Deborah J. Cook

Bio: Deborah J. Cook is an academic researcher from McMaster University. The author has contributed to research in topics: Intensive care & Intensive care unit. The author has an hindex of 173, co-authored 907 publications receiving 148928 citations. Previous affiliations of Deborah J. Cook include McMaster University Medical Centre & Queen's University.

TryCYCLE: A Prospective Study of the Safety and Feasibility of Early In-Bed Cycling in Mechanically Ventilated Patients.

Abstract: Introduction The objective of this study was to assess the safety and feasibility of in-bed cycling started within the first 4 days of mechanical ventilation (MV) to inform a future randomized clinical trial. Methods We conducted a 33-patient prospective cohort study in a 21-bed adult academic medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) in Hamilton, ON, Canada. We included adult patients (≥ 18 years) receiving MV who walked independently pre-ICU. Our intervention was 30 minutes of in-bed supine cycling 6 days/week in the ICU. Our primary outcome was Safety (termination), measured as events prompting cycling termination; secondary Safety (disconnection or dislodgement) outcomes included catheter/tube dislodgements. Feasibility was measured as consent rate and fidelity to intervention. For our primary outcome, we calculated the binary proportion and 95% confidence interval (CI). Results From 10/2013-8/2014, we obtained consent from 34 of 37 patients approached (91.9%), 33 of whom received in-bed cycling. Of those who cycled, 16(48.4%) were female, the mean (SD) age was 65.8(12.2) years, and APACHE II score was 24.3(6.7); 29(87.9%) had medical admitting diagnoses. Cycling termination was infrequent (2.0%, 95% CI: 0.8%-4.9%) and no device dislodgements occurred. Cycling began a median [IQR] of 3 [2, 4] days after ICU admission; patients received 5 [3, 8] cycling sessions with a median duration of 30.7 [21.6, 30.8] minutes per session. During 205 total cycling sessions, patients were receiving invasive MV (150 [73.1%]), vasopressors (6 [2.9%]), sedative or analgesic infusions (77 [37.6%]) and dialysis (4 [2.0%]). Conclusions Early cycling within the first 4 days of MV among hemodynamically stable patients is safe and feasible. Research to evaluate the effect of early cycling on patient function is warranted. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01885442

Dying in the ICU: strategies that may improve end-of-life care.

Abstract: Purpose Since 10 to 20% of adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) in Canada die, addressing the needs of dying critically ill patients is of paramount importance. The purpose ofthis article is to suggest some strategies to consider to improve the care of patients dying in the ICU.

Analgesic, sedative, antipsychotic, and neuromuscular blocker use in Canadian intensive care units: a prospective, multicentre, observational study Utilisation des analgésiques, sédatifs, antipsychotiques et bloqueurs neuromusculaires dans les unités de soins intensifs canadiennes: étude observationnelle prospective, multicentrique

Abstract: Purpose Our aim was to describe analgo-sedation and antipsychotic and neuromuscular blocking drug (NMBD) use in critically ill patients, management strategies, and variables associated with these practice patterns. Methods This prospective observational study in 51 intensive care units (ICUs) included all patients who underwent invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) over a two-week period during 2008-2009. Results We included 712 patients representing 3,620 patient-days. Median MV duration was 3.0 days (interquartile range 2-6). During MV, 92% of patients received analgo-sedation, 32% an adjunct agent (e.g., acetaminophen), 18% NMBDs, and 10% antipsychotics. Opioids were used more frequently than benzodiazepines or propofol (84.8% vs 62.2% vs 10.1% patients, respectively, P \ 0.0001). Independent predictors of opioid and benzodiazepine use were a longer MV duration, assessment scales, physical restraints, and university-affiliated hospital. Although more than 50% of ICUs reported that assessment tools, protocols, and daily sedation interruption (DSI) were available for use, application was modest: sedation scale 53.0%, pain scale 19.1%, delirium scale 5.2%, protocol 25.0%, DSI 42.1%. Accidental device removal occurred in 4.6% of patients, with 75.8% of events during DSI. Daily sedation interruption was associated with protocol use, physical restraints, university-affiliated hospital, and short-duration MV. Variables associated with protocol use included This article is accompanied by an editorial. Please see Can J Anesth 2014; 61: this issue. Author contributions Lisa D. Burry designed the study; participated in the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data; wrote the manuscript and gave final approval of the version to be published. David R. Williamson and Marc M. Perreault participated in the acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data; participated in writing the manuscript; critically revised the manuscript and gave final approval of the version to be published. Louise Rose, Deborah J. Cook, and Niall D. Ferguson participated in interpretation of data, critically revised the manuscript and gave final approval of the version to be published. Stephanie C. Lapinsky participated in the acquisition and interpretation of data and gave final approval of the version to be published. Sangeeta Mehta designed the study; participated in the analysis and interpretation of data, critically revised the manuscript; and gave final approval of the version to be published. L. D. Burry, PharmD (&) Department of Pharmacy, Mount Sinai Hospital, University of Toronto, Rm. #18-366, 600 University Ave, Toronto, ON M5G 1X5, Canada e-mail: lburry@mtsinai.on.ca D. R. Williamson, MSc Faculty of Pharmacy, Hopital du Sacre-Coeur, Universite de Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada M. M. Perreault, PharmD McGill University Health Center, and Faculty of Pharmacy, Universite de Montreal, Montreal, QC, Canada L. Rose, PhD Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada 123 Can J Anesth/J Can Anesth (2014) 61:619–630 DOI 10.1007/s12630-014-0174-1

Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation: a utilization review of use in a teaching hospital

Abstract: Background: The use of noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIPPV) for acute respiratory failure (ARF) has become more widespread over the past decade, but its prescription, use and outcomes in the clinical setting remain uncertain. The objective of this study was to review the use of NIPPV for ARF with respect to clinical indications, physician ordering, monitoring strategies and patient outcomes.

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

Abstract: David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews. Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7 In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1). Box 1 Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA

Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses

Abstract: Cochrane Reviews have recently started including the quantity I 2 to help readers assess the consistency of the results of studies in meta-analyses. What does this new quantity mean, and why is assessment of heterogeneity so important to clinical practice? Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can provide convincing and reliable evidence relevant to many aspects of medicine and health care.1 Their value is especially clear when the results of the studies they include show clinically important effects of similar magnitude. However, the conclusions are less clear when the included studies have differing results. In an attempt to establish whether studies are consistent, reports of meta-analyses commonly present a statistical test of heterogeneity. The test seeks to determine whether there are genuine differences underlying the results of the studies (heterogeneity), or whether the variation in findings is compatible with chance alone (homogeneity). However, the test is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta-analysis. We have developed a new quantity, I 2, which we believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis. Assessment of the consistency of effects across studies is an essential part of meta-analysis. Unless we know how consistent the results of studies are, we cannot determine the generalisability of the findings of the meta-analysis. Indeed, several hierarchical systems for grading evidence state that the results of studies must be consistent or homogeneous to obtain the highest grading.2–4 Tests for heterogeneity are commonly used to decide on methods for combining studies and for concluding consistency or inconsistency of findings.5 6 But what does the test achieve in practice, and how should the resulting P values be interpreted? A test for heterogeneity examines the null hypothesis that all studies are evaluating the same effect. The usual test statistic …