Patient- and family-centered care-focused interventions resulted in decreased ICU length of stay but not mortality. A wide range of interventions were also associated with improvements in many patient- and family-important outcomes. Additional high-quality interventional studies are needed to further evaluate the effectiveness of patient- and family-centered care in the intensive care setting.

No abstract

Key Points Question Are intensive care unit-based interventions aimed at surrogate decision-makers associated with differences in patient-centered outcomes and improved surrogate decision-maker–centered outcomes? Findings In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 13 randomized clinical trials including 10 453 patients, diverse interventions were associated with a 2-day reduction in intensive care unit length of stay only among patients who died, without an association with overall mortality. Associations between these interventions and surrogate decision-maker–related outcomes were inconsistent. Meaning Intensive care unit-based interventions aimed at improving surrogate decision-making may lead to shorter intensive care unit stays in dying critically ill patients.

Purpose: We aimed to determine the association between sepsis and long-term cardiovascular events. Methods:We conducted a systematic review of observational studies evaluating post-sepsis cardiovascular outcomes in adult sepsis survivors. MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from inception until April 21st, 2021. Two reviewers independently extracted individual study data and evaluated risk of bias. Random-effects models estimated the pooled crude cumulative incidence and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) of cardiovascular events compared to either non-septic hospital survivors or population controls. Primary outcomes included myocardial infarction, stroke, and congestive heart failure; outcomes were analysed at maximum reported follow-up (from 30 days to beyond 5 years post-discharge).Results: Of 12,649 screened citations, 27 studies (25 cohort studies, 2 case-crossover studies) were included with a median of 4,289 (IQR 502-68,125) sepsis survivors and 18,399 (IQR 4,506) controls per study. The pooled cumulative incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, and heart failure in sepsis survivors ranged from 3 to 9% at longest reported follow-up. Sepsis was associated with a higher long-term risk of myocardial infarction (aHR 1.77 [95% CI 1.26 to 2.48]; low certainty), stroke (aHR 1.67 [95% CI 1.37 to 2.05]; low certainty), and congestive heart failure (aHR 1.65 [95% CI 1.46 to 1.86]; very low certainty) compared to non-sepsis controls.Conclusions: Surviving sepsis may be associated with a long-term, excess hazard of late cardiovascular events which may persist for at least 5 years following hospital discharge.

A growing number of complex older adults are referred for electrophysiological conditions and age alone is insufficient to guide management decisions such as implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation or atrial fibrillation anticoagulation. The concept of frailty has emerged as a geriatric vital sign to gain insight into physiological reserve and prognostic risk beyond chronological age and comorbidities. To date, a number of published studies have evaluated frailty in patients with electrophysiological conditions. These studies collectively demonstrate that frail patients have an increased prevalence of atrial fibrillation, lower use of oral anticoagulation, higher risk of bleeding complications from oral anticoagulation, and higher risk of stroke and mortality. A paucity of studies have explored frailty in the setting of device implantation, with a signal suggesting that frail heart failure patients may have a lower likelihood of being considered for ICD and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices, and a higher risk of fatal and nonfatal events after ICD and cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation. Whether frailty modulates the risks and benefits of these devices is a critical knowledge gap for which further study is clearly warranted. (J Am Coll Cardiol EP 2016;2:288-94)