The effects of empiric antibiotic regimens in adults with non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The optimal empiric antibiotic regimen for non-ventilator-associated hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) is uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To compare alternative empiric antibiotic regimens in HAP using a network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: Data sources: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and CINAHL from database inception to July 06, 2023. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCT). PARTICIPANTS: Adults with clinical suspicion of HAP. INTERVENTION: Any empiric antibiotic regimen versus another, placebo, or no treatment. ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS: Paired reviewers independently assessed risk of bias using a modified Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. METHODS OF DATA ANALYSIS: Paired reviewers independently extracted data on trial and patient characteristics, antibiotic regimens, and outcomes of interest. We conducted frequentist random-effects NMAs for treatment failure and all-cause mortality and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: 39 trials proved eligible. 30 RCTs involving 4,807 participants found low certainty evidence that piperacillin-tazobactam (RR compared to all cephalosporins: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.42, 1.01) and carbapenems (RR compared to all cephalosporins: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.53, 1.11) might be among the most effective in reducing treatment failure. The findings were robust to the secondary analysis comparing piperacillin-tazobactam vs antipseudomonal cephalosporins or antipseudomonal carbapenems vs antipseudomonal cephalosporins. 11 RCTs involving 2,531 participants found low certainty evidence that ceftazidime and linezolid combination may not be convincingly different from cephalosporin alone in reducing all-cause mortality. Evidence on other antibiotic regimens is very uncertain. Data on other patient-important outcomes including adverse events was sparse, and we did not perform network or pairwise meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: For empiric antibiotic therapy of adults with HAP, piperacillin-tazobactam might be among the most effective in reducing treatment failure in HAP. Empiric MRSA coverage may not exert additional benefit in reducing mortality in HAP. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD 42022297224).

Sowing "seeds of trust": How trust in normothermic regional perfusion is built in a continuum of care.

Normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) is a promising technology to improve organ transplantation outcomes by reversing ischemic injury caused by controlled donation after circulatory determination of death. However, it has not yet been implemented in Canada due to ethical questions. These issues must be resolved to preserve public trust in organ donation and transplantation. This qualitative, constructivist grounded theory study sought to understand how those most impacted by NRP perceived the ethical implications. We interviewed 29 participants across stakeholder groups of donor families, organ recipients, donation and transplantation system leaders and care providers. The interview protocol included a short presentation about the purpose of NRP and procedures in abdomen versus chest and abdomen NRP, followed by questions probing potential violations to the dead donor rule and concerns regarding brain reperfusion. The results present a grounded theory placing NRP within a trust-building continuum of care for the donor, their family, and organ recipients. Stakeholders consistently described both forms of NRP as an ethical intervention, but their rationales were predicated on assumptions that neurological criteria for death had been met following circulatory death determination. Empirical validation of these assumptions will help ground the implementation of NRP in a trust-preserving way.

The impact of an online course on agreement rates of the certainty of evidence assessment using GRADE: a before-and-after study.

BACKGROUND/AIM: The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach is a systematic method for assessing the certainty of evidence (CoE) and strength of recommendations in healthcare. We aimed to verify the effects of an online-based GRADE course on multi-rater consistency in the evaluation of the CoE in systematic reviews (SRs) analysis. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS: Sixty-five Brazilian methodologists and researchers participated in an online course over eight weeks. Asynchronous lessons and weekly synchronous meetings addressed the GRADE system in the context of CoE assessment. We asked participants to evaluate the CoE of random SRs (two before and another two after the course). Analyzes focused on the multi-rater agreement with a standard response, in the inter-rater agreement, and before-after changes in the proportion of participants that rated down the domains. RESULTS: 48 individuals completed the course. Participants presented improvements in the raters' assessment of the CoE using the GRADE approach after the course. The multi-rater consistency of indirectness, imprecision, and the overall CoE increased after the course, as well as the agreement between raters and the standard response. Furthermore, interrater reliability increased for risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, publication bias, and overall CoE, indicating progress in between-raters consistency. After the course, approximately 78% of individuals rated down the overall CoE to a low/very low degree, and participants presented more explanations for the judgment of each domain. CONCLUSION: An online GRADE course improved the consistency and agreement of the CoE assessment by Brazilian researchers. Online training courses have the potential to improve skills in guideline methodology development.

Venous congestion in septic shock quantified with point-of-care ultrasound: a pilot prospective multicentre cohort study.

PURPOSE: Venous congestion is a pathophysiologic state that can result in organ dysfunction, particularly acute kidney injury (AKI). We sought to evaluate the feasibility of performing a definitive observational study to determine the impact of venous congestion quantified using point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in patients with septic shock. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational feasibility study at two intensive care units (ICUs). We recruited adult patients with septic shock within 12 hr of ICU admission. Using the validated Venous Excess Ultrasound Score (VEXUS), we quantified venous congestion on day 1 and day 3 of ICU admission. The primary feasibility outcome was successful completion rate of the two VEXUS scores. We performed a survival analysis to quantify the hazard of renal replacement therapy (RRT). RESULTS: We enrolled 75 patients from January 2022 to January 2023. The success rate of completion for VEXUS scans was 94.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89.5 to 97.6). Severe venous congestion was present in 19% (14/75) of patients on ICU admission day 1 and in 16% (10/61) of patients on day 3. Venous congestion on ICU admission may be associated with a higher risk of requiring RRT (unadjusted hazard ratio, 3.35; 95% CI, 0.94 to 11.88; P = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to conduct a definitive observational study exploring the association between venous congestion quantified with POCUS and clinical outcomes in patients with septic shock. We hypothesize that venous congestion may be associated with an increased hazard of receiving RRT.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: La congestion veineuse est un état physiopathologique qui peut entraîner un dysfonctionnement des organes, en particulier une insuffisance rénale aiguë (IRA). Nous avons cherché à évaluer la faisabilité de la réalisation d'une étude observationnelle définitive pour déterminer l'impact de la congestion veineuse quantifiée à l'aide de l'échographie ciblée (POCUS) chez des patient·es en choc septique. MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une étude de faisabilité observationnelle prospective dans deux unités de soins intensifs (USI). Nous avons recruté des patient·es adultes souffrant d'un choc septique dans les 12 heures suivant leur admission aux soins intensifs. À l'aide du score VEXUS (score d'échographie de l'excès veineux) validé, nous avons quantifié la congestion veineuse au jour 1 et au jour 3 de leur admission aux soins intensifs. Le principal critère de faisabilité était le taux de réussite des deux scores VEXUS. Nous avons réalisé une analyse de survie pour quantifier le risque de thérapie de substitution rénale (TSR). RéSULTATS: Nous avons recruté 75 patient·es de janvier 2022 à janvier 2023. Le taux de réussite des scores VEXUS était de 94,5 % (intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 %, 89,5 à 97,6). Une congestion veineuse sévère était présente chez 19 % (14/75) des patient·es au jour 1 d'admission aux soins intensifs et chez 16 % (10/61) des patient·es au jour 3. La congestion veineuse lors de l'admission aux soins intensifs peut être associée à un risque plus élevé de nécessiter une TSR (rapport de risque non ajusté, 3,35; IC 95 %, 0,94 à 11,88; P = 0,06). CONCLUSION: Il est possible de mener une étude observationnelle définitive explorant l'association entre la congestion veineuse quantifiée par POCUS et les devenirs cliniques chez les patient·es en choc septique. Nous émettons l'hypothèse que la congestion veineuse peut être associée à un risque accru de recevoir une thérapie de substitution rénale.

Developing Guidance for Donor Intervention Randomized Controlled Trials: Initial Discussions From the Canada-United Kingdom 2022 Workshop.

BACKGROUND: Donor interventions, including medications, protocols, and medical devices administered to donors, can enhance transplantable organ quality and quantity and maximize transplantation success. However, there is paucity of high-quality evidence about their effectiveness, in part because of ethical, practical, and regulatory challenges, and lack of guidance about conduct of donor intervention randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: With the vision to develop authoritative guidance for conduct of donor intervention RCTs, we convened a workshop of Canadian-United Kingdom experts in organ donation and transplantation ethics, research, and policy to identify stakeholders, explore unique challenges, and develop research agenda to inform future work in this promising field. RESULTS: Donor intervention trials should consider perspectives of broad group of stakeholders including donors, transplant recipients, and their families; researchers in donation and transplantation; research ethics boards; and healthcare providers and administrators involved in donation and transplantation. Unique challenges include (1) research ethics (living versus deceased status of the donor at the time of intervention, intervention versus outcomes assessment in different individuals, harm-benefit analysis in donors versus recipients, consent, and impact on research bystanders); (2) outcome data standardization and linkage; and (3) regulatory and governance considerations. CONCLUSIONS: Donor intervention RCTs hold potential to benefit organ transplantation outcomes but face unique research ethics, outcome data, and regulatory challenges. By developing research agenda to address these challenges, our workshop was an important first step toward developing Canada-United Kingdom guidance for donor intervention RCTs that are poised to improve the quality and availability of transplantable organs.

Unifying Fluid Responsiveness and Tolerance With Physiology: A Dynamic Interpretation of the Diamond-Forrester Classification.

Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) is a first-line tool to assess hemodynamically unstable patients, however, there is confusion surrounding intertwined concepts such as: "flow," "congestion," "fluid responsiveness (FR)," and "fluid tolerance." We argue that the Frank-Starling relationship is clarifying because it describes the interplay between "congestion" and "flow" on the x-axis and y-axis, respectively. Nevertheless, a single, simultaneous assessment of congestion and flow via POCUS remains a static approach. To expand this, we propose a two-step process. The first step is to place the patient on an ultrasonographic Diamond-Forrester plot. The second step is a dynamic assessment for FR (e.g., passive leg raise), which individualizes therapy across the arc of critical illness.

Annexin A5 in Patients With Severe COVID-19 Disease: A Single-Center, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Feasibility Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the study design and feasibility of drug administration and safety in a randomized clinical trial of recombinant human annexin A5 (SY-005), a constitutively expressed protein with anti-inflammatory, antiapoptotic, and anticoagulant properties, in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). DESIGN: Double-blind, randomized clinical trial. SETTING: Two ICUs at an academic medical center. PATIENTS/SUBJECTS: Adults admitted to the ICU with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and requiring ventilatory or vasopressor support. INTERVENTIONS: SY-005, a recombinant human annexin A5, at 50 or 100 µg/kg IV every 12 hours for 7 days. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We enrolled 18 of the 55 eligible patients (33%) between April 21, 2021, and February 3, 2022. We administered 82% (196/238) of the anticipated doses of study medication and 86% (169/196) were given within 1 hour of the scheduled time. There were no drug-related serious adverse events. We captured 100% of the data that would be required for measuring clinical outcomes in a phase 2 or 3 trial. LIMITATIONS: The small sample size was a result of decreasing admissions of patients with COVID-19, which triggered a stopping rule for the trial. CONCLUSIONS: Although enrollment was low, administration of SY-005 to critically ill patients with COVID-19 every 12 hours for up to 7 days was feasible and safe. Further clinical trials of annexin A5 for the treatment of COVID-19 are warranted. Given reduction of severe COVID-19 disease, future studies should explore the safety and effectiveness of SY-005 use in non-COVID-related sepsis.

Topical treatments for atopic dermatitis (eczema): Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a common skin condition with multiple topical treatment options, but uncertain comparative effects. OBJECTIVE: We sought to systematically synthesize the benefits and harms of AD prescription topical treatments. METHODS: For the 2023 American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology Joint Task Force on Practice Parameters AD guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, LILACS, ICTRP, and GREAT databases to September 5, 2022, for randomized trials addressing AD topical treatments. Paired reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects network meta-analyses addressed AD severity, itch, sleep, AD-related quality of life, flares, and harms. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach informed certainty of evidence ratings. We classified topical corticosteroids (TCS) using 7 groups-group 1 being most potent. This review is registered in the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/q5m6s). RESULTS: The 219 included trials (43,123 patients) evaluated 68 interventions. With high-certainty evidence, pimecrolimus improved 6 of 7 outcomes-among the best for 2; high-dose tacrolimus (0.1%) improved 5-among the best for 2; low-dose tacrolimus (0.03%) improved 5-among the best for 1. With moderate- to high-certainty evidence, group 5 TCS improved 6-among the best for 3; group 4 TCS and delgocitinib improved 4-among the best for 2; ruxolitinib improved 4-among the best for 1; group 1 TCS improved 3-among the best for 2. These interventions did not increase harm. Crisaborole and difamilast were intermediately effective, but with uncertain harm. Topical antibiotics alone or in combination may be among the least effective. To maintain AD control, group 5 TCS were among the most effective, followed by tacrolimus and pimecrolimus. CONCLUSIONS: For individuals with AD, pimecrolimus, tacrolimus, and moderate-potency TCS are among the most effective in improving and maintaining multiple AD outcomes. Topical antibiotics may be among the least effective.

Systemic Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatories for Analgesia in Postoperative Critical Care Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Control Trials.

While opioids are part of usual care for analgesia in the ICU, there are concerns regarding excess use. This is a systematic review of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) use in postoperative critical care adult patients. DATA SOURCES: We searched Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, trial registries, Google Scholar, and relevant systematic reviews through March 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed independently and induplicate by two investigators to identify eligible studies. We included randomized control trials (RCTs) that compared NSAIDs alone or as an adjunct to opioids for systemic analgesia. The primary outcome was opioid utilization. DATA EXTRACTION: In duplicate, investigators independently extracted study characteristics, patient demographics, intervention details, and outcomes of interest using predefined abstraction forms. Statistical analyses were conducted using Review Manager software Version 5.4. (The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 15 RCTs (n = 1,621 patients) for admission to the ICU for postoperative management after elective procedures. Adjunctive NSAID therapy to opioids reduced 24-hour oral morphine equivalent consumption by 21.4 mg (95% CI, 11.8-31.0 mg reduction; high certainty) and probably reduced pain scores (measured by Visual Analog Scale) by 6.1 mm (95% CI, 12.2 decrease to 0.1 increase; moderate certainty). Adjunctive NSAID therapy probably had no impact on the duration of mechanical ventilation (1.6 hr reduction; 95% CI, 0.4 hr to 2.7 reduction; moderate certainty) and may have no impact on ICU length of stay (2.1 hr reduction; 95% CI, 6.1 hr reduction to 2.0 hr increase; low certainty). Variability in reporting adverse outcomes (e.g., gastrointestinal bleeding, acute kidney injury) precluded their meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In postoperative critical care adult patients, systemic NSAIDs reduced opioid use and probably reduced pain scores. However, the evidence is uncertain for the duration of mechanical ventilation or ICU length of stay. Further research is required to characterize the prevalence of NSAID-related adverse outcomes.

Doppler identified venous congestion in septic shock: protocol for an international, multi-centre prospective cohort study (Andromeda-VEXUS).

INTRODUCTION: Venous congestion is a pathophysiological state where high venous pressures cause organ oedema and dysfunction. Venous congestion is associated with worse outcomes, particularly acute kidney injury (AKI), for critically ill patients. Venous congestion can be measured by Doppler ultrasound at the bedside through interrogation of the inferior vena cava (IVC), hepatic vein (HV), portal vein (PV) and intrarenal veins (IRV). The objective of this study is to quantify the association between Doppler identified venous congestion and the need for renal replacement therapy (RRT) or death for patients with septic shock. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study is a prespecified substudy of the ANDROMEDA-SHOCK 2 (AS-2) randomised control trial (RCT) assessing haemodynamic resuscitation in septic shock and will enrol at least 350 patients across multiple sites. We will include adult patients within 4 hours of fulfilling septic shock definition according to Sepsis-3 consensus conference. Using Doppler ultrasound, physicians will interrogate the IVC, HV, PV and IRV 6-12 hours after randomisation. Study investigators will provide web-based educational sessions to ultrasound operators and adjudicate image acquisition and interpretation. The primary outcome will be RRT or death within 28 days of septic shock. We will assess the hazard of RRT or death as a function of venous congestion using a Cox proportional hazards model. Sub-distribution HRs will describe the hazard of RRT given the competing risk of death. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We obtained ethics approval for the AS-2 RCT, including this observational substudy, from local ethics boards at all participating sites. We will report the findings of this study through open-access publication, presentation at international conferences, a coordinated dissemination strategy by investigators through social media, and an open-access workshop series in multiple languages. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05057611.

A brain-based definition of death and criteria for its determination after arrest of circulation or neurologic function in Canada: a 2023 clinical practice guideline.

This 2023 Clinical Practice Guideline provides the biomedical definition of death based on permanent cessation of brain function that applies to all persons, as well as recommendations for death determination by circulatory criteria for potential organ donors and death determination by neurologic criteria for all mechanically ventilated patients regardless of organ donation potential. This Guideline is endorsed by the Canadian Critical Care Society, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Association of Critical Care Nurses, Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society, the Canadian Neurological Sciences Federation (representing the Canadian Neurological Society, Canadian Neurosurgical Society, Canadian Society of Clinical Neurophysiologists, Canadian Association of Child Neurology, Canadian Society of Neuroradiology, and Canadian Stroke Consortium), Canadian Blood Services, the Canadian Donation and Transplantation Research Program, the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians, the Nurse Practitioners Association of Canada, and the Canadian Cardiovascular Critical Care Society.

RéSUMé: Ces Lignes directrices de pratique clinique 2023 Lignes directrices de pratique clinique dicale du décès basée sur l'arrêt permanent de la fonction cérébrale qui s'applique à toute personne, ainsi que des recommandations pour la détermination du décès par des critères circulatoires pour des donneurs d'organes potentiels et des recommandations pour la détermination du décès par des critères neurologiques pour tous les patients sous ventilation mécanique, indépendamment de leur potentiel de donneur d'organes. Les présentes Lignes directrices sont approuvées par la Société canadienne de soins intensifs, l'Association médicale canadienne, l'Association canadienne des infirmiers/infirmières en soins intensifs, la Société canadienne des anesthésiologistes, la Fédération des sciences neurologiques du Canada (représentant la Société canadienne de neurologie, la Société canadienne de neurochirurgie, la Société canadienne de neurophysiologie clinique, l'Association canadienne de neurologie pédiatrique, la Société canadienne de neuroradiologie et le Consortium neurovasculaire canadien), la Société canadienne du sang, le Programme de recherche en don et transplantation du Canada, l'Association canadienne des médecins d'urgence, l'Association des infirmières et infirmiers praticiens du Canada, et la Société canadienne de soins intensifs cardiovasculaires (CANCARE) et la Société canadienne de pédiatrie.

Ancillary investigations for death determination in infants and children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the diagnostic test accuracy of ancillary investigations for declaration of death by neurologic criteria (DNC) in infants and children. SOURCE: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases from their inception to June 2021 for relevant randomized controlled trials, observational studies, and abstracts published in the last three years. We identified relevant studies using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis methodology and a two-stage review. We assessed the risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 tool, and applied Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation methodology to determine the certainty of evidence. A fixed-effects model was used to meta-analyze pooled sensitivity and specificity data for each ancillary investigation with at least two studies. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Thirty-nine eligible manuscripts assessing 18 unique ancillary investigations (n = 866) were identified. The sensitivity and specificity ranged from 0.00 to 1.00 and 0.50 to 1.00, respectively. The quality of evidence was low to very low for all ancillary investigations, with the exception of radionuclide dynamic flow studies for which it was graded as moderate. Radionuclide scintigraphy using the lipophilic radiopharmaceutical 99mTc-hexamethylpropyleneamine oxime (HMPAO) with or without tomographic imaging were the most accurate ancillary investigations with a combined sensitivity of 0.99 (95% highest density interval [HDI], 0.89 to 1.00) and specificity of 0.97 (95% HDI, 0.65 to 1.00). CONCLUSION: The ancillary investigation for DNC in infants and children with the greatest accuracy appears to be radionuclide scintigraphy using HMPAO with or without tomographic imaging; however, the certainty of the evidence is low. Nonimaging modalities performed at the bedside require further investigation. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021278788); registered 16 October 2021.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous avons réalisé une revue systématique et une méta-analyse pour déterminer la précision des tests diagnostiques des examens auxiliaires pour la déclaration du décès selon des critères neurologiques (DCN) chez les nourrissons et les enfants. SOURCES: Nous avons effectué des recherches dans les bases de données MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science et Cochrane de leur création jusqu'en juin 2021 pour trouver des études randomisées contrôlées, des études observationnelles et des résumés pertinents publiés au cours des trois dernières années. Nous avons identifié les études pertinentes utilisant la méthodologie PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) et une revue en deux étapes. Nous avons évalué le risque de biais en utilisant l'outil QUADAS-2 et appliqué la méthodologie GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) afin d'évaluer la certitude des données probantes. Un modèle à effets fixes a été utilisé pour méta-analyser les données de sensibilité et de spécificité regroupées pour chaque examen auxiliaire avec au moins deux études. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: Trente-neuf manuscrits admissibles évaluant 18 examens auxiliaires uniques (n = 866) ont été identifiés. La sensibilité et la spécificité variaient de 0,00 à 1,00 et de 0,50 à 1,00, respectivement. La qualité des données probantes était faible à très faible pour tous les examens auxiliaires, à l'exception des études de circulation nucléaire dynamique, pour lesquelles elle a été classée comme modérée. La scintigraphie nucléaire à l'aide du produit radiopharmaceutique lipophile 99mTc- hexa-méthyl-propylène amine oxime (HMPAO) avec ou sans imagerie tomographique était à la base des examens auxiliaires les plus précis, avec une sensibilité combinée de 0,99 (intervalle de densité le plus élevé [IDE] à 95 %, 0,89 à 1,00) et une spécificité de 0,97 (IDE à 95 %, 0,65 à 1,00). CONCLUSION: L'examen auxiliaire pour un DCN chez les nourrissons et les enfants offrant la plus grande précision semble être la scintigraphie nucléaire utilisant le HMPAO avec ou sans imagerie tomographique; cependant, la certitude des données probantes est faible. Les modalités sans imagerie réalisées au chevet du patient nécessitent un examen plus approfondi. Enregistrement de l'étude: PROSPERO (CRD42021278788); enregistrée le 16 octobre 2021.

Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of Proportional Assist Ventilation for Minimizing the Duration of Mechanical Ventilation: the PROMIZING study.

BACKGROUND: Proportional assist ventilation with load-adjustable gain factors (PAV+) is a mechanical ventilation mode that delivers assistance to breathe in proportion to the patient's effort. The proportional assistance, called the gain, can be adjusted by the clinician to maintain the patient's respiratory effort or workload within a normal range. Short-term and physiological benefits of this mode compared to pressure support ventilation (PSV) include better patient-ventilator synchrony and a more physiological response to changes in ventilatory demand. METHODS: The objective of this multi-centre randomized controlled trial (RCT) is to determine if, for patients with acute respiratory failure, ventilation with PAV+ will result in a shorter time to successful extubation than with PSV. This multi-centre open-label clinical trial plans to involve approximately 20 sites in several continents. Once eligibility is determined, patients must tolerate a short-term PSV trial and either (1) not meet general weaning criteria or (2) fail a 2-min Zero Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) Trial using the rapid shallow breathing index, or (3) fail a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT), in this sequence. Then, participants in this study will be randomized to either PSV or PAV+ in a 1:1 ratio. PAV+ will be set according to a target of muscular pressure. The weaning process will be identical in the two arms. Time to liberation will be the primary outcome; ventilator-free days and other outcomes will be measured. DISCUSSION: Meta-analyses comparing PAV+ to PSV suggest PAV+ may benefit patients and decrease healthcare costs but no powered study to date has targeted the difficult to wean patient population most likely to benefit from the intervention, or used consistent timing for the implementation of PAV+. Our enrolment strategy, primary outcome measure, and liberation approaches may be useful for studying mechanical ventilation and weaning and can offer important results for patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02447692 . Prospectively registered on May 19, 2015.

Mean Arterial Pressure Targets and Patient-Important Outcomes in Critically Ill Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether targeting a higher mean arterial pressure (MAP) compared with a lower MAP in adults with shock results in differences in patient important outcomes. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov through May 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Titles and abstracts were screened independently and in duplicate to identify potentially eligible studies, then full text for final eligibility. We included parallel-group randomized controlled trials in adult patients with a diagnosis of shock requiring vasoactive medications. The higher MAP group was required to receive vasoactive medications to target a higher MAP as established by study authors, whereas the lower MAP group received vasoactive medications to target lower MAP. DATA EXTRACTION: In triplicate, reviewers independently extracted data using a prepiloted abstraction form. Statistical analyses were conducted using the RevMan software Version 5.3. DATA SYNTHESIS: Six randomized controlled trials (n = 3,690) met eligibility criteria. Targeting a higher MAP (75-85 mm Hg) compared with lower MAP of 65 mm Hg resulted in no difference in mortality (relative risk [RR], 1.06; 95% CI, 0.98-1.15; I2 = 0%; p = 0.12; moderate certainty. Targeting a higher MAP resulted in no difference in the risk of undergoing renal replacement therapy (RR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.83-1.11; I2 = 24%; p = 0.57; moderate certainty); however, a subgroup analysis comparing patients with and without chronic hypertension demonstrated that a higher MAP may reduce the risk of undergoing renal replacement therapy (RR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.98; I2 = 0%; p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, our systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrated with moderate certainty that there is no difference in mortality when a higher MAP is targeted in critically ill adult patients with shock. Further studies are needed to determine the impact of mean arterial pressure on need for renal replacement therapy in this population.

Safety Outcomes of Direct Discharge Home From ICUs: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Direct From ICU Sent Home Study).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of direct discharge home (DDH) from ICUs compared with ward transfer on safety outcomes of readmissions, emergency department (ED) visits, and mortality. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from inception until March 28, 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized and nonrandomized studies of DDH patients compared with ward transfer were eligible. DATA EXTRACTION: We screened and extracted studies independently and in duplicate. We assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. A random-effects meta-analysis model and heterogeneity assessment was performed using pooled data (inverse variance) for propensity-matched and unadjusted cohorts. We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using the Grading Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 10,228 citations identified, we included six studies. Of these, three high-quality studies, which enrolled 49,376 patients in propensity-matched cohorts, could be pooled using meta-analysis. For DDH from ICU, compared with ward transfers, there was no difference in the risk of ED visits at 30-day (22.4% vs 22.7%; relative risk [RR], 0.99; 95% CI, 0.95-1.02; p = 0.39; low certainty); hospital readmissions at 30-day (9.8% vs 9.6%; RR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91-1.15; p = 0.71; very low-to-low certainty); or 90-day mortality (2.8% vs 2.6%; RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.95-1.18; p = 0.29; very low-to-low certainty). There were no important differences in the unmatched cohorts or across subgroup analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Very low-to-low certainty evidence from observational studies suggests that DDH from ICU may have no difference in safety outcomes compared with ward transfer of selected ICU patients. In the future, this research question could be further examined by randomized control trials to provide higher certainty data.

Living alone and all-cause mortality in community-dwelling adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: The non-causal and causal associations, possible age and sex differences between living alone and all-cause mortality among adults were unclear. We aimed to assess the association and causal relation between living alone and all-cause mortality among community-dwelling adults, addressing the certainty of evidence, possible age and sex differences. Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, and APA PsycINFO for cohort studies examining the association between living alone and all-cause mortality on November 19, 2021. We used the GRADE approach to assess certainty of evidence, and the Instrument for the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) to evaluate credibility of subgroup inferences and conducted a meta-analysis of measures of association between living alone and mortality. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021290895. Findings: 18 cohort studies with 62,174 adults proved eligible. Living alone was associated with mortality (relative risk (RR) = 1.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08-1.23). Both age and sex modified the association (high and moderate credibility, separately). Living alone increased the risk of dying only in younger but not older individuals (ratio of RRs = 1.59, interaction P = 0.003; younger RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.17-1.71, high certainty for prognosis, low for causation; older RR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.91-1.22, moderate certainty for prognosis, very low for causation). Living alone increased risk to a greater extent in males than females (ratio of RRs = 1.39, 95% CI 1.14-1.70; interaction P = 0.001, males RR = 1.41, 95% CI 1.17-1.71, high certainty for prognosis, low for causation; females RR = 1.15, 95% CI 0.99-1.33; moderate for prognosis factor, very low for causation). Interpretation: Living alone is associated with increased mortality in individuals under 65 years (high certainty) but not with those over 75 years; the association may be causal (low certainty). Associations, and possibly effects, may be stronger in men than women. Funding: None.

Health economic evaluation alongside the Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (E-PROSPECT): a cost-effectiveness analysis.

PURPOSE: We sought to compare the cost-effectiveness of probiotics and usual care with usual care without probiotics in mechanically ventilated, intensive care unit patients alongside the Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial (PROSPECT). METHODS: We conducted a health economic evaluation alongside the PROSPECT randomized control trial (October 2013-March 2019). We adopted a public healthcare payer's perspective. Forty-four intensive care units in three countries (Canada/USA/Saudi Arabia) with adult critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients (N = 2,650) were included. Interventions were probiotics (Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG) vs placebo administered enterally twice daily. We collected healthcare resource use and estimated unit costs in 2019 United States dollars (USD) over a time horizon from randomization to hospital discharge/death. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) comparing probiotics vs usual care. The primary outcome was incremental cost per ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) event averted; secondary outcomes were costs per Clostridioides difficile-associated diarrhea (CDAD), antibiotic-associated diarrhea (AAD), and mortality averted. Uncertainty was investigated using nonparametric bootstrapping and sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation [SD]) cost per patient was USD 66,914 (91,098) for patients randomized to probiotics, with a median [interquartile range (IQR)] of USD 42,947 [22,239 to 76,205]. By comparison, for those not receiving probiotics, mean (SD) cost per patient was USD 62,701 (78,676) (median [IQR], USD 41,102 [23,170 to 75,140]; incremental cost, USD 4,213; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2,269 to 10,708). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for VAP or AAD events averted, probiotics were dominated by usual care (more expensive, with similar effectiveness). The ICERs were USD 1,473,400 per CDAD event averted (95% CI, undefined) and USD 396,764 per death averted (95% CI, undefined). Cost-effectiveness acceptability curves reveal that probiotics were not cost-effective across wide ranges of plausible willingness-to-pay thresholds. Sensitivity analyses did not change the conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Probiotics for VAP prevention among critically ill patients were not cost-effective. Study registration data www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT01782755); registered 4 February 2013.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous avons cherché à comparer le rapport coût-efficacité d'un traitement avec probiotiques ajoutés aux soins habituels avec des soins habituels prodigués sans probiotiques chez les patients des soins intensifs sous ventilation mécanique dans le cadre de l'étude PROSPECT (Probiotics to Prevent Severe Pneumonia and Endotracheal Colonization Trial). MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une évaluation de l'économie de la santé parallèlement à l'étude randomisée contrôlée PROSPECT (octobre 2013-mars 2019). Nous avons adopté le point de vue d'un payeur public de services de santé. Quarante-quatre unités de soins intensifs dans trois pays (Canada/États-Unis/Arabie saoudite) prenant soin de patients adultes gravement malades sous ventilation mécanique (n = 2650) ont été inclus. Les interventions ont été les suivantes : probiotiques (Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG) vs placebo administrés par voie entérale deux fois par jour. Nous avons recueilli les données concernant l'utilisation des ressources en soins de santé et estimé les coûts unitaires en dollars américains (USD) de 2019 sur un horizon temporel allant de la randomisation au congé de l'hôpital / décès. Nous avons calculé des rapports coût-efficacité différentiels (RCED) en comparant les probiotiques vs les soins habituels. Le critère d'évaluation principal était le coût différentiel par événement évité de pneumonie associée au ventilateur (PAV); les critères d'évaluation secondaires étaient les coûts par diarrhée associée au Clostridioides difficile (DACD), diarrhée associée aux antibiotiques (DAA) et mortalité évitées. L'incertitude a été étudiée à l'aide d'analyses d'amorçage et de sensibilité non paramétriques. RéSULTATS: Le coût moyen (écart type [ÉT]) par patient était de 66 914 (91 098) USD pour les patients randomisés au groupe probiotiques, avec une médiane [écart interquartile (ÉIQ)] de 42 947 USD [22 239 à 76 205]. En comparaison, pour ceux ne recevant pas de probiotiques, le coût moyen (ÉT) par patient était de 62 701 USD (78 676) (médiane [ÉIQ], 41 102 USD [23 170 à 75 140]; coût différentiel, 4213 USD; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95%, -2269 à 10 708). En matière de rapports coût-efficacité différentiels pour les événements de PAV ou DAA évités, les probiotiques étaient dominés par les soins habituels (plus coûteux, avec une efficacité similaire). Les RCED étaient de 1 473 400 USD par événement de DACD évitée (IC 95 %, non défini) et de 396 764 USD par décès évité (IC 95 %, non défini). Les courbes d'acceptabilité coût-efficacité révèlent que les probiotiques n'étaient pas rentables dans de larges gammes de seuils plausibles de volonté de payer. Les analyses de sensibilité n'ont pas modifié les conclusions. CONCLUSION: Les probiotiques utilisés pour prévenir la PAV chez les patients gravement malades n'étaient pas rentables. Enregistrement de l'étude : www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01782755); enregistrée le 4 février 2013.