An official American thoracic society research statement: Comparative effectiveness research in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine

Background: Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is intended to inform decision making in clinical practice, and is central to patientcentered outcomes research (PCOR). Purpose: To summarize key aspects of CER definitions and provide examples highlighting the complementary nature of efficacy and CER studies in pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine. Methods: An ad hoc working group of the American Thoracic Society with experience in clinical trials, health services research, quality improvement, and behavioral sciences in pulmonary, critical care, and sleepmedicinewas convened. The group used an iterative consensus process, including a reviewbyAmerican Thoracic Society committees and assemblies. Results: The traditional efficacy paradigm relies on clinical trials with high internal validity to evaluate interventions in narrowly defined populations and in research settings. Efficacy studies address the question, "Can it work in optimal conditions?" The CER paradigm employs a wide range of study designs to understand the effects of interventions in clinical settings. CER studies address the question, "Does it work in practice?" The results of efficacy and CER studies may or may not agree. CER incorporates many attributes of outcomes research and health services research, while placing greater emphasis on meeting the expressed needs of nonresearcher stakeholders (e.g., patients, clinicians, and others). Conclusions: CER complements traditional efficacy research by placing greater emphasis on the effects of interventions in practice, and developing evidence to address the needs of the many stakeholders involved in health care decisions. Stakeholder engagement is an important component of CER. Copyright © 2013 by the American Thoracic Society.

Monitoring of emergency and intensive care patients: simple diagnostic aids

This article describes in short sections the use and interpretation of indirect blood pressure measurements, central venous pressure, body temperature, pulse oximetry, end tidal CO2 measurements, pulse and heart rate, urine production and emergency laboratory values. Most of these parameters are directly or indirectly linked to the perfusion of the patient. Optimizing these values are one of the most important goals in emergency and critical care medicine.

Development of process control methodology for tracking the quality and safety of pain, agitation and sedation management in critical care units

Objective: To develop sedation, pain, and agitation quality measures using process control methodology and evaluate their properties in clinical practice. Design: A Sedation Quality Assessment Tool was developed and validated to capture data for 12-hour periods of nursing care. Domains included pain/discomfort and sedation-agitation behaviors; sedative, analgesic, and neuromuscular blocking drug administration; ventilation status; and conditions potentially justifying deep sedation. Predefined sedation-related adverse events were recorded daily. Using an iterative process, algorithms were developed to describe the proportion of care periods with poor limb relaxation, poor ventilator synchronization, unnecessary deep sedation, agitation, and an overall optimum sedation metric. Proportion charts described processes over time (2 monthly intervals) for each ICU. The numbers of patients treated between sedation-related adverse events were described with G charts. Automated algorithms generated charts for 12 months of sequential data. Mean values for each process were calculated, and variation within and between ICUs explored qualitatively. Setting: Eight Scottish ICUs over a 12-month period. Patients: Mechanically ventilated patients. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: The Sedation Quality Assessment Tool agitation-sedation domains correlated with the Richmond Sedation Agitation Scale score (Spearman [rho] = 0.75) and were reliable in clinician-clinician (weighted kappa; [kappa] = 0.66) and clinician-researcher ([kappa] = 0.82) comparisons. The limb movement domain had fair correlation with Behavioral Pain Scale ([rho] = 0.24) and was reliable in clinician-clinician ([kappa] = 0.58) and clinician-researcher ([kappa] = 0.45) comparisons. Ventilator synchronization correlated with Behavioral Pain Scale ([rho] = 0.54), and reliability in clinician-clinician ([kappa] = 0.29) and clinician-researcher ([kappa] = 0.42) comparisons was fair-moderate. Eight hundred twenty-five patients were enrolled (range, 59-235 across ICUs), providing 12,385 care periods for evaluation (range 655-3,481 across ICUs). The mean proportion of care periods with each quality metric varied between ICUs: excessive sedation 12-38%; agitation 4-17%; poor relaxation 13-21%; poor ventilator synchronization 8-17%; and overall optimum sedation 45-70%. Mean adverse event intervals ranged from 1.5 to 10.3 patients treated. The quality measures appeared relatively stable during the observation period. Conclusions: Process control methodology can be used to simultaneously monitor multiple aspects of pain-sedation-agitation management within ICUs. Variation within and between ICUs could be used as triggers to explore practice variation, improve quality, and monitor this over time

Better conduct of clinical trials: the control group in critical care trials

OBJECTIVE: To review trial design issues related to control groups. DESIGN: Review of the literature with specific reference to critical care trials. MAIN RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Performing randomized controlled trials in the critical care setting presents specific problems: studies include patients with rapidly lethal conditions, the majority of intensive care patients suffer from syndromes rather than from well-definable diseases, the severity of such syndromes cannot be precisely assessed, and the treatment consists of interacting therapies. Interactions between physiology, pathophysiology, and therapies are at best marginally understood and may have a major impact on study design and interpretation of results. Selection of the right control group is crucial for the interpretation and clinical implementation of results. Studies comparing new interventions with current ones or different levels of current treatments have the problem of the necessity of defining "usual care." Usual care controls without any constraints typically include substantial heterogeneity. Constraints in the usual therapy may help to reduce some variation. Inclusion of unrestricted usual care groups may help to enhance safety. Practice misalignment is a novel problem in which patients receive a treatment that is the direct opposite of usual care, and occurs when fixed-dose interventions are used in situations where care is normally titrated. Practice misalignment should be considered in the design and interpretation of studies on titrated therapies.

Methods and preliminary results for a data linkage project to determine long-term survival after intensive care unit admission

Aims: To describe a local data linkage project to match hospital data with the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) National Death Index (NDI) to assess longterm outcomes of intensive care unit patients. Methods: Data were obtained from hospital intensive care and cardiac surgery databases on all patients aged 18 years and over admitted to either of two intensive care units at a tertiary-referral hospital between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 2005. Date of death was obtained from the AIHW NDI by probabilistic software matching, in addition to manual checking through hospital databases and other sources. Survival was calculated from time of ICU admission, with a censoring date of 14 February 2007. Data for patients with multiple hospital admissions requiring intensive care were analysed only from the first admission. Summary and descriptive statistics were used for preliminary data analysis. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was used to analyse factors determining long-term survival. Results: During the study period, 21 415 unique patients had 22 552 hospital admissions that included an ICU admission; 19 058 surgical procedures were performed with a total of 20 092 ICU admissions. There were 4936 deaths. Median follow-up was 6.2 years, totalling 134 203 patient years. The casemix was predominantly cardiac surgery (80%), followed by cardiac medical (6%), and other medical (4%). The unadjusted survival at 1, 5 and 10 years was 97%, 84% and 70%, respectively. The 1-year survival ranged from 97% for cardiac surgery to 36% for cardiac arrest. An APACHE II score was available for 16 877 patients. In those discharged alive from hospital, the 1, 5 and 10-year survival varied with discharge location. Conclusions: ICU-based linkage projects are feasible to determine long-term outcomes of ICU patients

‘True Blood’ the critical care story: An audit of blood sampling practice across three adult, paediatric and neonatal intensive care settings

Background Anaemia is common in critically ill patients, and has a significant negative impact on patients' recovery. Blood conservation strategies have been developed to reduce the incidence of iatrogenic anaemic caused by sampling for diagnostic testing. Objectives Describe practice and local guidelines in adult, paediatric and neonatal Australian intensive care units (ICUs) regarding blood sampling and conservation strategies. Methods Cross-sectional descriptive study, conducted July 2013 over one week in single adult, paediatric and neonatal ICUs in Brisbane. Data were collected on diagnostic blood samples obtained during the study period, including demographic and acuity data of patients. Institutional blood conservation practice and guidelines were compared against seven evidence-based recommendations. Results A total of 940 blood sampling episodes from 96 patients were examined across three sites. Arterial blood gas was the predominant reason for blood sampling in each unit, accounting for 82% of adult, 80% of paediatric and 47% of neonatal samples taken (p <. 0.001). Adult patients had significantly more median [IQR] samples per day in comparison to paediatrics and neonates (adults 5.0 [2.4]; paediatrics 2.3 [2.9]; neonatal 0.7 [2.7]), which significantly increased median [IQR] blood sampling costs per day (adults AUD$101.11 [54.71]; paediatrics AUD$41.55 [56.74]; neonatal AUD$8.13 [14.95]; p <. 0.001). The total volume of samples per day (median [IQR]) was also highest in adults (adults 22.3. mL [16.8]; paediatrics 5.0. mL [1.0]; neonates 0.16. mL [0.4]). There was little information about blood conservation strategies in the local clinical practice guidelines, with the adult and neonatal sites including none of the seven recommendations. Conclusions There was significant variation in blood sampling practice and conservation strategies between critical care settings. This has implications not only for anaemia but also infection control and healthcare costs.

The influence of medical enduring power of attorney and advance directives on decision making by Australian intensive care doctors

OBJECTIVE: Despite government encouragement for patients to make advance plans for medical treatment, and the increasing numbers of patients who have done this, there is little research that examines how doctors regard these plans.
DESIGN: We surveyed Australian intensive care doctors, using a hypothetical clinical scenario, to evaluate how potential end-of-life treatment decisions might be influenced by advance planning - the appointment of a medical enduring power of attorney (MEPA) or an advance care plan (ACP). Using open-ended questions we sought to explore the reasoning behind the doctors' decisions.
RESULTS: 275 surveys were returned (18.3% response rate). We found that opinions expressed by an MEPA and ACP have some influence on treatment decisions, but that intensive care doctors had major reservations. Most did not follow the request for palliation made by the MEPA in the hypothetical scenario.
CONCLUSIONS: Many intensive care doctors believe end-of-life decisions remain medical decisions, and MEPAs and ACPs need only be respected when they accord with the doctor's treatment decision. This study suggests a need for further education of doctors, particularly those working in intensive care, who are responsible for initiating and maintaining life support treatment.

Association between systemic corticosteroids and outcomes of intensive care unit-acquired pneumonia

Objective: The use of corticosteroids is frequent in critically-ill patients. However, little information is available on their effects in patients with intensive care unit acquired pneumonia. We assessed patients' characteristics, microbial etiology, inflammatory response, and outcomes of previous corticosteroid use in patients with intensive care unit acquired pneumonia. Design: Prospective observational study. Setting: Intensive care units of a university teaching hospital. Patients: Three hundred sixteen patients with intensive care unit acquired pneumonia. Patients were divided according to previous systemic steroid use at onset of pneumonia. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Survival at 28 days was analyzed using Cox regression, with adjustment for the propensity for receiving steroid therapy. One hundred twenty-five (40%) patients were receiving steroids at onset of pneumonia. Despite similar baseline clinical severity, steroid treatment was associated with decreased 28-day survival (adjusted hazard ratio for propensity score and mortality predictors 2.503; 95% confidence interval 1.176-5.330; p = .017) and decreased systemic inflammatory response. In post hoc analyses, steroid treatment had an impact on survival in patients with nonventilator intensive care unit acquired pneumonia, those with lower baseline severity and organ dysfunction, and those without etiologic diagnosis or bacteremia. The cumulative dosage of corticosteroids had no significant effect on the risk of death, but bacterial burden upon diagnosis was higher in patients receiving steroid therapy. Conclusions: In critically-ill patients, systemic corticosteroids should be used very cautiously because this treatment is strongly associated with increased risk of death in patients with intensive care unit acquired pneumonia, particularly in the absence of established indications and in patients with lower baseline severity. Decreased inflammatory response may result in delayed clinical suspicion of intensive care unit acquired pneumonia and higher bacterial count. (Crit Care Med 2012; 40:2552-2561)