Faculty Bibliography

BACKGROUND/UNASSIGNED:Treatment limitation decisions (TLDs) on the ICU can be challenging, especially in patients with a malignancy. Up-to-date literature regarding TLDs in critically ill patients with a malignancy admitted to the ICU is scarce. The aim was to compare the incidence of written TLDs between patients with an active malignancy, patients with a malignancy in their medical history (complete remission, CR) and patients without a malignancy admitted unplanned to the ICU. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We conducted a retrospective cohort study in a large university hospital in the Netherlands. We identified all unplanned admissions to the ICU in 2017 and categorized the patients in 3 groups: patients with an active malignancy (study population), with CR and without a malignancy. A TLD was defined as a written instruction not to perform life-saving treatments, such as CPR in case of cardiac arrest. A multivariate binary logistic regression analysis was used to identify whether having a malignancy was associated with TLDs. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:Of the 1046 unplanned admissions, 125 patients (12%) had an active malignancy and 76 (7.3%) patients had CR. The incidence of written TLDs in these subgroups were 37 (29.6%) and 20 (26.3%). Age (OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.01 -1.04), SOFA score at ICU admission (OR 1.11; 95% CI 1.05 -1.18) and having an active malignancy (OR 1.75; 95% CI 1.04-2.96) compared to no malignancy were independently associated with written TLDs. SOFA scores on the day of the TLD were not significantly different in patients with and without a malignancy. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:This study shows that the presence of an underlying malignancy is independently associated with written TLDs during ICU stay. Patients with CR were not at risk of more written TLDs. Whether this higher incidence of TLDs in patients with a malignancy is justified, is at least questionable and should be evaluated in future research.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW/OBJECTIVE:Currently, the treatment of patients with shock is focused on the clinical symptoms of shock. In the early phase, this is usually limited to heart rate, blood pressure, lactate levels and urine output. However, as the ultimate goal of resuscitation is the improvement in microcirculatory perfusion the question is whether these currently used signs of shock and the improvement in these signs actually correspond to the changes in the microcirculation. RECENT FINDINGS/RESULTS:Recent studies have shown that during the development of shock the deterioration in the macrocirculatory parameters are followed by the deterioration of microcirculatory perfusion. However, in many cases the restoration of adequate macrocirculatory parameters is frequently not associated with improvement in microcirculatory perfusion. This relates not only to the cause of shock, where there are some differences between different forms of shock, but also to the type of treatment. SUMMARY/CONCLUSIONS:The improvement in macrohemodynamics during the resuscitation is not consistently followed by subsequent changes in the microcirculation. This may result in both over-resuscitation and under-resuscitation leading to increased morbidity and mortality. In this article the principles of coherence and the monitoring of the microcirculation are reviewed.

Background/UNASSIGNED:) have been proposed as markers of tissue hypoxia, but they have not been compared in the clinical scenario. We studied acute septic shock patients under resuscitation. We wanted to evaluate the relationship of these hypoxia markers with clinical and biochemical markers of hypoperfusion during septic shock resuscitation. Methods/UNASSIGNED:Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial. Septic shock patients were randomized to fluid resuscitation directed to normalization of capillary refill time (CRT) versus normalization or significant lowering of lactate. Multimodal assessment of perfusion was performed at 0, 2, 6 and 24 hours, and included macrohemodynamic and metabolic perfusion variables, CRT, regional flow and hypoxia markers. Patients who attained their pre-specified endpoint at 2-hours were compared to those who did not. Results/UNASSIGNED:25%, P=0.34). Conclusions/UNASSIGNED:Hypoxia markers did not exhibit correlation during resuscitation in septic shock patients. They probably interrogate different pathophysiological processes and mechanisms of dysoxia during early septic shock. Future studies should better elucidate the interaction and clinical role of hypoxia markers during septic shock resuscitation.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Acidosis and hyperlactatemia predict outcome in critically ill patients. We assessed BE and pH for risk prediction capabilities in a sub-group of septic patients in the MIMIC-III database. METHODS:Associations with mortality were assessed by logistic regression analysis in 5586 septic patients. Baseline parameters, lactate concentrations, pH, and BE were analyzed at baseline and after 6 hours. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS/RESULTS:We combined acidosis (defined as either BE ≤-6 and/or pH ≤7.3) and hyperlactatemia and split the cohort into three subgroups: low-risk (no acidosis and lactate <2.3 mmol/L; n = 2294), medium-risk (either acidosis or lactate >2.3 mmol/L; n = 2125) and high-risk (both acidosis and lactate >2.3 mmol/L; n = 1167). Mortality was 14%, 20% and 38% (p<0.001) in low-risk, medium-risk and high-risk patients, respectively. The predictiveness of this model (AUC 0.63 95%CI 0.61-0.65) was higher compared to acidosis (AUC 0.59 95%CI 0.57-0.61; p<0.001) and lactate >2.3 mmol/L (AUC 0.60 95%CI 0.58-0.62; p<0.001) alone. Hyperlactatemia alone was only moderately predictive for acidosis (AUC 0.60 95%CI 0.59-0.62). CONCLUSIONS:Acidosis and hyperlactatemia can occur independently to a certain degree. Combining acidosis and hyperlactatemia in a model yielded higher predictiveness for ICU-mortality. Septic patients with acidosis should be treated even more aggressively in the future.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:Perceived Honorary Authors (PHAs) are defined as authors on manuscripts who did not contribute enough. The association between PHAs and publication chance in journals is unknown. As a start, our aim was to examine the prevalence of PHAs in the Journal of Critical Care (JCC). Furthermore, we investigated whether PHAs influences publication chance in the JCC. Also, we attempt to replicate factors associated with the prevalence of PHAs found in earlier studies. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Between January 2018 and March 2019, we invited 1310 corresponding authors of submissions after the final editorial decision to complete a survey. Descriptive statistics and multinomial and binary logistic regressions were used in data analysis. RESULTS:Among the 475 respondents (response rate: 36%), we found a prevalence of PHAs of 13%. There was no significant association between PHAs and editorial decisions. Furthermore, if a senior member of the department who is automatically an author was present, our multivariate analysis showed a positive association with PHAs (OR 3.86, 95% CI 1.99-7.54). However, such senior department member was not associated with the editorial decision in the multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS:The prevalence of PHAs was conform other studies 13%, and did not influence publication chance.

Prediction models aim to use available data to predict a health state or outcome that has not yet been observed. Prediction is primarily relevant to clinical practice, but is also used in research, and administration. While prediction modeling involves estimating the relationship between patient factors and outcomes, it is distinct from casual inference. Prediction modeling thus requires unique considerations for development, validation, and updating. This document represents an effort from editors at 31 respiratory, sleep, and critical care medicine journals to consolidate contemporary best practices and recommendations related to prediction study design, conduct, and reporting. Herein, we address issues commonly encountered in submissions to our various journals. Key topics include considerations for selecting predictor variables, operationalizing variables, dealing with missing data, the importance of appropriate validation, model performance measures and their interpretation, and good reporting practices. Supplemental discussion covers emerging topics such as model fairness, competing risks, pitfalls of "modifiable risk factors", measurement error, and risk for bias. This guidance is not meant to be overly prescriptive; we acknowledge that every study is different, and no set of rules will fit all cases. Additional best practices can be found in the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guidelines, to which we refer readers for further details.

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND:Post-extubation dysphagia is commonly observed in ICU patients and associated with increased aspiration rates, delayed resumption of oral intake/ malnutrition, prolonged ICU and hospital length of stay, decreased quality of life, and increased mortality. Conventional therapeutic approaches are limited. Pharyngeal electrical stimulation (PES) was previously shown to improve swallowing function and airway safety in severely dysphagic tracheostomised stroke patients. METHODS:In a multi-center, single-blind, 1:1 randomized controlled study, up to 400 (360 evaluable) mixed emergency adult ICU patients with recent extubation following mechanical ventilation and confirmed oropharyngeal dysphagia will be enrolled at investigational academic ICUs. Primary objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of PES in reducing the severity of unsafe swallows. Patients will be randomized to receive PES (or sham) treatment on 3 consecutive days in addition to best supportive care. Primary endpoint is a composite of 2 endpoints with hierarchy based on clinical priorities: DISCUSSION:: This study will evaluate the effects of PES on swallowing safety in critically ill ICU patients post mechanical ventilation with oropharyngeal dysphagia.