PurposeIn intensive care units (ICUs), decisions about the continuation or discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) are made on a daily basis. Professional guidelines recommend an open... Show morePurposeIn intensive care units (ICUs), decisions about the continuation or discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment (LST) are made on a daily basis. Professional guidelines recommend an open exchange of standpoints and underlying arguments between doctors and families to arrive at the most appropriate decision. Yet, it is still largely unknown how doctors and families argue in real-life conversations. This study aimed to (1) identify which arguments doctors and families use in support of standpoints to continue or discontinue LST, (2) investigate how doctors and families structure their arguments, and (3) explore how their argumentative practices unfold during conversations.MethodA qualitative inductive thematic analysis of 101 audio-recorded conversations between doctors and families.ResultsSeventy-one doctors and the families of 36 patients from the neonatal, pediatric, and adult ICU (respectively, N-ICU, P-ICU, and A-ICU) of a large university-based hospital participated. In almost all conversations, doctors were the first to argue and families followed, thereby either countering the doctor's line of argumentation or substantiating it. Arguments put forward by doctors and families fell under one of ten main types. The types of arguments presented by families largely overlapped with those presented by doctors. A real exchange of arguments occurred in a minority of conversations and was generally quite brief in the sense that not all possible arguments were presented and then discussed together.ConclusionThis study offers a detailed insight in the argumentation practices of doctors and families, which can help doctors to have a sharper eye for the arguments put forward by doctors and families and to offer room for true deliberation. Show less
Background: Timely identification of deteriorating COVID-19 patients is needed to guide changes in clinical management and admission to intensive care units (ICUs). There is significant concern... Show moreBackground: Timely identification of deteriorating COVID-19 patients is needed to guide changes in clinical management and admission to intensive care units (ICUs). There is significant concern that widely used Early warning scores (EWSs) underestimate illness severity in COVID-19 patients and therefore, we developed an early warning model specifically for COVID-19 patients. Methods: We retrospectively collected electronic medical record data to extract predictors and used these to fit a random forest model. To simulate the situation in which the model would have been developed after the first and implemented during the second COVID-19 `wave' in the Netherlands, we performed a temporal validation by splitting all included patients into groups admitted before and after August 1, 2020. Furthermore, we propose a method for dynamic model updating to retain model performance over time. We evaluated model discrimination and calibration, performed a decision curve analysis, and quantified the importance of predictors using SHapley Additive exPlanations values. Results: We included 3514 COVID-19 patient admissions from six Dutch hospitals between February 2020 and May 2021, and included a total of 18 predictors for model fitting. The model showed a higher discriminative performance in terms of partial area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.82 [0.80-0.84]) compared to the National early warning score (0.72 [0.69-0.74]) and the Modified early warning score (0.67 [0.65-0.69]), a greater net benefit over a range of clinically relevant model thresholds, and relatively good calibration (intercept = 0.03 [- 0.09 to 0.14], slope = 0.79 [0.73-0.86]). Conclusions: This study shows the potential benefit of moving from early warning models for the general inpatient population to models for specific patient groups. Further (independent) validation of the model is needed. Show less
Candel, B.G.J.; Raven, W.; Lameijer, H.; Thijssen, W.A.M.H.; Temorshuizen, F.; Boerma, C.; ... ; Groot, B. de 2022
Background Treatment and the clinical course during Emergency Department (ED) stay before Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission may affect predicted mortality risk calculated by the Acute Physiology... Show moreBackground Treatment and the clinical course during Emergency Department (ED) stay before Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission may affect predicted mortality risk calculated by the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE)-IV, causing lead-time bias. As a result, comparing standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) among hospitals may be difficult if they differ in the location where initial stabilization takes place. The aim of this study was to assess to what extent predicted mortality risk would be affected if the APACHE-IV score was recalculated with the initial physiological variables from the ED. Secondly, to evaluate whether ED Length of Stay (LOS) was associated with a change (delta) in these APACHE-IV scores. Methods An observational multicenter cohort study including ICU patients admitted from the ED. Data from two Dutch quality registries were linked: the Netherlands Emergency department Evaluation Database (NEED) and the National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) registry. The ICU APACHE-IV, predicted mortality, and SMR based on data of the first 24 h of ICU admission were compared with an ED APACHE-IV model, using the most deviating physiological variables from the ED or ICU. Results A total of 1398 patients were included. The predicted mortality from the ICU APACHE-IV (median 0.10; IQR 0.03-0.30) was significantly lower compared to the ED APACHE-IV model (median 0.13; 0.04-0.36; p < 0.01). The SMR changed from 0.63 (95%CI 0.54-0.72) to 0.55 (95%CI 0.47-0.63) based on ED APACHE-IV. Predicted mortality risk changed more than 5% in 321 (23.2%) patients by using the ED APACHE-IV. ED LOS > 3.9 h was associated with a slight increase in delta APACHE-IV of 1.6 (95% CI 0.4-2.8) compared to ED LOS < 1.7 h. Conclusion Predicted mortality risks and SMRs calculated by the APACHE IV scores are not directly comparable in patients admitted from the ED if hospitals differ in their policy to stabilize patients in the ED before ICU admission. Future research should focus on developing models to adjust for these differences. Show less
Purpose: Describe the differences in characteristics and outcomes between COVID-19 and other viral pneumonia patients admitted to Dutch ICUs. Materials and methods: Data from the National-Intensive... Show morePurpose: Describe the differences in characteristics and outcomes between COVID-19 and other viral pneumonia patients admitted to Dutch ICUs. Materials and methods: Data from the National-Intensive-Care-Evaluation-registry of COVID-19 patients admitted between February 15th and January 1th 2021 and other viral pneumonia patients admitted between January 1st 2017 and January 1st 2020 were used. Patients' characteristics, the unadjusted, and adjusted in-hospital mortality were compared. Results: 6343 COVID-19 and 2256 other viral pneumonia patients from 79 ICUs were included. The COVID-19 patients included more male (71.3 vs 49.8%), had a higher Body-Mass-Index (28.1 vs 25.5), less comorbidities (42.2 vs 72.7%), and a prolonged hospital length of stay (19 vs 9 days). The COVID-19 patients had a significantly higher crude in-hospital mortality rate (Odds ratio (OR) = 1.80), after adjustment for patient characteristics and ICU occupancy rate the OR was respectively 3.62 and 3.58. Conclusion: Higher mortality among COVID-19 patients could not be explained by patient characteristics and higher ICU occupancy rates, indicating that COVID-19 is more severe compared to other viral pneumonia. Our findings confirm earlier warnings of a high need of ICU capacity and high mortality rates among relatively healthy COVID-19 patients as this may lead to a higher mental workload for the staff. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Background: Oxygen therapy is a widely used intervention in acutely ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). It is established that not only hypoxia, but also prolonged hyperoxia is... Show moreBackground: Oxygen therapy is a widely used intervention in acutely ill patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). It is established that not only hypoxia, but also prolonged hyperoxia is associated with poor patient-centered outcomes. Nevertheless, a fundamental knowledge gap remains regarding optimal oxygenation for critically ill patients. In this randomized clinical trial, we aim to compare ventilation that uses conservative oxygenation targets with ventilation that uses conventional oxygen targets with respect to mortality in ICU patients.Methods: The "ConservatIve versus CONventional oxygenation targets in Intensive Care patients" trial (ICONIC) is an investigator-initiated, international, multicenter, randomized clinical two-arm trial in ventilated adult ICU patients. The ICONIC trial will run in multiple ICUs in The Netherlands and Italy to enroll 1512 ventilated patients. ICU patients with an expected mechanical ventilation time of more than 24 h are randomized to a ventilation strategy that uses conservative (PaO2 55-80 mmHg (7.3-10.7 kPa)) or conventional (PaO2 110-150 mmHg (14.7-20 kPa)) oxygenation targets. The primary endpoint is 28-day mortality. Secondary endpoints are ventilator-free days at day 28, ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, 90-day mortality, ICU- and hospital length of stay, ischemic events, quality of life, and patient opinion of research and consent in the emergency setting.Discussion: The ICONIC trial is expected to provide evidence on the effects of conservative versus conventional oxygenation targets in the ICU population. This study may guide targeted oxygen therapy in the future. Show less
Candel, B.G.J.; Dap, S.; Raven, W.; Lameijer, H.; Gaakeer, M.I.; Jonge, E. de; Groot, B. de 2022
Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate whether sex differences exist in disease presentations, disease severity and (case-mix adjusted) outcomes in the Emergency Department (ED)... Show moreObjective: The aim of this study was to investigate whether sex differences exist in disease presentations, disease severity and (case-mix adjusted) outcomes in the Emergency Department (ED).Methods: Observational multicenter cohort study using the Netherlands Emergency Department Evaluation Database (NEED), including patients >= 18 years of three Dutch EDs. Multivariable logistic regression was used to study the associations between sex and outcome measures in-hospital mortality and Intensive Care Unit/Medium Care Unit (ICU/MCU) admission in ED patients and in subgroups triage categories and presenting complaints.Results: Of 148,825 patients, 72,554 (48.8%) were females. Patient characteristics at ED presentation and diagnoses (such as pneumonia, cerebral infarction, and fractures) were comparable between sexes at ED presentation. In-hospital mortality was 2.2% in males and 1.7% in females. ICU/MCU admission was 4.7% in males and 3.1% in females. Males had higher unadjusted (OR 1.34(1.25-1.45)) and adjusted (AOR 1.34(1.24-1.46)) risks for mortality, and unadjusted (OR 1.54(1.46-1.63)) and adjusted (AOR 1.46(1.37-1.56)) risks for ICU/MCU admission. Males had higher adjusted mortality and ICU/MCU admission for all triage categories, and with almost all presenting complaints except for headache.Conclusions: Although patient characteristics at ED presentation for both sexes are comparable, males are at higher unadjusted and adjusted risk for adverse outcomes. Males have higher risks in all triage categories and with almost all presenting complaints. Future studies should investigate reasons for higher risk in male ED patients. Show less
Objective: The aim of this manuscript is to compare characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients with severe Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) between Australia, the United Kingdom (UK) and... Show moreObjective: The aim of this manuscript is to compare characteristics, management, and outcomes of patients with severe Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) between Australia, the United Kingdom (UK) and Europe. Methods: We enrolled patients with severe TBI in Victoria, Australia (OzENTER-TBI), in the UK and Europe (CENTER-TBI) from 2015 to 2017. Main outcome measures were mortality and unfavourable outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended < 5) 6 months after injury. Expected outcomes were compared according to the IMPACT-CT prognostic model, with observed to expected (O/E) ratios and 95% confidence intervals. Results: We included 107 patients from Australia, 171 from UK, and 596 from Europe. Compared to the UK and Europe, patients in Australia were younger (median 32 vs 44 vs 44 years), a larger proportion had secondary brain insults including hypotension (30% vs 17% vs 21%) and a larger proportion received ICP monitoring (75% vs 74% vs 58%). Hospital length of stay was shorter in Australia than in the UK (median: 17 vs 23 vs 16 days), and a higher proportion of patients were discharged to a rehabilitation unit in Australia than in the UK and Europe (64% vs 26% vs 28%). Mortality overall was lower than expected (27% vs 35%, O/E ratio 0.77 [95% CI: 0.64 - 0.87]. O/E ratios were comparable between regions for mortality in Australia 0.86 [95% CI: 0.49-1.23] vs UK 0.82 [0.51-1.15] vs Europe 0.76 [0.60-0.87]). Unfavourable outcome rates overall were in line with historic expectations (O/E ratio 1.32 [0.96-1.68] vs 1.13 [0.841.42] vs 0.96 [0.85-1.09]). Conclusions: There are major differences in case-mix between Australia, UK, and Europe; Australian patients are younger and have a higher rate of secondary brain insults. Despite some differences in management and discharge policies, mortality was less than expected overall, and did not differ between regions. Functional outcomes were similar between regions, but worse than expected, emphasizing the need to improve treatment for patients with severe TBI. (c) 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ ) Show less
Purpose: Potential drug-drug interactions (pDDIs) may harm patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Due to the patient's critical condition and continuous monitoring on the ICU, not all... Show morePurpose: Potential drug-drug interactions (pDDIs) may harm patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Due to the patient's critical condition and continuous monitoring on the ICU, not all pDDIs are clinically relevant. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) warning for irrelevant pDDIs could result in alert fatigue and overlooking important signals. Therefore, our aim was to describe the frequency of clinically relevant pDDIs (crpDDIs) to enable tailoring of CDSSs to the ICU setting. Materials & methods: In this multicenter retrospective observational study, we used medication administration data to identify pDDIs in ICU admissions from 13 ICUs. Clinical relevance was based on a Delphi study in which intensivists and hospital pharmacists assessed the clinical relevance of pDDIs for the ICU setting. Results: The mean number of pDDIs per 1000 medication administrations was 70.1, dropping to 31.0 when con -sidering only crpDDIs. Of 103,871 ICU patients, 38% was exposed to a crpDDI. The most frequently occurring crpDDIs involve QT-prolonging agents, digoxin, or NSAIDs. Conclusions: Considering clinical relevance of pDDIs in the ICU setting is important, as only half of the detected pDDIs were crpDDIs. Therefore, tailoring CDSSs to the ICU may reduce alert fatigue and improve medication safety in ICU patients. ? 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Bakker, T.; Klopotowska, J.E.; Keizer, N.F. de; Marum, R. van; Sijs, H. van der; Lange, D.W. de; ... ; Simplify Study Grp 2020
Purpose: Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) may cause adverse outcomes in patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Computerized decision support systems (CDSSs) may help prevent DDIs by... Show morePurpose: Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) may cause adverse outcomes in patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Computerized decision support systems (CDSSs) may help prevent DDIs by timely showing relevant warning alerts, but knowledge on which DDIs are clinically relevant in the ICU setting is limited. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to identify DDIs relevant for the ICU. Materials and methods: We conducted a modified Delphi procedure with a Dutch multidisciplinary expert panel consisting of intensivists and hospital pharmacists to assess the clinical relevance of DDIs for the ICU. The procedure consisted of two rounds, each included a questionnaire followed by a live consensus meeting. Results: In total the clinical relevance of 148 DDIs was assessed, of which agreement regarding the relevance was reached for 139 DDIs (94%). Of these 139 DDIs, 53 (38%) were considered not clinically relevant for the ICU setting. Conclusions: A list of clinically relevant DDIs for the ICU setting was established on a national level. The clinical value of CDSSs for medication safety could be improved by focusing on the identified clinically relevant DDIs, thereby avoiding alert fatigue. (c) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Show less
Background Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is caused by rapid-onset (within hours) acute inflammatory processes in lung tissue, and it is a life-threatening condition with high mortality... Show moreBackground Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is caused by rapid-onset (within hours) acute inflammatory processes in lung tissue, and it is a life-threatening condition with high mortality. The treatment of ARDS to date is focused on the prevention of further iatrogenic damage of the lung rather than the treatment of the initial inflammatory process. Several preclinical studies have revealed a beneficial effect of iloprost on the control of pulmonary inflammation, and in a small number of patients with ARDS, iloprost treatment resulted in improved oxygenation. Therefore, we plan to conduct a large multicenter trial to evaluate the effect of iloprost on ARDS. Methods The Therapeutic Iloprost during ARDS trial (ThIlo trial) is a multicenter, randomized, single blinded, clinical phase II trial assessing the efficacy of inhaled iloprost for the prevention of the development and progression of ARDS in critically ill patients. One hundred fifty critically ill patients suffering from acute ARDS will be treated either by nebulized iloprost or NaCl 0.9% for 5 days. Blood samples will be drawn at defined time points to elucidate the serum levels of iloprost and inflammatory markers during treatment. Mechanical ventilation will be standardized. In follow-up visits at days 28 and 90 as well as 6 months after enrollment, functional status according to the Barthel Index and a health care-related questionnaire, and frailty (Vulnerable Elders Survey) will be evaluated. The primary endpoint is the improvement of oxygenation, defined as the ratio of PaO2/FiO(2). Secondary endpoints include 90-day all-cause mortality, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores during the study period up to day 90, the duration of mechanical ventilation, the length of intensive care unit (ICU) stay, ventilator-associated pneumonia, delirium, ICU-acquired weakness, and discharge localization. The study will be conducted in three university ARDS centers in Germany. Discussion The results of the ThIlo trial will highlight the anti-inflammatory effect of iloprost on early inflammatory processes during ARDS, resulting in the improvement of outcome parameters in patients with ARDS. Show less
Willems, S.A.; Kranenburg, F.J.; Cessie, S. le; Marang-van de Mheen, P.J.; Kesecioglu, J.; Bom, J.G. van der; Arbous, M.S. 2020
