Affiliations
Department of Internal Medicine, Denver Health Medical Center, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Denver, Colorado
Given name(s)
Vignesh
Family name
Narayanan
Degrees
MD

Causes of Unplanned ICU Transfers

Article Type
Changed
Thu, 05/25/2017 - 21:48
Display Headline
Unplanned transfers to a medical intensive care unit: Causes and relationship to preventable errors in care

Two national surveys indicate that 14% to 28% of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU's) are unplanned transfers (i.e., moving a patient to the ICU from other areas in the hospital providing lower intensity care due to an unanticipated change in the patient's clinical status), and that the most common reason for unplanned transfers is respiratory insufficiency/failure.1, 2 Patients suffering adverse events during a hospitalization are more likely to have an unplanned ICU transfer and patients requiring unplanned transfers have a higher mortality.35 Accordingly, the Joint Commission has identified improved recognition and response to changes in a patient's condition as a national patient safety goal,6 and Rapid Response Teams (RRTs) have been advocated to deal with these changes,7 although recent studies question the effectiveness of RRTs.811

We sought to classify the causes of unplanned, in‐hospital transfers to a medical ICU (MICU) with the idea of identifying common problems in care that might be addressed by process improvement activities. We also sought to determine the fraction of patients requiring an unplanned MICU transfer that had evidence of clinical deterioration prior to the time of transfer and whether, in retrospect, different or earlier interventions might have prevented the transfer. Our hypotheses were that (1) most unplanned MICU transfers occurred as a result of errors in care, (2) most were preceded by clinical deterioration within 12 hours prior to the transfer, and (3) most were preventable.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients transferring to the MICU from non‐ICU Medicine units at Denver Health, a university‐affiliated, public safety net hospital. All adult patients between 18 to 89 years of age, who were admitted to the Medicine service between June, 2005 and May, 2006 were included in the study. Exclusion criteria included patients who (1) transferred from outside hospitals, (2) transferred from nonMedicine units within Denver Health, (3) were admitted directly to the MICU from the emergency department (ED), (4) were prisoners, (5) were readmitted to the MICU during the same hospitalization, (6) were known to be pregnant, or (7) were planned MICU transfers following invasive procedures (eg, elective cardiac catheterization, defibrillator placement, ablations). Patients readmitted to the MICU were excluded because of the difficulty distinguishing between premature transfer from the MICU or potential problems in care that might have occurred prior to the time of transfer from those occurring during follow‐up care on the Medicine floor services.

Computerized medical records of eligible patients were searched for demographic information and for admitting and transfer diagnoses (with the latter being categorized using a taxonomy we developed for classifying unplanned transfers, Table 1). Three independent observers (all of whom were board certified in Internal Medicine and had been practicing as Hospitalists at our institution for a minimum of three years) retrospectively reviewed each patient's hospital record to determine the cause of the unplanned transfer using this taxonomy. All three also made a judgment as to whether deterioration was evident at any time within the 12 hours preceding the unplanned transfer on the basis of clinical criteria used as our hospital's rapid response triggers (Table 2). When clinical triggers were found, each of the reviewers independently judged whether the unplanned transfer might have been prevented had different or earlier interventions been instituted. Each reviewer was blinded to the results of the other two.

Taxonomy of Unplanned MICU Transfers
  • Abbreviations: ED, emergency department; MICU, medical intensive care unit.

1. Errors in triage from the Emergency Department
A. Diagnostic errors (conditions that were overlooked at the time of admission but explained the chief complaint).
B. Inadequate assessment (new diagnosis established after more extensive evaluation that could have been performed at the time of admission).
C. Overlooked severity (patients meeting MICU admission criteria at the time of admission from the ED).
2. Worsening of condition for which the patient was admitted
A. Errors with assessment or treatment (evaluation or treatment that was not thought to be standard of care for the admitting diagnosis).
1. Delayed (could reasonably have been instituted earlier)
2. Incorrect (not thought to represent standard of care)
3. Inadequate (correct, but insufficient for the admitting diagnosis)
B. Spontaneous worsening (worsening of the problem for which the patients were admitted to the point of requiring MICU transfer for which no specific cause could be identified)
3. Development of a new problem
A. Iatrogenic (thought to be caused by a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention)
B. Spontaneous (no specific cause could be identified)
4. Critical laboratory values (laboratory values needing frequent monitoring of patient and/or blood draws)
Rapid Response Clinical Triggers
A. Respiratory
Respiratory rate <8 or >28/minute
Acute change in oxygen saturation to <90% despite oxygen administration
Threatened airway
B. Cardiovascular
Acute change in systolic blood pressure to <90 mmHg
Acute, sustained increase in diastolic blood pressure to >110 mmHg
Acute change in heart rate to <50 or >120 beats/minute
New onset chest pain or chest pain different than on admission assessment
Acutely cold and pulseless extremity.
C. Neurological
Confusion, agitation or delirium
Unexplained lethargy/difficult to arouse
Difficulty speaking or swallowing
Acute change in pupillary response
New seizure
D. Other
Temperature >39.0 Celsius
Uncontrolled pain (if different than admission pain assessment)
Acute change in urine output <50 mL/4 hours
Acute bleeding (bleeding with a change in vitals, urine output or mental status)

All analyses were done using SAS Enterprise Guide 4.1, SAS Institute, Cary, NC. Data are presented as mean (standard deviation [SD]). Interobserver agreement was measured by calculating a statistic. values were interpreted by using the guidelines suggested by Landis and colleagues.12 A chi‐square test was used to seek associations between baseline characteristics, reasons for MICU transfer and mortality. P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. The Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board approved the research protocol.

Results

Over the period of the study the Medicine floor services had 4468 admissions of which 152 met the inclusion criteria for having an unplanned MICU transfer (Table 3). The most common admitting diagnoses were heart failure (12%) and community acquired pneumonia (9%). The most common diagnoses to which the unplanned MICU transfers were attributed were respiratory failure (27%) and sepsis (9%) (Table 4). Seven cardiopulmonary arrests were successfully resuscitated and transferred to the MICU. Throughout the period of the study, no patients were admitted to non‐MICU units because the MICU was at full capacity. Additionally the investigators did not find any inordinate delays in transfer to the ICU while waiting for a bed.

Patient Demographics and Admitting Diagnoses (n = 152)
  • Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; Agree, SD, standard deviation.

Age (years) mean (SD)52 14
Gender (male:female) 
Number95:57
%63:37
Race, n (%) 
White, non‐Hispanic54 (35)
White, Hispanic59 (39)
Black30 (20)
Other9 (6)
Primary language, n (%) 
English131 (86)
Spanish17 (11)
Other4 (3)
Length of stay prior to transfer (hours) (median, IQR)46, 89
Admitting diagnosis, n (%) 
Acute decompensated heart failure (systolic/diastolic)18 (12)
Community acquired pneumonia13 (9)
Suspected acute coronary syndrome9 (6)
Delirium8 (5)
Acute kidney injury8 (5)
Abdominal pain8 (5)
Respiratory failure6 (4)
Diagnoses Leading to Unplanned MICU Transfers, n (%)
  • Abbreviation: MICU, medical intensive care unit.

Respiratory failure (cardiogenic/non‐cardiogenic)41 (27)
Sepsis14 (9)
Hypotension13 (9)
Gastrointestinal bleeding12 (8)
Tachyarrhythmia9 (6)
Cardiac arrest7 (5)
Hypertensive emergency7 (5)
Acute coronary syndrome7 (5)

A total of 51 patients (34%) were transferred within the first 24 hours of admission. The most common diagnoses resulting in transfer in this group were respiratory failure, hypertensive emergency, hypotension, gastrointestinal bleed, and acute coronary syndrome. The remaining 101 patients (66%) were transferred from two to 15 days following admission for a variety of problems but respiratory failure was most common (34 patients, 22%).

Worsening of the problem for which the patients were initially admitted accounted for the unplanned transfers of 73 patients (48%) (Table 5). Development of a new problem unrelated to the admitting diagnosis accounted for the transfer in 59 patients (39%). Five patients were transferred to the ICU for a critical laboratory value that required a closer monitoring of the patient or needed more frequent lab draws that could not be achieved on the floor.

Causes of Unplanned MICU Transfers (n = 152)
Causesn (%)
  • Abbreviation: MICU, medical intensive care unit.

1. Errors in triage from the emergency department:15 (10)
A. Diagnostic errors:1 (0.7)
B. Inadequate assessment:0 (0)
C. Overlooked severity:14 (9)
2. Worsening of condition for which the patient was admitted:73 (48)
A. Problems with assessment or treatment:5 (3)
1. Delayed1 (0.7)
2. Incorrect1 (0.7)
3. Inadequate3 (2)
B. Spontaneous worsening68 (45)
3. Development of a new problem59 (39)
A. Iatrogenic9 (6)
B. Spontaneous50 (33)
4. Critical laboratory values5 (3)

Errors in care were thought to be present in 29 patients (19% of the unplanned transfers). For 15 of these (52%) the error involved incorrect triage from the ED as 14 of the 15 patients met MICU admission criteria at the time they were triaged to non‐MICU units (Table 6). The remaining patient had a dissecting aortic aneurysm that was not considered while he was being evaluated for acute chest pain. All these patients were transferred to the ICU within 24 hours of their admission and the reviewers agreed that all could have been prevented if existing diagnostic and admission algorithms were followed.

Denver Health MICU Admission Criteria
  • Abbreviations: ICP, intracranial pressure; ICU, intensive care unit; IV, intravenous; MICU, medical intensive care unit.

Hemodynamic instability requiring vasopressor agents, continued aggressive fluid resuscitation, or central venous/pulmonary artery catheter monitoring or balloon pump
Acute respiratory failure with ongoing or impending need for ventilatory support (either invasively or non‐ invasively).
Gastrointestinal bleeding meeting ICU admission criteria (>2 clinical risk factors and Rockall score >3 per Gastrointestinal Bleeding Protocol)
Cardiac chest pains associated with two of the three criteria
Ongoing ischemic chest pain
Enzyme elevation
ST segment depression <0.5 mm in 2 consecutives leads or transient ST‐segment elevation
Chest pain requiring IV nitroglycerin infusion.
Complex cardiac arrhythmia requiring close monitoring and/or intravenous infusion therapy
Temporary pacemaker.
Hypertensive crisis with end‐organ dysfunction or aortic dissection requiring intravenous treatment.
Massive hemoptysis (>500 cc/24 hours)
Acute neurological dysfunction requiring one of
ICP monitoring,
Acute respiratory failure with impending need for ventilatory support
Hourly neurological checks.
Status epilepticus
Post‐operative patients requiring hemodynamic monitoring/ventilator support of extensive nursing care.
Severe metabolic disorder or intoxication requiring frequent monitoring and/or intravenous infusion therapy that cannot be administered on a floor.
Multiple trauma, including severe head and spine trauma
Other indication (please specify)

Of the remaining 14 patients thought to have errors in care, nine were classified as the development of a new, iatrogenic problem (ie, opiate or benzodiazepine overdose occurring during treatment for pain and/or anxiety in 3, volume overload in 2, insulin‐induced hypoglycemia, antibiotic associated reaction, ‐blocker overdose and acute renal failure from over‐diuresis in one each) and five occurred because the patient's admitting problem worsened because treatment was thought to be either delayed, incorrect, or inadequate (Table 5). The reviewers all agreed that the unplanned transfers could have been prevented in eight of the 14 patients who developed iatrogenic problems if existing algorithms were followed or if an earlier or different intervention had occurred. The reviewers did not agree about whether the unplanned transfer could have been prevented in one patient who developed an iatrogenic problem and in all five patients whose underlying condition worsened. Accordingly, in sum, the reviewers felt that 23 of the 152 unplanned transfers (15%) could have been prevented.

In addition to trying to determine how many of the unplanned MICU transfers could have been prevented, we also investigated the utility of rapid response triggers in alerting the physicians and nurses of impending deteriorations in status and whether earlier recognition of this deterioration might have prevented the transfers. Of the 152 unplanned transfers, 106 (70%) had one or more rapid response triggers within the preceding 12 hours. All three reviewers agreed and concluded that in 94 (89%) of these, the unplanned transfer could not have been prevented, even with different or earlier interventions. For five patients (5% of the 106) all reviewers agreed and concluded that earlier intervention might have averted the subsequent transfer. For the other seven patients (6%), no consensus was reached. If we assume that, for all of these latter seven, earlier or different intervention might have averted the unplanned transfer, a maximum of 12 unplanned transfers (11% of the 106) might have been prevented by having a system of care that employed regularly assessing rapid response triggers and acting on them when recognized.

The interobserver reliability for the three reviewers was moderate to almost perfect with = 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.31, 0.88); = 0.90, 95% CI (0.71, 1); = 0.55, 95% CI (0.26, 0.84).

A total of 27 (18%) of the patients with unplanned transfers died in the MICU. During this same time period 91 of 1511 patients (6%) admitted directly from the ED to the MICU died (P < 0.05). Mortality was lower for patients transferred within 24 hours of admission compared to those transferred > 24 hours after admission (4% vs. 22% mortality, respectively, P < 0.05; 95% CI, 0.09‐0.89). We found no difference in mortality as a function of time of admission or time of transfer implying that differences in staffing, or the availability of various services, did not contribute to the unplanned transfers.

Discussion

The important findings of this study were that (1) 19% of unplanned, in‐hospital transfers from Medicine floor services to the MICU seemed to result from apparent errors in care, (2) 15% of the unplanned transfers were potentially preventable, (3) the majority of the errors in care involved inappropriate triage of patients from the ED to the non‐MICU units, (4) 106 (70%) of the patients requiring unplanned transfers developed rapid response criteria within 12 hours prior to the transfer, but on review of these (5) the transfer was thought to be preventable in only a maximum of 12 (11%).

We designed our study in part to find specific errors that commonly resulted in unplanned MICU transfers with the idea that, if these could be identified, they might be corrected, thereby improving care. Contrary to our hypothesis we found that only 29 (19%) of the unplanned transfers seemed to result from errors in care. Of these, however, half were attributable to overlooking that patients met our own institution's MICU admission criteria at the time they were triaged to non‐MICU units. This result is consistent with Walter et al.13 finding that while 88% of MICUs in academic health centers had written MICU admission criteria, only 25% used these criteria on a regular basis. Hospital mortality is likely lower for patients meeting MICU admission criteria when they are appropriately and expeditiously triaged.1418 Accordingly, developing mechanisms by which patients are routinely screened for meeting MICU admission criteria could and should reduce this source of error and improve patient outcomes.

Nine of the remaining 14 errors in care resulted from what the chart reviewers concluded was overly aggressive treatment; either excess fluid resuscitation or excess treatment of pain or anxiety. It is not clear that these represent correctable errors in care, however, as hypotensive patients require fluid resuscitation, and patients with pain or anxiety should receive analgesics or anxiolytics and it is not reasonable to expect that these interventions will be appropriately titrated in every instance. Nonetheless, our reviewers all agreed that, in eight of these patients, different interventions could have prevented the unplanned transfer.

Since 41 (27%) of the unplanned transfers were for respiratory failure, we reviewed each of these patients' records seeking evidence suggesting that the problem might have resulted from excessive use of fluids, narcotics, or anxiolytics. By retrospective analysis only six such cases could be identified. Most were due to worsening of the problem for which the patient was admitted.

Consistent with our hypothesis the majority of patients requiring unplanned MICU transfers (106/152, 70%) developed rapid response clinical triggers within the 12 hours preceding transfer, as has been previously demonstrated by Hillman et al.7 and others.8‐10, 19 Our reviewers tried to determine whether earlier or different interventions might have prevented the deterioration and the resulting unplanned transfer. Interestingly, in the large majority (94/106, 89%) they concluded that nothing different could have been done and that the transfer could not have been avoided. While this observation contrasts with our hypothesis, it is consistent with two studies questioning the utility of RRTs in preventing unplanned ICU transfers.9, 10 In addition some patients may ultimately need an ICU transfer despite receiving appropriate interventions as it is impossible to prevent an ICU transfer in every patient. Conversely, just because a patient meets a rapid response criteria does not mean that the patient needs a higher level of care or an ICU transfer as some can be safely managed on the floor.

Our study has a number of potential limitations. The data came from a single teaching hospital and we only assessed patients admitted to General Internal Medicine units and transferred to a MICU. Accordingly, our results might not generalize to other hospitals (teaching or nonteaching), to other services or to other types of ICUs. We found, however, that (1) unplanned transfers accounted for 10% of the total admissions to our MICU, a similar fraction as reported by Angus et al.1 in 2006; (2) respiratory failure/emnsufficiency and sepsis were the most common diagnoses leading to unplanned transfers as previously reported by Groeger et al.2 and Hillman et al.5; (3) mortality was increased in patients requiring unplanned transfer, as noted by Escarce and Kelley3 and Hillman et al.5; and (4) patients who were transferred to the MICU within 24 hours of admission had better outcomes than those who were transferred later, as reported by Goldhill et al.4 Accordingly, our patient population seems quite similar to others in the literature.

Since we did not use objective criteria to assign patients to each of the categories itemized in Table 5 we could have misclassified patients with respect to the cause for their unplanned MICU transfer. Despite this shortcoming, however, the scores among our independent reviewers were moderate to almost perfect suggesting misclassification did not occur commonly.

Our retrospective study design may have underestimated the utility of RRTs as we had no way of knowing the outcomes of patients who met rapid response criteria and had interventions that prevented unplanned MICU transfers.

In summary, approximately 15% of unplanned MICU transfers seem to be preventable and approximately one‐fifth seem to result from errors in care, the majority of which are errors in triage from the ED. While the large majority of unplanned transfers were preceded by clinical deterioration within the preceding 12 hours, manifested by the presence of rapid response triggers, the large majority of these do not seem to be preventable. From these findings we suggest that unplanned transfers could be reduced by more closely screening patients for the presence of defined MICU admission criteria at the time of admission from the ED, by recognizing that fluid resuscitation and control of pain and/or anxiety can have adverse effects and by monitoring patients receiving these interventions more closely.

References
  1. Angus DC,Shorr AF,White A,Dremsizov TT,Schmitz RJ,Kelley MA.Committee on Manpower for Pulmonary and Critical Care Societies (COMPACCS). Critical care delivery in the United States: distribution of services and compliance with Leapfrog recommendations.Crit Care Med.2006;34(4):10161024.
  2. Groeger JS,Guntupalli KK,Strosberg M, et al.Descriptive analysis of critical care units in the United States: patient characteristics and intensive care unit utilization.Crit Care Med.1993;21(2):279291.
  3. Escarce JJ,Kelley MA.Admission source to the medical intensive care unit predicts hospital death independent of APACHE II score.JAMA.1990;264(18):23892394.
  4. Goldhill DR,McNarry AF,Hadjianastassiou VG,Tekkis PP.The longer patients are in hospital before Intensive Care admission the higher their mortality.Intensive Care Med.2004;30(10):19081913.
  5. Hillman KM,Bristow PJ,Chey T,Daffurn K,Jacques T,Norman SL et al.Duration of life‐threatening antecedents prior to intensive care admission.Intensive Care Med.2002;28(11):16291634.
  6. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. The Joint Commission Hospital Accreditation Program, National Patient Safety Goals, Goal 16; 2008. Available at: http://www.jointcommission.org/PatientSafety/NationalPatientSafetyGoals/08_hap_npsgs.htm. Accessed May2010.
  7. Hillman K,Chen J,Cretikos M, et al.MERIT study investigators. Introduction of the medical emergency team (MET) system: a cluster‐randomised controlled trial.Lancet.2005;365(9477):20912097.
  8. Winters BD,Pham JC,Hunt EA,Guallar E,Berenholtz S,Pronovost PJ.Rapid response systems: a systematic review.Crit Care Med.2007;35(5):12381243.
  9. Chan PS,Khalid A,Longmore LS,Berg RA,Kosiborod M,Spertus JA.Hospital‐wide code rates and mortality before and after implementation of a rapid response team.JAMA.2008;300(21):25062513.
  10. Ranji SR,Auerbach AD,Hurd CJ,O'Rourke K,Shojania KG.Effects of rapid response systems on clinical outcomes: systematic review and meta‐analysis.J Hosp Med.2007;2(6):422432.
  11. Chan PS,Jain R,Nallmothu BK,Berg RA,Sasson C.Rapid response teams: a systematic review and meta‐analysis.Arch Intern Med.2010;170(1):1826.
  12. Landis JR,Koch GG.The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.Biometrics.1977;33(1):159174.
  13. Walter KL,Siegler M,Hall JB.How decisions are made to admit patients to medical intensive care units (MICUs): A survey of MICU directors at academic medical centers across the United States.Crit Care Med.2008;36:414420.
  14. Metcalfe MA,Sloggett A,McPherson K.Mortality among appropriately referred patients refused admission to intensive‐care units.Lancet.1997;350:712.
  15. Joynt GM,Gomersall CD,Tann P,Lee A,Cheng CA,Wong EL.Prospective evaluation of patients refused admission to an intensive care unit: triage, futility and outcome.Intensive Care Med.2001;27:14591465.
  16. Sinuff T,Kahnamoui K,Cook DJ,Luce JM,Levy MM,for the Values, Ethics and Rationing in Critical Care (VERICC) Task Force. Rationing critical care beds: A systematic review.Crit Care Med.2004;32:15881597.
  17. Simchen E,Sprung CL,Galai N, et al.Survival of critically ill patients hospitalized in and out of intensive care.Crit Care Med.2007;35:449457.
  18. Chalfin DB,Trzeciak S,Likourezos A,Baumann BM,Dellinger RP,for the DELAY‐ED study group. Impact of delayed transfer of critically ill patients form the emergency department to the intensive care unit.Crit Care Med.2007;35:14771483.
  19. Hillman KM,Bristow PJ,Chey T, et al.Antecedents to hospital deaths.Intern Med J.2001;31(6):343348.
Article PDF
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 6(2)
Publications
Page Number
68-72
Legacy Keywords
emergency department triage, medical errors, rapid response teams, unplanned ICU admissions
Sections
Article PDF
Article PDF

Two national surveys indicate that 14% to 28% of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU's) are unplanned transfers (i.e., moving a patient to the ICU from other areas in the hospital providing lower intensity care due to an unanticipated change in the patient's clinical status), and that the most common reason for unplanned transfers is respiratory insufficiency/failure.1, 2 Patients suffering adverse events during a hospitalization are more likely to have an unplanned ICU transfer and patients requiring unplanned transfers have a higher mortality.35 Accordingly, the Joint Commission has identified improved recognition and response to changes in a patient's condition as a national patient safety goal,6 and Rapid Response Teams (RRTs) have been advocated to deal with these changes,7 although recent studies question the effectiveness of RRTs.811

We sought to classify the causes of unplanned, in‐hospital transfers to a medical ICU (MICU) with the idea of identifying common problems in care that might be addressed by process improvement activities. We also sought to determine the fraction of patients requiring an unplanned MICU transfer that had evidence of clinical deterioration prior to the time of transfer and whether, in retrospect, different or earlier interventions might have prevented the transfer. Our hypotheses were that (1) most unplanned MICU transfers occurred as a result of errors in care, (2) most were preceded by clinical deterioration within 12 hours prior to the transfer, and (3) most were preventable.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients transferring to the MICU from non‐ICU Medicine units at Denver Health, a university‐affiliated, public safety net hospital. All adult patients between 18 to 89 years of age, who were admitted to the Medicine service between June, 2005 and May, 2006 were included in the study. Exclusion criteria included patients who (1) transferred from outside hospitals, (2) transferred from nonMedicine units within Denver Health, (3) were admitted directly to the MICU from the emergency department (ED), (4) were prisoners, (5) were readmitted to the MICU during the same hospitalization, (6) were known to be pregnant, or (7) were planned MICU transfers following invasive procedures (eg, elective cardiac catheterization, defibrillator placement, ablations). Patients readmitted to the MICU were excluded because of the difficulty distinguishing between premature transfer from the MICU or potential problems in care that might have occurred prior to the time of transfer from those occurring during follow‐up care on the Medicine floor services.

Computerized medical records of eligible patients were searched for demographic information and for admitting and transfer diagnoses (with the latter being categorized using a taxonomy we developed for classifying unplanned transfers, Table 1). Three independent observers (all of whom were board certified in Internal Medicine and had been practicing as Hospitalists at our institution for a minimum of three years) retrospectively reviewed each patient's hospital record to determine the cause of the unplanned transfer using this taxonomy. All three also made a judgment as to whether deterioration was evident at any time within the 12 hours preceding the unplanned transfer on the basis of clinical criteria used as our hospital's rapid response triggers (Table 2). When clinical triggers were found, each of the reviewers independently judged whether the unplanned transfer might have been prevented had different or earlier interventions been instituted. Each reviewer was blinded to the results of the other two.

Taxonomy of Unplanned MICU Transfers
  • Abbreviations: ED, emergency department; MICU, medical intensive care unit.

1. Errors in triage from the Emergency Department
A. Diagnostic errors (conditions that were overlooked at the time of admission but explained the chief complaint).
B. Inadequate assessment (new diagnosis established after more extensive evaluation that could have been performed at the time of admission).
C. Overlooked severity (patients meeting MICU admission criteria at the time of admission from the ED).
2. Worsening of condition for which the patient was admitted
A. Errors with assessment or treatment (evaluation or treatment that was not thought to be standard of care for the admitting diagnosis).
1. Delayed (could reasonably have been instituted earlier)
2. Incorrect (not thought to represent standard of care)
3. Inadequate (correct, but insufficient for the admitting diagnosis)
B. Spontaneous worsening (worsening of the problem for which the patients were admitted to the point of requiring MICU transfer for which no specific cause could be identified)
3. Development of a new problem
A. Iatrogenic (thought to be caused by a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention)
B. Spontaneous (no specific cause could be identified)
4. Critical laboratory values (laboratory values needing frequent monitoring of patient and/or blood draws)
Rapid Response Clinical Triggers
A. Respiratory
Respiratory rate <8 or >28/minute
Acute change in oxygen saturation to <90% despite oxygen administration
Threatened airway
B. Cardiovascular
Acute change in systolic blood pressure to <90 mmHg
Acute, sustained increase in diastolic blood pressure to >110 mmHg
Acute change in heart rate to <50 or >120 beats/minute
New onset chest pain or chest pain different than on admission assessment
Acutely cold and pulseless extremity.
C. Neurological
Confusion, agitation or delirium
Unexplained lethargy/difficult to arouse
Difficulty speaking or swallowing
Acute change in pupillary response
New seizure
D. Other
Temperature >39.0 Celsius
Uncontrolled pain (if different than admission pain assessment)
Acute change in urine output <50 mL/4 hours
Acute bleeding (bleeding with a change in vitals, urine output or mental status)

All analyses were done using SAS Enterprise Guide 4.1, SAS Institute, Cary, NC. Data are presented as mean (standard deviation [SD]). Interobserver agreement was measured by calculating a statistic. values were interpreted by using the guidelines suggested by Landis and colleagues.12 A chi‐square test was used to seek associations between baseline characteristics, reasons for MICU transfer and mortality. P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. The Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board approved the research protocol.

Results

Over the period of the study the Medicine floor services had 4468 admissions of which 152 met the inclusion criteria for having an unplanned MICU transfer (Table 3). The most common admitting diagnoses were heart failure (12%) and community acquired pneumonia (9%). The most common diagnoses to which the unplanned MICU transfers were attributed were respiratory failure (27%) and sepsis (9%) (Table 4). Seven cardiopulmonary arrests were successfully resuscitated and transferred to the MICU. Throughout the period of the study, no patients were admitted to non‐MICU units because the MICU was at full capacity. Additionally the investigators did not find any inordinate delays in transfer to the ICU while waiting for a bed.

Patient Demographics and Admitting Diagnoses (n = 152)
  • Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; Agree, SD, standard deviation.

Age (years) mean (SD)52 14
Gender (male:female) 
Number95:57
%63:37
Race, n (%) 
White, non‐Hispanic54 (35)
White, Hispanic59 (39)
Black30 (20)
Other9 (6)
Primary language, n (%) 
English131 (86)
Spanish17 (11)
Other4 (3)
Length of stay prior to transfer (hours) (median, IQR)46, 89
Admitting diagnosis, n (%) 
Acute decompensated heart failure (systolic/diastolic)18 (12)
Community acquired pneumonia13 (9)
Suspected acute coronary syndrome9 (6)
Delirium8 (5)
Acute kidney injury8 (5)
Abdominal pain8 (5)
Respiratory failure6 (4)
Diagnoses Leading to Unplanned MICU Transfers, n (%)
  • Abbreviation: MICU, medical intensive care unit.

Respiratory failure (cardiogenic/non‐cardiogenic)41 (27)
Sepsis14 (9)
Hypotension13 (9)
Gastrointestinal bleeding12 (8)
Tachyarrhythmia9 (6)
Cardiac arrest7 (5)
Hypertensive emergency7 (5)
Acute coronary syndrome7 (5)

A total of 51 patients (34%) were transferred within the first 24 hours of admission. The most common diagnoses resulting in transfer in this group were respiratory failure, hypertensive emergency, hypotension, gastrointestinal bleed, and acute coronary syndrome. The remaining 101 patients (66%) were transferred from two to 15 days following admission for a variety of problems but respiratory failure was most common (34 patients, 22%).

Worsening of the problem for which the patients were initially admitted accounted for the unplanned transfers of 73 patients (48%) (Table 5). Development of a new problem unrelated to the admitting diagnosis accounted for the transfer in 59 patients (39%). Five patients were transferred to the ICU for a critical laboratory value that required a closer monitoring of the patient or needed more frequent lab draws that could not be achieved on the floor.

Causes of Unplanned MICU Transfers (n = 152)
Causesn (%)
  • Abbreviation: MICU, medical intensive care unit.

1. Errors in triage from the emergency department:15 (10)
A. Diagnostic errors:1 (0.7)
B. Inadequate assessment:0 (0)
C. Overlooked severity:14 (9)
2. Worsening of condition for which the patient was admitted:73 (48)
A. Problems with assessment or treatment:5 (3)
1. Delayed1 (0.7)
2. Incorrect1 (0.7)
3. Inadequate3 (2)
B. Spontaneous worsening68 (45)
3. Development of a new problem59 (39)
A. Iatrogenic9 (6)
B. Spontaneous50 (33)
4. Critical laboratory values5 (3)

Errors in care were thought to be present in 29 patients (19% of the unplanned transfers). For 15 of these (52%) the error involved incorrect triage from the ED as 14 of the 15 patients met MICU admission criteria at the time they were triaged to non‐MICU units (Table 6). The remaining patient had a dissecting aortic aneurysm that was not considered while he was being evaluated for acute chest pain. All these patients were transferred to the ICU within 24 hours of their admission and the reviewers agreed that all could have been prevented if existing diagnostic and admission algorithms were followed.

Denver Health MICU Admission Criteria
  • Abbreviations: ICP, intracranial pressure; ICU, intensive care unit; IV, intravenous; MICU, medical intensive care unit.

Hemodynamic instability requiring vasopressor agents, continued aggressive fluid resuscitation, or central venous/pulmonary artery catheter monitoring or balloon pump
Acute respiratory failure with ongoing or impending need for ventilatory support (either invasively or non‐ invasively).
Gastrointestinal bleeding meeting ICU admission criteria (>2 clinical risk factors and Rockall score >3 per Gastrointestinal Bleeding Protocol)
Cardiac chest pains associated with two of the three criteria
Ongoing ischemic chest pain
Enzyme elevation
ST segment depression <0.5 mm in 2 consecutives leads or transient ST‐segment elevation
Chest pain requiring IV nitroglycerin infusion.
Complex cardiac arrhythmia requiring close monitoring and/or intravenous infusion therapy
Temporary pacemaker.
Hypertensive crisis with end‐organ dysfunction or aortic dissection requiring intravenous treatment.
Massive hemoptysis (>500 cc/24 hours)
Acute neurological dysfunction requiring one of
ICP monitoring,
Acute respiratory failure with impending need for ventilatory support
Hourly neurological checks.
Status epilepticus
Post‐operative patients requiring hemodynamic monitoring/ventilator support of extensive nursing care.
Severe metabolic disorder or intoxication requiring frequent monitoring and/or intravenous infusion therapy that cannot be administered on a floor.
Multiple trauma, including severe head and spine trauma
Other indication (please specify)

Of the remaining 14 patients thought to have errors in care, nine were classified as the development of a new, iatrogenic problem (ie, opiate or benzodiazepine overdose occurring during treatment for pain and/or anxiety in 3, volume overload in 2, insulin‐induced hypoglycemia, antibiotic associated reaction, ‐blocker overdose and acute renal failure from over‐diuresis in one each) and five occurred because the patient's admitting problem worsened because treatment was thought to be either delayed, incorrect, or inadequate (Table 5). The reviewers all agreed that the unplanned transfers could have been prevented in eight of the 14 patients who developed iatrogenic problems if existing algorithms were followed or if an earlier or different intervention had occurred. The reviewers did not agree about whether the unplanned transfer could have been prevented in one patient who developed an iatrogenic problem and in all five patients whose underlying condition worsened. Accordingly, in sum, the reviewers felt that 23 of the 152 unplanned transfers (15%) could have been prevented.

In addition to trying to determine how many of the unplanned MICU transfers could have been prevented, we also investigated the utility of rapid response triggers in alerting the physicians and nurses of impending deteriorations in status and whether earlier recognition of this deterioration might have prevented the transfers. Of the 152 unplanned transfers, 106 (70%) had one or more rapid response triggers within the preceding 12 hours. All three reviewers agreed and concluded that in 94 (89%) of these, the unplanned transfer could not have been prevented, even with different or earlier interventions. For five patients (5% of the 106) all reviewers agreed and concluded that earlier intervention might have averted the subsequent transfer. For the other seven patients (6%), no consensus was reached. If we assume that, for all of these latter seven, earlier or different intervention might have averted the unplanned transfer, a maximum of 12 unplanned transfers (11% of the 106) might have been prevented by having a system of care that employed regularly assessing rapid response triggers and acting on them when recognized.

The interobserver reliability for the three reviewers was moderate to almost perfect with = 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.31, 0.88); = 0.90, 95% CI (0.71, 1); = 0.55, 95% CI (0.26, 0.84).

A total of 27 (18%) of the patients with unplanned transfers died in the MICU. During this same time period 91 of 1511 patients (6%) admitted directly from the ED to the MICU died (P < 0.05). Mortality was lower for patients transferred within 24 hours of admission compared to those transferred > 24 hours after admission (4% vs. 22% mortality, respectively, P < 0.05; 95% CI, 0.09‐0.89). We found no difference in mortality as a function of time of admission or time of transfer implying that differences in staffing, or the availability of various services, did not contribute to the unplanned transfers.

Discussion

The important findings of this study were that (1) 19% of unplanned, in‐hospital transfers from Medicine floor services to the MICU seemed to result from apparent errors in care, (2) 15% of the unplanned transfers were potentially preventable, (3) the majority of the errors in care involved inappropriate triage of patients from the ED to the non‐MICU units, (4) 106 (70%) of the patients requiring unplanned transfers developed rapid response criteria within 12 hours prior to the transfer, but on review of these (5) the transfer was thought to be preventable in only a maximum of 12 (11%).

We designed our study in part to find specific errors that commonly resulted in unplanned MICU transfers with the idea that, if these could be identified, they might be corrected, thereby improving care. Contrary to our hypothesis we found that only 29 (19%) of the unplanned transfers seemed to result from errors in care. Of these, however, half were attributable to overlooking that patients met our own institution's MICU admission criteria at the time they were triaged to non‐MICU units. This result is consistent with Walter et al.13 finding that while 88% of MICUs in academic health centers had written MICU admission criteria, only 25% used these criteria on a regular basis. Hospital mortality is likely lower for patients meeting MICU admission criteria when they are appropriately and expeditiously triaged.1418 Accordingly, developing mechanisms by which patients are routinely screened for meeting MICU admission criteria could and should reduce this source of error and improve patient outcomes.

Nine of the remaining 14 errors in care resulted from what the chart reviewers concluded was overly aggressive treatment; either excess fluid resuscitation or excess treatment of pain or anxiety. It is not clear that these represent correctable errors in care, however, as hypotensive patients require fluid resuscitation, and patients with pain or anxiety should receive analgesics or anxiolytics and it is not reasonable to expect that these interventions will be appropriately titrated in every instance. Nonetheless, our reviewers all agreed that, in eight of these patients, different interventions could have prevented the unplanned transfer.

Since 41 (27%) of the unplanned transfers were for respiratory failure, we reviewed each of these patients' records seeking evidence suggesting that the problem might have resulted from excessive use of fluids, narcotics, or anxiolytics. By retrospective analysis only six such cases could be identified. Most were due to worsening of the problem for which the patient was admitted.

Consistent with our hypothesis the majority of patients requiring unplanned MICU transfers (106/152, 70%) developed rapid response clinical triggers within the 12 hours preceding transfer, as has been previously demonstrated by Hillman et al.7 and others.8‐10, 19 Our reviewers tried to determine whether earlier or different interventions might have prevented the deterioration and the resulting unplanned transfer. Interestingly, in the large majority (94/106, 89%) they concluded that nothing different could have been done and that the transfer could not have been avoided. While this observation contrasts with our hypothesis, it is consistent with two studies questioning the utility of RRTs in preventing unplanned ICU transfers.9, 10 In addition some patients may ultimately need an ICU transfer despite receiving appropriate interventions as it is impossible to prevent an ICU transfer in every patient. Conversely, just because a patient meets a rapid response criteria does not mean that the patient needs a higher level of care or an ICU transfer as some can be safely managed on the floor.

Our study has a number of potential limitations. The data came from a single teaching hospital and we only assessed patients admitted to General Internal Medicine units and transferred to a MICU. Accordingly, our results might not generalize to other hospitals (teaching or nonteaching), to other services or to other types of ICUs. We found, however, that (1) unplanned transfers accounted for 10% of the total admissions to our MICU, a similar fraction as reported by Angus et al.1 in 2006; (2) respiratory failure/emnsufficiency and sepsis were the most common diagnoses leading to unplanned transfers as previously reported by Groeger et al.2 and Hillman et al.5; (3) mortality was increased in patients requiring unplanned transfer, as noted by Escarce and Kelley3 and Hillman et al.5; and (4) patients who were transferred to the MICU within 24 hours of admission had better outcomes than those who were transferred later, as reported by Goldhill et al.4 Accordingly, our patient population seems quite similar to others in the literature.

Since we did not use objective criteria to assign patients to each of the categories itemized in Table 5 we could have misclassified patients with respect to the cause for their unplanned MICU transfer. Despite this shortcoming, however, the scores among our independent reviewers were moderate to almost perfect suggesting misclassification did not occur commonly.

Our retrospective study design may have underestimated the utility of RRTs as we had no way of knowing the outcomes of patients who met rapid response criteria and had interventions that prevented unplanned MICU transfers.

In summary, approximately 15% of unplanned MICU transfers seem to be preventable and approximately one‐fifth seem to result from errors in care, the majority of which are errors in triage from the ED. While the large majority of unplanned transfers were preceded by clinical deterioration within the preceding 12 hours, manifested by the presence of rapid response triggers, the large majority of these do not seem to be preventable. From these findings we suggest that unplanned transfers could be reduced by more closely screening patients for the presence of defined MICU admission criteria at the time of admission from the ED, by recognizing that fluid resuscitation and control of pain and/or anxiety can have adverse effects and by monitoring patients receiving these interventions more closely.

Two national surveys indicate that 14% to 28% of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU's) are unplanned transfers (i.e., moving a patient to the ICU from other areas in the hospital providing lower intensity care due to an unanticipated change in the patient's clinical status), and that the most common reason for unplanned transfers is respiratory insufficiency/failure.1, 2 Patients suffering adverse events during a hospitalization are more likely to have an unplanned ICU transfer and patients requiring unplanned transfers have a higher mortality.35 Accordingly, the Joint Commission has identified improved recognition and response to changes in a patient's condition as a national patient safety goal,6 and Rapid Response Teams (RRTs) have been advocated to deal with these changes,7 although recent studies question the effectiveness of RRTs.811

We sought to classify the causes of unplanned, in‐hospital transfers to a medical ICU (MICU) with the idea of identifying common problems in care that might be addressed by process improvement activities. We also sought to determine the fraction of patients requiring an unplanned MICU transfer that had evidence of clinical deterioration prior to the time of transfer and whether, in retrospect, different or earlier interventions might have prevented the transfer. Our hypotheses were that (1) most unplanned MICU transfers occurred as a result of errors in care, (2) most were preceded by clinical deterioration within 12 hours prior to the transfer, and (3) most were preventable.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients transferring to the MICU from non‐ICU Medicine units at Denver Health, a university‐affiliated, public safety net hospital. All adult patients between 18 to 89 years of age, who were admitted to the Medicine service between June, 2005 and May, 2006 were included in the study. Exclusion criteria included patients who (1) transferred from outside hospitals, (2) transferred from nonMedicine units within Denver Health, (3) were admitted directly to the MICU from the emergency department (ED), (4) were prisoners, (5) were readmitted to the MICU during the same hospitalization, (6) were known to be pregnant, or (7) were planned MICU transfers following invasive procedures (eg, elective cardiac catheterization, defibrillator placement, ablations). Patients readmitted to the MICU were excluded because of the difficulty distinguishing between premature transfer from the MICU or potential problems in care that might have occurred prior to the time of transfer from those occurring during follow‐up care on the Medicine floor services.

Computerized medical records of eligible patients were searched for demographic information and for admitting and transfer diagnoses (with the latter being categorized using a taxonomy we developed for classifying unplanned transfers, Table 1). Three independent observers (all of whom were board certified in Internal Medicine and had been practicing as Hospitalists at our institution for a minimum of three years) retrospectively reviewed each patient's hospital record to determine the cause of the unplanned transfer using this taxonomy. All three also made a judgment as to whether deterioration was evident at any time within the 12 hours preceding the unplanned transfer on the basis of clinical criteria used as our hospital's rapid response triggers (Table 2). When clinical triggers were found, each of the reviewers independently judged whether the unplanned transfer might have been prevented had different or earlier interventions been instituted. Each reviewer was blinded to the results of the other two.

Taxonomy of Unplanned MICU Transfers
  • Abbreviations: ED, emergency department; MICU, medical intensive care unit.

1. Errors in triage from the Emergency Department
A. Diagnostic errors (conditions that were overlooked at the time of admission but explained the chief complaint).
B. Inadequate assessment (new diagnosis established after more extensive evaluation that could have been performed at the time of admission).
C. Overlooked severity (patients meeting MICU admission criteria at the time of admission from the ED).
2. Worsening of condition for which the patient was admitted
A. Errors with assessment or treatment (evaluation or treatment that was not thought to be standard of care for the admitting diagnosis).
1. Delayed (could reasonably have been instituted earlier)
2. Incorrect (not thought to represent standard of care)
3. Inadequate (correct, but insufficient for the admitting diagnosis)
B. Spontaneous worsening (worsening of the problem for which the patients were admitted to the point of requiring MICU transfer for which no specific cause could be identified)
3. Development of a new problem
A. Iatrogenic (thought to be caused by a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention)
B. Spontaneous (no specific cause could be identified)
4. Critical laboratory values (laboratory values needing frequent monitoring of patient and/or blood draws)
Rapid Response Clinical Triggers
A. Respiratory
Respiratory rate <8 or >28/minute
Acute change in oxygen saturation to <90% despite oxygen administration
Threatened airway
B. Cardiovascular
Acute change in systolic blood pressure to <90 mmHg
Acute, sustained increase in diastolic blood pressure to >110 mmHg
Acute change in heart rate to <50 or >120 beats/minute
New onset chest pain or chest pain different than on admission assessment
Acutely cold and pulseless extremity.
C. Neurological
Confusion, agitation or delirium
Unexplained lethargy/difficult to arouse
Difficulty speaking or swallowing
Acute change in pupillary response
New seizure
D. Other
Temperature >39.0 Celsius
Uncontrolled pain (if different than admission pain assessment)
Acute change in urine output <50 mL/4 hours
Acute bleeding (bleeding with a change in vitals, urine output or mental status)

All analyses were done using SAS Enterprise Guide 4.1, SAS Institute, Cary, NC. Data are presented as mean (standard deviation [SD]). Interobserver agreement was measured by calculating a statistic. values were interpreted by using the guidelines suggested by Landis and colleagues.12 A chi‐square test was used to seek associations between baseline characteristics, reasons for MICU transfer and mortality. P < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. The Colorado Multiple Institutional Review Board approved the research protocol.

Results

Over the period of the study the Medicine floor services had 4468 admissions of which 152 met the inclusion criteria for having an unplanned MICU transfer (Table 3). The most common admitting diagnoses were heart failure (12%) and community acquired pneumonia (9%). The most common diagnoses to which the unplanned MICU transfers were attributed were respiratory failure (27%) and sepsis (9%) (Table 4). Seven cardiopulmonary arrests were successfully resuscitated and transferred to the MICU. Throughout the period of the study, no patients were admitted to non‐MICU units because the MICU was at full capacity. Additionally the investigators did not find any inordinate delays in transfer to the ICU while waiting for a bed.

Patient Demographics and Admitting Diagnoses (n = 152)
  • Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; Agree, SD, standard deviation.

Age (years) mean (SD)52 14
Gender (male:female) 
Number95:57
%63:37
Race, n (%) 
White, non‐Hispanic54 (35)
White, Hispanic59 (39)
Black30 (20)
Other9 (6)
Primary language, n (%) 
English131 (86)
Spanish17 (11)
Other4 (3)
Length of stay prior to transfer (hours) (median, IQR)46, 89
Admitting diagnosis, n (%) 
Acute decompensated heart failure (systolic/diastolic)18 (12)
Community acquired pneumonia13 (9)
Suspected acute coronary syndrome9 (6)
Delirium8 (5)
Acute kidney injury8 (5)
Abdominal pain8 (5)
Respiratory failure6 (4)
Diagnoses Leading to Unplanned MICU Transfers, n (%)
  • Abbreviation: MICU, medical intensive care unit.

Respiratory failure (cardiogenic/non‐cardiogenic)41 (27)
Sepsis14 (9)
Hypotension13 (9)
Gastrointestinal bleeding12 (8)
Tachyarrhythmia9 (6)
Cardiac arrest7 (5)
Hypertensive emergency7 (5)
Acute coronary syndrome7 (5)

A total of 51 patients (34%) were transferred within the first 24 hours of admission. The most common diagnoses resulting in transfer in this group were respiratory failure, hypertensive emergency, hypotension, gastrointestinal bleed, and acute coronary syndrome. The remaining 101 patients (66%) were transferred from two to 15 days following admission for a variety of problems but respiratory failure was most common (34 patients, 22%).

Worsening of the problem for which the patients were initially admitted accounted for the unplanned transfers of 73 patients (48%) (Table 5). Development of a new problem unrelated to the admitting diagnosis accounted for the transfer in 59 patients (39%). Five patients were transferred to the ICU for a critical laboratory value that required a closer monitoring of the patient or needed more frequent lab draws that could not be achieved on the floor.

Causes of Unplanned MICU Transfers (n = 152)
Causesn (%)
  • Abbreviation: MICU, medical intensive care unit.

1. Errors in triage from the emergency department:15 (10)
A. Diagnostic errors:1 (0.7)
B. Inadequate assessment:0 (0)
C. Overlooked severity:14 (9)
2. Worsening of condition for which the patient was admitted:73 (48)
A. Problems with assessment or treatment:5 (3)
1. Delayed1 (0.7)
2. Incorrect1 (0.7)
3. Inadequate3 (2)
B. Spontaneous worsening68 (45)
3. Development of a new problem59 (39)
A. Iatrogenic9 (6)
B. Spontaneous50 (33)
4. Critical laboratory values5 (3)

Errors in care were thought to be present in 29 patients (19% of the unplanned transfers). For 15 of these (52%) the error involved incorrect triage from the ED as 14 of the 15 patients met MICU admission criteria at the time they were triaged to non‐MICU units (Table 6). The remaining patient had a dissecting aortic aneurysm that was not considered while he was being evaluated for acute chest pain. All these patients were transferred to the ICU within 24 hours of their admission and the reviewers agreed that all could have been prevented if existing diagnostic and admission algorithms were followed.

Denver Health MICU Admission Criteria
  • Abbreviations: ICP, intracranial pressure; ICU, intensive care unit; IV, intravenous; MICU, medical intensive care unit.

Hemodynamic instability requiring vasopressor agents, continued aggressive fluid resuscitation, or central venous/pulmonary artery catheter monitoring or balloon pump
Acute respiratory failure with ongoing or impending need for ventilatory support (either invasively or non‐ invasively).
Gastrointestinal bleeding meeting ICU admission criteria (>2 clinical risk factors and Rockall score >3 per Gastrointestinal Bleeding Protocol)
Cardiac chest pains associated with two of the three criteria
Ongoing ischemic chest pain
Enzyme elevation
ST segment depression <0.5 mm in 2 consecutives leads or transient ST‐segment elevation
Chest pain requiring IV nitroglycerin infusion.
Complex cardiac arrhythmia requiring close monitoring and/or intravenous infusion therapy
Temporary pacemaker.
Hypertensive crisis with end‐organ dysfunction or aortic dissection requiring intravenous treatment.
Massive hemoptysis (>500 cc/24 hours)
Acute neurological dysfunction requiring one of
ICP monitoring,
Acute respiratory failure with impending need for ventilatory support
Hourly neurological checks.
Status epilepticus
Post‐operative patients requiring hemodynamic monitoring/ventilator support of extensive nursing care.
Severe metabolic disorder or intoxication requiring frequent monitoring and/or intravenous infusion therapy that cannot be administered on a floor.
Multiple trauma, including severe head and spine trauma
Other indication (please specify)

Of the remaining 14 patients thought to have errors in care, nine were classified as the development of a new, iatrogenic problem (ie, opiate or benzodiazepine overdose occurring during treatment for pain and/or anxiety in 3, volume overload in 2, insulin‐induced hypoglycemia, antibiotic associated reaction, ‐blocker overdose and acute renal failure from over‐diuresis in one each) and five occurred because the patient's admitting problem worsened because treatment was thought to be either delayed, incorrect, or inadequate (Table 5). The reviewers all agreed that the unplanned transfers could have been prevented in eight of the 14 patients who developed iatrogenic problems if existing algorithms were followed or if an earlier or different intervention had occurred. The reviewers did not agree about whether the unplanned transfer could have been prevented in one patient who developed an iatrogenic problem and in all five patients whose underlying condition worsened. Accordingly, in sum, the reviewers felt that 23 of the 152 unplanned transfers (15%) could have been prevented.

In addition to trying to determine how many of the unplanned MICU transfers could have been prevented, we also investigated the utility of rapid response triggers in alerting the physicians and nurses of impending deteriorations in status and whether earlier recognition of this deterioration might have prevented the transfers. Of the 152 unplanned transfers, 106 (70%) had one or more rapid response triggers within the preceding 12 hours. All three reviewers agreed and concluded that in 94 (89%) of these, the unplanned transfer could not have been prevented, even with different or earlier interventions. For five patients (5% of the 106) all reviewers agreed and concluded that earlier intervention might have averted the subsequent transfer. For the other seven patients (6%), no consensus was reached. If we assume that, for all of these latter seven, earlier or different intervention might have averted the unplanned transfer, a maximum of 12 unplanned transfers (11% of the 106) might have been prevented by having a system of care that employed regularly assessing rapid response triggers and acting on them when recognized.

The interobserver reliability for the three reviewers was moderate to almost perfect with = 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.31, 0.88); = 0.90, 95% CI (0.71, 1); = 0.55, 95% CI (0.26, 0.84).

A total of 27 (18%) of the patients with unplanned transfers died in the MICU. During this same time period 91 of 1511 patients (6%) admitted directly from the ED to the MICU died (P < 0.05). Mortality was lower for patients transferred within 24 hours of admission compared to those transferred > 24 hours after admission (4% vs. 22% mortality, respectively, P < 0.05; 95% CI, 0.09‐0.89). We found no difference in mortality as a function of time of admission or time of transfer implying that differences in staffing, or the availability of various services, did not contribute to the unplanned transfers.

Discussion

The important findings of this study were that (1) 19% of unplanned, in‐hospital transfers from Medicine floor services to the MICU seemed to result from apparent errors in care, (2) 15% of the unplanned transfers were potentially preventable, (3) the majority of the errors in care involved inappropriate triage of patients from the ED to the non‐MICU units, (4) 106 (70%) of the patients requiring unplanned transfers developed rapid response criteria within 12 hours prior to the transfer, but on review of these (5) the transfer was thought to be preventable in only a maximum of 12 (11%).

We designed our study in part to find specific errors that commonly resulted in unplanned MICU transfers with the idea that, if these could be identified, they might be corrected, thereby improving care. Contrary to our hypothesis we found that only 29 (19%) of the unplanned transfers seemed to result from errors in care. Of these, however, half were attributable to overlooking that patients met our own institution's MICU admission criteria at the time they were triaged to non‐MICU units. This result is consistent with Walter et al.13 finding that while 88% of MICUs in academic health centers had written MICU admission criteria, only 25% used these criteria on a regular basis. Hospital mortality is likely lower for patients meeting MICU admission criteria when they are appropriately and expeditiously triaged.1418 Accordingly, developing mechanisms by which patients are routinely screened for meeting MICU admission criteria could and should reduce this source of error and improve patient outcomes.

Nine of the remaining 14 errors in care resulted from what the chart reviewers concluded was overly aggressive treatment; either excess fluid resuscitation or excess treatment of pain or anxiety. It is not clear that these represent correctable errors in care, however, as hypotensive patients require fluid resuscitation, and patients with pain or anxiety should receive analgesics or anxiolytics and it is not reasonable to expect that these interventions will be appropriately titrated in every instance. Nonetheless, our reviewers all agreed that, in eight of these patients, different interventions could have prevented the unplanned transfer.

Since 41 (27%) of the unplanned transfers were for respiratory failure, we reviewed each of these patients' records seeking evidence suggesting that the problem might have resulted from excessive use of fluids, narcotics, or anxiolytics. By retrospective analysis only six such cases could be identified. Most were due to worsening of the problem for which the patient was admitted.

Consistent with our hypothesis the majority of patients requiring unplanned MICU transfers (106/152, 70%) developed rapid response clinical triggers within the 12 hours preceding transfer, as has been previously demonstrated by Hillman et al.7 and others.8‐10, 19 Our reviewers tried to determine whether earlier or different interventions might have prevented the deterioration and the resulting unplanned transfer. Interestingly, in the large majority (94/106, 89%) they concluded that nothing different could have been done and that the transfer could not have been avoided. While this observation contrasts with our hypothesis, it is consistent with two studies questioning the utility of RRTs in preventing unplanned ICU transfers.9, 10 In addition some patients may ultimately need an ICU transfer despite receiving appropriate interventions as it is impossible to prevent an ICU transfer in every patient. Conversely, just because a patient meets a rapid response criteria does not mean that the patient needs a higher level of care or an ICU transfer as some can be safely managed on the floor.

Our study has a number of potential limitations. The data came from a single teaching hospital and we only assessed patients admitted to General Internal Medicine units and transferred to a MICU. Accordingly, our results might not generalize to other hospitals (teaching or nonteaching), to other services or to other types of ICUs. We found, however, that (1) unplanned transfers accounted for 10% of the total admissions to our MICU, a similar fraction as reported by Angus et al.1 in 2006; (2) respiratory failure/emnsufficiency and sepsis were the most common diagnoses leading to unplanned transfers as previously reported by Groeger et al.2 and Hillman et al.5; (3) mortality was increased in patients requiring unplanned transfer, as noted by Escarce and Kelley3 and Hillman et al.5; and (4) patients who were transferred to the MICU within 24 hours of admission had better outcomes than those who were transferred later, as reported by Goldhill et al.4 Accordingly, our patient population seems quite similar to others in the literature.

Since we did not use objective criteria to assign patients to each of the categories itemized in Table 5 we could have misclassified patients with respect to the cause for their unplanned MICU transfer. Despite this shortcoming, however, the scores among our independent reviewers were moderate to almost perfect suggesting misclassification did not occur commonly.

Our retrospective study design may have underestimated the utility of RRTs as we had no way of knowing the outcomes of patients who met rapid response criteria and had interventions that prevented unplanned MICU transfers.

In summary, approximately 15% of unplanned MICU transfers seem to be preventable and approximately one‐fifth seem to result from errors in care, the majority of which are errors in triage from the ED. While the large majority of unplanned transfers were preceded by clinical deterioration within the preceding 12 hours, manifested by the presence of rapid response triggers, the large majority of these do not seem to be preventable. From these findings we suggest that unplanned transfers could be reduced by more closely screening patients for the presence of defined MICU admission criteria at the time of admission from the ED, by recognizing that fluid resuscitation and control of pain and/or anxiety can have adverse effects and by monitoring patients receiving these interventions more closely.

References
  1. Angus DC,Shorr AF,White A,Dremsizov TT,Schmitz RJ,Kelley MA.Committee on Manpower for Pulmonary and Critical Care Societies (COMPACCS). Critical care delivery in the United States: distribution of services and compliance with Leapfrog recommendations.Crit Care Med.2006;34(4):10161024.
  2. Groeger JS,Guntupalli KK,Strosberg M, et al.Descriptive analysis of critical care units in the United States: patient characteristics and intensive care unit utilization.Crit Care Med.1993;21(2):279291.
  3. Escarce JJ,Kelley MA.Admission source to the medical intensive care unit predicts hospital death independent of APACHE II score.JAMA.1990;264(18):23892394.
  4. Goldhill DR,McNarry AF,Hadjianastassiou VG,Tekkis PP.The longer patients are in hospital before Intensive Care admission the higher their mortality.Intensive Care Med.2004;30(10):19081913.
  5. Hillman KM,Bristow PJ,Chey T,Daffurn K,Jacques T,Norman SL et al.Duration of life‐threatening antecedents prior to intensive care admission.Intensive Care Med.2002;28(11):16291634.
  6. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. The Joint Commission Hospital Accreditation Program, National Patient Safety Goals, Goal 16; 2008. Available at: http://www.jointcommission.org/PatientSafety/NationalPatientSafetyGoals/08_hap_npsgs.htm. Accessed May2010.
  7. Hillman K,Chen J,Cretikos M, et al.MERIT study investigators. Introduction of the medical emergency team (MET) system: a cluster‐randomised controlled trial.Lancet.2005;365(9477):20912097.
  8. Winters BD,Pham JC,Hunt EA,Guallar E,Berenholtz S,Pronovost PJ.Rapid response systems: a systematic review.Crit Care Med.2007;35(5):12381243.
  9. Chan PS,Khalid A,Longmore LS,Berg RA,Kosiborod M,Spertus JA.Hospital‐wide code rates and mortality before and after implementation of a rapid response team.JAMA.2008;300(21):25062513.
  10. Ranji SR,Auerbach AD,Hurd CJ,O'Rourke K,Shojania KG.Effects of rapid response systems on clinical outcomes: systematic review and meta‐analysis.J Hosp Med.2007;2(6):422432.
  11. Chan PS,Jain R,Nallmothu BK,Berg RA,Sasson C.Rapid response teams: a systematic review and meta‐analysis.Arch Intern Med.2010;170(1):1826.
  12. Landis JR,Koch GG.The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.Biometrics.1977;33(1):159174.
  13. Walter KL,Siegler M,Hall JB.How decisions are made to admit patients to medical intensive care units (MICUs): A survey of MICU directors at academic medical centers across the United States.Crit Care Med.2008;36:414420.
  14. Metcalfe MA,Sloggett A,McPherson K.Mortality among appropriately referred patients refused admission to intensive‐care units.Lancet.1997;350:712.
  15. Joynt GM,Gomersall CD,Tann P,Lee A,Cheng CA,Wong EL.Prospective evaluation of patients refused admission to an intensive care unit: triage, futility and outcome.Intensive Care Med.2001;27:14591465.
  16. Sinuff T,Kahnamoui K,Cook DJ,Luce JM,Levy MM,for the Values, Ethics and Rationing in Critical Care (VERICC) Task Force. Rationing critical care beds: A systematic review.Crit Care Med.2004;32:15881597.
  17. Simchen E,Sprung CL,Galai N, et al.Survival of critically ill patients hospitalized in and out of intensive care.Crit Care Med.2007;35:449457.
  18. Chalfin DB,Trzeciak S,Likourezos A,Baumann BM,Dellinger RP,for the DELAY‐ED study group. Impact of delayed transfer of critically ill patients form the emergency department to the intensive care unit.Crit Care Med.2007;35:14771483.
  19. Hillman KM,Bristow PJ,Chey T, et al.Antecedents to hospital deaths.Intern Med J.2001;31(6):343348.
References
  1. Angus DC,Shorr AF,White A,Dremsizov TT,Schmitz RJ,Kelley MA.Committee on Manpower for Pulmonary and Critical Care Societies (COMPACCS). Critical care delivery in the United States: distribution of services and compliance with Leapfrog recommendations.Crit Care Med.2006;34(4):10161024.
  2. Groeger JS,Guntupalli KK,Strosberg M, et al.Descriptive analysis of critical care units in the United States: patient characteristics and intensive care unit utilization.Crit Care Med.1993;21(2):279291.
  3. Escarce JJ,Kelley MA.Admission source to the medical intensive care unit predicts hospital death independent of APACHE II score.JAMA.1990;264(18):23892394.
  4. Goldhill DR,McNarry AF,Hadjianastassiou VG,Tekkis PP.The longer patients are in hospital before Intensive Care admission the higher their mortality.Intensive Care Med.2004;30(10):19081913.
  5. Hillman KM,Bristow PJ,Chey T,Daffurn K,Jacques T,Norman SL et al.Duration of life‐threatening antecedents prior to intensive care admission.Intensive Care Med.2002;28(11):16291634.
  6. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. The Joint Commission Hospital Accreditation Program, National Patient Safety Goals, Goal 16; 2008. Available at: http://www.jointcommission.org/PatientSafety/NationalPatientSafetyGoals/08_hap_npsgs.htm. Accessed May2010.
  7. Hillman K,Chen J,Cretikos M, et al.MERIT study investigators. Introduction of the medical emergency team (MET) system: a cluster‐randomised controlled trial.Lancet.2005;365(9477):20912097.
  8. Winters BD,Pham JC,Hunt EA,Guallar E,Berenholtz S,Pronovost PJ.Rapid response systems: a systematic review.Crit Care Med.2007;35(5):12381243.
  9. Chan PS,Khalid A,Longmore LS,Berg RA,Kosiborod M,Spertus JA.Hospital‐wide code rates and mortality before and after implementation of a rapid response team.JAMA.2008;300(21):25062513.
  10. Ranji SR,Auerbach AD,Hurd CJ,O'Rourke K,Shojania KG.Effects of rapid response systems on clinical outcomes: systematic review and meta‐analysis.J Hosp Med.2007;2(6):422432.
  11. Chan PS,Jain R,Nallmothu BK,Berg RA,Sasson C.Rapid response teams: a systematic review and meta‐analysis.Arch Intern Med.2010;170(1):1826.
  12. Landis JR,Koch GG.The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.Biometrics.1977;33(1):159174.
  13. Walter KL,Siegler M,Hall JB.How decisions are made to admit patients to medical intensive care units (MICUs): A survey of MICU directors at academic medical centers across the United States.Crit Care Med.2008;36:414420.
  14. Metcalfe MA,Sloggett A,McPherson K.Mortality among appropriately referred patients refused admission to intensive‐care units.Lancet.1997;350:712.
  15. Joynt GM,Gomersall CD,Tann P,Lee A,Cheng CA,Wong EL.Prospective evaluation of patients refused admission to an intensive care unit: triage, futility and outcome.Intensive Care Med.2001;27:14591465.
  16. Sinuff T,Kahnamoui K,Cook DJ,Luce JM,Levy MM,for the Values, Ethics and Rationing in Critical Care (VERICC) Task Force. Rationing critical care beds: A systematic review.Crit Care Med.2004;32:15881597.
  17. Simchen E,Sprung CL,Galai N, et al.Survival of critically ill patients hospitalized in and out of intensive care.Crit Care Med.2007;35:449457.
  18. Chalfin DB,Trzeciak S,Likourezos A,Baumann BM,Dellinger RP,for the DELAY‐ED study group. Impact of delayed transfer of critically ill patients form the emergency department to the intensive care unit.Crit Care Med.2007;35:14771483.
  19. Hillman KM,Bristow PJ,Chey T, et al.Antecedents to hospital deaths.Intern Med J.2001;31(6):343348.
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 6(2)
Issue
Journal of Hospital Medicine - 6(2)
Page Number
68-72
Page Number
68-72
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
Unplanned transfers to a medical intensive care unit: Causes and relationship to preventable errors in care
Display Headline
Unplanned transfers to a medical intensive care unit: Causes and relationship to preventable errors in care
Legacy Keywords
emergency department triage, medical errors, rapid response teams, unplanned ICU admissions
Legacy Keywords
emergency department triage, medical errors, rapid response teams, unplanned ICU admissions
Sections
Article Source

Copyright © 2010 Society of Hospital Medicine

Disallow All Ads
Correspondence Location
Division of Hospital Medicine, Denver Health Medical Center, 660 Bannock Street, MC 4000, Denver, CO 80204
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)
Alternative CME
Article PDF Media

The latest research you need to know

Article Type
Changed
Fri, 09/14/2018 - 12:34
Display Headline
The latest research you need to know

In This Edition

Does a short duration of perioperative smoking cessation lead to a reduction in postoperative complications?

Background: Prior studies have demonstrated a reduction in postoperative complications when patients stop smoking in the perioperative period. However, they have not clearly shown what effect a fairly short duration of cessation, such as a period of only four weeks, has on the frequency of complications.

Study design: Randomized controlled trial.

Setting: Four university-affiliated hospitals in Sweden.

Synopsis: Using 117 patients who were daily smokers for less than one year between the ages of 18-79 who were scheduled for elective general or orthopedic surgery, this study showed that a smoking-cessation intervention initiated as little as four weeks prior to surgery resulted in fewer postoperative complications. The complication rate was reduced from 41% in the control group to 21% in the intervention group, which received cessation counseling and nicotine-replacement therapy. The relative risk reduction was 49% (95% confidence interval, 3-40) with a number needed to treat of five.

Because this was a randomized controlled trial with a large observed benefit, it appears to be reasonable to endorse perioperative smoking cessation as late as four weeks before an elective surgery. The study was limited in its ability to detect a difference in wound infections by the small sample size and the possibility patients might have unblinded themselves to outcome assessors, causing an overestimation of the effect of the intervention on the primary outcome of all complications.

Bottom line: Perioperative smoking cessation reduces postoperative complications even when started just four weeks prior to surgery.

Citation: Lindstrom D, Azodi OS, Wladis A, et al. Effects of a perioperative smoking cessation intervention on postoperative complications. Ann Surg. 2008;248(5):739-745.

Does implantable-defibrillator therapy cause deterioration in quality of life for patients with heart failure?

Background: Patients with depressed left-ventricular function are known to have improved survival after receiving implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). However, there is concern ICD therapy can prolong survival at the expense of a diminished quality of life.

Study design: Randomized placebo-controlled trial.

Setting: Multiple centers in the U.S., Canada, and New Zealand.

Synopsis: Using 2,479 patients from the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure trial who were 18 and older and had stable heart failure and depressed left-ventricular function, this study demonstrated no significant quality-of-life difference at 30 months when compared with patients who received ICD, amiodarone, and state-of-the-art medical therapy or an amiodarone placebo and state-of-the-art medical therapy. While functional status did not differ at any time between the three groups, psychological well-being was improved in the ICD group at three months (p=0.01) and 12 months (p=0.03) when compared with the placebo group, but at 30 months there was no difference between the groups.

While the trial was randomized and placebo-controlled, the investigators were unable to blind patients or outcome assessors. Nevertheless, the lack of deterioration of quality of life in ICD patients is reassuring.

 

 

Bottom line: Placement of ICDs in heart failure patients with a high risk of sudden cardiac death does not appear to decrease quality of life.

Citation: Mark DB, Anstrom KJ, Sun JL, et al. Quality of life with defibrillator therapy or amiodarone in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:999-1008.

CLINICAL SHORTS

SERIAL 2-POINT ULTRASONOGRAPHY PLUS D-DIMER IS EQUIVALENT TO WHOLE-LEG ULTRASONOGRAPHY FOR DIAGNOSING DVT

Randomized trials show that when comparing serial 2-point ultrasonography plus D-dimer testing with whole-leg ultrasonography, the strategies were equivalent in excluding a first episode of suspected DVT in outpatients.

Citation: Bernardi E, Camporese G, Buller HR, et al. Serial 2-point ultrasonography plus D-dimer vs whole-leg color-coded Doppler ultrasonography for diagnosing suspected symptomatic deep vein thrombosis. JAMA. 2008;300(14):1653-1659.

DAILY HEMODIALYSIS IS COST-EFFECTIVE IN ICU PATIENTS WITH ACUTE KIDNEY INJURY (AKI)

Markov model based on prospective trial data shows daily hemodialysis is cost-effective for AKI in the ICU compared with alternate-day hemodialysis.

Citation: Desai AA, Baras J, Berk BB, et al. Management of acute kidney injury in the intensive care unit. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(16):1761-1767.

THROMBOLYSIS FOR IN-HOSPITAL STROKE IS SAFE, BUT ASSOCIATED WITH DELAYS

Prospective observational trial shows thrombolysis is safe and effective for in-hospital stroke, but statistically significant delays exist compared with out-of-hospital strokes.

Citation: Masjuan J, Simal P, Fuentes B, et al. In-hospital stroke treated with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator. Stroke. 2008;39:2614-2616.

ALGORITHM CAN IDENTIFY HIGH-RISK HEART FAILURE PATIENTS

Prospective observational study identifies clinical variables for a bedside algorithm, which stratifies the risk of hospitalized heart failure patients for early mortality or readmission to identify those who might benefit from closer follow-up.

Citation: O’Connor CM, Abraham WT, Albert NM, et al. Predictors of mortality after discharge in patients hospitalized with heart failure: an analysis from the Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure (OPTIMIZE-HF). Am Heart J. 2008;156(4):662-673.

IN-HOSPITAL SMOKING-CESSATION INTERVENTIONS WITH FOLLOW-UP CAN WORK

Meta-analysis of 33 trials shows in-hospital smoking-cessation counseling followed up with more than one month of outpatient support can be effective.

Citation: Rigotti NA, Munafo MR, Stead LF. Smoking cessation interventions for hospitalized smokers. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(18):1950-1960.

OMISSION OF KEY INFORMATION DURING SIGN-OUT LEADS TO ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES

An audio-taped study of sign-out among internal medicine house staff teams revealed omission of key information during sign-out resulted in delays in diagnosis or treatment.

Citation: Horwitz LI, Moin T, Krumholz HM, Wang L, Bradley EH. Consequences of inadequate sign-out for patient care. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(16):1755-1760.

HOSPITAL PALLIATIVE CARE CONSULTATION TEAMS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH HOSPITAL COST SAVINGS

Analysis of administrative data from eight diverse hospitals with palliative-care programs revealed consultation with palliative care saved $1,696 (p<0.001) per hospital admission in patients discharged alive, and $4,098 (p=0.003) per hospital admission in patients who died in the hospital.

Citation: Morrison RS, Penrod JD, Cassel JB, et al. Cost savings associated with U.S. hospital palliative care consultation programs. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(16):1783-1790.

HIGHER EDUCATIONAL DEBT INFLUENCES INTERNAL MEDICINE RESIDENT CAREER PLANS

U.S. medical graduates with a debt of $50,000 to $99,999 are more likely than those with no debt to choose a hospitalist career, and this preference increased with increased debt level.

Citation: McDonald FS, West CP, Popkave C, Kolars JC. Educational debt and reported career plans among internal medicine residents. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:416-420.

BRAIN IMAGING IMPORTANT IN IDENTIFYING VASCULAR TERRITORY AFTER TIA OR MINOR STROKE

Neurologists were only moderately reliable at identifying the vascular territory of a TIA or motor stroke, highlighting the fact brain imaging is needed to accurately identify the vascular territories of these events.

Citation: Flossmann E, Redgrave JN, Briley D, Rothwell PM. Reliability of clinical diagnosis of the symptomatic vascular territory in patients with recent transient ischemic attack or minor stroke. Stroke. 2008;39:2457-2460.

HIGH-DOSE VITAMIN B SUPPLEMENTATION DOES NOT SLOW COGNITIVE DECLINE IN ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE

Multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial finds no difference in the rate of cognitive decline in patients with Alzheimer’s disease treated with high-dose vitamin B supplements for 18 months.

Citation: Aisen PS, Schneider LS, Sano M, et al. High-dose B vitamin supplementation and cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s disease. JAMA. 2008; 300(15):1774-1783.

 

 

Can a simplified, revised Geneva score retain diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility?

Background: The revised Geneva score is a validated and objective clinical decision rule, but has multiple variables with different weights. This can make the tool cumbersome and difficult to remember, and could lead to inaccurate calculations and misjudgments in patient care.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Four university-affiliated European hospitals.

Synopsis: Using data from two prior prospective trials involving patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE), this study showed re-analysis of these patients with a simplified, revised Geneva score, which gives only one point to each clinical factor, resulted in the same level of diagnostic accuracy. Specifically, data from 1,049 patients was used to construct a receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis comparing the standardized and simplified Geneva score, which showed areas under the curve of 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.71-0.78) and 0.74 (0.70-0.77), respectively. Additionally, the safety of using this clinical tool to rule out PE was demonstrated when using both a three-level (low-intermediate probability) and a dichotomized scheme (PE unlikely) in combination with a negative D-dimer test.

The retrospective nature of the study was its major limitation. The authors suggest a prospective study to complete validation of the simplified, revised Geneva score.

Bottom line: With prospective analysis, it might be possible to further validate a simplified, revised Geneva score.

Citation: Klok FA, Mos ICM, Nijkeuter M, et al. Simplification of the revised Geneva score for assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(19):2131-2136.

Is the rate of postoperative major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) inversely related to time after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a drug-eluting stent (DES)?

Background: The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association recently released an advisory that included a recommendation to delay elective noncardiac surgery (NCS) for one year after DES placement. However, no large study addresses the timing of NCS after PCI with DES.

Study design: Retrospective observational study.

Setting: Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

Synopsis: Looking at 520 patients who had NCS after DES at the Mayo Clinic, 5.4% experienced MACEs, but the rate of MACEs was not significantly associated with the time after stent placement to surgery (p=0.337). However, observed rates of MACEs were lower after one year. Elderly patients and those going for emergent surgery are at the highest risk for MACE. Bleeding complications were not associated with antiplatelet use.

Although this study does not provide a clear cutoff time for when it is safe to proceed to NCS after DES, it is somewhat reassuring to see the relatively small number of MACEs and the lack of bleeding complications associated with antiplatelet use. However, careful coordination between hospitalists, cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and surgeons is still needed when coordinating NCS after DES, especially in the elderly or during emergent situations.

Bottom line: While time to noncardiac surgery after drug-eluting stent placement is not associated with major adverse cardiac events, observed rates of events are lower after one year.

Citation: Rabbitts JA, Nuttall GA, Brown MJ, et al. Cardiac risk of non-cardiac surgery after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents. Anesthesiology.2008;109: 596-604.

Is the risk of MACEs and bleeding events for patients undergoing NCS related to the time interval between PCI with bare-metal stent?

Background: In order to prevent thrombosis of bare-metal stents (BMS) placed during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), antiplatelet therapy is used. This poses a risk of bleeding, if surgery is needed during the antiplatelet therapy. The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association recommends delaying NCS for at least six weeks after PCI with BMS.

 

 

Study design: Retrospective observational study.

Setting: Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

Synopsis: Looking at 899 patients who had NCS within one year of PCI with BMS at the Mayo Clinic between Jan. 1, 1990, and Jan. 1, 2005, this study found that when NCS was done 30 days or less after PCI with BMS, the MACEs rate was 10.5%, compared with 2.8% when NCS was done 91 or more days after PCI with BMS. After a multivariable analysis, it also was shown bleeding events were not associated with time between PCI with BMS and NCS.

While the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association recommends delaying NCS for at least six weeks after PCI with BMS, waiting at least 90 days would permit completion of antiplatelet therapy and re-endothelialization of the stent.

Bottom line: The risk of MACEs with noncardiac surgery is lowest when performed at least 90 days after PCI with bare-metal stent.

Citation: Nuttall GA, Brown MJ, Stombaugh JW, et al. Time and cardiac risk of surgery after bare-metal stent, percutaneous coronary intervention. Anesthesiology. 2008;109: 588-595.

Should we screen extensively for cancer in patients with newly diagnosed venous thromboembolism (VTE)?

Background: It is well known VTE can be the first manifestation of previously undiagnosed cancer. Retrospective studies have suggested “limited” cancer screening, including a history and physical examination, along with basic blood work, adequately identifies malignancy in patients with unexplained VTE. However, more recent prospective studies have suggested more extensive screening, which includes imaging studies or tumor-marker measurement, can increase the rate of cancer detection.

Study design: Systematic review.

Setting: Literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and evidence-based medicine reviews.

Synopsis: Thirty-six studies of 9,516 patients with VTE reported the period prevalence of previously undiagnosed cancer from baseline to 12 months was 6.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) of 5.6% to 6.9%) in all patients with VTE, and was even higher in patients with unprovoked VTE, 10% (95% CI 8.6% to 11.3%). Of the 34 articles used for prevalence assessment, an extensive screening strategy using CT scans of the abdomen and pelvis increased the proportion of previously undiagnosed cancer detection from 49.4% (CI, 40.2% to 58.5%; limited screening) to 69.7% (CI, 61.1% to 77.8%) in patients with unprovoked VTE. Ultrasonography of the abdomen and pelvis and tumor-marker screening did not result in a clinically significant increase in the frequency of cancer detection.

Four studies compared the rate of detection of early-stage, previously undiagnosed cancer between the limited and extensive screening strategies. Extensive screening led to an absolute decrease in cancer-related mortality of 1.9%, but this difference was not statistically significant.

In this systematic review, there is a great deal of heterogeneity in the studies. Most of the studies did not look at whether an increase in detection of new malignant conditions resulted in a change in the detection rate of early-stage cancer, or a decrease in cancer-related morbidity, cancer-related mortality, or overall mortality. Furthermore, the studies did not assess the consequences of extensive screening, such as patient anxiety and discomfort, testing complications, burden of additional tests for false-positive results, or cost-effectiveness. However, it is important for hospitalists to recognize undiagnosed cancer is common in unexplained VTE and warrants at least a limited-screening approach with more extensive screening.

Bottom line: Although the prevalence of undiagnosed cancer is common in VTE, extensive screening did not offer a cancer-related mortality benefit. CT of the abdomen and pelvis did, however, lead to a greater number of cancer diagnoses in patients with unexplained VTE.

 

 

Citation: Carrier M, Le Gal G, Wells PS, Fergusson D, Ramsay T, Rodger MA. Systematic review: the Trousseau syndrome revisited: should we screen extensively for cancer in patients with venous thromboembolism? Ann Intern Med. 2008;149: 323-333.

Does the use of preadmission statins decrease the risk of death, bacteremia, and pulmonary complications in patients admitted with pneumonia?

Background: Both experimental and clinical studies have suggested statins improve outcomes in severe infections, such as sepsis. This is thought to be due to the antithrombotic, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulatory effects of statins. However, previous studies on the effect of statins on pneumonia have conflicting outcomes.

Study design: Population-based cohort study of 29,900 patients.

Setting: Danish Health Registry.

Synopsis: Researchers studied patients ages 15 years and older hospitalized with pneumonia for the first time between January 1997 and December 2004. While statin users had more co-morbidities than nonusers, the 30-day mortality was 10.3% in users, compared with 15.7% in nonusers, corresponding to an adjusted 30-day mortality rate ratio of 0.69 (95% CI of 0.58-0.82). The 90-day mortality ratio was 16.8% in users, compared with 22.4% in nonusers, corresponding to an adjusted 90-day mortality ratio of 0.75 (95% CI of 0.65-0.86). Former use of statins was not associated with a decreased risk of death. The adjusted risk for bacteremia and pulmonary complications was not significantly different between nonusers and users.

Because this was an observational study, a causal relationship cannot be determined. Hospitalists should be alerted to the possibility statins might, in the future, prove to be a standard treatment modality in pneumonia. A randomized, double-blind trial might help further determine the effect of the acute use of statins on pneumonia outcomes.

Bottom line: Preadmission statin use is associated with a decrease in 30- and 90-day mortality in pneumonia.

Citation: Thomsen RW, Riis A, Kornum JB, Christensen S, Johnsen SP, Sorensen HT. Preadmission use of statins and outcomes after hospitalization with pneumonia. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(19):2081-2087.

Do outcomes differ when patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) undergo PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents?

Background: Randomized trials comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents in acute MI have been limited in size and duration. Concern exists regarding higher mortality among patients with ST-elevation MI treated with DES.

Study design: Observational, cohort study.

Setting: Patients were identified from a state-mandated database, in which all PCI performed in Massachusetts are reported.

Synopsis: Between April 2003 and September 2004, 7,217 eligible patients underwent stenting for acute MI. They were assigned to either the DES group or the bare-metal stent (BMS) group using propensity score matching. Patients in the DES group had lower mortality at two years, compared to a matched cohort of patients in the BMS group with MI (10.7% vs. 12.8%; absolute risk difference, -2.1%, CI, -3.8% to -0.4%). A statistically significant difference was noted among patients with or without ST-elevation MI.

The rates of target vessel revascularization at two years with MI were significantly lower among patients receiving DES than among those receiving BMS (9.6% vs. 14.5%; risk difference, -4.9%; CI, -6.1% to -3.1%).

The study is limited by its observational nature and residual confounding bias after matching. Importantly, this study was performed to determine if DESs were harmful, and the finding of reduced mortality was unanticipated.

Bottom line: Although patients with acute MI treated with drug-eluting stents had lower mortality and repeat revascularization rates compared with bare-metal stents, this outcome merits confirmation in randomized trials.

Citation: Mauri L, Silbaugh TS, Garg P, et al. Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2008;359 (13):1330-1342.

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2009(04)
Publications
Sections

In This Edition

Does a short duration of perioperative smoking cessation lead to a reduction in postoperative complications?

Background: Prior studies have demonstrated a reduction in postoperative complications when patients stop smoking in the perioperative period. However, they have not clearly shown what effect a fairly short duration of cessation, such as a period of only four weeks, has on the frequency of complications.

Study design: Randomized controlled trial.

Setting: Four university-affiliated hospitals in Sweden.

Synopsis: Using 117 patients who were daily smokers for less than one year between the ages of 18-79 who were scheduled for elective general or orthopedic surgery, this study showed that a smoking-cessation intervention initiated as little as four weeks prior to surgery resulted in fewer postoperative complications. The complication rate was reduced from 41% in the control group to 21% in the intervention group, which received cessation counseling and nicotine-replacement therapy. The relative risk reduction was 49% (95% confidence interval, 3-40) with a number needed to treat of five.

Because this was a randomized controlled trial with a large observed benefit, it appears to be reasonable to endorse perioperative smoking cessation as late as four weeks before an elective surgery. The study was limited in its ability to detect a difference in wound infections by the small sample size and the possibility patients might have unblinded themselves to outcome assessors, causing an overestimation of the effect of the intervention on the primary outcome of all complications.

Bottom line: Perioperative smoking cessation reduces postoperative complications even when started just four weeks prior to surgery.

Citation: Lindstrom D, Azodi OS, Wladis A, et al. Effects of a perioperative smoking cessation intervention on postoperative complications. Ann Surg. 2008;248(5):739-745.

Does implantable-defibrillator therapy cause deterioration in quality of life for patients with heart failure?

Background: Patients with depressed left-ventricular function are known to have improved survival after receiving implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). However, there is concern ICD therapy can prolong survival at the expense of a diminished quality of life.

Study design: Randomized placebo-controlled trial.

Setting: Multiple centers in the U.S., Canada, and New Zealand.

Synopsis: Using 2,479 patients from the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure trial who were 18 and older and had stable heart failure and depressed left-ventricular function, this study demonstrated no significant quality-of-life difference at 30 months when compared with patients who received ICD, amiodarone, and state-of-the-art medical therapy or an amiodarone placebo and state-of-the-art medical therapy. While functional status did not differ at any time between the three groups, psychological well-being was improved in the ICD group at three months (p=0.01) and 12 months (p=0.03) when compared with the placebo group, but at 30 months there was no difference between the groups.

While the trial was randomized and placebo-controlled, the investigators were unable to blind patients or outcome assessors. Nevertheless, the lack of deterioration of quality of life in ICD patients is reassuring.

 

 

Bottom line: Placement of ICDs in heart failure patients with a high risk of sudden cardiac death does not appear to decrease quality of life.

Citation: Mark DB, Anstrom KJ, Sun JL, et al. Quality of life with defibrillator therapy or amiodarone in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:999-1008.

CLINICAL SHORTS

SERIAL 2-POINT ULTRASONOGRAPHY PLUS D-DIMER IS EQUIVALENT TO WHOLE-LEG ULTRASONOGRAPHY FOR DIAGNOSING DVT

Randomized trials show that when comparing serial 2-point ultrasonography plus D-dimer testing with whole-leg ultrasonography, the strategies were equivalent in excluding a first episode of suspected DVT in outpatients.

Citation: Bernardi E, Camporese G, Buller HR, et al. Serial 2-point ultrasonography plus D-dimer vs whole-leg color-coded Doppler ultrasonography for diagnosing suspected symptomatic deep vein thrombosis. JAMA. 2008;300(14):1653-1659.

DAILY HEMODIALYSIS IS COST-EFFECTIVE IN ICU PATIENTS WITH ACUTE KIDNEY INJURY (AKI)

Markov model based on prospective trial data shows daily hemodialysis is cost-effective for AKI in the ICU compared with alternate-day hemodialysis.

Citation: Desai AA, Baras J, Berk BB, et al. Management of acute kidney injury in the intensive care unit. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(16):1761-1767.

THROMBOLYSIS FOR IN-HOSPITAL STROKE IS SAFE, BUT ASSOCIATED WITH DELAYS

Prospective observational trial shows thrombolysis is safe and effective for in-hospital stroke, but statistically significant delays exist compared with out-of-hospital strokes.

Citation: Masjuan J, Simal P, Fuentes B, et al. In-hospital stroke treated with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator. Stroke. 2008;39:2614-2616.

ALGORITHM CAN IDENTIFY HIGH-RISK HEART FAILURE PATIENTS

Prospective observational study identifies clinical variables for a bedside algorithm, which stratifies the risk of hospitalized heart failure patients for early mortality or readmission to identify those who might benefit from closer follow-up.

Citation: O’Connor CM, Abraham WT, Albert NM, et al. Predictors of mortality after discharge in patients hospitalized with heart failure: an analysis from the Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure (OPTIMIZE-HF). Am Heart J. 2008;156(4):662-673.

IN-HOSPITAL SMOKING-CESSATION INTERVENTIONS WITH FOLLOW-UP CAN WORK

Meta-analysis of 33 trials shows in-hospital smoking-cessation counseling followed up with more than one month of outpatient support can be effective.

Citation: Rigotti NA, Munafo MR, Stead LF. Smoking cessation interventions for hospitalized smokers. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(18):1950-1960.

OMISSION OF KEY INFORMATION DURING SIGN-OUT LEADS TO ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES

An audio-taped study of sign-out among internal medicine house staff teams revealed omission of key information during sign-out resulted in delays in diagnosis or treatment.

Citation: Horwitz LI, Moin T, Krumholz HM, Wang L, Bradley EH. Consequences of inadequate sign-out for patient care. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(16):1755-1760.

HOSPITAL PALLIATIVE CARE CONSULTATION TEAMS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH HOSPITAL COST SAVINGS

Analysis of administrative data from eight diverse hospitals with palliative-care programs revealed consultation with palliative care saved $1,696 (p<0.001) per hospital admission in patients discharged alive, and $4,098 (p=0.003) per hospital admission in patients who died in the hospital.

Citation: Morrison RS, Penrod JD, Cassel JB, et al. Cost savings associated with U.S. hospital palliative care consultation programs. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(16):1783-1790.

HIGHER EDUCATIONAL DEBT INFLUENCES INTERNAL MEDICINE RESIDENT CAREER PLANS

U.S. medical graduates with a debt of $50,000 to $99,999 are more likely than those with no debt to choose a hospitalist career, and this preference increased with increased debt level.

Citation: McDonald FS, West CP, Popkave C, Kolars JC. Educational debt and reported career plans among internal medicine residents. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:416-420.

BRAIN IMAGING IMPORTANT IN IDENTIFYING VASCULAR TERRITORY AFTER TIA OR MINOR STROKE

Neurologists were only moderately reliable at identifying the vascular territory of a TIA or motor stroke, highlighting the fact brain imaging is needed to accurately identify the vascular territories of these events.

Citation: Flossmann E, Redgrave JN, Briley D, Rothwell PM. Reliability of clinical diagnosis of the symptomatic vascular territory in patients with recent transient ischemic attack or minor stroke. Stroke. 2008;39:2457-2460.

HIGH-DOSE VITAMIN B SUPPLEMENTATION DOES NOT SLOW COGNITIVE DECLINE IN ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE

Multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial finds no difference in the rate of cognitive decline in patients with Alzheimer’s disease treated with high-dose vitamin B supplements for 18 months.

Citation: Aisen PS, Schneider LS, Sano M, et al. High-dose B vitamin supplementation and cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s disease. JAMA. 2008; 300(15):1774-1783.

 

 

Can a simplified, revised Geneva score retain diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility?

Background: The revised Geneva score is a validated and objective clinical decision rule, but has multiple variables with different weights. This can make the tool cumbersome and difficult to remember, and could lead to inaccurate calculations and misjudgments in patient care.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Four university-affiliated European hospitals.

Synopsis: Using data from two prior prospective trials involving patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE), this study showed re-analysis of these patients with a simplified, revised Geneva score, which gives only one point to each clinical factor, resulted in the same level of diagnostic accuracy. Specifically, data from 1,049 patients was used to construct a receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis comparing the standardized and simplified Geneva score, which showed areas under the curve of 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.71-0.78) and 0.74 (0.70-0.77), respectively. Additionally, the safety of using this clinical tool to rule out PE was demonstrated when using both a three-level (low-intermediate probability) and a dichotomized scheme (PE unlikely) in combination with a negative D-dimer test.

The retrospective nature of the study was its major limitation. The authors suggest a prospective study to complete validation of the simplified, revised Geneva score.

Bottom line: With prospective analysis, it might be possible to further validate a simplified, revised Geneva score.

Citation: Klok FA, Mos ICM, Nijkeuter M, et al. Simplification of the revised Geneva score for assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(19):2131-2136.

Is the rate of postoperative major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) inversely related to time after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a drug-eluting stent (DES)?

Background: The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association recently released an advisory that included a recommendation to delay elective noncardiac surgery (NCS) for one year after DES placement. However, no large study addresses the timing of NCS after PCI with DES.

Study design: Retrospective observational study.

Setting: Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

Synopsis: Looking at 520 patients who had NCS after DES at the Mayo Clinic, 5.4% experienced MACEs, but the rate of MACEs was not significantly associated with the time after stent placement to surgery (p=0.337). However, observed rates of MACEs were lower after one year. Elderly patients and those going for emergent surgery are at the highest risk for MACE. Bleeding complications were not associated with antiplatelet use.

Although this study does not provide a clear cutoff time for when it is safe to proceed to NCS after DES, it is somewhat reassuring to see the relatively small number of MACEs and the lack of bleeding complications associated with antiplatelet use. However, careful coordination between hospitalists, cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and surgeons is still needed when coordinating NCS after DES, especially in the elderly or during emergent situations.

Bottom line: While time to noncardiac surgery after drug-eluting stent placement is not associated with major adverse cardiac events, observed rates of events are lower after one year.

Citation: Rabbitts JA, Nuttall GA, Brown MJ, et al. Cardiac risk of non-cardiac surgery after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents. Anesthesiology.2008;109: 596-604.

Is the risk of MACEs and bleeding events for patients undergoing NCS related to the time interval between PCI with bare-metal stent?

Background: In order to prevent thrombosis of bare-metal stents (BMS) placed during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), antiplatelet therapy is used. This poses a risk of bleeding, if surgery is needed during the antiplatelet therapy. The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association recommends delaying NCS for at least six weeks after PCI with BMS.

 

 

Study design: Retrospective observational study.

Setting: Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

Synopsis: Looking at 899 patients who had NCS within one year of PCI with BMS at the Mayo Clinic between Jan. 1, 1990, and Jan. 1, 2005, this study found that when NCS was done 30 days or less after PCI with BMS, the MACEs rate was 10.5%, compared with 2.8% when NCS was done 91 or more days after PCI with BMS. After a multivariable analysis, it also was shown bleeding events were not associated with time between PCI with BMS and NCS.

While the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association recommends delaying NCS for at least six weeks after PCI with BMS, waiting at least 90 days would permit completion of antiplatelet therapy and re-endothelialization of the stent.

Bottom line: The risk of MACEs with noncardiac surgery is lowest when performed at least 90 days after PCI with bare-metal stent.

Citation: Nuttall GA, Brown MJ, Stombaugh JW, et al. Time and cardiac risk of surgery after bare-metal stent, percutaneous coronary intervention. Anesthesiology. 2008;109: 588-595.

Should we screen extensively for cancer in patients with newly diagnosed venous thromboembolism (VTE)?

Background: It is well known VTE can be the first manifestation of previously undiagnosed cancer. Retrospective studies have suggested “limited” cancer screening, including a history and physical examination, along with basic blood work, adequately identifies malignancy in patients with unexplained VTE. However, more recent prospective studies have suggested more extensive screening, which includes imaging studies or tumor-marker measurement, can increase the rate of cancer detection.

Study design: Systematic review.

Setting: Literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and evidence-based medicine reviews.

Synopsis: Thirty-six studies of 9,516 patients with VTE reported the period prevalence of previously undiagnosed cancer from baseline to 12 months was 6.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) of 5.6% to 6.9%) in all patients with VTE, and was even higher in patients with unprovoked VTE, 10% (95% CI 8.6% to 11.3%). Of the 34 articles used for prevalence assessment, an extensive screening strategy using CT scans of the abdomen and pelvis increased the proportion of previously undiagnosed cancer detection from 49.4% (CI, 40.2% to 58.5%; limited screening) to 69.7% (CI, 61.1% to 77.8%) in patients with unprovoked VTE. Ultrasonography of the abdomen and pelvis and tumor-marker screening did not result in a clinically significant increase in the frequency of cancer detection.

Four studies compared the rate of detection of early-stage, previously undiagnosed cancer between the limited and extensive screening strategies. Extensive screening led to an absolute decrease in cancer-related mortality of 1.9%, but this difference was not statistically significant.

In this systematic review, there is a great deal of heterogeneity in the studies. Most of the studies did not look at whether an increase in detection of new malignant conditions resulted in a change in the detection rate of early-stage cancer, or a decrease in cancer-related morbidity, cancer-related mortality, or overall mortality. Furthermore, the studies did not assess the consequences of extensive screening, such as patient anxiety and discomfort, testing complications, burden of additional tests for false-positive results, or cost-effectiveness. However, it is important for hospitalists to recognize undiagnosed cancer is common in unexplained VTE and warrants at least a limited-screening approach with more extensive screening.

Bottom line: Although the prevalence of undiagnosed cancer is common in VTE, extensive screening did not offer a cancer-related mortality benefit. CT of the abdomen and pelvis did, however, lead to a greater number of cancer diagnoses in patients with unexplained VTE.

 

 

Citation: Carrier M, Le Gal G, Wells PS, Fergusson D, Ramsay T, Rodger MA. Systematic review: the Trousseau syndrome revisited: should we screen extensively for cancer in patients with venous thromboembolism? Ann Intern Med. 2008;149: 323-333.

Does the use of preadmission statins decrease the risk of death, bacteremia, and pulmonary complications in patients admitted with pneumonia?

Background: Both experimental and clinical studies have suggested statins improve outcomes in severe infections, such as sepsis. This is thought to be due to the antithrombotic, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulatory effects of statins. However, previous studies on the effect of statins on pneumonia have conflicting outcomes.

Study design: Population-based cohort study of 29,900 patients.

Setting: Danish Health Registry.

Synopsis: Researchers studied patients ages 15 years and older hospitalized with pneumonia for the first time between January 1997 and December 2004. While statin users had more co-morbidities than nonusers, the 30-day mortality was 10.3% in users, compared with 15.7% in nonusers, corresponding to an adjusted 30-day mortality rate ratio of 0.69 (95% CI of 0.58-0.82). The 90-day mortality ratio was 16.8% in users, compared with 22.4% in nonusers, corresponding to an adjusted 90-day mortality ratio of 0.75 (95% CI of 0.65-0.86). Former use of statins was not associated with a decreased risk of death. The adjusted risk for bacteremia and pulmonary complications was not significantly different between nonusers and users.

Because this was an observational study, a causal relationship cannot be determined. Hospitalists should be alerted to the possibility statins might, in the future, prove to be a standard treatment modality in pneumonia. A randomized, double-blind trial might help further determine the effect of the acute use of statins on pneumonia outcomes.

Bottom line: Preadmission statin use is associated with a decrease in 30- and 90-day mortality in pneumonia.

Citation: Thomsen RW, Riis A, Kornum JB, Christensen S, Johnsen SP, Sorensen HT. Preadmission use of statins and outcomes after hospitalization with pneumonia. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(19):2081-2087.

Do outcomes differ when patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) undergo PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents?

Background: Randomized trials comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents in acute MI have been limited in size and duration. Concern exists regarding higher mortality among patients with ST-elevation MI treated with DES.

Study design: Observational, cohort study.

Setting: Patients were identified from a state-mandated database, in which all PCI performed in Massachusetts are reported.

Synopsis: Between April 2003 and September 2004, 7,217 eligible patients underwent stenting for acute MI. They were assigned to either the DES group or the bare-metal stent (BMS) group using propensity score matching. Patients in the DES group had lower mortality at two years, compared to a matched cohort of patients in the BMS group with MI (10.7% vs. 12.8%; absolute risk difference, -2.1%, CI, -3.8% to -0.4%). A statistically significant difference was noted among patients with or without ST-elevation MI.

The rates of target vessel revascularization at two years with MI were significantly lower among patients receiving DES than among those receiving BMS (9.6% vs. 14.5%; risk difference, -4.9%; CI, -6.1% to -3.1%).

The study is limited by its observational nature and residual confounding bias after matching. Importantly, this study was performed to determine if DESs were harmful, and the finding of reduced mortality was unanticipated.

Bottom line: Although patients with acute MI treated with drug-eluting stents had lower mortality and repeat revascularization rates compared with bare-metal stents, this outcome merits confirmation in randomized trials.

Citation: Mauri L, Silbaugh TS, Garg P, et al. Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2008;359 (13):1330-1342.

In This Edition

Does a short duration of perioperative smoking cessation lead to a reduction in postoperative complications?

Background: Prior studies have demonstrated a reduction in postoperative complications when patients stop smoking in the perioperative period. However, they have not clearly shown what effect a fairly short duration of cessation, such as a period of only four weeks, has on the frequency of complications.

Study design: Randomized controlled trial.

Setting: Four university-affiliated hospitals in Sweden.

Synopsis: Using 117 patients who were daily smokers for less than one year between the ages of 18-79 who were scheduled for elective general or orthopedic surgery, this study showed that a smoking-cessation intervention initiated as little as four weeks prior to surgery resulted in fewer postoperative complications. The complication rate was reduced from 41% in the control group to 21% in the intervention group, which received cessation counseling and nicotine-replacement therapy. The relative risk reduction was 49% (95% confidence interval, 3-40) with a number needed to treat of five.

Because this was a randomized controlled trial with a large observed benefit, it appears to be reasonable to endorse perioperative smoking cessation as late as four weeks before an elective surgery. The study was limited in its ability to detect a difference in wound infections by the small sample size and the possibility patients might have unblinded themselves to outcome assessors, causing an overestimation of the effect of the intervention on the primary outcome of all complications.

Bottom line: Perioperative smoking cessation reduces postoperative complications even when started just four weeks prior to surgery.

Citation: Lindstrom D, Azodi OS, Wladis A, et al. Effects of a perioperative smoking cessation intervention on postoperative complications. Ann Surg. 2008;248(5):739-745.

Does implantable-defibrillator therapy cause deterioration in quality of life for patients with heart failure?

Background: Patients with depressed left-ventricular function are known to have improved survival after receiving implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs). However, there is concern ICD therapy can prolong survival at the expense of a diminished quality of life.

Study design: Randomized placebo-controlled trial.

Setting: Multiple centers in the U.S., Canada, and New Zealand.

Synopsis: Using 2,479 patients from the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure trial who were 18 and older and had stable heart failure and depressed left-ventricular function, this study demonstrated no significant quality-of-life difference at 30 months when compared with patients who received ICD, amiodarone, and state-of-the-art medical therapy or an amiodarone placebo and state-of-the-art medical therapy. While functional status did not differ at any time between the three groups, psychological well-being was improved in the ICD group at three months (p=0.01) and 12 months (p=0.03) when compared with the placebo group, but at 30 months there was no difference between the groups.

While the trial was randomized and placebo-controlled, the investigators were unable to blind patients or outcome assessors. Nevertheless, the lack of deterioration of quality of life in ICD patients is reassuring.

 

 

Bottom line: Placement of ICDs in heart failure patients with a high risk of sudden cardiac death does not appear to decrease quality of life.

Citation: Mark DB, Anstrom KJ, Sun JL, et al. Quality of life with defibrillator therapy or amiodarone in heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2008;359:999-1008.

CLINICAL SHORTS

SERIAL 2-POINT ULTRASONOGRAPHY PLUS D-DIMER IS EQUIVALENT TO WHOLE-LEG ULTRASONOGRAPHY FOR DIAGNOSING DVT

Randomized trials show that when comparing serial 2-point ultrasonography plus D-dimer testing with whole-leg ultrasonography, the strategies were equivalent in excluding a first episode of suspected DVT in outpatients.

Citation: Bernardi E, Camporese G, Buller HR, et al. Serial 2-point ultrasonography plus D-dimer vs whole-leg color-coded Doppler ultrasonography for diagnosing suspected symptomatic deep vein thrombosis. JAMA. 2008;300(14):1653-1659.

DAILY HEMODIALYSIS IS COST-EFFECTIVE IN ICU PATIENTS WITH ACUTE KIDNEY INJURY (AKI)

Markov model based on prospective trial data shows daily hemodialysis is cost-effective for AKI in the ICU compared with alternate-day hemodialysis.

Citation: Desai AA, Baras J, Berk BB, et al. Management of acute kidney injury in the intensive care unit. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(16):1761-1767.

THROMBOLYSIS FOR IN-HOSPITAL STROKE IS SAFE, BUT ASSOCIATED WITH DELAYS

Prospective observational trial shows thrombolysis is safe and effective for in-hospital stroke, but statistically significant delays exist compared with out-of-hospital strokes.

Citation: Masjuan J, Simal P, Fuentes B, et al. In-hospital stroke treated with intravenous tissue plasminogen activator. Stroke. 2008;39:2614-2616.

ALGORITHM CAN IDENTIFY HIGH-RISK HEART FAILURE PATIENTS

Prospective observational study identifies clinical variables for a bedside algorithm, which stratifies the risk of hospitalized heart failure patients for early mortality or readmission to identify those who might benefit from closer follow-up.

Citation: O’Connor CM, Abraham WT, Albert NM, et al. Predictors of mortality after discharge in patients hospitalized with heart failure: an analysis from the Organized Program to Initiate Lifesaving Treatment in Hospitalized Patients with Heart Failure (OPTIMIZE-HF). Am Heart J. 2008;156(4):662-673.

IN-HOSPITAL SMOKING-CESSATION INTERVENTIONS WITH FOLLOW-UP CAN WORK

Meta-analysis of 33 trials shows in-hospital smoking-cessation counseling followed up with more than one month of outpatient support can be effective.

Citation: Rigotti NA, Munafo MR, Stead LF. Smoking cessation interventions for hospitalized smokers. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(18):1950-1960.

OMISSION OF KEY INFORMATION DURING SIGN-OUT LEADS TO ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES

An audio-taped study of sign-out among internal medicine house staff teams revealed omission of key information during sign-out resulted in delays in diagnosis or treatment.

Citation: Horwitz LI, Moin T, Krumholz HM, Wang L, Bradley EH. Consequences of inadequate sign-out for patient care. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(16):1755-1760.

HOSPITAL PALLIATIVE CARE CONSULTATION TEAMS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH HOSPITAL COST SAVINGS

Analysis of administrative data from eight diverse hospitals with palliative-care programs revealed consultation with palliative care saved $1,696 (p<0.001) per hospital admission in patients discharged alive, and $4,098 (p=0.003) per hospital admission in patients who died in the hospital.

Citation: Morrison RS, Penrod JD, Cassel JB, et al. Cost savings associated with U.S. hospital palliative care consultation programs. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(16):1783-1790.

HIGHER EDUCATIONAL DEBT INFLUENCES INTERNAL MEDICINE RESIDENT CAREER PLANS

U.S. medical graduates with a debt of $50,000 to $99,999 are more likely than those with no debt to choose a hospitalist career, and this preference increased with increased debt level.

Citation: McDonald FS, West CP, Popkave C, Kolars JC. Educational debt and reported career plans among internal medicine residents. Ann Intern Med. 2008;149:416-420.

BRAIN IMAGING IMPORTANT IN IDENTIFYING VASCULAR TERRITORY AFTER TIA OR MINOR STROKE

Neurologists were only moderately reliable at identifying the vascular territory of a TIA or motor stroke, highlighting the fact brain imaging is needed to accurately identify the vascular territories of these events.

Citation: Flossmann E, Redgrave JN, Briley D, Rothwell PM. Reliability of clinical diagnosis of the symptomatic vascular territory in patients with recent transient ischemic attack or minor stroke. Stroke. 2008;39:2457-2460.

HIGH-DOSE VITAMIN B SUPPLEMENTATION DOES NOT SLOW COGNITIVE DECLINE IN ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE

Multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trial finds no difference in the rate of cognitive decline in patients with Alzheimer’s disease treated with high-dose vitamin B supplements for 18 months.

Citation: Aisen PS, Schneider LS, Sano M, et al. High-dose B vitamin supplementation and cognitive decline in Alzheimer’s disease. JAMA. 2008; 300(15):1774-1783.

 

 

Can a simplified, revised Geneva score retain diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility?

Background: The revised Geneva score is a validated and objective clinical decision rule, but has multiple variables with different weights. This can make the tool cumbersome and difficult to remember, and could lead to inaccurate calculations and misjudgments in patient care.

Study design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Four university-affiliated European hospitals.

Synopsis: Using data from two prior prospective trials involving patients with suspected pulmonary embolism (PE), this study showed re-analysis of these patients with a simplified, revised Geneva score, which gives only one point to each clinical factor, resulted in the same level of diagnostic accuracy. Specifically, data from 1,049 patients was used to construct a receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis comparing the standardized and simplified Geneva score, which showed areas under the curve of 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.71-0.78) and 0.74 (0.70-0.77), respectively. Additionally, the safety of using this clinical tool to rule out PE was demonstrated when using both a three-level (low-intermediate probability) and a dichotomized scheme (PE unlikely) in combination with a negative D-dimer test.

The retrospective nature of the study was its major limitation. The authors suggest a prospective study to complete validation of the simplified, revised Geneva score.

Bottom line: With prospective analysis, it might be possible to further validate a simplified, revised Geneva score.

Citation: Klok FA, Mos ICM, Nijkeuter M, et al. Simplification of the revised Geneva score for assessing clinical probability of pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(19):2131-2136.

Is the rate of postoperative major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) inversely related to time after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with a drug-eluting stent (DES)?

Background: The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association recently released an advisory that included a recommendation to delay elective noncardiac surgery (NCS) for one year after DES placement. However, no large study addresses the timing of NCS after PCI with DES.

Study design: Retrospective observational study.

Setting: Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

Synopsis: Looking at 520 patients who had NCS after DES at the Mayo Clinic, 5.4% experienced MACEs, but the rate of MACEs was not significantly associated with the time after stent placement to surgery (p=0.337). However, observed rates of MACEs were lower after one year. Elderly patients and those going for emergent surgery are at the highest risk for MACE. Bleeding complications were not associated with antiplatelet use.

Although this study does not provide a clear cutoff time for when it is safe to proceed to NCS after DES, it is somewhat reassuring to see the relatively small number of MACEs and the lack of bleeding complications associated with antiplatelet use. However, careful coordination between hospitalists, cardiologists, anesthesiologists, and surgeons is still needed when coordinating NCS after DES, especially in the elderly or during emergent situations.

Bottom line: While time to noncardiac surgery after drug-eluting stent placement is not associated with major adverse cardiac events, observed rates of events are lower after one year.

Citation: Rabbitts JA, Nuttall GA, Brown MJ, et al. Cardiac risk of non-cardiac surgery after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents. Anesthesiology.2008;109: 596-604.

Is the risk of MACEs and bleeding events for patients undergoing NCS related to the time interval between PCI with bare-metal stent?

Background: In order to prevent thrombosis of bare-metal stents (BMS) placed during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), antiplatelet therapy is used. This poses a risk of bleeding, if surgery is needed during the antiplatelet therapy. The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association recommends delaying NCS for at least six weeks after PCI with BMS.

 

 

Study design: Retrospective observational study.

Setting: Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn.

Synopsis: Looking at 899 patients who had NCS within one year of PCI with BMS at the Mayo Clinic between Jan. 1, 1990, and Jan. 1, 2005, this study found that when NCS was done 30 days or less after PCI with BMS, the MACEs rate was 10.5%, compared with 2.8% when NCS was done 91 or more days after PCI with BMS. After a multivariable analysis, it also was shown bleeding events were not associated with time between PCI with BMS and NCS.

While the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association recommends delaying NCS for at least six weeks after PCI with BMS, waiting at least 90 days would permit completion of antiplatelet therapy and re-endothelialization of the stent.

Bottom line: The risk of MACEs with noncardiac surgery is lowest when performed at least 90 days after PCI with bare-metal stent.

Citation: Nuttall GA, Brown MJ, Stombaugh JW, et al. Time and cardiac risk of surgery after bare-metal stent, percutaneous coronary intervention. Anesthesiology. 2008;109: 588-595.

Should we screen extensively for cancer in patients with newly diagnosed venous thromboembolism (VTE)?

Background: It is well known VTE can be the first manifestation of previously undiagnosed cancer. Retrospective studies have suggested “limited” cancer screening, including a history and physical examination, along with basic blood work, adequately identifies malignancy in patients with unexplained VTE. However, more recent prospective studies have suggested more extensive screening, which includes imaging studies or tumor-marker measurement, can increase the rate of cancer detection.

Study design: Systematic review.

Setting: Literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, and evidence-based medicine reviews.

Synopsis: Thirty-six studies of 9,516 patients with VTE reported the period prevalence of previously undiagnosed cancer from baseline to 12 months was 6.3% (95% confidence interval (CI) of 5.6% to 6.9%) in all patients with VTE, and was even higher in patients with unprovoked VTE, 10% (95% CI 8.6% to 11.3%). Of the 34 articles used for prevalence assessment, an extensive screening strategy using CT scans of the abdomen and pelvis increased the proportion of previously undiagnosed cancer detection from 49.4% (CI, 40.2% to 58.5%; limited screening) to 69.7% (CI, 61.1% to 77.8%) in patients with unprovoked VTE. Ultrasonography of the abdomen and pelvis and tumor-marker screening did not result in a clinically significant increase in the frequency of cancer detection.

Four studies compared the rate of detection of early-stage, previously undiagnosed cancer between the limited and extensive screening strategies. Extensive screening led to an absolute decrease in cancer-related mortality of 1.9%, but this difference was not statistically significant.

In this systematic review, there is a great deal of heterogeneity in the studies. Most of the studies did not look at whether an increase in detection of new malignant conditions resulted in a change in the detection rate of early-stage cancer, or a decrease in cancer-related morbidity, cancer-related mortality, or overall mortality. Furthermore, the studies did not assess the consequences of extensive screening, such as patient anxiety and discomfort, testing complications, burden of additional tests for false-positive results, or cost-effectiveness. However, it is important for hospitalists to recognize undiagnosed cancer is common in unexplained VTE and warrants at least a limited-screening approach with more extensive screening.

Bottom line: Although the prevalence of undiagnosed cancer is common in VTE, extensive screening did not offer a cancer-related mortality benefit. CT of the abdomen and pelvis did, however, lead to a greater number of cancer diagnoses in patients with unexplained VTE.

 

 

Citation: Carrier M, Le Gal G, Wells PS, Fergusson D, Ramsay T, Rodger MA. Systematic review: the Trousseau syndrome revisited: should we screen extensively for cancer in patients with venous thromboembolism? Ann Intern Med. 2008;149: 323-333.

Does the use of preadmission statins decrease the risk of death, bacteremia, and pulmonary complications in patients admitted with pneumonia?

Background: Both experimental and clinical studies have suggested statins improve outcomes in severe infections, such as sepsis. This is thought to be due to the antithrombotic, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulatory effects of statins. However, previous studies on the effect of statins on pneumonia have conflicting outcomes.

Study design: Population-based cohort study of 29,900 patients.

Setting: Danish Health Registry.

Synopsis: Researchers studied patients ages 15 years and older hospitalized with pneumonia for the first time between January 1997 and December 2004. While statin users had more co-morbidities than nonusers, the 30-day mortality was 10.3% in users, compared with 15.7% in nonusers, corresponding to an adjusted 30-day mortality rate ratio of 0.69 (95% CI of 0.58-0.82). The 90-day mortality ratio was 16.8% in users, compared with 22.4% in nonusers, corresponding to an adjusted 90-day mortality ratio of 0.75 (95% CI of 0.65-0.86). Former use of statins was not associated with a decreased risk of death. The adjusted risk for bacteremia and pulmonary complications was not significantly different between nonusers and users.

Because this was an observational study, a causal relationship cannot be determined. Hospitalists should be alerted to the possibility statins might, in the future, prove to be a standard treatment modality in pneumonia. A randomized, double-blind trial might help further determine the effect of the acute use of statins on pneumonia outcomes.

Bottom line: Preadmission statin use is associated with a decrease in 30- and 90-day mortality in pneumonia.

Citation: Thomsen RW, Riis A, Kornum JB, Christensen S, Johnsen SP, Sorensen HT. Preadmission use of statins and outcomes after hospitalization with pneumonia. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(19):2081-2087.

Do outcomes differ when patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) undergo PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES) compared with bare-metal stents?

Background: Randomized trials comparing drug-eluting stents with bare-metal stents in acute MI have been limited in size and duration. Concern exists regarding higher mortality among patients with ST-elevation MI treated with DES.

Study design: Observational, cohort study.

Setting: Patients were identified from a state-mandated database, in which all PCI performed in Massachusetts are reported.

Synopsis: Between April 2003 and September 2004, 7,217 eligible patients underwent stenting for acute MI. They were assigned to either the DES group or the bare-metal stent (BMS) group using propensity score matching. Patients in the DES group had lower mortality at two years, compared to a matched cohort of patients in the BMS group with MI (10.7% vs. 12.8%; absolute risk difference, -2.1%, CI, -3.8% to -0.4%). A statistically significant difference was noted among patients with or without ST-elevation MI.

The rates of target vessel revascularization at two years with MI were significantly lower among patients receiving DES than among those receiving BMS (9.6% vs. 14.5%; risk difference, -4.9%; CI, -6.1% to -3.1%).

The study is limited by its observational nature and residual confounding bias after matching. Importantly, this study was performed to determine if DESs were harmful, and the finding of reduced mortality was unanticipated.

Bottom line: Although patients with acute MI treated with drug-eluting stents had lower mortality and repeat revascularization rates compared with bare-metal stents, this outcome merits confirmation in randomized trials.

Citation: Mauri L, Silbaugh TS, Garg P, et al. Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2008;359 (13):1330-1342.

Issue
The Hospitalist - 2009(04)
Issue
The Hospitalist - 2009(04)
Publications
Publications
Article Type
Display Headline
The latest research you need to know
Display Headline
The latest research you need to know
Sections
Disallow All Ads
Content Gating
No Gating (article Unlocked/Free)