Faculty Bibliography

With the growth of the older adult population, the number of older adults waitlisted for and undergoing kidney and liver transplantation has increased. Transplantation is an important and definitive treatment for this population. We present a contemporary review of the unique preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative issues that patients older than 65 y face when they undergo kidney or liver transplantation. We focus on geriatric syndromes that are common in older patients listed for kidney or liver transplantation including frailty, sarcopenia, and cognitive dysfunction; discuss important considerations for older transplant recipients, which may impact preoperative risk stratification; and describe unique challenges in intraoperative and postoperative management for older patients. Intraoperative challenges in the older adult include using evidence-based best anesthetic practices, maintaining adequate perfusion pressure, and using minimally invasive surgical techniques. Postoperative concerns include controlling acute postoperative pain; preventing cardiovascular complications and delirium; optimizing immunosuppression; preventing perioperative kidney injury; and avoiding nephrotoxicity and rehabilitation. Future studies are needed throughout the perioperative period to identify interventions that will improve patients' preoperative physiologic status, prevent postoperative medical complications, and improve medical and patient-centered outcomes in this vulnerable patient population.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation is increasingly being used to support patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure and cardiogenic shock. During the COVID-19 pandemic, consensus guidance recommended extracorporeal life support for patients with COVID-19-related cardiopulmonary disease refractory to optimal conventional therapy, prompting a substantial expansion in the use of this support modality. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation was particularly integral to the bridging of COVID-19 patients to heart or lung transplantation. Limited human and physical resources precluded widespread utilization of mechanical support during the COVID-19 pandemic, necessitating careful patient selection and optimal management by expert healthcare teams for judicious extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use. This review outlines the evidence supporting the use of extracorporeal life support in COVID-19, describes the practice and outcomes of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19-related respiratory failure and cardiogenic shock, and proposes lessons learned for the implementation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a bridge to transplantation in future public health emergencies.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Physicians with training in anesthesiology, emergency medicine, internal medicine, neurology, and surgery may gain board certification in critical care medicine upon completion of fellowship training. These clinicians often only spend a portion of their work effort in the ICU. Other work efforts that benefit an ICU infrastructure, but do not provide billing opportunities, include education, research, and administrative duties. For employed or contracted physicians, there is no singular definition of what constitutes an intensive care full-time equivalent (FTE). Nevertheless, hospitals often consider FTEs in assessing hiring needs, salary, and eligibility for benefits. DATA SOURCES/METHODS:Review of existing literature, expert opinion. STUDY SELECTION/METHODS:Not applicable. DATA EXTRACTION/METHODS:Not applicable. DATA SYNTHESIS/RESULTS:Not applicable. CONCLUSIONS:Understanding how an FTE is calculated, and the fraction of an FTE to be assigned to a particular cost center, is therefore important for intensivists of different specialties, as many employment models assign salary and benefits to a base specialty department and not necessarily the ICU.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To identify research priorities in the management, epidemiology, outcome, and pathophysiology of sepsis and septic shock. DESIGN/METHODS:Shortly after publication of the most recent Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines, the Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 16 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine, convened virtually and iteratively developed the article and recommendations, which represents an update from the 2018 Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Priorities. METHODS:Each task force member submitted five research questions on any sepsis-related subject. Committee members then independently ranked their top three priorities from the list generated. The highest rated clinical and basic science questions were developed into the current article. RESULTS:A total of 81 questions were submitted. After merging similar questions, there were 34 clinical and ten basic science research questions submitted for voting. The five top clinical priorities were as follows: 1) what is the best strategy for screening and identification of patients with sepsis, and can predictive modeling assist in real-time recognition of sepsis? 2) what causes organ injury and dysfunction in sepsis, how should it be defined, and how can it be detected? 3) how should fluid resuscitation be individualized initially and beyond? 4) what is the best vasopressor approach for treating the different phases of septic shock? and 5) can a personalized/precision medicine approach identify optimal therapies to improve patient outcomes? The five top basic science priorities were as follows: 1) How can we improve animal models so that they more closely resemble sepsis in humans? 2) What outcome variables maximize correlations between human sepsis and animal models and are therefore most appropriate to use in both? 3) How does sepsis affect the brain, and how do sepsis-induced brain alterations contribute to organ dysfunction? How does sepsis affect interactions between neural, endocrine, and immune systems? 4) How does the microbiome affect sepsis pathobiology? 5) How do genetics and epigenetics influence the development of sepsis, the course of sepsis and the response to treatments for sepsis? CONCLUSIONS:Knowledge advances in multiple clinical domains have been incorporated in progressive iterations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines, allowing for evidence-based recommendations for short- and long-term management of sepsis. However, the strength of existing evidence is modest with significant knowledge gaps and mortality from sepsis remains high. The priorities identified represent a roadmap for research in sepsis and septic shock.

IMPORTANCE:The spring 2020 surge of COVID-19 unprecedentedly strained ventilator supply in New York City, with many hospitals nearly exhausting available ventilators and subsequently seriously considering enacting crisis standards of care and implementing New York State Ventilator Allocation Guidelines (NYVAG). However, there is little evidence as to how NYVAG would perform if implemented. OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the performance and potential improvement of NYVAG during a surge of patients with respect to the length of rationing, overall mortality, and worsening health disparities. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:This cohort study included intubated patients in a single health system in New York City from March through July 2020. A total of 20 000 simulations were conducted of ventilator triage (10 000 following NYVAG and 10 000 following a proposed improved NYVAG) during a crisis period, defined as the point at which the prepandemic ventilator supply was 95% utilized. EXPOSURES:The NYVAG protocol for triage ventilators. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Comparison of observed survival rates with simulations of scenarios requiring NYVAG ventilator rationing. RESULTS:The total cohort included 1671 patients; of these, 674 intubated patients (mean [SD] age, 63.7 [13.8] years; 465 male [69.9%]) were included in the crisis period, with 571 (84.7%) testing positive for COVID-19. Simulated ventilator rationing occurred for 163.9 patients over 15.0 days, 44.4% (95% CI, 38.3%-50.0%) of whom would have survived if provided a ventilator while only 34.8% (95% CI, 28.5%-40.0%) of those newly intubated patients receiving a reallocated ventilator survived. While triage categorization at the time of intubation exhibited partial prognostic differentiation, 94.8% of all ventilator rationing occurred after a time trial. Within this subset, 43.1% were intubated for 7 or more days with a favorable SOFA score that had not improved. An estimated 60.6% of these patients would have survived if sustained on a ventilator. Revising triage subcategorization, proposed improved NYVAG, would have improved this alarming ventilator allocation inefficiency (25.3% [95% CI, 22.1%-28.4%] of those selected for ventilator rationing would have survived if provided a ventilator). NYVAG ventilator rationing did not exacerbate existing health disparities. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:In this cohort study of intubated patients experiencing simulated ventilator rationing during the apex of the New York City COVID-19 2020 surge, NYVAG diverted ventilators from patients with a higher chance of survival to those with a lower chance of survival. Future efforts should be focused on triage subcategorization, which improved this triage inefficiency, and ventilator rationing after a time trial, when most ventilator rationing occurred.