Randomized Clinical Trial of Antioxidant Therapy Patients with Septic Shock and Organ Dysfunction in the ICU: SOFA Score Reduction by Improvement of the Enzymatic and Non-Enzymatic Antioxidant System.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Here, we assess the effect of adjuvant antioxidant therapies in septic shock patients with organ dysfunction and their effect on the enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidant systems. METHODS: Randomized clinical trial run between 2018 and 2022. One hundred and thirty-one patients with septic shock were included in five groups with 25, 27, 24, 26 and 29 patients each. Group 1 received vitamin C (Vit C), Group 2 vitamin E (Vit E), Group 3 n-acetylcysteine (NAC), Group 4 melatonin (MT) and group 5 no treatment. All antioxidants were administered orally or through a nasogastric tube for 5 days as an adjuvant to standard therapy. RESULTS: All patients had multiple organ failure (MOF) and low Vit C levels. Vit C therapy decreased CRP, PCT and NO3-/NO2- but increased Vit C levels. The SOFA score decreased with MT in 75%, Vit C 63% and NAC 50% vs. controls 33% (p = 0.0001, p = 0.03 and p = 0.001 respectively). MT diminished lipid peroxidation (LPO) (p = 0.01) and improved total antioxidant capacity (TAC) (p = 0.04). Vit E increased thiol levels (p = 0.02) and tended to decrease LPO (p = 0.06). Selenium levels were decreased in the control group (p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Antioxidants used as an adjuvant therapy in the standard treatment of septic shock decrease MOF and oxidative stress markers. They increase the TAC and thiols, and maintain selenium levels.

Usefulness of Easy-to-Use Risk Scoring Systems Rated in the Emergency Department to Predict Major Adverse Outcomes in Hospitalized COVID-19 Patients.

BACKGROUND: Several easy-to-use risk scoring systems have been built to identify patients at risk of developing complications associated with COVID-19. However, information about the ability of each score to early predict major adverse outcomes during hospitalization of severe COVID-19 patients is still scarce. METHODS: Eight risk scoring systems were rated upon arrival at the Emergency Department, and the occurrence of thrombosis, need for mechanical ventilation, death, and a composite that included all major adverse outcomes were assessed during the hospital stay. The clinical performance of each risk scoring system was evaluated to predict each major outcome. Finally, the diagnostic characteristics of the risk scoring system that showed the best performance for each major outcome were obtained. RESULTS: One hundred and fifty-seven adult patients (55 ± 12 years, 66% men) were assessed at admission to the Emergency Department and included in the study. A total of 96 patients (61%) had at least one major outcome during hospitalization; 32 had thrombosis (20%), 80 required mechanical ventilation (50%), and 52 eventually died (33%). Of all the scores, Obesity and Diabetes (based on a history of comorbid conditions) showed the best performance for predicting mechanical ventilation (area under the ROC curve (AUC), 0.96; positive likelihood ratio (LR+), 23.7), death (AUC, 0.86; LR+, 4.6), and the composite outcome (AUC, 0.89; LR+, 15.6). Meanwhile, the inflammation-based risk scoring system (including leukocyte count, albumin, and C-reactive protein levels) was the best at predicting thrombosis (AUC, 0.63; LR+, 2.0). CONCLUSIONS: Both the Obesity and Diabetes score and the inflammation-based risk scoring system appeared to be efficient enough to be integrated into the evaluation of COVID-19 patients upon arrival at the Emergency Department.