The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged front-line clinical decision-making, leading to numerous published prognostic tools. However, few models have been prospectively validated and none report implementation in practice. Here, we use 3345 retrospective and 474 prospective hospitalizations to develop and validate a parsimonious model to identify patients with favorable outcomes within 96 h of a prediction, based on real-time lab values, vital signs, and oxygen support variables. In retrospective and prospective validation, the model achieves high average precision (88.6% 95% CI: [88.4–88.7] and 90.8% [90.8–90.8]) and discrimination (95.1% [95.1–95.2] and 86.8% [86.8–86.9]) respectively. We implemented and integrated the model into the EHR, achieving a positive predictive value of 93.3% with 41% sensitivity. Preliminary results suggest clinicians are adopting these scores into their clinical workflows.

BackgroundMechanical ventilation is an essential therapy to support critically ill respiratory failure patients. Current standards of care consist of generalised approaches, such as the use of positive end expiratory pressure to inspired oxygen fraction (PEEP–FiO2) tables, which fail to account for the inter- and intra-patient variability between and within patients. The benefits of higher or lower tidal volume, PEEP, and other settings are highly debated and no consensus has been reached. Moreover, clinicians implicitly account for patient-specific factors such as disease condition and progression as they manually titrate ventilator settings. Hence, care is highly variable and potentially often non-optimal. These conditions create a situation that could benefit greatly from an engineered approach. The overall goal is a review of ventilation that is accessible to both clinicians and engineers, to bridge the divide between the two fields and enable collaboration to improve patient care and outcomes. This review does not take the form of a typical systematic review. Instead, it defines the standard terminology and introduces key clinical and biomedical measurements before introducing the key clinical studies and their influence in clinical practice which in turn flows into the needs and requirements around how biomedical engineering research can play a role in improving care. Given the significant clinical research to date and its impact on this complex area of care, this review thus provides a tutorial introduction around the review of the state of the art relevant to a biomedical engineering perspective.DiscussionThis review presents the significant clinical aspects and variables of ventilation management, the potential risks associated with suboptimal ventilation management, and a review of the major recent attempts to improve ventilation in the context of these variables. The unique aspect of this review is a focus on these key elements relevant to engineering new approaches. In particular, the need for ventilation strategies which consider, and directly account for, the significant differences in patient condition, disease etiology, and progression within patients is demonstrated with the subsequent requirement for optimal ventilation strategies to titrate for patient- and time-specific conditions.ConclusionEngineered, protective lung strategies that can directly account for and manage inter- and intra-patient variability thus offer great potential to improve both individual care, as well as cohort clinical outcomes.

BackgroundReal-time patient respiratory mechanics estimation can be used to guide mechanical ventilation settings, particularly, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). This work presents a software, Clinical Utilisation of Respiratory Elastance (CURE Soft), using a time-varying respiratory elastance model to offer this ability to aid in mechanical ventilation treatment.ImplementationCURE Soft is a desktop application developed in JAVA. It has two modes of operation, 1) Online real-time monitoring decision support and, 2) Offline for user education purposes, auditing, or reviewing patient care. The CURE Soft has been tested in mechanically ventilated patients with respiratory failure. The clinical protocol, software testing and use of the data were approved by the New Zealand Southern Regional Ethics Committee.Results and discussionUsing CURE Soft, patient’s respiratory mechanics response to treatment and clinical protocol were monitored. Results showed that the patient’s respiratory elastance (Stiffness) changed with the use of muscle relaxants, and responded differently to ventilator settings. This information can be used to guide mechanical ventilation therapy and titrate optimal ventilator PEEP.ConclusionCURE Soft enables real-time calculation of model-based respiratory mechanics for mechanically ventilated patients. Results showed that the system is able to provide detailed, previously unavailable information on patient-specific respiratory mechanics and response to therapy in real-time. The additional insight available to clinicians provides the potential for improved decision-making, and thus improved patient care and outcomes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1475-925X-13-140) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Automated systems that use machine learning to estimate a patient’s risk of death are being developed to influence care. There remains sparse transparent reporting of model generalizability in different subpopulations especially for implemented systems. Methods A prognostic study included adult admissions at a multi-site, academic medical center between 2015 and 2017. A predictive model for all-cause mortality (including initiation of hospice care) within 60 days of admission was developed. Model generalizability is assessed in temporal validation in the context of potential demographic bias. A subsequent prospective cohort study was conducted at the same sites between October 2018 and June 2019. Model performance during prospective validation was quantified with areas under the receiver operating characteristic and precision recall curves stratified by site. Prospective results include timeliness, positive predictive value, and the number of actionable predictions. Results Three years of development data included 128,941 inpatient admissions (94,733 unique patients) across sites where patients are mostly white (61%) and female (60%) and 4.2% led to death within 60 days. A random forest model incorporating 9614 predictors produced areas under the receiver operating characteristic and precision recall curves of 87.2 (95% CI, 86.1–88.2) and 28.0 (95% CI, 25.0–31.0) in temporal validation. Performance marginally diverges within sites as the patient mix shifts from development to validation (patients of one site increases from 10 to 38%). Applied prospectively for nine months, 41,728 predictions were generated in real-time (median [IQR], 1.3 [0.9, 32] minutes). An operating criterion of 75% positive predictive value identified 104 predictions at very high risk (0.25%) where 65% (50 from 77 well-timed predictions) led to death within 60 days. Conclusion Temporal validation demonstrates good model discrimination for 60-day mortality. Slight performance variations are observed across demographic subpopulations. The model was implemented prospectively and successfully produced meaningful estimates of risk within minutes of admission.

Monitoring of respiratory mechanics is required for guiding patient-specific mechanical ventilation settings in critical care. Many models of respiratory mechanics perform poorly in the presence of variable patient effort. Typical modelling approaches either attempt to mitigate the effect of the patient effort on the airway pressure waveforms, or attempt to capture the size and shape of the patient effort. This work analyses a range of methods to identify respiratory mechanics in volume controlled ventilation modes when there is patient effort. The models are compared using 4 Datasets, each with a sample of 30 breaths before, and 2-3 minutes after sedation has been administered. The sedation will reduce patient efforts, but the underlying pulmonary mechanical properties are unlikely to change during this short time. Model identified parameters from breathing cycles with patient effort are compared to breathing cycles that do not have patient effort. All models have advantages and disadvantages, so model selection may be specific to the respiratory mechanics application. However, in general, the combined method of iterative interpolative pressure reconstruction, and stacking multiple consecutive breaths together has the best performance over the Dataset. The variability of identified elastance when there is patient effort is the lowest with this method, and there is little systematic offset in identified mechanics when sedation is administered.

No abstract