Search

Background: The diagnostic performance of the available risk assessment models for VTE in patients who are critically ill receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis is unclear., Research Question: For patients who are critically ill receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, do risk assessment models predict who would develop VTE or who could benefit from adjunctive pneumatic compression for thromboprophylaxis?, Study Design and Methods: In this post hoc analysis of the Pneumatic Compression for Preventing VTE (PREVENT) trial, different risk assessment models for VTE (ICU-VTE, Kucher, Intermountain, Caprini, Padua, and International Medical Prevention Registry on VTE [IMPROVE] models) were evaluated. Receiver-operating characteristic curves were constructed, and the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative likelihood ratios were calculated. In addition, subgroup analyses were performed evaluating the effect of adjunctive pneumatic compression vs none on the study primary outcome., Results: Among 2,003 patients receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, 198 (9.9%) developed VTE. With multivariable logistic regression analysis, the independent predictors of VTE were Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score, prior immobilization, femoral central venous catheter, and invasive mechanical ventilation. All risk assessment models had areas under the curve < 0.60 except for the Caprini model (0.64; 95% CI, 0.60-0.68). The Caprini, Padua, and Intermountain models had high sensitivities (> 85%) but low specificities (< 20%) for predicting VTE, whereas the ICU-VTE, Kucher, and IMPROVE models had low sensitivities (< 15%) but high specificities (> 85%). The positive predictive values were low (< 20%) for all studied cutoff scores, whereas the negative predictive values were mostly > 90%. Using the risk assessment models to stratify patients into high- vs low-risk subgroups, the effect of adjunctive pneumatic compression vs pharmacologic prophylaxis alone did not differ across the subgroups (P interaction > .05)., Interpretation: The risk assessment models for VTE performed poorly in patients who are critically ill receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. None of the models identified a subgroup of patients who might benefit from adjunctive pneumatic compression., Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, No.: NCT02040103, URL: www., Clinicaltrials: gov. ISRCTN44653506; International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial No.: ISRCTN44653506, URL: https://www.isrctn.com., Competing Interests: Financial/Nonfinancial Disclosures None declared., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Health care professionals experience moral distress when they cannot act based on their moral beliefs because of perceived constraints. Moral distress prevalence is high among critical care (ICU) clinicians, but varies significantly between and within professions., Research Question: How can the interindividual variability in moral distress of Canadian ICU physicians be explained to inform future system-based interventions?, Study Design and Methods: We analyzed 135 free-text comments written by 83 of the 225 ICU physicians who participated in an online cross-sectional wellness survey. An interdisciplinary team of five investigators completed the thematic analysis of anonymized survey comments according to published guidelines., Results: Physicians identified contextual and relational factors that contributed to moral distress and work-related stress. Combined sources of distress created high work-related demands that were not always matched by equally high resources or mitigated by work-related rewards. An imbalance between demands and rewards could lead to undesirable individual and collective consequences., Interpretation: Moral distress is experienced variably by ICU physicians and is linked to contextual and relational factors. Future studies should evaluate modifiable factors such as team interactions and the role of professional rewards as mitigators of distress to bring new insights into strategies to improve ICU clinician wellness and patient care., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Critically ill adults are at increased risk of VTE, including DVT, and pulmonary embolism. Various agents exist for venous thromboprophylaxis in this population., Research Question: What is the comparative efficacy and safety of prophylaxis agents for prevention of VTE in critically ill adults?, Study Design and Methods: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating efficacy of thromboprophylaxis agents among critically ill patients. We searched six databases (including PubMed, EMBASE, and Medline) from inception through January 2021 for RCTs of patients in the ICU receiving pharmacologic, mechanical, or combination therapy (pharmacologic agents and mechanical devices) for thromboprophylaxis. Two reviewers performed screening, full-text review, and extraction. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation to rate certainty of effect estimates., Results: We included 13 RCTs (9,619 patients). Compared with control treatment (a composite of no prophylaxis, placebo, or compression stockings only), low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduced the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.59 [95% credible interval [CrI], 0.33-0.90]; high certainty) and unfractionated heparin (UFH) may reduce the incidence of DVT (OR, 0.82 [95% CrI, 0.47-1.37]; low certainty). LMWH probably reduces DVT compared with UFH (OR, 0.72 [95% CrI, 0.46-0.98]; moderate certainty). Compressive devices may reduce risk of DVT compared with control treatments; however, this is based on low-certainty evidence (OR, 0.85 [95% CrI, 0.50-1.50]). Combination therapy showed unclear effect on DVT compared with either therapy alone (very low certainty)., Interpretation: Among critically ill adults, compared with control treatment, LMWH reduces incidence of DVT, whereas UFH and mechanical compressive devices may reduce the risk of DVT. LMWH is probably more effective than UFH in reducing incidence of DVT and should be considered the primary pharmacologic agent for thromboprophylaxis. The efficacy and safety of combination pharmacologic therapy and mechanical compressive devices were unclear., Trial Registry: Open Science Framework; URL: https://osf.io/694aj., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Clinicians use several measures to ascertain whether individual patients will tolerate liberation from mechanical ventilation, including the rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI)., Research Question: Given varied use of different thresholds, patient populations, and measurement characteristics, how well does RSBI predict successful extubation?, Study Design and Methods: We searched six databases from inception through September 2019 and selected studies reporting the accuracy of RSBI in the prediction of successful extubation. We extracted study data and assessed quality independently and in duplicate., Results: We included 48 studies involving RSBI measurements of 10,946 patients. Pooled sensitivity for RSBI of < 105 in predicting extubation success was moderate (0.83 [95% CI, 0.78-0.87], moderate certainty), whereas specificity was poor (0.58 [95% CI, 0.49-0.66], moderate certainty) with diagnostic ORs (DORs) of 5.91 (95% CI, 4.09-8.52). RSBI thresholds of < 80 or 80 to 105 yielded similar sensitivity, specificity, and DOR. These findings were consistent across multiple subgroup analyses reflecting different patient characteristics and operational differences in RSBI measurement., Interpretation: As a stand-alone test, the RSBI has moderate sensitivity and poor specificity for predicting extubation success. Future research should evaluate its role as a permissive criterion to undergo a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT) for patients who are at intermediate pretest probability of passing an SBT., Trial Registry: PROSPERO; No.: CRD42020149196; URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Invasive mechanical ventilation is often initiated in the ED, and mechanically ventilated patients may be kept in the ED for hours before ICU transfer. Although lung-protective ventilation is beneficial, particularly in ARDS, it remains uncertain how often lung-protective tidal volumes are used in the ED, and whether lung-protective ventilation in this setting impacts patient outcomes., Research Question: What is the association between the use of lung-protective ventilation in the ED and outcomes among invasively ventilated patients?, Study Design and Methods: A retrospective analysis (2011-2017) of a prospective registry from eight EDs enrolling consecutive adult patients (≥ 18 years) who received invasive mechanical ventilation in the ED was performed. Lung-protective ventilation was defined by use of tidal volumes ≤ 8 mL/kg predicted body weight. The primary outcome was hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included development of ARDS, hospital length of stay, and total hospital costs., Results: The study included 4,174 patients, of whom 2,437 (58.4%) received lung-protective ventilation in the ED. Use of lung-protective ventilation was associated with decreased odds of hospital death (adjusted OR [aOR], 0.91; 95% CI, 0.84-0.96) and development of ARDS (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.81-0.92). Patients who received lung-protective ventilation in the ED had shorter median duration of mechanical ventilation (4 vs 5 days; P < 0.01), shorter median hospital length of stay (11 vs 14 days; P < .001), and reduced total hospital costs (Can$44,348 vs Can$52,484 [US$34,153 vs US$40,418]; P = .03) compared with patients who received higher tidal volumes., Interpretation: Use of lung-protective ventilation in the ED was associated with important patient- and system-centered outcomes, including lower hospital mortality, decreased incidence of ARDS, lower hospital length of stay, and decreased total costs. Protocol development promoting the regular use of lung-protective ventilation in the ED may be of value., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Studies have demonstrated that high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) prevents intubation in acute hypoxic respiratory failure when compared with conventional oxygen therapy (COT). However, the data examining routine HFNC use in the immediate postoperative period are less clear., Research Question: Is routine HFNC use superior to COT or noninvasive ventilation (NIV) use in preventing intubation in patients postoperatively?, Study Design and Methods: We comprehensively searched databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science) to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effect of HFNC use with that of COT or NIV in the immediate postoperative period on reintubation, escalation of respiratory support, hospital mortality, ICU and hospital length of stay (LOS), postoperative hypoxemia, and treatment complications. We assessed individual study risk of bias (RoB) by using the revised Cochrane RoB 2 tool and rated certainty in outcomes by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework., Results: We included 11 RCTs enrolling 2,201 patients. Ten compared HFNC with COT and one with NIV. Compared with COT use, HFNC use in the postoperative period was associated with a lower reintubation rate (relative risk [RR], 0.32; 95% CI, 0.12-0.88; absolute risk reduction [ARR], 2.9%; moderate certainty) and decreased escalation of respiratory support (RR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.31-0.94; ARR, 5.8%; very low certainty). Post hoc subgroup analysis suggested that this effect was driven by patients who were obese and/or at high risk (subgroup differences, P = .06). We did not find differences in any of the other stated outcomes between HFNC and COT. HFNC was also no different from NIV in reintubation rate, respiratory therapy failure, or ICU LOS., Interpretation: With evidence of moderate certainty, prophylactic HFNC reduces reintubation and escalation of respiratory support compared with COT in the immediate postoperative period after cardiothoracic surgery. This effect is likely driven by patients who are at high risk and/or obese. These findings support postoperative prophylactic HFNC use in the patients who are at high risk and/or obese undergoing cardiothoracic surgery., (Copyright © 2020 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The call for meaningful patient and family engagement in research has recently gained considerable momentum. This article defines patient and family engagement broadly and specifically in clinical research. Using a multicenter, North American weaning trial as an exemplar, we describe our early experiences as clinical researchers with patient and family engagement. The role of our Patient and Family Advisory Committee in trial design and implementation is illustrated. Through our experiences, we share our insights regarding the perceived opportunities and also highlight some challenges associated with engaging patients and family engagement in critical care research. Although "engagement science" is in its infancy, engaging patients and families in research holds promise as a novel research paradigm that will not only provide new insights into the questions, methods, and outcomes used in ICU research, but it will also make investments in research more accountable and ensure a strong "patient- and family-centered focus" of our research., (Copyright © 2017 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)