Search

Background: Research in critical care extends from the bench to the bedside, involving multiple departments, specialties, and funding organizations. Because of this diversity, it has been difficult for all stakeholders to collectively identify challenges and establish priorities.Objective: To define a comprehensive agenda for critical care research using input from a broad range of stakeholders to serve as a blueprint for future initiatives.Methods: The Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC), consisting of the leadership of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), the American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), joined the US Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group (USCIITG) in forming a task force to define a comprehensive critical care research agenda. This group of 25 identified experts was divided into subgroups to address basic, translational, clinical, implementation, and educational research. The subgroups met via conference calls, and the entire task force met in person for a 2-day session. The result was a detailed discussion of the research priorities that served as the basis for this report.Results: The task force identified challenges, specific priority areas, and recommendations for process improvements to support critical care research. Additionally, four overarching themes emerged: 1) the traditional "silo-ed" approach to critical care research is counterproductive and should be modified; 2) an approach that more effectively links areas of research (ie, basic and translational research, or clinical research and implementation) should be embraced; 3) future approaches to human research should account for disease complexity and patient heterogeneity; and 4) an enhanced infrastructure for critical care research is essential for future success.Conclusions: This document contains the themes/recommendations developed by a large, multiprofessional cross section of critical care scientists, clinicians, and educators. It provides a unique framework for future research in critical care medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Research in critical care extends from the bench to the bedside, involving multiple departments, specialties, and funding organizations. Because of this diversity, it has been difficult for all stakeholders to collectively identify challenges and establish priorities. OBJECTIVE: To define a comprehensive agenda for critical care research using input from a broad range of stakeholders to serve as a blueprint for future initiatives. METHODS: The Critical Care Societies Collaborative (CCSC), consisting of the leadership of the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), the American Thoracic Society (ATS), and the Society of Critical Care Medicine (SCCM), joined the US Critical Illness and Injury Trials Group (USCIITG) in forming a task force to define a comprehensive critical care research agenda. This group of 25 identified experts was divided into subgroups to address basic, translational, clinical, implementation, and educational research. The subgroups met via conference calls, and the entire task force met in person for a 2-day session. The result was a detailed discussion of the research priorities that served as the basis for this report. RESULTS: The task force identified challenges, specific priority areas, and recommendations for process improvements to support critical care research. Additionally, four overarching themes emerged: 1) the traditional 'silo-ed' approach to critical care research is counterproductive and should be modified; 2) an approach that more effectively links areas of research (i.e., basic and translational research, or clinical research and implementation) should be embraced; 3) future approaches to human research should account for disease complexity and patient heterogeneity; and 4) an enhanced infrastructure for critical care research is essential for future success. CONCLUSIONS: This document contains the themes/recommendations developed by a large, multiprofessional cross section of critical care scientists, clinicians, and educators. It provides a unique framework for future research in critical care medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVE: Pulse contour cardiac output (PCCO) analysis is a technique for continuous cardiac output (CO) monitoring through an arterial catheter after calibration by transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTD). Studies in adults show good correlation with pulmonary artery thermodilution (PATD) CO. Data are limited in children and patients with hemodynamic instability. The objective was to determine whether TPTD CO and PCCO analysis correlate with PATD CO in a piglet model of severe hemorrhagic shock. Mixed venous oxygen saturation (SVO2) was also compared with PATD CO. DESIGN: Prospective animal study. SETTING: University animal research laboratory. SUBJECTS: Domesticated piglets, 24-37 kg. INTERVENTIONS: Hemorrhagic shock was created by graded hemorrhage in anesthetized piglets. Hemorrhage was initiated to achieve mean arterial pressure plateaus of 60, 50, 40, 30, and 20 mm Hg. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: CO was measured by PATD and simultaneously with two femoral artery PCCO catheters. At each mean arterial pressure plateau, one PCCO catheter was recalibrated by TPTD; the other catheter was not recalibrated during hemorrhage. TPTD CO, PCCO measurements from each catheter, and SVO2 were compared with PATD CO at each mean arterial pressure level. TPTD CO and recalibrated PCCO showed excellent correlation (r2 = .96 and .97) and small bias (+0.11 and +0.14 L/min), respectively, compared with PATD. Without recalibration, PCCO measurements were not accurate during rapid hemorrhage (r2 = .22). SVO2 decline did not correlate as well with PATD CO (r2 = .69). CONCLUSIONS: TPTD CO and recalibrated PCCO analysis correlate well with PATD CO in this severe hemorrhagic shock model. The mean difference is small (<0.15 L/min) and is not clinically significant. With rapid changes in blood pressure or intravascular volume, PCCO is not accurate unless recalibrated by TPTD CO. SVO2 did not correlate well with CO in this model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]