Development and simultaneous application of multiple care protocols in critical care: a multicenter feasibility study

OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility of and interactions among three software-driven critical care protocols. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: Intensive care units in six European and American university hospitals. PATIENTS: 174 cardiac surgery and 41 septic patients. INTERVENTIONS: Application of software-driven protocols for cardiovascular management, sedation, and weaning during the first 7 days of intensive care. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: All protocols were used simultaneously in 85% of the cardiac surgery and 44% of the septic patients, and any one of the protocols was used for 73 and 44% of study duration, respectively. Protocol use was discontinued in 12% of patients by the treating clinician and in 6% for technical/administrative reasons. The number of protocol steps per unit of time was similar in the two diagnostic groups (n.s. for all protocols). Initial hemodynamic stability (a protocol target) was achieved in 26+/-18 min (mean+/-SD) in cardiac surgery and in 24+/-18 min in septic patients. Sedation targets were reached in 2.4+/-0.2h in cardiac surgery and in 3.6 +/-0.2h in septic patients. Weaning protocol was started in 164 (94%; 154 extubated) cardiac surgery and in 25 (60%; 9 extubated) septic patients. The median (interquartile range) time from starting weaning to extubation (a protocol target) was 89 min (range 44-154 min) for the cardiac surgery patients and 96 min (range 56-205 min) for the septic patients. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple software-driven treatment protocols can be simultaneously applied with high acceptance and rapid achievement of primary treatment goals. Time to reach these primary goals may provide a performance indicator.

Is perioperative point-of-care prothrombin time testing accurate compared to the standard laboratory test?

There is no accepted way of measuring prothrombin time without time loss for patients undergoing major surgery who are at risk of intraoperative dilution and consumption coagulopathy due to bleeding and volume replacement with crystalloids or colloids. Decisions to transfuse fresh frozen plasma and procoagulatory drugs have to rely on clinical judgment in these situations. Point-of-care devices are considerably faster than the standard laboratory methods. In this study we assessed the accuracy of a Point-of-care (PoC) device measuring prothrombin time compared to the standard laboratory method. Patients undergoing major surgery and intensive care unit patients were included. PoC prothrombin time was measured by CoaguChek XS Plus (Roche Diagnostics, Switzerland). PoC and reference tests were performed independently and interpreted under blinded conditions. Using a cut-off prothrombin time of 50%, we calculated diagnostic accuracy measures, plotted a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve and tested for equivalence between the two methods. PoC sensitivity and specificity were 95% (95% CI 77%, 100%) and 95% (95% CI 91%, 98%) respectively. The negative likelihood ratio was 0.05 (95% CI 0.01, 0.32). The positive likelihood ratio was 19.57 (95% CI 10.62, 36.06). The area under the ROC curve was 0.988. Equivalence between the two methods was confirmed. CoaguChek XS Plus is a rapid and highly accurate test compared with the reference test. These findings suggest that PoC testing will be useful for monitoring intraoperative prothrombin time when coagulopathy is suspected. It could lead to a more rational use of expensive and limited blood bank resources.

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.

Intensive insulin treatment

Hyperglycaemia is common in acute illness and more severe hyperglycaemia is associated with worse outcomes in critically ill patients in general and after acute myocardial infarction, stroke, and trauma. Normalization of blood glucose by intensive insulin therapy has been shown to reduce morbidity and mortality in one study in surgical intensive care patients; a subsequent study in medical intensive care patients resulted in reduced morbidity but not a reduction in mortality. Multicentre studies and current meta-analyses in the critically ill have not demonstrated improved outcomes when normalization of blood glucose was targeted; furthermore all studies to date have detected an increased risk of hypoglycaemia in patients subjected to intensive insulin therapy. At present, universal treatment guidelines or recommendations to target strict normoglycaemia must be considered premature. Further data will be available after the completion of the NICE-SUGAR study which has recruited 6103 patients; the NICE SUGAR study will add significant power to future meta-analyses and may help define the role of intensive insulin therapy in critically ill patients.

Beneficial Effects of a Semi-Intensive Stroke Unit are Beyond the Monitor.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Precise mechanisms underlying the effectiveness of the stroke unit (SU) are not fully established. Studies that compare monitored stroke units (semi-intensive type, SI-SU) versus an intensive care unit (ICU)-based mobile stroke team (MST-ICU) are lacking. Although inequalities in access to stroke unit care are globally improving, acute stroke patients may be admitted to Intensive Care Units for monitoring and followed by a mobile stroke team in hospital's lacking an SU with continuous cardiovascular monitoring. We aimed at comparing the stroke outcome between SI-SU and MST-ICU and hypothesized that the benefits of SI-SU are driven by additional elements other than cardiovascular monitoring, which is equally offered in both care systems. METHODS In a single-center setting, we compared the unfavorable outcomes (dependency and mortality) at 3 months in consecutive patients with ischemic stroke or spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage admitted to a stroke unit with semi-intensive monitoring (SI-SU) to a cohort of stroke patients hospitalized in an ICU and followed by a mobile stroke team (MST-ICU) during an equal observation period of 27 months. Secondary objectives included comparing mortality and the proportion of patients with excellent outcomes (modified Rankin Score (mRS) 0-1). Equal cardiovascular monitoring was offered in patients admitted in both SI-SU and MST-ICU. RESULTS 458 patients were treated in the SI-SU and compared to the MST-ICU (n = 370) cohort. The proportion of death and dependency after 3 months was significantly improved for patients in the SI-SU compared to MST-ICU (p < 0.001; aOR = 0.45; 95% CI: 0.31-0.65). The shift analysis of the mRS distribution showed significant shift to the lower mRS in the SI-SU group, p < 0.001. The proportion of mortality in patients after 3 months also differed between the MST-ICU and the SI-SU (p < 0.05), but after adjusting for confounders this association was not significant (aOR = 0.59; 95% CI: 0.31-1.13). The proportion of patients with excellent outcome was higher in the SI-SU (59.4 vs. 44.9%, p < 0.001) but the relationship was no more significant after adjustment (aOR = 1.17; 95% CI: 0.87-1.5). CONCLUSIONS Our study shows that moving from a stroke team in a monitored setting (ICU) to an organized stroke unit leads to a significant reduction in the 3 months unfavorable outcome in patients with an acute ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. Cardiovascular monitoring is indispensable, but benefits of a semi-intensive Stroke Unit are driven by additional elements beyond intensive cardiovascular monitoring. This observation supports the ongoing development of Stroke Centers for efficient stroke care. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel.

Measuring Intensity of End of Life Care: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND Many studies have measured the intensity of end of life care. However, no summary of the measures used in the field is currently available. OBJECTIVES To summarise features, characteristics of use and reported validity of measures used for evaluating intensity of end of life care. METHODS This was a systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines. We performed a comprehensive literature search in Ovid Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews and reference lists published between 1990-2014. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, full texts and extracted data. Studies were eligible if they used a measure of end of life care intensity, defined as all quantifiable measures describing the type and intensity of medical care administered during the last year of life. RESULTS A total of 58 of 1590 potentially eligible studies met our inclusion criteria and were included. The most commonly reported measures were hospitalizations (n = 44), intensive care unit admissions (n = 39) and chemotherapy use (n = 27). Studies measured intensity of care in different timeframes ranging from 48 hours to 12 months. The majority of studies were conducted in cancer patients (n = 31). Only 4 studies included information on validation of the measures used. None evaluated construct validity, while 3 studies considered criterion and 1 study reported both content and criterion validity. CONCLUSIONS This review provides a synthesis to aid in choosing intensity of end of life care measures based on their previous use but simultaneously highlights the crucial need for more validation studies and consensus in the field.