Explore the vast range of titles available.

PurposeCorticosteroids are now recommended for patients with severe COVID-19 including those with COVID-related ARDS. This has generated renewed interest regarding whether corticosteroids should be used in non-COVID ARDS as well. The objective of this study was to summarize all RCTs examining the use of corticosteroids in ARDS.MethodsThe protocol of this study was pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020200659). We searched online databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CDC library of COVID research, CINAHL, and COCHRANE. We included RCTs that compared the effect of corticosteroids to placebo or usual care in adult patients with ARDS, including patients with COVID-19. Three reviewers abstracted data independently and in duplicate using a pre-specified standardized form. We assessed individual study risk of bias using the revised Cochrane ROB-2 tool and rated certainty in outcomes using GRADE methodology. We pooled data using a random effects model. The main outcome for this review was 28-day-mortality.ResultsWe included 18 RCTs enrolling 2826 patients. The use of corticosteroids probably reduced mortality in patients with ARDS of any etiology (2740 patients in 16 trials, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72–0.95, ARR 8.0%, 95% CI 2.2–12.5%, moderate certainty). Patients who received a longer course of corticosteroids (over 7 days) had higher rates of survival compared to a shorter course.ConclusionThe use of corticosteroids probably reduces mortality in patients with ARDS. This effect was consistent between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS, corticosteroid types, and dosage.

PurposeNew-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is common and associated with increased morbidity and mortality. However, its clinical importance and management in critically ill patients are not well described. The aim of this scoping review is to assess the epidemiology and management strategies of NOAF during critical illness.MethodThe review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library for studies assessing the incidence, outcome and management strategies of NOAF in adult critically ill patients. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.ResultsA total of 99 studies were included, of which 79 were observational and 20 were interventional. The incidence of NOAF varied from 1.7% to 43.9% with considerable inter-population variation (very low quality of evidence). Commonly identified risk factors for NOAF included higher age, cardiovascular comorbidities and sepsis. The occurrence of NOAF was associated with adverse outcomes, including stroke, prolonged length of stay and mortality (very low quality of evidence). We found limited data on the optimal management strategy with no evidence for firm benefit or harm for any intervention (very low/low quality of evidence).ConclusionsThe definition and incidence of NOAF in critically ill patients varied considerably and many risk factors were identified. NOAF seemed to be associated with adverse outcomes, but data were very limited and current management strategies are not evidence-based.

Only sparse scientific evidence supports the notion that the shortest possible response time relates to improved patient outcomes in acute conditions, other than out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and trauma. Confounders such as bidirectional causality and confounding by indication may influence patient-centered outcomes, which may prevent actionable conclusions from literature reviews. The purpose of the systematic literature review was to assess current evidence on association, if any, between ambulance and helicopter response times and survival in all patient categories treated by ambulance or helicopter services. The systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Clinical Trial Registries. All study designs and settings identified as relevant to the topic were eligible. The investigators retrieved data from a predefined template and extracted data from a predefined template. Two reviewers worked independently, and conflicts were resolved by a third reviewer. The researchers used PRISMA guidelines for abstracting data and GRADE methodology for assessing data quality and validity. As per study protocol, the primary study outcome was patient survival, and the main measurement was response time for emergency medical services vehicles. The investigators included 115 studies that in total included 691,056 patients, comprising patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, trauma, drownings, and including both adults and children in various settings. The overall median survival rate was 11.5% (IQR 5.2; 25.8). Response time varied between 1.10 and 48.62 minutes. The predefined domains and items of interest were accounted for in 46.7% of the included literature. In a meta-analysis of sub-groups, there was a positive correlation in selected populations. Certainty of evidence was very low as per GRADE methodology. This systematic review and meta-analysis found lack of evidence to infer an association between the EMS response time and patient survival, with very low certainty of evidence. The investigators found substantive research and knowledge gaps. Therefore, no actionable conclusions can be made from this systematic review.

The currently recommended dose of dexamethasone for patients with severe or critical COVID-19 is 6 mg per day (mg/d) regardless of patient features and variation. However, patients with severe or critical COVID-19 are heterogenous in many ways (e.g., age, weight, comorbidities, disease severity, and immune features). Thus, it is conceivable that a standardized dosing protocol may not be optimal. We assessed treatment effect heterogeneity in the COVID STEROID 2 trial, which compared 6 mg/d to 12 mg/d, using a causal inference framework with Bayesian Additive Regression Trees, a flexible modeling method that detects interactive effects and nonlinear relationships among multiple patient characteristics simultaneously. We found that 12 mg/d of dexamethasone, relative to 6 mg/d, was probably associated with better long-term outcomes (days alive without life support and mortality after 90 days) among the entire trial population (i.e., no signals of harm), and probably more beneficial among those without diabetes mellitus, that were older, were not using IL-6 inhibitors at baseline, weighed less, or had higher level respiratory support at baseline. This adds more evidence supporting the use of 12 mg/d in practice for most patients not receiving other immunosuppressants and that additional study of dosing could potentially optimize clinical outcomes.

PurposeStress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP) is commonly prescribed in the intensive care unit. However, data from systematic reviews and conventional meta-analyses are limited by imprecision and restricted to direct comparisons. We conducted a network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to examine the safety and efficacy of drugs available for SUP in critically ill patients.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library Central Register of Controlled Trials through April 2017 for randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy and safety of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs), histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), and sucralfate for SUP in critically ill patients. No date or language restrictions were applied. Data on study characteristics, methods, outcomes, and risk of bias were abstracted by two reviewers.ResultsOf 96 potentially eligible studies, we included 57 trials enrolling 7293 patients. The results showed that PPIs are probably more effective for preventing clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding (CIB) than H2RAs [odds ratio (OR) 0.38; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.20, 0.73], sucralfate (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.13, 0.69), and placebo (OR 0.24; 95% CI 0.10, 0.60) (all moderate quality evidence). There were no convincing differences among H2RA, sucralfate, and placebo. PPIs probably increase the risk of developing pneumonia compared with H2RAs (OR 1.27; 95% CI 0.96, 1.68), sucralfate (OR 1.65; 95% CI 1.20, 2.27), and placebo (OR 1.52; 95% CI 0.95, 2.42) (all moderate quality). Mortality is probably similar across interventions (moderate quality). Estimates of baseline risks of bleeding varied significantly across studies, and only one study reported on Clostridium difficile infection. Definitions of pneumonia varied considerably. Most studies on sucralfate predate pneumonia prevention strategies.ConclusionsOur results provide moderate quality evidence that PPIs are the most effective agents in preventing CIB, but they may increase the risk of pneumonia. The balance of benefits and harms leaves the routine use of SUP open to question.

Background Days alive without life support (DAWOLS) and similar outcomes that seek to summarise mortality and non-mortality experiences are increasingly used in critical care research. The use of these outcomes is challenged by different definitions and non-normal outcome distributions that complicate statistical analysis decisions. Methods We scrutinized the central methodological considerations when using DAWOLS and similar outcomes and provide a description and overview of the pros and cons of various statistical methods for analysis supplemented with a comparison of these methods using data from the COVID STEROID 2 randomised clinical trial. We focused on readily available regression models of increasing complexity (linear, hurdle-negative binomial, zero–one-inflated beta, and cumulative logistic regression models) that allow comparison of multiple treatment arms, adjustment for covariates and interaction terms to assess treatment effect heterogeneity. Results In general, the simpler models adequately estimated group means despite not fitting the data well enough to mimic the input data. The more complex models better fitted and thus better replicated the input data, although this came with increased complexity and uncertainty of estimates. While the more complex models can model separate components of the outcome distributions (i.e., the probability of having zero DAWOLS), this complexity means that the specification of interpretable priors in a Bayesian setting is difficult. Finally, we present multiple examples of how these outcomes may be visualised to aid assessment and interpretation. Conclusions This summary of central methodological considerations when using, defining, and analysing DAWOLS and similar outcomes may help researchers choose the definition and analysis method that best fits their planned studies. Trial registration COVID STEROID 2 trial, ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04509973, ctri.nic.in: CTRI/2020/10/028731.

PurposeMotivated by a new randomized trial (the PEPTIC trial) that raised the issue of an increase in mortality with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) relative to histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs), we updated our prior systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) addressing the impact of pharmacological gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis in critically ill patients.MethodsWe searched for randomized controlled trials that examined the efficacy and safety of gastrointestinal bleeding prophylaxis with PPIs, H2RAs, or sucralfate versus one another or placebo or no prophylaxis in adult critically ill patients. We performed Bayesian random-effects NMA and conducted analyses using all PEPTIC data as well as a restricted analysis using only PEPTIC data from high compliance centers. We used the GRADE approach to quantify absolute effects and assess the certainty of evidence.ResultsSeventy-four trials enrolling 39 569 patients proved eligible. Both PPIs (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% credible interval 0.93 to 1.14, moderate certainty) and H2RAs (RR 0.98, 0.89 to 1.08, moderate certainty) probably have little or no impact on mortality compared with no prophylaxis. There may be no important difference between PPIs and H2RAs on mortality (RR 1.05, 0.97 to 1.14, low certainty), the 95% credible interval of the complete analysis has not excluded an important increase in mortality with PPIs. Both PPIs (RR 0.46, 0.29 to 0.66) and H2RAs (RR 0.67, 0.48 to 0.94) probably reduce clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding; the magnitude of reduction is probably greater in PPIs than H2RAs (RR 0.69, 0.45 to 0.93), and the difference may be important in higher, but not lower bleeding risk patients. PPIs (RR 1.08, 0.88 to 1.45, low certainty) and H2RAs (RR 1.07, 0.85 to 1.37, low certainty) may have no important impact on pneumonia compared with no prophylaxis.ConclusionThis updated NMA confirmed that PPIs and H2RAs are most likely to have a similar effect on mortality compared to each other and compared to no prophylaxis; however, the possibility that PPIs may slightly increase mortality cannot be excluded (low certainty evidence). PPIs and H2RAs probably achieve important reductions in clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding; for higher bleeding risk patients, the greater benefit of PPIs over H2RAs may be important. PPIs or H2RAs may not result in important increases in pneumonia but the certainty of evidence is low.

Severity scores including the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score are used in intensive care units (ICUs) to assess disease severity, predict mortality and in research. We aimed to assess the predictive performance of SAPS II and the initial SOFA score for in-hospital and 90-day mortality in a contemporary international cohort. This was a post-hoc study of the Stress Ulcer Prophylaxis in the Intensive Care Unit (SUP-ICU) inception cohort study, which included acutely ill adults from ICUs across 11 countries (n = 1034). We compared the discrimination of SAPS II and initial SOFA scores, compared the discrimination of SAPS II in our cohort with the original cohort, assessed the calibration of SAPS II customised to our cohort, and compared the discrimination for 90-day mortality vs. in-hospital mortality for both scores. Discrimination was evaluated using areas under the receiver operating characteristics curves (AUROC). Calibration was evaluated using Hosmer-Lemeshow's goodness-of-fit Ĉ-statistic. AUROC for in-hospital mortality was 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77-0.83) for SAPS II and 0.73 (95% CI 0.69-0.76) for initial SOFA score (P<0.001 for the comparison). Calibration of the customised SAPS II for predicting in-hospital mortality was adequate (P = 0.60). Discrimination of SAPS II was reduced compared with the original SAPS II validation sample (AUROC 0.80 vs. 0.86; P = 0.001). AUROC for 90-day mortality was 0.79 (95% CI 0.76-0.82; P = 0.74 for comparison with in-hospital mortality) for SAPS II and 0.71 (95% CI 0.68-0.75; P = 0.66 for comparison with in-hospital mortality) for the initial SOFA score. The predictive performance of SAPS II was similar for in-hospital and 90-day mortality and superior to that of the initial SOFA score, but SAPS II's performance has decreased over time. Use of a contemporary severity score with improved predictive performance may be of value.

Background Haloperidol is frequently used in critically ill patients with delirium, but evidence for its effects has been sparse and inconclusive. By including recent trials, we updated a systematic review assessing effects of haloperidol on mortality and serious adverse events in critically ill patients with delirium. Methods This is an updated systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials investigating haloperidol versus placebo or any comparator in critically ill patients with delirium. We adhered to the Cochrane handbook, the PRISMA guidelines and the grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation statements. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and proportion of patients with one or more serious adverse events or reactions (SAEs/SARs). Secondary outcomes were days alive without delirium or coma, delirium severity, cognitive function and health-related quality of life. Results We included 11 RCTs with 15 comparisons ( n  = 2200); five were placebo-controlled. The relative risk for mortality with haloperidol versus placebo was 0.89; 96.7% CI 0.77 to 1.03; I 2  = 0% (moderate-certainty evidence) and for proportion of patients experiencing SAEs/SARs 0.94; 96.7% CI 0.81 to 1.10; I 2  = 18% (low-certainty evidence). We found no difference in days alive without delirium or coma (moderate-certainty evidence). We found sparse data for other secondary outcomes and other comparators than placebo. Conclusions Haloperidol may reduce mortality and likely result in little to no change in the occurrence of SAEs/SARs compared with placebo in critically ill patients with delirium. However, the results were not statistically significant and more trial data are needed to provide higher certainty for the effects of haloperidol in these patients. Trial registration : CRD42017081133, date of registration 28 November 2017.

An international team of experts in the field of fluid resuscitation was invited by the ESICM to form a task force to systematically review the evidence concerning fluid administration using basic monitoring. The work included a particular emphasis on pre-ICU hospital settings and resource-limited settings. The work focused on four main questions: (1) What is the role of clinical assessment to guide fluid resuscitation in shock? (2) What basic monitoring is required to perform and interpret a fluid challenge? (3) What defines a fluid challenge in terms of fluid type, ranges of volume, and rate of administration? (4) What are the safety endpoints during a fluid challenge? The expert panel found insufficient evidence to provide recommendations according to the GRADE system, and was only able to make recommendations for basic interventions, based on the available evidence and expert opinion. The panel identified significant gaps in the scientific evidence on fluid administration outside the ICU (excluding the operating theater). Globally, scientific communities and health care systems should address these critical gaps in evidence through research on how basic fluid administration in resource-rich and resource-limited settings can be improved for the benefit of patients and societies worldwide.