Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients has increased during the course of the pandemic. As uncertainty existed regarding patient’s outcomes, early guidelines recommended against establishing new ECMO centers. We aimed to explore the epidemiology and outcomes of ECMO for COVID-19 related cardiopulmonary failure in five countries in the Middle East and India and to evaluate the results of ECMO in 5 new centers. Methods This is a retrospective, multicenter international, observational study conducted in 19 ECMO centers in five countries in the Middle East and India from March 1, 2020, to September 30, 2020. We included patients with COVID-19 who received ECMO for refractory hypoxemia and severe respiratory acidosis with or without circulatory failure. Data collection included demographic data, ECMO-related specific data, pre-ECMO patient condition, 24 h post-ECMO initiation data, and outcome. The primary outcome was survival to home discharge. Secondary outcomes included mortality during ECMO, survival to decannulation, and outcomes stratified by center type. Results Three hundred and seven COVID-19 patients received ECMO support during the study period, of whom 78 (25%) were treated in the new ECMO centers. The median age was 45 years (interquartile range IQR 37–52), and 81% were men. New center patients were younger, were less frequently male, had received higher PEEP, more frequently inotropes and prone positioning before ECMO and were less frequently retrieved from a peripheral center on ECMO. Survival to home discharge was 45%. In patients treated in new and established centers, survival was 55 and 41% ( p  = 0.03), respectively. Multivariable analysis retained only a SOFA score < 12 at ECMO initiation as associated with survival (odds ratio, OR 1.93 (95% CI 1.05–3.58), p  = 0.034), but not treatment in a new center (OR 1.65 (95% CI 0.75–3.67)). Conclusions During pandemics, ECMO may provide favorable outcomes in highly selected patients as resources allow. Newly formed ECMO centers with appropriate supervision of regional experts may have satisfactory results.

BACKGROUND: Sedation is fundamental to the management of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Its indications in the ICU are vast, including the facilitating of mechanical ventilation, permitting invasive procedures, and managing anxiety and agitation. Inhaled sedation with halogenated agents, such as isoflurane or sevoflurane, is now feasible in ICU patients using dedicated devices/systems. Its use may reduce adverse events and improve ICU outcomes compared to conventional intravenous (IV) sedation in the ICU. This review examined the effectiveness of inhalational sedation using the anesthetic conserving device (ACD) compared to standard IV sedation for adult patients in ICU and highlights the technical aspects of its functioning. METHODS: We searched the PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Sage Journals databases using the terms \"anesthetic conserving device,\" \"Anaconda,\" \"sedation\" and \"intensive care unit\" in randomized clinical studies that were performed between 2012 and 2022 and compared volatile sedation using an ACD with IV sedation in terms of time to extubation, duration of mechanical ventilation, and lengths of ICU and hospital stay. RESULTS: Nine trials were included. Volatile sedation (sevoflurane or isoflurane) administered through an ACD shortened the awakening time compared to IV sedation (midazolam or propofol). CONCLUSION: Compared to IV sedation, volatile sedation administered through an ACD in the ICU shortened the awakening and extubation times, ICU length of stay, and duration of mechanical ventilation. More clinical trials that assess additional clinical outcomes on a large scale are needed.

Background Spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) is one of the most common infectious diseases in patients with cirrhosis and is associated with serious prognosis. A prevailing dogma posits that SBP is exacerbated by the frequent use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Aims To re-assess the association between PPIs use and SBP incidence with larger and better-quality data. Method The studies were identified by searching Proquest, Medline, and Embase for English language articles published between January 2008 and March 2020 using the following keywords alone or in combination: anti-ulcer agent, antacid, proton pump inhibitor, proton pumps, PPI, omeprazole, rabeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, esomeprazole, peritonitis, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, SBP, ascites, cirrhosis, ascitic and cirrhotic. Three authors critically reviewed all of the studies retrieved and selected those judged to be the most relevant. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was followed. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Sub-group analyses were done to decrease the heterogeneity. Results A total of twenty-three studies: seven case–control, and sixteen cohorts, involving 10,386 patients were analyzed. The overall results showed a statistically significant association between SBP and PPIs use (pooled odds ratio (OR): 1.80, 95% CI of 1.41 to 2.31). Substantial heterogeneity was observed. On subgroup analysis involving cohort studies, the association was weaker (OR: 1.55 with 95% CI of 1.16 to 2.06 p  < 0.00001) but still statistically significant and with high heterogeneity (Chi 2 p = 57.68; I 2  = 74%). For case–control studies, the OR was 2.62 with a 95% CI of 1.94 to 3.54. The funnel plot was asymmetric and Egger’s test confirmed asymmetry suggesting publication bias (intercept = − 0.05, SE = 0.27, P = 0.850 two-tailed). Conclusion This meta-analysis sheds light on the conflicting results raised by previous studies regarding the association of SBP with PPIs use. Our meta-analysis showed that there is a weak association, although statistically significant, between SBP and PPIs use. However, the magnitude of the possible association diminished when analysis focused on higher quality data that were more robust. Thus, this updated meta-analysis suggests judicious use of PPIs among cirrhotic patients with ascites.

Background COVID-19 is a worldwide pandemic and has placed significant demand for acute and critical care services on hospitals in many countries. Objectives To determine the predictors of severe COVID-19 disease requiring admission to an ICU by comparing patients who were ICU admitted to non-ICU groups. Methods A cohort study was conducted for the laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients who were admitted to six Saudi Ministry of Health’s hospitals in Alahsa, between March 1, 2020, and July 30, 2020, by reviewing patient’s medical records retrospectively. Results This cohort included 1014 patients with an overall mean age of 47.2 ± 19.3 years and 582 (57%) were males. A total of 205 (20%) of the hospitalized patients were admitted to the ICU. Hypertension, diabetes and obesity were the most common comorbidities in all study patients (27.2, 19.9, and 9%, respectively). The most prevalent symptoms were cough (47.7%), shortness of breath (35.7%) and fever (34.3%). Compared with non-ICU group, ICU patients had older age ( p  ≤ 0.0005) and comprised a higher proportion of the current smokers and had higher respiratory rates ( p  ≤ 0.0005), and more percentage of body temperatures in the range of 37.3–38.0 °C ( p  ≥ 0.0005); and had more comorbidities including diabetes ( p  ≤ 0.0005), hypertension ( p  ≥ 0.0005), obesity ( p  = 0.048), and sickle cell disease ( p  = 0.039). There were significant differences between the non-ICU and ICU groups for fever, shortness of breath, cough, fatigue, vomiting, dizziness; elevated white blood cells, neutrophils, alanine aminotransferase and alkaline aminotransferase, lactate dehydrogenase, and ferritin, and decreased hemoglobin; and proportion of abnormal bilateral chest CT images ( p  < 0.05). Significant differences were also found for multiple treatments ( p  < 0.05). ICU patients group had a much higher mortality rate than those with non-ICU admission ( p  ≤ 0.0005). Conclusion Identifying key clinical characteristics of COVID-19 that predict ICU admission and high mortality can be useful for frontline healthcare providers in making the right clinical decision under time-sensitive and resource-constricted environment.

Backgroundand Objectives: COVID-19 is a novel infectious disease caused by a single-stranded RNA coronavirus called severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). We aimed to conduct a nationwide multicenter study to determine the characteristics and the clinical prognostic outcome of critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Materials and Methods: This is a nationwide cohort retrospective study conducted in twenty Saudi hospitals. Results: An analysis of 1470 critically ill COVID-19 patients demonstrated that the majority of patients were male with a mean age of 55.9 ± 15.1 years. Most of our patients presented with a shortness of breath (SOB) (81.3%), followed by a fever (73.7%) and a cough (65.1%). Diabetes and hypertension were the most common comorbidities in the study (52.4% and 46.0%, respectively). Multiple complications were observed substantially more among non-survivors. The length and frequency of mechanical ventilation use were significantly greater (83%) in the non-survivors compared with the survivors (31%). The mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score was 6 ± 5. The overall mortality rate of the cohort associated with patients that had diabetes, hypertension and ischemic heart disease was 41.8%. Conclusion: Age; a pre-existing medical history of hypertension, diabetes and ischemic heart disease; smoking cigarettes; a BMI ≥ 29; a long mechanical ventilation and ICU stay; the need of ventilatory support; a high SOFA score; fungal co-infections and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use were key clinical characteristics that predicted a high mortality in our population.

To determine physicians' knowledge of abdominal compartment syndrome and intra-abdominal hypertension in Saudi Arabia. A cross-sectional online survey study was conducted on physicians in Saudi Arabia between March and August 2022. A previously developed questionnaire was adapted and used in this study. The survey instrument investigated the knowledge and management of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome among physicians. Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of being knowledgeable about abdominal compartment syndrome and intra-abdominal hypertension. A total of 266 physicians participated in this study. Around one-fifth (21.8%) the study participants were ICU physicians and 25.0% reported that they practice internal medicine. Intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) and the impact of increased intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) on organ function were terms that the majority of research participants (70.3%) reported they were familiar with. A similar percentage (73.7%) reported that they are familiar with abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS). Around 43.0% of the study participants reported that they do not know how to measure IAP. The most frequently reported (13.5%) intervention in the treatment of IAH and ACS was the use of inotropes or vasopressors. The study participants showed a weak level of knowledge of ACS and IAH with a median score of 3.00 (IQR: 5.00-2.00), which represents 27.3% of the maximum attainable score. Physicians working at hospitals with 20-50 ICU beds were 41.0% (odds ratio: 0.59 (CI: 0.37-0.96)) less likely to be knowledgeable about intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome (p≤0.05). Physicians demonstrated a low level of IAP and ACS knowledge. To increase the safety of medical practices and enhance clinical outcomes for patients, awareness should be raised about the proper diagnosis and management of IAP and ACS. Future research should focus on developing effective educational strategies to improve physicians' understanding of IAP and ACS.

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is considered as a supportive treatment that provides circulatory and ventilatory support and can be thought off as a bridge to organ recovery. Since 2009, it has been applied as a rescue treatment for patients with severe adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) mainly due to viral causes. In December 2019, several patients presented with a constellation of symptoms of viral pneumonia in China. A new strain of the corona virus family, called COVID-19, has been discovered to be the cause of this severe mysterious illness that was named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). This new virus continued to spread across the globe leading to the World Health Organization announcing it as a pandemic in the early 2020. By the end of March 2021, the number of COVID-19 cases worldwide exceeded 126 million cases. In Saudi Arabia, the first confirmed case of COVID-19 was reported in the 2nd March 2020. By the end of March 2021, the total number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in Saudi Arabia is just above 360,000. In anticipation of the need of ECMO for the treatment of patients with SARS-CoV-2 based on the previous Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus pandemic experience, the Saudi Extra-Corporeal Life Support (ECLS) chapter that is under the umbrella of the Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) convened a working group of ECMO experts. The mission of this group was to formulate a guidance for the use of ECMO as a last resort for patients with severe ARDS, especially with COVID-19 based on available evidence. The ECLS-SCCS chapter wanted to generate a document that can be used to simple guide, with a focus on safety, to provide ECMO service for patients with severe ARDS with a special focus on SARS-CoV-2.

Background Critical care of patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) with acute brain injury (ABI) is notable for a lack of high-quality clinical evidence. Here, we offer guidelines for neurological care (neurological monitoring and management) of adults during and after ECMO support. Methods These guidelines are based on clinical practice consensus recommendations and scientific statements. We convened an international multidisciplinary consensus panel including 30 clinician-scientists with expertise in ECMO from all chapters of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO). We used a modified Delphi process with three rounds of voting and asked panelists to assess the recommendation levels. Results We identified five key clinical areas needing guidance: (1) neurological monitoring, (2) post-cannulation early physiological targets and ABI, (3) neurological therapy including medical and surgical intervention, (4) neurological prognostication, and (5) neurological follow-up and outcomes. The consensus produced 30 statements and recommendations regarding key clinical areas. We identified several knowledge gaps to shape future research efforts. Conclusions The impact of ABI on morbidity and mortality in ECMO patients is significant. Particularly, early detection and timely intervention are crucial for improving outcomes. These consensus recommendations and scientific statements serve to guide the neurological monitoring and prevention of ABI, and management strategy of ECMO-associated ABI.

The emergence of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coroanvirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) had raised possibilities of coinfection with the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) in countries were these two viruses were reported. In this study, we describe the clinical presentation and demographics of eight patients who were coinfected with SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV. This is a case series of hospitalized patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). We collected demographics, underlying conditions, presenting symptoms and clinical outcome from the patients’ medical records. During the study period from March 14, 2020 to October 19, 2020, there was a total of 67 SARS-CoV-2 ICU admitted patients who underwent simultaneous SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV testing by PCR. Of those patients, 8 (12%) tested positive for both SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV. There were 6 (75%) males, the mean age ± SD was 44.4 ± 11.8 years, and 7 (87.5%) were obese. Of the patients, 7 (87.5%) were non-smokers, 1 (12.5%) had diabetes mellitus, 1 (12.5%) had heart failure, and 1 (12.5%) had been on anti-platelet therapy. The mean hospital length of stay (LOS) was 21.1 ± 11.6 days and the average ICU LOS was 10.9 ± 6.03 days. All patients received supportive therapy and all were treated with corticosteroid. Of all the patients, 4 (50%) were discharged home and 3 (37.5%) died. This case series is an important addition to the medical knowledge as it showed the interaction of the coinfection of SARS-CoV-2 and MERS-CoV.

Acinetobacter is an increasingly-problematic organism, especially in intensive care units (ICUs). In this study, we compared its incidence, outcomes, and predictors spanning eight ICUs in five geographically and climatologically-diverse cities in Saudi Arabia. Geographic, climatologic, hospital-related, and patient-related factors were collected prospectively on 3179 patients admitted to eight Saudi ICUs from June 2018 through June 2019. These data then underwent both bivariable and multivariable analysis, the latter vis hierarchical logistic regression to identify predictors of clinically-manifest Acinetobacter infection. Overall incidence of Acinetobacter infection was 3.9% (n = 124). Of these 124 infections, 122 (98.4%) were cultured as A. baumannii. Incidence ranged from 1.0 to 7.9% across the eight ICUs. On bivariable analysis, incident Acinetobacter infection was more common in university and military hospitals, in hospitals with more total beds and ICU isolation rooms, and in 2018 versus 2019, incidence steadily declining over the 13 study months. Mechanically-ventilated patients had ten-fold increased odds of infection. Adjusted (multivariable) analysis revealed the risk of clinically-manifest Acinetobacter infection to increase the longer patients were on mechanical ventilation. Increased risk also existed at certain hospitals over others, especially in university-affiliated and military hospitals, larger hospitals with more isolation rooms, and hospitals with fewer ICU beds. In our study of eight ICUs across Saudi Arabia, inter-hospital differences did appear to account for inter-hospital differences in Acinetobacter incidence rates. Patients requiring mechanical ventilation for longer periods of time were particularly at risk. •Increasing resistance of Acinetobacter infections in critically ill patients to several classes ofantimicrobial agents is a real concern and has been found to be a great problem in many tertiaryreferral hospitals in Saudi Arabia.•The high rates of resistant in Saudi Arabia call for comprehensive program for developing a local antibiogram database coupled with nationwideantimicrobial stewardship.•Infection prevention, and discovering new therapies for multidrugresistant MDR Acinetobacter, might contribute to the global effort of combating this pathogen and decreasing the burden of MDR infection.