Explore the vast range of titles available.

In a randomized trial, 506 patients requiring perioperative hemodynamic support after cardiac surgery were assigned to receive levosimendan or placebo in addition to standard care. There was no significant between-group difference in 30-day mortality. Every year, more than 1 million patients undergo cardiac surgery in the United States and Europe. 1 Acute perioperative left ventricular dysfunction is a major complication affecting up to 20% of such patients 2 , 3 and is associated with increased mortality. 4 Inotropic drugs (catecholamines and phosphodiesterase type 3 [PDE-3] inhibitors) are the cornerstone of postoperative hemodynamic support. 3 , 5 However, no randomized, controlled trials have shown the superiority of any inotropic agent in terms of major clinical outcomes. Furthermore, meta-analyses and observational studies suggest that catecholamines and PDE-3 inhibitors may increase mortality. 6 , 7 Levosimendan (Simdax, Orion) is an inotropic agent that has been . . .

In a randomized trial, 5400 patients scheduled to undergo CABG were assigned either to an anesthetic regimen that included a volatile anesthetic or to total intravenous anesthesia. At 1 year, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the number of deaths from any cause.

[...]it should be considered that the ISTH SSC on Fibrinolysis group has identified several technical pitfalls detected in current studies on D-dimer in COVID-19 cases. [...]D-Dimer guided-anticoagulation management does not seem supported enough by evidence-based recommendations. Rights and permissions Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.

Purpose To evaluate the daily values and trends over time of relevant clinical, ventilatory and laboratory parameters during the intensive care unit (ICU) stay and their association with outcome in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19). Methods In this retrospective–prospective multicentric study, we enrolled COVID-19 patients admitted to Italian ICUs from February 22 to May 31, 2020. Clinical data were daily recorded. The time course of 18 clinical parameters was evaluated by a polynomial maximum likelihood multilevel linear regression model, while a full joint modeling was fit to study the association with ICU outcome. Results 1260 consecutive critically ill patients with COVID-19 admitted in 24 ICUs were enrolled. 78% were male with a median age of 63 [55–69] years. At ICU admission, the median ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen (PaO 2 /FiO 2 ) was 122 [89–175] mmHg. 79% of patients underwent invasive mechanical ventilation. The overall mortality was 34%. Both the daily values and trends of respiratory system compliance, PaO 2 /FiO 2 , driving pressure, arterial carbon dioxide partial pressure, creatinine, C-reactive protein, ferritin, neutrophil, neutrophil–lymphocyte ratio, and platelets were associated with survival, while for lactate, pH, bilirubin, lymphocyte, and urea only the daily values were associated with survival. The trends of PaO 2 /FiO 2 , respiratory system compliance, driving pressure, creatinine, ferritin, and C-reactive protein showed a higher association with survival compared to the daily values. Conclusion Daily values or trends over time of parameters associated with acute organ dysfunction, acid–base derangement, coagulation impairment, or systemic inflammation were associated with patient survival.

Background Diaphragmatic dysfunction is a major factor responsible for weaning failure in patients that underwent prolonged invasive mechanical ventilation for acute severe respiratory failure from COVID-19. This study hypothesizes that ultrasound measured diaphragmatic thickening fraction (DTF) could provide corroborating information for weaning COVID-19 patients from mechanical ventilation. Methods This was an observational, pragmatic, cross-section, multicenter study in 6 Italian intensive care units. DTF was assessed in COVID-19 patients undergoing weaning from mechanical ventilation from 1st March 2020 to 30th June 2021. Primary aim was to evaluate whether DTF is a predictive factor for weaning failure. Results Fifty-seven patients were enrolled, 25 patients failed spontaneous breathing trial (44%). Median length of invasive ventilation was 14 days (IQR 7–22). Median DTF within 24 h since the start of weaning was 28% (IQR 22–39%), RASS score (− 2 vs − 2; p = 0.031); Kelly-Matthay score (2 vs 1; p = 0.002); inspiratory oxygen fraction (0.45 vs 0.40; p = 0.033). PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio was lower (176 vs 241; p = 0.032) and length of intensive care stay was longer (27 vs 16.5 days; p = 0.025) in patients who failed weaning. The generalized linear regression model did not select any variables that could predict weaning failure. DTF was correlated with pH (RR 1.56 × 10 27 ; p = 0.002); Kelly-Matthay score (RR 353; p < 0.001); RASS (RR 2.11; p = 0.003); PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio (RR 1.03; p = 0.05); SAPS2 (RR 0.71; p = 0.005); hospital and ICU length of stay (RR 1.22 and 0.79, respectively; p < 0.001 and p = 0.004). Conclusions DTF in COVID-19 patients was not predictive of weaning failure from mechanical ventilation, and larger studies are needed to evaluate it in clinical practice further. Registered: ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT05019313, 24 August 2021).

Furosemide is the most common loop diuretic used worldwide. The off-label administration of furosemide bolus(es) for the prevention or to reverse acute kidney injury (AKI) is widespread but not supported by available evidence. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials (RCTs) to investigate whether bolus furosemide to prevent or treat AKI is detrimental on patients' survival. Electronic databases were searched through October 2017 for RCTs comparing bolus furosemide administration versus any comparator in patients with or at risk for AKI. The primary endpoint was all-cause longest follow-up mortality. Secondary endpoints included new or worsening AKI, receipt of renal replacement therapy, length of hospital stay, and peak serum creatinine after randomization. A total of 28 studies randomizing 3,228 patients were included in the analysis. We found no difference in mortality between the two groups (143/892 [16%] in the furosemide group versus 141/881 [16%] in the control group; odds ratio [OR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 1.13; p = 0.25). No significant differences in secondary outcomes were found. A significant improvement in survival was found in the subgroup of patients receiving furosemide bolus(es) as a preventive measure (43/613 [7.0%] versus 67/619 [10.8%], OR 0.62; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.94; p = 0.03). Intermittent furosemide administration is not associated with an increased mortality in patients with or at risk for AKI, although it may reduce mortality when used as a preventive measure. Future high-quality RCTs are needed to define the role of loop diuretics in AKI prevention and management. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO database for systematic reviews (Registration no. CRD42017078607 - http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017078607).

Background It is customary to believe that a patient with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) score less than or equal to 8 should be intubated to avoid aspiration. We conducted a systematic review to establish if patients with GCS ≤ 8 for trauma or non-traumatic emergencies and treated in the acute care setting (e.g., Emergency Department or Pre-hospital environment) should be intubated to avoid aspiration or aspiration pneumonia/pneumonitis, and consequently, reduce mortality. Methods We searched six databases, Pubmed, Embase, Scopus, SpringerLink, Cochrane Library, and Ovid Emcare, from April 15th to October 14th, 2020, for studies involving low GCS score patients of whom the risk of aspiration and related complications was assessed. Results Thirteen studies were included in the final analysis (7 on non-traumatic population, 4 on trauma population, 1 pediatric and 1 adult mixed case studies). For the non-traumatic cases, two prospective studies and one retrospective study found no difference in aspiration risk between intubated and non-intubated patients. Two retrospective studies reported a reduction in the risk of aspiration in the intubated patient group. For traumatic cases, the study that considered the risk of aspiration did not show any differences between the two groups. A study on adult mixed cases found no difference in the incidence of aspiration among intubated and non-intubated patients. A study on pediatric patients found increased mortality for intubated versus non-intubated non-traumatic patients with a low GCS score. Conclusion Whether intubation results in a reduction in the incidence of aspiration events and whether these are more frequent in patients with low GCS scores are not yet established. The paucity of evidence on this topic makes clinical trials justifiable and necessary. Trial registration Prospero registration number: CRD42020136987 .

Objective To synthesise the available literature comparing outcomes of ground emergency medical services (GEMS) and helicopter emergency medical services (HEMS). Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis, reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) were searched from 1995 to 2024. Studies comparing HEMS with GEMS in emergency conditions were eligible. Results The search retrieved 1,595 records; 181 studies were assessed in full text, and 77 were included, accounting for a pooled population of 2,618,483 patients. The relative risk (RR) of mortality in HEMS compared with GEMS was 1.13 (95% CI 0.96–1.34). The RR of disability was 1.24 (95% CI 0.99–1.55). The total incremental net benefit was €980,000 per QALY per patient, based on cost-effectiveness studies and a willingness-to-pay threshold of €35 million per QALY per patient. Conclusion Very low-quality evidence, due to high heterogeneity, potential confounding from registry-based enrolment, and possible multiple imputation bias, suggested that HEMS did not improve survival compared with GEMS. High-quality studies are needed to further investigate this question. Clinical trial registration PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews, 2024, CRD42024628317.

Lichter et al., on the other hand, in their study of critically ill COVID-19 patients report an optimal cutoff value of 18 on the 0–36 scale for predicting adverse outcome, with a reported sensitivity of 62% and a specificity of 75% [3], whereas Zhu et al. report a sensitivity of 81% and a specificity of 96% with a cutoff value of 7 [4]. [2] is difficult to compare with other studies in the literature for the following two reasons: first, they used a modified LUS scale (note a recent international expert consensus on the use of multi-organ point-of-care LU in COVID-19 adopts the scale range of 0–36 [5] and does not consider the pleural line artifact); second, the patients in the study by Ji et al. appear less critically ill than those in other studies, as evidenced by the fact that 88% of patients had an average value of PaO2/FiO2 greater than 300 mmHg. Rights and permissions Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made.