Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Diaphragmatic paralysis can present with orthopnea. We report a unique presentation of bilateral diaphragmatic paralysis, an uncommon diagnosis secondary to an unusual cause, brachial plexitis. This report thoroughly describes the patient’s presentation, workup, management, and outcome. It also reviews the literature on diaphragmatic paralysis and Parsonage-Turner syndrome. Case presentation A 50-year-old male patient developed insidious orthopnea associated with left shoulder and neck pain over three months with no associated symptoms. On examination, marked dyspnea was observed when the patient was asked to lie down; breath sounds were present and symmetrical, and the neurological examination was normal. The chest radiograph showed an elevated right hemidiaphragm. Echocardiogram was normal. There was a 63% positional reduction in Forced Vital Capacity and maximal inspiratory and expiratory pressures on pulmonary function testing. The electromyogram was consistent with neuromuscular weakness involving both brachial plexus and diaphragmatic muscle (Parsonage and Turner syndrome). Conclusions Compared to unilateral, bilateral diaphragmatic paralysis may be more challenging to diagnose. On PFT, reduced maximal respiratory pressures, especially the maximal inspiratory pressure, are suggestive. Parsonage-Turner syndrome is rare, usually with unilateral diaphragmatic paralysis, but bilateral cases have been reported.

An increasing number of critically ill patients are immunocompromised. Acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (ARF), chiefly due to pulmonary infection, is the leading reason for ICU admission. Identifying the cause of ARF increases the chances of survival, but may be extremely challenging, as the underlying disease, treatments, and infection combine to create complex clinical pictures. In addition, there may be more than one infectious agent, and the pulmonary manifestations may be related to both infectious and non-infectious insults. Clinically or microbiologically documented bacterial pneumonia accounts for one-third of cases of ARF in immunocompromised patients. Early antibiotic therapy is recommended but decreases the chances of identifying the causative organism(s) to about 50%. Viruses are the second most common cause of severe respiratory infections. Positive tests for a virus in respiratory samples do not necessarily indicate a role for the virus in the current acute illness. Invasive fungal infections (Aspergillus, Mucorales, and Pneumocystis jirovecii) account for about 15% of severe respiratory infections, whereas parasites rarely cause severe acute infections in immunocompromised patients. This review focuses on the diagnosis of severe respiratory infections in immunocompromised patients. Special attention is given to newly validated diagnostic tests designed to be used on non-invasive samples or bronchoalveolar lavage fluid and capable of increasing the likelihood of an early etiological diagnosis.

Immunosuppressed patients, particularly those with cancer, represent a momentous and increasing portion of the population, especially as cancer incidence rises with population growth and aging. These patients are at a heightened risk of developing severe infections, including sepsis and septic shock, due to multiple immunologic defects such as neutropenia, lymphopenia, and T and B-cell impairment. The diverse and complex nature of these immunologic profiles, compounded by the concomitant use of immunosuppressive therapies (e.g., corticosteroids, cytotoxic drugs, and immunotherapy), superimposed by the breakage of natural protective barriers (e.g., mucosal damage, chronic indwelling catheters, and alterations of anatomical structures), increases the risk of various infections. These and other conditions that mimic sepsis pose substantial diagnostic and therapeutic challenges. Factors that elevate the risk of progression to septic shock in these patients include advanced age, pre-existing comorbidities, frailty, type of cancer, the severity of immunosuppression, hypoalbuminemia, hypophosphatemia, Gram-negative bacteremia, and type and timing of responses to initial treatment. The management of vulnerable cancer patients with sepsis or septic shock varies due to biased clinical practices that may result in delayed access to intensive care and worse outcomes. While septic shock is typically associated with poor outcomes in patients with malignancies, survival has significantly improved over time. Therefore, understanding and addressing the unique needs of cancer patients through a new paradigm, which includes the integration of innovative technologies into our healthcare system (e.g., wireless technologies, medical informatics, precision medicine), targeted management strategies, and robust clinical practices, including early identification and diagnosis, coupled with prompt admission to high-level care facilities that promote a multidisciplinary approach, is crucial for improving their prognosis and overall survival rates. Graphical abstract

In this narrative review, we discuss the relevant issues of therapeutic plasma exchange (TPE) in critically ill patients. For many conditions, the optimal indication, device type, frequency, duration, type of replacement fluid and criteria for stopping TPE are uncertain. TPE is a potentially lifesaving but also invasive procedure with risk of adverse events and complications and requires close monitoring by experienced teams. In the intensive care unit (ICU), the indications for TPE can be divided into (1) absolute, well-established, and evidence-based, for which TPE is recognized as first-line therapy, (2) relative, for which TPE is a recognized second-line treatment (alone or combined) and (3) rescue therapy, where TPE is used with a limited or theoretical evidence base. New indications are emerging and ongoing knowledge gaps, notably regarding the use of TPE during critical illness, support the establishment of a TPE registry dedicated to intensive care medicine.

Over the coming years, accelerating progress against cancer will be associated with an increased number of patients who require life-sustaining therapies for infectious or toxic chemotherapy-related events. Major changes include increased number of cancer patients admitted to the ICU with full-code status or for time-limited trials, increased survival and quality of life in ICU survivors, changing prognostic factors, early ICU admission for optimal monitoring, and use of noninvasive diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. In this review, experts in the management of critically ill cancer patients highlight recent changes in the use and the results of intensive care in patients with malignancies. They seek to put forward a standard of care for the management of these patients and highlight important updates that are required to care for them. The research agenda they suggest includes important studies to be conducted in the next few years to increase our understanding of organ dysfunction in this population and to improve our ability to appropriately use life-saving therapies or select new therapeutic approaches that are likely to improve outcomes. This review aims to provide more guidance for the daily management of patients with cancer, in whom outcomes are constantly improving, as is our global ability to fight against what is becoming the leading cause of mortality in industrialized and non-industrialized countries.

Background In immunocompromised patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (ARF), initial management aims primarily to avoid invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Methods To assess the impact of initial management on IMV and mortality rates, we performed a multinational observational prospective cohort study in 16 countries (68 centers). Results A total of 1611 patients were enrolled (hematological malignancies 51.9%, solid tumors 35.2%, systemic diseases 17.3%, and solid organ transplantation 8.8%). The main ARF etiologies were bacterial (29.5%), viral (15.4%), and fungal infections (14.7%), or undetermined (13.2%). On admission, 915 (56.8%) patients were not intubated. They received standard oxygen ( N  = 496, 53.9%), high-flow oxygen (HFNC, N  = 187, 20.3%), noninvasive ventilation (NIV, N  = 153, 17.2%), and NIV + HFNC ( N  = 79, 8.6%). Factors associated with IMV included age (hazard ratio = 0.92/year, 95% CI 0.86–0.99), day-1 SOFA (1.09/point, 1.06–1.13), day-1 PaO 2 /FiO 2 (1.47, 1.05–2.07), ARF etiology ( Pneumocystis jirovecii pneumonia (2.11, 1.42–3.14), invasive pulmonary aspergillosis (1.85, 1.21–2.85), and undetermined cause (1.46, 1.09–1.98). After propensity score matching, HFNC, but not NIV, had an effect on IMV rate (HR = 0.77, 95% CI 0.59–1.00, p  = 0.05). ICU, hospital, and day-90 mortality rates were 32.4, 44.1, and 56.4%, respectively. Factors independently associated with hospital mortality included age (odds ratio = 1.18/year, 1.09–1.27), direct admission to the ICU (0.69, 0.54–0.87), day-1 SOFA excluding respiratory score (1.12/point, 1.08–1.16), PaO 2 /FiO 2  < 100 (1.60, 1.03–2.48), and undetermined ARF etiology (1.43, 1.04–1.97). Initial oxygenation strategy did not affect mortality; however, IMV was associated with mortality, the odds ratio depending on IMV conditions: NIV + HFNC failure (2.31, 1.09–4.91), first-line IMV (2.55, 1.94–3.29), NIV failure (3.65, 2.05–6.53), standard oxygen failure (4.16, 2.91–5.93), and HFNC failure (5.54, 3.27–9.38). Conclusion HFNC has an effect on intubation but not on mortality rates. Failure to identify ARF etiology is associated with higher rates of both intubation and mortality. This suggests that in addition to selecting the appropriate oxygenation device, clinicians should strive to identify the etiology of ARF.

Thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura (TTP) is fatal in 90% of patients if left untreated and must be diagnosed early to optimize patient outcomes. However, the very low incidence of TTP is an obstacle to the development of evidence-based clinical practice recommendations, and the very wide variability in survival rates across centers may be partly ascribable to differences in management strategies due to insufficient guidance. We therefore developed an expert statement to provide trustworthy guidance about the management of critically ill patients with TTP. As strong evidence was difficult to find in the literature, consensus building among experts could not be reported for most of the items. This expert statement is timely given the recent advances in the treatment of TTP, such as the use of rituximab and of the recently licensed drug caplacizumab, whose benefits will be maximized if the other components of the management strategy follow a standardized pattern. Finally, unanswered questions are identified as topics of future research on TTP.

To assess the efficacy and safety of lenzilumab in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and risk factors for poor outcomes were treated with lenzilumab 600 mg intravenously for three doses through an emergency single-use investigational new drug application. Patient characteristics, clinical and laboratory outcomes, and adverse events were recorded. We also identified a cohort of patients matched to the lenzilumab patients for age, sex, and disease severity. Study dates were March 13, 2020, to June 18, 2020. All patients were followed through hospital discharge or death. Twelve patients were treated with lenzilumab; 27 patients comprised the matched control cohort (untreated). Clinical improvement, defined as improvement of at least 2 points on the 8-point ordinal clinical endpoints scale, was observed in 11 of 12 (91.7%) patients treated with lenzilumab and 22 of 27 (81.5%) untreated patients. The time to clinical improvement was significantly shorter for the lenzilumab-treated group compared with the untreated cohort with a median of 5 days versus 11 days (P=.006). Similarly, the proportion of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (oxygen saturation/fraction of inspired oxygen<315 mm Hg) was significantly reduced over time when treated with lenzilumab compared with untreated (P<.001). Significant improvement in inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein and interleukin 6) and markers of disease severity (absolute lymphocyte count) were observed in patients who received lenzilumab, but not in untreated patients. Cytokine analysis showed a reduction in inflammatory myeloid cells 2 days after lenzilumab treatment. There were no treatment-emergent adverse events attributable to lenzilumab. In high-risk COVID-19 patients with severe pneumonia, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor neutralization with lenzilumab was safe and associated with faster improvement in clinical outcomes, including oxygenation, and greater reductions in inflammatory markers compared with a matched control cohort of patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial to validate these findings is ongoing (NCT04351152).

PurposeOur study aimed to provide consensus and expert clinical practice statements related to airway management in critically ill adults with a physiologically difficult airway (PDA).MethodsAn international Steering Committee involving seven intensivists and one Delphi methodology expert was convened by the Society of Critical Care Anaesthesiologists (SOCCA) Physiologically Difficult Airway Task Force. The committee selected an international panel of 35 expert clinician–researchers with expertise in airway management in critically ill adults. A Delphi process based on an iterative approach was used to obtain the final consensus statements.ResultsThe Delphi process included seven survey rounds. A stable consensus was achieved for 53 (87%) out of 61 statements. The experts agreed that in addition to pathophysiological conditions, physiological alterations associated with pregnancy and obesity also constitute a physiologically difficult airway. They suggested having an intubation team consisting of at least three healthcare providers including two airway operators, implementing an appropriately designed checklist, and optimizing hemodynamics prior to tracheal intubation. Similarly, the experts agreed on the head elevated laryngoscopic position, routine use of videolaryngoscopy during the first attempt, preoxygenation with non-invasive ventilation, careful mask ventilation during the apneic phase, and attention to cardiorespiratory status for post-intubation care.ConclusionUsing a Delphi method, agreement among a panel of international experts was reached for 53 statements providing guidance to clinicians worldwide on safe tracheal intubation practices in patients with a physiologically difficult airway to help improve patient outcomes. Well-designed studies are needed to assess the effects of these practice statements and address the remaining uncertainties.