Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate how key aspects of New York State Ventilator Allocation Guidelines (NYSVAG)-Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score criteria and ventilator time trials -might perform with respect to the frequency of ventilator reallocation and survival to hospital discharge in a simulated cohort of COVID-19 patients. METHODS:Single center retrospective observational and simulation cohort study of 884 critically-ill COVID-19 patients undergoing ventilator allocation per NYSVAG. RESULTS:742 patients (83.9%) would have had their ventilator reallocated during the 11-day observation period, 280 (37.7%) of whom would have otherwise survived to hospital discharge if provided a ventilator. Only 65 (18.1%) of the observed surviving patients would have survived by NYSVAG. Extending ventilator time trials from 2 to 5 days resulted in a 49.2% increase in simulated survival to discharge. CONCLUSIONS:In the setting of a protracted respiratory pandemic, implementation of NYSVAG or similar protocols could lead to a high degree of ventilator reallocation, including withdrawal from patients who might otherwise survive. Longer ventilator time trials might lead to improved survival for COVID-19 patients given their protracted respiratory failure. Further studies are needed to understand the survival of patients receiving reallocated ventilators to determine whether implementation of NYSVAG would improve overall survival.

Testing multiple treatments for heterogeneous (varying) effectiveness with respect to many underlying risk factors requires many pairwise tests; we would like to instead automatically discover and visualize patient archetypes and predictors of treatment effectiveness using multitask machine learning. In this paper, we present a method to estimate these heterogeneous treatment effects with an interpretable hierarchical framework that uses additive models to visualize expected treatment benefits as a function of patient factors (identifying personalized treatment benefits) and concurrent treatments (identifying combinatorial treatment benefits). This method achieves state-of-the-art predictive power for COVID-19 in-hospital mortality and interpretable identification of heterogeneous treatment benefits. We first validate this method on the large public MIMIC-IV dataset of ICU patients to test recovery of heterogeneous treatment effects. Next we apply this method to a proprietary dataset of over 3000 patients hospitalized for COVID-19, and find evidence of heterogeneous treatment effectiveness predicted largely by indicators of inflammation and thrombosis risk: patients with few indicators of thrombosis risk benefit most from treatments against inflammation, while patients with few indicators of inflammation risk benefit most from treatments against thrombosis. This approach provides an automated methodology to discover heterogeneous and individualized effectiveness of treatments.

OBJECTIVE:An interprofessional team, also known as the tracheostomy steering committee (TSC) was established to prevent tracheotomy-related pressure injuries (TRPI) and standardize practice for tracheostomy insertion and care of patients with tracheostomies. In addition to reducing the number TRPIs, the TSC sought establish an escalation process for all clinicians to raise concerns about the care and management of patients with tracheostomies. METHODS:This quality improvement initiative used the DMAIC (Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve and Control) framework with a pre- and post-intervention design. The patient population included all adult patients requiring a tracheostomy. The TSC created a TRPI-prevention bundle, which included recommendations for protective foam dressing and skin barrier film, suture tension, timing of suture removal, stoma care, offloading and positioning, escalation, documentation, and dual skin assessment. An electronic tracheostomy report was developed to track patients with a tracheostomy across the enterprise. RESULTS:A total of 289 patients had a tracheostomy during their inpatient hospital stay from January 2018 through December 2019. There was an observed a reduction in the daily rate of TRPIs by 50% with the use of the standardized TRPI-prevention bundle. CONCLUSIONS:Use of the TRPI-prevention bundle at our institution resulted in a significant reduction in the incidence of TRPI. Timely escalation of possible tracheostomy injuries or tracheostomies at risk enabled rapid intervention, likely preventing many injuries, and real-time feedback to clinicians reinforced best practices. The use of an interprofessional team is necessary in providing optimal tracheostomy care to ensure the best outcomes.

OBJECTIVE:To identify priorities for administrative, epidemiologic and diagnostic research in sepsis. DESIGN/METHODS:As a follow-up to a previous consensus statement about sepsis research, members of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Committee, representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine addressed six questions regarding care delivery, epidemiology, organ dysfunction, screening, identification of septic shock, and information that can predict outcomes in sepsis. METHODS:Six questions from the Scoring/Identification and Administration sections of the original Research Priorities publication were explored in greater detail to better examine the knowledge gaps and rationales for questions that were previously identified through a consensus process. RESULTS:The document provides a framework for priorities in research to address the following questions: (1) What is the optimal model of delivering sepsis care?; (2) What is the epidemiology of sepsis susceptibility and response to treatment?; (3) What information identifies organ dysfunction?; (4) How can we screen for sepsis in various settings?; (5) How do we identify septic shock?; and (6) What in-hospital clinical information is associated with important outcomes in patients with sepsis? CONCLUSIONS:There is substantial knowledge of sepsis epidemiology and ways to identify and treat sepsis patients, but many gaps remain. Areas of uncertainty identified in this manuscript can help prioritize initiatives to improve an understanding of individual patient and demographic heterogeneity with sepsis and septic shock, biomarkers and accurate patient identification, organ dysfunction, and ways to improve sepsis care.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To identify research priorities in the management, pathophysiology, and host response of coronavirus disease 2019 in critically ill patients. DESIGN/METHODS:The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee, a multiprofessional group of 17 international experts representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and Society of Critical Care Medicine, was virtually convened during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. The committee iteratively developed the recommendations and subsequent document. METHODS:Each committee member submitted a list of what they believed were the most important priorities for coronavirus disease 2019 research. The entire committee voted on 58 submitted questions to determine top priorities for coronavirus disease 2019 research. RESULTS:The Surviving Sepsis Research Committee provides 13 priorities for coronavirus disease 2019. Of these, the top six priorities were identified and include the following questions: 1) Should the approach to ventilator management differ from the standard approach in patients with acute hypoxic respiratory failure?, 2) Can the host response be modulated for therapeutic benefit?, 3) What specific cells are directly targeted by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and how do these cells respond?, 4) Can early data be used to predict outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 and, by extension, to guide therapies?, 5) What is the role of prone positioning and noninvasive ventilation in nonventilated patients with coronavirus disease?, and 6) Which interventions are best to use for viral load modulation and when should they be given? CONCLUSIONS:Although knowledge of both biology and treatment has increased exponentially in the first year of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, significant knowledge gaps remain. The research priorities identified represent a roadmap for investigation in coronavirus disease 2019.