6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Analysis of Benefit of Intensive Care Unit Transfer for Deteriorating Ward Patients : A Patient-Centered Approach to Clinical Evaluation

      research-article
      , PhD 1 , , , PhD 2 , , PhD 3 , , PhD 4 , , DPhil 5 , , PhD, FFICM, FRCA 6
      JAMA Network Open
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          Which deteriorating ward patients benefit from intensive care unit transfer?

          Findings

          This analysis of a cohort study of 4596 deteriorating ward patients used an instrumental variable approach to evaluate estimates of person-centered effects of ICU transfer and mortality. This study found an increased risk reduction in 28-day mortality in patients transferred to ICU who were older than 75 years and had greater illness severity (National Early Warning Scores >6).

          Meaning

          The instrumental variable approach in this study found that benefits of intensive care unit transfer may increase with age and baseline physiology score.

          Abstract

          This cohort study uses an instrumental variable method to assess heterogeneity and reports estimated person-centered treatment effects of intensive care unit (ICU) transfer with 28-day hospital mortality by age and illness severity among deteriorating ward patients.

          Abstract

          Importance

          It is unknown which deteriorating ward patients benefit from intensive care unit (ICU) transfer.

          Objectives

          To use an instrumental variable (IV) method that assesses heterogeneity and to evaluate estimates of person-centered treatment effects of ICU transfer and 28-day hospital mortality by age and illness severity.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          An analysis of a prospective cohort study from November 1, 2010, to December 31, 2011. The dates of this analysis were June 1, 2017, to June 30, 2018. The setting was a multicenter study of 49 UK National Health Service hospitals. Participants were 9192 deteriorating ward patients assessed for ICU transfer (4596 matched pairs). The study matched on baseline characteristics to strengthen the IV and to balance observed confounders between the comparison groups.

          Exposures

          Transfer to the ICU or continued care on general wards.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Mortality at 28 days (primary outcome) and 90 days. To address unobserved confounding, ICU bed availability was the IV for whether or not a patient was transferred. The study used the IV approach to evaluate estimates of treatment effect of ICU transfer and mortality according to age and physiological severity alone and in combination.

          Results

          Both comparison groups included 4596 patients. In the group assessed with “many” ICU beds available (median, 7), 52.8% were male, and the mean (SD) age was 65.2 (17.7) years; in the group assessed with “few” ICU beds available (median, 2), 53.3% were male, and the mean (SD) age was 65.0 (17.3) years. The overall 28-day mortality estimates were 23.2% (2090 predicted deaths) if all of the matched patients were transferred vs 28.1% (2534 predicted deaths) if none of the matched patients were transferred, an estimated risk difference of −4.9% (95% CI, −26.4% to 16.6%). The estimated effects of ICU transfer differed by age and by physiological severity according to the National Early Warning Score (NEWS): the absolute risk differences in 28-day mortality after ICU transfer ranged from 7.7% (95% CI, −5.5% to 21.0%) for ages 18 to 23 years to −5.0% (95% CI -26.5% to 16.6%) for age 78 to 83 years and ranged from 3.7% (95% CI, −12.1% to 19.5%) for NEWS of 0 to −25.4% (95% CI, −50.6% to −0.2%) for NEWS of 19. The absolute risk differences for elderly patients (≥75 years) were −11.6% (95% CI, −39.0% to 15.8%) for those with high NEWS (>6), −4.8% (95% CI, −30.5% to 20.9%) for those with moderate NEWS (5-6), and −1.0% (95% CI, −24.8% to 22.8%) for those with low NEWS (<5). The corresponding estimates for subgroups of younger patients (<75 years) were −8.4% (95% CI, −31.0% to 14.1%), −2.1% (95% CI, −21.1% to 16.9%), and 1.4% (95% CI, −14.5% to 17.4%).

          Conclusions and Relevance

          This study using a this person-centered IV approach found that the benefits of ICU care may increase among patients at high levels of baseline physiological severity across different age groups, especially among elderly patients.

          Related collections

          Most cited references26

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          The Proposal to Lower P Value Thresholds to .005

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Structural Equations, Treatment Effects, and Econometric Policy Evaluation1

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Anesthesia technique, mortality, and length of stay after hip fracture surgery.

              More than 300,000 hip fractures occur each year in the United States. Recent practice guidelines have advocated greater use of regional anesthesia for hip fracture surgery. To test the association of regional (ie, spinal or epidural) anesthesia vs general anesthesia with 30-day mortality and hospital length of stay after hip fracture. We conducted a matched retrospective cohort study involving patients 50 years or older who were undergoing surgery for hip fracture at general acute care hospitals in New York State between July 1, 2004, and December 31, 2011. Our main analysis was a near-far instrumental variable match that paired patients who lived at different distances from hospitals that specialized in regional or general anesthesia. Supplementary analyses included a within-hospital match that paired patients within the same hospital and an across-hospital match that paired patients at different hospitals. Spinal or epidural anesthesia; general anesthesia. Thirty-day mortality and hospital length of stay. Because the distribution of length of stay had long tails, we characterized this outcome using the Huber M estimate with Huber weights, a robust estimator similar to a trimmed mean. Of 56,729 patients, 15,904 (28%) received regional anesthesia and 40,825 (72%) received general anesthesia. Overall, 3032 patients (5.3%) died. The M estimate of the length of stay was 6.2 days (95% CI, 6.2 to 6.2). The near-far matched analysis showed no significant difference in 30-day mortality by anesthesia type among the 21,514 patients included in this match: 583 of 10,757 matched patients (5.4%) who lived near a regional anesthesia-specialized hospital died vs 629 of 10,757 matched patients (5.8%) who lived near a general anesthesia-specialized hospital (instrumental variable estimate of risk difference, -1.1%; 95% CI, -2.8 to 0.5; P = .20). Supplementary analyses of within and across hospital patient matches yielded mortality findings to be similar to the main analysis. In the near-far match, regional anesthesia was associated with a 0.6-day shorter length of stay than general anesthesia (95% CI, -0.8 to -0.4, P < .001). Supplementary analyses also showed regional anesthesia to be associated with shorter length of stay, although the observed association was smaller in magnitude than in the main analysis. Among adults in acute care hospitals in New York State undergoing hip repair, the use of regional anesthesia compared with general anesthesia was not associated with lower 30-day mortality but was associated with a modestly shorter length of stay. These findings do not support a mortality benefit for regional anesthesia in this setting.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                15 February 2019
                February 2019
                15 February 2019
                : 2
                : 2
                : e187704
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
                [2 ]J.E. Cairnes School of Business & Economics, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland
                [3 ]The Comparative Health Outcomes, Policy, and Economics (CHOICE) Institute, University of Washington, Seattle
                [4 ]Center for Surgery and Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
                [5 ]Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre (ICNARC), London, United Kingdom
                [6 ]Division of Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: December 10, 2018.
                Published: February 15, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.7704
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2019 Grieve R et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Richard Grieve, PhD, Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Pl, London WC1H 9SH, United Kingdom ( richard.grieve@ 123456lshtm.ac.uk ).
                Author Contributions: Drs Grieve and O’Neill had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: All authors.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Grieve, O’Neill, Keele, Rowan, Harris.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Grieve, O’Neill, Basu, Keele, Harris.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: Grieve, O’Neill, Basu, Keele, Rowan, Harris.
                Statistical analysis: Grieve, O’Neill, Basu, Keele.
                Obtained funding: Harris.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Basu, Rowan, Harris.
                Supervision: Rowan.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.
                Funding/Support: This article describes independent research supported by National Institute for Health Research Senior Research Fellowship SRF-2013-06-016 to Dr Grieve. The original (SPOT)light study 20 was funded by the Wellcome Trust via a Clinical Research Training Fellowship to Dr Harris.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding sources had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Disclaimer: The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the National Institute for Health Research, or the Department of Health.
                Additional Contributions: David A. Harrison, PhD, ICNARC, and Colin Sanderson, MA, MSc, PhD, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, assisted in the design, analysis, and interpretation of the original (SPOT)light study. 20 Charlotte O’Leary and Silvia Moler Zapata helped in collating references and formatting the manuscript and Supplement. No compensation was received.
                Article
                zoi180320
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.7704
                6484590
                30768190
                d5027ce5-6f13-41a6-afe4-cc734563c951
                Copyright 2019 Grieve R et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 23 August 2018
                : 6 December 2018
                : 10 December 2018
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Critical Care Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article