Search

Rationale: Dyslipidemia is common in Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA). Postprandial lipidemia (PPL) is a strong marker of cardiovascular risk. Evidence that OSA treatment improves PPL is lacking. Objectives: To investigate the effect of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment on postprandial lipidemia (PPL) in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in the upper moderate or severe range. Methods: In this randomized, placebo-controlled crossover trial, we compared the effects of 2 months each of therapeutic and placebo CPAP on PPL. Measurements and Main Results: PPL was determined from the area under the 24-hour triglyceride concentration curve (TAG-AUC(24)) using seven blood samples drawn across both the wake and sleep periods. Secondary outcomes were the difference in other 24-hour lipid profiles. Thirty-eight eligible patients were randomly assigned to a treatment order and 29 patients completed the trial. CPAP reduced PPL compared with placebo with a mean TAG-AUC(24) difference of -357 mmol/L/d (95% confidence interval [CI], -687.3 to -26.8; P = 0.035). During both the CPAP and placebo studies, TAG levels peaked during both wakefulness (2:00 p.m.) and sleep (3:00 a.m.). Both peaks were lower during CPAP than placebo: 2:00 p.m., -0.49 mmol/L (95% CI, -0.74 to -0.24; P < 0.0005) and 3:00 a.m., -0.40 mmol/L (95% CI, -0.65 to -0.15; P = 0.002). Moreover, mean 24-hour total cholesterol was -0.19 mmol/L lower on CPAP (95% CI, -0.27 to -0.11; P < 0.00001). Conclusions: This randomized trial demonstrated that treatment of severe OSA with CPAP improves postprandial TAG and total cholesterol levels. These effects may reduce the risk for cardiovascular events. The results imply that the association between OSA and cardiovascular disease may, in part, be caused by direct effects on dyslipidemia. Clinical trial registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry at www.anzctr.org.au (ACTRN 12605000066684). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In critical care, the specific, structured approach to patient care known as a "time-limited trial" has been promoted in the literature to help patients, surrogate decision makers, and clinicians navigate consequential decisions about life-sustaining therapy in the face of uncertainty. Despite promotion of the time-limited trial approach, a lack of consensus about its definition and essential elements prevents optimal clinical use and rigorous evaluation of its impact. The objectives of this American Thoracic Society Workshop Committee were to establish a consensus definition of a time-limited trial in critical care, identify the essential elements for conducting a time-limited trial, and prioritize directions for future work. We achieved these objectives through a structured search of the literature, a modified Delphi process with 100 interdisciplinary and interprofessional stakeholders, and iterative committee discussions. We conclude that a time-limited trial for patients with critical illness is a collaborative plan among clinicians and a patient and/or their surrogate decision makers to use life-sustaining therapy for a defined duration, after which the patient's response to therapy informs the decision to continue care directed toward recovery, transition to care focused exclusively on comfort, or extend the trial's duration. The plan's 16 essential elements follow four sequential phases: consider, plan, support, and reassess. We acknowledge considerable gaps in evidence about the impact of time-limited trials and highlight a concern that if inadequately implemented, time-limited trials may perpetuate unintended harm. Future work is needed to better implement this defined, specific approach to care in practice through a person-centered equity lens and to evaluate its impact on patients, surrogates, and clinicians.

Background: Patients with serious respiratory illness and their caregivers suffer considerable burdens, and palliative care is a fundamental right for anyone who needs it. However, the overwhelming majority of patients do not receive timely palliative care before the end of life, despite robust evidence for improved outcomes. Goals: This policy statement by the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and partnering societies advocates for improved integration of high-quality palliative care early in the care continuum for patients with serious respiratory illness and their caregivers and provides clinicians and policymakers with a framework to accomplish this. Methods: An international and interprofessional expert committee, including patients and caregivers, achieved consensus across a diverse working group representing pulmonary-critical care, palliative care, bioethics, health law and policy, geriatrics, nursing, physiotherapy, social work, pharmacy, patient advocacy, psychology, and sociology. Results: The committee developed fundamental values, principles, and policy recommendations for integrating palliative care in serious respiratory illness care across seven domains: 1 ) delivery models, 2 ) comprehensive symptom assessment and management, 3 ) advance care planning and goals of care discussions, 4 ) caregiver support, 5 ) health disparities, 6 ) mass casualty events and emergency preparedness, and 7 ) research priorities. The recommendations encourage timely integration of palliative care, promote innovative primary and secondary or specialist palliative care delivery models, and advocate for research and policy initiatives to improve the availability and quality of palliative care for patients and their caregivers. Conclusions: This multisociety policy statement establishes a framework for early palliative care in serious respiratory illness and provides guidance for pulmonary-critical care clinicians and policymakers for its proactive integration.

Rationale: Invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) may be burdensome for persons with advanced dementia. Research has shown that IMV use in persons with dementia has increased in the United States, Spain, and Canada. Objectives: To compare the outcomes and healthcare costs among hospitalized patients with advanced dementia treated with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) versus IMV. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among hospitalized patients aged 66 years and older with pneumonia, or septicemia with pneumonia, treated with either NIV or IMV between 2015 and 2017. Persons were included if they had Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments between 1 and 120 days before hospitalization indicating that they had advanced dementia with four or more impairments in activities of daily living. Propensity-matched analysis was performed using clinical information from the MDS, Chronic Condition Warehouse indicators of chronic disease, and prior use measures. Main outcome measures were survival and healthcare costs up to 1 year after discharge. Results: Among 27,483 hospitalizations between 2015 and 2017, IMV was used in 12.5% and NIV in 8.2%. A propensity-matched model comparing IMV versus NIV using clinical data from the MDS, Chronic Condition Warehouse indicators of chronic diseases, and prior use revealed matches for 96.3% of hospitalizations with the use of IMV. NIV matched cases had a higher 30-day mortality rate compared with IMV cases (58.7% vs. 51.9%, P  ⩽ 0.001), but this survival benefit did not persist, as 1-year mortality was slightly higher among subjects with IMV compared with those with NIV (86.5% vs. 85.9%, P  > 0.05). One-year healthcare costs after matching were higher among those treated with IMV compared with NIV (mean, $57,122 vs. $33,696; P  < 0.001). Conclusions: Among patients with advanced dementia hospitalized with pneumonia or septicemia with pneumonia, improvement in 30-day survival for those treated with IMV compared with NIV must be weighed against lack of 1-year survival benefit and substantially higher costs.

Rationale: Because of improvements in screening, there is an increasing number of patients with early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who are making treatment decisions. Objectives: Among patients with suspected stage I NSCLC, we evaluated longitudinal patient-centered outcomes (PCOs) and the association of changes in PCOs with treatment modality, stereotactic body radiotherapy (SBRT) compared with surgical resection. Methods: We conducted a multisite, prospective, observational cohort study at seven medical institutions. We evaluated minimum clinically important differences of PCOs at four time points (during treatment, 4-6 wk after treatment, 6 mo after treatment, and 12 mo after treatment) compared with pretreatment values using validated instruments. We used adjusted linear mixed models to examine whether the association between treatment and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer global and physical quality-of-life (QOL) scales differed over time. Results: We included 127 individuals with stage I NSCLC (53 surgery, 74 SBRT). At 12 months, approximately 30% of patients remaining in each group demonstrated a clinical deterioration on global QOL from baseline. There was a significant difference in slopes between treatment groups on global QOL (-12.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], -13.34 to -12.37) and physical QOL (-28.71; 95% CI, -29.13 to -28.29) between baseline and during treatment, with the steeper decline observed among those who underwent surgery. Differences in slopes between treatment groups were not significant at all other time points. Conclusions: Approximately 30% of patients with stage I NSCLC have a clinically significant decrease in QOL 1 year after SBRT or surgical resection. Surgical resection was associated with steeper declines in QOL immediately after treatment compared with SBRT; however, these declines were not lasting and resolved within a year for most patients. Our results may facilitate treatment option discussions for patients receiving treatment for early-stage NSCLC.

Rationale: Gender gaps exist in academic leadership positions in critical care. Peer-reviewed publications are crucial to career advancement, and yet little is known regarding gender differences in authorship of critical care research. Objectives: To evaluate gender differences in authorship of critical care literature. Methods: We used a validated database of author gender to analyze authorship of critical care articles indexed in PubMed between 2008 and 2018 in 40 frequently cited journals. High-impact journals were defined as those in the top 5% of all journals. We used mixed-effects logistic regression to evaluate the association of senior author gender with first and middle author gender, as well as association of first author gender with journal impact factor. Measurements and Main Results: Among 18,483 studies, 30.8% had female first authors, and 19.5% had female senior authors. Female authorship rose slightly over the last decade (average annual increases of 0.44% [ P  < 0.01] and 0.51% [ P  < 0.01] for female first and senior authors, respectively). When the senior author was female, the odds of female coauthorship rose substantially (first author adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.71-2.17; middle author aOR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.29-1.69). Female first authors had higher odds than men of publishing in lower-impact journals (aOR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.16-1.45). Conclusions: Women comprise less than one-third of first authors and one-fourth of senior authors of critical care research, with minimal increase over the past decade. When the senior author was female, the odds of female coauthorship rose substantially. However, female first authors tend to publish in lower-impact journals. These findings may help explain the underrepresentation of women in critical care academic leadership positions and identify targets for improvement.

Patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) represents a paradigm shift in research methods aimed to create the body of evidence that supports clinical practice and informs health care decisions. PCOR integrates patients and other key stakeholders including family members, policy makers, clinicians, and patient advocates and advocacy groups as research partners throughout all stages of the research process. The importance of PCOR has received increased recognition, yet there is little evidence available to help guide researchers interested in the design and conduct of PCOR. In May 2014, we convened a workshop to identify key issues related to designing, conducting, and disseminating findings from PCOR studies. Workshop participants included a diverse group of patients, patient advocates, clinicians (physicians, nurses, psychologists, and advanced practice providers), researchers, administrators, and funders within and beyond the pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine communities. Participants identified important issues and considerations to address when undertaking PCOR. In this report, we summarize the results of this workshop to inform members of the pulmonary, sleep, and critical care community interested in participating in PCOR. Key findings include the following: 1) requirements for research to be considered PCOR; 2) the potential significant impact of PCOR on patients, clinicians, and researchers; 3) guiding principles and practical strategies to form successful patient-centered research partnerships, conduct PCOR, and disseminate study results to a broad audience of stakeholders; 4) benefits and challenges of PCOR for researchers; and 5) resources available within the American Thoracic Society to help with the conduct of PCOR.

Rationale: Patient participation in medical decision-making is widely advocated, but outcomes are inconsistent., Objectives: We examined the associations between medical decision-making roles, and patients' perceptions of their care and knowledge while undergoing pulmonary nodule surveillance., Methods: The study setting was an academically affiliated Veterans Affairs hospital network in which 121 participants had 319 decision-making encounters. The Control Preferences Scale was used to assess patients' decision-making roles. Associations between decision-making, including role concordance (i.e., agreement between patients' preferred and actual roles), shared decision-making (SDM), and perceptions of care and knowledge, were assessed using logistic regression and generalized estimating equations., Results: Participants had a preferred role in 98% of encounters, and most desired an active role (shared or patient controlled). For some encounters (36%), patients did not report their actual decision-making role, because they did not know what their role was. Role concordance and SDM occurred in 56% and 26% of encounters, respectively. Role concordance was associated with greater satisfaction with medical care (adjusted odds ratio [Adj-OR], 5.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.68-17.26), higher quality of patient-reported care (Adj-OR, 2.86; 95% CI, 1.31-6.27), and more disagreement that care could be better (Adj-OR, 2.16; 95% CI, 1.12-4.16). Role concordance was not associated with improved pulmonary nodule knowledge with respect to lung cancer risk (Adj-OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.63-2.00) or nodule information received (Adj-OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.31-4.13). SDM was not associated with perceptions of care or knowledge., Conclusions: Among patients undergoing longitudinal nodule surveillance, a majority had a preference for having active roles in decision-making. Interestingly, during some encounters, patients did not know what their role was or that a decision was being made. Role concordance was associated with greater patient-reported satisfaction and quality of medical care, but not with improved knowledge. Patient participation in decision-making may influence perceptions of care; however, clinicians may need to focus on other communication strategies or domains to improve patient knowledge and health outcomes.

Most major decisions in the intensive care unit (ICU) regarding goals of care are shared by clinicians and someone other than the patient. Multicenter clinical trials focusing on improved communication between clinicians and these surrogate decision makers have not reported consistently improved outcomes. We suggest that acquired maladaptive reasoning may contribute importantly to failure of the intervention strategies tested to date. Surrogate decision makers often suffer significant psychological morbidity in the form of stress, anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Family members in the ICU also suffer cognitive blunting and sleep deprivation. Their decision-making abilities are eroded by anticipatory grief and cognitive biases, while personal and family conflicts further impact their decision making. We propose recognizing a family ICU syndrome to describe the morbidity and associated decision-making impairment experienced by many family members of patients with acute critical illness (in the ICU) and chronic critical illness (in the long-term, acute care hospital). Research rigorously using models of compromised decision making may help elucidate both mechanisms of impairment and targets for intervention. Better quantifying compromised decision making and its relationship to poor outcomes will allow us to formulate and advance useful techniques. The use of decision aids and improving ICU design may provide benefit now and in the near future. In measuring interventions targeting cognitive barriers, clinically significant outcomes, such as time to decision, should be considered. Statistical approaches, such as survival models and rank statistic testing, will increase our power to detect differences in our interventions.