Timing of Transport of Patients with COVID-19.

RATIONALE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the risk of mortality or ECMO cannulation for patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 transferred from sending hospitals to receiving tertiary care centers as a function of the duration of time at the sending hospital. OBJECTIVE: To determine outcomes of critically ill patients with COVID-19 who were transferred to tertiary or quarternary care medical centers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Retrospective cohort study of critical care transports of patients to one of seven consortium tertiary care centers from March 1, 2020, through September 4, 2020. Age 14 years and older with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 transported from a sending hospital to a receiving tertiary care center by the critical care transport organization. RESULTS: Patients transported with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 to tertiary care centers had a mortality rate of 38.0%. Neither the number of days admitted, nor the number of days intubated at the sending hospital correlated with mortality (correlation coefficient 0.051 and -0.007, respectively). Similarly, neither the number of days admitted, nor number of days intubated at the sending hospital correlated with ECMO cannulation (correlation coefficient 0.008 and -0.036, respectively). CONCLUSION: It may be reasonable to transfer a critically ill COVID-19 patient to a tertiary care center even if they have been admitted at the sending hospital for several days.

Effect of Fluid Bolus Administration on Cardiovascular Collapse Among Critically Ill Patients Undergoing Tracheal Intubation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Hypotension is common during tracheal intubation of critically ill adults and increases the risk of cardiac arrest and death. Whether administering an intravenous fluid bolus to critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation prevents severe hypotension, cardiac arrest, or death remains uncertain. Objective: To determine the effect of fluid bolus administration on the incidence of severe hypotension, cardiac arrest, and death. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial enrolled 1067 critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation with sedation and positive pressure ventilation at 11 intensive care units in the US between February 1, 2019, and May 24, 2021. The date of final follow-up was June 21, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either a 500-mL intravenous fluid bolus (n = 538) or no fluid bolus (n = 527). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was cardiovascular collapse (defined as new or increased receipt of vasopressors or a systolic blood pressure <65 mm Hg between induction of anesthesia and 2 minutes after tracheal intubation, or cardiac arrest or death between induction of anesthesia and 1 hour after tracheal intubation). The secondary outcome was the incidence of death prior to day 28, which was censored at hospital discharge. Results: Among 1067 patients randomized, 1065 (99.8%) completed the trial and were included in the primary analysis (median age, 62 years [IQR, 51-70 years]; 42.1% were women). Cardiovascular collapse occurred in 113 patients (21.0%) in the fluid bolus group and in 96 patients (18.2%) in the no fluid bolus group (absolute difference, 2.8% [95% CI, -2.2% to 7.7%]; P = .25). New or increased receipt of vasopressors occurred in 20.6% of patients in the fluid bolus group compared with 17.6% of patients in the no fluid bolus group, a systolic blood pressure of less than 65 mm Hg occurred in 3.9% vs 4.2%, respectively, cardiac arrest occurred in 1.7% vs 1.5%, and death occurred in 0.7% vs 0.6%. Death prior to day 28 (censored at hospital discharge) occurred in 218 patients (40.5%) in the fluid bolus group compared with 223 patients (42.3%) in the no fluid bolus group (absolute difference, -1.8% [95% CI, -7.9% to 4.3%]; P = .55). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation, administration of an intravenous fluid bolus compared with no fluid bolus did not significantly decrease the incidence of cardiovascular collapse. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03787732.

Esmolol to Treat the Hemodynamic Effects of Septic Shock: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Septic shock is often characterized by tachycardia and a hyperdynamic hemodynamic profile. Use of the beta antagonist esmolol has been proposed as a therapy to lower heart rate, thereby improving diastolic filling time and improving cardiac output, resulting in a reduction in vasopressor support. METHODS: We conducted a two-center, open-label, randomized, Phase II trial comparing esmolol to placebo in septic shock patients with tachycardia. The primary endpoint was improvement in hemodynamics as measured by the difference in norepinephrine equivalent dose (NED) between groups at 6 hours after initiation of study drug. Secondary outcomes included assessing differences in inflammatory biomarkers and oxygen consumption (VO2). RESULTS: A total of 1,122 patients were assessed for eligibility and met inclusion criteria; 42 underwent randomization, and 40 received study interventions (18 in the esmolol arm and 22 in the usual care arm). The mean NED at 6 h was 0.30 ±â€Š0.17 mcg/kg/min in the esmolol arm compared to 0.21 ±â€Š0.19 in the standard care arm (P = 0.15). There was no difference in number of shock free days between the esmolol (2, IQR 0, 5) and control groups (2.5, IQR 0, 6) (P = 0.32). There were lower levels of C-reactive protein at 12 and 24 h in the esmolol arm, as well as a statistically significant difference in trend over time between groups. There were no differences in terms of IL-4, IL-6, IL-10, and TNFα. Among a subset who underwent VO2 monitoring, there was decreased oxygen consumption in the esmolol patients; the mean difference between groups at 24 h was -2.07 mL/kg/min (95% CI -3.82, -0.31) (P = 0.02), with a significant difference for the trend over time (P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Among patients with septic shock, infusion of esmolol did not improve vasopressor requirements or time to shock reversal. Esmolol was associated with decreased levels of C-reactive protein over 24 h. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov. Registered February 24, 2015, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02369900.

Bag-Mask Ventilation Versus Apneic Oxygenation During Tracheal Intubation in Critically Ill Adults: A Secondary Analysis of 2 Randomized Trials.

Background: Hypoxemia is common during tracheal intubation in intensive care units. To prevent hypoxemia during intubation, 2 methods of delivering oxygen between induction and laryngoscopy have been proposed: bag-mask ventilation and supplemental oxygen delivered by nasal cannula without ventilation (apneic oxygenation). Whether one of these approaches is more effective for preventing hypoxemia during intubation of critically ill patients is unknown. Methods: We performed a secondary analysis of data from 138 patients enrolled in 2, consecutive randomized trials of airway management in an academic intensive care unit. A total of 61 patients were randomized to receive bag-mask ventilation in a trial comparing bag-mask ventilation to none, and 77 patients were randomized to receive 100% oxygen at 15 L/min by nasal cannula in a trial comparing apneic oxygenation to none. Using multivariable linear regression accounting for age, body mass index, severity of illness, and oxygen saturation at induction, we compared patients assigned to bag-mask ventilation with those assigned to apneic oxygenation regarding lowest oxygen saturations from induction to 2 min after intubation. Results: Patients assigned to bag-mask ventilation and apneic oxygenation were similar at baseline. The median lowest oxygen saturation was 96% (interquartile range [IQR] 89%-100%) in the bag-mask ventilation group and 92% (IQR 84%-99%) in the apneic oxygenation group. After adjustment for prespecified confounders, bag-mask ventilation was associated with a higher lowest oxygen saturation compared to apneic oxygenation (mean difference, 4.2%; 95% confidence interval, 0.7%-7.8%; P = .02). The incidence of severe hypoxemia (oxygen saturation<80%) was 6.6% in the bag-mask ventilation group and 15.6% in the apneic oxygenation group (adjusted odds ratio, 0.33; P = .09). Conclusions: This secondary analysis of patients assigned to bag-mask ventilation and apneic oxygenation during 2 clinical trials suggests that bag-mask ventilation is associated with higher oxygen saturation during intubation compared to apneic oxygenation.

The effect of a tiered provider staffing model on patient outcomes during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A single-center observational study.

BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, our hospital experienced a large influx of critically ill patients with acute respiratory failure. In order to increase intensive care unit (ICU) surge capacity, we adopted a "tiered model" for ICU provider staffing where multiple ICUs were staffed by noncritical care providers under the direction of an intensivist. We hypothesized that ICUs staffed with a tiered model would result in similar patient outcomes as ICU staffed with a traditional intensivist model. METHODS: We performed a single-center, observational study in seven ICUs at a tertiary care center. We included consecutive adults admitted to the ICU with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) due to COVID-19 infection. We collected baseline demographics, treatments, and outcomes of interest in traditionally staffed ICUs versus ICUs staffed with a tiered model. The primary outcome was inpatient mortality. All outcomes were censored at day 28. RESULTS: We included a total of 138 patients in our study: 66 patients were admitted to traditionally staffed ICUs and 52 were admitted to tiered staffing ICUs. Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. ARDS treatments were similar in traditionally staffed ICUs versus tiered staffing model ICUs, including daily mean tidal volume (6.2 mL/kg vs. 6.2 mL/kg, P = 0.95), median daily fluid balance (159 mL vs. 92 mL, P = 0.54), and use of prone ventilation (58% vs. 65%, P = 0.45). There was no difference in inpatient mortality between groups (50% vs. 42%, P = 0.46). We also found no difference in ventilator-free, ICU-free, vasopressor-free, and dialysis-free days between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that patient outcomes are similar in ICUs with traditional staffing models when compared to ICUs with a tiered staffing mode during a pandemic.

Characteristics and outcomes of patients receiving high flow nasal cannula therapy prior to mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 respiratory failure: A prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Treatment strategies for acute hypoxic respiratory failure secondary to coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19) had significant variation early in the pandemic. We sought to determine if patients treated with high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) prior to mechanical ventilation had differing outcomes compared to those treated only with conventional oxygen. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study of patients with COVID-19 admitted to a tertiary care medical center with a diagnosis of acute hypoxic respiratory failure. Adult patients with a positive polymerase chain reaction test for COVID-19 who required mechanical ventilation were included. RESULTS: A total of 91 patients met the inclusion criteria for our study. The mean age was 68.4 years (standard deviation [SD] ± 12) and 58% were male. The mean initial partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) ratio was 152 (SD ± 65) and was not significantly different between the HFNC group and the conventional oxygen strategy group (P = 0.95). The observed mortality rate was 30% in the HFNC group versus 52% in the conventional oxygen strategy group (P = 0.05). The multivariate odds ratio of mortality for patients on HFNC was 0.375 compared to a conventional oxygen strategy (95% confidence interval 0.122-1.151, P = 0.09). CONCLUSIONS: While HFNC appears to be safe as the initial treatment strategy for COVID-19 associated respiratory failure, HFNC did not result in a statistically significant difference in mortality compared to a conventional oxygen strategy. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Critical Care Transport of Patients With COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Critical care transport is associated with a high rate of adverse events, and the risks and outcomes of transporting critically ill patients during the COVID-19 pandemic have not been previously described. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of transports of subjects with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 from sending hospitals to tertiary care hospitals in Boston. Follow-up data were obtained for patients transported between March 1st and April 20th, 2020. RESULTS: Of 254 charts identified, 250 patients were transported. Nine patients (3.5%) had cardiac arrest prior to transport. Twenty-nine (11.6%) had hypotension, 22 (8.8%) had a critical desaturation, and 4 (1.6%) had both en route. Hospital follow-up data were available for 189 patients. Of those intubated during their hospitalization, 44 (25.0%) had died, 59 (33.5%) had been extubated, and 13 (17.6%) had been discharged alive. For the subgroup with prior cardiac arrest, follow-up data available for 6. Of these 6, 2 died and 4 (66.7%) have been discharged alive. CONCLUSIONS: Few patients with COVID-19 had an adverse event in transport. The in-hospital mortality rate was 25%, with a 33.5% extubation rate. Patients resuscitated from cardiac arrest prior to transport had a 66.7% discharge rate among those transported to consortium hospitals.

Feasibility and Safety of Prone Position Transport for Severe Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure Due to Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and feasibility of a new protocol for interhospital critical care transport of mechanically ventilated patients in the prone position during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic by nurse and paramedic critical care transport teams. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Single critical care transport agency serving multiple centers in the greater Boston area. PATIENTS: All transports of intubated patients in the prone position with severe hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to coronavirus disease 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Records were reviewed for patients transported in the prone position. Major adverse events in transport, defined as severe hypoxemia (oxygen saturation < 80% or an absolute decrease in oxygen saturation > 10%), hypotension (mean arterial pressure < 65 mm Hg) not responsive to vasopressors or inotropes, endotracheal tube or vascular catheter dislodgement, and cardiac arrest, were recorded. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 25 patients were transported in prone position. The mean Pao2:Fio2 ratio in the group was 101.3 mm Hg, and 76% (n = 19) were on vasopressors. Fourteen patients (56%) had hypotension with at least one episode of mean arterial pressure less than 65 mm Hg en route, and seven (28%) had an episode of oxygen desaturation less than 88%. Only one major adverse event of severe hypoxemia (oxygen saturation < 80%) was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Critical care transport of severe hypoxemic respiratory failure patients with coronavirus disease 2019 in the prone position is safe when performed by a dedicated team of critical care nurse and paramedics with an established protocol.

Protocol and statistical analysis plan for the PREventing cardiovascular collaPse with Administration of fluid REsuscitation during Induction and Intubation (PREPARE II) randomised clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiovascular collapse is a common complication during tracheal intubation of critically ill adults. Whether administration of an intravenous fluid bolus prevents cardiovascular collapse during tracheal intubation remains uncertain. A prior randomised trial found fluid bolus administration to be ineffective overall but suggested potential benefit for patients receiving positive pressure ventilation during tracheal intubation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The PREventing cardiovascular collaPse with Administration of fluid REsuscitation during Induction and Intubation (PREPARE II) trial is a prospective, multi-centre, non-blinded randomised trial being conducted in 13 academic intensive care units in the USA. The trial will randomise 1065 critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation with planned use of positive pressure ventilation (non-invasive ventilation or bag-mask ventilation) between induction and laryngoscopy to receive 500 mL of intravenous crystalloid or no intravenous fluid bolus. The primary outcome is cardiovascular collapse, defined as any of: systolic blood pressure <65 mm Hg, new or increased vasopressor administration between induction and 2 min after intubation, or cardiac arrest or death between induction and 1 hour after intubation. The primary analysis will be an unadjusted, intention-to-treat comparison of the primary outcome between patients randomised to fluid bolus administration and patients randomised to no fluid bolus administration using a χ2 test. The sole secondary outcome is 28-day in-hospital mortality. Enrolment began on 1 February 2019 and is expected to conclude in June 2020. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial was approved by either the central institutional review board at Vanderbilt University Medical Center or the local institutional review board at each trial site. Results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03787732.

Effect of a fluid bolus on cardiovascular collapse among critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation (PrePARE): a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tracheal intubation is common in the care of critically ill adults and is frequently complicated by hypotension, cardiac arrest, or death. We aimed to evaluate administration of an intravenous fluid bolus to prevent cardiovascular collapse during intubation of critically ill adults. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, multicentre, unblinded, randomised trial in nine sites (eight ICUs and one emergency department) around the USA. Critically ill adults (≥18 years) undergoing tracheal intubation were randomly assigned (1:1, block sizes of 2, 4, and 6, stratified by study site) to either an intravenous infusion of 500 mL of crystalloid solution or no fluid bolus. The primary outcome, assessed in the intention-to-treat population, was cardiovascular collapse, defined as a new systolic blood pressure <65 mm Hg; new or increased vasopressor receipt between induction and 2 min after tracheal intubation; or cardiac arrest or death within 1 h of tracheal intubation. Adverse events were assessed in the as-treated population. This trial, which is now complete, is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03026777. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled from Feb 6, 2017, to Jan 9, 2018, when the data and safety monitoring board stopped the trial on the basis of futility. By trial termination, 337 (63%) of 537 screened adults had been randomly assigned. Cardiovascular collapse occurred in 33 (20%) of 168 patients in the fluid bolus group compared with 31 (18%) of 169 patients in the no fluid bolus group (absolute difference 1·3% [95% CI -7·1% to 9·7%]; p=0·76). The individual components of the cardiovascular collapse composite outcome did not differ between groups (new systolic blood pressure <65 mm Hg 11 [7%] in the bolus group vs ten [6%] in the no-bolus group, new or increased vasopressor 32 [19%] vs 31 [18%], cardiac arrest within 1 h seven [4%] vs two [1%], death within 1 h of intubation two [1%] vs one [1%]). In-hospital mortality was not significantly different in the fluid bolus group (48 [29%]) compared with no fluid bolus (59 [35%]). INTERPRETATION: Administration of an intravenous fluid bolus did not decrease the overall incidence of cardiovascular collapse during tracheal intubation of critically ill adults compared with no fluid bolus in this trial. FUNDING: US National Institutes of Health.

The ED-SED Study: A Multicenter, Prospective Cohort Study of Practice Patterns and Clinical Outcomes Associated With Emergency Department SEDation for Mechanically Ventilated Patients.

OBJECTIVES: To characterize emergency department sedation practices in mechanically ventilated patients, and test the hypothesis that deep sedation in the emergency department is associated with worse outcomes. DESIGN: Multicenter, prospective cohort study. SETTING: The emergency department and ICUs of 15 medical centers. PATIENTS: Mechanically ventilated adult emergency department patients. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All data involving sedation (medications, monitoring) were recorded. Deep sedation was defined as Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of -3 to -5 or Sedation-Agitation Scale of 2 or 1. A total of 324 patients were studied. Emergency department deep sedation was observed in 171 patients (52.8%), and was associated with a higher frequency of deep sedation in the ICU on day 1 (53.8% vs 20.3%; p < 0.001) and day 2 (33.3% vs 16.9%; p = 0.001), when compared to light sedation. Mean (SD) ventilator-free days were 18.1 (10.8) in the emergency department deep sedation group compared to 20.0 (9.8) in the light sedation group (mean difference, 1.9; 95% CI, -0.40 to 4.13). Similar results according to emergency department sedation depth existed for ICU-free days (mean difference, 1.6; 95% CI, -0.54 to 3.83) and hospital-free days (mean difference, 2.3; 95% CI, 0.26-4.32). Mortality was 21.1% in the deep sedation group and 17.0% in the light sedation group (between-group difference, 4.1%; odds ratio, 1.30; 0.74-2.28). The occurrence rate of acute brain dysfunction (delirium and coma) was 68.4% in the deep sedation group and 55.6% in the light sedation group (between-group difference, 12.8%; odds ratio, 1.73; 1.10-2.73). CONCLUSIONS: Early deep sedation in the emergency department is common, carries over into the ICU, and may be associated with worse outcomes. Sedation practice in the emergency department and its association with clinical outcomes is in need of further investigation.

Emulating a Novel Clinical Trial Using Existing Observational Data. Predicting Results of the PreVent Study.

Rationale: "Target trial emulation" has been proposed as an observational method to answer comparative effectiveness questions, but it has rarely been attempted concurrently with a randomized clinical trial (RCT).Objectives: We tested the hypothesis that blinded analysts applying target trial emulation to existing observational data could predict the results of an RCT.Methods: PreVent (Preventing Hypoxemia with Manual Ventilation during Endotracheal Intubation) was a multicenter RCT examining the effects of positive-pressure ventilation during tracheal intubation on oxygen saturation and severe hypoxemia. Analysts unaware of PreVent's results used patient-level data from three previous trials evaluating airway management interventions to emulate PreVent's eligibility criteria, randomization procedure, and statistical analysis. After PreVent's release, results of this blinded observational analysis were compared with those of the RCT. Difference-in-differences estimates for comparison of treatment effects between the observational analysis and the PreVent trial are reported on the absolute scale.Results: Using observational data, we were able to emulate PreVent's randomization procedure to produce balanced groups for comparison. The lowest oxygen saturation during intubation was higher in the positive-pressure ventilation group than the no positive-pressure ventilation group in the observational analysis (n = 360; mean difference = 1.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.0 to 4.6) and in the PreVent trial (n = 401; mean difference = 3.9%; 95% CI = 1.4 to 6.4), though the observational analysis could not exclude no difference. Difference-in-differences estimates comparing treatment effects showed reasonable agreement for lowest oxygen saturation between the observational analysis and the PreVent trial (mean difference = -2.1%; 95% CI = -5.9 to 1.7). Positive-pressure ventilation resulted in lower rates of severe hypoxemia in both the observational analysis (risk ratio = 0.60; 95% CI = 0.38 to 0.93) and in the PreVent trial (risk ratio = 0.48; 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.77). The absolute reduction in the incidence of severe hypoxemia with positive-pressure ventilation was similar in the observational analysis (9.4%) and the PreVent trial (12.0%), though the difference between these estimates had wide CIs (mean difference = 2.5%; 95% CI = -8.0 to 13.6%).Conclusions: Applying target trial emulation methods to existing observational data for the evaluation of a novel intervention produced results similar to those of a randomized trial. These findings support the use of target trial emulation for comparative effectiveness research.

The impact of smoking on patient outcomes in severe sepsis and septic shock.

BACKGROUND: To assess, in the setting of severe sepsis and septic shock, whether current smokers have worse outcomes compared to non-smokers. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of immunocompetent adult patients with severe sepsis and septic shock at a tertiary medical center. The primary outcome was the effect of active smoking on hospital mortality. Chi-square test and logistic regression were used to assess categorical outcomes. Wilcoxon rank-sum was utilized to test the differences in continuous outcomes among the varied smoking histories. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the association of smoking and mortality, need for vasopressors, mechanical ventilation, and ICU admission. RESULTS: Of the 1437 charts reviewed, 562 patients were included. Current smokers accounted for 19% (107/562) of patients, while 81% (455/562) were non-smokers. The median hospital length of stay in survivors was significantly longer in current smokers versus non-smokers (8 vs 7 days, p = 0.03). There was a trend towards a higher mortality among current smokers, but this failed to meet statistical significance (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.92-3.54, p = 0.08). On multivariable analysis, current smoking was associated with the need for mechanical ventilation (OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.06-5.34, p = 0.04), but that association was not observed with the need for vasopressors (OR 2.10, 95% CI 1.01-4.36, p = 0.58) nor ICU admission (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.41-2.13, p = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe sepsis or septic shock, current smoking was associated with a longer hospital stay, the need for mechanical ventilation, and trended towards a higher mortality. Larger multicenter prospective case-control studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Utility and diagnostic accuracy of bedside lung ultrasonography during medical emergency team (MET) activations for respiratory deterioration.

PURPOSE: We investigated the feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of lung ultrasonography during medical emergency team (MET) activations for respiratory deterioration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a prospective study of inpatients requiring MET evaluation for respiratory decompensation. A blinded investigator recorded videos of lung and lower extremity ultrasonography. The videos were reviewed by blinded investigators to determine a ultrasonography diagnosis. The accuracy of MET diagnosis and ultrasonography diagnosis were compared to the final diagnosis determined by retrospective chart review. RESULTS: The ultrasound exam was completed in 49/50 (98%) patients enrolled in the study with a mean duration of 13±4min. When excluding six cases that were not amenable to diagnosis by our algorithm, we report a lung ultrasonography diagnostic accuracy of 84% (37/44) which is similar to the accuracy of the MET clinical diagnosis of 75% (33/44) (p=0.29). Furthermore, we report in 28/37 (76%) of cases where the lung ultrasonography diagnosis was correct, patients may have received inappropriate therapies. CONCLUSIONS: Lung ultrasonography can be rapidly performed in the majority of patients with MET activation for respiratory deterioration. As an independent diagnostic test, lung ultrasonography is non-inferior to the MET clinical assessment and may prevent unnecessary treatments if used simultaneously.

A Symptom-Triggered Benzodiazepine Protocol Utilizing SAS and CIWA-Ar Scoring for the Treatment of Alcohol Withdrawal Syndrome in the Critically Ill.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on the efficacy of symptom-triggered therapy for alcohol withdrawal syndrome (AWS) in the intensive care unit (ICU). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of a symptom-triggered benzodiazepine protocol utilizing Riker Sedation Agitation Scale (SAS) scoring for the treatment of AWS in the ICU. METHODS: We performed a before-and-after study in a medical ICU. A protocol incorporating SAS scoring and symptom-triggered benzodiazepine dosing was implemented in place of a protocol that utilized the Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol (CIWA-Ar) scale and fixed benzodiazepine dosing. RESULTS: We enrolled 167 patients (135 in the preintervention and 32 in the postintervention group). The median duration of AWS was shorter in the postintervention (5, interquartile range [IQR] = 4-8 days) than in the preintervention group (8, IQR = 5-12 days; P < 0.01). Need for mechanical ventilation (31% vs 57%, P = 0.01), median ICU length of stay (LOS; 4, IQR = 2-7, vs 7, IQR = 4-11 days, P = 0.02), and hospital LOS (9, IQR = 6-13, vs 13, IQR = 9-18 days; P = 0.01) were less in the postintervention group. There was a reduction in mean total benzodiazepine exposure (74 ± 159 vs 450 ± 701 mg lorazepam; P < 0.01) in the postintervention group. CONCLUSION: A symptom-triggered benzodiazepine protocol utilizing SAS in critically ill patients is associated with a reduction in the duration of AWS treatment, benzodiazepine exposure, need for mechanical ventilation, and ICU and hospital LOS compared with a CIWA-Ar-based protocol using fixed benzodiazepine dosing.

Independent lung ventilation in the management of ARDS and bronchopleural fistula.

Independent lung ventilation is a decades-old, but infrequently used technique for physiological separation in critically-ill patients with asymmetric lung disease. Here we present a case report of bilateral necrotizing pneumonia complicated by acute respiratory distress syndrome and bronchopleural fistula, which was successfully managed with independent lung ventilation. The use of independent lung ventilation allowed for adequate oxygenation with use of high positive end expiratory pressure in the "good lung" while simultaneously allowing for closure of the bronchopulmonary fistula in the contralateral lung by maintaining relatively low airway pressures.

Can We Trust Observational Studies Using Propensity Scores in the Critical Care Literature? A Systematic Comparison With Randomized Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the degree of agreement between propensity score studies and randomized clinical trials in critical care research. DATA SOURCES: Propensity score studies published in highly cited critical care or general medicine journals or included in a previous systematic review; corresponding randomized clinical trials included in Cochrane Systematic Reviews or published in PubMed. STUDY SELECTION: We identified propensity score studies of the effects of therapeutic interventions on short- or long-term mortality. We systematically matched propensity score studies to randomized clinical trials based on patient selection criteria, interventions, and outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION: We appraised the methods of included studies and extracted treatment effect estimates to compare the results of propensity score studies and randomized clinical trials. When multiple studies were identified for the same topic, we performed meta-analyses to obtain summary treatment effect estimates. DATA SYNTHESIS: We matched 21 propensity score studies with 58 randomized clinical trials in 18 distinct comparisons (median, one propensity score study and two randomized clinical trials per comparison), for short- and long-term mortality. We found one statistically significant difference between designs (hyperoncotic albumin vs crystalloid fluids) among these 18 comparisons. Propensity score studies did not produce systematically higher (or lower) treatment effect estimates compared with randomized clinical trials, but estimates from the two designs differed by more than 30% in one third of the comparisons examined. Observational studies in critical care met widely accepted methodological standards for propensity score analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Across diverse critical care topics, propensity score studies published in high-impact journals produced results that were generally consistent with the findings of randomized clinical trials. However, caution is needed when interpreting propensity score studies because occasionally their results contradict those of randomized clinical trials and there is no reliable way to predict disagreements.