Search

OBJECTIVES: Studies have suggested intrapulmonary shunts may contribute to hypoxemia in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with worse associated outcomes. We evaluated the presence of right-to-left (R-L) shunts in COVID-19 and non-COVID ARDS patients using a comprehensive hypoxemia workup for shunt etiology and associations with mortality. DESIGN: Prospective, observational cohort study. SETTING: Four tertiary hospitals in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. PATIENTS: Adult critically ill, mechanically ventilated, ICU patients admitted with COVID-19 or non-COVID (November 16, 2020, to September 1, 2021). INTERVENTIONS: Agitated-saline bubble studies with transthoracic echocardiography/transcranial Doppler ± transesophageal echocardiography assessed for R-L shunts presence. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Primary outcomes were shunt frequency and association with hospital mortality. Logistic regression analysis was used for adjustment. The study enrolled 226 patients (182 COVID-19 vs 42 non-COVID). Median age was 58 years (interquartile range [IQR], 47–67 yr) and Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores of 30 (IQR, 21–36). In COVID-19 patients, the frequency of R-L shunt was 31 of 182 COVID patients (17.0%) versus 10 of 44 non-COVID patients (22.7%), with no difference detected in shunt rates (risk difference [RD], –5.7%; 95% CI, –18.4 to 7.0; p = 0.38). In the COVID-19 group, hospital mortality was higher for those with R-L shunt compared with those without (54.8% vs 35.8%; RD, 19.0%; 95% CI, 0.1–37.9; p = 0.05). This did not persist at 90-day mortality nor after adjustment with regression. CONCLUSIONS: There was no evidence of increased R-L shunt rates in COVID-19 compared with non-COVID controls. R-L shunt was associated with increased in-hospital mortality for COVID-19 patients, but this did not persist at 90-day mortality or after adjusting using logistic regression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

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]

Objectives: Evaluate outcomes (mortality, morbidity, unplanned return visits) of patients who are discharged directly to home from the ICU.Design: Prospective cohort study.Setting: Two tertiary care medical-surgical-trauma ICUs at Canadian hospitals over 1 year (February 2016-2017).Subjects: All adult patients who were either discharged directly to home (Recruited and Nonrecruited cohorts) from ICU or discharged home within 24 hours after ward transfer (Ward Transfer cohort).Interventions: Direct discharge home from ICU or discharge home within 24 hours of ward transfer from ICU.Measurements and Main Results: One-hundred ninety-eight patients were in the study, 100 patients in the discharged directly to home Recruited arm, 37 patients in the discharged directly to home Nonrecruited arm, and 61 patients in the Ward cohort. All three patient cohorts had 0% mortality at 8 weeks post discharge. The unplanned return visit rate for the Recruited cohort was 24% (emergency department 18%, Ward 4%, ICU 1%), whereas the rate for the Nonrecruited cohort was 52% (emergency department 34%, Ward 14%, ICU 3%) and the Ward Transfer cohort was 46% (emergency department 17%, Ward 26%, ICU 3%) (p = 0.005). No home support was available for 7% of the discharged directly to home Recruited cohort. Twenty-four percent of patients had funded home care nursing, but the majority of patients (81%) relied on help from friends/family.Conclusions: Recruited discharged directly to home patients experienced very good 8-week postdischarge outcomes with 0% mortality and a low rate of ICU readmission (1%) or ward readmission (4%), but not an insignificant rate of emergency department visits (18%). Recruited discharged directly to home patients had better outcomes compared with nonrecruited discharged directly to home patients and patients transferred briefly to the ward prior to discharge home. Future work should include derivation of a clinical prediction tool to identify patient characteristics that make discharged directly to home safe and a randomized control trial to compare discharged directly to home with short stay ward transfers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To summarize the efficacy of midodrine as an adjunctive therapy in critically ill patients. Safety of midodrine was assessed as a secondary outcome., Data Sources: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis using a peer-reviewed search strategy combining the themes of vasopressor-dependent shock, critical care, and midodrine and including MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane library databases until September 14, 2023., Study Selection: We included studies if they: 1) included patients with vasopressor-dependent shock, 2) were performed in the ICU, 3) evaluated oral midodrine therapy compared with placebo or usual care, and 4) evaluated one of the outcomes of interest., Data Extraction: We extracted data independently in duplicate using standardized data abstraction forms, which included the following specific variables: patient characteristics, age, sex, type of ICU, etiology of shock, number of patients, study inclusion and exclusion criteria, and geographical location. We also captured the type, dose, and duration of IV vasopressors, any cointervention used, and outcome data., Data Synthesis: We identified seven randomized controlled trials (six included in the pooled analysis) and ten observational studies (four included in the pooled analysis) that met eligibility criteria. Adjunctive midodrine may decrease ICU length of stay (LOS) and there is low certainty of effect on hospital LOS. Midodrine may decrease IV vasopressor support duration, ICU mortality, and hospital mortality. Pooled observational data was based on very low certainty data for all outcomes of interest. The trial sequential analysis-informed required sample size was not met for ICU LOS or IV vasopressor duration and this contributed to Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations assessments of imprecision for both outcomes., Conclusions: Adjunctive midodrine may decrease ICU LOS, duration of IV vasopressor therapy, and mortality in critically ill patients. However, required sample sizes was not met to determine our outcomes of interest. Midodrine may increase risk of bradycardia. While midodrine may provide benefit for patient-centered outcomes, due to increased risk of adverse events, further large-scale studies are needed to inform and guide its routine use in the ICU., Competing Interests: Mr. Kilcommons and Dr. Rewa disclosed the off-label product use of midodrine used for orthostatic hypotension and intradialytic hypotension. Dr. Bagshaw received funding from Baxter, Novartis, Sea Star Medical, BioPorto, and bioMerieux. The remaining authors have disclosed that they do not have any potential conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine and Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)