Search

Clinical deterioration of hospitalized patients is common and can lead to critical illness and death. Rapid response teams (RRTs) assess and treat high-risk patients with signs of clinical deterioration to prevent further worsening and subsequent adverse outcomes. Whether activation of the RRT early in the course of clinical deterioration impacts outcomes, however, remains unclear. We sought to characterize the relationship between increasing time to RRT activation after physiologic deterioration and short-term patient outcomes., Design: Retrospective multicenter cohort study., Setting: Three academic hospitals in Pennsylvania., Patients: We included the RRT activation of a hospitalization for non-ICU inpatients greater than or equal to 18 years old., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: The primary exposure was time to RRT activation after physiologic deterioration. We selected four Cardiac Arrest Risk Triage (CART) score thresholds a priori from which to measure time to RRT activation (CART score ≥ 12, ≥ 16, ≥ 20, and ≥ 24). The primary outcome was 7-day mortality-death or discharge to hospice care within 7 days of RRT activation. For each CART threshold, we modeled the association of time to RRT activation duration with 7-day mortality using multivariable fractional polynomial regression. Increased time from clinical decompensation to RRT activation was associated with higher risk of 7-day mortality. This relationship was nonlinear, with odds of mortality increasing rapidly as time to RRT activation increased from 0 to 4 hours and then plateauing. This pattern was observed across several thresholds of physiologic derangement., Conclusions: Increasing time to RRT activation was associated in a nonlinear fashion with increased 7-day mortality. This relationship appeared most marked when using a CART score greater than 20 threshold from which to measure time to RRT activation. We suggest that these empirical findings could be used to inform RRT delay definitions in further studies to determine the clinical impact of interventions focused on timely RRT activation., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)

Objectives: Physiological decompensation of hospitalized patients is common and is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. Research surrounding patient decompensation has been hampered by the absence of a robust definition of decompensation and lack of standardized clinical criteria with which to identify patients who have decompensated. We aimed to: 1) develop a consensus definition of physiological decompensation and 2) to develop clinical criteria to identify patients who have decompensated., Design: We utilized a three-phase, modified electronic Delphi (eDelphi) process, followed by a discussion round to generate consensus on the definition of physiological decompensation and on criteria to identify decompensation. We then validated the criteria using a retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted to the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania., Setting: Quaternary academic medical center., Patients: Adult patients admitted to the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania who had triggered a rapid response team (RRT) response between January 1, 2019, and December 31, 2020., Interventions: None., Measurements and Main Results: Sixty-nine experts participated in the eDelphi. Participation was high across the three survey rounds (first round: 93%, second round: 94%, and third round: 98%). The expert panel arrived at a consensus definition of physiological decompensation, "An acute worsening of a patient's clinical status that poses a substantial increase to an individual's short-term risk of death or serious harm." Consensus was also reached on criteria for physiological decompensation. Invasive mechanical ventilation, severe hypoxemia, and use of vasopressor or inotrope medication were bundled as criteria for our novel decompensation metric: the adult inpatient decompensation event (AIDE). Patients who met greater than one AIDE criteria within 24 hours of an RRT call had increased adjusted odds of 7-day mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 4.1 [95% CI, 2.5-6.7]) and intensive care unit transfer (aOR, 20.6 [95% CI, 14.2-30.0])., Conclusions: Through the eDelphi process, we have reached a consensus definition of physiological decompensation and proposed clinical criteria with which to identify patients who have decompensated using data easily available from the electronic medical record, the AIDE criteria., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the Society of Critical Care Medicine.)

Aim: Determine changes in rapid response team (RRT) activations and describe institutional adaptations made during a surge in hospitalizations for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)., Methods: Using prospectively collected data, we compared characteristics of RRT calls at our academic hospital from March 7 through May 31, 2020 (COVID-19 era) versus those from January 1 through March 6, 2020 (pre-COVID-19 era). We used negative binomial regression to test differences in RRT activation rates normalized to floor (non-ICU) inpatient census between pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 eras, including the sub-era of rapid COVID-19 census surge and plateau (March 28 through May 2, 2020)., Results: RRT activations for respiratory distress rose substantially during the rapid COVID-19 surge and plateau (2.38 (95% CI 1.39-3.36) activations per 1000 floor patient-days v. 1.27 (0.82-1.71) during the pre-COVID-19 era; p = 0.02); all-cause RRT rates were not significantly different (5.40 (95% CI 3.94-6.85) v. 4.83 (3.86-5.80) activations per 1000 floor patient-days, respectively; p = 0.52). Throughout the COVID-19 era, respiratory distress accounted for a higher percentage of RRT activations in COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 patients (57% vs. 28%, respectively; p = 0.001). During the surge, we adapted RRT guidelines to reduce in-room personnel and standardize personal protective equipment based on COVID-19 status and risk to providers, created decision-support pathways for respiratory emergencies that accounted for COVID-19 status uncertainty, and expanded critical care consultative support to floor teams., Conclusion: Increased frequency and complexity of RRT activations for respiratory distress during the COVID-19 surge prompted the creation of clinical tools and strategies that could be applied to other hospitals., (© 2021 The Authors.)

Background: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused over 1 200 000 deaths worldwide as of November 2020. However, little is known about the clinical outcomes among hospitalized patients with active COVID-19 after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA)., Aim: We aimed to characterize outcomes from IHCA in patients with COVID-19 and to identify patient- and hospital-level variables associated with 30-day survival., Methods: We conducted a multicentre retrospective cohort study across 11 academic medical centres in the U.S. Adult patients who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation and/or defibrillation for IHCA between March 1, 2020 and May 31, 2020 who had a documented positive test for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 were included. The primary outcome was 30-day survival after IHCA., Results: There were 260 IHCAs among COVID-19 patients during the study period. The median age was 69 years (interquartile range 60-77), 71.5% were male, 49.6% were White, 16.9% were Black, and 16.2% were Hispanic. The most common presenting rhythms were pulseless electrical activity (45.0%) and asystole (44.6%). ROSC occurred in 58 patients (22.3%), 31 (11.9%) survived to hospital discharge, and 32 (12.3%) survived to 30 days. Rates of ROSC and 30-day survival in the two hospitals with the highest volume of IHCA over the study period compared to the remaining hospitals were considerably lower (10.8% vs. 64.3% and 5.9% vs. 35.7% respectively, p < 0.001 for both)., Conclusions: We found rates of ROSC and 30-day survival of 22.3% and 12.3% respectively. There were large variations in centre-level outcomes, which may explain the poor survival in prior studies., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)