Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 11 de 11
Filter
1.
Bradbury, Charlotte A. M. D. PhD, Lawler, Patrick R. M. D. M. P. H.; Stanworth, Simon J. M. D.; McVerry, Bryan J. M. D.; McQuilten, Zoe PhD, Higgins, Alisa M. PhD, Mouncey, Paul R. MSc, Al-Beidh, Farah PhD, Rowan, Kathryn M. PhD, Berry, Lindsay R. PhD, Lorenzi, Elizabeth PhD, Zarychanski, Ryan M. D. MSc, Arabi, Yaseen M. M. D.; Annane, Djillali M. D. PhD, Beane, Abi PhD, van Bentum-Puijk, Wilma MSc, Bhimani, Zahra M. P. H.; Bihari, Shailesh PhD, M Bonten, Marc J. M. D. PhD, Brunkhorst, Frank M. M. D. PhD, Buzgau, Adrian MSc, Buxton, Meredith PhD, Carrier, Marc M. D. MSc, Cheng, Allen C. Mbbs PhD, Cove, Matthew Mbbs, Detry, Michelle A. PhD, Estcourt, Lise J. MBBCh PhD, Fitzgerald, Mark PhD, Girard, Timothy D. M. D. Msci, Goligher, Ewan C. M. D. PhD, Goossens, Herman PhD, Haniffa, Rashan PhD, Hills, Thomas Mbbs PhD, Huang, David T. M. D. M. P. H.; Horvat, Christopher M. M. D.; Hunt, Beverley J. M. D. PhD, Ichihara, Nao M. D. M. P. H. PhD, Lamontagne, Francois M. D.; Leavis, Helen L. M. D. PhD, Linstrum, Kelsey M. M. S.; Litton, Edward M. D. PhD, Marshall, John C. M. D.; McAuley, Daniel F. M. D.; McGlothlin, Anna PhD, McGuinness, Shay P. M. D.; Middeldorp, Saskia M. D. PhD, Montgomery, Stephanie K. MSc, Morpeth, Susan C. M. D. PhD, Murthy, Srinivas M. D.; Neal, Matthew D. M. D.; Nichol, Alistair D. M. D. PhD, Parke, Rachael L. PhD, Parker, Jane C. B. N.; Reyes, Luis F. M. D. PhD, Saito, Hiroki M. D. M. P. H.; Santos, Marlene S. M. D. Mshs, Saunders, Christina T. PhD, Serpa-Neto, Ary PhD MSc M. D.; Seymour, Christopher W. M. D. MSc, Shankar-Hari, Manu M. D. PhD, Singh, Vanessa, Tolppa, Timo Mbbs, Turgeon, Alexis F. M. D. MSc, Turner, Anne M. M. P. H.; van de Veerdonk, Frank L. M. D. PhD, Green, Cameron MSc, Lewis, Roger J. M. D. PhD, Angus, Derek C. M. D. M. P. H.; McArthur, Colin J. M. D.; Berry, Scott PhD, G Derde, Lennie P. M. D. PhD, Webb, Steve A. M. D. PhD, Gordon, Anthony C. Mbbs M. D..
JAMA ; 327(13):1247, 2022.
Article in English | ProQuest Central | ID: covidwho-1801957

ABSTRACT

Importance The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. Objective To determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants In an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, 1557 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between October 30, 2020, and June 23, 2021, from 105 sites in 8 countries and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up date: July 26, 2021). Interventions Patients were randomized to receive either open-label aspirin (n = 565), a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 455), or no antiplatelet therapy (control;n = 529). Interventions were continued in the hospital for a maximum of 14 days and were in addition to anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was organ support–free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit–based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support) within 21 days, ranging from −1 for any death in hospital (censored at 90 days) to 22 for survivors with no organ support. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including survival to discharge and major bleeding to 14 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support–free days, or both. Efficacy was defined as greater than 99% posterior probability of an OR greater than 1. Futility was defined as greater than 95% posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 vs control. Intervention equivalence was defined as greater than 90% probability that the OR (compared with each other) was between 1/1.2 and 1.2 for 2 noncontrol interventions. Results The aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years;521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support–free days was 7 (IQR, −1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23];95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62];adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, −0.2% to 9.5%];97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support–free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI, 1.23-8.28];adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%];99.4% probability of harm). Conclusions and Relevance Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, compared with no antiplatelet agent, had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support–free days within 21 days.

2.
JAMA ; 327(13): 1247-1259, 2022 Apr 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1750260

ABSTRACT

Importance: The efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in critically ill patients with COVID-19 is uncertain. Objective: To determine whether antiplatelet therapy improves outcomes for critically ill adults with COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: In an ongoing adaptive platform trial (REMAP-CAP) testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, 1557 critically ill adult patients with COVID-19 were enrolled between October 30, 2020, and June 23, 2021, from 105 sites in 8 countries and followed up for 90 days (final follow-up date: July 26, 2021). Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive either open-label aspirin (n = 565), a P2Y12 inhibitor (n = 455), or no antiplatelet therapy (control; n = 529). Interventions were continued in the hospital for a maximum of 14 days and were in addition to anticoagulation thromboprophylaxis. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of intensive care unit-based respiratory or cardiovascular organ support) within 21 days, ranging from -1 for any death in hospital (censored at 90 days) to 22 for survivors with no organ support. There were 13 secondary outcomes, including survival to discharge and major bleeding to 14 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. An odds ratio (OR) greater than 1 represented improved survival, more organ support-free days, or both. Efficacy was defined as greater than 99% posterior probability of an OR greater than 1. Futility was defined as greater than 95% posterior probability of an OR less than 1.2 vs control. Intervention equivalence was defined as greater than 90% probability that the OR (compared with each other) was between 1/1.2 and 1.2 for 2 noncontrol interventions. Results: The aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor groups met the predefined criteria for equivalence at an adaptive analysis and were statistically pooled for further analysis. Enrollment was discontinued after the prespecified criterion for futility was met for the pooled antiplatelet group compared with control. Among the 1557 critically ill patients randomized, 8 patients withdrew consent and 1549 completed the trial (median age, 57 years; 521 [33.6%] female). The median for organ support-free days was 7 (IQR, -1 to 16) in both the antiplatelet and control groups (median-adjusted OR, 1.02 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.86-1.23]; 95.7% posterior probability of futility). The proportions of patients surviving to hospital discharge were 71.5% (723/1011) and 67.9% (354/521) in the antiplatelet and control groups, respectively (median-adjusted OR, 1.27 [95% CrI, 0.99-1.62]; adjusted absolute difference, 5% [95% CrI, -0.2% to 9.5%]; 97% posterior probability of efficacy). Among survivors, the median for organ support-free days was 14 in both groups. Major bleeding occurred in 2.1% and 0.4% of patients in the antiplatelet and control groups (adjusted OR, 2.97 [95% CrI, 1.23-8.28]; adjusted absolute risk increase, 0.8% [95% CrI, 0.1%-2.7%]; 99.4% probability of harm). Conclusions and Relevance: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, treatment with an antiplatelet agent, compared with no antiplatelet agent, had a low likelihood of providing improvement in the number of organ support-free days within 21 days. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Venous Thromboembolism , Adult , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Aspirin/adverse effects , Bayes Theorem , Critical Illness/therapy , Female , Hemorrhage/chemically induced , Humans , Middle Aged , Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors/adverse effects , Respiration, Artificial , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy
3.
Crit Care Med ; 49(10): 1684-1693, 2021 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1452742

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Clinical trials evaluating the safety and effectiveness of sedative medication use in critically ill adults undergoing mechanical ventilation differ considerably in their methodological approach. This heterogeneity impedes the ability to compare results across studies. The Sedation Consortium on Endpoints and Procedures for Treatment, Education, and Research Recommendations convened a meeting of multidisciplinary experts to develop recommendations for key methodologic elements of sedation trials in the ICU to help guide academic and industry clinical investigators. DESIGN: A 2-day in-person meeting was held in Washington, DC, on March 28-29, 2019, followed by a three-round, online modified Delphi consensus process. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-six participants from academia, industry, and the Food and Drug Administration with expertise in relevant content areas, including two former ICU patients attended the in-person meeting, and the majority completed an online follow-up survey and participated in the modified Delphi process. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The final recommendations were iteratively refined based on the survey results, participants' reactions to those results, summaries written by panel moderators, and a review of the meeting transcripts made from audio recordings. Fifteen recommendations were developed for study design and conduct, subject enrollment, outcomes, and measurement instruments. Consensus recommendations included obtaining input from ICU survivors and/or their families, ensuring adequate training for personnel using validated instruments for assessments of sedation, pain, and delirium in the ICU environment, and the need for methodological standardization. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations are intended to assist researchers in the design, conduct, selection of endpoints, and reporting of clinical trials involving sedative medications and/or sedation protocols for adult ICU patients who require mechanical ventilation. These recommendations should be viewed as a starting point to improve clinical trials and help reduce methodological heterogeneity in future clinical trials.


Subject(s)
Hypnotics and Sedatives/pharmacokinetics , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Congresses as Topic , Consensus , Delphi Technique , District of Columbia , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/pharmacology , Respiration, Artificial/instrumentation , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Time Factors
5.
Intensive Care Med ; 47(8): 867-886, 2021 Aug.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1305144

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: To study the efficacy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine in critically ill patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: Critically ill adults with COVID-19 were randomized to receive lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, combination therapy of lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine or no antiviral therapy (control). The primary endpoint was an ordinal scale of organ support-free days. Analyses used a Bayesian cumulative logistic model and expressed treatment effects as an adjusted odds ratio (OR) where an OR > 1 is favorable. RESULTS: We randomized 694 patients to receive lopinavir-ritonavir (n = 255), hydroxychloroquine (n = 50), combination therapy (n = 27) or control (n = 362). The median organ support-free days among patients in lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, and combination therapy groups was 4 (- 1 to 15), 0 (- 1 to 9) and-1 (- 1 to 7), respectively, compared to 6 (- 1 to 16) in the control group with in-hospital mortality of 88/249 (35%), 17/49 (35%), 13/26 (50%), respectively, compared to 106/353 (30%) in the control group. The three interventions decreased organ support-free days compared to control (OR [95% credible interval]: 0.73 [0.55, 0.99], 0.57 [0.35, 0.83] 0.41 [0.24, 0.72]), yielding posterior probabilities that reached the threshold futility (≥ 99.0%), and high probabilities of harm (98.0%, 99.9% and > 99.9%, respectively). The three interventions reduced hospital survival compared with control (OR [95% CrI]: 0.65 [0.45, 0.95], 0.56 [0.30, 0.89], and 0.36 [0.17, 0.73]), yielding high probabilities of harm (98.5% and 99.4% and 99.8%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Among critically ill patients with COVID-19, lopinavir-ritonavir, hydroxychloroquine, or combination therapy worsened outcomes compared to no antiviral therapy.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Ritonavir , Adult , Antiviral Agents/therapeutic use , Bayes Theorem , COVID-19/drug therapy , Critical Illness , Drug Combinations , Humans , Hydroxychloroquine/therapeutic use , Lopinavir/therapeutic use , Ritonavir/therapeutic use , SARS-CoV-2
6.
BMJ ; 373: n1007, 2021 06 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1263910

ABSTRACT

Delirium, a form of acute brain dysfunction, is very common in the critically ill adult patient population. Although its pathophysiology is poorly understood, multiple factors associated with delirium have been identified, many of which are coincident with critical illness. To date, no drug or non-drug treatments have been shown to improve outcomes in patients with delirium. Clinical trials have provided a limited understanding of the contributions of multiple triggers and processes of intensive care unit (ICU) acquired delirium, making identification of therapies difficult. Delirium is independently associated with poor long term outcomes, including persistent cognitive impairment. A longer duration of delirium is associated with worse long term cognition after adjustment for age, education, pre-existing cognitive function, severity of illness, and exposure to sedatives. Interestingly, differences in prevalence are seen between ICU survivor populations, with survivors of acute respiratory distress syndrome experiencing higher rates of cognitive impairment at early follow-up compared with mixed ICU survivor populations. Although cognitive performance improves over time for some ICU survivors, impairment is persistent in others. Studies have so far been unable to identify patients at higher risk of long term cognitive impairment; this is an active area of scientific investigation.


Subject(s)
Cognitive Dysfunction , Critical Illness/psychology , Delirium , Cognitive Dysfunction/diagnosis , Cognitive Dysfunction/etiology , Critical Care/methods , Critical Illness/therapy , Delirium/complications , Delirium/diagnosis , Humans , Long Term Adverse Effects , Prognosis
7.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 137: 126-132, 2021 09.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1171627

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This structured methodology review evaluated statistical approaches used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) enrolling patients at high risk of death and makes recommendations for reporting future RCTs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Using PubMed, we searched for RCTs published in five general medicine journals from January 2014 to August 2019 wherein mortality was ≥10% in at least one randomized group. We abstracted primary and secondary outcomes, statistical analysis methods, and patient samples evaluated (all randomized patients vs. "survivors only"). RESULTS: Of 1947 RCTs identified, 434 met eligibility criteria. Of the eligible RCTs, 91 (21%) and 351 (81%) had a primary or secondary functional outcome, respectively, of which 36 (40%) and 263 (75%) evaluated treatment effects among "survivors only". In RCTs that analyzed all randomized patients, the most common methods included use of ordinal outcomes (e.g., modified Rankin Scale) or creating composite outcomes (primary: 41 of 91 [45%]; secondary: 57 of 351 [16%]). CONCLUSION: In RCTs enrolling patients at high risk of death, statistical analyses of functional outcomes are frequently conducted among "survivors only," for which conclusions might be misleading. Given the growing number of RCTs conducted among patients hospitalized with COVID-19 and other critical illnesses, standards for reporting should be created.


Subject(s)
Critical Illness/therapy , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , Research Design/standards , Survivors , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Critical Illness/mortality , Humans , Risk Assessment/statistics & numerical data , Treatment Outcome
8.
Lancet Respir Med ; 9(3): 239-250, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1053892

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: To date, 750 000 patients with COVID-19 worldwide have required mechanical ventilation and thus are at high risk of acute brain dysfunction (coma and delirium). We aimed to investigate the prevalence of delirium and coma, and risk factors for delirium in critically ill patients with COVID-19, to aid the development of strategies to mitigate delirium and associated sequelae. METHODS: This multicentre cohort study included 69 adult intensive care units (ICUs), across 14 countries. We included all patients (aged ≥18 years) admitted to participating ICUs with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection before April 28, 2020. Patients who were moribund or had life-support measures withdrawn within 24 h of ICU admission, prisoners, patients with pre-existing mental illness, neurodegenerative disorders, congenital or acquired brain damage, hepatic coma, drug overdose, suicide attempt, or those who were blind or deaf were excluded. We collected de-identified data from electronic health records on patient demographics, delirium and coma assessments, and management strategies for a 21-day period. Additional data on ventilator support, ICU length of stay, and vital status was collected for a 28-day period. The primary outcome was to determine the prevalence of delirium and coma and to investigate any associated risk factors associated with development of delirium the next day. We also investigated predictors of number of days alive without delirium or coma. These outcomes were investigated using multivariable regression. FINDINGS: Between Jan 20 and April 28, 2020, 4530 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to 69 ICUs, of whom 2088 patients were included in the study cohort. The median age of patients was 64 years (IQR 54 to 71) with a median Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) II of 40·0 (30·0 to 53·0). 1397 (66·9%) of 2088 patients were invasively mechanically ventilated on the day of ICU admission and 1827 (87·5%) were invasively mechanical ventilated at some point during hospitalisation. Infusion with sedatives while on mechanical ventilation was common: 1337 (64·0%) of 2088 patients were given benzodiazepines for a median of 7·0 days (4·0 to 12·0) and 1481 (70·9%) were given propofol for a median of 7·0 days (4·0 to 11·0). Median Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score while on invasive mechanical ventilation was -4 (-5 to -3). 1704 (81·6%) of 2088 patients were comatose for a median of 10·0 days (6·0 to 15·0) and 1147 (54·9%) were delirious for a median of 3·0 days (2·0 to 6·0). Mechanical ventilation, use of restraints, and benzodiazepine, opioid, and vasopressor infusions, and antipsychotics were each associated with a higher risk of delirium the next day (all p≤0·04), whereas family visitation (in person or virtual) was associated with a lower risk of delirium (p<0·0001). During the 21-day study period, patients were alive without delirium or coma for a median of 5·0 days (0·0 to 14·0). At baseline, older age, higher SAPS II scores, male sex, smoking or alcohol abuse, use of vasopressors on day 1, and invasive mechanical ventilation on day 1 were independently associated with fewer days alive and free of delirium and coma (all p<0·01). 601 (28·8%) of 2088 patients died within 28 days of admission, with most of those deaths occurring in the ICU. INTERPRETATION: Acute brain dysfunction was highly prevalent and prolonged in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Benzodiazepine use and lack of family visitation were identified as modifiable risk factors for delirium, and thus these data present an opportunity to reduce acute brain dysfunction in patients with COVID-19. FUNDING: None. TRANSLATIONS: For the French and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/psychology , Coma/epidemiology , Delirium/epidemiology , SARS-CoV-2 , Aged , Coma/virology , Critical Illness/psychology , Delirium/virology , Female , Humans , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Male , Middle Aged , Prevalence , Respiration, Artificial/psychology , Respiration, Artificial/statistics & numerical data , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors
9.
Nat Rev Dis Primers ; 6(1): 90, 2020 11 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-989848

ABSTRACT

Delirium, a syndrome characterized by an acute change in attention, awareness and cognition, is caused by a medical condition that cannot be better explained by a pre-existing neurocognitive disorder. Multiple predisposing factors (for example, pre-existing cognitive impairment) and precipitating factors (for example, urinary tract infection) for delirium have been described, with most patients having both types. Because multiple factors are implicated in the aetiology of delirium, there are likely several neurobiological processes that contribute to delirium pathogenesis, including neuroinflammation, brain vascular dysfunction, altered brain metabolism, neurotransmitter imbalance and impaired neuronal network connectivity. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) is the most commonly used diagnostic system upon which a reference standard diagnosis is made, although many other delirium screening tools have been developed given the impracticality of using the DSM-5 in many settings. Pharmacological treatments for delirium (such as antipsychotic drugs) are not effective, reflecting substantial gaps in our understanding of its pathophysiology. Currently, the best management strategies are multidomain interventions that focus on treating precipitating conditions, medication review, managing distress, mitigating complications and maintaining engagement to environmental issues. The effective implementation of delirium detection, treatment and prevention strategies remains a major challenge for health-care organizations globally.


Subject(s)
Delirium/diagnosis , Delirium/therapy , Cognitive Dysfunction/etiology , Cognitive Dysfunction/physiopathology , Delirium/epidemiology , Humans , Quality of Life/psychology
10.
Intensive Care Med ; 46(12): 2342-2356, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-917111

ABSTRACT

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is one of the most demanding conditions in an Intensive Care Unit (ICU). Management of analgesia and sedation in ARDS is particularly challenging. An expert panel was convened to produce a "state-of-the-art" article to support clinicians in the optimal management of analgesia/sedation in mechanically ventilated adults with ARDS, including those with COVID-19. Current ICU analgesia/sedation guidelines promote analgesia first and minimization of sedation, wakefulness, delirium prevention and early rehabilitation to facilitate ventilator and ICU liberation. However, these strategies cannot always be applied to patients with ARDS who sometimes require deep sedation and/or paralysis. Patients with severe ARDS may be under-represented in analgesia/sedation studies and currently recommended strategies may not be feasible. With lightened sedation, distress-related symptoms (e.g., pain and discomfort, anxiety, dyspnea) and patient-ventilator asynchrony should be systematically assessed and managed through interprofessional collaboration, prioritizing analgesia and anxiolysis. Adaptation of ventilator settings (e.g., use of a pressure-set mode, spontaneous breathing, sensitive inspiratory trigger) should be systematically considered before additional medications are administered. Managing the mechanical ventilator is of paramount importance to avoid the unnecessary use of deep sedation and/or paralysis. Therefore, applying an "ABCDEF-R" bundle (R = Respiratory-drive-control) may be beneficial in ARDS patients. Further studies are needed, especially regarding the use and long-term effects of fast-offset drugs (e.g., remifentanil, volatile anesthetics) and the electrophysiological assessment of analgesia/sedation (e.g., electroencephalogram devices, heart-rate variability, and video pupillometry). This review is particularly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic given drug shortages and limited ICU-bed capacity.


Subject(s)
Analgesia/standards , Hypnotics and Sedatives/therapeutic use , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/drug therapy , Analgesia/methods , Guidelines as Topic , Humans , Pain Management/methods
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL