Blair Carl Schwartz

There is little research on long-term, patient-centered outcomes in critically ill patients undergoing tracheostomy for secretion management or prolonged ventilation. The goal of this study was to determine and compare hospital and long-term mortality, and incidence of new institutionalization amongst patients who underwent an ICU tracheostomy for these two aforementioned indications. This was a single center historic cohort study of all ICU patients who received a tracheostomy for secretion management or prolonged ventilation from 2011 to 2022. We compared hospital and long-term mortality and incidence of new institutionalization between these two groups. A cohort of 247 patients (133 secretion management, 114 prolonged ventilation) was established. Overall hospital mortality was 86/247 (35%), mortality at 1 year was 106/207 (51%), and at 3 years was 117/167 (70%), with no significant difference between the two indications. Patients with prolonged ventilation indication had a significantly higher ICU mortality [34/114 (30%) vs. 13/133 (10%), P < 0.001]. Amongst hospital survivors, 49/137 (36%) were unable to return home, with significantly more patients tracheostomized for secretion management requiring new institutionalization [37/78 (47%) vs. 12/59 (20%), P = 0.002]. Tracheostomy indication may be an important determinant of short- and long-term patient-centered outcomes. Patients receiving a tracheostomy for secretion management were twice as likely to be discharged to a new institution compared to prolonged ventilation patients. Patient-centered outcomes should be included in future studies and if confirmed, these outcomes should be incorporated into discussions about tracheostomy decision making.

Purpose With uncertain prognostic utility of existing predictive scoring systems for COVID-19-related illness, the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) 4C Mortality Score was developed by the International Severe Acute Respiratory and Emerging Infection Consortium as a COVID-19 mortality prediction tool. We sought to externally validate this score among critically ill patients admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) with COVID-19 and compare its discrimination characteristics to that of the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) II and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores. Methods We enrolled all consecutive patients admitted with COVID-19-associated respiratory failure between 5 March 2020 and 5 March 2022 to our university-affiliated and intensivist-staffed ICU (Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada). After data abstraction, our primary outcome of in-hospital mortality was evaluated with an objective of determining the discriminative properties of the ISARIC 4C Mortality Score, using the area under the curve of a logistic regression model. Results A total of 429 patients were included, 102 (23.8%) of whom died in hospital. The receiver operator curve of the ISARIC 4C Mortality Score had an area under the curve of 0.762 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.717 to 0.811), whereas those of the SOFA and APACHE II scores were 0.705 (95% CI, 0.648 to 0.761) and 0.722 (95% CI, 0.667 to 0.777), respectively. Conclusions The ISARIC 4C Mortality Score is a tool that had a good predictive performance for in-hospital mortality in a cohort of patients with COVID-19 admitted to an ICU for respiratory failure. Our results suggest a good external validity of the 4C score when applied to a more severely ill population.

Purpose The optimal noninvasive modality for oxygenation support in COVID-19-associated hypoxemic respiratory failure and its association with healthcare worker infection remain uncertain. We report here our experience using high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) as the primary support mode for patients with COVID-19 in our institution. Methods We conducted a single-centre historical cohort study of all COVID-19 patients treated with HFNO for at least two hours in our university-affiliated and intensivist-staffed intensive care unit (Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada) between 27 August 2020 and 30 April 2021. We report their clinical characteristics and outcomes. Healthcare workers in our unit cared for these patients in single negative pressure rooms wearing KN95 or fit-tested N95 masks; they underwent mandatory symptomatic screening for COVID-19 infection, as well as a period of asymptomatic screening. Results One hundred and forty-two patients were analysed, with a median [interquartile range (IQR)] age of 66 [59–73] yr; 71% were male. Patients had a median [IQR] Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score of 3 [2–3], median [IQR] oxygen saturation by pulse oximetry/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio of 120 [94–164], and a median [IQR] 4C score (a COVID-19-specific mortality score) of 12 [10–14]. Endotracheal intubation occurred in 48/142 (34%) patients, and overall hospital mortality was 16%. Barotrauma occurred in 21/142 (15%) patients. Among 27 symptomatic and 139 asymptomatic screening tests, there were no cases of HFNO-related COVID-19 transmission to healthcare workers. Conclusion Our experience indicates that HFNO is an effective first-line therapy for hypoxemic respiratory failure in COVID-19 patients, and can be safely used without significant discernable infection risk to healthcare workers.

Background: Intravenous (IV) hydration is considered a protective factor in reducing the incidence of acyclovir- induced nephrotoxicity. A systems based review of cases of acyclovir-associated acute kidney injury can be used to examine institution-, care provider-, and task-related factors involved in administering the drug and can serve as a basis for developing a quality improvement intervention to achieve safer administration of acyclovir.Objectives: To explore the effectiveness of the study institution’s inter - disciplinary quality improvement intervention in increasing the dilution of acyclovir before IV administration.Methods: After conducting a systems-based review for intervention development, a retrospective analysis was undertaken to compare IV administration of acyclovir in the 6-month periods before and after implementation of the intervention. The study population was a sequential sample of all patients over 18 years of age who were seen in the emergency department or admitted to a ward and who received at least one IV dose of acyclovir at the study institution. The primary outcome was the volume in which each acyclovir dose was delivered. The secondary outcomes were the hourly rate of fluid administration, the frequency of an increase in hourly hydration rate, and the incidence of acute kidney injury.Results: Eighty-four patients (44 in the pre-intervention period and 40 in the post-intervention period) received IV acyclovir and had evaluable data for the primary outcome. The median volume in which the acyclovir dose was administered was significantly higher in the post-intervention group (250 mL versus 100 mL, p < 0.001).Conclusions: In this study, an easily implemented intervention significantly increased the volume of IV fluid administered to patients receiving acyclovir. Adequately powered prospective studies are suggested to investigate the effectiveness of this intervention on the clinically relevant incidence of acyclovir-induced nephrotoxicity.RÉSUMÉContexte : L’hydratation par voie intraveineuse est considérée comme un facteur de protection aidant à réduire l’incidence des cas de néphrotoxicité associés à l’acyclovir. Une analyse de systèmes des cas d’insuffisance rénale aiguë associés à l’acyclovir peut servir à examiner les facteurs liés aux établissements, aux fournisseurs de soins et aux tâches qui touchent l’administration du médicament et à générer ainsi une mesure visant l’amélioration de la qualité qui rendra l’administration d’acyclovir plus sûre.Objectif : Étudier l’efficacité de la mesure interdisciplinaire visant l’amélioration de la qualité qui a été mise en oeuvre dans l’établissement de l’étude et qui encourageait à diluer davantage l’acyclovir avant son administration par voie intraveineuse.Méthodes : Après avoir procédé à une analyse de systèmes pour générer une mesure d’intervention, une analyse rétrospective a été réalisée afin de comparer l’administration d’acyclovir par voie intraveineuse au cours des six mois précédant et suivant la mise en oeuvre de la mesure. La population de l’étude était composée d’un échantillon progressif de tous les patients de plus de 18 ans ayant séjourné aux urgences ou dans un service intra-hospitalier et ayant reçu au moins une dose d’acyclovir par voie intraveineuse dans l’établissement concerné. Le principal parameter d’évaluation était le volume de liquide contenant chaque dose d’acyclovir administrée. Les paramètres d’évaluation secondaires comprenaient : le débit horaire de liquide administré, la fréquence d’ajustement à la hausse du débit liquidien horaire et la fréquence des cas d’insuffisance rénale aiguë.Résultats : Quatre-vingt-quatre patients (44 dans la période précédant l’application de la mesure et 40 dans la période la suivant) ont reçu de l’acyclovir par voie intraveineuse et présentaient des données évaluables pour le paramètre principal. Le volume médian avec lequel chaque dose d’acyclovir était administrée était significativement supérieur dans le groupe suivant l’application de la mesure (250 mL contre 100 mL, p < 0,001).Conclusions : Cette étude montre qu’une mesure facile à mettre en place augmentait de façon significative le volume de liquides intraveineux administré aux patients recevant de l’acyclovir. L’on suggère de réaliser des études prospectives d’une puissance suffisante pour évaluer l’efficacité de cette mesure en ce qui a trait à la fréquence cliniquement significative des cas de néphrotoxicité associés à l’acyclovir.