Redefining ARDS: a paradigm shift.

Although the defining elements of "acute respiratory distress syndrome" (ARDS) have been known for over a century, the syndrome was first described in 1967. Since then, despite several revisions of its conceptual definition, it remains a matter of debate whether ARDS is a discrete nosological entity. After almost 60 years, it is appropriate to examine how critical care has modeled this fascinating syndrome and affected patient's outcome. Given that the diagnostic criteria of ARDS (e.g., increased pulmonary vascular permeability and diffuse alveolar damage) are difficult to ascertain in clinical practice, we believe that a step forward would be to standardize the assessment of pulmonary and extrapulmonary involvement in ARDS to ensure that each patient can receive the most appropriate and effective treatment. The selection of treatments based on arbitrary ranges of PaO2/FiO2 lacks sufficient sensitivity to individualize patient care.

Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

BACKGROUND: Different forms of vaccines have been developed to prevent the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent COVID-19 disease. Several are in widespread use globally.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines (as a full primary vaccination series or a booster dose) against SARS-CoV-2. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and the COVID-19 L·OVE platform (last search date 5 November 2021). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, regulatory agency websites, and Retraction Watch. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing COVID-19 vaccines to placebo, no vaccine, other active vaccines, or other vaccine schedules. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for all except immunogenicity outcomes.  We synthesized data for each vaccine separately and presented summary effect estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).  MAIN RESULTS: We included and analyzed 41 RCTs assessing 12 different vaccines, including homologous and heterologous vaccine schedules and the effect of booster doses. Thirty-two RCTs were multicentre and five were multinational. The sample sizes of RCTs were 60 to 44,325 participants. Participants were aged: 18 years or older in 36 RCTs; 12 years or older in one RCT; 12 to 17 years in two RCTs; and three to 17 years in two RCTs. Twenty-nine RCTs provided results for individuals aged over 60 years, and three RCTs included immunocompromized patients. No trials included pregnant women. Sixteen RCTs had two-month follow-up or less, 20 RCTs had two to six months, and five RCTs had greater than six to 12 months or less. Eighteen reports were based on preplanned interim analyses. Overall risk of bias was low for all outcomes in eight RCTs, while 33 had concerns for at least one outcome. We identified 343 registered RCTs with results not yet available.  This abstract reports results for the critical outcomes of confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, severe and critical COVID-19, and serious adverse events only for the 10 WHO-approved vaccines. For remaining outcomes and vaccines, see main text. The evidence for mortality was generally sparse and of low or very low certainty for all WHO-approved vaccines, except AD26.COV2.S (Janssen), which probably reduces the risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.67; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants; high-certainty evidence). Confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2 (BioNtech/Fosun Pharma/Pfizer), mRNA-1273 (ModernaTx), ChAdOx1 (Oxford/AstraZeneca), Ad26.COV2.S, BBIBP-CorV (Sinopharm-Beijing), and BBV152 (Bharat Biotect) reduce the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (vaccine efficacy (VE): BNT162b2: 97.84%, 95% CI 44.25% to 99.92%; 2 RCTs, 44,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 93.20%, 95% CI 91.06% to 94.83%; 2 RCTs, 31,632 participants; ChAdOx1: 70.23%, 95% CI 62.10% to 76.62%; 2 RCTs, 43,390 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 66.90%, 95% CI 59.10% to 73.40%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 78.10%, 95% CI 64.80% to 86.30%; 1 RCT, 25,463 participants; BBV152: 77.80%, 95% CI 65.20% to 86.40%; 1 RCT, 16,973 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 (Novavax) probably reduces the incidence of symptomatic COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE 82.91%, 95% CI 50.49% to 94.10%; 3 RCTs, 42,175 participants). There is low-certainty evidence for CoronaVac (Sinovac) for this outcome (VE 69.81%, 95% CI 12.27% to 89.61%; 2 RCTs, 19,852 participants). Severe or critical COVID-19 High-certainty evidence found that BNT162b2, mRNA-1273, Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 result in a large reduction in incidence of severe or critical disease due to COVID-19 compared to placebo (VE: BNT162b2: 95.70%, 95% CI 73.90% to 99.90%; 1 RCT, 46,077 participants; mRNA-1273: 98.20%, 95% CI 92.80% to 99.60%; 1 RCT, 28,451 participants; AD26.COV2.S: 76.30%, 95% CI 57.90% to 87.50%; 1 RCT, 39,058 participants; BBV152: 93.40%, 95% CI 57.10% to 99.80%; 1 RCT, 16,976 participants). Moderate-certainty evidence found that NVX-CoV2373 probably reduces the incidence of severe or critical COVID-19 (VE 100.00%, 95% CI 86.99% to 100.00%; 1 RCT, 25,452 participants). Two trials reported high efficacy of CoronaVac for severe or critical disease with wide CIs, but these results could not be pooled. Serious adverse events (SAEs) mRNA-1273, ChAdOx1 (Oxford-AstraZeneca)/SII-ChAdOx1 (Serum Institute of India), Ad26.COV2.S, and BBV152 probably result in little or no difference in SAEs compared to placebo (RR: mRNA-1273: 0.92, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.08; 2 RCTs, 34,072 participants; ChAdOx1/SII-ChAdOx1: 0.88, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.07; 7 RCTs, 58,182 participants; Ad26.COV2.S: 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; 1 RCT, 43,783 participants); BBV152: 0.65, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.97; 1 RCT, 25,928 participants). In each of these, the likely absolute difference in effects was fewer than 5/1000 participants. Evidence for SAEs is uncertain for BNT162b2, CoronaVac, BBIBP-CorV, and NVX-CoV2373 compared to placebo (RR: BNT162b2: 1.30, 95% CI 0.55 to 3.07; 2 RCTs, 46,107 participants; CoronaVac: 0.97, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.51; 4 RCTs, 23,139 participants; BBIBP-CorV: 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.06; 1 RCT, 26,924 participants; NVX-CoV2373: 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14; 4 RCTs, 38,802 participants). For the evaluation of heterologous schedules, booster doses, and efficacy against variants of concern, see main text of review. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Compared to placebo, most vaccines reduce, or likely reduce, the proportion of participants with confirmed symptomatic COVID-19, and for some, there is high-certainty evidence that they reduce severe or critical disease. There is probably little or no difference between most vaccines and placebo for serious adverse events. Over 300 registered RCTs are evaluating the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines, and this review is updated regularly on the COVID-NMA platform (covid-nma.com). Implications for practice Due to the trial exclusions, these results cannot be generalized to pregnant women, individuals with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection, or immunocompromized people. Most trials had a short follow-up and were conducted before the emergence of variants of concern. Implications for research Future research should evaluate the long-term effect of vaccines, compare different vaccines and vaccine schedules, assess vaccine efficacy and safety in specific populations, and include outcomes such as preventing long COVID-19. Ongoing evaluation of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness against emerging variants of concern is also vital.

Why and how to open intensive care units to family visits during the pandemic.

Since the lockdown because of the pandemic, family members have been prohibited from visiting their loved ones in hospital. While it is clearly complicated to implement protocols for the admission of family members, we believe precise strategic goals are essential and operational guidance is needed on how to achieve them. Even during the pandemic, we consider it a priority to share strategies adapted to every local setting to allow family members to enter intensive care units and all the other hospital wards.

Lung- and Diaphragm-Protective Ventilation.

Mechanical ventilation can cause acute diaphragm atrophy and injury, and this is associated with poor clinical outcomes. Although the importance and impact of lung-protective ventilation is widely appreciated and well established, the concept of diaphragm-protective ventilation has recently emerged as a potential complementary therapeutic strategy. This Perspective, developed from discussions at a meeting of international experts convened by PLUG (the Pleural Pressure Working Group) of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine, outlines a conceptual framework for an integrated lung- and diaphragm-protective approach to mechanical ventilation on the basis of growing evidence about mechanisms of injury. We propose targets for diaphragm protection based on respiratory effort and patient-ventilator synchrony. The potential for conflict between diaphragm protection and lung protection under certain conditions is discussed; we emphasize that when conflicts arise, lung protection must be prioritized over diaphragm protection. Monitoring respiratory effort is essential to concomitantly protect both the diaphragm and the lung during mechanical ventilation. To implement lung- and diaphragm-protective ventilation, new approaches to monitoring, to setting the ventilator, and to titrating sedation will be required. Adjunctive interventions, including extracorporeal life support techniques, phrenic nerve stimulation, and clinical decision-support systems, may also play an important role in selected patients in the future. Evaluating the clinical impact of this new paradigm will be challenging, owing to the complexity of the intervention. The concept of lung- and diaphragm-protective ventilation presents a new opportunity to potentially improve clinical outcomes for critically ill patients.

Preparation of a radiology department in an Italian hospital dedicated to COVID-19 patients.

Preparedness for the ongoing coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its spread in Italy called for setting up of adequately equipped and dedicated health facilities to manage sick patients while protecting healthcare workers, uninfected patients, and the community. In our country, in a short time span, the demand for critical care beds exceeded supply. A new sequestered hospital completely dedicated to intensive care (IC) for isolated COVID-19 patients needed to be designed, constructed, and deployed. Along with this new initiative, the new concept of "Pandemic Radiology Unit" was implemented as a practical solution to the emerging crisis, born out of a critical and urgent acute need. The present article describes logistics, planning, and practical design issues for such a pandemic radiology and critical care unit (e.g., space, infection control, safety of healthcare workers, etc.) adopted in the IC Hospital Unit for the care and management of COVID-19 patients.

Electrical impedance tomography in perioperative medicine: careful respiratory monitoring for tailored interventions.

BACKGROUND: Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) is a non-invasive radiation-free monitoring technique that provides images based on tissue electrical conductivity of the chest. Several investigations applied EIT in the context of perioperative medicine, which is not confined to the intraoperative period but begins with the preoperative assessment and extends to postoperative follow-up. MAIN BODY: EIT could provide careful respiratory monitoring in the preoperative assessment to improve preparation for surgery, during anaesthesia to guide optimal ventilation strategies and to monitor the hemodynamic status and in the postoperative period for early detection of respiratory complications. Moreover, EIT could further enhance care of patients undergoing perioperative diagnostic procedures. This narrative review summarizes the latest evidence on the application of this technique to the surgical patient, focusing also on possible future perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: EIT is a promising technique for the perioperative assessment of surgical patients, providing tailored adaptive respiratory and haemodynamic monitoring. Further studies are needed to address the current technological limitations, confirm the findings and evaluate which patients can benefit more from this technology.

Do spontaneous and mechanical breathing have similar effects on average transpulmonary and alveolar pressure? A clinical crossover study.

BACKGROUND: Preservation of spontaneous breathing (SB) is sometimes debated because it has potentially both negative and positive effects on lung injury in comparison with fully controlled mechanical ventilation (CMV). We wanted (1) to verify in mechanically ventilated patients if the change in transpulmonary pressure was similar between pressure support ventilation (PSV) and CMV for a similar tidal volume, (2) to estimate the influence of SB on alveolar pressure (Palv), and (3) to determine whether a reliable plateau pressure could be measured during pressure support ventilation (PSV). METHODS: We studied ten patients equipped with esophageal catheters undergoing three levels of PSV followed by a phase of CMV. For each condition, we calculated the maximal and mean transpulmonary (ΔPL) swings and Palv. RESULTS: Overall, ΔPL was similar between CMV and PSV, but only loosely correlated. The differences in ΔPL between CMV and PSV were explained largely by different inspiratory flows, indicating that the resistive pressure drop caused this difference. By contrast, the Palv profile was very different between CMV and SB; SB led to progressively more negative Palv during inspiration, and Palv became lower than the set positive end-expiratory pressure in nine of ten patients at low PSV. Finally, inspiratory occlusion holds performed during PSV led to plateau and Δ PL pressures comparable with those measured during CMV. CONCLUSIONS: Under similar conditions of flow and volume, transpulmonary pressure change is similar between CMV and PSV. SB during mechanical ventilation can cause remarkably negative swings in Palv, a mechanism by which SB might potentially induce lung injury.

Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 and Medical Evacuation in Lombardy: Lessons Learned from an Unprecedented Pandemic.

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) emerging infectious disease pandemic developed in Lombardy (northern Italy) during the last week of February 2020 with a progressive increase of patients presenting with serious clinical findings. Despite the efforts of the Central Italian Government, regional resources were rapidly at capacity. The solution was to plan the medical evacuation (MEDEVAC) of 119 critically ill patients (median age 61 years) to in-patient intensive care units in other Italian regions (77) and Germany (42). Once surviving patients were deemed suitable, the repatriation process concluded the assignment. The aim of this report is to underline the importance of a rapid organization and coordination process between different nodes of an effective national and international network during an emerging infectious disease outbreak and draw lessons learned from similar published reports.

Ascorbic acid in solid organ transplantation: A literature review.

Ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury plays a pivotal role in the development of graft dysfunction and allograft rejection after transplantation. Excessive free radical production and massive consumption of endogenous antioxidants are common mechanisms underlying I/R injury and are implicated in posttransplant organ damage and reduced graft viability. Ascorbic Acid (AA) is an essential micronutrient involved in several biological processes, from antioxidative response to the modulation of apoptosis and inflammation. These properties, combined to the safety profile, low cost, and ease of administration and measurement, make AA a potential bullet for reducing I/R damage in the setting of solid organ transplantation. Although multiple preclinical and clinical studies have been performed to investigate the effectiveness of AA administration in reducing I/R injury during transplantation, its therapeutic potential remains controversial as well as the optimal dosage, timing, and combination with other antioxidants. In this review, we summarize the AA modulated metabolic pathways, focusing on its potential role in the treatment of solid organ (kidney, liver, lung, heart, and pancreas) transplantation.

Managing ICU surge during the COVID-19 crisis: rapid guidelines.

Given the rapidly changing nature of COVID-19, clinicians and policy makers require urgent review and summary of the literature, and synthesis of evidence-based guidelines to inform practice. The WHO advocates for rapid reviews in these circumstances. The purpose of this rapid guideline is to provide recommendations on the organizational management of intensive care units caring for patients with COVID-19 including: planning a crisis surge response; crisis surge response strategies; triage, supporting families, and staff.