IMPORTANCE: Withdrawal-of-life-sustaining treatments (WOLST) rates vary widely among critically ill neurologic patients (CINPs) and cannot be solely attributed to patient and family characteristics. Research in general critical care has shown that clinicians prognosticate to families with high variability. Little is known about how clinicians disclose prognosis to families of CINPs, and whether any associations exist with WOLST. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to demonstrate feasibility of audio-recording clinician-family meetings for CINPs at multiple centers and characterize how clinicians communicate prognosis during these meetings. Secondary: to explore associations of 1) clinician, family, or patient characteristics with clinicians' prognostication approaches and 2) prognostication approach and WOLST. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Forty-three audio-recorded clinician-family meetings during which prognosis was discussed from seven U.S. centers for 39 CINPs with 88 family members and 27 clinicians. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Two investigators qualitatively coded transcripts using inductive methods (inter-rater reliability > 80%) to characterize how clinicians prognosticate. We then applied univariate and multivariable multinomial and binomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Clinicians used four distinct prognostication approaches: Authoritative (21%; recommending treatments without discussing values and preferences); Informational (23%; disclosing just the prognosis without further discussions); advisory (42%; disclosing prognosis followed by discussion of values and preferences); and responsive (14%; eliciting values and preferences, then disclosing prognosis). Before adjustment, prognostication approach was associated with center (p < 0.001), clinician specialty (neurointensivists vs non-neurointensivists; p = 0.001), patient age (p = 0.08), diagnosis (p = 0.059), and meeting length (p = 0.03). After adjustment, only clinician specialty independently predicted prognostication approach (p = 0.027). WOLST decisions occurred in 41% of patients and were most common under the advisory approach (56%). WOLST was more likely in older patients (p = 0.059) and with more experienced clinicians (p = 0.07). Prognostication approach was not independently associated with WOLST (p = 0.198). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: It is feasible to audio-record sensitive clinician-family meetings about CINPs in multiple ICUs. We found that clinicians prognosticate with high variability. Our data suggest that larger studies are warranted in CINPs to examine the role of clinicians' variable prognostication in WOLST decisions.

IMPORTANCE: Withdrawal-of-life-sustaining treatments (WOLST) rates vary widely among critically ill neurologic patients (CINPs) and cannot be solely attributed to patient and family characteristics. Research in general critical care has shown that clinicians prognosticate to families with high variability. Little is known about how clinicians disclose prognosis to families of CINPs, and whether any associations exist with WOLST. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to demonstrate feasibility of audio-recording clinician-family meetings for CINPs at multiple centers and characterize how clinicians communicate prognosis during these meetings. Secondary: to explore associations of 1) clinician, family, or patient characteristics with clinicians' prognostication approaches and 2) prognostication approach and WOLST. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Forty-three audio-recorded clinician-family meetings during which prognosis was discussed from seven U.S. centers for 39 CINPs with 88 family members and 27 clinicians. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Two investigators qualitatively coded transcripts using inductive methods (inter-rater reliability > 80%) to characterize how clinicians prognosticate. We then applied univariate and multivariable multinomial and binomial logistic regression. RESULTS: Clinicians used four distinct prognostication approaches: Authoritative (21%; recommending treatments without discussing values and preferences); Informational (23%; disclosing just the prognosis without further discussions); advisory (42%; disclosing prognosis followed by discussion of values and preferences); and responsive (14%; eliciting values and preferences, then disclosing prognosis). Before adjustment, prognostication approach was associated with center (p < 0.001), clinician specialty (neurointensivists vs non-neurointensivists; p = 0.001), patient age (p = 0.08), diagnosis (p = 0.059), and meeting length (p = 0.03). After adjustment, only clinician specialty independently predicted prognostication approach (p = 0.027). WOLST decisions occurred in 41% of patients and were most common under the advisory approach (56%). WOLST was more likely in older patients (p = 0.059) and with more experienced clinicians (p = 0.07). Prognostication approach was not independently associated with WOLST (p = 0.198). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: It is feasible to audio-record sensitive clinician-family meetings about CINPs in multiple ICUs. We found that clinicians prognosticate with high variability. Our data suggest that larger studies are warranted in CINPs to examine the role of clinicians' variable prognostication in WOLST decisions.

RATIONALE: Little is known about the effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation for patients hospitalized with asthma exacerbation. OBJECTIVES: To assess clinical outcomes of noninvasive (NIV) and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and examine predictors for NIV use in patients hospitalized with asthma. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study at 97 U.S. hospitals using an electronic medical record database. We developed a hierarchical regression model to identify factors associated with the choice of initial ventilation and used the Laboratory Acute Physiological Score to adjust for differences in the severity of illness. We assessed the outcomes of patients treated with initial NIV or IMV in a propensity-matched cohort. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 13,930 subjects, 73% were women and 54% were white. The median age was 53 years. Overall, 1,254 patients (9%) required ventilatory support (NIV or IMV). NIV was the initial ventilation method for 556 patients (4.0%) and IMV for 668 (5.0%). Twenty-six patients (4.7% of patients treated with NIV) had to be intubated (NIV failure). The in-hospital mortality was 0.2, 2.3, 14.5, and 15.4%, and the median length of stay was 2.9, 4.1, 6.7, and 10.9 days among those not ventilated, ventilated with NIV, ventilated with IMV, and with NIV failure, respectively. Older patients were more likely to receive NIV (odds ratio, 1.06 per 5 yr; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.11), whereas those with higher acuity (Laboratory Acute Physiological Score per 5 units: odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.82-0.88) and those with concomitant pneumonia were less likely to receive NIV. In a propensity-matched sample, NIV was associated with a lower inpatient risk of dying (risk ratio, 0.12; 95% CI, 0.03-0.51) and shorter lengths of stay (4.3 d less; 95% CI, 2.9-5.8) than IMV. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized with asthma exacerbation and requiring ventilatory support (NIV or IMV), more than 40% received NIV. Although patients successfully treated with NIV appear to have better outcomes than those treated with IMV, the low rate of NIV failure suggests that NIV was being used selectively in a lower risk group. The increased risk of mortality for patients who fail NIV highlights the need for careful monitoring to avoid possible delay in intubation.

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on the use of noninvasive ventilation in patients with asthma exacerbations. The objective of this study was to characterize hospital patterns of noninvasive ventilation use in patients with asthma and to evaluate the association with the use of invasive mechanical ventilation and case fatality rate. METHODS: This cross-sectional study used an electronic medical record dataset, which includes comprehensive pharmacy and laboratory results from 58 hospitals. Data on 13,558 patients admitted from 2009 to 2012 were analyzed. Initial noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) was defined as the first ventilation method during hospitalization. Hospital-level risk-standardized rates of NIV among all admissions with asthma were calculated by using a hierarchical regression model. Hospitals were grouped into quartiles of NIV to compare the outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 90.3% of patients with asthma were not ventilated, 4.0% were ventilated with NIV, and 5.7% were ventilated with IMV. Twenty-two (38%) hospitals did not use NIV for any included admissions. Hospital-level adjusted NIV rates varied considerably (range, 0.4-33.1; median, 5.2%). Hospitals in the highest quartile of NIV did not have lower IMV use (5.4% vs 5.7%), but they did have a small but significantly shorter length of stay. Higher NIV rates were not associated with lower risk-adjusted case fatality rates. CONCLUSIONS: Large variation exists in hospital use of NIV for patients with an acute exacerbation of asthma. Higher hospital rates of NIV use does not seem to be associated with lower IMV rates. These results indicate a need to understand contextual and organizational factors contributing to this variability.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of an intravenous liposomal dispersion of prostaglandin E1 as TLC C-53 in the treatment of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). DESIGN: Randomized, prospective, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase III clinical trial. SETTING: Forty-seven community and university-affiliated hospitals in the United States. PATIENTS: A total of 350 patients with ARDS were enrolled in this clinical trial. INTERVENTION: Patients were prospectively randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive either liposomal prostaglandin E1 or placebo. The study drug was infused intravenously for 60 mins every 6 hrs for 7 days starting with a dosage of 0.15 microg/kg/hr. The dose was increased every 12 hrs until the maximal dose (3.6 microg/kg/hr) was attained or intolerance to further increases developed. Patients received standard aggressive medical/surgical care during the infusion period. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was the time it took to wean the patient from the ventilator. Secondary end points included time to improvement of the PaO2/FIO2 ratio (defined as first PaO2/FIO2 > 300 mm Hg), day 28 mortality, ventilator dependence at day 8, changes in PaO2/FIO2, incidence of and time to development/resolution of organ failure other than ARDS. RESULTS: A total of 348 patients could be evaluated for efficacy. The distribution of variables at baseline describing gender, lung injury scores, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores, PaO2/FIO2, pulmonary compliance, and time from onset of ARDS or from institution of mechanical ventilation to the first dose of study drug was similar among patients in the liposomal prostaglandin E1 (n = 177) and the placebo (n = 171) treatment arms. There was no significant difference in the number of days to the discontinuation of ventilation in the liposomal prostaglandin E1 group compared with the placebo group (median number of days to off mechanical ventilation, 16.9 in patients receiving liposomal prostaglandin E1 and 19.6 in those administered placebo; p = .94). Similarly, mortality at day 28 was not significantly different in the two groups (day 28 mortality, 57 of 176 (32%) in the liposomal prostaglandin E1 group and 50 of 170 (29%) in patients receiving placebo; p = .55). In contrast, treatment with liposomal prostaglandin E1 was associated with a significantly shorter time to reach a PaO2/FIO2 ratio of >300 mm Hg (median number of days to reaching a PaO2/FIO2 ratio >300 mm Hg: 9.8 days in the liposomal prostaglandin E1 group and 13.7 days in patients receiving the placebo; p = .02). Among the subgroups examined, time to off mechanical ventilation was significantly reduced in patients who received at least 85% of a full dose (i.e., > 45.9 microg/kg) of liposomal prostaglandin E1 (median number of days to discontinuation of ventilation, 10.3 in the liposomal prostaglandin E1 group and 16.3 days in patients receiving placebo; p = .05). The overall incidence of serious adverse events was not significantly different in the liposomal prostaglandin E1 (40%) or placebo-treated (37%) groups. Drug-related adverse events of all kinds were reported in 69% of the patients receiving liposomal prostaglandin E1 compared with 33% of the placebo group, with hypotension and hypoxia (occurring in 52% and 24% of the liposomal prostaglandin E1-treated patients, respectively, and 17% and 5% of the placebo-treated patients, respectively) being noted most frequently. CONCLUSIONS: In the intent-to-treat population of patients with ARDS, treatment with liposomal prostaglandin E1 accelerated improvement in indexes of oxygenation but did not decrease the duration of mechanical ventilation and did not improve day 28 survival.