May Hua

Association Between US Norepinephrine Shortage and Mortality Among Patients With Septic Shock

Importance Drug shortages in the United States are common, but their effect on patient care and outcomes has rarely been reported. Objective To assess changes to patient care and outcomes associated with a 2011 national shortage of norepinephrine, the first-line vasopressor for septic shock. Design, Setting, and Participants Retrospective cohort study of 26 US hospitals in the Premier Healthcare Database with a baseline rate of norepinephrine use of at least 60% for patients with septic shock. The cohort included adults with septic shock admitted to study hospitals between July 1, 2008, and June 30, 2013 (n = 27 835). Exposures Hospital-level norepinephrine shortage was defined as any quarterly (3-month) interval in 2011 during which the hospital rate of norepinephrine use decreased by more than 20% from baseline. Main Outcomes and Measures Use of alternative vasopressors was assessed and a multilevel mixed-effects logistic regression model was used to evaluate the association between admission to a hospital during a norepinephrine shortage quarter and in-hospital mortality. Results Among 27 835 patients (median age, 69 years [interquartile range, 57-79 years]; 47.0% women) with septic shock in 26 hospitals that demonstrated at least 1 quarter of norepinephrine shortage in 2011, norepinephrine use among cohort patients declined from 77.0% (95% CI, 76.2%-77.8%) of patients before the shortage to a low of 55.7% (95% CI, 52.0%-58.4%) in the second quarter of 2011; phenylephrine was the most frequently used alternative vasopressor during this time (baseline, 36.2% [95% CI, 35.3%-37.1%]; maximum, 54.4% [95% CI, 51.8%-57.2%]). Compared with hospital admission with septic shock during quarters of normal use, hospital admission during quarters of shortage was associated with an increased rate of in-hospital mortality (9283 of 25 874 patients [35.9%] vs 777 of 1961 patients [39.6%], respectively; absolute risk increase = 3.7% [95% CI, 1.5%-6.0%]; adjusted odds ratio = 1.15 [95% CI, 1.01-1.30]; P = .03). Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with septic shock in US hospitals affected by the 2011 norepinephrine shortage, the most commonly administered alternative vasopressor was phenylephrine. Patients admitted to these hospitals during times of shortage had higher in-hospital mortality.

Early and late unplanned rehospitalizations for survivors of critical illness

Objectives:Preventing rehospitalizations for patients with serious chronic illnesses is a focus of national quality initiatives. Although 8 million people are admitted yearly to an ICU, the frequency of rehospitalizations (readmissions to the hospital after discharge) is unknown. We sought to determine the frequency of rehospitalization after an ICU stay, outcomes for rehospitalized patients, and factors associated with rehospitalization. Design:Retrospective cohort study using the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System, an administrative database of all hospital discharges in New York State. Setting:ICUs in New York State. Patients:ICU patients who survived to hospital discharge in 2008–2010. Interventions:None. Measurements and Main Results:Primary outcome was the cumulative incidence of first early rehospitalization (within 30 days of discharge), and secondary outcome was the cumulative incidence of late rehospitalization (between 31 and 180 d). Factors associated with rehospitalization within both time periods were identified using competing risk regression models. Of 492,653 ICU patients, 79,960 had a first early rehospitalization (cumulative incidence, 16.2%) and an additional 73,250 late rehospitalizations (cumulative incidence, 18.9%). Over one quarter of all rehospitalizations (28.6% for early; 26.7% for late) involved ICU admission. Overall hospital mortality for rehospitalized patients was 7.6% for early and 4.6% for late rehospitalizations. Longer index hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.57–1.66 for 7–13 d vs < 3 d), discharge to a skilled nursing facility versus home (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.51–1.58), and having metastatic cancer (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.46; 95% CI, 1.41–1.51) were associated with the greatest hazard of early rehospitalization. Conclusions:Approximately 16% of ICU survivors were rehospitalized within 30 days of hospital discharge; rehospitalized patients had high rates of ICU admission and hospital mortality. Few characteristics were strongly associated with rehospitalization, suggesting that identifying high-risk individuals for intervention may require additional predictors beyond what is available in administrative databases.

Integrating palliative care in the ICU.

Purpose of reviewAlthough providing palliative care in the ICU has become a priority, the success of different methods to integrate palliative care into the ICU has varied. This review examines the current evidence supporting the different models of palliative care delivery and highlights areas for future study. Recent findingsThe need for palliative care for ICU patients is substantial. A large percentage of patients meet criteria for palliative care consultation and there is frequent use of intensive care and other nonbeneficial care at the end of life. Overall, the consultative model of palliative care appears to have more of an impact on patient care. However, given the current workforce shortage of palliative care providers, a sustainable model of delivering palliative care requires both an effective integrative model, in which palliative care is delivered by ICU clinicians, and appropriate use of the consultative model, in which palliative care consultation is reserved for patients at highest risk of having unmet or long-term palliative care needs. SummaryDeveloping a mixed model of palliative care delivery is necessary to meet the palliative care needs of critically ill patients. Efforts focused on improving integrative models and appropriately targeting the use of palliative care consultants are needed.

Risk of a Diagnosis of Dementia for Elderly Medicare Beneficiaries after Intensive Care.

Background: Critical illness is likely associated with an increased risk of dementia, but the magnitude remains uncertain. Methods: The cohort was a random 2.5% sample of Medicare beneficiaries who received intensive care in 2005 and survived to hospital discharge. Patients were matched with general population controls (age, sex, and race) with 3 yr of follow-up. The authors used an extended Cox model to assess the risk of a diagnosis of dementia, adjusting for the known risk factors for dementia, and the competing risk of death. Results: Among 10,348 intensive care patients who survived to hospital discharge, dementia was newly diagnosed in 1,648 (15.0%) over the 3 yr of follow-up versus 12.2% in controls (incidence per 1,000 person-years, 73.6; 95% CI, 70.0 to 77.1 vs. 45.8; 95% CI, 43.2 to 48.3; hazard ratio [HR], 1.61; 95% CI, 1.50 to 1.74; P < 0.001). After accounting for the known risk factors in the year before the index hospitalization, the risk of receiving a diagnosis of dementia remained increased in patients who received intensive care (adjusted HR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.32 to 1.54; P < 0.001). Inclusion of identifiable risk factors accrued during the quarter of critical illness accounted for almost all of the increased risks (adjusted HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.20; P = 0.06). Conclusions: Elderly critical care survivors have a 60% increased relative risk, but only 3% increased absolute risk, of receiving a diagnosis of dementia in the subsequent 3 yr compared with the general population. This increased risk is not accounted for by risk factors preexisting the critical illness. Surveillance bias, which increases the likelihood of receiving a diagnosis of dementia, could account for some or all of these additional risks.

Outcomes after Rehospitalization at the Same Hospital or a Different Hospital Following Critical Illness

Rationale: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients who receive mechanical ventilation are at high risk for early rehospitalization. Given the medical complexity of these patients, a lack of continuity of care may adversely affect their outcomes during rehospitalization. Objectives: To determine whether outcomes differ for patients who are rehospitalized at a different hospital versus the hospital of their index ICU stay. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of mechanically ventilated ICU patients rehospitalized within 30 days in New York State hospitals between 2008 and 2013. Measurements and Main Results: We measured frequency of rehospitalization at a different hospital, mortality, length of stay, and costs during rehospitalization. Of 26,947 mechanically ventilated ICU patients rehospitalized within 30 days of discharge, 8,443 (31.3%) were rehospitalized at a different hospital than that of the index ICU stay. For patients at a different hospital, 13.7% died during rehospitalization versus 11.1% who died at the index hospital (adjusted rate ratio [aRR], 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03‐1.20; P = 0.009). Patients who died at a different hospital had shorter length of stay (aRR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70‐0.92; P = 0.001) and decreased costs (adjusted mean difference, ‐

Cumulative Probability and Time to Reintubation in U.s. Icus

9,632.73; 95% CI, ‐

Reply: Palliative Care: A Core Competency for Intensive Care Unit Doctors

16,387.60 to ‐

The Complexities of ICU Discharge

2,877.88; P = 0.005), whereas survivors of rehospitalization at a different hospital had a modest increase in length of stay (aRR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01‐1.11; P = 0.009) and increased costs of care (adjusted mean difference,

Association between the Availability of Hospital-based Palliative Care and Treatment Intensity for Critically Ill Patients

1,665.34; 95% CI,

Impact of Public Reporting of 30-day Mortality on Timing of Death after Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

602.12‐