OBJECTIVE: To identify the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and in-hospital mortality using long short-term memory (LSTM) framework in a mechanically ventilated (MV) non-COVID-19 cohort and a COVID-19 cohort. METHODS: We included MV ICU patients between 2017 and 2018 and reviewed patient records for ARDS and death. Using active learning, we enriched this cohort with MV patients from 2016 to 2019 (MV non-COVID-19, n=3905). We collected a second validation cohort of hospitalised patients with COVID-19 in 2020 (COVID+, n=5672). We trained an LSTM model using 132 structured features on the MV non-COVID-19 training cohort and validated on the MV non-COVID-19 validation and COVID-19 cohorts. RESULTS: Applying LSTM (model score 0.9) on the MV non-COVID-19 validation cohort had a sensitivity of 86% and specificity of 57%. The model identified the risk of ARDS 10 hours before ARDS and 9.4 days before death. The sensitivity (70%) and specificity (84%) of the model on the COVID-19 cohort are lower than MV non-COVID-19 cohort. For the COVID-19 + cohort and MV COVID-19 + patients, the model identified the risk of in-hospital mortality 2.4 days and 1.54 days before death, respectively. DISCUSSION: Our LSTM algorithm accurately and timely identified the risk of ARDS or death in MV non-COVID-19 and COVID+ patients. By alerting the risk of ARDS or death, we can improve the implementation of evidence-based ARDS management and facilitate goals-of-care discussions in high-risk patients. CONCLUSION: Using the LSTM algorithm in hospitalised patients identifies the risk of ARDS or death.

PURPOSE: Blood cultures are commonly ordered for patients with low risk of bacteremia. Indications for obtaining blood cultures are often broad and ill defined, and decision algorithms for appropriate blood cultures have not been comprehensively evaluated in critically-ill populations. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis to assess the frequency of inappropriate blood cultures in the ICUs at Montefiore Medical Center based on an evidence-based guidance algorithm. Blood cultures were reviewed against this algorithm to determine their appropriateness. We calculated the prevalence of inappropriate blood culture and explored the reasons for these collected cultures. RESULTS: 300 patients were randomly selected from an initial cohort of 3370 patients. 294 patients were included and of these, 167 patients had at least 1 blood culture drawn. 125 patients had one or more inappropriate blood culture. 61.4% of blood cultures drawn were assessed to be inappropriate. The most common reason for inappropriate cultures was a culture drawn as a result of isolated fever or leukocytosis. CONCLUSION: In a cohort of critically-ill patients, inappropriate blood cultures were common. The indications for blood cultures are often not evidence-based, and evidence-based algorithms to guide the collection of blood cultures may offer a way to decrease inappropriate culture orders.

Patient and hospital factors affects how we resuscitate patients in the first 3 hours of sepsis-induced hypotension.

Objectives

To evaluate variability in compliance to the 3-hour surviving sepsis campaign (SSC) bundle and explore the association of early compliance with subsequent shock and in-hospital mortality.

Design

Retrospective cohort study between September 2017 and February 2018.

Setting

Thirty-four academic medical centers.

Participants

A subgroup sepsis-induced hypotensive patients from a larger shock cohort study.

Main outcomes and measures

Compliance to SSC bundle that was defined as receiving appropriate antibiotics, 30 mL/kg of crystalloid or initiation of vasopressors, and lactate, obtained in the first 3 hours following sepsis-induced hypotension.

Results

We included 977 patients with septic-induced hypotension. Bundle compliance was 43.8%, with the lowest compliance to fluid or vasopressor components (56%). Patients with high Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores and physiologic assessments were more likely to receive compliant care, as were patients with sepsis-induced hypotension onset in the emergency department (ED) or admitted to mixed medical-surgical ICUs. SSC compliance was not associated with in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.47-1.10). The site-to-site variability contributed to SSC compliance (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.15; 95% CI, 0.07-0.3) but not in-hospital mortality (ICC, 0.02; 95% CI, 0.001-0.24). Most patients remained in shock after 3 hours of resuscitation (SSC compliant 81.1% and noncompliant 53.7%). Mortality was higher among patients who were persistently hypotensive after 3 hours of resuscitation for both the SSC compliant (persistent hypotension 37% vs not hypotensive 27.2%; p = 0.094) and noncompliant (30.1% vs 18.2%; p = 0.001, respectively).

Conclusions and relevance

Patients with a higher severity of illness and sepsis-induced hypotension identified in the ED were more likely to receive SSC-compliant care. SSC compliance was not associated with in-hospital mortality after adjusting for patient- and hospital-level differences. Higher mortality is seen among those who remain in shock after initial resuscitation, regardless of SSC compliance.

BACKGROUND: The physiological effects of renin-angiotensin system modulation in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain controversial and have not been investigated in randomized trials. We sought to determine whether angiotensin-II treatment is associated with improved oxygenation in shock-associated ARDS. METHODS: Post-hoc subgroup analysis of the Angiotensin Therapy for High Output Shock (ATHOS-3) trial. We studied patients who met modified Berlin ARDS criteria at enrollment. The primary outcome was PaO2/FiO2-ratio (P:F) at 48-h adjusted for baseline P:F. Secondary outcomes included oxygenation index, ventilatory ratio, PEEP, minute-ventilation, hemodynamic measures, patients alive and ventilator-free by day-7, and mortality. RESULTS: Of 81 ARDS patients, 34 (42%) and 47 (58%) were randomized to angiotensin-II or placebo, respectively. In angiotensin-II patients, mean P:F increased from 155 mmHg (SD: 69) at baseline to 265 mmHg (SD: 160) at hour-48 compared with no change with placebo (148 mmHg (SD: 63) at baseline versus 164 mmHg (SD: 74) at hour-48)(baseline-adjusted difference: + 98.4 mmHg [95%CI 35.2-161.5], p = 0.0028). Similarly, oxygenation index decreased by - 6.0 cmH2O/mmHg at hour-48 with angiotensin-II versus - 0.4 cmH2O/mmHg with placebo (baseline-adjusted difference: -4.8 cmH2O/mmHg, [95%CI - 8.6 to - 1.1], p = 0.0273). There was no difference in PEEP, minute ventilation, or ventilatory ratio. Twenty-two (64.7%) angiotensin-II patients had sustained hemodynamic response to treatment at hour-3 versus 17 (36.2%) placebo patients (absolute risk-difference: 28.5% [95%CI 6.5-47.0%], p = 0.0120). At day-7, 7/34 (20.6%) angiotensin-II patients were alive and ventilator-free versus 5/47(10.6%) placebo patients. Day-28 mortality was 55.9% in the angiotensin-II group versus 68.1% in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: In post-hoc analysis of the ATHOS-3 trial, angiotensin-II was associated with improved oxygenation versus placebo among patients with ARDS and catecholamine-refractory vasodilatory shock. These findings provide a physiologic rationale for trials of angiotensin-II as treatment for ARDS with vasodilatory shock. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.Gov Identifier: NCT02338843 (Registered January 14th 2015).

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has been associated with endothelial injury, resultant microvascular inflammation and thrombosis. Activated endothelial cells release and express P-selectin and von Willebrand factor, both of which are elevated in severe COVID-19 and may be implicated in the disease pathophysiology. We hypothesized that crizanlizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody to P-selectin, would reduce morbidity and death in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. METHODS: An international, adaptive, randomized controlled platform trial, funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, randomly assigned 422 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 with moderate or severe illness to receive either a single infusion of the P-selectin inhibitor crizanlizumab (at a dose of 5 mg/kg) plus standard of care or standard of care alone in an open-label 1:1 ratio. The primary outcome was organ support-free days, evaluated on an ordinal scale consisting of the number of days alive free of organ support through the first 21 days after trial entry. RESULTS: The study was stopped for futility by the data safety monitoring committee. Among 421 randomized patients with known 21-day outcomes, 163 patients (77%) randomized to the crizanlizumab plus standard-of-care arm did not require any respiratory or cardiovascular organ support compared with 169 (80%) in the standard-of-care-alone arm. The adjusted odds ratio for the effect of crizanlizumab on organ support-free days was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.43-1.16), where an odds ratio >1 indicates treatment benefit, yielding a posterior probability of futility (odds ratio <1.2) of 98% and a posterior probability of inferiority (odds ratio <1.0) of 91%. Overall, there were 37 deaths (17.5%) in the crizanlizumab arm and 27 deaths (12.8%) in the standard-of-care arm (hazard ratio, 1.33 [95% CrI, 0.85-2.21]; [probability of hazard ratio>1] = 0.879). CONCLUSIONS: Crizanlizumab, a P-selectin inhibitor, did not result in improvement in organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04505774.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a heterogeneous clinical syndrome. Understanding of the complex pathways involved in lung injury pathogenesis, resolution, and repair has grown considerably in recent decades. Nevertheless, to date, only therapies targeting ventilation-induced lung injury have consistently proven beneficial, and despite these gains, ARDS morbidity and mortality remain high. Many candidate therapies with promise in preclinical studies have been ineffective in human trials, probably at least in part due to clinical and biological heterogeneity that modifies treatment responsiveness in human ARDS. A precision medicine approach to ARDS seeks to better account for this heterogeneity by matching therapies to subgroups of patients that are anticipated to be most likely to benefit, which initially might be identified in part by assessing for heterogeneity of treatment effect in clinical trials. In October 2019, the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a workshop of multidisciplinary experts to explore research opportunities and challenges for accelerating precision medicine in ARDS. Topics of discussion included the rationale and challenges for a precision medicine approach in ARDS, the roles of preclinical ARDS models in precision medicine, essential features of cohort studies to advance precision medicine, and novel approaches to clinical trials to support development and validation of a precision medicine strategy. In this Position Paper, we summarise workshop discussions, recommendations, and unresolved questions for advancing precision medicine in ARDS. Although the workshop took place before the COVID-19 pandemic began, the pandemic has highlighted the urgent need for precision therapies for ARDS as the global scientific community grapples with many of the key concepts, innovations, and challenges discussed at this workshop.

Background: Since publication of the 2012 Berlin definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), several developments have supported the need for an expansion of the definition, including the use of high-flow nasal oxygen, the expansion of the use of pulse oximetry in place of arterial blood gases, the use of ultrasound for chest imaging, and the need for applicability in resource-limited settings. Methods: A consensus conference of 32 critical care ARDS experts was convened, had six virtual meetings (June 2021 to March 2022), and subsequently obtained input from members of several critical care societies. The goal was to develop a definition that would 1) identify patients with the currently accepted conceptual framework for ARDS, 2) facilitate rapid ARDS diagnosis for clinical care and research, 3) be applicable in resource-limited settings, 4) be useful for testing specific therapies, and 5) be practical for communication to patients and caregivers. Results: The committee made four main recommendations: 1) include high-flow nasal oxygen with a minimum flow rate of ⩾30 L/min; 2) use PaO2:FiO2 ⩽ 300 mm Hg or oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry SpO2:FiO2 ⩽ 315 (if oxygen saturation as measured by pulse oximetry is ⩽97%) to identify hypoxemia; 3) retain bilateral opacities for imaging criteria but add ultrasound as an imaging modality, especially in resource-limited areas; and 4) in resource-limited settings, do not require positive end-expiratory pressure, oxygen flow rate, or specific respiratory support devices. Conclusions: We propose a new global definition of ARDS that builds on the Berlin definition. The recommendations also identify areas for future research, including the need for prospective assessments of the feasibility, reliability, and prognostic validity of the proposed global definition.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous fluids and vasopressor agents are commonly used in early resuscitation of patients with sepsis, but comparative data for prioritizing their delivery are limited. METHODS: In an unblinded superiority trial conducted at 60 U.S. centers, we randomly assigned patients to either a restrictive fluid strategy (prioritizing vasopressors and lower intravenous fluid volumes) or a liberal fluid strategy (prioritizing higher volumes of intravenous fluids before vasopressor use) for a 24-hour period. Randomization occurred within 4 hours after a patient met the criteria for sepsis-induced hypotension refractory to initial treatment with 1 to 3 liters of intravenous fluid. We hypothesized that all-cause mortality before discharge home by day 90 (primary outcome) would be lower with a restrictive fluid strategy than with a liberal fluid strategy. Safety was also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 1563 patients were enrolled, with 782 assigned to the restrictive fluid group and 781 to the liberal fluid group. Resuscitation therapies that were administered during the 24-hour protocol period differed between the two groups; less intravenous fluid was administered in the restrictive fluid group than in the liberal fluid group (difference of medians, -2134 ml; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2318 to -1949), whereas the restrictive fluid group had earlier, more prevalent, and longer duration of vasopressor use. Death from any cause before discharge home by day 90 occurred in 109 patients (14.0%) in the restrictive fluid group and in 116 patients (14.9%) in the liberal fluid group (estimated difference, -0.9 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.4 to 2.6; P = 0.61); 5 patients in the restrictive fluid group and 4 patients in the liberal fluid group had their data censored (lost to follow-up). The number of reported serious adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with sepsis-induced hypotension, the restrictive fluid strategy that was used in this trial did not result in significantly lower (or higher) mortality before discharge home by day 90 than the liberal fluid strategy. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; CLOVERS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03434028.).

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury (AKI) in patients with COVID-19 is partly mediated by thromboinflammation. In noncritically ill patients with COVID-19, therapeutic-dose anticoagulation with heparin increased the probability of survival to hospital discharge with reduced use of cardiovascular or respiratory organ support. OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether therapeutic-dose heparin reduces the incidence of AKI or death in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. METHODS: We report a prespecified secondary analysis of the ACTIV4a and ATTACC open-label, multiplatform randomized trial of therapeutic-dose heparin vs usual-care pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis on the incidence of severe AKI (≥2-fold increase in serum creatinine or initiation of kidney replacement therapy (KDIGO stage 2 or 3) or all-cause mortality in noncritically ill patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Bayesian statistical models were adjusted for age, sex, D-dimer, enrollment period, country, site, and platform. RESULTS: Among 1922 enrolled, 23 were excluded due to pre-existing end stage kidney disease and 205 were missing baseline or follow-up creatinine measurements. Severe AKI or death occurred in 4.4% participants assigned to therapeutic-dose heparin and 5.5% assigned to thromboprophylaxis (adjusted relative risk [aRR]: 0.72; 95% credible interval (CrI): 0.47, 1.10); the posterior probability of superiority for therapeutic-dose heparin (relative risk < 1.0) was 93.6%. Therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with a 97.7% probability of superiority to reduce the composite of stage 3 AKI or death (3.1% vs 4.6%; aRR: 0.64; 95% CrI: 0.40, 0.99) compared to thromboprophylaxis. CONCLUSION: Therapeutic-dose heparin was associated with a high probability of superiority to reduce the incidence of in-hospital severe AKI or death in patients hospitalized for COVID-19.

Objectives

To characterize the association between the use of physiologic assessment (central venous pressure, pulmonary artery occlusion pressure, stroke volume variation, pulse pressure variation, passive leg raise test, and critical care ultrasound) with fluid and vasopressor administration 24 hours after shock onset and with in-hospital mortality.

Design

Multicenter prospective cohort study between September 2017 and February 2018.

Settings

Thirty-four hospitals in the United States and Jordan.

Patients

Consecutive adult patients requiring admission to the ICU with systolic blood pressure less than or equal to 90 mm Hg, mean arterial blood pressure less than or equal to 65 mm Hg, or need for vasopressor.

Interventions

None.

Measurement and main results

Of 1,639 patients enrolled, 39% had physiologic assessments. Use of physiologic assessment was not associated with cumulative fluid administered within 24 hours of shock onset, after accounting for baseline characteristics, etiology and location of shock, ICU types, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation III, and hospital (beta coefficient, 0.04; 95% CI, -0.07 to 0.15). In multivariate analysis, the use of physiologic assessment was associated with a higher likelihood of vasopressor use (adjusted odds ratio, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.45-2.71) and higher 24-hour cumulative vasopressor dosing as norepinephrine equivalent (beta coefficient, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.19-0.55). The use of vasopressor was associated with increased odds of in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.27-2.78). In-hospital mortality was not associated with the use of physiologic assessment (adjusted odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.63-1.18).

Conclusions

The use of physiologic assessment in the 24 hours after shock onset is associated with increased use of vasopressor but not with fluid administration.