Faculty Bibliography

Since the first recognition of a cluster of novel respiratory viral infections in China in late December 2019, intensivists in the United States have watched with growing concern as infections with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus-now named coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19)-have spread to hospitals in the United States. Because COVID-19 is extremely transmissible and can progress to a severe form of respiratory failure, the potential to overwhelm available critical care resources is high and critical care management of COVID-19 patients has been thrust into the spotlight. COVID-19 arrived in the United States in January and, as anticipated, has dramatically increased the usage of critical care resources. Three of the hardest-hit cities have been Seattle, New York City, and Chicago with a combined total of over 14,000 cases as of March 23, 2020.In this special article, we describe initial clinical impressions of critical care of COVID-19 in these areas, with attention to clinical presentation, laboratory values, organ system effects, treatment strategies, and resource management. We highlight clinical observations that align with or differ from already published reports. These impressions represent only the early empiric experience of the authors and are not intended to serve as recommendations or guidelines for practice, but rather as a starting point for intensivists preparing to address COVID-19 when it arrives in their community.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for children (including infants, school-aged children, and adolescents) with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. DESIGN/METHODS:A panel of 49 international experts, representing 12 international organizations, as well as three methodologists and three public members was convened. Panel members assembled at key international meetings (for those panel members attending the conference), and a stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in November 2018. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the chairs, co-chairs, methodologists, and group heads, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development process. METHODS:The panel consisted of six subgroups: recognition and management of infection, hemodynamics and resuscitation, ventilation, endocrine and metabolic therapies, adjunctive therapies, and research priorities. We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or as a best practice statement. In addition, "in our practice" statements were included when evidence was inconclusive to issue a recommendation, but the panel felt that some guidance based on practice patterns may be appropriate. RESULTS:The panel provided 77 statements on the management and resuscitation of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. Overall, six were strong recommendations, 52 were weak recommendations, and nine were best-practice statements. For 13 questions, no recommendations could be made; but, for 10 of these, "in our practice" statements were provided. In addition, 49 research priorities were identified. CONCLUSIONS:A large cohort of international experts was able to achieve consensus regarding many recommendations for the best care of children with sepsis, acknowledging that most aspects of care had relatively low quality of evidence resulting in the frequent issuance of weak recommendations. Despite this challenge, these recommendations regarding the management of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction provide a foundation for consistent care to improve outcomes and inform future research.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To develop evidence-based recommendations for clinicians caring for children (including infants, school-aged children, and adolescents) with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. DESIGN/METHODS:A panel of 49 international experts, representing 12 international organizations, as well as three methodologists and three public members was convened. Panel members assembled at key international meetings (for those panel members attending the conference), and a stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in November 2018. A formal conflict-of-interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among the chairs, co-chairs, methodologists, and group heads, as well as within subgroups, served as an integral part of the guideline development process. METHODS:The panel consisted of six subgroups: recognition and management of infection, hemodynamics and resuscitation, ventilation, endocrine and metabolic therapies, adjunctive therapies, and research priorities. We conducted a systematic review for each Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes question to identify the best available evidence, statistically summarized the evidence, and then assessed the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. We used the evidence-to-decision framework to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or as a best practice statement. In addition, "in our practice" statements were included when evidence was inconclusive to issue a recommendation, but the panel felt that some guidance based on practice patterns may be appropriate. RESULTS:The panel provided 77 statements on the management and resuscitation of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. Overall, six were strong recommendations, 49 were weak recommendations, and nine were best-practice statements. For 13 questions, no recommendations could be made; but, for 10 of these, "in our practice" statements were provided. In addition, 52 research priorities were identified. CONCLUSIONS:A large cohort of international experts was able to achieve consensus regarding many recommendations for the best care of children with sepsis, acknowledging that most aspects of care had relatively low quality of evidence resulting in the frequent issuance of weak recommendations. Despite this challenge, these recommendations regarding the management of children with septic shock and other sepsis-associated organ dysfunction provide a foundation for consistent care to improve outcomes and inform future research.

Background: Midline catheters (MCs) have arisen as alternatives to peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) for both general intravenous therapy and extended outpatient parenteral therapy. However, there is a lack of data concerning the safety of medication therapy through midline for extended durations. Objective: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety of MCs for extended intravenous use. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study evaluating patients who received intravenous therapy through an MC at a tertiary care academic medical center. The primary end point was the incidence of composite catheter-related adverse events that included local events, catheter dislodgment, infiltration, catheter occlusion, catheter-related venous thromboembolism, extravasation, and line-associated infection. Results: A total of 82 MC placements and 50 PICC placements were included; 50 MCs were for outpatient parenteral antimicrobial therapy, and 32 were for inpatient intravenous use. There were 21 complications per 1000 catheter-days in the outpatient group and 7 complications per 1000 catheter-days in the PICC group (P = 0.91). The median time to complication in both groups was 8 days. The antimicrobial classes commonly associated with complications were cephalosporins, carbapenems, and penicillins. Conclusion and Relevance: Our results suggest that intravenous therapy with MCs is generally safe for prolonged courses that do not exceed 14 days as compared with PICC lines, which can be placed for months. There is still limited evidence for the use of MCs between 14 and 28 days of therapy. This study can help guide our selection of intravenous catheters for the purpose of outpatient antimicrobial therapy.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:Sepsis-3 guidelines have implications in a deeper understanding of the biopathology of the disease. Further, the review focuses on timely topics and new literature on fluid resuscitation, the value of steroids in sepsis, and new therapeutic options such as angiotensin II, vitamin C, and thiamine as well as the emerging role of procalcitonin (PCT) in managing antibiotics. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:Traditional therapies such as type of crystalloid fluid administration and steroid therapy for sepsis are currently under re-evaluation. Angiotensin II is investigated for reversing vasodilatory shock. The role of capillary endothelium leak and cellular metabolism can be affected by vitamin C and thiamine levels. Biomarker level trends, specifically PCT, can aid clinical suspicion of infection. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS:Sepsis-3 shifts the focus from a noninfectious inflammatory process and an emphasis on a dysregulated host response to infection. Hyperchloremic crystalloid resuscitation is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Steroid administration can reverse shock physiology; however, mortality benefits remain uncertain. Angiotensin II, vitamin C, and thiamine are novel treatment options that need further validation. PCT assays can help discern between infectious and noninfectious inflammation.

OBJECTIVE:/UNASSIGNED:To explore cognitive strategies clinicians apply while performing a medication reconciliation task, handling incomplete and conflicting information. BACKGROUND:/UNASSIGNED:Medication reconciliation is a method clinicians apply to find and resolve inconsistencies in patients' medications and medical conditions lists. The cognitive strategies clinicians use during reconciliation are unclear. Controlled lab experiments can explore how clinicians make sense of uncertain, missing, or conflicting information and therefore support the development of a human performance model. We hypothesize that clinicians apply varied cognitive strategies to handle this task and that profession and experience affect these strategies. METHOD:/UNASSIGNED:130 clinicians participated in a tablet-based experiment conducted in a large American teaching hospital. They were asked to simulate medication reconciliation using a card sorting task (CaST) to organize medication and medical condition lists of a specific clinical case. Later on, they were presented with new information and were asked to add it to their arrangements. We quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed the ways clinicians arranged patient information. RESULTS:/UNASSIGNED:Four distinct cognitive strategies were identified ("Conditions first": n = 76 clinicians, "Medications first": n = 7, "Crossover": n = 17, and "Alternating": n = 10). The strategy clinicians applied was affected by their experience ( p = .02) but not by their profession. At the appearance of new information, clinicians moved medication cards more frequently (75.2 movements vs. 49.6 movements, p < .001), suggesting that they match medications to medical conditions. CONCLUSION:/UNASSIGNED:Clinicians apply various cognitive strategies while reconciling medications and medical conditions. APPLICATION:/UNASSIGNED:Clinical information systems should support multiple cognitive strategies, allowing flexibility in organizing information.