Faculty Bibliography

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.

BACKGROUND:This survey assessed satisfaction with the practice environment among physicians who have completed fellowship training in critical care medicine (CCM) as recognized by the American Board of Anesthesiology (and are members of the American Society of Anesthesiology) and evaluated the perceived effectiveness of training programs in preparing fellows for critical care practice. METHODS:A cross-sectional online survey composed of 39 multiple choice and open-ended questions was administered between August and December 2018 to all members of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) who self-identified as being CCM trained. The survey instrument was developed and revised in an iterative fashion by ASA committee on CCM and the Society for Education in Anesthesia (SEA). Survey results were analyzed using a mixed-method approach. RESULTS:Three hundred fifty-three of the 1400 anesthesiologists who self-identified to the ASA as having CCM training (25.2%) completed the survey. Most were men (72.3%), board certified in CCM (98.7%), and had practiced a median of 5 years. Half of the respondents rated their training as "excellent." A total of 70.6% described currently working in academic centers with 53.6% providing care in open surgical intensive care units (ICUs). Most anesthesiologist intensivists (75%) spend at least 25% of their clinical time providing ICU care (versus clinical anesthesia). A total of 89% of the respondents were involved in educational activities, 60% reported being in administrative leadership roles, and 37% engaged in scholarly activity. Areas of dissatisfaction included fatigue, lack of collegiality or respect, lack of research training, decreased job satisfaction, and burnout. Analysis suggested moderate levels of job satisfaction (49%), work-life balance (52%), and high levels of burnout (74%). A significant contributor to burnout was with a perception of lack of respect (P = .005) in the work environment. Burnout was not significantly associated with gender or duration of practice. Qualitative analysis of the open-ended responses also identified these 3 variables as major themes. CONCLUSIONS:This survey of CCM-trained anesthesiologists described a high rate of board certification, practice in academic settings, and participation in resident education. Areas of dissatisfaction with an anesthesia/critical care practice included burnout, work/life balance, and lack of respect. These results may increase recruitment of anesthesiologists into critical care and inform strategies to improve satisfaction with anesthesia critical care practice, fellowship training.

Anesthesiologists are uniquely positioned to facilitate emergent care of patients with sepsis in the perioperative setting. A subset of sepsis patients presents with surgical pathology. Emphasis is on timely intervention with source control, antibiotic therapy, and aggressive resuscitation. Ileus, aspiration, and cardiovascular collapse must be considered when inducing patients with sepsis. Dynamic fluid responsiveness may prove an effective tool in minimizing over-resuscitation. Assessment of circulatory failure and drug therapy involves an understanding of preload, afterload, and contractility. Timely, targeted resuscitation and early source control have persisted and remain fundamental to sepsis care.

Acute limb ischemia caused by peripheral venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) cannulation is associated with increased mortality. Early detection of limb hypoperfusion may lead to timely intervention and prevent irreversible muscle damage. Methods to determine the adequacy of tissue oxygenation in cannulated extremities include bedside physical examination, trending serum biochemical markers, and somatic near-infrared spectroscopy. To prevent ECMO-related limb ischemia events, interventions include the addition of distal antegrade perfusion catheters to the arterial ECMO canula, minimizing arterial cannula diameter, placing arterial and venous cannulae on opposite extremities, and adding a side-arm graft to the cannulated artery. If the limb develops early signs of ischemia, preventative measures such as distal perfusion catheter insertion or changing the location of the arterial cannula should be performed. Acute compartment syndrome requires emergency fasciotomy or amputation if the limb is unsalvageable. Opportunities for future research include improving monitoring technology and standardizing the use of the distal perfusion catheter.

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is a novel cause of organ dysfunction in children, presenting as either coronavirus disease 2019 with sepsis and/or respiratory failure or a hyperinflammatory shock syndrome. Clinicians must now consider these diagnoses when evaluating children for septic shock and sepsis-associated organ dysfunction. The Surviving Sepsis Campaign International Guidelines for the Management of Septic Shock and Sepsis-associated Organ Dysfunction in Children provide an appropriate framework for the early recognition and initial resuscitation of children with sepsis or septic shock caused by all pathogens, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2. However, the potential benefits of select adjunctive therapies may differ from non-coronavirus disease 2019 sepsis.

BACKGROUND:Ideal timing of postoperative beta-blockers is unclear. We hypothesized that patients who do not receive beta-blockers immediately after cardiac surgery would have increased in-hospital mortality (primary outcome) and postoperative hemodynamic, pulmonary, neurologic, or respiratory complications (secondary outcomes). METHODS:We performed a retrospective cohort study evaluating patients who underwent cardiac surgery at our institution from January 1, 2013 to September 30, 2017. We compared outcomes between patients who received beta-blockers by postoperative day (POD) 5 with outcomes in patients who did not receive beta-blockers at any time or received them after POD 5. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to minimize confounding. Univariate logistic regression analyses were performed on the weighted sets using absent or delayed beta-blockers as the independent variable and each outcome as dependent variables in separate analyses. A secondary analysis was performed in patients prescribed preoperative beta-blockers. E-values were calculated for significant outcomes. RESULTS:All results were confounder adjusted. Among patients presenting for cardiac surgery, not receiving beta-blockers by POD 5 or at any time was not associated with the primary outcome in-hospital mortality, estimated odds ratio (OR; 99.5% confidence interval [CI]) of 1.6 (0.49-5.1), P = .28. Not receiving beta-blockers by POD 5 or at any time was associated with postoperative atrial fibrillation, estimated OR (99.5% CI) of 1.5 (1.1-2.1), P < .001, and pulmonary complications, estimated OR (99.5% CI) of 3.0 (1.8-5.2), P < .001. E-values were 2.4 for postoperative atrial fibrillation and 5.6 for pulmonary complications. Among patients presenting for cardiac surgery taking preoperative beta-blockers, not receiving beta-blockers by POD 5 or at any time was not associated with the primary outcome mortality, with estimated OR (99.5% CI) of 1.3 (0.43-4.1), P = .63. In this subset, not receiving beta-blockers by POD 5 or at any time was associated with increased adjusted ORs of postoperative atrial fibrillation (OR = 1.6; 99.5% CI, 1.1-2.4; P < .001) and postoperative pulmonary complications (OR = 2.8; 99.5% CI, 1.6-5.2; P < .001). Here, e-values were 2.7 for postoperative atrial fibrillation and 5.1 for pulmonary complications. For the sensitivity analyses for secondary outcomes, exposure and outcome periods overlap. Outcomes may have occurred before or after postoperative beta-blocker administration. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who undergo cardiac surgery, not receiving postoperative beta-blockers within the first 5 days after cardiac surgery or at any time is not associated with in-hospital mortality and is associated with, but may not necessarily cause, postoperative atrial fibrillation and pulmonary complications.