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]

Study Objective: We assess the diagnostic accuracy of plasma neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) to predict acute kidney injury in emergency department (ED) patients with suspected sepsis. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of a prospective observational study of a convenience sample of patients from 10 academic medical center EDs. Inclusion criteria were adult patients aged 18 years or older, with suspected infection or a serum lactate level greater than 2.5 mmol/L; 2 or more systemic inflammatory response syndrome criteria; and a subsequent serum creatinine level obtained within 12 to 72 hours of enrollment. Exclusion criteria were pregnancy, do-not-resuscitate status, cardiac arrest, or dialysis dependency. NGAL was measured in plasma collected at ED presentation. Acute kidney injury was defined as an increase in serum creatinine measurement of greater than 0.5 mg/dL during 72 hours. Results: There were 661 patient enrolled, with 24 cases (3.6%) of acute kidney injury that developed within 72 hours after ED presentation. Median plasma NGAL levels were 134 ng/mL (interquartile range 57 to 277 ng/mL) in patients without acute kidney injury and 456 ng/mL (interquartile range 296 to 727 ng/mL) in patients with acute kidney injury. Plasma NGAL concentrations of greater than 150 ng/mL were 96% sensitive (95% confidence interval [CI] 79% to 100%) and 51% (95% CI 47% to 55%) specific for acute kidney injury. In comparison, to achieve equivalent sensitivity with initial serum creatinine level at ED presentation required a cutoff of 0.7 mg/dL and resulted in specificity of 17% (95% CI 14% to 20%). Conclusion: In this preliminary investigation, increased plasma NGAL concentrations measured on presentation to the ED in patients with suspected sepsis were associated with the development of acute kidney injury. Our findings support NGAL as a promising new biomarker for acute kidney injury; however, further research is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Since 2003, the Society of Chest Pain Centers (SCPC) has provided hospital accreditation for acute coronary syndrome care processes. Our objective is to evaluate the association between SCPC accreditation and adherence to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) evidence-based guidelines for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI). The secondary objective is to describe the clinical outcomes and the association with accreditation. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of data from patients with NSTEMI enrolled in the Can Rapid Risk Stratification of Unstable Angina Patients Suppress Adverse Outcomes With Early Implementation of the ACC/AHA Guidelines (CRUSADE) quality improvement initiative in 2005. The analysis explored differences between SCPC-accredited and nonaccredited hospitals in evidence-based therapy given within the first 24 hours (including aspirin, beta-blocker, glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, heparin, and ECG within 10 minutes). RESULTS: Of 33,238 patients treated at 21 accredited hospitals and 323 nonaccredited hospitals, those at SCPC-accredited centers (n=3,059) were more likely to receive aspirin (98.1% versus 95.8%; odds ratio [OR] 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06 to 2.83) and beta-blockers (93.4% versus 90.6%; OR 1.68; 95% CI 1.04 to 2.70) within 24 hours than patients at non-SCPC-accredited centers (n=30,179). No difference was observed in obtaining a timely ECG (40.4% versus 35.2%; OR 1.28; 95% CI 0.98 to 1.67), administering a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor (OR 1.30; 95% CI 0.93 to 1.80), or administering heparin (OR 1.12; 95% CI 0.74 to 1.70). Also, there was no significant difference in risk-adjusted mortality for patients treated at SCPC hospitals versus nonaccredited hospitals (3.4% versus 3.5%; adjusted OR 1.17; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.55). CONCLUSION: SCPC-accredited hospitals had higher NSTEMI ACC/AHA evidence-based guideline adherence in the first 24 hours of care on 2 of the 5 measures. No difference in outcomes was observed. Further studies are needed to better understand the association between SCPC accreditation and improved care for patients with acute coronary syndrome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Although regionalized care for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) has improved the use of timely reperfusion therapy, its effect on patient outcomes has been difficult to assess. Our objective is to explore temporal trends in STEMI mortality with the implementation of a statewide STEMI regionalization program (Reperfusion of Acute Myocardial Infarction in North Carolina Emergency Departments [RACE]). METHODS: We compared trends in inpatient mortality among STEMI patients treated at North Carolina (NC) hospitals participating in the RACE program, relative to those not participating, using state inpatient claims data. Using Medicare claims data, we compared trends in 30-day mortality among Medicare beneficiaries in NC with those nationally. Logistic models with random effects were used to evaluate the association of the program with mortality. RESULTS: From 2005 to 2007, inpatient mortality for 6,565 STEMI patients treated at NC hospitals participating in RACE decreased from 11.6% to 10.1% (risk difference -1.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -3.0% to 0.04%), whereas inpatient mortality among 5,850 STEMI patients treated at NC nonparticipating hospitals decreased from 10.2% to 8.6% (risk difference -1.6%; 95% CI -3.1% to 0.10%); (adjusted odds ratio 1.28; 95% CI 0.88 to 1.85 for temporal differences between groups). During the same period, 30-day STEMI mortality among Medicare beneficiaries decreased from 22.7% to 21.4% in NC (risk difference -1.28%; 95% CI -3.60% to 1.03%) and from 22.3% to 21.6% nationally (risk difference -0.71%, 95% CI -1.13% to -0.29%; adjusted odds ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.15 for temporal differences between regions). CONCLUSION: The initiation of a statewide STEMI collaborative care model was associated with a reduction in mortality rates according to claims data, yet these changes were similar to those seen nationally. Further study is needed to evaluate regionalized systems of STEMI care and to determine the role of claims data to evaluate population-based STEMI outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]