse events; (2) Survival, Pneumonia, No adverse events; (3) Survival, No Pneumonia, ventilator-free-alive days ≤14; (4) Survival, Pneumonia, ventilator-free-alive days ≤14; (5) Survival, No Pneumonia, Subsequent episode of suspected pneumonia; (6) Survival, Pneumonia, Subsequent episode of suspected pneumonia; and (7) Death. These rankings were further refined using the duration of antibiotics prescribed for pneumonia (response adjusted for antibiotic risk; RADAR). Results: There were 186 patients enrolled in the study. After applying the DOOR analysis, a randomly selected patient was equally likely to have a better outcome in specimen-initiated arm as in the immediate initiation arm (DOOR probability: 50.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 42.7%-58.9%). Outcome probabilities were similar after applying the RADAR analysis (52.5%; 95% CI, 44.2%-60.6%; p = 0.31). Conclusions: We found that patients for whom antibiotic agents were withheld until there was objective evidence (specimen-initiated group) had similar outcome rankings to patients for whom antibiotic agents were started immediately. This supports the findings of the TARPP pilot trial and provides further evidence for equipoise between these two treatment strategies.

Provider Perceptions of Antibiotic Initiation Strategies for Hospital-Acquired Pneumonia.

Background: The practice of rapidly initiating antibiotic therapy for patients with suspected infection has recently been criticized yet remains commonplace. Provider comfort level has been an understudied aspect of this practice. Hypothesis: We hypothesized that there would be no significant differences in provider comfort level between the two treatment groups. Methods: We prospectively surveyed critical care intensivists who provided care for patients enrolled in the Trial of Antibiotic Restraint in Presumed Pneumonia (TARPP), which was a multicenter cluster-randomized crossover trial that evaluated an immediate antibiotic initiation protocol compared with a protocol of specimen-initiated antibiotic initiation in ventilated patients with suspected new-onset pneumonia. At the end of each enrollment arm, physicians at each center were surveyed regarding their overall comfort level with the recently completed treatment arm, and perception of adherence. Both a paired and unpaired analysis was performed. Results: We collected 51 survey responses from 31 unique participants. Providers perceived a higher rate of adherence to the immediate initiation arm than the specimen-initiated arm (Always Adherent: 37.5% vs. 11.1%; p = 0.045). Providers were less comfortable waiting for objective evidence of infection in the specimen-initiated arm than with starting antibiotic agents immediately (Very Comfortable: 83.3% vs. 40.7%; p = 0.004). For the smaller paired analysis, there was no longer a difference in comfort level. Conclusions: There may be differences in provider comfort levels and perceptions of adherence when considering two different antibiotic initiation strategies for suspected pneumonia in ventilated patients. These findings should be considered when planning future studies.

Awake prone positioning in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: An international expert guidance.

BACKGROUND: Awake prone positioning (APP) of non-intubated patients with acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure (AHRF) has been inconsistently adopted into routine care of patients with COVID-19, likely due to apparent conflicting evidence from recent trials. This short guideline aims to provide evidence-based recommendations for the use of APP in various clinical scenarios. METHODS: An international multidisciplinary panel, assembled for their expertise and representativeness, and supported by a methodologist, performed a systematic literature search, summarized the available evidence derived from randomized clinical trials, and developed recommendations using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) methodology. RESULTS: The panel strongly recommends that APP rather than standard supine care be used in patients with COVID-19 receiving advanced respiratory support (high-flow nasal cannula, continuous positive airway pressure or non-invasive ventilation). Due to lack of evidence from randomized controlled trials, the panel provides no recommendation on the use of APP in patients with COVID-19 supported with conventional oxygen therapy, nor in patients with AHRF due to causes other than COVID-19. CONCLUSION: APP should be routinely implemented in patients with COVID-19 receiving advanced respiratory support.

Meeting the Challenges of Sepsis in Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Call to Arms.

Sepsis is a life-threatening organ dysfunction that is caused by a dysregulated host response to infection. Sepsis may be caused by bacterial, fungal, or viral pathogens. The clinical manifestations exhibited by patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related sepsis overlap with those exhibited by patients with sepsis from secondary bacterial or fungal infections and can include an altered mental status, dyspnea, reduced urine output, tachycardia, and hypotension. Critically ill patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infections have increased risk for secondary bacterial and fungal infections. The same risk factors that may predispose to sepsis and poor outcome from bloodstream infections (BSIs) converge in patients with severe COVID-19. Current diagnostic standards for distinguishing between (1) patients who are critically ill, septic, and have COVID-19 and (2) patients with sepsis from other causes leave healthcare providers with 2 suboptimal choices. The first choice is to empirically administer broad-spectrum, antimicrobial therapy for what may or may not be sepsis. Such treatment may not only be ineffective and inappropriate, but it also has the potential to cause harm. The development of better methods to identify and characterize antimicrobial susceptibility will guide more accurate therapeutic interventions and reduce the evolution of new antibiotic-resistant strains. The ideal diagnostic test should (1) be rapid and reliable, (2) have a lower limit of detection than blood culture, and (3) be able to detect a specific organism and drug sensitivity directly from a clinical specimen. Rapid direct detection of antimicrobial-resistant pathogens would allow targeted therapy and result in improved outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 and sepsis.

Trial of antibiotic restraint in presumed pneumonia: A Surgical Infection Society multicenter pilot.

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia is the most common intensive care unit-acquired infection in the trauma and emergency general surgery population. Despite guidelines urging rapid antibiotic use, data supporting immediate antibiotic initiation in cases of suspected infection are limited. Our hypothesis was that a protocol of specimen-initiated antibiotic initiation would have similar compliance and outcomes to an immediate initiation protocol. METHODS: We devised a pragmatic cluster-randomized crossover pilot trial. Four surgical and trauma intensive care units were randomized to either an immediate initiation or specimen-initiated antibiotic protocol for intubated patients with suspected pneumonia and bronchoscopically obtained cultures who did not require vasopressors. In the immediate initiation arm, antibiotics were started immediately after the culture regardless of patient status. In the specimen-initiated arm, antibiotics were delayed until objective Gram stain or culture results suggested infection. Each site participated in both arms after a washout period and crossover. Outcomes were protocol compliance, all-cause 30-day mortality, and ventilator-free alive days at 30 days. Standard statistical techniques were applied. RESULTS: A total of 186 patients had 244 total cultures, of which only the first was analyzed. Ninety-three patients (50%) were enrolled in each arm, and 94.6% were trauma patients (84.4% blunt trauma). The median age was 50.5 years, and 21% of the cohort was female. There were no differences in demographics, comorbidities, sequential organ failure assessment, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II, or Injury Severity Scores. Antibiotics were started significantly later in the specimen-initiated arm (0 vs. 9.3 hours; p < 0.0001) with 19.4% avoiding antibiotics completely for that episode. There were no differences in the rate of protocol adherence, 30-day mortality, or ventilator-free alive days at 30 days. CONCLUSION: In this cluster-randomized crossover trial, we found similar compliance rates between immediate and specimen-initiated antibiotic strategies. Specimen-initiated antibiotic protocol in patients with a suspected hospital-acquired pneumonia did not result in worse clinical outcomes compared with immediate initiation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level II.

Prone Positioning for Acute Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure and ARDS: A Review.

Prone positioning is an immediately accessible, readily implementable intervention that was proposed initially as a method for improvement in gas exchange > 50 years ago. Initially implemented clinically as an empiric therapy for refractory hypoxemia, multiple clinical trials were performed on the use of prone positioning in various respiratory conditions, cumulating in the landmark Proning Severe ARDS Patients trial, which demonstrated mortality benefit in patients with severe ARDS. After this trial and the corresponding meta-analysis, expert consensus and societal guidelines recommended the use of prone positioning for the management of severe ARDS. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has brought prone positioning to the forefront of medicine, including widespread implementation of prone positioning in awake, spontaneously breathing, nonintubated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. Multiple clinical trials now have been performed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of prone positioning in these patients and have enhanced our understanding of the effects of the prone position in respiratory failure. In this review, we discuss the physiologic features, clinical outcome data, practical considerations, and lingering questions of prone positioning.

Development and Validation of a Personalized Model With Transfer Learning for Acute Kidney Injury Risk Estimation Using Electronic Health Records.

Importance: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a heterogeneous syndrome prevalent among hospitalized patients. Personalized risk estimation and risk factor identification may allow effective intervention and improved outcomes. Objective: To develop and validate personalized AKI risk estimation models using electronic health records (EHRs), examine whether personalized models were beneficial in comparison with global and subgroup models, and assess the heterogeneity of risk factors and their outcomes in different subpopulations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This diagnostic study analyzed EHR data from 1 tertiary care hospital and used machine learning and logistic regression to develop and validate global, subgroup, and personalized risk estimation models. Transfer learning was implemented to enhance the personalized model. Predictor outcomes across subpopulations were analyzed, and metaregression was used to explore predictor interactions. Adults who were hospitalized for 2 or more days from November 1, 2007, to December 31, 2016, were included in the analysis. Patients with moderate or severe kidney dysfunction at admission were excluded. Data were analyzed between August 28, 2019, and May 8, 2022. Exposures: Clinical and laboratory variables in the EHR. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was AKI of any severity, and AKI was defined using the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes serum creatinine criteria. Performance of the models was measured with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), area under the precision-recall curve, and calibration. Results: The study cohort comprised 76 957 inpatient encounters. Patients had a mean (SD) age of 55.5 (17.4) years and included 42 159 men (54.8%). The personalized model with transfer learning outperformed the global model for AKI estimation in terms of AUROC among general inpatients (0.78 [95% CI, 0.77-0.79] vs 0.76 [95% CI, 0.75-0.76]; P < .001) and across the high-risk subgroups (0.79 [95% CI, 0.78-0.80] vs 0.75 [95% CI, 0.74-0.77]; P < .001) and low-risk subgroups (0.74 [95% CI, 0.73-0.75] vs 0.71 [95% CI, 0.70-0.72]; P < .001). The AUROC improvement reached 0.13 for the high-risk subgroups, such as those undergoing liver transplant and cardiac surgery. Moreover, the personalized model with transfer learning performed better than or comparably with the best published models in well-studied AKI subgroups. Predictor outcomes varied significantly between patients, and interaction analysis uncovered modifiers of the predictor outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Results of this study demonstrated that a personalized modeling with transfer learning is an improved AKI risk estimation approach that can be used across diverse patient subgroups. Risk factor heterogeneity and interactions at the individual level highlighted the need for agile, personalized care.

Smartphone-Guided Self-prone Positioning vs Usual Care in Nonintubated Hospital Ward Patients With COVID-19: A Pragmatic Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Safe, effective, and easily implementable treatments that reduce the progression of respiratory failure in COVID-19 are urgently needed. Despite the increased adoption of prone positioning during the pandemic, the effectiveness of this technique on progression of respiratory failure among nonintubated patients is unclear. RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the effectiveness of smartphone-guided self-prone positioning recommendations and instructions compared with usual care in reducing progression of respiratory failure among nonintubated patients with COVID-19? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Awake Prone Position for Early Hypoxemia in COVID-19 (APPEX-19) is a multicenter randomized clinical trial that randomized nonintubated adults with COVID-19 on < 6 L/min of supplemental oxygen to receive a smartphone-guided self-prone positioning intervention or usual care. The primary outcome was the composite of respiratory deterioration (an increase in supplemental oxygen requirement) or ICU transfer. Using a Bayesian statistical approach, the posterior probability of superiority within each treatment arm (superiority threshold 95%) was calculated. RESULTS: The trial was stopped early for slow enrollment. A total of 293 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (159 self-prone positioning intervention and 134 usual care). Among participants who self-reported body positioning (n = 139 [70 intervention, 69 usual care]), 71.4% in the intervention arm and 59.4% in the usual care arm attempted prone positioning. Thirty-one participants (posterior mean, 24.7%; 95% credible interval, 18.6-31.4) receiving usual care and 32 participants (posterior mean, 22.1%; 95% credible interval, 16.6-28.1) receiving the self-prone positioning intervention experienced the primary outcome; the posterior probability of superiority for the self-prone positioning intervention was 72.1%, less than the 95% threshold for superiority. Adverse events occurred in 26.9% of participants in the usual care arm and in 11.9% of participants in the intervention arm. INTERPRETATION: Among nonintubated patients with COVID-19, smartphone-guided self-prone positioning recommendations and instructions did not promote strong adherence to prone positioning. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04344587; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Awake prone positioning for non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Awake prone positioning has been broadly utilised for non-intubated patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, but the results from published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the past year are contradictory. We aimed to systematically synthesise the outcomes associated with awake prone positioning, and evaluate these outcomes in relevant subpopulations. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, two independent groups of researchers searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, MedRxiv, BioRxiv, and ClinicalTrials.gov for RCTs and observational studies (with a control group) of awake prone positioning in patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure published in English from Jan 1, 2020, to Nov 8, 2021. We excluded trials that included patients intubated before or at enrolment, paediatric patients (ie, younger than 18 years), or trials that did not include the supine position in the control group. The same two independent groups screened studies, extracted the summary data from published reports, and assessed the risk of bias. We used a random-effects meta-analysis to pool individual studies. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach to assess the certainty and quality of the evidence. The primary outcome was the reported cumulative intubation risk across RCTs, and effect estimates were calculated as risk ratios (RR;95% CI). The analysis was primarily conducted on RCTs, and observational studies were used for sensitivity analyses. No serious adverse events associated with awake prone positioning were reported. The study protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021271285. FINDINGS: A total of 1243 studies were identified, we assessed 138 full-text articles and received the aggregated results of three unpublished RCTs; therefore, after exclusions, 29 studies were included in the study. Ten were RCTs (1985 patients) and 19 were observational studies (2669 patients). In ten RCTs, awake prone positioning compared with the supine position significantly reduced the need for intubation in the overall population (RR 0·84 [95% CI 0·72-0·97]). A reduced need for intubation was shown among patients who received advanced respiratory support (ie, high-flow nasal cannula or non-invasive ventilation) at enrolment (RR 0·83 [0·71-0·97]) and in intensive care unit (ICU) settings (RR 0·83 [0·71-0·97]) but not in patients receiving conventional oxygen therapy (RR 0·87 [0·45-1·69]) or in non-ICU settings (RR 0·88 [0·44-1·76]). No obvious risk of bias and publication bias was found among the included RCTs for the primary outcome. INTERPRETATION: In patients with COVID-19-related acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure, awake prone positioning reduced the need for intubation, particularly among those requiring advanced respiratory support and those in ICU settings. Awake prone positioning should be used in patients who have acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and require advanced respiratory support or are treated in the ICU. FUNDING: OpenAI, Rice Foundation, National Institute for Health Research, and Oxford Biomedical Research Centre.

Prevalence and Outcomes of Previously Healthy Adults Among Patients Hospitalized With Community-Onset Sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Devastating cases of sepsis in previously healthy patients have received widespread attention and have helped to catalyze state and national mandates to improve sepsis detection and care. However, it is unclear what proportion of patients hospitalized with sepsis previously were healthy and how their outcomes compare with those of patients with comorbidities. RESEARCH QUESTION: Among adults hospitalized with community-onset sepsis, how many previously were healthy and how do their outcomes compare with those of patients with comorbidities? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We retrospectively identified all adults with community-onset sepsis hospitalized in 373 US hospitals from 2009 through 2015 using clinical indicators of presumed infection and organ dysfunction (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Adult Sepsis Event criteria). Comorbidities were identified using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification codes. We applied generalized linear mixed models to measure the associations between the presence or absence of comorbidities and short-term mortality (in-hospital death or discharge to hospice), adjusting for severity of illness on admission. RESULTS: Of 6,715,286 hospitalized patients, 337,983 (5.0%) were hospitalized with community-onset sepsis. Most patients with sepsis (329,052 [97.4%]) had received a diagnosis of at least one comorbidity; only 2.6% previously were healthy. Patients with sepsis who previously were healthy were younger than those with comorbidities (mean age, 58.0 ± 19.8 years vs 67.0 ± 16.5 years), were less likely to require ICU care on admission (37.9% vs 50.5%), and were more likely to be discharged home (57.9% vs 45.6%), rather than to subacute facilities (16.3% vs 30.8%), but showed higher short-term mortality rates (22.8% vs 20.8%; P < .001 for all). The association between previously healthy status and higher short-term mortality persisted after risk adjustment (adjusted OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.87-2.13). INTERPRETATION: The vast majority of patients hospitalized with community-onset sepsis harbor pre-existing comorbidities. However, previously healthy patients may be more likely to die when they seek treatment at the hospital with sepsis compared with patients with comorbidities. These findings underscore the importance of early sepsis recognition and treatment for all patients.

Quality of the discussion of asthma on twitter.

IntroductionPatients obtain a large amount of medical information online. Much of this information may not be reliable or of high quality. We investigated what influences the discussion of asthma on Twitter by evaluating the most popular tweets and the quality of the links shared.MethodsWe used Symplur Signals to extract data from Twitter examining characteristics of the top 100 most shared tweets and the 50 most shared links that included the hashtag #asthma. Information on each site was assessed using an Asthma Content score, and validated DISCERN scores and HONCode criteria.ResultsThe top 100 asthma-related tweets were shared 10,169 times and had 16,044 likes. Healthcare organizations posted 49 of the top 100 tweets, non-healthcare individuals posted 20, non-healthcare organizations posted 16 and clinicians posted 14. Of the top 100 tweets, 62 were educational, 11 research-related, 10 political and 15 promotional. The top 50 links were shared 6009 times (median number of shares 92 per link (range 60-710)). Links most commonly (42%) led to educational content while 24% of links led to research articles, 22% to promotional websites, and 12% to political websites. Educational links had higher Asthma Content scores than other links (p < 0.005). Overall, all three scores were low for all types of links. Only 34% of sites met HONCode criteria, and 14% were assessed as high quality by DISCERN score.ConclusionThe top tweets using the hashtag #asthma were commonly educational. The majority of top links on Twitter scored poorly on asthma content, quality, and reliability.

Antibiotic Timing and Progression to Septic Shock Among Patients in the ED With Suspected Infection.

BACKGROUND: Recent medical society opinions have questioned the use of early antimicrobials in patients with sepsis, but without septic shock. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is time from ED presentation to administration of antibiotics associated with progression to septic shock among patients with suspected infection? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study from March 2007 through March 2020. All adults with suspected infection and first antimicrobial administered within 24 h of triage were included. Patients with shock on presentation were excluded. We performed univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses predicting progression to septic shock. RESULTS: Seventy-four thousand one hundred fourteen patient encounters were included in the study. Five thousand five hundred ten patients (7.4%) progressed to septic shock. Of the patients who progressed to septic shock, 88% had received antimicrobials within the first 5 h from triage. In the multivariate logistic model, time (in hours) to first antimicrobial administration showed an OR of 1.03 (95% CI, 1.02-1.04; P < .001) for progression to septic shock and 1.02 (95% CI, 0.99-1.04; P = .121) for in-hospital mortality. When adjusted for severity of illness, each hour delayed until initial antimicrobial administration was associated with a 4.0% increase in progression to septic shock for every 1 h up to 24 h from triage. Patients with positive quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (qSOFA) results were given antibiotics at an earlier time point than patients with positive systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) score (0.82 h vs 1.2 h; P < .05). However, median time to septic shock was significantly shorter (P < .05) for patients with positive qSOFA results at triage (11.2 h) compared with patients with positive SIRS score at triage (26 h). INTERPRETATION: Delays in first antimicrobial administration in patients with suspected infection are associated with rapid increases in likelihood of progression to septic shock. Additionally, qSOFA score has higher specificity than SIRS score for predicting septic shock, but is associated with a worse outcome, even when patients receive early antibiotics.

Seasonal influenza vaccination is associated with reduced risk of death among Medicare beneficiaries☆.

BACKGROUND: Influenza causes substantial mortality, especially among older persons. Influenza vaccines are rarely more than 50% effective and rarely reach more than half of the US Medicare population, which is primarily an aged population. We wished to estimate the association between vaccination and mortality reduction. METHOD: We used the US Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) DataLink Project to determine vaccination status and timing during the 2017-2018 influenza season for more than 26 million Medicare enrollees. Patient-level demographic, health, co-morbidity, hospitalization, vaccination, and healthcare utilization claims data were supplied as covariates to general linear models in order to isolate and estimate the association between participation in the vaccination program and relative risk of death. FINDINGS: The 2017-2018 seasonal influenza vaccine reduced (Relative Risk Ratio [RRR] 0.936 [95% CI = 0.918-0.954]) the risk of all-cause death among beneficiaries following a hospitalization for sepsis and moreover the risk of death without a prior hospitalization during the 2.5-month outcome window (RRR 0.870 [95% CI = 0.853-0.887]). We estimate the number needed to vaccinate (NNV) to prevent a death in the ten-week outcome window is between 1,515 beneficiaries (95% CI = 1,351-1,754; derived from the average treatment effect of augmented inverse probability weighting) and 1,960 beneficiaries (95% CI = 1,695-2,381; derived from the average marginal effect of logistic regression). Among beneficiaries requiring hospitalization, the greatest death risk reduction accrued to those 85 + years of age who were hospitalized with sepsis, RRR 0.92 [95% CI = 0.89-0.95]. No apparent benefit was realized by beneficiaries who required custodial (nursing home) care. INTERPRETATION: Seasonal influenza immunization is associated with relative reduction of death risk among non-institutionalized Medicare beneficiaries. FUNDING: All authors are full-time or contractual employees of the United States Federal Government, Department of Health and Human Services, the funding agency.

Sepsis Among Medicare Beneficiaries: 4. Precoronavirus Disease 2019 Update January 2012-February 2020.

OBJECTIVES: To provide updated information on the burdens of sepsis during acute inpatient admissions for Medicare beneficiaries. DESIGN: Analysis of paid Medicare claims via the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services DataLink Project. SETTING: All U.S. acute-care hospitals, excluding federally operated hospitals (Veterans Administration and Defense Health Agency). PATIENTS: All Medicare beneficiaries, January 2012-February 2020, with an explicit sepsis diagnostic code assigned during an inpatient admission. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The count of Medicare Part A/B (fee-for-service) plus Medicare Advantage inpatient sepsis admissions rose from 981,027 (CY2012) to 1,700,433 (CY 2019). The proportion of total admissions with sepsis in the Medicare Advantage population rose from 21.43% to 35.39%, reflecting the increasing beneficiary proportion enrolled in Medicare Advantage. In CY2019, 6-month mortality rates in Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries for sepsis continued to decline, but remained high: 59.9% for septic shock, 35.5% for severe sepsis, 30.8% for sepsis attributed to a specific organism, and 26.5% for unspecified sepsis. Total fee-for-service-only inpatient hospital costs rose from $17.79B (CY2012) to $22.98B (CY2019). We estimated that the aggregate cost of sepsis hospital care for the entire U.S. population was at least $57.47B in 2019. Inclusion of 14 months' (January 2019-February 2020) newer data exposed new trends: the cost per patient, number of admissions, and fraction of patients with sepsis labeled as present on admission inflected around November 2015, coincident with the change to International Classification of Diseases, 10th Edition, and introduction of the Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock Management Bundle (SEP-1) metric. CONCLUSIONS: Sepsis among Medicare beneficiaries precoronavirus disease 2019 imposed immense burdens upon patients, their families, and the taxpayers.

Variations in end-of-life practices in intensive care units worldwide (Ethicus-2): a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: End-of-life practices vary among intensive care units (ICUs) worldwide. Differences can result in variable use of disproportionate or non-beneficial life-sustaining interventions across diverse world regions. This study investigated global disparities in end-of-life practices. METHODS: In this prospective, multinational, observational study, consecutive adult ICU patients who died or had a limitation of life-sustaining treatment (withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapy and active shortening of the dying process) during a 6-month period between Sept 1, 2015, and Sept 30, 2016, were recruited from 199 ICUs in 36 countries. The primary outcome was the end-of-life practice as defined by the end-of-life categories: withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining therapy, active shortening of the dying process, or failed cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Patients with brain death were included in a separate predefined end-of-life category. Data collection included patient characteristics, diagnoses, end-of-life decisions and their timing related to admission and discharge, or death, with comparisons across different regions. Patients were studied until death or 2 months from the first limitation decision. FINDINGS: Of 87 951 patients admitted to ICU, 12 850 (14·6%) were included in the study population. The number of patients categorised into each of the different end-of-life categories were significantly different for each region (p<0·001). Limitation of life-sustaining treatment occurred in 10 401 patients (11·8% of 87 951 ICU admissions and 80·9% of 12 850 in the study population). The most common limitation was withholding life-sustaining treatment (5661 [44·1%]), followed by withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (4680 [36·4%]). More treatment withdrawing was observed in Northern Europe (1217 [52·8%] of 2305) and Australia/New Zealand (247 [45·7%] of 541) than in Latin America (33 [5·8%] of 571) and Africa (21 [13·0%] of 162). Shortening of the dying process was uncommon across all regions (60 [0·5%]). One in five patients with treatment limitations survived hospitalisation. Death due to failed CPR occurred in 1799 (14%) of the study population, and brain death occurred in 650 (5·1%). Failure of CPR occurred less frequently in Northern Europe (85 [3·7%] of 2305), Australia/New Zealand (23 [4·3%] of 541), and North America (78 [8·5%] of 918) than in Africa (106 [65·4%] of 162), Latin America (160 [28·0%] of 571), and Southern Europe (590 [22·5%] of 2622). Factors associated with treatment limitations were region, age, and diagnoses (acute and chronic), and country end-of-life legislation. INTERPRETATION: Limitation of life-sustaining therapies is common worldwide with regional variability. Withholding treatment is more common than withdrawing treatment. Variations in type, frequency, and timing of end-of-life decisions were observed. Recognising regional differences and the reasons behind these differences might help improve end-of-life care worldwide. FUNDING: None.