Browsing by Author "Parhar, Ken K. S."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Endotyping in ARDS: one step forward in precision medicine
    (2024-05-14) Côté, Andréanne; Lee, Chel H.; Metwaly, Sayed M.; Doig, Christopher J.; Andonegui, Graciela; Yipp, Bryan G.; Parhar, Ken K. S.; Winston, Brent W.
    Abstract Background The Berlin definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) includes only clinical characteristics. Understanding unique patient pathobiology may allow personalized treatment. We aimed to define and describe ARDS phenotypes/endotypes combining clinical and pathophysiologic parameters from a Canadian ARDS cohort. Methods A cohort of adult ARDS patients from multiple sites in Calgary, Canada, had plasma cytokine levels and clinical parameters measured in the first 24 h of ICU admission. We used a latent class model (LCM) to group the patients into several ARDS subgroups and identified the features differentiating those subgroups. We then discuss the subgroup effect on 30 day mortality. Results The LCM suggested three subgroups (n1 = 64, n2 = 86, and n3 = 30), and 23 out of 69 features made these subgroups distinct. The top five discriminating features were IL-8, IL-6, IL-10, TNF-a, and serum lactate. Mortality distinctively varied between subgroups. Individual clinical characteristics within the subgroup associated with mortality included mean PaO2/FiO2 ratio, pneumonia, platelet count, and bicarbonate negatively associated with mortality, while lactate, creatinine, shock, chronic kidney disease, vasopressor/ionotropic use, low GCS at admission, and sepsis were positively associated. IL-8 and Apache II were individual markers strongly associated with mortality (Area Under the Curve = 0.84). Perspective ARDS subgrouping using biomarkers and clinical characteristics is useful for categorizing a heterogeneous condition into several homogenous patient groups. This study found three ARDS subgroups using LCM; each subgroup has a different level of mortality. This model may also apply to developing further trial design, prognostication, and treatment selection.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Impact of restricted family presence during the COVID-19 pandemic on critically ill patients, families, and critical care clinicians: a qualitative systematic review
    (2024-08-15) Krewulak, Karla D.; Jaworska, Natalia; Lee, Laurie; Louis, Julia S.; Dmitrieva, Olesya; Leia, Madison P.; Doig, Christopher; Niven, Daniel J.; Parhar, Ken K. S.; Rochwerg, Bram; West, Andrew; Stelfox, Henry T.; Leigh, Jeanna P.; Fiest, Kirsten M.
    Abstract Background We aimed to synthesize the qualitative evidence on the impacts of COVID-19-related restricted family presence policies from the perspective of patients, families, and healthcare professionals from neonatal (NICU), pediatric (PICU), or adult ICUs. Methods We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Databases of Reviews and Clinical Trials, CINAHL, Scopus, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Two researchers independently reviewed titles/abstracts and full-text articles for inclusion. Thematic analysis was completed following appraising article quality and assessing confidence in the individual review findings using standardized tools. Results We synthesized 54 findings from 184 studies, revealing the impacts of these policies in children and adults on: (1) Family integrated care and patient and family-centered care (e.g., disruption to breastfeeding/kangaroo care, dehumanizing of patients); (2) Patients, families, and healthcare professionals (e.g., negative mental health consequences, moral distress); (3) Support systems (e.g., loss of support from friends/families); and (4) Relationships (e.g., loss of essential bonding with infant, struggle to develop trust). Strategies to mitigate these impacts are reported. Conclusion This review highlights the multifaceted impacts of restricted visitation policies across distinct care settings and strategies to mitigate the harmful effects of these policies and guide the creation of compassionate family presence policies in future health crises. Registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=290263 .
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Restricted visitation policies in acute care settings during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review
    (2021-09-25) Moss, Stephana J.; Krewulak, Karla D.; Stelfox, Henry T.; Ahmed, Sofia B.; Anglin, Melanie C.; Bagshaw, Sean M.; Burns, Karen E. A.; Cook, Deborah J.; Doig, Christopher J.; Fox-Robichaud, Alison; Fowler, Robert; Hernández, Laura; Kho, Michelle E.; Kredentser, Maia; Makuk, Kira; Murthy, Srinivas; Niven, Daniel J.; Olafson, Kendiss; Parhar, Ken K. S.; Patten, Scott B.; Rewa, Oleksa G.; Rochwerg, Bram; Sept, Bonnie; Soo, Andrea; Spence, Krista; Spence, Sean; Straus, Sharon; West, Andrew; Parsons Leigh, Jeanna; Fiest, Kirsten M.
    Abstract Background Restricted visitation policies in acute care settings because of the COVID-19 pandemic have negative consequences. The objective of this scoping review is to identify impacts of restricted visitation policies in acute care settings, and describe perspectives and mitigation approaches among patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Methods We searched Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Healthstar, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials on January 01/2021, unrestricted, for published primary research records reporting any study design. We included secondary (e.g., reviews) and non-research records (e.g., commentaries), and performed manual searches in web-based resources. We excluded records that did not report primary data. Two reviewers independently abstracted data in duplicate. Results Of 7810 citations, we included 155 records. Sixty-six records (43%) were primary research; 29 (44%) case reports or case series, and 26 (39%) cohort studies; 21 (14%) were literature reviews and 8 (5%) were expert recommendations; 54 (35%) were commentary, editorial, or opinion pieces. Restricted visitation policies impacted coping and daily function (n = 31, 20%) and mental health outcomes (n = 29, 19%) of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Participants described a need for coping and support (n = 107, 69%), connection and communication (n = 107, 69%), and awareness of state of well-being (n = 101, 65%). Eighty-seven approaches to mitigate impact of restricted visitation were identified, targeting families (n = 61, 70%), patients (n = 51, 59%), and healthcare professionals (n = 40, 46%). Conclusions Patients, families, and healthcare professionals were impacted by restricted visitation polices in acute care settings during COVID-19. The consequences of this approach on patients and families are understudied and warrant evaluation of approaches to mitigate their impact. Future pandemic policy development should include the perspectives of patients, families, and healthcare professionals. Trial registration: The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020221662) and a protocol peer-reviewed prior to data extraction.