Oral challenge vs routine care to assess low-risk penicillin allergy in critically ill hospital patients (ORACLE): a pilot safety and feasibility randomised controlled trial.

PURPOSE: Critically ill patients are vulnerable to penicillin allergy labels that may be incorrect. The validity of skin testing in intensive care units (ICUs) is uncertain. Many penicillin allergy labels are low risk, and validated tools exist to identify those amenable to direct oral challenge. This pilot randomised controlled trial explored the feasibility, safety, and validity of direct enteral challenge for low-risk penicillin allergy labels in critical illness. METHODS: Consenting patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy label (PAL) (PEN-FAST risk assessment score < 3) in four ICUs (Melbourne, Australia) were randomised 1:1 to penicillin (250 mg amoxicillin or implicated penicillin) direct enteral challenge versus routine care (2-h post-randomisation observation for each arm). Repeat challenge was performed post -ICU in the intervention arm. Patients were reviewed at 24 h and 5 days after each challenge/observation. RESULTS: We screened 533 patients. 130 (24.4%) were eligible and 80/130 (61.5%) enrolled (age median 64.5 years (interquartile range, IQR 53.5, 74), PEN-FAST median 1 (IQR 0,1)), with 40 (50%) randomised to direct enteral challenge. A positive challenge rate of 2.5% was identified. No antibiotic-associated serious adverse events were identified. 32/40 (80%) received a repeat challenge (zero positive). Post-randomisation, 13 (32%) of the intervention arm and 4 (10%) of the control arm received penicillin (odds ratio, OR 4.33 [1.27, 14.78] p = 0.019). CONCLUSION: These findings support the safety, validity, and feasibility of direct enteral challenge for critically ill patients with PEN-FAST assessed low-risk penicillin allergy. The absence of false negative results was confirmed by subsequent negative repeat challenges. A relatively low recruitment to screened ratio suggests that more inclusive eligibility criteria and integration of allergy assessment into routine ICU processes are needed to optimise allergy delabelling in critical illness.

Midodrine use in critically ill patients: a narrative review.

Midodrine is a peripherally acting, oral α-agonist that is increasingly used in intensive care units despite conflicting evidence for its effectiveness. It has pharmacological effects on blood vessels as well as pupillary, cardiac, renal, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, lymphatic and skin tissue. It has approval for use as a treatment for orthostatic hypotension, but a surge in interest over the past decade has prompted its use for a growing number of off-label indications. In critically ill patients, midodrine has been used as either an adjunctive oral therapy to wean vasoplegic patients off low dose intravenous vasopressor infusions, or as an oral vasopressor agent to prevent or minimise the need for intravenous infusion. Clinical trials have mostly focused on midodrine as an intravenous vasopressor weaning agent. Early retrospective studies supported its use for this indication, but more recent randomised controlled trials have largely refuted this practice. Key questions remain on its role in managing critically ill patients before intensive care admission, during intensive care stay, and following discharge. This narrative review presents a comprehensive overview of midodrine use for the critical care physician and highlights why lingering questions around ideal patient selection, dosing, timing of initiation, and efficacy of midodrine for critically ill patients remain unanswered.

Factors associated with short versus prolonged tracheostomy length of cannulation and the relationship between length of cannulation and adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Tracheostomy management and care is multifaceted and costly, commonly involving complex patients with prolonged hospitalisation. Currently, there are no agreed definitions of short and prolonged length of tracheostomy cannulation (LOC) and no consensus regarding the key factors that may be associated with time to decannulation. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to identify the factors associated with short and prolonged LOC and to examine the number of tracheostomy-related adverse events of patients who had short LOC versus prolonged LOC. METHODS: A retrospective observational study was undertaken at a large metropolitan tertiary hospital. Factors known at the time of tracheostomy insertion, including patient, acuity, medical, airway, and tracheostomy factors, were analysed using Cox proportional hazards model and Kaplan-Meier survival curves, with statistically significant factors then analysed using univariate logistic regression to determine a relationship to short or prolonged LOC as defined by the lowest and highest quartiles of the study cohort. The number of tracheostomy-related adverse events was analysed using the Kaplan-Meier survival curve. RESULTS: One hundred twenty patients met the inclusion criteria. Patients who had their tracheostomy performed for loss of upper airway were associated with short LOC (odds ratio [OR]: 2.30 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.01-5.25) p = 0.049). Three factors were associated with prolonged LOC: an abdominal/gastrointestinal tract diagnosis (OR: 5.00 [95% CI: 1.40-17.87] p = 0.013), major surgery (OR: 2.51 [95% CI: 1.05-6.01] p = 0.038), and intubation for >12 days (OR: 0.30 [95% CI: 0.09-0.97] p = 0.044). Patients who had one or ≥2 tracheostomy-related adverse events had a high likelihood of prolonged LOC (OR: 5.21 [95% CI: 1.95-13.94] p = ≤0.001 and OR: 12.17 [95% CI: 2.68-55.32] p ≤ 0.001, respectively). CONCLUSION: Some factors that are known at the time of tracheostomy insertion are associated with duration of tracheostomy cannulation. Tracheostomy-related adverse events are related to a high risk of prolonged LOC.

Global Tracheostomy Collaborative: data-driven improvements in patient safety through multidisciplinary teamwork, standardisation, education, and patient partnership.

There is growing recognition of the need for a coordinated, systematic approach to caring for patients with a tracheostomy. Tracheostomy-related adverse events remain a pervasive global problem, accounting for half of all airway-related deaths and hypoxic brain damage in critical care units. The Global Tracheostomy Collaborative (GTC) was formed in 2012 to improve patient safety and quality of care, emphasising knowledge, skills, teamwork, and patient-centred approaches. Inspired by quality improvement leads in Australia, the UK, and the USA, the GTC implements and disseminates best practices across hospitals and healthcare trusts. Its database collects patient-level information on quality, safety, and organisational efficiencies. The GTC provides an organising structure for quality improvement efforts, promoting safety of paediatric and adult patients. Successful implementation requires instituting key drivers for change that include effective training for health professionals; multidisciplinary team collaboration; engagement and involvement of patients, their families, and carers; and data collection that allows tracking of outcomes. We report the history of the collaborative, its database infrastructure and analytics, and patient outcomes from more than 6500 patients globally. We characterise this patient population for the first time at such scale, reporting predictors of adverse events, mortality, and length of stay indexed to patient characteristics, co-morbidities, risk factors, and context. In one example, the database allowed identification of a previously unrecognised association between bleeding and mortality, reflecting ability to uncover latent risks and promote safety. The GTC provides the foundation for future risk-adjusted benchmarking and a learning community that drives ongoing quality improvement efforts worldwide.

Tracheostomy in the COVID-19 era: global and multidisciplinary guidance.

Global health care is experiencing an unprecedented surge in the number of critically ill patients who require mechanical ventilation due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The requirement for relatively long periods of ventilation in those who survive means that many are considered for tracheostomy to free patients from ventilatory support and maximise scarce resources. COVID-19 provides unique challenges for tracheostomy care: health-care workers need to safely undertake tracheostomy procedures and manage patients afterwards, minimising risks of nosocomial transmission and compromises in the quality of care. Conflicting recommendations exist about case selection, the timing and performance of tracheostomy, and the subsequent management of patients. In response, we convened an international working group of individuals with relevant expertise in tracheostomy. We did a literature and internet search for reports of research pertaining to tracheostomy during the COVID-19 pandemic, supplemented by sources comprising statements and guidance on tracheostomy care. By synthesising early experiences from countries that have managed a surge in patient numbers, emerging virological data, and international, multidisciplinary expert opinion, we aim to provide consensus guidelines and recommendations on the conduct and management of tracheostomy during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Why we should be wary of single-center trials.

OBJECTIVES: To highlight the limitations of single-center trials in critical care, using prominent examples from the recent literature; to explore possible reasons for discrepancies between these studies and subsequent multicenter effectiveness trials; and to suggest how the evidence from single-center trials might be used more appropriately in clinical practice. STUDY SELECTION: Topical and illustrative examples of the concepts discussed including trials of patient positioning, the use of steroids for acute respiratory distress syndrome, the dose of hemofiltration, the control of glycemia, and the targets of resuscitation in sepsis. DATA SYNOPSIS: Many positive single-center trials have been contradicted when tested in other settings and, in one case, the subsequent definitive multicentered trial has found a previously recommended intervention associated with active harm. Problems inherent in the nature of single-center studies make recommendations based on their results ill advised. Single-center studies frequently either lack the scientific rigor or external validity required to support widespread changes in practice, and their premature incorporation into guidelines may make the conduct of definitive studies more difficult. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that practice guidelines should rarely, if ever, be based on evidence from single-center trials. Physicians should apply the findings of single-center trials only after careful evaluation of their methodology, and in particular after comparing the context of the trial with their own situation.

Life-threatening sodium valproate overdose: a comparison of two approaches to treatment.

OBJECTIVES: To describe two identical cases of severe sodium valproate overdose treated with two different approaches. DESIGN: Case report and review of the literature. PATIENTS: Two cases of identical life-threatening valproate (VPA) overdose with high VPA blood levels, markedly elevated ammonia levels and coma. INTERVENTIONS: One patient was treated with supportive therapy alone until the development of cerebral edema and seizures; the other was treated with immediate extended hemodialysis followed by high-volume hemodiafiltration. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The first patient remained critically ill with elevated VPA and ammonia levels until the development of seizures and life-threatening cerebral edema. After the delayed application of hemofiltration, the patient slowly recovered to be discharged from intensive care on day 11. In contrast, the second patient's VPA and ammonia levels rapidly declined with hemodialysis and hemodiafiltration with rapid clinical improvement and intensive care discharge on day 3. CONCLUSIONS: In severe VPA overdose, early intervention with blood purification of suitable intensity was associated with a rapid reduction in VPA and ammonia levels and clinical improvement. This improvement was not seen with supportive therapy alone.

Major surgery in Victoria and the United States: a comparison of hospital mortality in older patients.

BACKGROUND: Knowledge is limited on how surgical outcomes compare between different geographical and health organisation settings. OBJECTIVE: To compare demographic features, surgery rates and in-hospital outcomes for 14 major types of surgery in older patients between the state of Victoria in Australia and the United States. METHODS: We obtained US Medicare data and data from the Department of Human Services Victorian Admitted Episodes Database for patients older than 65 years who underwent one of six major cardiovascular procedures or eight major cancer resections in a 5-year period (1994-1999 and 1998- 2003, respectively). Data comprised patient age, sex and elective versus non-elective status, operation type, surgical volume and postoperative hospital mortality. RESULTS: The number of operations performed per capita was 2.6 times greater in the US system than in Victoria. Overall, postoperative hospital mortality was lower in Victoria (3.96% v 4.47%, P < 0.001). It was also lower in Victoria for four major cardiothoracic procedures (coronary artery bypass grafting: 2.79% v 4.63% in the US, P < 0.001; aortic valve replacement, 5.30% v 7.94%, P < 0.001; mitral valve replacement, 6.52% v 13.24%, P < 0.001; pulmonary lobectomy, 2.16% v 4.72%, P = 0.01), but was higher for nephrectomy (3.59% v 2.33%, P = 0.04) and colectomy (7.33% v 4.67%, P < 0.001). The Victorian patients included a smaller proportion of women (35.24% v 41.23%, P < 0.001) and people older than 75 years (39.58% v 44.48%, P < 0.001). US patients were significantly more likely to have their admission status classified as non-elective (45.45% v 34.98% in Victoria, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite limitations on interpretation inherent in comparing outcomes from different jurisdictions, these findings suggest major differences between Victoria and the US in surgical management of patients older than 65 years. Surgical intervention rates appear lower in Victoria, particularly in patients older than 75 years. For patients who receive major cardiothoracic procedures, in-hospital mortality is lower in Victoria than in the US; for colectomy and nephrectomy, it is higher in Victoria; and for other procedures, it is similar.

The pursuit of a high central venous oxygen saturation in sepsis: growing concerns.

In this issue of Critical Care, Dutch investigators report that, in a cohort of patients with sepsis/septic shock admitted to three different intensive care units (ICUs), low central venous oxygen saturation (ScvO2) was uncommon at the time of ICU admission, and hospital mortality was <30%. Their findings, taken together with those of recent reports from Australia and New Zealand (ANZ), raise serious concerns about the utility of early goal directed therapy (EGDT) outside the context of the original trial. Despite inclusion of EGDT into the Surviving Sepsis Guidelines, in response to growing uncertainty, ANZ and US investigators will soon begin randomization of patients into two large multicentre trials comparing EGDT to standard therapy. Until such studies are completed, basing international treatment guidelines on a single centre study performed in what may turn out to be a highly atypical environment would seem premature.