Surviving Sepsis Campaign: Guidelines on the Management of Critically Ill Adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which four are best practice statements, nine are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for six questions. The topics were: 1) infection control, 2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, 3) hemodynamic support, 4) ventilatory support, and 5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new evidence in further releases of these guidelines.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2016.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock: 2012." DESIGN: A consensus committee of 55 international experts representing 25 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict-of-interest (COI) policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. A stand-alone meeting was held for all panel members in December 2015. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. METHODS: The panel consisted of five sections: hemodynamics, infection, adjunctive therapies, metabolic, and ventilation. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. Each subgroup generated a list of questions, searched for best available evidence, and then followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system to assess the quality of evidence from high to very low, and to formulate recommendations as strong or weak, or best practice statement when applicable. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Guideline panel provided 93 statements on early management and resuscitation of patients with sepsis or septic shock. Overall, 32 were strong recommendations, 39 were weak recommendations, and 18 were best-practice statements. No recommendation was provided for four questions. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial agreement exists among a large cohort of international experts regarding many strong recommendations for the best care of patients with sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for these critically ill patients with high mortality.

Infection control in the intensive care unit: expert consensus statements for SARS-CoV-2 using a Delphi method.

During the current COVID-19 pandemic, health-care workers and uninfected patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at risk of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 as a result of transmission from infected patients and health-care workers. In the absence of high-quality evidence on the transmission of SARS-CoV-2, clinical practice of infection control and prevention in ICUs varies widely. Using a Delphi process, international experts in intensive care, infectious diseases, and infection control developed consensus statements on infection control for SARS-CoV-2 in an ICU. Consensus was achieved for 31 (94%) of 33 statements, from which 25 clinical practice statements were issued. These statements include guidance on ICU design and engineering, health-care worker safety, visiting policy, personal protective equipment, patients and procedures, disinfection, and sterilisation. Consensus was not reached on optimal return to work criteria for health-care workers who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 or the acceptable disinfection strategy for heat-sensitive instruments used for airway management of patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Well designed studies are needed to assess the effects of these practice statements and address the remaining uncertainties.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: guidelines on the management of critically ill adults with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19).

BACKGROUND: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is the cause of a rapidly spreading illness, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), affecting thousands of people around the world. Urgent guidance for clinicians caring for the sickest of these patients is needed. METHODS: We formed a panel of 36 experts from 12 countries. All panel members completed the World Health Organization conflict of interest disclosure form. The panel proposed 53 questions that are relevant to the management of COVID-19 in the ICU. We searched the literature for direct and indirect evidence on the management of COVID-19 in critically ill patients in the ICU. We identified relevant and recent systematic reviews on most questions relating to supportive care. We assessed the certainty in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then generated recommendations based on the balance between benefit and harm, resource and cost implications, equity, and feasibility. Recommendations were either strong or weak, or in the form of best practice recommendations. RESULTS: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued 54 statements, of which 4 are best practice statements, 9 are strong recommendations, and 35 are weak recommendations. No recommendation was provided for 6 questions. The topics were: (1) infection control, (2) laboratory diagnosis and specimens, (3) hemodynamic support, (4) ventilatory support, and (5) COVID-19 therapy. CONCLUSION: The Surviving Sepsis Campaign COVID-19 panel issued several recommendations to help support healthcare workers caring for critically ill ICU patients with COVID-19. When available, we will provide new recommendations in further releases of these guidelines.

Congenital cystic adenomatoid malformation of the lung in adults: clinical and CT evaluation of seven patients.

Congenital cystic adenomatoid malformation (CCAM) of the lung is a rare congenital developmental abnormality that usually presents in childhood. Some associated malignancies have been reported. This study aimed to describe the clinical and multidetector CT (MDCT) image characteristics of CCAM of the lung in adults. Adult patients with congenital cystic lung diseases in association with surgery for CCAM were evaluated over a five and a half year period. Seven (four women, age range 17-64 years) of 109 congenital cystic lung disease patients were histologically confirmed as having CCAM. The most frequent symptom was productive cough (n = 5) and one patient was admitted with haemoptysis. The diagnosis was based on clinical and radiological findings and one patient was not diagnosed until surgery. MDCT images consisted of having a multiple loculated unilobar cystic mass in six patients and a cavitary mass in one and/or normal systemic arteries. The lesion was present in the right lung in four and in the left lung in three patients. The involved lobe was the upper in three, lower in three and middle lobe in one. Six patients underwent lobectomy and there was no associated malignancy or mortality. The mean length of hospital stay was 17.5 +/- 7.3 days. In adult patients who suffer from a recurrent productive cough and who have a multiloculated cystic mass in one lobe and normal vascular images in MDCT, CCAM, although rare, should be considered.

Long-term effect of bronchial artery embolization in Korean patients with haemoptysis.

OBJECTIVE AND BACKGROUND: Bronchial artery embolization (BAE) has been regarded as a bridging therapy in the management of massive haemoptysis until a more definite therapy can be pursued. The long-term effectiveness of BAE and the factors associated with failure to control bleeding in an Asian setting of tuberculosis are unknown and were investigated. METHODS: Over approximately 4 years, 139 patients received BAE to treat haemoptysis at a single centre, of these, 118 had been followed up for more than 1 year (median 23 months) and were retrospectively recruited into the study. Patients were divided into those who required readmission for treatment of recurrent haemoptysis after BAE (re-bleeding group), and those who did not (non-rebleeding group). RESULTS: Of the 118 patients, 112 (95.8%) had haemoptysis of greater than 100 mL per day. The most common underlying cause of haemoptysis was pulmonary tuberculosis. Eight patients, four of whom had advanced lung cancer, died after BAE. There were 32 patients (27.1%) in the re-bleeding group. Aspergillosis was significantly associated with re-bleeding after BAE (P<0.05). There were no differences in gender, age, degree of haemoptysis, or APACHE II scores between the re-bleeding and non-rebleeding groups. Twelve patients in the re-bleeding group had a repeat BAE only, whereas seven underwent surgery after repeat BAE. Of the 118 patients who underwent initial BAE, one showed a transient spinal ischaemia. CONCLUSIONS: BAE with appropriate medical treatment should be sufficient for most patients with massive haemoptysis. In patients with massive haemoptysis due to aspergilloma, however, elective surgery should be considered if bleeding is not controlled by repeated BAE.