Search

Objective: To evaluate the impact of direct discharge home (DDH) from ICUs compared with ward transfer on safety outcomes of readmissions, emergency department (ED) visits, and mortality. Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception until March 28, 2022. Study Selection: Randomized and nonrandomized studies of DDH patients compared with ward transfer were eligible. Data Extraction: We screened and extracted studies independently and in duplicate. We assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. A random-effects meta-analysis model and heterogeneity assessment was performed using pooled data (inverse variance) for propensity-matched and unadjusted cohorts. We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Data Synthesis: Of 10,228 citations identified, we included six studies. Of these, three high-quality studies, which enrolled 49,376 patients in propensity-matched cohorts, could be pooled using meta-analysis. For DDH from ICU, compared with ward transfers, there was no difference in the risk of ED visits at 30-day (22.4% vs 22.7%; relative risk [RR], 0.99; 95% CI, 0.95–1.02; p = 0.39; low certainty); hospital readmissions at 30-day (9.8% vs 9.6%; RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91–1.15; p = 0.71; very low-to-low certainty); or 90-day mortality (2.8% vs 2.6%; RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.95–1.18; p = 0.29; very low-to-low certainty). There were no important differences in the unmatched cohorts or across subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Very low-to-low certainty evidence from observational studies suggests that DDH from ICU may have no difference in safety outcomes compared with ward transfer of selected ICU patients. In the future, this research question could be further examined by randomized control trials to provide higher certainty data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Critical care research in Canada is conducted primarily in academically-affiliated intensive care units with established research infrastructure, including research coordinators (RCs). Recently, efforts have been made to engage community hospital ICUs in research albeit with barriers. Automation or artificial intelligence (AI) could aid the performance of routine research tasks. It is unclear which research study processes might be improved through AI automation. Methods:We conducted a cross-sectional survey of Canadian ICU research personnel. The survey contained items characterizing opinions regarding research processes that may be amenable to AI automation. We distributed the questionnaire via email distribution lists of 3 Canadian research societies. Open-ended questions were analyzed using a thematic content analysis approach. Results: A total of 49 survey responses were received (response rate: 8%). Tasks that respondents felt were time-consuming/tedious/tiresome included: screening for potentially eligible patients (74%), inputting data into case report forms (65%), and preparing internal tracking logs (53%). Tasks that respondents felt could be performed by AI automation included: screening for eligible patients (59%), inputting data into case report forms (55%), preparing internal tracking logs (51%), and randomizing patients into studies (45%). Open-ended questions identified enthusiasm for AI automation to improve information accuracy and efficiency while freeing up RCs to perform tasks that require human interaction. This enthusiasm was tempered by the need for proper AI education and oversight. Conclusions: There were balanced supportive (increased efficiency and re-allocation of tasks) and challenges (informational accuracy and oversight) with regards to AI automation in ICU research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To evaluate the long-term safety of directly discharging intensive care unit (ICU) survivors to their home. Methods: A retrospective observational cohort of 341 ICU survivors who were directly discharged home from the ICU ("direct discharge") or discharged home ≤72 hours after ICU transfer to the ward ("ward transfer") was conducted in Regina, Saskatchewan ICUs between September 1, 2016 and September 30, 2018. The primary outcome was 90-day hospital readmission. Secondary outcomes included 30-day, 90-day, and 365-day emergency department (ED) visits, 30-day and 365-day hospital readmissions, and 365-day mortality. All outcomes were evaluated by multivariable Cox regression after adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: Of 341 survivors (25.5% of total ICU visits), 148 (43.4%) patients were direct discharges and 193 (56.6%) were ward transfers. The median age was 46 years (interquartile range, 34-62), 38.4% were female, and 61.8% resided in Regina. Compared to the ward transfer cohort, more patients in the direct discharge cohort had at least one 90-day hospital readmission (30.4% versus 17.1% of patients, adjusted hazard ratio 2.09, 95% confidence interval 1.28-3.40, P =.003), after adjustment. Additionally, there were more 90-day ED visits (P=.045), and 30-day (P =.049) and 365-day hospital readmissions (P= .03), after adjustment. Conclusions: In Saskatchewan, direct discharge compared to ward transfer was associated with an increase in 90-day hospital readmissions, and potentially other clinical outcomes. Further study is necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Severe infections are characterized by inflammation and oxidative damage. Ascorbic acid (vitamin C) administration may attenuate oxidative damage and, in turn, reduce vascular endothelial injury in pulmonary and systemic vasculature. Objective: We aim to describe a protocol for a living systematic review that will evaluate the effectiveness and safety of parenteral vitamin C administration in adults with severe infections, including those with COVID-19. Methods: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID-19 database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to March 30, 2021, for randomized controlled trials evaluating parenteral vitamin C versus no parenteral vitamin C in hospitalized adults with severe infection. Eligible studies will include at least 1 arm involving any dose of parenteral vitamin C alone or in combination with other cointerventions and at least 1 arm not involving parenteral vitamin C. The primary outcomes of interest will include in-hospital, 30-day, and 90-day mortality. Title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction, and risk of bias evaluation via a modified Risk of Bias 2.0 tool will be conducted independently and in pairs. We will perform random effects modeling for meta-analyses, in which study weights will be generated by using the inverse variance method. We will assess certainty in effect estimates by using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Meta-analyses will be updated iteratively as new trial evidence becomes available. Results: Among the 1386 citations identified as of March 30, 2021, a total of 17 eligible randomized controlled trials have been identified as of September 2021. We are in the process of updating the search strategy and associated data analyses. Conclusions: The results will be of importance to critical care physicians and hospitalists who manage severe infection and COVID-19 in daily practice, and they may directly inform international clinical guidance. Although our systematic review will incorporate the most recent trial evidence, ongoing trials may change our confidence in the estimates of effects, thereby necessitating iterative updates in the form of a living review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Cost utility analyses compare the costs and health outcome of interventions, with a denominator of quality-adjusted life year, a generic health utility measure combining both quality and quantity of life. Cost utility analyses are difficult to compare when methods are not standardized. It is unclear how cost utility analyses are measured/reported in critical care and what methodologic challenges cost utility analyses pose in this setting. This may lead to differences precluding cost utility analyses comparisons. Therefore, we performed a systematic review of cost utility analyses conducted in critical care. Our objectives were to understand: 1) methodologic characteristics, 2) how health-related quality-of-life was measured/reported, and 3) what costs were reported/measured.Design: Systematic review.Data Sources: We systematically searched for cost utility analyses in critical care in MEDLINE, Embase, American College of Physicians Journal Club, CENTRAL, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews' selected subset of archived versions of UK National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and American Economic Association electronic databases from inception to April 30, 2020.Setting: Adult ICUs.Patients: Adult critically ill patients.Interventions: None.Measurements and Main Results: Of 8,926 citations, 80 cost utility analyse studies were eligible. The time horizon most commonly reported was lifetime (59%). For health utility reporting, health-related quality-of-life was infrequently measured (29% reported), with only 5% of studies reporting baseline health-related quality-of-life. Indirect utility measures (generic, preference-based health utility measurement tools) were reported in 85% of studies (majority Euro-quality-of-life-5 Domains, 52%). Methods of estimating health-related quality-of-life were seldom used when the patient was incapacitated: imputation (19%), assigning fixed utilities for incapacitation (19%), and surrogates reporting on behalf of incapacitated patients (5%). For cost utility reporting transparency, separate incremental costs and quality-adjusted life years were both reported in only 76% of studies. Disaggregated quality-adjusted life years (reporting separate health utility and life years) were described in only 34% of studies.Conclusions: We identified deficiencies which warrant recommendations (standardized measurement/reporting of resource use/unit costs/health-related quality-of-life/methodological preferences) for improved design, conduct, and reporting of future cost utility analyses in critical care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia / Journal Canadien d'Anesthésie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: In the new era of decreasing hospital bed availability, there is an increasing rate of direct discharge to home (DDH) from intensive care units (ICUs), despite sparse literature informing this practice. Objectives: To evaluate patient, family, and ICU attending physician satisfaction with planning for DDH from the ICU and intensivists' current DDH practices and perceptions. Methods: Prospective cohort study, using convenience sampling, of adult patients undergoing DDH from an ICU between February 2016 and February 2017 using a modified FS-ICU 24 satisfaction survey completed by patients, family members, and attending physicians at the time of patient discharge to home from the ICU. Results: Seventy-two percent of patients, 37% of family members, and 100% of ICU physicians recruited completed the survey. A majority of patients (89%) and families (78%) were satisfied or very satisfied with DDH. Only 6% of patients and 8% of families were dissatisfied to very dissatisfied with DDH. Conversely, ICU physician satisfaction varied, with only 5% being very comfortable with DDH and the majority (50%) only somewhat comfortable. Twenty percent of staff consultants were uncomfortable to very uncomfortable with the practice of DDH. Thirty-one percent of staff physician respondents felt that patient and family discomfort would be barriers to DDH. Compared to physicians and other allied health professionals, nurses were identified as the most helpful members of the health-care team in preparation for DDH by 98% of patients and 92% of family members. The DDH rates have increased for the past 12 years in our ICUs but declined during the study period (February 2016 to February 2017). Conclusions: Patients and family members are satisfied with the practice of DDH from ICU, although ICU physician satisfaction is more variable. Physician comfort may be improved by data informing which patients may be safely DDH from the ICU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: With the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continuing to impact healthcare systems around the world, healthcare providers are attempting to balance resources devoted to COVID-19 patients while minimizing excess mortality overall (both COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients). To this end, we conducted a systematic review (SR) to describe the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on all-cause excess mortality (COVID-19 and non-COVID-19) during the pandemic timeframe compared to non-pandemic times., Methods: We searched EMBASE, Cochrane Database of SRs, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (CENTRAL), from inception (1948) to December 31, 2020. We used a two-stage review process to screen/extract data. We assessed risk of bias using Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). We used Critical Appraisal and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology., Results: Of 11,581 citations, 194 studies met eligibility. Of these studies, 31 had mortality comparisons ( n = 433,196,345 participants). Compared to pre-pandemic times, during the COVID-19 pandemic, our meta-analysis demonstrated that COVID-19 mortality had an increased risk difference (RD) of 0.06% (95% CI: 0.06-0.06% p < 0.00001). All-cause mortality also increased [relative risk (RR): 1.53, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.38-1.70, p < 0.00001] alongside non-COVID-19 mortality (RR: 1.18, 1.07-1.30, p < 0.00001). There was "very low" certainty of evidence through GRADE assessment for all outcomes studied, demonstrating the evidence as uncertain., Interpretation: The COVID-19 pandemic may have caused significant increases in all-cause excess mortality, greater than those accounted for by increases due to COVID-19 mortality alone, although the evidence is uncertain., Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#recordDetails], identifier [CRD42020201256]., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Lu, Dhanoa, Cheema, Lewis, Geeraert, Merrick, Vander Leek, Sebastianski, Kula, Chaudhuri, Basmaji, Agrawal, Niven, Fiest, Stelfox, Zuege, Rewa, Bagshaw and Lau.)

Background: The role of remdesivir in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 remains ill-defined. We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis alongside the Canadian Treatments for COVID-19 (CATCO) open-label, randomized clinical trial evaluating remdesivir., Methods: Patients with COVID-19 in Canadian hospitals from Aug. 14, 2020, to Apr. 1, 2021, were randomly assigned to receive remdesivir plus usual care versus usual care alone. Taking a public health care payer's perspective, we collected in-hospital outcomes and health care resource utilization alongside estimated unit costs in 2020 Canadian dollars over a time horizon from randomization to hospital discharge or death. Data from 1281 adults admitted to 52 hospitals in 6 Canadian provinces were analyzed., Results: The total mean cost per patient was $37 918 (standard deviation [SD] $42 413; 95% confidence interval [CI] $34 617 to $41 220) for patients randomly assigned to the remdesivir group and $38 026 (SD $46 021; 95% CI $34 480 to $41 573) for patients receiving usual care (incremental cost -$108 [95% CI -$4953 to $4737], p > 0.9). The difference in proportions of in-hospital deaths between remdesivir and usual care groups was -3.9% (18.7% v. 22.6%, 95% CI -8.3% to 1.0%, p = 0.09). The difference in proportions of incident invasive mechanical ventilation events between groups was -7.0% (8.0% v. 15.0%, 95% CI -10.6% to -3.4%, p = 0.006), whereas the difference in proportions of total mechanical ventilation events between groups was -5.7% (16.4% v. 22.1%, 95% CI -10.0% to -1.4%, p = 0.01). Remdesivir was the dominant intervention (but only marginally less costly, with mildly lower mortality) with an incalculable incremental cost effectiveness ratio; we report results of incremental costs and incremental effects separately. For willingness-to-pay thresholds of $0, $20 000, $50 000 and $100 000 per death averted, a strategy using remdesivir was cost-effective in 60%, 67%, 74% and 79% of simulations, respectively. The remdesivir costs were the fifth highest cost driver, offset by shorter lengths of stay and less mechanical ventilation., Interpretation: From a health care payer perspective, treating patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with remdesivir and usual care appears to be preferrable to treating with usual care alone, albeit with marginal incremental cost and small clinical effects. The added cost of remdesivir was offset by shorter lengths of stay in the intensive care unit and less need for ventilation., Study Registration: ClinicalTrials. gov, no. NCT04330690., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Robert Fowler is the H. Barrie Fairley Professor of Critical Care Medicine at the University Health Network and the University of Toronto Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care Medicine. Robert Fowler declares a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) operating grant. John Conly declares grants from the CIHR, Pfizer and the World Health Organization (WHO). He declares a peer-reviewed research grant on acute and primary care preparedness for COVID-19 in Alberta, Canada; he was a primary local investigator for the STRIVE Staphylococcus aureus vaccine randomized controlled trial in vertebral spinal surgery with instrumentation for which all funding was provided only to the University of Calgary; he was a co-investigator on a WHO-funded study using integrated human factors and ethnography approaches to identify and scale innovative infection prevention and control (IPC) guidance implementation supports in primary care with a focus on low-resource settings and using drone aerial systems to deliver medical supplies and personal protective equipment to remote First Nations communities during the COVID-19 pandemic. John Conly also reports receiving accommodations and airfare from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to attend a meeting in 2019. He is a member and chair of the WHO Infection Prevention and Control Research and Development Expert Group for COVID-19 and a member of the WHO Health Emergencies Programme Ad-hoc COVID-19 IPC Guidance Development Group, both of which provide multidisciplinary advice to the WHO, for which no funding is received and from which no funding recommendations are made for any WHO contracts or grants. He is also a member of the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group. Darrell Tan is supported by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in HIV Prevention and STI Research. Ryan Zarychanski reports grants from the CIHR, the Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, the Thistledown Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. He is a WHO thrombostasis technical advisory member. Ryan Zarychanski is the recipient of the Lyonel G. Israels Research Chair in Hematology at the University of Manitoba. Todd Lee reports a CATCO operating grant from the CIHR as a co–principal investigator and a co-investigator. He reports various operating grants from the CIHR, a technical development grant from the Centre for Aging + Brain Health Innovation and research salary support from the Fonds de recherche du Québec — Santé. He is the co-owner of a company that is bringing Med-Safer to market. Srinivas Murthy is the Innovative Medicines Canada and Health Research Foundation Chair in Pandemic Preparedness Research. Srinivas Murthy reports a grants from the CIHR and Health Research Foundation and Innovative Medicines Canada., (© 2022 CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors.)