Jim Kling

SAN DIEGO – A simplified version of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) criteria, known as eSOFA, has the potential to make it easier for hospitals to benchmark sepsis outcomes and quality of care, and could propel new sepsis research. The new method replaces some of SOFA’s more subjective criteria with objective measures.

eSOFA relies on electronic health records to reduce reliance on administrative records, which suffer from cross-hospital variability in diagnosis and coding practices, as well as changes in these practices over time. The diagnosis of sepsis itself is also highly subjective. Instead, eSOFA determines dysfunction in six organ systems, indicated by use of vasopressors and mechanical ventilation, and the presence of abnormal laboratory values.

“The SOFA score includes measures like the Glasgow Coma Scale, which undoubtedly at the bedside is a very important clinical sign, but when trying to implement something that is objective for purposes of retrospective case counting and standardization, it can be problematic. The measures we chose [for eSOFA] are concrete, important maneuvers that were initiated by clinicians,” Chanu Rhee, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Rhee is assistant professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. He presented the results of the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine, and the work was simultaneously published online in Critical Care Medicine.

Key elements of SOFA that pose challenges for administrative data include: PaO₂/FiO₂, which are not routinely measured, and can be difficult to assign to arterial or venous samples; inconsistency in blood pressure and transient increases in vasopressor dose; the subjectivity of the Glasgow Coma Scale, which is also difficult to assess in sedated patients; and inconsistent urine output.

eSOFA introduced new measures for various organ functions, including cardiovascular (vasopressor initiation), pulmonary (mechanical ventilation initiation), renal (doubling of creatinine levels or a 50% or greater decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate, compared with baseline), hepatic (bilirubin levels greater than or equal to 2.0 mg/dL and at least doubled from baseline), coagulation (platelet count less than 100 cells/mcL and at least a 50% decrease from a baseline of at least 100 cells/mcL), and neurological (lactate greater than or equal to 2.0 mmol/L).

“[eSOFA] opens a window into inter-facility comparisons that has not been possible to do. It’s really critical to ask, ‘How am I doing compared to my peer institutions?’ If you’re doing worse, you can look at the whole spectrum of things to try to drive improvements in care,” said Dr. Rhee.

The new tool isn’t just limited to quality improvement research. Shaeesta Khan, MD, assistant professor of critical care medicine at Geisinger Medical Center,Danville, Pa., has found eSOFA to be useful in her research into how genetic polymorphisms play a role in sepsis outcomes. Geisinger has a large population of patients with completed whole genome sequencing, and Dr. Khan began by trying to glean sepsis outcomes from administrative data.

“I explained SOFA scores to our data broker, and he pulled up 3,000 patients and gave everybody a SOFA score based on the algorithm he created, and it was all over the chart. Once I started doing chart review and phenotype verification, it was just a nightmare,” Dr. Khan said in an interview.

After struggling with the project, one of her mentors put her in touch with one of Dr. Rhee’s colleagues, and she asked the data broker to modify the eSOFA algorithm to fit her specific criteria. “It was a blessing,” she said.

Now, she has data from 5,000 patients with sepsis and sequenced DNA, and can begin comparing outcomes and genetic variants. About 20 candidate genes for sepsis outcomes have been identified to date, but she has a particular interest in PCSK9, which is an innate immune system regulator. She hopes to present results at CCC49 in 2020.
 

Validating mortality prediction

The researchers compared eSOFA and SOFA in a sample from 111 U.S. acute care hospitals to see if eSOFA had a comparable predictive validity for mortality. The analysis included 942,360 adults seen between 2013 and 2015. A total of 11.1% (104,903) had a presumed serious infection based on a blood culture order and at least 4 consecutive days of antibiotic use.

The analysis showed that 6.1% of those with infections had a sepsis event based on at least a 2-point increase in SOFA score from baseline (Sepsis-3 criteria), compared with 4.4% identified by at least a 1-point increase in eSOFA score. A total of 34,174 patients (3.6%) overlapped between SOFA and eSOFA, which represented good agreement (Cronbach’s alpha, 0.81). Compared with SOFA/Sepsis-3, eSOFA had a sensitivity of 60%, and a positive predictive value of 82%.

Patients identified by eSOFA were slightly more ill, with more requiring ICU admission (41% vs. 35%), and a greater frequency of in-hospital mortality (17% vs. 14%). Those patients who were identified by SOFA/Sepsis-3, but missed by eSOFA, had an overall lower mortality (6%).

There was a similar risk of mortality across deciles between SOFA- and eSOFA-identified sepsis patients. In an independent analysis of four hospitals from the Emory system, the area under the receiver operating characteristics was 0.77 for eSOFA and 0.76 for SOFA (P less than .001).

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded the study. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Khan have no relevant financial conflicts.
 

SOURCE: Rhee C et al. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(3):307-14.

SAN DIEGO – A simplified version of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) criteria, known as eSOFA, has the potential to make it easier for hospitals to benchmark sepsis outcomes and quality of care, and could propel new sepsis research. The new method replaces some of SOFA’s more subjective criteria with objective measures.

eSOFA relies on electronic health records to reduce reliance on administrative records, which suffer from cross-hospital variability in diagnosis and coding practices, as well as changes in these practices over time. The diagnosis of sepsis itself is also highly subjective. Instead, eSOFA determines dysfunction in six organ systems, indicated by use of vasopressors and mechanical ventilation, and the presence of abnormal laboratory values.

“The SOFA score includes measures like the Glasgow Coma Scale, which undoubtedly at the bedside is a very important clinical sign, but when trying to implement something that is objective for purposes of retrospective case counting and standardization, it can be problematic. The measures we chose [for eSOFA] are concrete, important maneuvers that were initiated by clinicians,” Chanu Rhee, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Rhee is assistant professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. He presented the results of the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine, and the work was simultaneously published online in Critical Care Medicine.

Key elements of SOFA that pose challenges for administrative data include: PaO₂/FiO₂, which are not routinely measured, and can be difficult to assign to arterial or venous samples; inconsistency in blood pressure and transient increases in vasopressor dose; the subjectivity of the Glasgow Coma Scale, which is also difficult to assess in sedated patients; and inconsistent urine output.

eSOFA introduced new measures for various organ functions, including cardiovascular (vasopressor initiation), pulmonary (mechanical ventilation initiation), renal (doubling of creatinine levels or a 50% or greater decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate, compared with baseline), hepatic (bilirubin levels greater than or equal to 2.0 mg/dL and at least doubled from baseline), coagulation (platelet count less than 100 cells/mcL and at least a 50% decrease from a baseline of at least 100 cells/mcL), and neurological (lactate greater than or equal to 2.0 mmol/L).

“[eSOFA] opens a window into inter-facility comparisons that has not been possible to do. It’s really critical to ask, ‘How am I doing compared to my peer institutions?’ If you’re doing worse, you can look at the whole spectrum of things to try to drive improvements in care,” said Dr. Rhee.

The new tool isn’t just limited to quality improvement research. Shaeesta Khan, MD, assistant professor of critical care medicine at Geisinger Medical Center,Danville, Pa., has found eSOFA to be useful in her research into how genetic polymorphisms play a role in sepsis outcomes. Geisinger has a large population of patients with completed whole genome sequencing, and Dr. Khan began by trying to glean sepsis outcomes from administrative data.

“I explained SOFA scores to our data broker, and he pulled up 3,000 patients and gave everybody a SOFA score based on the algorithm he created, and it was all over the chart. Once I started doing chart review and phenotype verification, it was just a nightmare,” Dr. Khan said in an interview.

After struggling with the project, one of her mentors put her in touch with one of Dr. Rhee’s colleagues, and she asked the data broker to modify the eSOFA algorithm to fit her specific criteria. “It was a blessing,” she said.

Now, she has data from 5,000 patients with sepsis and sequenced DNA, and can begin comparing outcomes and genetic variants. About 20 candidate genes for sepsis outcomes have been identified to date, but she has a particular interest in PCSK9, which is an innate immune system regulator. She hopes to present results at CCC49 in 2020.
 

Validating mortality prediction

The researchers compared eSOFA and SOFA in a sample from 111 U.S. acute care hospitals to see if eSOFA had a comparable predictive validity for mortality. The analysis included 942,360 adults seen between 2013 and 2015. A total of 11.1% (104,903) had a presumed serious infection based on a blood culture order and at least 4 consecutive days of antibiotic use.

The analysis showed that 6.1% of those with infections had a sepsis event based on at least a 2-point increase in SOFA score from baseline (Sepsis-3 criteria), compared with 4.4% identified by at least a 1-point increase in eSOFA score. A total of 34,174 patients (3.6%) overlapped between SOFA and eSOFA, which represented good agreement (Cronbach’s alpha, 0.81). Compared with SOFA/Sepsis-3, eSOFA had a sensitivity of 60%, and a positive predictive value of 82%.

Patients identified by eSOFA were slightly more ill, with more requiring ICU admission (41% vs. 35%), and a greater frequency of in-hospital mortality (17% vs. 14%). Those patients who were identified by SOFA/Sepsis-3, but missed by eSOFA, had an overall lower mortality (6%).

There was a similar risk of mortality across deciles between SOFA- and eSOFA-identified sepsis patients. In an independent analysis of four hospitals from the Emory system, the area under the receiver operating characteristics was 0.77 for eSOFA and 0.76 for SOFA (P less than .001).

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded the study. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Khan have no relevant financial conflicts.
 

SOURCE: Rhee C et al. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(3):307-14.

SAN DIEGO – A simplified version of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) criteria, known as eSOFA, has the potential to make it easier for hospitals to benchmark sepsis outcomes and quality of care, and could propel new sepsis research. The new method replaces some of SOFA’s more subjective criteria with objective measures.

eSOFA relies on electronic health records to reduce reliance on administrative records, which suffer from cross-hospital variability in diagnosis and coding practices, as well as changes in these practices over time. The diagnosis of sepsis itself is also highly subjective. Instead, eSOFA determines dysfunction in six organ systems, indicated by use of vasopressors and mechanical ventilation, and the presence of abnormal laboratory values.

“The SOFA score includes measures like the Glasgow Coma Scale, which undoubtedly at the bedside is a very important clinical sign, but when trying to implement something that is objective for purposes of retrospective case counting and standardization, it can be problematic. The measures we chose [for eSOFA] are concrete, important maneuvers that were initiated by clinicians,” Chanu Rhee, MD, said in an interview.

Dr. Rhee is assistant professor of population medicine at Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston. He presented the results of the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine, and the work was simultaneously published online in Critical Care Medicine.

Key elements of SOFA that pose challenges for administrative data include: PaO₂/FiO₂, which are not routinely measured, and can be difficult to assign to arterial or venous samples; inconsistency in blood pressure and transient increases in vasopressor dose; the subjectivity of the Glasgow Coma Scale, which is also difficult to assess in sedated patients; and inconsistent urine output.

eSOFA introduced new measures for various organ functions, including cardiovascular (vasopressor initiation), pulmonary (mechanical ventilation initiation), renal (doubling of creatinine levels or a 50% or greater decrease in estimated glomerular filtration rate, compared with baseline), hepatic (bilirubin levels greater than or equal to 2.0 mg/dL and at least doubled from baseline), coagulation (platelet count less than 100 cells/mcL and at least a 50% decrease from a baseline of at least 100 cells/mcL), and neurological (lactate greater than or equal to 2.0 mmol/L).

“[eSOFA] opens a window into inter-facility comparisons that has not been possible to do. It’s really critical to ask, ‘How am I doing compared to my peer institutions?’ If you’re doing worse, you can look at the whole spectrum of things to try to drive improvements in care,” said Dr. Rhee.

The new tool isn’t just limited to quality improvement research. Shaeesta Khan, MD, assistant professor of critical care medicine at Geisinger Medical Center,Danville, Pa., has found eSOFA to be useful in her research into how genetic polymorphisms play a role in sepsis outcomes. Geisinger has a large population of patients with completed whole genome sequencing, and Dr. Khan began by trying to glean sepsis outcomes from administrative data.

“I explained SOFA scores to our data broker, and he pulled up 3,000 patients and gave everybody a SOFA score based on the algorithm he created, and it was all over the chart. Once I started doing chart review and phenotype verification, it was just a nightmare,” Dr. Khan said in an interview.

After struggling with the project, one of her mentors put her in touch with one of Dr. Rhee’s colleagues, and she asked the data broker to modify the eSOFA algorithm to fit her specific criteria. “It was a blessing,” she said.

Now, she has data from 5,000 patients with sepsis and sequenced DNA, and can begin comparing outcomes and genetic variants. About 20 candidate genes for sepsis outcomes have been identified to date, but she has a particular interest in PCSK9, which is an innate immune system regulator. She hopes to present results at CCC49 in 2020.
 

Validating mortality prediction

The researchers compared eSOFA and SOFA in a sample from 111 U.S. acute care hospitals to see if eSOFA had a comparable predictive validity for mortality. The analysis included 942,360 adults seen between 2013 and 2015. A total of 11.1% (104,903) had a presumed serious infection based on a blood culture order and at least 4 consecutive days of antibiotic use.

The analysis showed that 6.1% of those with infections had a sepsis event based on at least a 2-point increase in SOFA score from baseline (Sepsis-3 criteria), compared with 4.4% identified by at least a 1-point increase in eSOFA score. A total of 34,174 patients (3.6%) overlapped between SOFA and eSOFA, which represented good agreement (Cronbach’s alpha, 0.81). Compared with SOFA/Sepsis-3, eSOFA had a sensitivity of 60%, and a positive predictive value of 82%.

Patients identified by eSOFA were slightly more ill, with more requiring ICU admission (41% vs. 35%), and a greater frequency of in-hospital mortality (17% vs. 14%). Those patients who were identified by SOFA/Sepsis-3, but missed by eSOFA, had an overall lower mortality (6%).

There was a similar risk of mortality across deciles between SOFA- and eSOFA-identified sepsis patients. In an independent analysis of four hospitals from the Emory system, the area under the receiver operating characteristics was 0.77 for eSOFA and 0.76 for SOFA (P less than .001).

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded the study. Dr. Rhee and Dr. Khan have no relevant financial conflicts.
 

SOURCE: Rhee C et al. Crit Care Med. 2019;47(3):307-14.

SAN DIEGO – When attempting a second extubation, improvements in weaning parameters, compared with the first extubation attempt, do not predict success. Instead, the best predictors were the values of the parameters immediately before the second attempt.

“We hypothesized that the change in parameter values was more important than the actual values right before we tried to re-extubate, and that didn’t turn out to be the case. Because it was a smaller study, we can’t say [change in values] is not useful at all, but we didn’t find a strong association. We showed that the magnitude of the effect with the number measured right before the re-extubation is probably your best bet, but you should obviously evaluate the whole clinical scenario,” commented senior author Michael David Maile, MD, assistant professor of anesthesiology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The study was presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine by Suraj Trivedi, MD, who is currently an anesthesiology fellow at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine.

Factors such as rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI), negative inspiratory force (NIF), vital capacity (VC), and partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) have been shown to predict success or failure of an initial extubation attempt.

There is currently little available guidance on how to proceed when a first extubation attempt fails. The researchers had anticipated that RSBI, NIF, VC, and PaCO₂ levels matching the first attempt would be associated with success the second time around.

But their retrospective study of adult patients at the University of Michigan critical care units found that only the change in RSBI values predicted success on a univariate analysis, and that association became statistically insignificant once they corrected for baseline RSBI previous to the re-extubation attempt.

“I think the biggest take-home message is that we have to figure out each attempt to extubate on its own merits. If you’re trying to extubate a patient in the ICU who has potentially been intubated and extubated multiple times, the clinical gut feeling is always that [the patient has] to be better off than the previous attempt. What we are pointing out is that it really doesn’t matter. If the parameters are all within the overall guidelines, it’s still okay to extubate, even if the absolute change in the variables is not better [than the previous attempt],” Dr. Trivedi said in an interview.

“People put a lot of emphasis on the improvement from the first to the second attempt, and this should temper that enthusiasm to put a lot of weight on the change. But I don’t think our data support that the change means nothing,” added Dr. Maile.

The study included 525 patients (42% female). Comorbidities were common: 72% had cardiac arrhythmias, 58% had hypertension, 33% had renal failure, 39% had a pulmonary disorder, and 25% had liver disease.

Univariate analyses showed associations between values of parameters immediately before the second extubation attempt and success in the second extubation attempt, including RSBI (re-extubation success, mean 53.1 vs failure, mean 68.8; P =.0002) and NIF (success, mean –41.2 vs. failure, mean –38.4; P =.036), and VC (success, mean 1009.8 vs. failure, mean 906.8; P =.017).

When the researchers examined changes in parameters between the first and second attempt, only a change in RSBI predicted success (success, value change of 7.1 vs. failure, value change of 0.05; P less than .031). But when they corrected for the RSBI value immediately before the second attempt, the difference was not statistically significant (P = .892).

The study was not funded. Dr. Maile and Dr. Trivedi have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Trivedi S et al. CCC48 2019, Abstract 27.

SAN DIEGO – When attempting a second extubation, improvements in weaning parameters, compared with the first extubation attempt, do not predict success. Instead, the best predictors were the values of the parameters immediately before the second attempt.

“We hypothesized that the change in parameter values was more important than the actual values right before we tried to re-extubate, and that didn’t turn out to be the case. Because it was a smaller study, we can’t say [change in values] is not useful at all, but we didn’t find a strong association. We showed that the magnitude of the effect with the number measured right before the re-extubation is probably your best bet, but you should obviously evaluate the whole clinical scenario,” commented senior author Michael David Maile, MD, assistant professor of anesthesiology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The study was presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine by Suraj Trivedi, MD, who is currently an anesthesiology fellow at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine.

Factors such as rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI), negative inspiratory force (NIF), vital capacity (VC), and partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) have been shown to predict success or failure of an initial extubation attempt.

There is currently little available guidance on how to proceed when a first extubation attempt fails. The researchers had anticipated that RSBI, NIF, VC, and PaCO₂ levels matching the first attempt would be associated with success the second time around.

But their retrospective study of adult patients at the University of Michigan critical care units found that only the change in RSBI values predicted success on a univariate analysis, and that association became statistically insignificant once they corrected for baseline RSBI previous to the re-extubation attempt.

“I think the biggest take-home message is that we have to figure out each attempt to extubate on its own merits. If you’re trying to extubate a patient in the ICU who has potentially been intubated and extubated multiple times, the clinical gut feeling is always that [the patient has] to be better off than the previous attempt. What we are pointing out is that it really doesn’t matter. If the parameters are all within the overall guidelines, it’s still okay to extubate, even if the absolute change in the variables is not better [than the previous attempt],” Dr. Trivedi said in an interview.

“People put a lot of emphasis on the improvement from the first to the second attempt, and this should temper that enthusiasm to put a lot of weight on the change. But I don’t think our data support that the change means nothing,” added Dr. Maile.

The study included 525 patients (42% female). Comorbidities were common: 72% had cardiac arrhythmias, 58% had hypertension, 33% had renal failure, 39% had a pulmonary disorder, and 25% had liver disease.

Univariate analyses showed associations between values of parameters immediately before the second extubation attempt and success in the second extubation attempt, including RSBI (re-extubation success, mean 53.1 vs failure, mean 68.8; P =.0002) and NIF (success, mean –41.2 vs. failure, mean –38.4; P =.036), and VC (success, mean 1009.8 vs. failure, mean 906.8; P =.017).

When the researchers examined changes in parameters between the first and second attempt, only a change in RSBI predicted success (success, value change of 7.1 vs. failure, value change of 0.05; P less than .031). But when they corrected for the RSBI value immediately before the second attempt, the difference was not statistically significant (P = .892).

The study was not funded. Dr. Maile and Dr. Trivedi have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Trivedi S et al. CCC48 2019, Abstract 27.

SAN DIEGO – When attempting a second extubation, improvements in weaning parameters, compared with the first extubation attempt, do not predict success. Instead, the best predictors were the values of the parameters immediately before the second attempt.

“We hypothesized that the change in parameter values was more important than the actual values right before we tried to re-extubate, and that didn’t turn out to be the case. Because it was a smaller study, we can’t say [change in values] is not useful at all, but we didn’t find a strong association. We showed that the magnitude of the effect with the number measured right before the re-extubation is probably your best bet, but you should obviously evaluate the whole clinical scenario,” commented senior author Michael David Maile, MD, assistant professor of anesthesiology at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

The study was presented at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine by Suraj Trivedi, MD, who is currently an anesthesiology fellow at Stanford (Calif.) Medicine.

Factors such as rapid shallow breathing index (RSBI), negative inspiratory force (NIF), vital capacity (VC), and partial pressure of arterial carbon dioxide (PaCO₂) have been shown to predict success or failure of an initial extubation attempt.

There is currently little available guidance on how to proceed when a first extubation attempt fails. The researchers had anticipated that RSBI, NIF, VC, and PaCO₂ levels matching the first attempt would be associated with success the second time around.

But their retrospective study of adult patients at the University of Michigan critical care units found that only the change in RSBI values predicted success on a univariate analysis, and that association became statistically insignificant once they corrected for baseline RSBI previous to the re-extubation attempt.

“I think the biggest take-home message is that we have to figure out each attempt to extubate on its own merits. If you’re trying to extubate a patient in the ICU who has potentially been intubated and extubated multiple times, the clinical gut feeling is always that [the patient has] to be better off than the previous attempt. What we are pointing out is that it really doesn’t matter. If the parameters are all within the overall guidelines, it’s still okay to extubate, even if the absolute change in the variables is not better [than the previous attempt],” Dr. Trivedi said in an interview.

“People put a lot of emphasis on the improvement from the first to the second attempt, and this should temper that enthusiasm to put a lot of weight on the change. But I don’t think our data support that the change means nothing,” added Dr. Maile.

The study included 525 patients (42% female). Comorbidities were common: 72% had cardiac arrhythmias, 58% had hypertension, 33% had renal failure, 39% had a pulmonary disorder, and 25% had liver disease.

Univariate analyses showed associations between values of parameters immediately before the second extubation attempt and success in the second extubation attempt, including RSBI (re-extubation success, mean 53.1 vs failure, mean 68.8; P =.0002) and NIF (success, mean –41.2 vs. failure, mean –38.4; P =.036), and VC (success, mean 1009.8 vs. failure, mean 906.8; P =.017).

When the researchers examined changes in parameters between the first and second attempt, only a change in RSBI predicted success (success, value change of 7.1 vs. failure, value change of 0.05; P less than .031). But when they corrected for the RSBI value immediately before the second attempt, the difference was not statistically significant (P = .892).

The study was not funded. Dr. Maile and Dr. Trivedi have no relevant financial disclosures.

SOURCE: Trivedi S et al. CCC48 2019, Abstract 27.

SAN DIEGO – A new study of ICU patients in the Netherlands shows a heightened risk of developing new chronic conditions in patients after an intensive care stay. The research showed rising likelihood of conditions such as depression, diabetes, and heart disease.

By merging two existing databases, the researchers were able to capture a more comprehensive picture of post-ICU patients. “We were able to include almost the entire country,” Ilse van Beusekom, a PhD candidate in health sciences at the University of Amsterdam and data manager at the National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) foundation, said in an interview.

Ms. van Beusekom presented the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. The study was simultaneously published in Critical Care Medicine.

The work compared 56,760 ICU survivors from 81 facilities across the Netherlands to 75,232 age-, sex-, and socioeconomic status–matched controls. The mean age was 65 years and 60% of the population was male. “The types of chronic conditions are the same, only the prevalences are different,” said Ms. van Beusekom.

The researchers compared chronic conditions in the year before ICU admission and the year after, based on data pulled from the NICE national quality database, which includes data describing the first 24 hours of ICU admission, and the Vektis insurance claims database, which includes information on medical treatment. Before ICU admission, 45% of the ICU population was free of chronic conditions, as were 62% of controls. One chronic condition was present in 36% of ICU patients, versus 29% of controls, and two or more conditions were present in 19% versus 9% of controls.

The ICU population was more likely to have high cholesterol (16% vs. 14%), heart disease (14% vs. 6%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (8% vs. 3%), type II diabetes (8% vs. 6%), type I diabetes (6% vs. 3%), and depression (6% vs. 4%).

The ICU population also was at greater risk of developing one or more new chronic conditions during the year following their stay. The risk was three- to fourfold higher throughout age ranges.

The study suggests the need for greater follow-up after an ICU admission in order to help patients cope with lingering problems. Ms. van Beusekom noted that there are follow-up programs in the Netherlands for several patient groups, but none for ICU survivors. One possibility would be to have the patient return to the ICU 3 months or so after release to discuss their diagnosis, treatment, and any lingering concerns. “A lot of people don’t know that their complaints are linked with the ICU visit,” said Ms. van Beusekom.

Timothy G. Buchman, MD, professor of surgery at Emory University, Atlanta, who moderated the session, wondered why the ICU seems to be an inflection point for developing new chronic conditions. Could it simply be because patients are sicker to begin with and have reached an inflection point of their illness, or could the treatments in ICU be contributing to or exposing those conditions? Ms. van Beusekom believed it was likely a combination of factors, and she referred to data she had not presented showing that even control patients who had been to the hospital (though not the ICU) during the study period were at lower risk of new chronic conditions than ICU patients.

Ms. van Beusekom’s group plans to investigate ICU-related variables that might be associated with risk of chronic conditions.

The study was not funded. Ms. van Beusekom had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: van Beusekom I et al. CCC48, Abstract Crit Care Med. 2019;47:324-30.

SAN DIEGO – A new study of ICU patients in the Netherlands shows a heightened risk of developing new chronic conditions in patients after an intensive care stay. The research showed rising likelihood of conditions such as depression, diabetes, and heart disease.

By merging two existing databases, the researchers were able to capture a more comprehensive picture of post-ICU patients. “We were able to include almost the entire country,” Ilse van Beusekom, a PhD candidate in health sciences at the University of Amsterdam and data manager at the National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) foundation, said in an interview.

Ms. van Beusekom presented the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. The study was simultaneously published in Critical Care Medicine.

The work compared 56,760 ICU survivors from 81 facilities across the Netherlands to 75,232 age-, sex-, and socioeconomic status–matched controls. The mean age was 65 years and 60% of the population was male. “The types of chronic conditions are the same, only the prevalences are different,” said Ms. van Beusekom.

The researchers compared chronic conditions in the year before ICU admission and the year after, based on data pulled from the NICE national quality database, which includes data describing the first 24 hours of ICU admission, and the Vektis insurance claims database, which includes information on medical treatment. Before ICU admission, 45% of the ICU population was free of chronic conditions, as were 62% of controls. One chronic condition was present in 36% of ICU patients, versus 29% of controls, and two or more conditions were present in 19% versus 9% of controls.

The ICU population was more likely to have high cholesterol (16% vs. 14%), heart disease (14% vs. 6%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (8% vs. 3%), type II diabetes (8% vs. 6%), type I diabetes (6% vs. 3%), and depression (6% vs. 4%).

The ICU population also was at greater risk of developing one or more new chronic conditions during the year following their stay. The risk was three- to fourfold higher throughout age ranges.

The study suggests the need for greater follow-up after an ICU admission in order to help patients cope with lingering problems. Ms. van Beusekom noted that there are follow-up programs in the Netherlands for several patient groups, but none for ICU survivors. One possibility would be to have the patient return to the ICU 3 months or so after release to discuss their diagnosis, treatment, and any lingering concerns. “A lot of people don’t know that their complaints are linked with the ICU visit,” said Ms. van Beusekom.

Timothy G. Buchman, MD, professor of surgery at Emory University, Atlanta, who moderated the session, wondered why the ICU seems to be an inflection point for developing new chronic conditions. Could it simply be because patients are sicker to begin with and have reached an inflection point of their illness, or could the treatments in ICU be contributing to or exposing those conditions? Ms. van Beusekom believed it was likely a combination of factors, and she referred to data she had not presented showing that even control patients who had been to the hospital (though not the ICU) during the study period were at lower risk of new chronic conditions than ICU patients.

Ms. van Beusekom’s group plans to investigate ICU-related variables that might be associated with risk of chronic conditions.

The study was not funded. Ms. van Beusekom had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: van Beusekom I et al. CCC48, Abstract Crit Care Med. 2019;47:324-30.

SAN DIEGO – A new study of ICU patients in the Netherlands shows a heightened risk of developing new chronic conditions in patients after an intensive care stay. The research showed rising likelihood of conditions such as depression, diabetes, and heart disease.

By merging two existing databases, the researchers were able to capture a more comprehensive picture of post-ICU patients. “We were able to include almost the entire country,” Ilse van Beusekom, a PhD candidate in health sciences at the University of Amsterdam and data manager at the National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) foundation, said in an interview.

Ms. van Beusekom presented the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. The study was simultaneously published in Critical Care Medicine.

The work compared 56,760 ICU survivors from 81 facilities across the Netherlands to 75,232 age-, sex-, and socioeconomic status–matched controls. The mean age was 65 years and 60% of the population was male. “The types of chronic conditions are the same, only the prevalences are different,” said Ms. van Beusekom.

The researchers compared chronic conditions in the year before ICU admission and the year after, based on data pulled from the NICE national quality database, which includes data describing the first 24 hours of ICU admission, and the Vektis insurance claims database, which includes information on medical treatment. Before ICU admission, 45% of the ICU population was free of chronic conditions, as were 62% of controls. One chronic condition was present in 36% of ICU patients, versus 29% of controls, and two or more conditions were present in 19% versus 9% of controls.

The ICU population was more likely to have high cholesterol (16% vs. 14%), heart disease (14% vs. 6%), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (8% vs. 3%), type II diabetes (8% vs. 6%), type I diabetes (6% vs. 3%), and depression (6% vs. 4%).

The ICU population also was at greater risk of developing one or more new chronic conditions during the year following their stay. The risk was three- to fourfold higher throughout age ranges.

The study suggests the need for greater follow-up after an ICU admission in order to help patients cope with lingering problems. Ms. van Beusekom noted that there are follow-up programs in the Netherlands for several patient groups, but none for ICU survivors. One possibility would be to have the patient return to the ICU 3 months or so after release to discuss their diagnosis, treatment, and any lingering concerns. “A lot of people don’t know that their complaints are linked with the ICU visit,” said Ms. van Beusekom.

Timothy G. Buchman, MD, professor of surgery at Emory University, Atlanta, who moderated the session, wondered why the ICU seems to be an inflection point for developing new chronic conditions. Could it simply be because patients are sicker to begin with and have reached an inflection point of their illness, or could the treatments in ICU be contributing to or exposing those conditions? Ms. van Beusekom believed it was likely a combination of factors, and she referred to data she had not presented showing that even control patients who had been to the hospital (though not the ICU) during the study period were at lower risk of new chronic conditions than ICU patients.

Ms. van Beusekom’s group plans to investigate ICU-related variables that might be associated with risk of chronic conditions.

The study was not funded. Ms. van Beusekom had no relevant disclosures.

SOURCE: van Beusekom I et al. CCC48, Abstract Crit Care Med. 2019;47:324-30.

SAN DIEGO – A nationally representative survey of ICU patients older than age 65 years shows an improvement over time in the frequency of advance care planning (ACP), but one in four have no ACP; the problem is more pronounced among some blacks and Hispanics and those with lower net worth. The study also found that these patients see physicians an average of 20 times in the year preceding the ICU visit, which suggests that there are plenty of opportunities to put ACP in place.

marcosmartinezromero/iStockphoto

“Over two-thirds were seen by a doctor in the last 2 weeks. So they’re seeing doctors, but they’re still not doing advance care planning,” said Brian Block, MD, during a presentation of the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Dr. Block is with the University of California, San Francisco.

Lack of advance planning can put major road blocks in front of patient care in the ICU, as well as complicate communication between physicians and family members. The findings underscore the need to encourage conversations about end-of-life care between physicians and their patients – before the patients wind up in intensive care.

One audience member believes these conversations are already happening. Paul Yodice, MD, chairman of medicine at Saint Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston, N.J., suggested that physicians are attempting to engage older patients and family members in ACP, but many are unready to make decisions. “In my experience, it is happening much more frequently than is captured either in the medical record or in the research that we’ve been publishing. I’ve been a part of those conversations. Those individuals who are faced with those toughest of choices choose to delay making the decision or speaking about it further because it’s just too painful to consider, and they hold out hope of being the one to beat the odds, to have one more day,” said Dr. Yodice.

He called for further research to document whether ACP conversations are happening and to identify barriers to decisions and the means to overcome them. “A next good study would be to send out a respectful survey to the families of those who have lost people they love and ask: Has someone in the past year spoken with you or offered to have a discussion about end-of-life issues? We could get a better handle on [how often] the discussion is being had, and then find a solution,” said Dr. Yodice.

ACP can also be difficult for the provider, he added. Family members and patients, desperate for another treatment option, will often ask if there’s anything else that can be done. “In medicine, the answer almost always is ‘Well, we can try something else even though I know it’s not going to work.’ And people hold on to that, including us,” said Dr. Yodice.

The study analyzed data from a Medicare cohort of 1,109 patients who died during 2000-2013 and had an ICU admission within the last 30 days of their life. Ages were fairly evenly distributed, with 29% aged 65-74 years, 39% aged 75-84, and 32% aged 85 and over. Fifty-four percent were women, 26% were nonwhite, 42% had not completed high school, and 11% were in skilled nursing facilities.

About 35% had no ACP in 2000-2001, and that percentage gradually declined, to about 20% in 2012-2013 (slope, –1.6%/year; P = .009).

Seventeen percent of white participants had no ACP, compared with 51% of blacks and 49% of Hispanics. Net worth was also strongly associated with having ACP: The top quartile had 13% lacking ACP, compared with 43% of the bottom quartile.

The study found that 94% of patients who had no ACP had visited a health care provider in the past year. The average number of visits in the past year was 20, and 83% had seen a provider within the past 30 days.

Dr. Block did not declare a source of funding or potential conflicts. Dr. Yodice had no disclosures.
 

chestphysiciannews@chestnet.org

SOURCE: Block B et al. CCC48, Abstract 401.

SAN DIEGO – A nationally representative survey of ICU patients older than age 65 years shows an improvement over time in the frequency of advance care planning (ACP), but one in four have no ACP; the problem is more pronounced among some blacks and Hispanics and those with lower net worth. The study also found that these patients see physicians an average of 20 times in the year preceding the ICU visit, which suggests that there are plenty of opportunities to put ACP in place.

marcosmartinezromero/iStockphoto

“Over two-thirds were seen by a doctor in the last 2 weeks. So they’re seeing doctors, but they’re still not doing advance care planning,” said Brian Block, MD, during a presentation of the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Dr. Block is with the University of California, San Francisco.

Lack of advance planning can put major road blocks in front of patient care in the ICU, as well as complicate communication between physicians and family members. The findings underscore the need to encourage conversations about end-of-life care between physicians and their patients – before the patients wind up in intensive care.

One audience member believes these conversations are already happening. Paul Yodice, MD, chairman of medicine at Saint Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston, N.J., suggested that physicians are attempting to engage older patients and family members in ACP, but many are unready to make decisions. “In my experience, it is happening much more frequently than is captured either in the medical record or in the research that we’ve been publishing. I’ve been a part of those conversations. Those individuals who are faced with those toughest of choices choose to delay making the decision or speaking about it further because it’s just too painful to consider, and they hold out hope of being the one to beat the odds, to have one more day,” said Dr. Yodice.

He called for further research to document whether ACP conversations are happening and to identify barriers to decisions and the means to overcome them. “A next good study would be to send out a respectful survey to the families of those who have lost people they love and ask: Has someone in the past year spoken with you or offered to have a discussion about end-of-life issues? We could get a better handle on [how often] the discussion is being had, and then find a solution,” said Dr. Yodice.

ACP can also be difficult for the provider, he added. Family members and patients, desperate for another treatment option, will often ask if there’s anything else that can be done. “In medicine, the answer almost always is ‘Well, we can try something else even though I know it’s not going to work.’ And people hold on to that, including us,” said Dr. Yodice.

The study analyzed data from a Medicare cohort of 1,109 patients who died during 2000-2013 and had an ICU admission within the last 30 days of their life. Ages were fairly evenly distributed, with 29% aged 65-74 years, 39% aged 75-84, and 32% aged 85 and over. Fifty-four percent were women, 26% were nonwhite, 42% had not completed high school, and 11% were in skilled nursing facilities.

About 35% had no ACP in 2000-2001, and that percentage gradually declined, to about 20% in 2012-2013 (slope, –1.6%/year; P = .009).

Seventeen percent of white participants had no ACP, compared with 51% of blacks and 49% of Hispanics. Net worth was also strongly associated with having ACP: The top quartile had 13% lacking ACP, compared with 43% of the bottom quartile.

The study found that 94% of patients who had no ACP had visited a health care provider in the past year. The average number of visits in the past year was 20, and 83% had seen a provider within the past 30 days.

Dr. Block did not declare a source of funding or potential conflicts. Dr. Yodice had no disclosures.
 

chestphysiciannews@chestnet.org

SOURCE: Block B et al. CCC48, Abstract 401.

SAN DIEGO – A nationally representative survey of ICU patients older than age 65 years shows an improvement over time in the frequency of advance care planning (ACP), but one in four have no ACP; the problem is more pronounced among some blacks and Hispanics and those with lower net worth. The study also found that these patients see physicians an average of 20 times in the year preceding the ICU visit, which suggests that there are plenty of opportunities to put ACP in place.

marcosmartinezromero/iStockphoto

“Over two-thirds were seen by a doctor in the last 2 weeks. So they’re seeing doctors, but they’re still not doing advance care planning,” said Brian Block, MD, during a presentation of the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. Dr. Block is with the University of California, San Francisco.

Lack of advance planning can put major road blocks in front of patient care in the ICU, as well as complicate communication between physicians and family members. The findings underscore the need to encourage conversations about end-of-life care between physicians and their patients – before the patients wind up in intensive care.

One audience member believes these conversations are already happening. Paul Yodice, MD, chairman of medicine at Saint Barnabas Medical Center in Livingston, N.J., suggested that physicians are attempting to engage older patients and family members in ACP, but many are unready to make decisions. “In my experience, it is happening much more frequently than is captured either in the medical record or in the research that we’ve been publishing. I’ve been a part of those conversations. Those individuals who are faced with those toughest of choices choose to delay making the decision or speaking about it further because it’s just too painful to consider, and they hold out hope of being the one to beat the odds, to have one more day,” said Dr. Yodice.

He called for further research to document whether ACP conversations are happening and to identify barriers to decisions and the means to overcome them. “A next good study would be to send out a respectful survey to the families of those who have lost people they love and ask: Has someone in the past year spoken with you or offered to have a discussion about end-of-life issues? We could get a better handle on [how often] the discussion is being had, and then find a solution,” said Dr. Yodice.

ACP can also be difficult for the provider, he added. Family members and patients, desperate for another treatment option, will often ask if there’s anything else that can be done. “In medicine, the answer almost always is ‘Well, we can try something else even though I know it’s not going to work.’ And people hold on to that, including us,” said Dr. Yodice.

The study analyzed data from a Medicare cohort of 1,109 patients who died during 2000-2013 and had an ICU admission within the last 30 days of their life. Ages were fairly evenly distributed, with 29% aged 65-74 years, 39% aged 75-84, and 32% aged 85 and over. Fifty-four percent were women, 26% were nonwhite, 42% had not completed high school, and 11% were in skilled nursing facilities.

About 35% had no ACP in 2000-2001, and that percentage gradually declined, to about 20% in 2012-2013 (slope, –1.6%/year; P = .009).

Seventeen percent of white participants had no ACP, compared with 51% of blacks and 49% of Hispanics. Net worth was also strongly associated with having ACP: The top quartile had 13% lacking ACP, compared with 43% of the bottom quartile.

The study found that 94% of patients who had no ACP had visited a health care provider in the past year. The average number of visits in the past year was 20, and 83% had seen a provider within the past 30 days.

Dr. Block did not declare a source of funding or potential conflicts. Dr. Yodice had no disclosures.
 

chestphysiciannews@chestnet.org

SOURCE: Block B et al. CCC48, Abstract 401.

SAN DIEGO – During resuscitation of patients with septic shock, a simple strategy of timing the refilling of peripheral capillaries trended toward better 28-day survival than using lactate level targeting, but missed statistical significance.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

Although the paper, published online in JAMA, concludes that normalization of capillary refill time cannot be recommended over targeting serum lactate levels, Glenn Hernández, MD, PhD, sounded more optimistic after presenting the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. “I think it’s good news to develop techniques that, even though they have this integrated variability, they can provide a signal that is also very close to the [underlying] physiology,” Dr. Hernández, who is a professor of intensive medicine at Pontifical Catholic University in Santiago, Chile. The Peripheral perfusion was also associated with lower mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score at 72 hours.

The technique involves pressing a glass microscope slide to the ventral surface of the right index finger distal phalanx, increasing pressure and maintaining pressure for 10 seconds. After release, a chronometer assessed return of normal skin color, with refill times over 3 seconds considered abnormal. Clinicians applied the technique every 30 minutes during until normalization (every hour after that), compared with every 2 hours for the lactate arm of the study.

The ANDROMEDA-SHOCK randomized clinical trial was conducted at 28 hospitals in five countries (Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Uruguay). The trial did not demonstrate superiority of capillary refill, and it was not designed for noninferiority. It nevertheless seems unlikely that assessment of capillary refill is inferior to lactate levels, according an accompanying editorial by JAMA-associated editor Derek Angus, MD, who also is a professor of critical care medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. The simplicity of using a capillary refill could be particularly useful in resource-limited settings, since it can be accomplished visually.

It also a natural marker for resuscitation. The body slows fluid flow to peripheral tissues until vital organs are well perfused. Normal capillary refill time “is an indirect signal of reperfusion,” said Dr. Hernández.

The researchers are not calling for this technique to replace lactate measurements, noting that in many ways the techniques can be complementary, since lactate levels are a good indicator of the patient’s overall improvement. In any case, it would take more research to prove superiority of the capillary refill, and that’s not something Dr. Hernández is planning to undertake. The current study had no external funding and required about half of his time over a 2-year period. Getting the work done at all “was sort of a miracle. We would not repeat this,” he said.

The researchers randomized 416 patients with septic shock (mean age, 63 years; 53% of whom were women) to be managed by peripheral perfusion or lactate measurement. By day 28, 43.4% in the lactate group had died, compared with 34.9% in the peripheral perfusion group (hazard ratio, 0.75; P = .06). At 72 hours, the peripheral perfusion group had less organ dysfunction as measured by SOFA (mean, 5.6 vs. 6.6; P = .045). Six other secondary outcomes revealed no between-group differences.

The peripheral perfusion group received an average of 408 fewer mL of resuscitation fluids during the first 8 hours (P = .01).

That result fits with the greater responsiveness of peripheral perfusion measurements, and it’s relevant because some septic shock patients who are unresponsive to fluids often receive fluids anyway. “The general knowledge, though not correct, is that you treat lactate or blood pressure with fluids,” said coauthor Jan Bakker, MD, PhD, who is a professor at New York-Presbyterian Hospital Columbia University, and Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

After a series of observational studies suggested that warm, well-perfused patients were doing well, the idea was tested in a small interventional trial in which physicians were forbidden from giving fluids once patients were warm and well perfused. Patients did better than did those on standard of care. “We have said, if the patient is warm and well perfused, even if they are hypotensive, don’t give fluids, it won’t benefit them anymore. Give vasopressors or whatever, but don’t give fluids,” said Dr. Bakker.

The latest research also reinforced a signal from the earlier, smaller trial. “You get less organ failure if you use [fewer] fluids,” Dr. Bakker added.

The study received no external funding. Dr. Hernández and Dr. Bakker had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Angus received consulting fees from Ferring Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer AG, and others outside the submitted work; he also has patents pending for compounds, compositions, and methods for treating sepsis and for proteomic biomarkers.

SOURCE: Hernández G et al. JAMA 2019 Feb 17. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.0071.

SAN DIEGO – During resuscitation of patients with septic shock, a simple strategy of timing the refilling of peripheral capillaries trended toward better 28-day survival than using lactate level targeting, but missed statistical significance.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

Although the paper, published online in JAMA, concludes that normalization of capillary refill time cannot be recommended over targeting serum lactate levels, Glenn Hernández, MD, PhD, sounded more optimistic after presenting the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. “I think it’s good news to develop techniques that, even though they have this integrated variability, they can provide a signal that is also very close to the [underlying] physiology,” Dr. Hernández, who is a professor of intensive medicine at Pontifical Catholic University in Santiago, Chile. The Peripheral perfusion was also associated with lower mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score at 72 hours.

The technique involves pressing a glass microscope slide to the ventral surface of the right index finger distal phalanx, increasing pressure and maintaining pressure for 10 seconds. After release, a chronometer assessed return of normal skin color, with refill times over 3 seconds considered abnormal. Clinicians applied the technique every 30 minutes during until normalization (every hour after that), compared with every 2 hours for the lactate arm of the study.

The ANDROMEDA-SHOCK randomized clinical trial was conducted at 28 hospitals in five countries (Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Uruguay). The trial did not demonstrate superiority of capillary refill, and it was not designed for noninferiority. It nevertheless seems unlikely that assessment of capillary refill is inferior to lactate levels, according an accompanying editorial by JAMA-associated editor Derek Angus, MD, who also is a professor of critical care medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. The simplicity of using a capillary refill could be particularly useful in resource-limited settings, since it can be accomplished visually.

It also a natural marker for resuscitation. The body slows fluid flow to peripheral tissues until vital organs are well perfused. Normal capillary refill time “is an indirect signal of reperfusion,” said Dr. Hernández.

The researchers are not calling for this technique to replace lactate measurements, noting that in many ways the techniques can be complementary, since lactate levels are a good indicator of the patient’s overall improvement. In any case, it would take more research to prove superiority of the capillary refill, and that’s not something Dr. Hernández is planning to undertake. The current study had no external funding and required about half of his time over a 2-year period. Getting the work done at all “was sort of a miracle. We would not repeat this,” he said.

The researchers randomized 416 patients with septic shock (mean age, 63 years; 53% of whom were women) to be managed by peripheral perfusion or lactate measurement. By day 28, 43.4% in the lactate group had died, compared with 34.9% in the peripheral perfusion group (hazard ratio, 0.75; P = .06). At 72 hours, the peripheral perfusion group had less organ dysfunction as measured by SOFA (mean, 5.6 vs. 6.6; P = .045). Six other secondary outcomes revealed no between-group differences.

The peripheral perfusion group received an average of 408 fewer mL of resuscitation fluids during the first 8 hours (P = .01).

That result fits with the greater responsiveness of peripheral perfusion measurements, and it’s relevant because some septic shock patients who are unresponsive to fluids often receive fluids anyway. “The general knowledge, though not correct, is that you treat lactate or blood pressure with fluids,” said coauthor Jan Bakker, MD, PhD, who is a professor at New York-Presbyterian Hospital Columbia University, and Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

After a series of observational studies suggested that warm, well-perfused patients were doing well, the idea was tested in a small interventional trial in which physicians were forbidden from giving fluids once patients were warm and well perfused. Patients did better than did those on standard of care. “We have said, if the patient is warm and well perfused, even if they are hypotensive, don’t give fluids, it won’t benefit them anymore. Give vasopressors or whatever, but don’t give fluids,” said Dr. Bakker.

The latest research also reinforced a signal from the earlier, smaller trial. “You get less organ failure if you use [fewer] fluids,” Dr. Bakker added.

The study received no external funding. Dr. Hernández and Dr. Bakker had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Angus received consulting fees from Ferring Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer AG, and others outside the submitted work; he also has patents pending for compounds, compositions, and methods for treating sepsis and for proteomic biomarkers.

SOURCE: Hernández G et al. JAMA 2019 Feb 17. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.0071.

SAN DIEGO – During resuscitation of patients with septic shock, a simple strategy of timing the refilling of peripheral capillaries trended toward better 28-day survival than using lactate level targeting, but missed statistical significance.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

Although the paper, published online in JAMA, concludes that normalization of capillary refill time cannot be recommended over targeting serum lactate levels, Glenn Hernández, MD, PhD, sounded more optimistic after presenting the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. “I think it’s good news to develop techniques that, even though they have this integrated variability, they can provide a signal that is also very close to the [underlying] physiology,” Dr. Hernández, who is a professor of intensive medicine at Pontifical Catholic University in Santiago, Chile. The Peripheral perfusion was also associated with lower mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score at 72 hours.

The technique involves pressing a glass microscope slide to the ventral surface of the right index finger distal phalanx, increasing pressure and maintaining pressure for 10 seconds. After release, a chronometer assessed return of normal skin color, with refill times over 3 seconds considered abnormal. Clinicians applied the technique every 30 minutes during until normalization (every hour after that), compared with every 2 hours for the lactate arm of the study.

The ANDROMEDA-SHOCK randomized clinical trial was conducted at 28 hospitals in five countries (Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Uruguay). The trial did not demonstrate superiority of capillary refill, and it was not designed for noninferiority. It nevertheless seems unlikely that assessment of capillary refill is inferior to lactate levels, according an accompanying editorial by JAMA-associated editor Derek Angus, MD, who also is a professor of critical care medicine at the University of Pittsburgh. The simplicity of using a capillary refill could be particularly useful in resource-limited settings, since it can be accomplished visually.

It also a natural marker for resuscitation. The body slows fluid flow to peripheral tissues until vital organs are well perfused. Normal capillary refill time “is an indirect signal of reperfusion,” said Dr. Hernández.

The researchers are not calling for this technique to replace lactate measurements, noting that in many ways the techniques can be complementary, since lactate levels are a good indicator of the patient’s overall improvement. In any case, it would take more research to prove superiority of the capillary refill, and that’s not something Dr. Hernández is planning to undertake. The current study had no external funding and required about half of his time over a 2-year period. Getting the work done at all “was sort of a miracle. We would not repeat this,” he said.

The researchers randomized 416 patients with septic shock (mean age, 63 years; 53% of whom were women) to be managed by peripheral perfusion or lactate measurement. By day 28, 43.4% in the lactate group had died, compared with 34.9% in the peripheral perfusion group (hazard ratio, 0.75; P = .06). At 72 hours, the peripheral perfusion group had less organ dysfunction as measured by SOFA (mean, 5.6 vs. 6.6; P = .045). Six other secondary outcomes revealed no between-group differences.

The peripheral perfusion group received an average of 408 fewer mL of resuscitation fluids during the first 8 hours (P = .01).

That result fits with the greater responsiveness of peripheral perfusion measurements, and it’s relevant because some septic shock patients who are unresponsive to fluids often receive fluids anyway. “The general knowledge, though not correct, is that you treat lactate or blood pressure with fluids,” said coauthor Jan Bakker, MD, PhD, who is a professor at New York-Presbyterian Hospital Columbia University, and Erasmus University Rotterdam, the Netherlands.

After a series of observational studies suggested that warm, well-perfused patients were doing well, the idea was tested in a small interventional trial in which physicians were forbidden from giving fluids once patients were warm and well perfused. Patients did better than did those on standard of care. “We have said, if the patient is warm and well perfused, even if they are hypotensive, don’t give fluids, it won’t benefit them anymore. Give vasopressors or whatever, but don’t give fluids,” said Dr. Bakker.

The latest research also reinforced a signal from the earlier, smaller trial. “You get less organ failure if you use [fewer] fluids,” Dr. Bakker added.

The study received no external funding. Dr. Hernández and Dr. Bakker had no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Angus received consulting fees from Ferring Pharmaceutical, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer AG, and others outside the submitted work; he also has patents pending for compounds, compositions, and methods for treating sepsis and for proteomic biomarkers.

SOURCE: Hernández G et al. JAMA 2019 Feb 17. doi: 10.1001/jama.2019.0071.

SAN DIEGO – Palliative care among critically ill pediatric patients in the intensive care unit is highly variable across institutions, and is more common among older children, female children, and those with government insurance or at a high risk of mortality. The findings come from a retrospective analysis of data from 52 hospitals, which included ICU admissions (except neonatal ICU) during 2007-2018.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

The good news is that palliative care consultations have increased, with consultations in less than 1% of cases at the start of the study and rising quickly to more than 7% in 2018.

“In the adult world, palliative care has expanded in recent decades, and I think now that it’s coming to the pediatric world, it’ll just continue to go up,” said Siobhan O’Keefe, MD, in an interview. Dr. O’Keefe is with Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. She presented the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

More work needs to be done, she said. “We are not uniformly using palliative care for critically ill children in the U.S., and it varies across institutions. That’s probably not the ideal situation,” said Dr. O’Keefe. The study did not track palliative care versus the presence of board-certified palliative care physicians or palliative care fellowships, but she suspects they would correlate.

Dr. O’Keefe called for physicians to think beyond the patient, to family members and caregivers. “We need to focus on family outcomes, how they are taking care of children with moderate disability, and incorporate that into our outcomes,” she said. Previous research has shown family members to be at risk of anxiety, depression, unemployment, and financial distress.

SOURCE: O’Keefe S et al. Critical Care Congress 2019, Abstract 418.

SAN DIEGO – Palliative care among critically ill pediatric patients in the intensive care unit is highly variable across institutions, and is more common among older children, female children, and those with government insurance or at a high risk of mortality. The findings come from a retrospective analysis of data from 52 hospitals, which included ICU admissions (except neonatal ICU) during 2007-2018.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

The good news is that palliative care consultations have increased, with consultations in less than 1% of cases at the start of the study and rising quickly to more than 7% in 2018.

“In the adult world, palliative care has expanded in recent decades, and I think now that it’s coming to the pediatric world, it’ll just continue to go up,” said Siobhan O’Keefe, MD, in an interview. Dr. O’Keefe is with Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. She presented the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

More work needs to be done, she said. “We are not uniformly using palliative care for critically ill children in the U.S., and it varies across institutions. That’s probably not the ideal situation,” said Dr. O’Keefe. The study did not track palliative care versus the presence of board-certified palliative care physicians or palliative care fellowships, but she suspects they would correlate.

Dr. O’Keefe called for physicians to think beyond the patient, to family members and caregivers. “We need to focus on family outcomes, how they are taking care of children with moderate disability, and incorporate that into our outcomes,” she said. Previous research has shown family members to be at risk of anxiety, depression, unemployment, and financial distress.

SOURCE: O’Keefe S et al. Critical Care Congress 2019, Abstract 418.

SAN DIEGO – Palliative care among critically ill pediatric patients in the intensive care unit is highly variable across institutions, and is more common among older children, female children, and those with government insurance or at a high risk of mortality. The findings come from a retrospective analysis of data from 52 hospitals, which included ICU admissions (except neonatal ICU) during 2007-2018.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

The good news is that palliative care consultations have increased, with consultations in less than 1% of cases at the start of the study and rising quickly to more than 7% in 2018.

“In the adult world, palliative care has expanded in recent decades, and I think now that it’s coming to the pediatric world, it’ll just continue to go up,” said Siobhan O’Keefe, MD, in an interview. Dr. O’Keefe is with Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora. She presented the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

More work needs to be done, she said. “We are not uniformly using palliative care for critically ill children in the U.S., and it varies across institutions. That’s probably not the ideal situation,” said Dr. O’Keefe. The study did not track palliative care versus the presence of board-certified palliative care physicians or palliative care fellowships, but she suspects they would correlate.

Dr. O’Keefe called for physicians to think beyond the patient, to family members and caregivers. “We need to focus on family outcomes, how they are taking care of children with moderate disability, and incorporate that into our outcomes,” she said. Previous research has shown family members to be at risk of anxiety, depression, unemployment, and financial distress.

SOURCE: O’Keefe S et al. Critical Care Congress 2019, Abstract 418.

SAN DIEGO – In critically ill patients receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, adjunct intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) had no effect on the rates of lower-limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT), according to a new trial.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

“I was surprised. My hypothesis was that it would work,” said lead author Yaseen M. Arabi, MD, chairman of the intensive care department at King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Many physicians routinely carry out the practice on the assumption that IPC should lead to better blood flow and further cut DVT risk. The procedure carries few risks, aside from patient discomfort. “The main issue is that it’s not needed. It might be useful in patients who are not receiving heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin,” said Dr. Arabi, who presented the results of the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin reduces the risk of DVT by about 50%, but about 5%-20% of critically ill patients will develop DVT in spite of treatment, and mechanical thromboprophylaxis reduces DVT risk, compared with no prophylaxis. Some researchers have attempted to address whether adjunct intermittent pneumatic compression could further reduce DVT risk, but their studies were marked by a lack of controls, unoptimized pharmacologic regimens, and other limitations.

The trial included 2,003 adults from 20 sites in Saudi Arabia, Canada, Australia, and India, who were expected to have an intensive care unit stay of at least 72 hours. They were randomized to receive IPC combined with pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis (pneumatic compression group) or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone (control).

SOURCE: Arabi Y et al. CCC48, Abstract 142. N Engl J Med Feb 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816150.

SAN DIEGO – In critically ill patients receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, adjunct intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) had no effect on the rates of lower-limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT), according to a new trial.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

“I was surprised. My hypothesis was that it would work,” said lead author Yaseen M. Arabi, MD, chairman of the intensive care department at King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Many physicians routinely carry out the practice on the assumption that IPC should lead to better blood flow and further cut DVT risk. The procedure carries few risks, aside from patient discomfort. “The main issue is that it’s not needed. It might be useful in patients who are not receiving heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin,” said Dr. Arabi, who presented the results of the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin reduces the risk of DVT by about 50%, but about 5%-20% of critically ill patients will develop DVT in spite of treatment, and mechanical thromboprophylaxis reduces DVT risk, compared with no prophylaxis. Some researchers have attempted to address whether adjunct intermittent pneumatic compression could further reduce DVT risk, but their studies were marked by a lack of controls, unoptimized pharmacologic regimens, and other limitations.

The trial included 2,003 adults from 20 sites in Saudi Arabia, Canada, Australia, and India, who were expected to have an intensive care unit stay of at least 72 hours. They were randomized to receive IPC combined with pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis (pneumatic compression group) or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone (control).

SOURCE: Arabi Y et al. CCC48, Abstract 142. N Engl J Med Feb 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816150.

SAN DIEGO – In critically ill patients receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, adjunct intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) had no effect on the rates of lower-limb deep vein thrombosis (DVT), according to a new trial.

Jim Kling/MDedge News

“I was surprised. My hypothesis was that it would work,” said lead author Yaseen M. Arabi, MD, chairman of the intensive care department at King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Many physicians routinely carry out the practice on the assumption that IPC should lead to better blood flow and further cut DVT risk. The procedure carries few risks, aside from patient discomfort. “The main issue is that it’s not needed. It might be useful in patients who are not receiving heparin or low-molecular-weight heparin,” said Dr. Arabi, who presented the results of the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine. The study was simultaneously published online in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Unfractionated or low-molecular-weight heparin reduces the risk of DVT by about 50%, but about 5%-20% of critically ill patients will develop DVT in spite of treatment, and mechanical thromboprophylaxis reduces DVT risk, compared with no prophylaxis. Some researchers have attempted to address whether adjunct intermittent pneumatic compression could further reduce DVT risk, but their studies were marked by a lack of controls, unoptimized pharmacologic regimens, and other limitations.

The trial included 2,003 adults from 20 sites in Saudi Arabia, Canada, Australia, and India, who were expected to have an intensive care unit stay of at least 72 hours. They were randomized to receive IPC combined with pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis (pneumatic compression group) or pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis alone (control).

SOURCE: Arabi Y et al. CCC48, Abstract 142. N Engl J Med Feb 18. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1816150.

SAN DIEGO – One year after implementation, a pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) is making a significant difference in care of patients with submassive pulmonary embolism and evidence of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction at the Christiana Medical Center in Delaware. An analysis of data collected showed reductions in ICU stays, early death, and overall hospital length of stay.

Andrei Malov/Thinkstock

Such patients pose a challenge to clinicians because some will go on to develop more serious pulmonary embolism (PE), yet aggressive treatment options carry their own risk. Existing guidelines, such as those by the European Society of Cardiology, recommend conservative treatment of these patients, with more aggressive measures if conditions don’t quickly improve.

However, about 12% of patients on conservative therapy die, or about 100,000 per year. Those patients who go on to have bad outcomes “are obviously intermediate high risk or high risk. This is the patient population that we’re interested in [addressing through PERT]. These aren’t really sick patients. The blood pressure is normal, but they have the risk based on comorbidities or the clot burden to do poorly over the next day or two,” said Michael Benninghoff, DO, section chief of medical critical care and director of respiratory therapy at Christiana Medical Center, Wilmington, Del. Dr. Benninghoff presented the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

The PERT concept was developed by physicians at Massachusetts General Hospital. It establishes clinical criteria that, if met, prompt a PERT alert, which in turn triggers a meeting between the initiating provider, a pulmonary intensivist, and a vascular and interventional radiology physician within 15 minutes to review the case and make rapid clinical decisions.

A PERT alert requires either a CT diagnosis of PE or a VQ scan showing a high probability of PE, combined with one of three additional criteria: elevated B-type (brain) natriuretic peptide (BNP) and troponin; echocardiographic evidence of right ventricular dysfunction; or clinical instability as indicated by heart rate over 110 beats per minute, systolic blood pressure below 100 mm Hg, or oxygen saturation lower than 90%.

The PERT program caught Dr. Benninghoff’s attention because of institutional experience with patients deteriorating on conservative treatment, but also because the treatment of submassive PE with RV dysfunction is quite scattered. “We were seeing really conservative to really aggressive treatment. I don’t think we’ve had the data to support treating a patient whose blood pressure is normal but they have signs of right ventricular dysfunction, whether it’s echocardiographic, radiographic, or laboratory evidence of myocardial necrosis. I don’t think we have a group conscience as providers as far as how aggressive to be with those patients,” said Dr. Benninghoff.

To examine the efficacy of the PERT program after 1 year, Dr. Benninghoff’s team reviewed all PE cases from 2016 (pre-PERT, n = 717) and 2017 (post-PERT, n = 752). The mortality index declined 30%, from 1.13 to 0.79, while the percentage of early death declined 52%, from 2.51 to 1.20. The mean number of ICU days fell from 5.01 to 4.40.

When the team restricted the analysis to PE lysis patients (n = 27 in 2016; n = 33 in 2017), the mean length of ICU stay dropped from 66.1 hours to 58.8 hours, and fewer patients were transferred from a lower level of care to the ICU (6 vs. 3).

“We think we have shown that just by talking in real time, forcing physicians to communicate – it certainly doesn’t hurt, that it probably helps with ICU utilization and perhaps even mortality,” said Dr. Benninghoff. 

The results are far from definitive, and much more work needs to be done to determine how best to manage patients with submassive PEs and RV dysfunction. Dr. Benninghoff doesn’t have the answers, but he’s hopeful that the PERT program can eventually provide some. “Probably the most important thing is we’re giving back to the medical community by enrolling in the consortium, putting our data in the hands of the Boston research institute, and seeing what comes of it. Hopefully in 5 years we will have a standard of care based on the work we’re doing now,” he said.

The study was funded internally. Dr. Benninghoff declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Benninghoff M. Critical Care Congress 2019, Abstract 490.

SAN DIEGO – One year after implementation, a pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) is making a significant difference in care of patients with submassive pulmonary embolism and evidence of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction at the Christiana Medical Center in Delaware. An analysis of data collected showed reductions in ICU stays, early death, and overall hospital length of stay.

Andrei Malov/Thinkstock

Such patients pose a challenge to clinicians because some will go on to develop more serious pulmonary embolism (PE), yet aggressive treatment options carry their own risk. Existing guidelines, such as those by the European Society of Cardiology, recommend conservative treatment of these patients, with more aggressive measures if conditions don’t quickly improve.

However, about 12% of patients on conservative therapy die, or about 100,000 per year. Those patients who go on to have bad outcomes “are obviously intermediate high risk or high risk. This is the patient population that we’re interested in [addressing through PERT]. These aren’t really sick patients. The blood pressure is normal, but they have the risk based on comorbidities or the clot burden to do poorly over the next day or two,” said Michael Benninghoff, DO, section chief of medical critical care and director of respiratory therapy at Christiana Medical Center, Wilmington, Del. Dr. Benninghoff presented the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

The PERT concept was developed by physicians at Massachusetts General Hospital. It establishes clinical criteria that, if met, prompt a PERT alert, which in turn triggers a meeting between the initiating provider, a pulmonary intensivist, and a vascular and interventional radiology physician within 15 minutes to review the case and make rapid clinical decisions.

A PERT alert requires either a CT diagnosis of PE or a VQ scan showing a high probability of PE, combined with one of three additional criteria: elevated B-type (brain) natriuretic peptide (BNP) and troponin; echocardiographic evidence of right ventricular dysfunction; or clinical instability as indicated by heart rate over 110 beats per minute, systolic blood pressure below 100 mm Hg, or oxygen saturation lower than 90%.

The PERT program caught Dr. Benninghoff’s attention because of institutional experience with patients deteriorating on conservative treatment, but also because the treatment of submassive PE with RV dysfunction is quite scattered. “We were seeing really conservative to really aggressive treatment. I don’t think we’ve had the data to support treating a patient whose blood pressure is normal but they have signs of right ventricular dysfunction, whether it’s echocardiographic, radiographic, or laboratory evidence of myocardial necrosis. I don’t think we have a group conscience as providers as far as how aggressive to be with those patients,” said Dr. Benninghoff.

To examine the efficacy of the PERT program after 1 year, Dr. Benninghoff’s team reviewed all PE cases from 2016 (pre-PERT, n = 717) and 2017 (post-PERT, n = 752). The mortality index declined 30%, from 1.13 to 0.79, while the percentage of early death declined 52%, from 2.51 to 1.20. The mean number of ICU days fell from 5.01 to 4.40.

When the team restricted the analysis to PE lysis patients (n = 27 in 2016; n = 33 in 2017), the mean length of ICU stay dropped from 66.1 hours to 58.8 hours, and fewer patients were transferred from a lower level of care to the ICU (6 vs. 3).

“We think we have shown that just by talking in real time, forcing physicians to communicate – it certainly doesn’t hurt, that it probably helps with ICU utilization and perhaps even mortality,” said Dr. Benninghoff. 

The results are far from definitive, and much more work needs to be done to determine how best to manage patients with submassive PEs and RV dysfunction. Dr. Benninghoff doesn’t have the answers, but he’s hopeful that the PERT program can eventually provide some. “Probably the most important thing is we’re giving back to the medical community by enrolling in the consortium, putting our data in the hands of the Boston research institute, and seeing what comes of it. Hopefully in 5 years we will have a standard of care based on the work we’re doing now,” he said.

The study was funded internally. Dr. Benninghoff declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Benninghoff M. Critical Care Congress 2019, Abstract 490.

SAN DIEGO – One year after implementation, a pulmonary embolism response team (PERT) is making a significant difference in care of patients with submassive pulmonary embolism and evidence of right ventricular (RV) dysfunction at the Christiana Medical Center in Delaware. An analysis of data collected showed reductions in ICU stays, early death, and overall hospital length of stay.

Andrei Malov/Thinkstock

Such patients pose a challenge to clinicians because some will go on to develop more serious pulmonary embolism (PE), yet aggressive treatment options carry their own risk. Existing guidelines, such as those by the European Society of Cardiology, recommend conservative treatment of these patients, with more aggressive measures if conditions don’t quickly improve.

However, about 12% of patients on conservative therapy die, or about 100,000 per year. Those patients who go on to have bad outcomes “are obviously intermediate high risk or high risk. This is the patient population that we’re interested in [addressing through PERT]. These aren’t really sick patients. The blood pressure is normal, but they have the risk based on comorbidities or the clot burden to do poorly over the next day or two,” said Michael Benninghoff, DO, section chief of medical critical care and director of respiratory therapy at Christiana Medical Center, Wilmington, Del. Dr. Benninghoff presented the study at the Critical Care Congress sponsored by the Society of Critical Care Medicine.

The PERT concept was developed by physicians at Massachusetts General Hospital. It establishes clinical criteria that, if met, prompt a PERT alert, which in turn triggers a meeting between the initiating provider, a pulmonary intensivist, and a vascular and interventional radiology physician within 15 minutes to review the case and make rapid clinical decisions.

A PERT alert requires either a CT diagnosis of PE or a VQ scan showing a high probability of PE, combined with one of three additional criteria: elevated B-type (brain) natriuretic peptide (BNP) and troponin; echocardiographic evidence of right ventricular dysfunction; or clinical instability as indicated by heart rate over 110 beats per minute, systolic blood pressure below 100 mm Hg, or oxygen saturation lower than 90%.

The PERT program caught Dr. Benninghoff’s attention because of institutional experience with patients deteriorating on conservative treatment, but also because the treatment of submassive PE with RV dysfunction is quite scattered. “We were seeing really conservative to really aggressive treatment. I don’t think we’ve had the data to support treating a patient whose blood pressure is normal but they have signs of right ventricular dysfunction, whether it’s echocardiographic, radiographic, or laboratory evidence of myocardial necrosis. I don’t think we have a group conscience as providers as far as how aggressive to be with those patients,” said Dr. Benninghoff.

To examine the efficacy of the PERT program after 1 year, Dr. Benninghoff’s team reviewed all PE cases from 2016 (pre-PERT, n = 717) and 2017 (post-PERT, n = 752). The mortality index declined 30%, from 1.13 to 0.79, while the percentage of early death declined 52%, from 2.51 to 1.20. The mean number of ICU days fell from 5.01 to 4.40.

When the team restricted the analysis to PE lysis patients (n = 27 in 2016; n = 33 in 2017), the mean length of ICU stay dropped from 66.1 hours to 58.8 hours, and fewer patients were transferred from a lower level of care to the ICU (6 vs. 3).

“We think we have shown that just by talking in real time, forcing physicians to communicate – it certainly doesn’t hurt, that it probably helps with ICU utilization and perhaps even mortality,” said Dr. Benninghoff. 

The results are far from definitive, and much more work needs to be done to determine how best to manage patients with submassive PEs and RV dysfunction. Dr. Benninghoff doesn’t have the answers, but he’s hopeful that the PERT program can eventually provide some. “Probably the most important thing is we’re giving back to the medical community by enrolling in the consortium, putting our data in the hands of the Boston research institute, and seeing what comes of it. Hopefully in 5 years we will have a standard of care based on the work we’re doing now,” he said.

The study was funded internally. Dr. Benninghoff declared no conflicts of interest.

SOURCE: Benninghoff M. Critical Care Congress 2019, Abstract 490.

Patients who test positive on a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), even after a recent colonoscopy, should be offered a repeat colonoscopy. That is the conclusion following a review of 2,228 subjects who were FIT positive, which revealed a greater risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACRN) the longer the gap since the last colonoscopy. The findings support the recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on CRC Screening to offer repeat colonoscopies to FIT-positive patients, even if they recently underwent a colonoscopy.

pixologicstudio/Thinkstock

That recommendation was based on low-quality supporting evidence, and there is currently little agreement about whether annual FIT should be performed along with colonoscopy.

The researchers set out to detect the frequency of CRC and ACRN among patients with a positive FIT test. They analyzed data from the National Cancer Screening Program in Korea, which offers an annual FIT for adults aged 50 years and older as an initial screening, followed by a colonoscopy in case of a positive result.

The researchers analyzed data from 52,376 individuals who underwent FIT at a single center in Korea during January 2013–July 2017. They excluded patients with a history of CRC or colorectal surgery, inflammatory bowel disease, or poor bowel preparation.

FIT-positive and FIT-negative patients were divided into three groups based on the length of time since their last colonoscopy: less than 3 years, 3-10 years, or more than 10 years or no colonoscopy.

Compared with FIT-negative subjects, FIT-positive individuals were more likely to be diagnosed with any colorectal neoplasia (61.3% vs. 51.8%; P less than .001), ACRN (20.0% vs. 10.3%; P less than .001), and CRC (5.0% vs. 1.9%; P less than .001).

A total of 6% of subjects had a positive FIT result, and data from 2,228 were analyzed after exclusions. They were compared with 6,135 participants who had negative FIT results but underwent a colonoscopy.

Of patients with a positive FIT result, 23.1% had a colonoscopy less than 3 years before, 19.2% had one 3-10 years prior, and 57.8% had a colonoscopy more than 10 years earlier or had never had one.

The more-than-10-year group had a higher frequency of colorectal neoplasia, ACRN, or CRC (26.0%) than did the 3-10-year group (12.6%), and the less-than-3-year group (10.9%; P less than .001 for all). A similar trend was seen for CRC: 7.2%, 1.6%, and 2.1%, respectively (P less than .001).

SOURCE: Kim NH et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Jan 23. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.01.012.

Patients who test positive on a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), even after a recent colonoscopy, should be offered a repeat colonoscopy. That is the conclusion following a review of 2,228 subjects who were FIT positive, which revealed a greater risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACRN) the longer the gap since the last colonoscopy. The findings support the recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on CRC Screening to offer repeat colonoscopies to FIT-positive patients, even if they recently underwent a colonoscopy.

pixologicstudio/Thinkstock

That recommendation was based on low-quality supporting evidence, and there is currently little agreement about whether annual FIT should be performed along with colonoscopy.

The researchers set out to detect the frequency of CRC and ACRN among patients with a positive FIT test. They analyzed data from the National Cancer Screening Program in Korea, which offers an annual FIT for adults aged 50 years and older as an initial screening, followed by a colonoscopy in case of a positive result.

The researchers analyzed data from 52,376 individuals who underwent FIT at a single center in Korea during January 2013–July 2017. They excluded patients with a history of CRC or colorectal surgery, inflammatory bowel disease, or poor bowel preparation.

FIT-positive and FIT-negative patients were divided into three groups based on the length of time since their last colonoscopy: less than 3 years, 3-10 years, or more than 10 years or no colonoscopy.

Compared with FIT-negative subjects, FIT-positive individuals were more likely to be diagnosed with any colorectal neoplasia (61.3% vs. 51.8%; P less than .001), ACRN (20.0% vs. 10.3%; P less than .001), and CRC (5.0% vs. 1.9%; P less than .001).

A total of 6% of subjects had a positive FIT result, and data from 2,228 were analyzed after exclusions. They were compared with 6,135 participants who had negative FIT results but underwent a colonoscopy.

Of patients with a positive FIT result, 23.1% had a colonoscopy less than 3 years before, 19.2% had one 3-10 years prior, and 57.8% had a colonoscopy more than 10 years earlier or had never had one.

The more-than-10-year group had a higher frequency of colorectal neoplasia, ACRN, or CRC (26.0%) than did the 3-10-year group (12.6%), and the less-than-3-year group (10.9%; P less than .001 for all). A similar trend was seen for CRC: 7.2%, 1.6%, and 2.1%, respectively (P less than .001).

SOURCE: Kim NH et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Jan 23. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.01.012.

Patients who test positive on a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), even after a recent colonoscopy, should be offered a repeat colonoscopy. That is the conclusion following a review of 2,228 subjects who were FIT positive, which revealed a greater risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACRN) the longer the gap since the last colonoscopy. The findings support the recommendations of the U.S. Multi-Society Task Force on CRC Screening to offer repeat colonoscopies to FIT-positive patients, even if they recently underwent a colonoscopy.

pixologicstudio/Thinkstock

That recommendation was based on low-quality supporting evidence, and there is currently little agreement about whether annual FIT should be performed along with colonoscopy.

The researchers set out to detect the frequency of CRC and ACRN among patients with a positive FIT test. They analyzed data from the National Cancer Screening Program in Korea, which offers an annual FIT for adults aged 50 years and older as an initial screening, followed by a colonoscopy in case of a positive result.

The researchers analyzed data from 52,376 individuals who underwent FIT at a single center in Korea during January 2013–July 2017. They excluded patients with a history of CRC or colorectal surgery, inflammatory bowel disease, or poor bowel preparation.

FIT-positive and FIT-negative patients were divided into three groups based on the length of time since their last colonoscopy: less than 3 years, 3-10 years, or more than 10 years or no colonoscopy.

Compared with FIT-negative subjects, FIT-positive individuals were more likely to be diagnosed with any colorectal neoplasia (61.3% vs. 51.8%; P less than .001), ACRN (20.0% vs. 10.3%; P less than .001), and CRC (5.0% vs. 1.9%; P less than .001).

A total of 6% of subjects had a positive FIT result, and data from 2,228 were analyzed after exclusions. They were compared with 6,135 participants who had negative FIT results but underwent a colonoscopy.

Of patients with a positive FIT result, 23.1% had a colonoscopy less than 3 years before, 19.2% had one 3-10 years prior, and 57.8% had a colonoscopy more than 10 years earlier or had never had one.

The more-than-10-year group had a higher frequency of colorectal neoplasia, ACRN, or CRC (26.0%) than did the 3-10-year group (12.6%), and the less-than-3-year group (10.9%; P less than .001 for all). A similar trend was seen for CRC: 7.2%, 1.6%, and 2.1%, respectively (P less than .001).

SOURCE: Kim NH et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2019 Jan 23. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2019.01.012.