Explore the vast range of titles available.

PurposeTo assess the ability of clinical examination, blood biomarkers, electrophysiology, or neuroimaging assessed within 7 days from return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) to predict poor neurological outcome, defined as death, vegetative state, or severe disability (CPC 3–5) at hospital discharge/1 month or later, in comatose adult survivors from cardiac arrest (CA).MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 2013–April 2020) were searched. Sensitivity and false-positive rate (FPR) for each predictor were calculated. Due to heterogeneities in recording times, predictor thresholds, and definition of some predictors, meta-analysis was not performed.ResultsNinety-four studies (30,200 patients) were included. Bilaterally absent pupillary or corneal reflexes after day 4 from ROSC, high blood values of neuron-specific enolase from 24 h after ROSC, absent N20 waves of short-latency somatosensory-evoked potentials (SSEPs) or unequivocal seizures on electroencephalogram (EEG) from the day of ROSC, EEG background suppression or burst-suppression from 24 h after ROSC, diffuse cerebral oedema on brain CT from 2 h after ROSC, or reduced diffusion on brain MRI at 2–5 days after ROSC had 0% FPR for poor outcome in most studies. Risk of bias assessed using the QUIPS tool was high for all predictors.ConclusionIn comatose resuscitated patients, clinical, biochemical, neurophysiological, and radiological tests have a potential to predict poor neurological outcome with no false-positive predictions within the first week after CA. Guidelines should consider the methodological concerns and limited sensitivity for individual modalities. (PROSPERO CRD42019141169)

PurposeTo assess the ability of clinical examination, blood biomarkers, electrophysiology or neuroimaging assessed within 7 days from return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC) to predict good neurological outcome, defined as no, mild, or moderate disability (CPC 1–2 or mRS 0–3) at discharge from intensive care unit or later, in comatose adult survivors from cardiac arrest (CA).MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched. Sensitivity and specificity for good outcome were calculated for each predictor. The risk of bias was assessed using the QUIPS tool.ResultsA total of 37 studies were included. Due to heterogeneities in recording times, predictor thresholds, and definition of some predictors, meta-analysis was not performed. A withdrawal or localisation motor response to pain immediately or at 72–96 h after ROSC, normal blood values of neuron-specific enolase (NSE) at 24 h-72 h after ROSC, a short-latency somatosensory evoked potentials (SSEPs) N20 wave amplitude > 4 µV or a continuous background without discharges on electroencephalogram (EEG) within 72 h from ROSC, and absent diffusion restriction in the cortex or deep grey matter on MRI on days 2–7 after ROSC predicted good neurological outcome with more than 80% specificity and a sensitivity above 40% in most studies. Most studies had moderate or high risk of bias.ConclusionsIn comatose cardiac arrest survivors, clinical, biomarker, electrophysiology, and imaging studies identified patients destined to a good neurological outcome with high specificity within the first week after cardiac arrest (CA).

Spontaneous pneumomediastinum is a rare complication of viral pneumonia. Here we report a case of a 52 year old male who presented with a spontaneous pneumomediastinum in COVID-19 pneumonia, followed by a severe course of disease. We discuss the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying this association as well as its possible clinical implications as a marker of disease severity in COVID-19.

ObjectivesDevelop simple and valid models for predicting mortality and need for intensive care unit (ICU) admission in patients who present at the emergency department (ED) with suspected COVID-19.DesignRetrospective.SettingSecondary care in four large Dutch hospitals.ParticipantsPatients who presented at the ED and were admitted to hospital with suspected COVID-19. We used 5831 first-wave patients who presented between March and August 2020 for model development and 3252 second-wave patients who presented between September and December 2020 for model validation.Outcome measuresWe developed separate logistic regression models for in-hospital death and for need for ICU admission, both within 28 days after hospital admission. Based on prior literature, we considered quickly and objectively obtainable patient characteristics, vital parameters and blood test values as predictors. We assessed model performance by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and by calibration plots.ResultsOf 5831 first-wave patients, 629 (10.8%) died within 28 days after admission. ICU admission was fully recorded for 2633 first-wave patients in 2 hospitals, with 214 (8.1%) ICU admissions within 28 days. A simple model—COVID outcome prediction in the emergency department (COPE)—with age, respiratory rate, C reactive protein, lactate dehydrogenase, albumin and urea captured most of the ability to predict death. COPE was well calibrated and showed good discrimination for mortality in second-wave patients (AUC in four hospitals: 0.82 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.86); 0.82 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.90); 0.79 (95% CI 0.70 to 0.88); 0.83 (95% CI 0.79 to 0.86)). COPE was also able to identify patients at high risk of needing ICU admission in second-wave patients (AUC in two hospitals: 0.84 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.90); 0.81 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.95)).ConclusionsCOPE is a simple tool that is well able to predict mortality and need for ICU admission in patients who present to the ED with suspected COVID-19 and may help patients and doctors in decision making.

Background The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has underlined the urgent need for reliable, multicenter, and full-admission intensive care data to advance our understanding of the course of the disease and investigate potential treatment strategies. In this study, we present the Dutch Data Warehouse (DDW), the first multicenter electronic health record (EHR) database with full-admission data from critically ill COVID-19 patients. Methods A nation-wide data sharing collaboration was launched at the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020. All hospitals in the Netherlands were asked to participate and share pseudonymized EHR data from adult critically ill COVID-19 patients. Data included patient demographics, clinical observations, administered medication, laboratory determinations, and data from vital sign monitors and life support devices. Data sharing agreements were signed with participating hospitals before any data transfers took place. Data were extracted from the local EHRs with prespecified queries and combined into a staging dataset through an extract–transform–load (ETL) pipeline. In the consecutive processing pipeline, data were mapped to a common concept vocabulary and enriched with derived concepts. Data validation was a continuous process throughout the project. All participating hospitals have access to the DDW. Within legal and ethical boundaries, data are available to clinicians and researchers. Results Out of the 81 intensive care units in the Netherlands, 66 participated in the collaboration, 47 have signed the data sharing agreement, and 35 have shared their data. Data from 25 hospitals have passed through the ETL and processing pipeline. Currently, 3464 patients are included in the DDW, both from wave 1 and wave 2 in the Netherlands. More than 200 million clinical data points are available. Overall ICU mortality was 24.4%. Respiratory and hemodynamic parameters were most frequently measured throughout a patient's stay. For each patient, all administered medication and their daily fluid balance were available. Missing data are reported for each descriptive. Conclusions In this study, we show that EHR data from critically ill COVID-19 patients may be lawfully collected and can be combined into a data warehouse. These initiatives are indispensable to advance medical data science in the field of intensive care medicine.

Despite the recent progress in the field of causal inference, to date there is no agreed upon methodology to glean treatment effect estimation from observational data. The consequence on clinical practice is that, when lacking results from a randomized trial, medical personnel is left without guidance on what seems to be effective in a real-world scenario. This article proposes a pragmatic methodology to obtain preliminary but robust estimation of treatment effect from observational studies, to provide front-line clinicians with a degree of confidence in their treatment strategy. Our study design is applied to an open problem, the estimation of treatment effect of the proning maneuver on COVID-19 Intensive Care patients.