The Hospitalist

Physicians who have been sued multiple times are no more likely to relocate geographically than doctors who have never faced a claim, a new study shows.

David M. Studdert of Stanford (Calif.) University and his colleagues analyzed data from Medicare and the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) to assess associations between the number of paid malpractice claims that doctors accrued and exits from medical practice, changes in clinical volume, geographic relocation, and change in practice-group size. The study population included 480,894 physicians who had 68,956 paid claims from 2003 to 2015. Of the study group, 89% had no claims, 9% had one claim, and the remaining 2% had two or more claims that accounted for 40% of all claims. Nearly three-quarters of the doctors studied were men, and the majority of specialties were internal medicine (17%), general practice/family medicine (15%), emergency medicine (7%), radiology (6%), and anesthesiology (6%).

Physicians with a higher number of claims against them did not relocate at a greater rate than physicians who had fewer or no claims, the investigators wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine.

More claims against a doctor were associated with a higher likelihood of leaving medicine and more shifts into smaller practice settings. For instance, physicians with one claim had 9% higher odds of leaving the practice than doctors with no claims, and physicians with five or more claims had a 45% higher chance of leaving medicine than doctors with no claims, the researchers found.

In addition, investigators found that doctors with two to four claims had 50%-60% higher odds of entering solo practice than physicians with no claims, and physicians with five or more claims had nearly 150% higher odds of moving to solo practice than doctors who had never been sued. Physicians with three or more claims were more likely to be male, work in surgical specialties, and be at least age 50 years.

The study addresses concerns that physicians with troubling legal records were moving across state lines for a fresh start, Mr. Studdert said in an interview. “We were surprised to find that physicians who accumulated multiple malpractice claims were no more likely to relocate their practices than physicians without claims. The National Practitioner Data Bank probably has something to do with that.”

Established by Congress in 1986, the NPDB was started, in part, to restrict the ability of incompetent physicians to move across states to hide their track records. By requiring hospitals to query doctors records before granting them clinical privileges and encouraging physician groups, health plans, and professional societies to do the same, the NPDB has “almost certainly increased the difficulty of relocation for physicians with legal problems,” the authors noted in the study.

A primary takeaway from the analysis is that, while a single malpractice claim is a relatively weak signal that a quality problem exists, multiple paid claims over a relatively short period of time are a strong signal that a physician may have a quality deficiency, Mr. Studdert said in the interview.

“Regulators and malpractice insurers should be paying closer attention to this signal,” he added. “To the extent that physicians are aware of a colleague’s checkered malpractice history, they may have a role to play too. Vigilance about signs of further problems, for one, but also careful thought about the wisdom of referring patients to such physicians.”

Michelle M. Mello, JD, PhD, and Mr. Studdert both reported receiving grants from SUMIT Insurance during the conduct of the study.

[email protected]

Source: Studdert DM et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1809981.

Physicians who have been sued multiple times are no more likely to relocate geographically than doctors who have never faced a claim, a new study shows.

David M. Studdert of Stanford (Calif.) University and his colleagues analyzed data from Medicare and the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) to assess associations between the number of paid malpractice claims that doctors accrued and exits from medical practice, changes in clinical volume, geographic relocation, and change in practice-group size. The study population included 480,894 physicians who had 68,956 paid claims from 2003 to 2015. Of the study group, 89% had no claims, 9% had one claim, and the remaining 2% had two or more claims that accounted for 40% of all claims. Nearly three-quarters of the doctors studied were men, and the majority of specialties were internal medicine (17%), general practice/family medicine (15%), emergency medicine (7%), radiology (6%), and anesthesiology (6%).

Physicians with a higher number of claims against them did not relocate at a greater rate than physicians who had fewer or no claims, the investigators wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine.

More claims against a doctor were associated with a higher likelihood of leaving medicine and more shifts into smaller practice settings. For instance, physicians with one claim had 9% higher odds of leaving the practice than doctors with no claims, and physicians with five or more claims had a 45% higher chance of leaving medicine than doctors with no claims, the researchers found.

In addition, investigators found that doctors with two to four claims had 50%-60% higher odds of entering solo practice than physicians with no claims, and physicians with five or more claims had nearly 150% higher odds of moving to solo practice than doctors who had never been sued. Physicians with three or more claims were more likely to be male, work in surgical specialties, and be at least age 50 years.

The study addresses concerns that physicians with troubling legal records were moving across state lines for a fresh start, Mr. Studdert said in an interview. “We were surprised to find that physicians who accumulated multiple malpractice claims were no more likely to relocate their practices than physicians without claims. The National Practitioner Data Bank probably has something to do with that.”

Established by Congress in 1986, the NPDB was started, in part, to restrict the ability of incompetent physicians to move across states to hide their track records. By requiring hospitals to query doctors records before granting them clinical privileges and encouraging physician groups, health plans, and professional societies to do the same, the NPDB has “almost certainly increased the difficulty of relocation for physicians with legal problems,” the authors noted in the study.

A primary takeaway from the analysis is that, while a single malpractice claim is a relatively weak signal that a quality problem exists, multiple paid claims over a relatively short period of time are a strong signal that a physician may have a quality deficiency, Mr. Studdert said in the interview.

“Regulators and malpractice insurers should be paying closer attention to this signal,” he added. “To the extent that physicians are aware of a colleague’s checkered malpractice history, they may have a role to play too. Vigilance about signs of further problems, for one, but also careful thought about the wisdom of referring patients to such physicians.”

Michelle M. Mello, JD, PhD, and Mr. Studdert both reported receiving grants from SUMIT Insurance during the conduct of the study.

[email protected]

Source: Studdert DM et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1809981.

Physicians who have been sued multiple times are no more likely to relocate geographically than doctors who have never faced a claim, a new study shows.

David M. Studdert of Stanford (Calif.) University and his colleagues analyzed data from Medicare and the National Practitioner Data Bank (NPDB) to assess associations between the number of paid malpractice claims that doctors accrued and exits from medical practice, changes in clinical volume, geographic relocation, and change in practice-group size. The study population included 480,894 physicians who had 68,956 paid claims from 2003 to 2015. Of the study group, 89% had no claims, 9% had one claim, and the remaining 2% had two or more claims that accounted for 40% of all claims. Nearly three-quarters of the doctors studied were men, and the majority of specialties were internal medicine (17%), general practice/family medicine (15%), emergency medicine (7%), radiology (6%), and anesthesiology (6%).

Physicians with a higher number of claims against them did not relocate at a greater rate than physicians who had fewer or no claims, the investigators wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine.

More claims against a doctor were associated with a higher likelihood of leaving medicine and more shifts into smaller practice settings. For instance, physicians with one claim had 9% higher odds of leaving the practice than doctors with no claims, and physicians with five or more claims had a 45% higher chance of leaving medicine than doctors with no claims, the researchers found.

In addition, investigators found that doctors with two to four claims had 50%-60% higher odds of entering solo practice than physicians with no claims, and physicians with five or more claims had nearly 150% higher odds of moving to solo practice than doctors who had never been sued. Physicians with three or more claims were more likely to be male, work in surgical specialties, and be at least age 50 years.

The study addresses concerns that physicians with troubling legal records were moving across state lines for a fresh start, Mr. Studdert said in an interview. “We were surprised to find that physicians who accumulated multiple malpractice claims were no more likely to relocate their practices than physicians without claims. The National Practitioner Data Bank probably has something to do with that.”

Established by Congress in 1986, the NPDB was started, in part, to restrict the ability of incompetent physicians to move across states to hide their track records. By requiring hospitals to query doctors records before granting them clinical privileges and encouraging physician groups, health plans, and professional societies to do the same, the NPDB has “almost certainly increased the difficulty of relocation for physicians with legal problems,” the authors noted in the study.

A primary takeaway from the analysis is that, while a single malpractice claim is a relatively weak signal that a quality problem exists, multiple paid claims over a relatively short period of time are a strong signal that a physician may have a quality deficiency, Mr. Studdert said in the interview.

“Regulators and malpractice insurers should be paying closer attention to this signal,” he added. “To the extent that physicians are aware of a colleague’s checkered malpractice history, they may have a role to play too. Vigilance about signs of further problems, for one, but also careful thought about the wisdom of referring patients to such physicians.”

Michelle M. Mello, JD, PhD, and Mr. Studdert both reported receiving grants from SUMIT Insurance during the conduct of the study.

[email protected]

Source: Studdert DM et al. N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 28. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1809981.

Hospitalists can have a role in helping patients choose and receive high-value care from the vast array of health care choices they face. Helping them use quality and cost reports is one way to do that, according to a recent editorial by Jeffrey T. Kullgren, MD, MS, MPH.

We know that if consumers used public reporting of quality and costs to choose facilities that generate the best health outcomes for the resources utilized, it might improve the overall value of health care spending. But most people choose health care services based on personal recommendations or the requirements of their insurance network. Even if they wanted to use reports of quality or cost, the information in these reports is meant for providers and would likely be unhelpful for consumers.

Research suggests that different presentation of the information could make a difference. “Simpler presentations of information in public reports may be more likely to help consumers choose higher-value providers and facilities,” Dr. Kullgren said.

He concluded that consumers may also need additional incentives, “such as financial incentives to encourage high-value choices or programs that educate consumers about how to use cost and quality information when seeking care,” he said.

There’s an opportunity for hospitalists to help consumers learn to use that information. “This strategy would approach consumerism as a teachable health behavior and could be particularly helpful for consumers with ongoing medical needs who face high cost sharing,” he wrote.

“Some hospitalists may be involved in the implementation of programs to publicly report quality and costs for their institutions,” he said. “Others may treat patients who have chosen hospitals based on publicly reported information, or patients who might be interested in using such information to choose sites of postdischarge outpatient care. In each of these cases, it is important for hospitalists to understand the opportunities and limits of such public reports so as to best help patients receive high-value care.” 

Reference

Kullgren JT. Helping consumers make high value health care choices: The devil is in the details. Health Serv Res. 2018;53(4). http://www.hsr.org/hsr/abstract.jsp?aid=53301961729.

Hospitalists can have a role in helping patients choose and receive high-value care from the vast array of health care choices they face. Helping them use quality and cost reports is one way to do that, according to a recent editorial by Jeffrey T. Kullgren, MD, MS, MPH.

We know that if consumers used public reporting of quality and costs to choose facilities that generate the best health outcomes for the resources utilized, it might improve the overall value of health care spending. But most people choose health care services based on personal recommendations or the requirements of their insurance network. Even if they wanted to use reports of quality or cost, the information in these reports is meant for providers and would likely be unhelpful for consumers.

Research suggests that different presentation of the information could make a difference. “Simpler presentations of information in public reports may be more likely to help consumers choose higher-value providers and facilities,” Dr. Kullgren said.

He concluded that consumers may also need additional incentives, “such as financial incentives to encourage high-value choices or programs that educate consumers about how to use cost and quality information when seeking care,” he said.

There’s an opportunity for hospitalists to help consumers learn to use that information. “This strategy would approach consumerism as a teachable health behavior and could be particularly helpful for consumers with ongoing medical needs who face high cost sharing,” he wrote.

“Some hospitalists may be involved in the implementation of programs to publicly report quality and costs for their institutions,” he said. “Others may treat patients who have chosen hospitals based on publicly reported information, or patients who might be interested in using such information to choose sites of postdischarge outpatient care. In each of these cases, it is important for hospitalists to understand the opportunities and limits of such public reports so as to best help patients receive high-value care.” 

Reference

Kullgren JT. Helping consumers make high value health care choices: The devil is in the details. Health Serv Res. 2018;53(4). http://www.hsr.org/hsr/abstract.jsp?aid=53301961729.

Hospitalists can have a role in helping patients choose and receive high-value care from the vast array of health care choices they face. Helping them use quality and cost reports is one way to do that, according to a recent editorial by Jeffrey T. Kullgren, MD, MS, MPH.

We know that if consumers used public reporting of quality and costs to choose facilities that generate the best health outcomes for the resources utilized, it might improve the overall value of health care spending. But most people choose health care services based on personal recommendations or the requirements of their insurance network. Even if they wanted to use reports of quality or cost, the information in these reports is meant for providers and would likely be unhelpful for consumers.

Research suggests that different presentation of the information could make a difference. “Simpler presentations of information in public reports may be more likely to help consumers choose higher-value providers and facilities,” Dr. Kullgren said.

He concluded that consumers may also need additional incentives, “such as financial incentives to encourage high-value choices or programs that educate consumers about how to use cost and quality information when seeking care,” he said.

There’s an opportunity for hospitalists to help consumers learn to use that information. “This strategy would approach consumerism as a teachable health behavior and could be particularly helpful for consumers with ongoing medical needs who face high cost sharing,” he wrote.

“Some hospitalists may be involved in the implementation of programs to publicly report quality and costs for their institutions,” he said. “Others may treat patients who have chosen hospitals based on publicly reported information, or patients who might be interested in using such information to choose sites of postdischarge outpatient care. In each of these cases, it is important for hospitalists to understand the opportunities and limits of such public reports so as to best help patients receive high-value care.” 

Reference

Kullgren JT. Helping consumers make high value health care choices: The devil is in the details. Health Serv Res. 2018;53(4). http://www.hsr.org/hsr/abstract.jsp?aid=53301961729.

WASHINGTON – Of patients with ST-elevation MI (STEMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock, 13% are readmitted within 30 days and remain in hospital for an average of 6 days, according to an analysis from the National Readmission Database presented at CRT 2019 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

“About one in four of the readmissions was for heart failure,” reported Karan Sud, MD, a cardiology resident at the Mount Sinai St. Luke’s West Hospital, New York.

Despite gains in acute survival among STEMI patients in cardiogenic shock, little attention has been paid to the risk of readmissions, according to Dr. Sud. According to data collected from the National Readmissions Database for 2010-2014, these rates are high enough to deserve attention, he said.
 

“Our goal is now to develop a scoring system based on our predictive model to identify patients at the index admission who are at risk for readmission,” Dr. Sud reported. On the basis of these predictors, it might be possible to implement strategies to optimize management and improve access to care.

In the years studied, there were 94,991 patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock captured in the National Readmissions Database, of whom 43,205 survived and were followed for readmission. Of the 5,503 readmissions within 30 days, 12% were considered unplanned.

Half of the readmissions were for noncardiovascular causes, including sepsis, respiratory failure, and major bleeding. Of those related to cardiovascular disease, about half, or nearly 25% of the total, were for heart failure.

The predictors of readmission included female sex, age older than 75 years, average length of stay longer than 10 days, and more than three comorbidities, such as diabetes or chronic kidney disease, according to Dr. Sud.

“Those sent home from the index admission were more likely than those discharged to an extended care facility to be readmitted,” he added. He also noted that lower socioeconomic status was a risk factor for readmission, a phenomenon that he attributed to access issues regarding follow-up care.

“We are now conducting a prospective study to look at readmissions at 6 months,” reported Dr. Sud, who believes that efforts to understand the risk of readmission following STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock might uncover opportunities for better management.

WASHINGTON – Of patients with ST-elevation MI (STEMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock, 13% are readmitted within 30 days and remain in hospital for an average of 6 days, according to an analysis from the National Readmission Database presented at CRT 2019 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

“About one in four of the readmissions was for heart failure,” reported Karan Sud, MD, a cardiology resident at the Mount Sinai St. Luke’s West Hospital, New York.

Despite gains in acute survival among STEMI patients in cardiogenic shock, little attention has been paid to the risk of readmissions, according to Dr. Sud. According to data collected from the National Readmissions Database for 2010-2014, these rates are high enough to deserve attention, he said.
 

“Our goal is now to develop a scoring system based on our predictive model to identify patients at the index admission who are at risk for readmission,” Dr. Sud reported. On the basis of these predictors, it might be possible to implement strategies to optimize management and improve access to care.

In the years studied, there were 94,991 patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock captured in the National Readmissions Database, of whom 43,205 survived and were followed for readmission. Of the 5,503 readmissions within 30 days, 12% were considered unplanned.

Half of the readmissions were for noncardiovascular causes, including sepsis, respiratory failure, and major bleeding. Of those related to cardiovascular disease, about half, or nearly 25% of the total, were for heart failure.

The predictors of readmission included female sex, age older than 75 years, average length of stay longer than 10 days, and more than three comorbidities, such as diabetes or chronic kidney disease, according to Dr. Sud.

“Those sent home from the index admission were more likely than those discharged to an extended care facility to be readmitted,” he added. He also noted that lower socioeconomic status was a risk factor for readmission, a phenomenon that he attributed to access issues regarding follow-up care.

“We are now conducting a prospective study to look at readmissions at 6 months,” reported Dr. Sud, who believes that efforts to understand the risk of readmission following STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock might uncover opportunities for better management.

WASHINGTON – Of patients with ST-elevation MI (STEMI) complicated by cardiogenic shock, 13% are readmitted within 30 days and remain in hospital for an average of 6 days, according to an analysis from the National Readmission Database presented at CRT 2019 sponsored by MedStar Heart & Vascular Institute.

“About one in four of the readmissions was for heart failure,” reported Karan Sud, MD, a cardiology resident at the Mount Sinai St. Luke’s West Hospital, New York.

Despite gains in acute survival among STEMI patients in cardiogenic shock, little attention has been paid to the risk of readmissions, according to Dr. Sud. According to data collected from the National Readmissions Database for 2010-2014, these rates are high enough to deserve attention, he said.
 

“Our goal is now to develop a scoring system based on our predictive model to identify patients at the index admission who are at risk for readmission,” Dr. Sud reported. On the basis of these predictors, it might be possible to implement strategies to optimize management and improve access to care.

In the years studied, there were 94,991 patients with STEMI and cardiogenic shock captured in the National Readmissions Database, of whom 43,205 survived and were followed for readmission. Of the 5,503 readmissions within 30 days, 12% were considered unplanned.

Half of the readmissions were for noncardiovascular causes, including sepsis, respiratory failure, and major bleeding. Of those related to cardiovascular disease, about half, or nearly 25% of the total, were for heart failure.

The predictors of readmission included female sex, age older than 75 years, average length of stay longer than 10 days, and more than three comorbidities, such as diabetes or chronic kidney disease, according to Dr. Sud.

“Those sent home from the index admission were more likely than those discharged to an extended care facility to be readmitted,” he added. He also noted that lower socioeconomic status was a risk factor for readmission, a phenomenon that he attributed to access issues regarding follow-up care.

“We are now conducting a prospective study to look at readmissions at 6 months,” reported Dr. Sud, who believes that efforts to understand the risk of readmission following STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock might uncover opportunities for better management.

As artificial intelligence (AI) takes on more and more tasks in medical care that mimic human cognition, hospitalists and other physicians will need to adapt to a changing role.

Today AI can identify tuberculosis infections in chest radiographs with almost complete accuracy, diagnose melanoma from images of skin lesions more accurately than dermatologists can, and identify metastatic cells in images of lymph node tissue more accurately than pathologists can. The next 20 years are likely to see further acceleration in the capabilities, according to a recent article by S. Claiborne Johnston, MD, PhD.

“AI will change the practice of medicine. The art of medicine, including all the humanistic components, will only become more important over time. As dean of a medical school, I’m training students who will be practicing in 2065,” Dr. Johnston said. “If I’m not thinking about the future, I’m failing my students and the society they will serve.”

The contributions of AI will shift the emphasis for human caregivers to the caring. Studies have shown that the skills of caring are associated with improved patient outcomes, but most medical schools allocate substantial time in the curriculum to memorization and analysis – tasks that will become less demanding as artificial intelligence improves. The art of caring – communication, empathy, shared decision making, leadership, and team building – is usually a minor part of the medical school curriculum.

Effective leadership and creativity are distant aspirations for artificial intelligence but are growing needs in a system of care that is ever more complex.

At Dr. Johnston’s school, the Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin, they have reduced the duration of basic science instruction to 12 months and emphasized group problem solving, while deemphasizing memorization. This has freed up additional time for instruction in the art of caring, leadership, and creativity.

“Hospitalists should acknowledge the value of caring,” Dr. Johnston said. “They do it every day with every patient. It is important today, and will be more important tomorrow.”
 

Reference

Johnston SC. Anticipating and training the physician of the future: The importance of caring in an age of artificial intelligence. Acad Med. 2018;93(8):1105-6. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002175.

As artificial intelligence (AI) takes on more and more tasks in medical care that mimic human cognition, hospitalists and other physicians will need to adapt to a changing role.

Today AI can identify tuberculosis infections in chest radiographs with almost complete accuracy, diagnose melanoma from images of skin lesions more accurately than dermatologists can, and identify metastatic cells in images of lymph node tissue more accurately than pathologists can. The next 20 years are likely to see further acceleration in the capabilities, according to a recent article by S. Claiborne Johnston, MD, PhD.

“AI will change the practice of medicine. The art of medicine, including all the humanistic components, will only become more important over time. As dean of a medical school, I’m training students who will be practicing in 2065,” Dr. Johnston said. “If I’m not thinking about the future, I’m failing my students and the society they will serve.”

The contributions of AI will shift the emphasis for human caregivers to the caring. Studies have shown that the skills of caring are associated with improved patient outcomes, but most medical schools allocate substantial time in the curriculum to memorization and analysis – tasks that will become less demanding as artificial intelligence improves. The art of caring – communication, empathy, shared decision making, leadership, and team building – is usually a minor part of the medical school curriculum.

Effective leadership and creativity are distant aspirations for artificial intelligence but are growing needs in a system of care that is ever more complex.

At Dr. Johnston’s school, the Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin, they have reduced the duration of basic science instruction to 12 months and emphasized group problem solving, while deemphasizing memorization. This has freed up additional time for instruction in the art of caring, leadership, and creativity.

“Hospitalists should acknowledge the value of caring,” Dr. Johnston said. “They do it every day with every patient. It is important today, and will be more important tomorrow.”
 

Reference

Johnston SC. Anticipating and training the physician of the future: The importance of caring in an age of artificial intelligence. Acad Med. 2018;93(8):1105-6. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002175.

As artificial intelligence (AI) takes on more and more tasks in medical care that mimic human cognition, hospitalists and other physicians will need to adapt to a changing role.

Today AI can identify tuberculosis infections in chest radiographs with almost complete accuracy, diagnose melanoma from images of skin lesions more accurately than dermatologists can, and identify metastatic cells in images of lymph node tissue more accurately than pathologists can. The next 20 years are likely to see further acceleration in the capabilities, according to a recent article by S. Claiborne Johnston, MD, PhD.

“AI will change the practice of medicine. The art of medicine, including all the humanistic components, will only become more important over time. As dean of a medical school, I’m training students who will be practicing in 2065,” Dr. Johnston said. “If I’m not thinking about the future, I’m failing my students and the society they will serve.”

The contributions of AI will shift the emphasis for human caregivers to the caring. Studies have shown that the skills of caring are associated with improved patient outcomes, but most medical schools allocate substantial time in the curriculum to memorization and analysis – tasks that will become less demanding as artificial intelligence improves. The art of caring – communication, empathy, shared decision making, leadership, and team building – is usually a minor part of the medical school curriculum.

Effective leadership and creativity are distant aspirations for artificial intelligence but are growing needs in a system of care that is ever more complex.

At Dr. Johnston’s school, the Dell Medical School at the University of Texas at Austin, they have reduced the duration of basic science instruction to 12 months and emphasized group problem solving, while deemphasizing memorization. This has freed up additional time for instruction in the art of caring, leadership, and creativity.

“Hospitalists should acknowledge the value of caring,” Dr. Johnston said. “They do it every day with every patient. It is important today, and will be more important tomorrow.”
 

Reference

Johnston SC. Anticipating and training the physician of the future: The importance of caring in an age of artificial intelligence. Acad Med. 2018;93(8):1105-6. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002175.

Both CPR rates and survival rates increased after chest compression–only CPR was introduced as an alternative for bystanders witnessing a cardiac arrest, according to a Swedish study of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests and subsequent CPR.

© American Heart Association, Inc.

“These findings support continuous endorsement of chest compression–only CPR as an option in future CPR guidelines because it is associated with higher CPR rates and survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests,” wrote Gabriel Riva, MD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and his coauthors. The study was published in Circulation.

To determine changes in the rate and type of CPR performed before emergency medical services (EMS) arrival, the researchers compared all bystander-witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) reported in Sweden between 2000 and 2017. In all, 30,445 patients were included; the time periods compared were 2000-2005, 2006-2010, and 2011-2017. Patients were categorized as receiving either no CPR (NO-CPR), standard CPR (S-CPR), or chest compression–only CPR (CO-CPR). In 2005, CO-CPR was introduced in national CPR guidelines as an option for bystanders; in 2010, it was recommended for anyone untrained in CPR.

The proportion of patients who received CPR in general increased from 41% in 2000-2005 to 59% in 2006-2010 to 68% in 2011-2017. S-CPR changed from 35% to 45% to 38% over the three periods, while CO-CPR increased from 5% to 14% to 30%. In regard to 30-day survival rates, the S-CPR group saw an increase from 9% to 13% to 16% and the CO-CPR group increased from 8% to 12% to 14%, compared with 4% to 6% to 7% for the NO-CPR group.

The authors noted the limitations of their study, including the results being based on register data and therefore subject to misclassification and missing data. In addition, missing data negated any reporting on the neurological function of survivors; analyzing witnessed OHCAs only also meant the findings could not be validated for nonwitnessed OHCA.

The Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation funded the study. The authors made no disclosures.

SOURCE: Riva G et al. Circulation. 2019 Apr 1. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038179.

Both CPR rates and survival rates increased after chest compression–only CPR was introduced as an alternative for bystanders witnessing a cardiac arrest, according to a Swedish study of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests and subsequent CPR.

© American Heart Association, Inc.

“These findings support continuous endorsement of chest compression–only CPR as an option in future CPR guidelines because it is associated with higher CPR rates and survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests,” wrote Gabriel Riva, MD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and his coauthors. The study was published in Circulation.

To determine changes in the rate and type of CPR performed before emergency medical services (EMS) arrival, the researchers compared all bystander-witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) reported in Sweden between 2000 and 2017. In all, 30,445 patients were included; the time periods compared were 2000-2005, 2006-2010, and 2011-2017. Patients were categorized as receiving either no CPR (NO-CPR), standard CPR (S-CPR), or chest compression–only CPR (CO-CPR). In 2005, CO-CPR was introduced in national CPR guidelines as an option for bystanders; in 2010, it was recommended for anyone untrained in CPR.

The proportion of patients who received CPR in general increased from 41% in 2000-2005 to 59% in 2006-2010 to 68% in 2011-2017. S-CPR changed from 35% to 45% to 38% over the three periods, while CO-CPR increased from 5% to 14% to 30%. In regard to 30-day survival rates, the S-CPR group saw an increase from 9% to 13% to 16% and the CO-CPR group increased from 8% to 12% to 14%, compared with 4% to 6% to 7% for the NO-CPR group.

The authors noted the limitations of their study, including the results being based on register data and therefore subject to misclassification and missing data. In addition, missing data negated any reporting on the neurological function of survivors; analyzing witnessed OHCAs only also meant the findings could not be validated for nonwitnessed OHCA.

The Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation funded the study. The authors made no disclosures.

SOURCE: Riva G et al. Circulation. 2019 Apr 1. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038179.

Both CPR rates and survival rates increased after chest compression–only CPR was introduced as an alternative for bystanders witnessing a cardiac arrest, according to a Swedish study of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests and subsequent CPR.

© American Heart Association, Inc.

“These findings support continuous endorsement of chest compression–only CPR as an option in future CPR guidelines because it is associated with higher CPR rates and survival in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests,” wrote Gabriel Riva, MD, of the Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, and his coauthors. The study was published in Circulation.

To determine changes in the rate and type of CPR performed before emergency medical services (EMS) arrival, the researchers compared all bystander-witnessed out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) reported in Sweden between 2000 and 2017. In all, 30,445 patients were included; the time periods compared were 2000-2005, 2006-2010, and 2011-2017. Patients were categorized as receiving either no CPR (NO-CPR), standard CPR (S-CPR), or chest compression–only CPR (CO-CPR). In 2005, CO-CPR was introduced in national CPR guidelines as an option for bystanders; in 2010, it was recommended for anyone untrained in CPR.

The proportion of patients who received CPR in general increased from 41% in 2000-2005 to 59% in 2006-2010 to 68% in 2011-2017. S-CPR changed from 35% to 45% to 38% over the three periods, while CO-CPR increased from 5% to 14% to 30%. In regard to 30-day survival rates, the S-CPR group saw an increase from 9% to 13% to 16% and the CO-CPR group increased from 8% to 12% to 14%, compared with 4% to 6% to 7% for the NO-CPR group.

The authors noted the limitations of their study, including the results being based on register data and therefore subject to misclassification and missing data. In addition, missing data negated any reporting on the neurological function of survivors; analyzing witnessed OHCAs only also meant the findings could not be validated for nonwitnessed OHCA.

The Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation funded the study. The authors made no disclosures.

SOURCE: Riva G et al. Circulation. 2019 Apr 1. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038179.

Marina Farah, MD, MHA, and Kranthi Sitammagari, MD, editorial board members for The Hospitalist, discuss Day One highlights from HM19.

Vidyard Video

Marina Farah, MD, MHA, and Kranthi Sitammagari, MD, editorial board members for The Hospitalist, discuss Day One highlights from HM19.

Vidyard Video

Marina Farah, MD, MHA, and Kranthi Sitammagari, MD, editorial board members for The Hospitalist, discuss Day One highlights from HM19.

Vidyard Video

A 38-year-old man is admitted to the hospital with a painful, swollen left leg. This was not the first instance of this kind for him. He had been admitted for the same problem 3 months earlier. During the earlier admission, he was diagnosed with cellulitis and treated with intravenous cefazolin for 4 days, then discharged on cephalexin with resolution of his swelling and pain. Today, his blood pressure is 120/70, pulse is 90, temperature is 38.2°C, his left leg is edematous from the mid-calf to the ankle, and he has erythema and warmth over the calf. His white blood cell count is 13,000, and a diagnosis of cellulitis is made. Which of the following treatments is most likely to shorten his hospital stay?

Concheiro and colleagues did a retrospective study of 122 cases of cellulitis and found tinea pedis in 33% of the cases.⁶ Muller et al. studied the importance of toe web microorganisms and erysipelas and found that the presence of interdigital tinea pedis was correlated with recurrent infection.⁷ Treatment of tinea pedis is an easily modifiable risk factor in patients with recurrent cellulitis.

Pearls: Consider adding a short course of steroids in patients with more severe erysipelas/cellulitis, as it can decrease hospital stay and IV antibiotics.

Look for tinea pedis and treat if present in patients who have erysipelas/cellulitis.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Arch Intern Med. 2008 May 26;168(10):1034-46.

2. Scand J Infect Dis 1997;29(4):377-82.

3. Scand J Infect Dis. 1998;30(2):206-7.

4. Isr Med Assoc J. 2018 Mar;20(3):137-40.

5. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2004 Feb;2(2):89-95.

6. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2009 Dec;100(10):888-94.

7. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2014 Aug;12(8):691-5.

A 38-year-old man is admitted to the hospital with a painful, swollen left leg. This was not the first instance of this kind for him. He had been admitted for the same problem 3 months earlier. During the earlier admission, he was diagnosed with cellulitis and treated with intravenous cefazolin for 4 days, then discharged on cephalexin with resolution of his swelling and pain. Today, his blood pressure is 120/70, pulse is 90, temperature is 38.2°C, his left leg is edematous from the mid-calf to the ankle, and he has erythema and warmth over the calf. His white blood cell count is 13,000, and a diagnosis of cellulitis is made. Which of the following treatments is most likely to shorten his hospital stay?

Concheiro and colleagues did a retrospective study of 122 cases of cellulitis and found tinea pedis in 33% of the cases.⁶ Muller et al. studied the importance of toe web microorganisms and erysipelas and found that the presence of interdigital tinea pedis was correlated with recurrent infection.⁷ Treatment of tinea pedis is an easily modifiable risk factor in patients with recurrent cellulitis.

Pearls: Consider adding a short course of steroids in patients with more severe erysipelas/cellulitis, as it can decrease hospital stay and IV antibiotics.

Look for tinea pedis and treat if present in patients who have erysipelas/cellulitis.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Arch Intern Med. 2008 May 26;168(10):1034-46.

2. Scand J Infect Dis 1997;29(4):377-82.

3. Scand J Infect Dis. 1998;30(2):206-7.

4. Isr Med Assoc J. 2018 Mar;20(3):137-40.

5. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2004 Feb;2(2):89-95.

6. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2009 Dec;100(10):888-94.

7. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2014 Aug;12(8):691-5.

A 38-year-old man is admitted to the hospital with a painful, swollen left leg. This was not the first instance of this kind for him. He had been admitted for the same problem 3 months earlier. During the earlier admission, he was diagnosed with cellulitis and treated with intravenous cefazolin for 4 days, then discharged on cephalexin with resolution of his swelling and pain. Today, his blood pressure is 120/70, pulse is 90, temperature is 38.2°C, his left leg is edematous from the mid-calf to the ankle, and he has erythema and warmth over the calf. His white blood cell count is 13,000, and a diagnosis of cellulitis is made. Which of the following treatments is most likely to shorten his hospital stay?

Concheiro and colleagues did a retrospective study of 122 cases of cellulitis and found tinea pedis in 33% of the cases.⁶ Muller et al. studied the importance of toe web microorganisms and erysipelas and found that the presence of interdigital tinea pedis was correlated with recurrent infection.⁷ Treatment of tinea pedis is an easily modifiable risk factor in patients with recurrent cellulitis.

Pearls: Consider adding a short course of steroids in patients with more severe erysipelas/cellulitis, as it can decrease hospital stay and IV antibiotics.

Look for tinea pedis and treat if present in patients who have erysipelas/cellulitis.

Dr. Paauw is professor of medicine in the division of general internal medicine at the University of Washington, Seattle, and serves as third-year medical student clerkship director at the University of Washington. Contact Dr. Paauw at [email protected].

References

1. Arch Intern Med. 2008 May 26;168(10):1034-46.

2. Scand J Infect Dis 1997;29(4):377-82.

3. Scand J Infect Dis. 1998;30(2):206-7.

4. Isr Med Assoc J. 2018 Mar;20(3):137-40.

5. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2004 Feb;2(2):89-95.

6. Actas Dermosifiliogr. 2009 Dec;100(10):888-94.

7. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2014 Aug;12(8):691-5.

Starting April 1, 2019, intravenous artesunate will become the first-line treatment for malaria in the United States, following the discontinuation of quinidine, the only Food and Drug Administration–approved intravenous drug for severe malaria treatment.

Although artesunate is not approved or commercially available in the United States, it is recommended by the World Health Organization. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have made the drug available through an expanded use investigational new drug protocol, an FDA regulatory mechanism. Clinicians can obtain the medication through the CDC’s Malaria Hotline (770-488-7788); artesunate will be stocked at 10 quarantine stations and will be released to hospitals free of charge, according to a CDC announcement.

Clinical trials have illustrated that intravenous artesunate is safe, well tolerated, and can be administered even to infants, children, and pregnant women in the second and third trimester.

About 1,700 cases of malaria are reported in the United States per year, 300 of which are classified as severe. The CDC believes the supply of artesunate obtained will be sufficient to treat all cases of severe malaria in the country, according to a CDC press release.

[email protected]

Starting April 1, 2019, intravenous artesunate will become the first-line treatment for malaria in the United States, following the discontinuation of quinidine, the only Food and Drug Administration–approved intravenous drug for severe malaria treatment.

Although artesunate is not approved or commercially available in the United States, it is recommended by the World Health Organization. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have made the drug available through an expanded use investigational new drug protocol, an FDA regulatory mechanism. Clinicians can obtain the medication through the CDC’s Malaria Hotline (770-488-7788); artesunate will be stocked at 10 quarantine stations and will be released to hospitals free of charge, according to a CDC announcement.

Clinical trials have illustrated that intravenous artesunate is safe, well tolerated, and can be administered even to infants, children, and pregnant women in the second and third trimester.

About 1,700 cases of malaria are reported in the United States per year, 300 of which are classified as severe. The CDC believes the supply of artesunate obtained will be sufficient to treat all cases of severe malaria in the country, according to a CDC press release.

[email protected]

Starting April 1, 2019, intravenous artesunate will become the first-line treatment for malaria in the United States, following the discontinuation of quinidine, the only Food and Drug Administration–approved intravenous drug for severe malaria treatment.

Although artesunate is not approved or commercially available in the United States, it is recommended by the World Health Organization. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have made the drug available through an expanded use investigational new drug protocol, an FDA regulatory mechanism. Clinicians can obtain the medication through the CDC’s Malaria Hotline (770-488-7788); artesunate will be stocked at 10 quarantine stations and will be released to hospitals free of charge, according to a CDC announcement.

Clinical trials have illustrated that intravenous artesunate is safe, well tolerated, and can be administered even to infants, children, and pregnant women in the second and third trimester.

About 1,700 cases of malaria are reported in the United States per year, 300 of which are classified as severe. The CDC believes the supply of artesunate obtained will be sufficient to treat all cases of severe malaria in the country, according to a CDC press release.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – A novel targeted ticagrelor reversal agent demonstrated rapid and sustained reversal of the potent antiplatelet agent in a phase 1 proof-of-concept study, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

“Hopefully the FDA will view this as something that really is a breakthrough,” commented Dr. Bhatt, executive director of interventional cardiology programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard University, both in Boston.

Why a breakthrough? Because despite recent major advances in the ability to reverse the action of the direct-acting oral anticoagulants and thereby greatly improve their safety margin, there have been no parallel developments with regard to the potent antiplatelet agents ticagrelor (Brilinta), prasugrel (Effient), and clopidogrel. The effects of these antiplatelet drugs take 3-5 days to dissipate after they’ve been stopped, which is highly problematic when they’ve induced catastrophic bleeding or a patient requires emergent or urgent surgery, the cardiologist explained.

“The ability to reverse tigracelor’s antiplatelet effects rapidly could distinguish it from other antiplatelet agents such as prasugrel or even generic clopidogrel and, for that matter, even aspirin,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The ticagrelor reversal agent, known for now as PB2452, is an intravenously administered recombinant human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody antigen-binding fragment. It binds specifically and with high affinity to ticagrelor and its active metabolite. In the phase 1, placebo-controlled, double-blind study conducted in 64 healthy volunteers pretreated with ticagrelor for 48 hours, it reversed oral ticagrelor’s antiplatelet effects within 5 minutes and, with prolonged infusion, showed sustained effect for at least 20 hours.

The only adverse events observed in blinded assessment were minor injection site issues.

PB2452 is specific to ticagrelor and will not reverse the activity of other potent antiplatelet agents. Indeed, because of their chemical structure, neither prasugrel nor clopidogrel is reversible, according to Dr. Bhatt.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – A novel targeted ticagrelor reversal agent demonstrated rapid and sustained reversal of the potent antiplatelet agent in a phase 1 proof-of-concept study, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

“Hopefully the FDA will view this as something that really is a breakthrough,” commented Dr. Bhatt, executive director of interventional cardiology programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard University, both in Boston.

Why a breakthrough? Because despite recent major advances in the ability to reverse the action of the direct-acting oral anticoagulants and thereby greatly improve their safety margin, there have been no parallel developments with regard to the potent antiplatelet agents ticagrelor (Brilinta), prasugrel (Effient), and clopidogrel. The effects of these antiplatelet drugs take 3-5 days to dissipate after they’ve been stopped, which is highly problematic when they’ve induced catastrophic bleeding or a patient requires emergent or urgent surgery, the cardiologist explained.

“The ability to reverse tigracelor’s antiplatelet effects rapidly could distinguish it from other antiplatelet agents such as prasugrel or even generic clopidogrel and, for that matter, even aspirin,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The ticagrelor reversal agent, known for now as PB2452, is an intravenously administered recombinant human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody antigen-binding fragment. It binds specifically and with high affinity to ticagrelor and its active metabolite. In the phase 1, placebo-controlled, double-blind study conducted in 64 healthy volunteers pretreated with ticagrelor for 48 hours, it reversed oral ticagrelor’s antiplatelet effects within 5 minutes and, with prolonged infusion, showed sustained effect for at least 20 hours.

The only adverse events observed in blinded assessment were minor injection site issues.

PB2452 is specific to ticagrelor and will not reverse the activity of other potent antiplatelet agents. Indeed, because of their chemical structure, neither prasugrel nor clopidogrel is reversible, according to Dr. Bhatt.

[email protected]

NEW ORLEANS – A novel targeted ticagrelor reversal agent demonstrated rapid and sustained reversal of the potent antiplatelet agent in a phase 1 proof-of-concept study, Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, reported at the annual meeting of the American College of Cardiology.

“Hopefully the FDA will view this as something that really is a breakthrough,” commented Dr. Bhatt, executive director of interventional cardiology programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard University, both in Boston.

Why a breakthrough? Because despite recent major advances in the ability to reverse the action of the direct-acting oral anticoagulants and thereby greatly improve their safety margin, there have been no parallel developments with regard to the potent antiplatelet agents ticagrelor (Brilinta), prasugrel (Effient), and clopidogrel. The effects of these antiplatelet drugs take 3-5 days to dissipate after they’ve been stopped, which is highly problematic when they’ve induced catastrophic bleeding or a patient requires emergent or urgent surgery, the cardiologist explained.

“The ability to reverse tigracelor’s antiplatelet effects rapidly could distinguish it from other antiplatelet agents such as prasugrel or even generic clopidogrel and, for that matter, even aspirin,” Dr. Bhatt said.

The ticagrelor reversal agent, known for now as PB2452, is an intravenously administered recombinant human immunoglobulin G1 monoclonal antibody antigen-binding fragment. It binds specifically and with high affinity to ticagrelor and its active metabolite. In the phase 1, placebo-controlled, double-blind study conducted in 64 healthy volunteers pretreated with ticagrelor for 48 hours, it reversed oral ticagrelor’s antiplatelet effects within 5 minutes and, with prolonged infusion, showed sustained effect for at least 20 hours.

The only adverse events observed in blinded assessment were minor injection site issues.

PB2452 is specific to ticagrelor and will not reverse the activity of other potent antiplatelet agents. Indeed, because of their chemical structure, neither prasugrel nor clopidogrel is reversible, according to Dr. Bhatt.

[email protected]

MIAMI – High-fiber diets in the ICU were well tolerated and led to desirable shifts in the gut microbiome that correlated with decreased abdominal distension, according to the results of an observational cohort study.

“Higher fiber intake was associated with greater preservation of short-chain fatty acid–producing bacteria, even after we adjusted for antibiotics and acute severity of illness,” said Yichun Fu, a fourth-year medical student at Columbia University, New York, at the annual Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit.

She explained that, after 72 hours on the high-fiber diet, only 11% of patients had abdominal distension noted in their EMRs, compared with 36% of patients who received no dietary fiber (P less than .01). Fiber was not associated with bowel obstruction, high gastric residuals, enteric infections, edema, or diarrhea. She and her associates presented the findings in a poster at the meeting sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association and the European Society for Neurogastroenterology and Motility.

Dietary fiber is a prebiotic that increases the abundance of short-chain fatty acid (SCFA)–producing bacteria in the gut. Growing evidence links these bacteria and their metabolites – such as acetate, propionate, and butyrate – to immunomodulatory benefits and suggests that they help maintain gut barrier function, glucose homeostasis, adipose tissue lipolysis, and normal blood pressure. Thus, fiber for ICU patients might make sense, but relevant dietary guidelines rarely address the topic. In practice, fiber is often withheld in the ICU because of concerns that it might cause bloating or diarrhea, Ms. Fu said.

For the study, the researchers performed 16s ribosomal RNA sequencing on baseline and 72-hour rectal swabs collected from 129 consecutive adults newly admitted to the ICU. Patients were eligible for the study regardless of whether they received nothing by mouth, enteral feeding, or food by mouth. They were grouped in tertiles based on fiber intake over 72 hours, corrected by caloric intake. The resulting groups were dubbed “no fiber” (median and interquartile range, 0 grams), “low fiber” (median, 11.2 g; IQR, 3.8-18.2 g), and “high fiber” (median, 39.3 g; IQR, 4.7-50.2 g).

Patients in these three groups had a similar relative abundance of SCFA-producing bacteria at baseline. At 72 hours, the high-fiber group had a significantly greater relative abundance of SCFA producers than the no fiber group (P = .01). Compared with no fiber, high-fiber intake also correlated with significantly increased gut bacterial diversity (P = .04) and a lower relative abundance of Enterococcus bacteria (P less than .01). None of these measures differed significantly between the no-fiber and low-fiber groups.

The groups were demographically and clinically similar at baseline, except that the high-fiber group had lower Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV scores (P = .02) and was less likely to receive antibiotics, mechanical ventilation, hemodialysis, or vasopressors (P less than .01). After correcting for these differences, each 10-g increase in fiber intake over 72 hours correlated with a 0.3% median increase in the relative abundance of SCFA-producing bacteria (estimated IQR, 0.10%-0.46%; P less than .01).

“Fiber may be a simple candidate therapy for ICU patients,” the researchers concluded. The team is now designing a prospective, interventional study to further test whether fiber can modify the gut microbiome to benefit ICU patients, Ms. Fu explained.

Funders included the American Gastroenterological Association, the National Institutes of Health, and the Feldstein Medical Foundation. Ms. Fu reported no competing interests.

MIAMI – High-fiber diets in the ICU were well tolerated and led to desirable shifts in the gut microbiome that correlated with decreased abdominal distension, according to the results of an observational cohort study.

“Higher fiber intake was associated with greater preservation of short-chain fatty acid–producing bacteria, even after we adjusted for antibiotics and acute severity of illness,” said Yichun Fu, a fourth-year medical student at Columbia University, New York, at the annual Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit.

She explained that, after 72 hours on the high-fiber diet, only 11% of patients had abdominal distension noted in their EMRs, compared with 36% of patients who received no dietary fiber (P less than .01). Fiber was not associated with bowel obstruction, high gastric residuals, enteric infections, edema, or diarrhea. She and her associates presented the findings in a poster at the meeting sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association and the European Society for Neurogastroenterology and Motility.

Dietary fiber is a prebiotic that increases the abundance of short-chain fatty acid (SCFA)–producing bacteria in the gut. Growing evidence links these bacteria and their metabolites – such as acetate, propionate, and butyrate – to immunomodulatory benefits and suggests that they help maintain gut barrier function, glucose homeostasis, adipose tissue lipolysis, and normal blood pressure. Thus, fiber for ICU patients might make sense, but relevant dietary guidelines rarely address the topic. In practice, fiber is often withheld in the ICU because of concerns that it might cause bloating or diarrhea, Ms. Fu said.

For the study, the researchers performed 16s ribosomal RNA sequencing on baseline and 72-hour rectal swabs collected from 129 consecutive adults newly admitted to the ICU. Patients were eligible for the study regardless of whether they received nothing by mouth, enteral feeding, or food by mouth. They were grouped in tertiles based on fiber intake over 72 hours, corrected by caloric intake. The resulting groups were dubbed “no fiber” (median and interquartile range, 0 grams), “low fiber” (median, 11.2 g; IQR, 3.8-18.2 g), and “high fiber” (median, 39.3 g; IQR, 4.7-50.2 g).

Patients in these three groups had a similar relative abundance of SCFA-producing bacteria at baseline. At 72 hours, the high-fiber group had a significantly greater relative abundance of SCFA producers than the no fiber group (P = .01). Compared with no fiber, high-fiber intake also correlated with significantly increased gut bacterial diversity (P = .04) and a lower relative abundance of Enterococcus bacteria (P less than .01). None of these measures differed significantly between the no-fiber and low-fiber groups.

The groups were demographically and clinically similar at baseline, except that the high-fiber group had lower Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV scores (P = .02) and was less likely to receive antibiotics, mechanical ventilation, hemodialysis, or vasopressors (P less than .01). After correcting for these differences, each 10-g increase in fiber intake over 72 hours correlated with a 0.3% median increase in the relative abundance of SCFA-producing bacteria (estimated IQR, 0.10%-0.46%; P less than .01).

“Fiber may be a simple candidate therapy for ICU patients,” the researchers concluded. The team is now designing a prospective, interventional study to further test whether fiber can modify the gut microbiome to benefit ICU patients, Ms. Fu explained.

Funders included the American Gastroenterological Association, the National Institutes of Health, and the Feldstein Medical Foundation. Ms. Fu reported no competing interests.

MIAMI – High-fiber diets in the ICU were well tolerated and led to desirable shifts in the gut microbiome that correlated with decreased abdominal distension, according to the results of an observational cohort study.

“Higher fiber intake was associated with greater preservation of short-chain fatty acid–producing bacteria, even after we adjusted for antibiotics and acute severity of illness,” said Yichun Fu, a fourth-year medical student at Columbia University, New York, at the annual Gut Microbiota for Health World Summit.

She explained that, after 72 hours on the high-fiber diet, only 11% of patients had abdominal distension noted in their EMRs, compared with 36% of patients who received no dietary fiber (P less than .01). Fiber was not associated with bowel obstruction, high gastric residuals, enteric infections, edema, or diarrhea. She and her associates presented the findings in a poster at the meeting sponsored by the American Gastroenterological Association and the European Society for Neurogastroenterology and Motility.

Dietary fiber is a prebiotic that increases the abundance of short-chain fatty acid (SCFA)–producing bacteria in the gut. Growing evidence links these bacteria and their metabolites – such as acetate, propionate, and butyrate – to immunomodulatory benefits and suggests that they help maintain gut barrier function, glucose homeostasis, adipose tissue lipolysis, and normal blood pressure. Thus, fiber for ICU patients might make sense, but relevant dietary guidelines rarely address the topic. In practice, fiber is often withheld in the ICU because of concerns that it might cause bloating or diarrhea, Ms. Fu said.

For the study, the researchers performed 16s ribosomal RNA sequencing on baseline and 72-hour rectal swabs collected from 129 consecutive adults newly admitted to the ICU. Patients were eligible for the study regardless of whether they received nothing by mouth, enteral feeding, or food by mouth. They were grouped in tertiles based on fiber intake over 72 hours, corrected by caloric intake. The resulting groups were dubbed “no fiber” (median and interquartile range, 0 grams), “low fiber” (median, 11.2 g; IQR, 3.8-18.2 g), and “high fiber” (median, 39.3 g; IQR, 4.7-50.2 g).

Patients in these three groups had a similar relative abundance of SCFA-producing bacteria at baseline. At 72 hours, the high-fiber group had a significantly greater relative abundance of SCFA producers than the no fiber group (P = .01). Compared with no fiber, high-fiber intake also correlated with significantly increased gut bacterial diversity (P = .04) and a lower relative abundance of Enterococcus bacteria (P less than .01). None of these measures differed significantly between the no-fiber and low-fiber groups.

The groups were demographically and clinically similar at baseline, except that the high-fiber group had lower Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV scores (P = .02) and was less likely to receive antibiotics, mechanical ventilation, hemodialysis, or vasopressors (P less than .01). After correcting for these differences, each 10-g increase in fiber intake over 72 hours correlated with a 0.3% median increase in the relative abundance of SCFA-producing bacteria (estimated IQR, 0.10%-0.46%; P less than .01).

“Fiber may be a simple candidate therapy for ICU patients,” the researchers concluded. The team is now designing a prospective, interventional study to further test whether fiber can modify the gut microbiome to benefit ICU patients, Ms. Fu explained.

Funders included the American Gastroenterological Association, the National Institutes of Health, and the Feldstein Medical Foundation. Ms. Fu reported no competing interests.