[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To 1) describe factual, emotional, and delusional memories of ICU stay for patients enrolled in the SLEAP (Daily sedation interruption in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients cared for with a sedation protocol) trial; 2) compare characteristics of patients with and without ICU recall, and patients with and without delusional memories; and 3) determine factors associated with delusional memories 28 days after ICU discharge.
Sixteen North American medical and surgical ICUs.
Critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults randomized in the SLEAP trial.
Post-ICU interviews on days 3, 28, and 90 using the validated ICU Memory Tool.
Overall, 289 of 297 ICU survivors (97%) (146 protocolized sedation and 143 protocolized sedation plus daily interruption patients) were interviewed at least once. Because there were no differences in recall status or types of memories between the two sedation groups, we present the findings for all patients rather than by study group. On days 3, 28, and 90, 28%, 26%, and 36% of patients, respectively, reported no recall of being in the ICU (overall perception, self-reported) (p = 0.75). Mean daily doses of benzodiazepines and opioids were lower in patients with no ICU recall than those with recall (p < 0.0001 for both). Despite one third of patients reporting no recall of ICU stay on day 3, 97% and 90% reported at least one factual and one emotional memory from ICU, respectively. Emotional memories declined with time after ICU discharge, particularly panic and confusion. Delusional memories 28 days after discharge were common (70%) yet unrelated to delirium (p = 0.84), recall status (p = 0.15), total dose of benzodiazepine (p = 0.78), or opioid (p = 0.21). Delusional memories were less likely with longer duration of mechanical ventilation (odds ratio, 0.955; 95% CI, 0.91-1.00; p = 0.04).
Recall of ICU stay and types of memories reported were not influenced by the trial sedation strategy. Lack of ICU recall and delusional memories were common after ICU discharge despite the use of sedation strategies that promoted wakefulness.
Critical care medicine 07/2015; DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000001196 · 6.15 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The transfer of patient care between the intensive care unit (ICU) and the hospital ward is associated with increased risk of medical error and adverse events. This study will describe patient transfer from ICU to hospital ward by documenting (1) patient, family and provider experiences related to ICU transfer, (2) communication between stakeholders involved in ICU transfer, (3) adverse events that follow ICU transfer and (4) opportunities to improve ICU to hospital ward transfer.
This is a mixed methods prospective observational study of ICU to hospital ward transfer practices in 10 ICUs across Canada. We will recruit 50 patients at each site (n=500) who are transferred from ICU to hospital ward, and distribute surveys to enrolled patients, family members, and healthcare providers (ICU and ward physicians and nurses) after patient transfer. A random sample of 6 consenting study participants (patients, family members, healthcare providers) from each study site (n=60) will be offered an opportunity to participate in interviews to further describe stakeholders' experience with ICU to hospital ward transfer. We will abstract information from patient health records to identify clinical data and use of transfer tools, and identify adverse events that are related to the transfer.
Research ethics board approval has been obtained at the coordinating study centre (UofC REB13-0021) and 5 study sites (UofA Pro00050646; UBC-PHC H14-01667; Sunnybrook 336-2014; QCH 14-07; Sherbrooke 14-172). Dissemination of the findings will provide a comprehensive description of transfer from ICU to hospital ward in Canada including the uptake of validated or local transfer tools, a conceptual framework of the experiences and needs of stakeholders in the ICU transfer process, a summary of adverse events experienced by patients after transfer from ICU to hospital ward, and opportunities to guide quality improvement efforts.
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
BMJ Open 07/2015; 5(6):e007913. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007913 · 2.06 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Very elderly persons admitted to ICUs are at high risk of death. To document life-sustaining interventions (mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, renal replacement therapy) provided in the ICU and outcomes of care.
Multicenter, prospective cohort study.
ICUs of 24 Canadian hospitals.
Patients 80 years old or older admitted to the ICU.
One thousand six hundred seventy-one patients were included. The average age of the cohort was 85 years (range, 80-100 yr). Median total length of stay in ICU was 4 days (interquartile range, 2-8 d) and in hospital was 17 days (interquartile range, 8-33 d). Of all patients included, 502 (30%) stayed in ICU for 7 days or more and 344 (21%) received some form of life-sustaining treatment for at least 7 days. ICU and hospital mortality were 22% and 35%, respectively. For nonsurvivors, the median time from ICU admission to death was 10 days (interquartile range, 3-20 d). Of those who died (n = 5 85), 289 (49%) died while receiving mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, or dialysis. The presence of frailty or advance directives had little impact on limiting use of life-sustaining treatments or shortening the time from admission to death.
In this multicenter study, one third of very elderly ICU patients died in hospital, many after a prolonged ICU stay while continuing to receive aggressive life-sustaining interventions. These findings raise questions about the use of critical care at the end of life for the very elderly.
Critical care medicine 04/2015; DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000001024 · 6.15 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Bacteremia is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity in critically ill adults. No previous randomized controlled trials have directly compared shorter versus longer durations of antimicrobial treatment in these patients.
This is a multicenter pilot randomized controlled trial in critically ill patients with bacteremia. Eligible patients will be adults with a positive blood culture with pathogenic bacteria identified while in the intensive care unit. Eligible, consented patients will be randomized to either 7 days or 14 days of adequate antimicrobial treatment for the causative pathogen(s) detected on blood cultures. The diversity of pathogens and treatment regimens precludes blinding of patient and clinicians, but allocation concealment will be extended to day 7 and outcome adjudicators will be blinded. The primary outcome for the main trial will be 90-day mortality. The primary outcome for the pilot trial is feasibility defined by (i) rate of recruitment exceeding 1 patient per site per month and (ii) adherence to treatment duration protocol ≥ 90%. Secondary outcomes include intensive care unit, hospital and 90-day mortality rates, relapse rates of bacteremia, antibiotic-related side effects and adverse events, rates of Clostridium difficile infection, rates of secondary infection or colonization with antimicrobial resistant organisms, ICU and hospital lengths of stay, mechanical ventilation and vasopressor duration in intensive care unit, and procalcitonin levels on the day of randomization, and day 7, 10 and 14 after the index blood culture.
The BALANCE pilot trial will inform the design and execution of the subsequent BALANCE main trial, which will evaluate shorter versus longer duration treatment for bacteremia in critically ill patients, and thereby provide an evidence basis for treatment duration decisions for these infections.
The Pilot Trial was registered on 26 September 2014.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Intensive Care Units (ICUs) provide life-supporting treatment; however, resources are limited, so demand may exceed supply in the event of pandemics, environmental disasters, or in the context of an aging population. We hypothesized that comprehensive national data on ICU resources would permit a better understanding of regional differences in system capacity.
After the 2009-2010 Influenza A (H1N1) pandemic, the Canadian Critical Care Trials Group surveyed all acute care hospitals in Canada to assess ICU capacity. Using a structured survey tool administered to physicians, respiratory therapists and nurses, we determined the number of ICU beds, ventilators, and the ability to provide specialized support for respiratory failure.
We identified 286 hospitals with 3170 ICU beds and 4982 mechanical ventilators for critically ill patients. Twenty-two hospitals had an ICU that routinely cared for children; 15 had dedicated pediatric ICUs. Per 100,000 population, there was substantial variability in provincial capacity, with a mean of 0.9 hospitals with ICUs (provincial range 0.4-2.8), 10 ICU beds capable of providing mechanical ventilation (provincial range 6-19), and 15 invasive mechanical ventilators (provincial range 10-24). There was only moderate correlation between ventilation capacity and population size (coefficient of determination (R(2)) = 0.771).
ICU resources vary widely across Canadian provinces, and during times of increased demand, may result in geographic differences in the ability to care for critically ill patients. These results highlight the need to evolve inter-jurisdictional resource sharing during periods of substantial increase in demand, and provide background data for the development of appropriate critical care capacity benchmarks.
Critical care (London, England) 04/2015; 19(1):133. DOI:10.1186/s13054-015-0852-6
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of critical illness with important clinical consequences. The Prophylaxis for ThromboEmbolism in Critical Care Trial (PROTECT) is a multicenter, blinded, randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of the two most common pharmocoprevention strategies, unfractionated heparin (UFH) and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin, in medical-surgical patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). E-PROTECT is a prospective and concurrent economic evaluation of the PROTECT trial.
The primary objective of E-PROTECT is to identify and quantify the total (direct and indirect, variable and fixed) costs associated with the management of critically ill patients participating in the PROTECT trial, and, to combine costs and outcome results to determine the incremental cost-effectiveness of LMWH versus UFH, from the acute healthcare system perspective, over a data-rich time horizon of ICU admission and hospital admission. We derive baseline characteristics and probabilities of in-ICU and in-hospital events from all enrolled patients. Total costs are derived from centers, proportional to the numbers of patients enrolled in each country. Direct costs include medication, physician and other personnel costs, diagnostic radiology and laboratory testing, operative and non-operative procedures, costs associated with bleeding, transfusions and treatment-related complications. Indirect costs include ICU and hospital ward overhead costs. Outcomes are the ratio of incremental costs per incremental effects of LMWH versus UFH during hospitalization; incremental cost to prevent a thrombosis at any site (primary outcome); incremental cost to prevent a pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, major bleeding event or episode of heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (secondary outcomes) and incremental cost per life-year gained (tertiary outcome). Pre-specified subgroups and sensitivity analyses will be performed and confidence intervals for the estimates of incremental cost-effectiveness will be obtained using bootstrapping.
This economic evaluation employs a prospective costing methodology concurrent with a randomized controlled blinded clinical trial, with a pre-specified analytic plan, outcome measures, subgroup and sensitivity analyses. This economic evaluation has received only peer-reviewed funding and funders will not play a role in the generation, analysis or decision to submit the manuscripts for publication.Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00182143. Date of registration: 10 September 2005.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The aim of this study was to determine the attributable length of stay and mortality due to bleeding as a complication of therapeutic anticoagulation in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.
Charts of patients from 7 ICUs in British Columbia were screened daily for the occurrence of major bleeding while receiving therapeutic heparin. To determine attributable length of stay and mortality, a matched and unmatched cohort design as well as multivariate analysis were used. We included only patients who were started on anticoagulation on or after day 2 in the ICU.
Between 2006 and 2009, a total of 868 patients were started on therapeutic anticoagulation and 139 bled. One hundred five patients who bled were matched to 261 controls. In the matched analysis after adjustment for potential confounders, each bleeding event was associated with an increase in ICU length of stay (hazard ratio for ICU discharge, 0.47; 95% confidence interval, 0.38-0.57; attributable ICU length of stay of 13.8 days). Hospital length of stay was also significantly increased. In the entire cohort analysis, bleeding was also associated with increased ICU length of stay (hazard ratio, 0.59; confidence interval, 0.48-0.72; attributable stay of 6.1 days) and increased hospital length of stay. In both analyses, bleeding was not associated with hospital mortality.
Major bleeding while receiving anticoagulation is associated with a substantial increase in ICU and hospital length of stay.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Delirium is common during critical illness and associated with adverse outcomes. We compared characteristics and outcomes of delirious and nondelirious patients enrolled in a multicenter trial comparing protocolized sedation with protocolized sedation plus daily sedation interruption.
Sixteen North American medical and surgical ICUs.
Four hundred thirty critically ill, mechanically ventilated adults.
All patients had hourly titration of opioid and benzodiazepine infusions using a validated sedation scale. For patients in the interruption group, infusions were resumed, if indicated, at half of previous doses. Delirium screening occurred daily; positive screening was defined as an Intensive Care Delirium Screening Checklist score of 4 or more at any time.
Delirium was diagnosed in 226 of 420 assessed patients (53.8%). Coma was identified in 32.7% of delirious compared with 22.7% of nondelirious patients (p = 0.03). The median time to onset of delirium was 3.5 days (interquartile range, 2-7), and the median duration of delirium was 2 days (interquartile range, 1-4). Delirious patients were more likely to be male (61.1% vs 46.6%; p = 0.005), have a surgical/trauma diagnosis (21.2% vs 11.0%; p = 0.030), and history of tobacco (31.5% vs 16.2%; p = 0.002) or alcohol use (34.6% vs 20.9%; p = 0.009). Patients with positive delirium screening had longer duration of ventilation (13 vs 7 d; p < 0.001), ICU stay (12 vs 8 d; p < 0.0001), and hospital stay (24 vs 15 d; p < 0.0001). Delirious patients were more likely to be physically restrained (86.3% vs 76.7%; p = 0.014) and undergo tracheostomy (34.6% vs 15.5%; p < 0.0001). Antecedent factors independently associated with delirium onset were restraint use (hazard ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.33-2.63; p = 0.0003), antipsychotic administration (hazard ratio, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.005-2.767; p = 0.047), and midazolam dose (hazard ratio, 0.998; 95% CI, 0.997-1.0; p = 0.049). There was no difference in delirium prevalence or duration between the interruption and control groups.
In mechanically ventilated adults, delirium was common and associated with longer duration of ventilation and hospitalization. Physical restraint was most strongly associated with delirium.
Critical Care Medicine 12/2014; 43(3). DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000000727 · 6.15 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: To identify risk factors for failure of anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis in critically ill patients in the ICU.
Multivariable regression analysis of thrombosis predictors from a randomized thromboprophylaxis trial.
Sixty-seven medical-surgical ICUs in six countries.
Three thousand seven hundred forty-six medical-surgical critically ill patients.
All patients received anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin at standard doses.
Independent predictors for venous thromboembolism, proximal leg deep vein thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism developing during critical illness were assessed. A total of 289 patients (7.7%) developed venous thromboembolism. Predictors of thromboprophylaxis failure as measured by development of venous thromboembolism included a personal or family history of venous thromboembolism (hazard ratio, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.03-2.59; p = 0.04) and body mass index (hazard ratio, 1.18 per 10-point increase; 95% CI, 1.04-1.35; p = 0.01). Increasing body mass index was also a predictor for developing proximal leg deep vein thrombosis (hazard ratio, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.06-1.46; p = 0.007), which occurred in 182 patients (4.9%). Pulmonary embolism occurred in 47 patients (1.3%) and was associated with body mass index (hazard ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.02-1.83; p = 0.035) and vasopressor use (hazard ratio, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.01-3.35; p = 0.046). Low-molecular-weight heparin (in comparison to unfractionated heparin) thromboprophylaxis lowered pulmonary embolism risk (hazard ratio, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.27-0.95; p = 0.034) while statin use in the preceding week lowered the risk of proximal leg deep vein thrombosis (hazard ratio, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.27-0.77; p = 0.004).
Failure of standard thromboprophylaxis using low-molecular-weight heparin or unfractionated heparin is more likely in ICU patients with elevated body mass index, those with a personal or family history of venous thromboembolism, and those receiving vasopressors. Alternate management or incremental risk reduction strategies may be needed in such patients.
Critical Care Medicine 12/2014; 43(2). DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000000713 · 6.15 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Many healthcare workers are concerned about the provision of nonbeneficial treatment in the acute care setting. We sought to explore the perceptions of acute care practitioners to determine whether they perceived nonbeneficial treatment to be a problem, to generate an acceptable definition of nonbeneficial treatment, to learn about their perceptions of the impact and causes of nonbeneficial treatment, and the ways that they feel could reduce or resolve nonbeneficial treatment.
Critical Care Medicine 11/2014; 43(2). DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000000704 · 6.15 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The guideline-recommended elements to include in discussions about goals of care with patients with serious illness are mostly based on expert opinion. We sought to identify which elements are most important to patients and their families.
Canadian Medical Association Journal 11/2014; 186(18). DOI:10.1503/cmaj.140673 · 5.81 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Importance
Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication of acute illness, and its prevention is a ubiquitous aspect of inpatient care. A multicenter blinded, randomized trial compared the effectiveness of the most common pharmocoprevention strategies, unfractionated heparin (UFH) and the low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) dalteparin, finding no difference in the primary end point of leg deep-vein thrombosis but a reduced rate of pulmonary embolus and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia among critically ill medical-surgical patients who received dalteparin.Objective
To evaluate the comparative cost-effectiveness of LMWH vs UFH for prophylaxis against VTE in critically ill patients.Design, Setting, and Participants
Prospective economic evaluation concurrent with the Prophylaxis for Thromboembolism in Critical Care Randomized Trial (May 2006 to June 2010). The economic evaluation adopted a health care payer perspective and in-hospital time horizon; derived baseline characteristics and probabilities of intensive care unit and in-hospital events; and measured costs among 2344 patients in 23 centers in 5 countries and applied these costs to measured resource use and effects of all enrolled patients.Main Outcomes and Measures
Costs, effects, incremental cost-effectiveness of LMWH vs UFH during the period of hospitalization, and sensitivity analyses across cost ranges.Results
Hospital costs per patient were $39 508 (interquartile range [IQR], $24 676 to $71 431) for 1862 patients who received LMWH compared with $40 805 (IQR, $24 393 to $76 139) for 1862 patients who received UFH (incremental cost, −$1297 [IQR, −$4398 to $1404]; P = .41). In 78% of simulations, a strategy using LMWH was most effective and least costly. In sensitivity analyses, a strategy using LMWH remained least costly unless the drug acquisition cost of dalteparin increased from $8 to $179 per dose and was consistent among higher- and lower-spending health care systems. There was no threshold at which lowering the acquisition cost of UFH favored prophylaxis with UFH.Conclusions and Relevance
From a health care payer perspective, the use of the LMWH dalteparin for VTE prophylaxis among critically ill medical-surgical patients was more effective and had similar or lower costs than the use of UFH. These findings were driven by lower rates of pulmonary embolus and heparin-induced thrombocytopenia and corresponding lower overall use of resources with LMWH.
JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 11/2014; 312(20). DOI:10.1001/jama.2014.15101 · 30.39 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The aims of this study are to assess adherence to the Brain Trauma Foundation (BTF) cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) guidelines and to determine if adherence is associated with mortality in patients who have a severe traumatic brain injury.
Journal of Critical Care 07/2014; 30(1). DOI:10.1016/j.jcrc.2014.07.026 · 2.19 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Objective: Fluids and vasoactive agents are both used to treat septic shock, but little is known about how they interact or the optimal way to administer them. We sought to determine how hospital mortality was influenced by combined use of these two treatments. Design: Retrospective evaluation using multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the association between hospital mortality and categorical variables representing initiation of vasoactive agents and volumes of IV fluids given 0-1, 1-6, and 6-24 hours after onset, including interactions and adjusting for potential confounders. Setting: ICUs of 24 hospitals in 3 countries. Patients: Two thousand eight hundred forty-nine patients who survived more than 24 hours after after onset of septic shock, admitted between 1989 and 2007. Interventions: None. Measurements and Main Results: Fluids and vasoactive agents had strong, interacting associations with mortality (p < 0.0001). Mortality was lowest when vasoactive agents were begun 1-6 hours after onset, with more than 1 L of fluids in the initial hour after shock onset, more than 2.4 L from hours 1-6, and 1.6-3.5 L from 6 to 24 hours. The lowest mortality rates were associated with starting vasoactive agents 1-6 hours after onset. Conclusions: The focus during the first hour of resuscitation for septic shock should be aggressive fluid administration, only thereafter starting vasoactive agents, while continuing aggressive fluid administration. Starting vasoactive agents in the initial hour may be detrimental, and not all of that association is due to less fluids being given with such early initiation of vasoactive agents.
Critical Care Medicine 07/2014; 42(10). DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000000520 · 6.15 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Given conflicting data and current guidelines, low-dose corticosteroids are often used in the treatment of septic shock. To evaluate the therapeutic benefit of early low-dose corticosteroid in patients with septic shock.
Critical Care Medicine 07/2014; 42(11). DOI:10.1097/CCM.0000000000000518 · 6.15 Impact Factor