People who survive critical illness frequently suffer from problems with their strength, thinking, and mental health for months after returning home from the hospital.  To test whether a structured program with specific follow-up visits and resources could prevent the need to be readmitted to the hospital for patients who had previously been treated for critical illness in the ICU, we conducted this pilot study. The study found that patients enrolled in the recovery program received more interventions than those not in the program and went a slightly longer time without hospital readmission. Patients in the ICU recovery program also appeared to experience a lower frequency of death or hospital readmission within 30 days.  Although uncertain because this was only a pilot study, these findings suggest that future research is needed to determine whether programs to help patients recovering from critical illness can prevent death and readmission and improve patients physical, mental, and social function.

Objectives: To examine the effect of an interdisciplinary ICU recovery program on process measures and clinical outcomes.

Design: A prospective, single-center, randomized pilot trial.

Setting: Academic, tertiary-care medical center.

Patients: Adult patients admitted to the medical ICU for at least 48 hours with a predicted risk of 30-day same-hospital readmission of at least 15%.

Interventions: Patients randomized to the ICU recovery program group were offered a structured 10-intervention program, including an inpatient visit by a nurse practitioner, an informational pamphlet, a 24 hours a day, 7 days a week phone number for the recovery team, and an outpatient ICU recovery clinic visit with a critical care physician, nurse practitioner, pharmacist, psychologist, and case manager. For patients randomized to the usual care group, all aspects of care were determined by treating clinicians.

Measurements and main results: Among the primary analysis of enrolled patients who survived to hospital discharge, patients randomized to the ICU recovery program (n = 111) and usual care (n = 121) were similar at baseline. Patients in the ICU recovery program group received a median of two interventions compared with one intervention in the usual care group (p < 0.001). A total of 16 patients (14.4%) in the ICU recovery program group and 26 patients (21.5%) in the usual care group were readmitted to the study hospital within 30 days of discharge (p = 0.16). For these patients, the median time to readmission was 21.5 days (interquartile range, 11.5-26.2 d) in the ICU recovery program group and 7 days (interquartile range, 4-21.2 d) in the usual care group (p = 0.03). Four patients (3.6%) in the ICU recovery program and 14 patients (11.6%) in the usual care group were readmitted within 7 days of hospital discharge (p = 0.02). The composite outcome of death or readmission within 30 days of hospital discharge occurred in 20 patients (18%) in the ICU recovery program group and 36 patients (29.8%) in usual care group (p = 0.04).

Conclusions: This randomized pilot trial found that a multidisciplinary ICU recovery program could deliver more interventions for post ICU recovery than usual care. The finding of longer time-to-readmission with an ICU recovery program should be examined in future trials.

Manuscript Title: “Randomized Clinical Trial of an ICU Recovery Pilot Program for Survivors of Critical Illness.”

Journal: Critical Care Medicine

PMID: 31385881

For patients being placed on a breathing machine, a breathing tube must be placed in the mouth.  During placement of a breathing tube, low oxygen levels and low blood pressure may occur.  Whether using a checklist prior to placing a breathing tube helps prevent these complications is unknown.  Among 262 patients being placed on a breathing machine at 5 intensive care units across the United States, the CHECK-Up Trial compared use of a checklist to none with regard to the occurrence of low oxygen levels and low blood pressure.  Use of a checklist did not prevent low oxygen levels or low blood pressure.  These findings suggest that using a checklist prior to placing a breathing tube may not be helpful for doctors experienced at placing a breathing tube who work in an intensive care unit.

Background: Hypoxemia and hypotension are common complications during endotracheal intubation of critically ill adults. Verbal performance of a written, preintubation checklist may prevent these complications. We compared a written, verbally performed, preintubation checklist with usual care regarding lowest arterial oxygen saturation or lowest systolic BP experienced by critically ill adults undergoing endotracheal intubation.

Methods: A multicenter trial in which 262 adults undergoing endotracheal intubation were randomized to a written, verbally performed, preintubation checklist (checklist) or no preintubation checklist (usual care). The coprimary outcomes were lowest arterial oxygen saturation and lowest systolic BP between the time of procedural medication administration and 2 min after endotracheal intubation.

Results: The median lowest arterial oxygen saturation was 92% (interquartile range [IQR], 79-98) in the checklist group vs 93% (IQR, 84-100) with usual care (P = .34). The median lowest systolic BP was 112 mm Hg (IQR, 94-133) in the checklist group vs 108 mm Hg (IQR, 90-132) in the usual care group (P = .61). There was no difference between the checklist and usual care in procedure duration (120 vs 118 s; P = .49), number of laryngoscopy attempts (one vs one attempt; P = .42), or severe life-threatening procedural complications (40.8% vs 32.6%; P = .20).

Conclusions: The verbal performance of a written, preprocedure checklist does not increase the lowest arterial oxygen saturation or lowest systolic BP during endotracheal intubation of critically ill adults compared with usual care.

Trial registry: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT02497729; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Keywords: adult; airway management; checklist; critical care; endotracheal; intubation; ventilation.

Copyright © 2017 American College of Chest Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Manuscript Title: “A Multicenter Randomized Trial of a Checklist for Endotracheal Intubation of Critically Ill Adults.”

Journal: Chest

PMID: 28917549

When a patient requiring a breathing machine is ready to be disconnected from that machine, providing additional oxygen support using a mask over the patient’s mouth (called “non-invasive ventilation”) or a large tube under their nose (called “high flow nasal cannula”) had been reported to decrease the likelihood of the patient needing to be put back on the breathing machine. The PROPER Trial assessed over 750 intensive care unit patients to determine whether additional oxygen support with non-invasive ventilation or high flow nasal cannula reduced the need to go back on a breathing machine within 96 hours after initially being taken off. The results showed that receiving the additional support did not prevent the need to go back on a breathing machine. These findings suggest doctors can provide support with the devices for some patients who they think will benefit, but do not need to provide support with these devices for every patient.

Rationale: Respiratory support (noninvasive ventilation or high-flow nasal cannula) applied at the time of extubation has been reported to reduce reintubation rates, but concerns regarding effectiveness have limited uptake into practice.

Objectives: To determine if providing postextubation respiratory support to all patients undergoing extubation in a medical ICU would decrease the incidence of reintubation.

Methods: We conducted a pragmatic, two-armed, cluster-crossover trial of adults undergoing extubation from invasive mechanical ventilation between October 1, 2017, and March 31, 2019, in the medical ICU of an academic medical center. Patients were assigned to either protocolized postextubation respiratory support (a respiratory therapist-driven protocol in which patients with suspected hypercapnia received noninvasive ventilation and patients without suspected hypercapnia received high-flow nasal cannula) or usual care (postextubation management at the discretion of treating clinicians). The primary outcome was reintubation within 96 hours of extubation.

Measurements and Main Results: A total of 751 patients were enrolled. Of the 359 patients assigned to protocolized support, 331 (92.2%) received postextubation respiratory support compared with 66 of 392 patients (16.8%) assigned to usual care, a difference driven by differential use of high-flow nasal cannula (74.7% vs. 2.8%). A total of 57 patients (15.9%) in the protocolized support group experienced reintubation compared with 52 patients (13.3%) in the usual care group (odds ratio, 1.23; 95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.84; P = 0.32).

Conclusions: Among a broad population of critically ill adults undergoing extubation from invasive mechanical ventilation at an academic medical center, protocolized postextubation respiratory support, primarily characterized by an increase in the use of high-flow nasal cannula, did not prevent reintubation compared with usual care.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT0328831).

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03288311.

Keywords: invasive mechanical ventilation; noninvasive respiratory support; reintubation.

Manuscript Title: “Protocolized Postextubation Respiratory Support to Prevent Reintubation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.”

Journal: American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

PMID: 33794131