Dataset Information

Variation in Early Management Practices in Moderate-to-Severe ARDS in the United States: The Severe ARDS: Generating Evidence Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Although specific interventions previously demonstrated benefit in patients with ARDS, use of these interventions is inconsistent, and patient mortality remains high. The impact of variability in center management practices on ARDS mortality rates remains unknown.

Research question

What is the impact of treatment variability on mortality in patients with moderate to severe ARDS in the United States?

Study design and methods

We conducted a multicenter, observational cohort study of mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS and Pao₂ to Fio₂ ratio of ≤ 150 with positive end-expiratory pressure of ≥ 5 cm H₂O, who were admitted to 29 US centers between October 1, 2016, and April 30, 2017. The primary outcome was 28-day in-hospital mortality. Center variation in ventilator management, adjunctive therapy use, and mortality also were assessed.

Results

A total of 2,466 patients were enrolled. Median baseline Pao₂ to Fio₂ ratio was 105 (interquartile range, 78.0-129.0). In-hospital 28-day mortality was 40.7%. Initial adherence to lung protective ventilation (LPV; tidal volume, ≤ 6.5 mL/kg predicted body weight; plateau pressure, or when unavailable, peak inspiratory pressure, ≤ 30 mm H₂O) was 31.4% and varied between centers (0%-65%), as did rates of adjunctive therapy use (27.1%-96.4%), methods used (neuromuscular blockade, prone positioning, systemic steroids, pulmonary vasodilators, and extracorporeal support), and mortality (16.7%-73.3%). Center standardized mortality ratios (SMRs), calculated using baseline patient-level characteristics to derive expected mortality rate, ranged from 0.33 to 1.98. Of the treatment-level factors explored, only center adherence to early LPV was correlated with SMR.

Interpretation

Substantial center-to-center variability exists in ARDS management, suggesting that further opportunities for improving ARDS outcomes exist. Early adherence to LPV was associated with lower center mortality and may be a surrogate for overall quality of care processes. Future collaboration is needed to identify additional treatment-level factors influencing center-level outcomes.

Trial registry

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03021824; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

SUBMITTER: Qadir N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8176896 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite numerous advances in the understanding of the pathophysiology, progression, and management of acute respiratory failure (ARF) and ARDS, limited contemporary data are available on the mortality burden of ARF and ARDS in the United States.Research questionWhat are the contemporary trends and geographic variation in ARF and ARDS-related mortality in the United States?Study design and methodsA retrospective analysis of the National Center for Health Statistics' nationwide mortality data was conducted to assess the ARF and ARDS-related mortality trends from 2014 through 2018 and the geographic distribution of ARF and ARDS-related deaths in 2018 for all American residents. Piecewise linear regression was used to evaluate the trends in age-adjusted mortality rates (AAMRs) in the overall population and various demographic subgroups of age, sex, race, urbanization, and region.ResultsAmong 1,434,349 ARF-related deaths and 52,958 ARDS-related deaths during the study period, the AAMR was highest in older individuals (≥ 65 years), non-Hispanic Black people, and those living in the nonmetropolitan region. The AAMR for ARF-related deaths (per 100,000 people) increased from 74.9 (95% CI, 74.6-75.2) in 2014 to 85.6 (95% CI, 85.3-85.9) in 2018 (annual percentage change [APC], 3.4 [95% CI, 2.2-4.6]; Ptrend = .003). The AAMR (per 100,000 people) for ARDS-related deaths was 3.2 (95% CI, 3.2-3.3) in 2014 and 3.0 (95% CI, 3.0-3.1 in 2018; APC, -0.9 [95% CI, -5.4 to 3.8]; Ptrend = .56). The observed increase in rates for ARF mortality was consistent across the subgroups of age, sex, race or ethnicity, urbanization status, and geographical region (Ptrend < .05 for all). The AAMR (per 100,000 people) for ARF (91.3 [95% CI, 90.8-91.8]) and ARDS-related mortality (3.3 [95% CI, 3.2-3.4]) in 2018 were highest in the South.InterpretationThe ARF-related mortality increased at approximately 3.4% annually, and ARDS-related mortality showed a lack of decline in the last 5 years. These data contextualize important health information to guide priorities for research, clinical care, and policy, especially during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic in the United States.

Project description:ImportanceRisk of opioid use disorder, overdose, and death from prescription opioids increases as dosage, duration, and use of extended-release and long-acting formulations increase. States are well suited to respond to the opioid crisis through legislation, regulations, enforcement, surveillance, and other interventions.ObjectiveTo estimate temporal trends and geographic variations in 6 key opioid prescribing measures in 50 US states and the District of Columbia.Design, setting, and participantsPopulation-based cross-sectional analysis of opioid prescriptions filled nationwide at US retail pharmacies between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2017. Data were obtained from the IQVIA Xponent database. All US residents who had an opioid prescription filled at a US retail pharmacy were included.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary outcomes were annual amount of opioids prescribed in morphine milligram equivalents (MME) per person; mean duration per prescription in days; and 4 separate prescribing rates-for prescriptions 3 or fewer days, those 30 days or longer, those with a high daily dosage (≥90 MME), and those with extended-release and long-acting formulations.ResultsBetween 2006 and 2017, an estimated 233.7 million opioid prescriptions were filled in retail pharmacies in the United States each year. For all states combined, 4 measures decreased: (1) mean (SD) amount of opioids prescribed (mean [SD] decrease, 12.8% [12.6%]) from 628.4 (178.0) to 543.4 (158.6) MME per person, a statistically significant decrease in 23 states; (2) high daily dosage (mean [SD] decrease, 53.1% [13.6%]) from 12.3 (3.4) to 5.6 (1.7) per 100 persons, a statistically significant decrease in 49 states; (3) short-term (≤3 days) duration (mean [SD] decrease, 43.1% [9.4%]) from 18.0 (5.4) to 10.0 (2.5) per 100 persons, a statistically significant decrease in 48 states; and (4) extended-release and long-acting formulations (mean [SD] decrease, 14.7% [13.7%]) from 7.2 (1.9) to 6.0 (1.7) per 100 persons, a statistically significant decrease in 27 states. Two measures increased, each associated with the duration of prescription dispensed: (1) mean (SD) prescription duration (mean [SD] increase, 37.6% [6.9%]) from 13.0 (1.2) to 17.9 (1.4) days, a statistically significant increase in every state; and (2) prescriptions for a term of 30 days or longer (mean [SD] increase, 37.7% [28.9%]) from 18.3 (7.7) to 24.9 (10.7) per 100 persons, a statistically significant increase in 39 states. Two- to 3-fold geographic differences were observed across states, measured by comparing the ratio of each state's 90th to 10th percentile for each measure.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, across 12 years, the mean duration and prescribing rate for long-term prescriptions of opioids increased, whereas the amount of opioids prescribed per person and prescribing rate for high-dosage prescriptions, short-term prescriptions, and extended-release and long-acting formulations decreased. Some decreases were significant, but results were still high. Two- to 3-fold state variation in 5 measures occurred in most states. This information may help when state-specific intervention programs are being designed.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Primary care providers (PCPs) are typically the first to screen and evaluate patients for neurocognitive disorders (NCDs), including mild cognitive impairment and dementia. However, data on PCP attitudes and evaluation and management practices are sparse. Our objective was to quantify perspectives and behaviors of PCPs and neurologists with respect to NCD evaluation and management. METHODS:A cross-sectional survey with 150 PCPs and 50 neurologists in the United States who evaluated more than 10 patients over age 55 per month. The 51-item survey assessed clinical practice characteristics, and confidence, perceived barriers, and typical practices when diagnosing and managing patients with NCDs. RESULTS:PCPs and neurologists reported similar confidence and approaches to general medical care and laboratory testing. Though over half of PCPs performed cognitive screening or referred patients for cognitive testing in over 50% of their patients, only 20% reported high confidence in interpreting results of cognitive tests. PCPs were more likely to order CT scans than MRIs, and only 14% of PCPs reported high confidence interpreting brain imaging findings, compared to 70% of specialists. Only 21% of PCPs were highly confident that they correctly recognized when a patient had an NCD, and only 13% were highly confident in making a specific NCD diagnosis (compared to 72 and 44% for neurologists, both p < 0.001). A quarter of all providers identified lack of familiarity with diagnostic criteria for NCD syndromes as a barrier to clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS:This study demonstrates how PCPs approach diagnosis and management of patients with NCDs, and identified areas for improvement in regards to cognitive testing and neuroimaging. This study also identified all providers' lack of familiarity with published diagnostic criteria for NCD syndromes. These findings may inform the development of new policies and interventions to help providers improve the efficacy of their decision processes and deliver better quality care to patients with NCDs.

Project description:BackgroundMelanoma clinical trials demonstrated that completion lymph node dissection is low value for most sentinel lymph node-positive patients. Contemporaneous trials of adjuvant systemic immunotherapy and BRAF/MEK targeted therapy showed improved recurrence-free survival in high-risk sentinel lymph node-positive patients. To better understand how oncologic evidence is incorporated into practice (implementation), we evaluated factors associated with discontinuation of completion lymph node dissection and adoption of systemic treatment at United States Commission on Cancer-accredited centers.MethodsIn a retrospective cohort study of adults with sentinel lymph node-positive melanoma treated from 2012 to 2017 using the National Cancer Database, we evaluated use of completion lymph node dissection and adjuvant systemic treatment using mixed-effects logistic regression, reporting results as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.ResultsAmong 10,240 sentinel lymph node-positive melanoma patients, performance of completion lymph node dissection declined from 60% to 27%. Adjuvant systemic treatment increased from 29% to 43% (37% in stage IIIA patients, 46% in IIIB-C). Completion lymph node dissection was less common with lower extremity tumors (odds ratio = 0.53, 95% confidence interval = 0.44-0.64) and more common with multiple positive sentinel lymph nodes (odds ratio = 2.36, 95% confidence interval = 2.08-2.67), treatment at a high- or moderate-volume center (odds ratiohigh = 1.49, 95% confidence interval = 1.05-2.12; odds ratiomoderate = 1.32, 95% confidence interval = 1.05-1.64), and receipt of systemic therapy (odds ratio = 1.44, 95% confidence interval = 1.27-1.63). The increased likelihood of completion lymph node dissection in patients receiving adjuvant systemic treatment persisted in the most recent study years and in patients with a single positive sentinel lymph node.ConclusionAt a population level, completion lymph node dissection declined and adjuvant systemic treatment increased, reflecting evidence-responsive care. Variation in persistent use of completion lymph node dissection and in provision of adjuvant treatment for lower risk patients highlights residual gaps in both evidence and implementation.