Transitioning Virtual-Only Group Therapy for Substance Use Disorder Patients to a Hybrid Model.

Purpose: Telehealth is associated with a myriad of benefits; however, little is known regarding substance use disorder (SUD) treatment outcomes when participants join group therapy sessions in a combination in-person and virtual setting (hybrid model). We sought to determine if treatment completion rates differed. Patients and Methods: Policy changes caused by the COVID-19 pandemic created a naturalistic, observational cohort study at seven intensive outpatient (IOP) programs in rural Minnesota. Virtual-only delivery occurred 6/1/2020-6/30/2021, while hybrid groups occurred 7/1/2021-7/31/2022. Data was evaluated retrospectively for participants who initiated and discharged treatment during the study period. Participants were IOP group members 18 years and older who had a SUD diagnosis that both entered and discharged treatment during the 26-month period. A consecutive sample of 1502 participants (181-255 per site) was available, with 644 removed: 576 discharged after the study conclusion, 49 were missing either enrollment or discharge data, 14 transferred sites during treatment, and 5 initiated treatment before the study initiation. Helmert contrasts evaluated the impact of hybrid group exposure. Results: A total of 858 individuals were included. Data was not from the medical chart and was deidentified preventing specific demographics; however, the overall IOP sample for 2020-2022, from which the sample was derived, was 29.8% female, and 64.1% were 18-40 years of age. For completed treatment, hybrid group exposure relative to virtual-only had a univariate odds ratio of 1.88 (95% CI: 1.50-2.41, p < 0.001). No significant difference was seen across IOP sites. Conclusion: These results describe a novel hybrid group approach to virtual care for SUDs with outcome data not previously documented in the literature. While virtual treatment delivery can increase access, these results suggest a benefit is derived from including an in-person option. Further research is needed to identify how an in-person component may change dynamics and if it can be replicated in virtual-only models.

Temporal trends in critical care utilization and outcomes in allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients.

Historically, the prognosis of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HCT) recipients who require intensive care unit (ICU) admission has been poor. We aimed to describe the epidemiological trends of ICU utilization and outcomes in allo-HCT patients. We conducted a retrospective cohort study including adults (≥ 18) undergoing allo-HCT between 01/01/2005 and 31/12/2020 at Mayo Clinic, Rochester. Temporal trends in outcomes were assessed by robust linear regression modelling. Risk factors for hospital mortality were chosen a priori and assessed with multivariable logistic regression modelling. Of 1,249 subjects, there were 486 ICU admissions among 287 individuals. Although older patients underwent allo-HCT (1.64 [95% CI: 1.11 to 2.45] years per year; P = 0.025), there was no change in ICU utilization over time (P = 0.91). The ICU and hospital mortality rates were 19.2% (55/287) and 28.2% (81/287), respectively. There was a decline in ICU mortality (-0.38% [95% CI: -0.70 to -0.06%] per year; P = 0.035). The 1-year post-HCT mortality for those requiring ICU admission was 56.1% (161/287), with no significant difference over time, versus 15.8% (141/891, 71 missing) among those who did not. The frequency and duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) declined. In multivariable analyses, higher serum lactate, higher sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) scores, acute respiratory distress (ARDS), and need for IMV were associated with greater odds of hospital mortality. Over time, rates of ICU utilization have remained stable, despite increasing patient age. Several trends suggest improvement in outcomes, notably lower ICU mortality and frequency of IMV. However, long-term survival remains unchanged. Further work is needed to improve long-term outcomes in this population.

Appraisal of Postoperative Outcomes of Volatile and Intravenous Anesthetics: A Network Meta-Analysis of Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the relative efficacy of specific regimens used as primary anesthetics, as well as the potential combination of volatile and intravenous anesthetics among patients undergoing cardiac, thoracic, and vascular surgery. DESIGN: This frequentist, random-effects network meta-analysis was registered prospectively (CRD42022316328) and conducted according to the PRISMA-NMA framework. Literature searches were conducted up to April 1, 2022 across relevant databases. Risk of bias (RoB) and confidence of evidence were assessed by RoB-2 and CINeMA, respectively. Pooled treatment effects were compared with propofol monotherapy. SETTING: Fifty-three randomized controlled trials (N = 8,085) were included, of which 46 trials (N = 6,604) enrolled patients undergoing cardiac surgery. PARTICIPANTS: Trials enrolling adults (≥18) undergoing cardiac, thoracic, and vascular surgery, using the same induction regimens, and comparing volatile and/or total intravenous anesthesia for the maintenance of anesthesia. Given that the majority of trials focused on those undergoing cardiac surgery and the heterogeneity, analyses were restricted to this population. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Outcomes of interest included intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), myocardial infarction, in-hospital and 30-day mortality, stroke, and delirium. Across 19 trials (N = 1,821; 9 arms; I2 = 64.5%), sevoflurane combined with propofol decreased ICU LOS (mean difference [MD] -18.26 hours; 95% CI -34.78 to -1.73 hours), whereas midazolam with propofol (MD 17.51 hours; 95% CI 2.78-32.25 hours) was associated with a significant increase in ICU LOS, when compared with propofol monotherapy. Among 27 trials (N = 4,080; 10 arms; I2 = 0%), midazolam was associated with significantly greater risk of myocardial infarction versus propofol (risk ratio 1.94; 95% CI 1.01-3.71). There were no significant differences across other outcomes. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing cardiac surgery, sevoflurane with propofol was associated with decreased ICU LOS compared with propofol monotherapy. Midazolam with propofol increased ICU LOS compared with propofol alone. The combined use of intravenous and volatile anesthetics should be explored further. Future trials in thoracic and vascular surgery are warranted.