Rationale and study design for an Individualized PeriopeRative Open lung VEntilatory approach in Emergency Abdominal Laparotomy/scopy: study protocol for a prospective international randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) are the most frequent postoperative complications, with an estimated prevalence in elective surgery ranging from 20% in observational cohort studies to 40% in randomized clinical trials. However, the prevalence of PPCs in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery is not well defined. Lung-protective ventilation aims to minimize ventilator-induced lung injury and reduce PPCs. The open lung approach (OLA), which combines recruitment manoeuvres (RM) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration, aims to minimize areas of atelectasis and the development of PPCs; however, there is no conclusive evidence in the literature that OLA can prevent PPCs. The purpose of this study is to compare an individualized perioperative OLA with conventional standardized lung-protective ventilation in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery with clinical signs of intraoperative lung collapse. METHODS: Randomized international clinical trial to compare an individualized perioperative OLA (RM plus individualized PEEP and individualized postoperative respiratory support) with conventional lung-protective ventilation (standard PEEP of 5 cmH2O and conventional postoperative oxygen therapy) in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery with clinical signs of lung collapse. Patients will be randomised to open-label parallel groups. The primary outcome is any severe PPC during the first 7 postoperative days, including: acute respiratory failure, pneumothorax, weaning failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and pulmonary infection. The estimated sample size is 732 patients (366 per group). The final sample size will be readjusted during the interim analysis. DISCUSSION: The Individualized Perioperative Open-lung Ventilatory Strategy in emergency abdominal laparotomy (iPROVE-EAL) is the first multicentre, randomized, controlled trial to investigate whether an individualized perioperative approach prevents PPCs in patients undergoing emergency surgery.

Neuroleptic malignant syndrome in a postoperative patient: A case report.

Neuroleptic malignant syndrome is a rare medical emergency associated with the use of antipsychotics and other antidopaminergic drugs. There is no specific test, and diagnosis is based on high clinical suspicion and good differential diagnosis. A clinical picture consistent with hyperthermia, muscle rigidity, altered level of consciousness, together with signs of rhabdomyolysis in analytical studies and a history of taking neuroleptic drugs are the key elements in the detection of this entity. Due to its low incidence and potential mortality, it is essential to publish case reports of neuroleptic malignant syndrome in order to raise awareness of this entity and facilitate diagnostic suspicion when encountering a patient with compatible symptoms. The following is the case of a 79 year old patient with chronic alcohol consumption as the only history of interest, who was given a single dose of haloperidol after an episode of delirium in the postoperative period of conventional trauma surgery. She subsequently developed a picture of progressive deterioration of the level of consciousness, diaphoresis, generalized muscle rigidity, hyperthermia, together with severe metabolic acidosis, hyperlacticaemia, rhabdomyolysis, hypertransaminasemia and hypocalcemia. After ruling out other entities compatible with the clinical picture, neuroleptic malignant syndrome was given as the main diagnostic hypothesis. Diagnosis was confirmed after clinical and analytical improvement following treatment with dantrolene. The patient was discharged from hospital with no sequelae a few days after onset of the condition.

Síndrome neuroléptico maligno en paciente postoperada: a propósito de un caso / Neuroleptic malignant syndrome in a postoperative patient: a case report

El síndrome neuroléptico maligno es una emergencia médica poco frecuente asociada al uso de antipsicóticos y otros fármacos antidopaminérgicos. No se dispone de una prueba específica para su diagnóstico, basándose este en una alta sospecha clínica y la realización de un buen diagnóstico diferencial. Un cuadro clínico compatible, destacando la hipertermia, rigidez muscular, alteración del nivel de conciencia y signos de rabdomiolisis en los estudios analíticos, junto con el antecedente de la toma de fármacos neurolépticos, constituyen los elementos clave para la detección de esta entidad. Debido a su escasa incidencia y su potencial mortalidad, es primordial su conocimiento a través de series de casos descritos en la literatura para facilitar su sospecha diagnóstica ante un caso clínico compatible. A continuación, exponemos un caso de una paciente de 79 años con consumo crónico de alcohol como único antecedente de interés, que recibió una dosis única de haloperidol tras un cuadro de delirio en el contexto de un postoperatorio convencional de traumatología. Posteriormente, desarrolló un cuadro de deterioro progresivo del nivel de conciencia, diaforesis, rigidez muscular generalizada, hipertermia, junto a acidosis metabólica severa, hiperlactacidemia, rabdomiolisis, hipertransaminasemia e hipocalcemia. Tras excluir otras entidades compatibles con la clínica, el síndrome neuroléptico maligno se postuló como la principal hipótesis diagnóstica, reforzándose el diagnóstico tras la mejoría clínica y analítica evidente posterior al inicio del tratamiento con dantrolene. La paciente pudo, finalmente, ser dada de alta escasos días después del inicio del cuadro sin presentar secuelas.(AU)

Neuroleptic malignant syndrome is a rare medical emergency associated with the use of antipsychotics and other antidopaminergic drugs. There is no specific test, and diagnosis is based on high clinical suspicion and good differential diagnosis.A clinical picture consistent with hyperthermia, muscle rigidity, altered level of consciousness, together with signs of rhabdomyolysis in analytical studies and a history of taking neuroleptic drugs are the key elements in the detection of this entity.Due to its low incidence and potential mortality, it is essential to publish case reports of neuroleptic malignant syndrome in order to raise awareness of this entity and facilitate diagnostic suspicion when encountering a patient with compatible symptoms.The following is the case of a 79 year old patient with chronic alcohol consumption as the only history of interest, who was given a single dose of haloperidol after an episode of delirium in the postoperative period of conventional trauma surgery. She subsequently developed a picture of progressive deterioration of the level of consciousness, diaphoresis, generalized muscle rigidity, hyperthermia, together with severe metabolic acidosis, hyperlacticaemia, rhabdomyolysis, hypertransaminasemia and hypocalcemia. After ruling out other entities compatible with the clinical picture, neuroleptic malignant syndrome was given as the main diagnostic hypothesis. Diagnosis was confirmed after clinical and analytical improvement following treatment with dantrolene. The patient was discharged from hospital with no sequelae a few days after onset of the condition.(AU)

Neuroleptic malignant syndrome in a postoperative patient: a case report. / Síndrome neuroléptico maligno en paciente postoperada: a propósito de un caso.

Neuroleptic malignant syndrome is a rare medical emergency associated with the use of antipsychotics and other antidopaminergic drugs. There is no specific test, and diagnosis is based on high clinical suspicion and good differential diagnosis. A clinical picture consistent with hyperthermia, muscle rigidity, altered level of consciousness, together with signs of rhabdomyolysis in analytical studies and a history of taking neuroleptic drugs are the key elements in the detection of this entity. Due to its low incidence and potential mortality, it is essential to publish case reports of neuroleptic malignant syndrome in order to raise awareness of this entity and facilitate diagnostic suspicion when encountering a patient with compatible symptoms. The following is the case of a 79 year old patient with chronic alcohol consumption as the only history of interest, who was given a single dose of haloperidol after an episode of delirium in the postoperative period of conventional trauma surgery. She subsequently developed a picture of progressive deterioration of the level of consciousness, diaphoresis, generalized muscle rigidity, hyperthermia, together with severe metabolic acidosis, hyperlacticaemia, rhabdomyolysis, hypertransaminasemia and hypocalcemia. After ruling out other entities compatible with the clinical picture, neuroleptic malignant syndrome was given as the main diagnostic hypothesis. Diagnosis was confirmed after clinical and analytical improvement following treatment with dantrolene. The patient was discharged from hospital with no sequelae a few days after onset of the condition.

Características, evolución clínica y factores asociados a la mortalidad en UCI de los pacientes críticos infectados por SARS-CoV-2 en España: estudio prospectivo, de cohorte y multicéntrico / Patient characteristics, clinical course and factors associated to ICU mortality in critically ill patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Spain: a prospective, cohort, multicentre study

ANTECEDENTES: No se ha reportado plenamente la evolución clínica de los pacientes críticos de COVID-19 durante su ingreso en la unidad de cuidados intensivos (UCI), incluyendo las complicaciones médicas e infecciosas y terapias de soporte, así como su asociación con la mortalidad en ICU. OBJETIVO: El objetivo de este estudio es describir las características clínicas y la evolución de los pacientes ingresados en UCI por COVID-19, y determinar los factores de riesgo de la mortalidad en UCI de dichos pacientes. MÉTODOS: Estudio prospectivo, multi-céntrico y de cohorte, que incluyó a los pacientes críticos de COVID-19 ingresados en 30 UCIs de España y Andorra. Se incluyó a los pacientes consecutivos de 12 de Marzo a 26 de Mayo de 2020 si habían fallecido o habían recibido el alta de la UCI durante el periodo de estudio. Se reportaron los datos demográficos, síntomas, signos vitales, marcadores de laboratorio, terapias de soporte, terapias farmacológicas, y complicaciones médicas e infecciosas, realizándose una comparación entre los pacientes fallecidos y los pacientes dados de alta. RESULTADOS: Se incluyó a un total de 663 pacientes. La mortalidad general en UCI fue del 31% (203 pacientes). Al ingreso en UCI los no supervivientes eran más hipoxémicos [SpO2 sin mascarilla de no reinhalación, de 90 (RIC 83-93) vs 91 (RIC 87-94); p < 0,001] y con mayor puntuación en la escala SOFA - Evaluación de daño orgánico secuencial - [SOFA, 7 (RIC 5-9) vs 4 (RIC 3-7); p < 0,001]. Las complicaciones fueron más frecuentes en los no supervivientes: síndrome de distrés respiratorio agudo (SDRA) (95% vs 89%; p = 0,009), insuficiencia renal aguda (IRA) (58% vs 24%; p < 10−16), shock (42% vs 14%; p < 10−13), y arritmias (24% vs 11%; p < 10−4). Las súper-infecciones respiratorias, infecciones del torrente sanguíneo y los shock sépticos fueron más frecuentes en los no supervivientes (33% vs 25%; p = 0,03, 33% vs 23%; p = 0,01 y 15% vs 3%, p = 10−7), respectivamente. El modelo de regresión multivariable reflejó que la edad estaba asociada a la mortalidad, y que cada año incrementaba el riesgo de muerte en un 1% (95%IC: 1-10, p = 0,014). Cada incremento de 5 puntos en la escala APACHE II predijo de manera independiente la mortalidad [OR: 1,508 (1,081, 2,104), p = 0,015]. Los pacientes con IRA [OR: 2,468 (1,628, 3,741), p < 10−4)], paro cardiaco [OR: 11,099 (3,389, 36,353), p = 0,0001], y shock séptico [OR: 3,224 (1,486, 6,994), p = 0,002] tuvieron un riesgo de muerte incrementado. CONCLUSIONES: Los pacientes mayores de COVID-19 con puntuaciones APACHE II más altas al ingreso, que desarrollaron IRA en grados II o III y/o shock séptico durante la estancia en UCI tuvieron un riesgo de muerte incrementado. La mortalidad en UCI fue del 31%

BACKGROUND: The clinical course of COVID-19 critically ill patients, during their admission in the intensive care unit (UCI), including medical and infectious complications and support therapies, as well as their association with in-ICU mortality has not been fully reported. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe clinical characteristics and clinical course of ICU COVID-19 patients, and to determine risk factors for ICU mortality of COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Prospective, multicentre, cohort study that enrolled critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted into 30 ICUs from Spain and Andorra. Consecutive patients from March 12th to May 26th, 2020 were enrolled if they had died or were discharged from ICU during the study period. Demographics, symptoms, vital signs, laboratory markers, supportive therapies, pharmacological treatments, medical and infectious complications were reported and compared between deceased and discharged patients. RESULTS: A total of 663 patients were included. Overall ICU mortality was 31% (203 patients). At ICU admission non-survivors were more hypoxemic [SpO2 with non-rebreather mask, 90 (IQR 83-93) vs 91 (IQR 87-94); p < 0.001] and with higher sequential organ failure assessment score [SOFA, 7 (IQR 5-9) vs 4 (IQR 3-7); p < 0.001]. Complications were more frequent in non-survivors: acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (95% vs 89%; p = 0.009), acute kidney injury (AKI) (58% vs 24%; p < 10−16), shock (42% vs 14%; p < 10−13), and arrhythmias (24% vs 11%; p < 10−4). Respiratory super-infection, bloodstream infection and septic shock were higher in non-survivors (33% vs 25%; p = 0.03, 33% vs 23%; p = 0.01 and 15% vs 3%, p = 10−7), respectively. The multivariable regression model showed that age was associated with mortality, with every year increasing risk-of-death by 1% (95%CI: 1-10, p = 0.014). Each 5-point increase in APACHE II independently predicted mortality [OR: 1.508 (1.081, 2.104), p = 0.015]. Patients with AKI [OR: 2.468 (1.628, 3.741), p < 10−4)], cardiac arrest [OR: 11.099 (3.389, 36.353), p = 0.0001], and septic shock [OR: 3.224 (1.486, 6.994), p = 0.002] had an increased risk-of-death. CONCLUSIONS: Older COVID-19 patients with higher APACHE II scores on admission, those who developed AKI grades II or III and/or septic shock during ICU stay had an increased risk-of-death. ICU mortality was 31%

Patient characteristics, clinical course and factors associated to ICU mortality in critically ill patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 in Spain: A prospective, cohort, multicentre study. / Características, evolución clínica y factores asociados a la mortalidad en UCI de los pacientes críticos infectados por SARS-CoV-2 en España: estudio prospectivo, de cohorte y multicéntrico.

BACKGROUND: The clinical course of COVID-19 critically ill patients, during their admission in the intensive care unit (UCI), including medical and infectious complications and support therapies, as well as their association with in-ICU mortality has not been fully reported. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe clinical characteristics and clinical course of ICU COVID-19 patients, and to determine risk factors for ICU mortality of COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Prospective, multicentre, cohort study that enrolled critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted into 30 ICUs from Spain and Andorra. Consecutive patients from March 12th to May 26th, 2020 were enrolled if they had died or were discharged from ICU during the study period. Demographics, symptoms, vital signs, laboratory markers, supportive therapies, pharmacological treatments, medical and infectious complications were reported and compared between deceased and discharged patients. RESULTS: A total of 663 patients were included. Overall ICU mortality was 31% (203 patients). At ICU admission non-survivors were more hypoxemic [SpO2 with non-rebreather mask, 90 (IQR 83 to 93) vs. 91 (IQR 87 to 94); P<.001] and with higher sequential organ failure assessment score [SOFA, 7 (IQR 5 to 9) vs. 4 (IQR 3 to 7); P<.001]. Complications were more frequent in non-survivors: acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (95% vs. 89%; P=.009), acute kidney injury (AKI) (58% vs. 24%; P<10-16), shock (42% vs. 14%; P<10-13), and arrhythmias (24% vs. 11%; P<10-4). Respiratory super-infection, bloodstream infection and septic shock were higher in non-survivors (33% vs. 25%; P=.03, 33% vs. 23%; P=.01 and 15% vs. 3%, P=10-7), respectively. The multivariable regression model showed that age was associated with mortality, with every year increasing risk-of-death by 1% (95%CI: 1 to 10, P=.014). Each 5-point increase in APACHE II independently predicted mortality [OR: 1.508 (1.081, 2.104), P=.015]. Patients with AKI [OR: 2.468 (1.628, 3.741), P<10-4)], cardiac arrest [OR: 11.099 (3.389, 36.353), P=.0001], and septic shock [OR: 3.224 (1.486, 6.994), P=.002] had an increased risk-of-death. CONCLUSIONS: Older COVID-19 patients with higher APACHE II scores on admission, those who developed AKI grades ii or iii and/or septic shock during ICU stay had an increased risk-of-death. ICU mortality was 31%.