VATICAN (Ventilator-Associated Tracheobronchitis Initiative to Conduct Antibiotic Evaluation): protocol for a multicenter randomized open-label trial of watchful waiting versus antimicrobial therapy for ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis.

BACKGROUND: Ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis is a common condition among invasively ventilated patients in intensive care units, for which the best treatment strategy is currently unknown. We designed the VATICAN (Ventilator-Associated Tracheobronchitis Initiative to Conduct Antibiotic Evaluation) trial to assess whether a watchful waiting antibiotic treatment strategy is noninferior to routine antibiotic treatment for ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis regarding days free of mechanical ventilation. METHODS: VATICAN is a randomized, controlled, open-label, multicenter noninferiority trial. Patients with suspected ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis without evidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia or hemodynamic instability due to probable infection will be assigned to either a watchful waiting strategy, without antimicrobial administration for ventilator-associated tracheobronchitis and prescription of antimicrobials only in cases of ventilator-associated pneumonia, sepsis or septic shock, or another infectious diagnosis, or to a routine antimicrobial treatment strategy for seven days. The primary outcome will be mechanical ventilation-free days at 28 days, and a key secondary outcome will be ventilator-associated pneumonia-free survival. Through an intention-to-treat framework with a per-protocol sensitivity analysis, the primary outcome analysis will address noninferiority with a 20% margin, which translates to a 1.5 difference in ventilator-free days. Other analyses will follow a superiority analysis framework. CONCLUSION: The VATICAN trial will follow all national and international ethical standards. We aim to publish the trial in a high-visibility general journal and present it at critical care and infectious disease conferences for dissemination. These results will likely be immediately applicable to the bedside upon trial completion and will provide information with a low risk of bias for guideline development.

Core sepsis-related competencies for medical students: an international consensus by Delphi technique.

BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a life-threatening condition which may arise from infection in any organ system and requires early recognition and management. Healthcare professionals working in any specialty may need to manage patients with sepsis. Educating medical students about this condition may be an effective way to ensure all future doctors have sufficient ability to diagnose and treat septic patients. However, there is currently no consensus on what competencies medical students should achieve regarding sepsis recognition and treatment. This study aims to outline what sepsis-related competencies medical students should achieve by the end of their medical student training in both high or upper-middle incomes countries/regions and in low or lower-middle income countries/regions. METHODS: Two separate panels from high or upper-middle income and low or lower-middle income countries/regions participated in a Delphi method to suggest and rank sepsis competencies for medical students. Each panel consisted of 13-18 key stakeholders of medical education and doctors in specialties where sepsis is a common problem (both specialists and trainees). Panelists came from all continents, except Antarctica. RESULTS: The panels reached consensus on 38 essential sepsis competencies in low or lower-middle income countries/regions and 33 in high or upper-middle incomes countries/regions. These include competencies such as definition of sepsis and septic shock and urgency of antibiotic treatment. In the low or lower-middle income countries/regions group, consensus was also achieved for competencies ranked as very important, and was achieved in 4/5 competencies rated as moderately important. In the high or upper-middle incomes countries/regions group, consensus was achieved in 41/57 competencies rated as very important but only 6/11 competencies rated as moderately important. CONCLUSION: Medical schools should consider developing curricula to address essential competencies, as a minimum, but also consider addressing competencies rated as very or moderately important.

The II Brazilian Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 Joint Guidelines of the Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia and Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia.

OBJECTIVE: To update the recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: Experts, including representatives of the Ministry of Health and methodologists, created this guideline. The method used for the rapid development of guidelines was based on the adoption and/or adaptation of existing international guidelines (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) and supported by the e-COVID-19 RecMap platform. The quality of the evidence and the preparation of the recommendations followed the GRADE method. RESULTS: Twenty-one recommendations were generated, including strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen and conditional recommendations for the use of tocilizumab and baricitinib for patients on supplemental oxygen or on noninvasive ventilation and anticoagulants to prevent thromboembolism. Due to suspension of use authorization, it was not possible to make recommendations regarding the use of casirivimab + imdevimab. Strong recommendations against the use of azithromycin in patients without suspected bacterial infection, hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, and lopinavir + ritonavir and conditional recommendations against the use of ivermectin and remdesivir were made. CONCLUSION: New recommendations for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were generated, such as those for tocilizumab and baricitinib. Corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are still recommended, the latter with conditional recommendation. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and to promote resource economy.

Dapagliflozin in patients with critical illness: rationale and design of the DEFENDER study.

BACKGROUND: Critical illness is a major ongoing health care burden worldwide and is associated with high mortality rates. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have consistently shown benefits in cardiovascular and renal outcomes. The effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in acute illness have not been properly investigated. METHODS: DEFENDER is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in 500 adult participants with acute organ dysfunction who are hospitalized in the intensive care unit. Eligible participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive dapagliflozin 10mg plus standard of care for up to 14 days or standard of care alone. The primary outcome is a hierarchical composite of hospital mortality, initiation of kidney replacement therapy, and intensive care unit length of stay, up to 28 days. Safety will be strictly monitored throughout the study. CONCLUSION: DEFENDER is the first study designed to investigate the use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor in general intensive care unit patients with acute organ dysfunction. It will provide relevant information on the use of drugs of this promising class in critically ill patients. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV REGISTRY: NCT05558098.

Dapagliflozin in patients with critical illness: rationale and design of the DEFENDER study / Dapagliflozina em pacientes com doença crítica: justificativa e desenho do estudo DEFENDER

ABSTRACT Background: Critical illness is a major ongoing health care burden worldwide and is associated with high mortality rates. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors have consistently shown benefits in cardiovascular and renal outcomes. The effects of sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in acute illness have not been properly investigated. Methods: DEFENDER is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, open-label trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin in 500 adult participants with acute organ dysfunction who are hospitalized in the intensive care unit. Eligible participants will be randomized 1:1 to receive dapagliflozin 10mg plus standard of care for up to 14 days or standard of care alone. The primary outcome is a hierarchical composite of hospital mortality, initiation of kidney replacement therapy, and intensive care unit length of stay, up to 28 days. Safety will be strictly monitored throughout the study. Conclusion: DEFENDER is the first study designed to investigate the use of a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitor in general intensive care unit patients with acute organ dysfunction. It will provide relevant information on the use of drugs of this promising class in critically ill patients. ClinicalTrials.gov registry: NCT05558098

RESUMO Antecedentes: A doença crítica é um importante ônus permanente da assistência médica em todo o mundo e está associada a altas taxas de mortalidade. Os inibidores do cotransportador de sódio-glicose do tipo 2 têm demonstrado consistentemente benefícios nos desfechos cardiovasculares e renais. Os efeitos dos inibidores do cotransportador de sódio-glicose do tipo 2 em doenças agudas ainda não foram devidamente investigados. Métodos: O DEFENDER é um estudo de iniciativa do investigador, multicêntrico, randomizado, aberto, desenhado para avaliar a eficácia e a segurança da dapagliflozina em 500 participantes adultos com disfunção orgânica aguda hospitalizados na unidade de terapia intensiva. Os participantes aptos serão randomizados 1:1 para receber 10mg de dapagliflozina e o tratamento padrão por até 14 dias ou apenas o tratamento padrão. O desfecho primário é um composto hierárquico de mortalidade hospitalar, início de terapia renal substitutiva e tempo de internação na unidade de terapia intensiva, até 28 dias. O monitoramento da segurança será rigoroso durante todo o estudo. Conclusão: O DEFENDER é o primeiro estudo desenvolvido para investigar o uso de um inibidor do cotransportador de sódio-glicose do tipo 2 em pacientes de unidade de terapia intensiva geral com disfunção orgânica aguda. O estudo fornecerá informações relevantes sobre o uso de medicamentos dessa classe promissora em pacientes críticos. Registro ClincalTrials.gov: NCT05558098

The II Brazilian Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 Joint Guidelines of the Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia and Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia / II Diretrizes Brasileiras para o tratamento farmacológico de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 Diretriz conjunta da Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia e Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia

ABSTRACT Objective: To update the recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil. Methods: Experts, including representatives of the Ministry of Health and methodologists, created this guideline. The method used for the rapid development of guidelines was based on the adoption and/or adaptation of existing international guidelines (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) and supported by the e-COVID-19 RecMap platform. The quality of the evidence and the preparation of the recommendations followed the GRADE method. Results: Twenty-one recommendations were generated, including strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen and conditional recommendations for the use of tocilizumab and baricitinib for patients on supplemental oxygen or on noninvasive ventilation and anticoagulants to prevent thromboembolism. Due to suspension of use authorization, it was not possible to make recommendations regarding the use of casirivimab + imdevimab. Strong recommendations against the use of azithromycin in patients without suspected bacterial infection, hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, and lopinavir + ritonavir and conditional recommendations against the use of ivermectin and remdesivir were made. Conclusion: New recommendations for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were generated, such as those for tocilizumab and baricitinib. Corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are still recommended, the latter with conditional recommendation. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and to promote resource economy.

RESUMO Objetivo: Atualizar as recomendações para embasar as decisões para o tratamento farmacológico de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 no Brasil. Métodos: A elaboração desta diretriz foi feita por especialistas, incluindo representantes do Ministério da Saúde e metodologistas. O método utilizado para o desenvolvimento rápido de diretrizes baseou-se na adoção e/ou adaptação de diretrizes internacionais existentes (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) e contou com o apoio da plataforma e-COVID-19 RecMap. A qualidade das evidências e a elaboração das recomendações seguiram o método GRADE. Resultados: Chegaram-se a 21 recomendações, incluindo recomendações fortes quanto ao uso de corticosteroides em pacientes em uso de oxigênio suplementar e recomendações condicionais para o uso de tocilizumabe e baricitinibe, em pacientes com oxigênio suplementar ou ventilação não invasiva, e de anticoagulantes, para prevenção de tromboembolismo. Devido à suspensão da autorização de uso, não foi possível fazer recomendações para o tratamento com casirivimabe + imdevimabe. Foram feitas recomendações fortes contra o uso de azitromicina em pacientes sem suspeita de infecção bacteriana, hidroxicloroquina, plasma convalescente, colchicina e lopinavir + ritonavir, além de recomendações condicionais contra o uso de ivermectina e rendesivir. Conclusão: Foram criadas novas recomendações para o tratamento de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19, como as recomendações de tocilizumabe e baricitinibe. Ainda são recomendados corticosteroides e profilaxia contra tromboembolismo, esta em caráter condicional. Vários medicamentos foram considerados ineficazes e não devem ser usados, no intuito de proporcionar o melhor tratamento segundo os princípios da medicina baseada em evidências e promover a economia de recursos.

Use of a Portable Mechanical Ventilator during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation is Feasible, Improves Respiratory Parameters, and Prevents the Decrease of Dynamic Lung Compliance. / O Uso de um Ventilador Mecânico Portátil na Ressuscitação Cardiopulmonar é Viável, Melhora os Parâmetros Respiratórios e Previne a Redução da Complacência Pulmonar Dinâmica.

BACKGROUND: For practical and protective ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), a 150-grams mechanical ventilator (VLP2000E) that limits peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) during simultaneous ventilation with chest compressions was developed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility of VLP2000E ventilation during CPR and to compare monitored parameters versus bag-valve ventilation. METHODS: A randomized experimental study with 10 intubated pigs per group. After seven minutes of ventricular fibrillation, 2-minute CPR cycles were delivered. All animals were placed on VLP2000E after achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). RESULTS: Bag-valve and VLP2000E groups had similar ROSC rate (60% vs. 50%, respectively) and arterial oxygen saturation in most CPR cycles, different baseline tidal volume [0.764 (0.068) vs. 0.591 (0.123) L, p = 0.0309, respectively] and, in 14 cycles, different PIP [52 (9) vs. 39 (5) cm H2O, respectively], tidal volume [0.635 (0.172) vs. 0.306 (0.129) L], ETCO2[14 (8) vs. 27 (9) mm Hg], and peak inspiratory flow [0.878 (0.234) vs. 0.533 (0.105) L/s], all p < 0.0001. Dynamic lung compliance (≥ 0.025 L/cm H2O) decreased after ROSC in bag-valve group but was maintained in VLP2000E group [0.019 (0.006) vs. 0.024 (0.008) L/cm H2O, p = 0.0003]. CONCLUSIONS: VLP2000E ventilation during CPR is feasible and equivalent to bag-valve ventilation in ROSC rate and arterial oxygen saturation. It produces better respiratory parameters, with lower airway pressure and tidal volume. VLP2000E ventilation also prevents the significant decrease of dynamic lung compliance observed after bag-valve ventilation. Further preclinical studies confirming these findings would be interesting.

FUNDAMENTOS: Para ventilação prática e protetora durante a ressuscitação cardiopulmonar (RCP), desenvolveu-se um ventilador mecânico (VLP2000E) de 150 gramas que limita o pico de pressão inspiratória (PPI) durante ventilação e compressões torácicas simultâneas. OBJETIVOS: Avaliar a viabilidade da ventilação com VLP2000E durante RCP e comparar os parâmetros monitorados versus ventilação com bolsa-válvula. MÉTODOS: Estudo experimental randomizado com 10 porcos intubados por grupo. Após sete minutos de fibrilação ventricular, iniciaram-se ciclos de RCP de 2 minutos. Todos os animais foram ventilados com VLP2000E após o retorno da circulação espontânea (RCE). RESULTADOS: Os grupos bolsa-válvula e VLP2000E apresentaram taxa de RCE (60% vs. 50%, respectivamente) e saturação arterial de oxigênio similares na maioria dos ciclos de RCP, volume corrente basal diferente [0,764 (0,068) vs. 0,591 (0,123) L, p = 0,0309, respectivamente] e, em 14 ciclos, diferentes PPI [52 (9) vs. 39 (5) cm H2O, respectivamente], volume corrente [0,635 (0,172) vs. 0,306 (0,129) L], ETCO2 [14 (8) vs. 27 (9) mm Hg], e pico de fluxo inspiratório [0,878 (0,234) vs. 0,533 (0,105) L/s], todos p < 0,0001. A complacência pulmonar dinâmica (≥ 0,025 L/cm H2O) diminuiu após o RCE no grupo bolsa-válvula, mas se manteve no grupo VLP2000E [ 0,019 (0,006) vs. 0,024 (0,008) L/cm H2O, p = 0,0003]. CONCLUSÕES: Ventilação com VLP2000E durante RCP é viável e equivalente a ventilação com bolsa-válvula quanto à taxa de RCE e saturação arterial de oxigênio. Esse ventilador produz melhores parâmetros respiratórios, com pressão das vias aéreas e volume corrente menores. Ventilação com VLP2000E também previne a redução significante da complacência pulmonar dinâmica observada após ventilação com bolsa-válvula. Seria interessante realizar mais estudos pré-clínicos para confirmar esses resultados.

Ninety-day outcomes in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in São Paulo, Brazil: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 has been associated with a significant burden to those who survive the acute phase. We aimed to describe the quality of life and symptoms of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at 90 days after hospital discharge of COVID-19 patients. METHODS: Patients with COVID-19 admitted to a private hospital in the city of São Paulo, Brazil, between April of 2020 and April of 2021 were interviewed by telephone at 30 and 90 days after discharge to assess the quality of life and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and PTSD. RESULTS: A total of 2,138 patients were included. The mean age was 58.6 ± 15.8 years, and the median length of hospital stay was 9.0 (5.0-15.8) days. Between the two time points, depression increased from 3.1% to 7.2% (p < 0.001), anxiety increased from 3.2% to 6.2% (p < 0.001), and PTSD increased from 2.3% to 5.0% (p < 0.001). At least one physical symptom related to COVID-19 diagnosis persisted in 32% of patients at day 90. CONCLUSIONS: Persistence of physical symptoms was high even at 90 days after discharge. Although the prevalence of symptoms of anxiety, depression, and PTSD was low, these symptoms persisted for three months, with a significant increase between the time points. This finding indicates the need to identify at-risk patients so that they can be given an appropriate referral at discharge.

Association between acute disease severity and one-year quality of life among post-hospitalisation COVID-19 patients: Coalition VII prospective cohort study.

PURPOSE: To assess the association between acute disease severity and 1-year quality of life in patients discharged after hospitalisation due to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study nested in 5 randomised clinical trials between March 2020 and March 2022 at 84 sites in Brazil. Adult post-hospitalisation COVID-19 patients were followed for 1 year. The primary outcome was the utility score of EuroQol five-dimension three-level (EQ-5D-3L). Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, and new disabilities in instrumental activities of daily living. Adjusted generalised estimating equations were used to assess the association between outcomes and acute disease severity according to the highest level on a modified ordinal scale during hospital stay (2: no oxygen therapy; 3: oxygen by mask or nasal prongs; 4: high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy or non-invasive ventilation; 5: mechanical ventilation). RESULTS: 1508 COVID-19 survivors were enrolled. Primary outcome data were available for 1156 participants. At 1 year, compared with severity score 2, severity score 5 was associated with lower EQ-5D-3L utility scores (0.7 vs 0.84; adjusted difference, - 0.1 [95% CI - 0.15 to - 0.06]); and worse results for all-cause mortality (7.9% vs 1.2%; adjusted difference, 7.1% [95% CI 2.5%-11.8%]), major cardiovascular events (5.6% vs 2.3%; adjusted difference, 2.6% [95% CI 0.6%-4.6%]), and new disabilities (40.4% vs 23.5%; adjusted difference, 15.5% [95% CI 8.5%-22.5]). Severity scores 3 and 4 did not differ consistently from score 2. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients who needed mechanical ventilation during hospitalisation have lower 1-year quality of life than COVID-19 patients who did not need mechanical ventilation during hospitalisation.

Ninety-day outcomes in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 in São Paulo, Brazil: a cohort study / Desfechos em 90 dias entre pacientes com diagnóstico de COVID-19 em São Paulo (SP): estudo de coorte

ABSTRACT Objective: COVID-19 has been associated with a significant burden to those who survive the acute phase. We aimed to describe the quality of life and symptoms of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at 90 days after hospital discharge of COVID-19 patients. Methods: Patients with COVID-19 admitted to a private hospital in the city of São Paulo, Brazil, between April of 2020 and April of 2021 were interviewed by telephone at 30 and 90 days after discharge to assess the quality of life and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and PTSD. Results: A total of 2,138 patients were included. The mean age was 58.6 ± 15.8 years, and the median length of hospital stay was 9.0 (5.0-15.8) days. Between the two time points, depression increased from 3.1% to 7.2% (p < 0.001), anxiety increased from 3.2% to 6.2% (p < 0.001), and PTSD increased from 2.3% to 5.0% (p < 0.001). At least one physical symptom related to COVID-19 diagnosis persisted in 32% of patients at day 90. Conclusions: Persistence of physical symptoms was high even at 90 days after discharge. Although the prevalence of symptoms of anxiety, depression, and PTSD was low, these symptoms persisted for three months, with a significant increase between the time points. This finding indicates the need to identify at-risk patients so that they can be given an appropriate referral at discharge.

RESUMO Objetivo: A COVID-19 tem sido associada a um fardo significativo para aqueles que sobrevivem à fase aguda. Nosso objetivo foi descrever a qualidade de vida e sintomas de ansiedade, depressão e transtorno de estresse pós-traumático (TEPT) 90 dias após a alta hospitalar em pacientes com COVID-19. Métodos: Pacientes com COVID-19 internados em um hospital privado na cidade de São Paulo (SP) entre abril de 2020 e abril de 2021 foram entrevistados por telefone 30 e 90 dias após a alta para avaliar a qualidade de vida e sintomas de depressão, ansiedade e TEPT. Resultados: Foram incluídos 2.138 pacientes. A média de idade foi de 58,6 ± 15,8 anos, e a mediana do tempo de internação hospitalar foi de 9,0 (5,0-15,8) dias. Entre os dois momentos, a depressão aumentou de 3,1% para 7,2% (p < 0,001), a ansiedade, de 3,2% para 6,2% (p < 0,001), e o TEPT, de 2,3% para 5,0% (p < 0,001). Pelo menos um sintoma físico relacionado ao diagnóstico de COVID-19 persistia em 32% dos pacientes no 90º dia. Conclusões: A persistência dos sintomas físicos foi elevada mesmo 90 dias após a alta. Embora a prevalência de sintomas de ansiedade, depressão e TEPT tenha sido baixa, esses sintomas persistiram por três meses, com aumento significativo entre os momentos. Esse achado indica a necessidade de identificar os pacientes de risco para que possam receber o encaminhamento adequado no momento da alta.

O Uso de um Ventilador Mecânico Portátil na Ressuscitação Cardiopulmonar é Viável, Melhora os Parâmetros Respiratórios e Previne a Redução da Complacência Pulmonar Dinâmica / Use of a Portable Mechanical Ventilator during Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation is Feasible, Improves Respiratory Parameters, and Prevents the Decrease of Dynamic Lung Compliance

Resumo Fundamentos Para ventilação prática e protetora durante a ressuscitação cardiopulmonar (RCP), desenvolveu-se um ventilador mecânico (VLP2000E) de 150 gramas que limita o pico de pressão inspiratória (PPI) durante ventilação e compressões torácicas simultâneas. Objetivos Avaliar a viabilidade da ventilação com VLP2000E durante RCP e comparar os parâmetros monitorados versus ventilação com bolsa-válvula. Métodos Estudo experimental randomizado com 10 porcos intubados por grupo. Após sete minutos de fibrilação ventricular, iniciaram-se ciclos de RCP de 2 minutos. Todos os animais foram ventilados com VLP2000E após o retorno da circulação espontânea (RCE). Resultados Os grupos bolsa-válvula e VLP2000E apresentaram taxa de RCE (60% vs. 50%, respectivamente) e saturação arterial de oxigênio similares na maioria dos ciclos de RCP, volume corrente basal diferente [0,764 (0,068) vs. 0,591 (0,123) L, p = 0,0309, respectivamente] e, em 14 ciclos, diferentes PPI [52 (9) vs. 39 (5) cm H2O, respectivamente], volume corrente [0,635 (0,172) vs. 0,306 (0,129) L], ETCO2 [14 (8) vs. 27 (9) mm Hg], e pico de fluxo inspiratório [0,878 (0,234) vs. 0,533 (0,105) L/s], todos p < 0,0001. A complacência pulmonar dinâmica (≥ 0,025 L/cm H2O) diminuiu após o RCE no grupo bolsa-válvula, mas se manteve no grupo VLP2000E [ 0,019 (0,006) vs. 0,024 (0,008) L/cm H2O, p = 0,0003]. Conclusões Ventilação com VLP2000E durante RCP é viável e equivalente a ventilação com bolsa-válvula quanto à taxa de RCE e saturação arterial de oxigênio. Esse ventilador produz melhores parâmetros respiratórios, com pressão das vias aéreas e volume corrente menores. Ventilação com VLP2000E também previne a redução significante da complacência pulmonar dinâmica observada após ventilação com bolsa-válvula. Seria interessante realizar mais estudos pré-clínicos para confirmar esses resultados.

Abstract Background For practical and protective ventilation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), a 150-grams mechanical ventilator (VLP2000E) that limits peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) during simultaneous ventilation with chest compressions was developed. Objectives To evaluate the feasibility of VLP2000E ventilation during CPR and to compare monitored parameters versus bag-valve ventilation. Methods A randomized experimental study with 10 intubated pigs per group. After seven minutes of ventricular fibrillation, 2-minute CPR cycles were delivered. All animals were placed on VLP2000E after achieving return of spontaneous circulation (ROSC). Results Bag-valve and VLP2000E groups had similar ROSC rate (60% vs. 50%, respectively) and arterial oxygen saturation in most CPR cycles, different baseline tidal volume [0.764 (0.068) vs. 0.591 (0.123) L, p = 0.0309, respectively] and, in 14 cycles, different PIP [52 (9) vs. 39 (5) cm H2O, respectively], tidal volume [0.635 (0.172) vs. 0.306 (0.129) L], ETCO2[14 (8) vs. 27 (9) mm Hg], and peak inspiratory flow [0.878 (0.234) vs. 0.533 (0.105) L/s], all p < 0.0001. Dynamic lung compliance (≥ 0.025 L/cm H2O) decreased after ROSC in bag-valve group but was maintained in VLP2000E group [0.019 (0.006) vs. 0.024 (0.008) L/cm H2O, p = 0.0003]. Conclusions VLP2000E ventilation during CPR is feasible and equivalent to bag-valve ventilation in ROSC rate and arterial oxygen saturation. It produces better respiratory parameters, with lower airway pressure and tidal volume. VLP2000E ventilation also prevents the significant decrease of dynamic lung compliance observed after bag-valve ventilation. Further preclinical studies confirming these findings would be interesting.

IMPACTO-MR: um estudo brasileiro de plataforma nacional para avaliar infecções e multirresistência em unidades de terapia intensiva / IMPACTO-MR: a Brazilian nationwide platform study to assess infections and multidrug resistance in intensive care units

RESUMO Objetivo: Descrever o IMPACTO-MR, um estudo brasileiro de plataforma nacional em unidades de terapia intensiva focado no impacto das infecções por bactérias multirresistentes relacionadas à assistência à saúde. Métodos: Descrevemos a plataforma IMPACTO-MR, seu desenvolvimento, critérios para seleção das unidades de terapia intensiva, caracterização da coleta de dados, objetivos e projetos de pesquisa futuros a serem realizados na plataforma. Resultados: Os dados principais foram coletados por meio do Epimed Monitor System® e consistiram em dados demográficos, dados de comorbidades, estado funcional, escores clínicos, diagnóstico de internação e diagnósticos secundários, dados laboratoriais, clínicos e microbiológicos e suporte de órgãos durante a internação na unidade de terapia intensiva, entre outros. De outubro de 2019 a dezembro de 2020, 33.983 pacientes de 51 unidades de terapia intensiva foram incluídos no banco de dados principal. Conclusão: A plataforma IMPACTO-MR é um banco de dados clínico brasileiro de unidades de terapia intensiva focado na pesquisa do impacto das infecções por bactérias multirresistentes relacionadas à assistência à saúde. Essa plataforma fornece dados para o desenvolvimento e pesquisa de unidades de terapia intensiva individuais e ensaios clínicos observacionais e prospectivos multicêntricos.

ABSTRACT Objective: To describe the IMPACTO-MR, a Brazilian nationwide intensive care unit platform study focused on the impact of health care-associated infections due to multidrug-resistant bacteria. Methods: We described the IMPACTO-MR platform, its development, criteria for intensive care unit selection, characterization of core data collection, objectives, and future research projects to be held within the platform. Results: The core data were collected using the Epimed Monitor System® and consisted of demographic data, comorbidity data, functional status, clinical scores, admission diagnosis and secondary diagnoses, laboratory, clinical, and microbiological data, and organ support during intensive care unit stay, among others. From October 2019 to December 2020, 33,983 patients from 51 intensive care units were included in the core database. Conclusion: The IMPACTO-MR platform is a nationwide Brazilian intensive care unit clinical database focused on researching the impact of health care-associated infections due to multidrug-resistant bacteria. This platform provides data for individual intensive care unit development and research and multicenter observational and prospective trials.

Efeitos da solução balanceada em desfechos de curto prazo em pacientes com traumatismo craniencefálico: uma análise secundária do ensaio clínico randomizado BaSICS / Effects of balanced solution on short-term outcomes in traumatic brain injury patients: a secondary analysis of the BaSICS randomized trial

RESUMO Objetivo: Descrever os efeitos do uso de soluções balanceadas nos desfechos de curto prazo de pacientes com traumatismo craniencefálico incluídos no estudo BaSICS. Métodos: Os pacientes foram randomizados para receber solução salina 0,9% ou solução balanceada durante a internação em unidade de terapia intensiva. O desfecho primário foi mortalidade em 90 dias, já os desfechos secundários foram dias de vida e sem internação em unidade de terapia intensiva aos 28 dias. O desfecho primário foi avaliado por regressão logística bayesiana. O desfecho secundário foi avaliado usando regressão beta-binomial inflada de zeros bayesiana. Resultados: Incluímos 483 pacientes (236 no braço de solução salina 0,9% e 247 no braço de solução balanceada). Foram incluídos 338 pacientes (70%) com pontuação na escala de coma de Glasgow ≤ 12. A probabilidade geral de que soluções balanceadas estivessem associadas a maior mortalidade em 90 dias foi de 0,98 (RC de 1,48; ICr95% 1,04 - 2,09). Esse aumento de mortalidade foi particularmente perceptível em pacientes com pontuação na escala de coma de Glasgow abaixo de 6 no momento da inclusão (probabilidade de dano de 0,99). Soluções balanceadas foram associadas a -1,64 dia de vida e sem internação em unidade de terapia intensiva aos 28 dias (ICr95% -3,32 - 0,00) com probabilidade de dano de 0,97. Conclusão: Houve alta probabilidade de que soluções balanceadas estivessem associadas a alta mortalidade em 90 dias, menos dias de vida e sem internação em unidade de terapia intensiva aos 28 dias. ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT02875873

ABSTRACT Objective: To describe the effects of balanced solution use on the short-term outcomes of patients with traumatic brain injury enrolled in BaSICS trial. Methods: Patients were randomized to receive either 0.9% saline or balanced solution during their intensive care unit stay. The primary endpoint was 90-day mortality, and the secondary outcomes were days alive and free of intensive care unit stay at 28 days. The primary endpoint was assessed using Bayesian logistic regression. The secondary endpoint was assessed using a Bayesian zero-inflated beta binomial regression. Results: We included 483 patients (236 in the 0.9% saline arm and 247 in the balanced solution arm). A total of 338 patients (70%) with a Glasgow coma scale score ≤ 12 were enrolled. The overall probability that balanced solutions were associated with higher 90-day mortality was 0.98 (OR 1.48; 95%CrI 1.04 - 2.09); this mortality increment was particularly noticeable in patients with a Glasgow coma scale score below 6 at enrollment (probability of harm of 0.99). Balanced solutions were associated with -1.64 days alive and free of intensive care unit at 28 days (95%CrI -3.32 - 0.00) with a probability of harm of 0.97. Conclusion: There was a high probability that balanced solutions were associated with high 90-day mortality and fewer days alive and free of intensive care units at 28 days. ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT02875873

Clinical outcomes and lung mechanics characteristics between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: a propensity score analysis of two major randomized trials. / Desfechos clínicos e características da mecânica pulmonar entre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 e a não associada à COVID-19: uma análise de escore de propensão de dois importantes ensaios randomizados.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the lung mechanics and outcomes between COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome. METHODS: We combined data from two randomized trials in acute respiratory distress syndrome, one including only COVID-19 patients and the other including only patients without COVID-19, to determine whether COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome is associated with higher 28-day mortality than non-COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome and to examine the differences in lung mechanics between these two types of acute respiratory distress syndrome. RESULTS: A total of 299 patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and 1,010 patients with non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome were included in the main analysis. The results showed that non-COVID-19 patients used higher positive end-expiratory pressure (12.5cmH2O; SD 3.2 versus 11.7cmH2O SD 2.8; p < 0.001), were ventilated with lower tidal volumes (5.8mL/kg; SD 1.0 versus 6.5mL/kg; SD 1.2; p < 0.001) and had lower static respiratory compliance adjusted for ideal body weight (0.5mL/cmH2O/kg; SD 0.3 versus 0.6mL/cmH2O/kg; SD 0.3; p = 0.01). There was no difference between groups in 28-day mortality (52.3% versus 58.9%; p = 0.52) or mechanical ventilation duration in the first 28 days among survivors (13 [IQR 5 - 22] versus 12 [IQR 6 - 26], p = 0.46). CONCLUSION: This analysis showed that patients with non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome have different lung mechanics but similar outcomes to COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. After propensity score matching, there was no difference in lung mechanics or outcomes between groups.

OBJETIVO: Comparar a mecânica pulmonar e os desfechos entre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 e a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19. MÉTODOS: Combinamos dados de dois ensaios randomizados sobre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo, um incluindo apenas pacientes com COVID-19 e o outro incluindo apenas pacientes sem COVID-19, para determinar se a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 está associada à maior mortalidade aos 28 dias do que a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19 e também examinar as diferenças na mecânica pulmonar entre esses dois tipos de síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo. RESULTADOS: Foram incluídos na análise principal 299 pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 e 1.010 pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19. Os resultados mostraram que os pacientes sem COVID-19 utilizaram pressão positiva expiratória final mais alta (12,5cmH2O; DP 3,2 versus 11,7cmH2O; DP 2,8; p < 0,001), foram ventilados com volumes correntes mais baixos (5,8mL/kg; DP 1,0 versus 6,5mL/kg; DP 1,2; p < 0,001) e apresentaram menor complacência respiratória estática ajustada para o peso ideal (0,5mL/cmH2O/kg; DP 0,3 versus 0,6mL/cmH2O/kg; DP 0,3; p = 0,01). Não houve diferença entre os grupos quanto à mortalidade aos 28 dias (52,3% versus 58,9%; p = 0,52) ou à duração da ventilação mecânica nos primeiros 28 dias entre os sobreviventes (13 [IQ 5 - 22] dias versus 12 [IQ 6 - 26] dias; p = 0,46). CONCLUSÃO: Esta análise mostrou que os pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19 têm mecânica pulmonar diferente, mas desfechos semelhantes aos dos pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19. Após pareamento por escore de propensão, não houve diferença na mecânica pulmonar e nem nos desfechos entre os grupos.

Desfechos clínicos e características da mecânica pulmonar entre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 e a não associada à COVID-19: uma análise de escore de propensão de dois importantes ensaios randomizados / Clinical outcomes and lung mechanics characteristics between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: a propensity score analysis of two major randomized trials

RESUMO Objetivo: Comparar a mecânica pulmonar e os desfechos entre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 e a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19. Métodos: Combinamos dados de dois ensaios randomizados sobre a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo, um incluindo apenas pacientes com COVID-19 e o outro incluindo apenas pacientes sem COVID-19, para determinar se a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 está associada à maior mortalidade aos 28 dias do que a síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19 e também examinar as diferenças na mecânica pulmonar entre esses dois tipos de síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo. Resultados: Foram incluídos na análise principal 299 pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19 e 1.010 pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19. Os resultados mostraram que os pacientes sem COVID-19 utilizaram pressão positiva expiratória final mais alta (12,5cmH2O; DP 3,2 versus 11,7cmH2O; DP 2,8; p < 0,001), foram ventilados com volumes correntes mais baixos (5,8mL/kg; DP 1,0 versus 6,5mL/kg; DP 1,2; p < 0,001) e apresentaram menor complacência respiratória estática ajustada para o peso ideal (0,5mL/cmH2O/kg; DP 0,3 versus 0,6mL/cmH2O/kg; DP 0,3; p = 0,01). Não houve diferença entre os grupos quanto à mortalidade aos 28 dias (52,3% versus 58,9%; p = 0,52) ou à duração da ventilação mecânica nos primeiros 28 dias entre os sobreviventes (13 [IQ 5 - 22] dias versus 12 [IQ 6 - 26] dias; p = 0,46). Conclusão: Esta análise mostrou que os pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo não associada à COVID-19 têm mecânica pulmonar diferente, mas desfechos semelhantes aos dos pacientes com síndrome do desconforto respiratório agudo associada à COVID-19. Após pareamento por escore de propensão, não houve diferença na mecânica pulmonar e nem nos desfechos entre os grupos.

ABSTRACT Objective: To compare the lung mechanics and outcomes between COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome. Methods: We combined data from two randomized trials in acute respiratory distress syndrome, one including only COVID-19 patients and the other including only patients without COVID-19, to determine whether COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome is associated with higher 28-day mortality than non-COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome and to examine the differences in lung mechanics between these two types of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Results: A total of 299 patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and 1,010 patients with non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome were included in the main analysis. The results showed that non-COVID-19 patients used higher positive end-expiratory pressure (12.5cmH2O; SD 3.2 versus 11.7cmH2O SD 2.8; p < 0.001), were ventilated with lower tidal volumes (5.8mL/kg; SD 1.0 versus 6.5mL/kg; SD 1.2; p < 0.001) and had lower static respiratory compliance adjusted for ideal body weight (0.5mL/cmH2O/kg; SD 0.3 versus 0.6mL/cmH2O/kg; SD 0.3; p = 0.01). There was no difference between groups in 28-day mortality (52.3% versus 58.9%; p = 0.52) or mechanical ventilation duration in the first 28 days among survivors (13 [IQR 5 - 22] versus 12 [IQR 6 - 26], p = 0.46). Conclusion: This analysis showed that patients with non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome have different lung mechanics but similar outcomes to COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. After propensity score matching, there was no difference in lung mechanics or outcomes between groups.

Brazilian Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19: Joint guideline of Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia. / Diretrizes Brasileiras para o tratamento farmacológico de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19: Diretriz conjunta da Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia e Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia.

OBJECTIVE: Several therapies are being used or proposed for COVID-19, and many lack appropriate evaluations of their effectiveness and safety. The purpose of this document is to develop recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: A group of 27 experts, including representatives of the Ministry of Health and methodologists, created this guideline. The method used for the rapid development of guidelines was based on the adoption and/or adaptation of existing international guidelines (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) and supported by the e-COVID-19 RecMap platform. The quality of the evidence and the preparation of the recommendations followed the GRADE method. RESULTS: Sixteen recommendations were generated. They include strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen, the use of anticoagulants at prophylactic doses to prevent thromboembolism and the nonuse of antibiotics in patients without suspected bacterial infection. It was not possible to make a recommendation regarding the use of tocilizumab in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 using oxygen due to uncertainties regarding the availability of and access to the drug. Strong recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, lopinavir + ritonavir and antibiotics in patients without suspected bacterial infection and also conditional recommendations against the use of casirivimab + imdevimab, ivermectin and rendesivir were made. CONCLUSION: To date, few therapies have proven effective in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and only corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are recommended. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and promote economical resource use.

OBJETIVOS: Há diversas terapias sendo utilizadas ou propostas para a COVID-19, muitas carecendo de apropriada avaliação de efetividade e segurança. O propósito deste documento é elaborar recomendações para subsidiar decisões sobre o tratamento farmacológico de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 no Brasil. MÉTODOS: Um grupo de 27 membros, formado por especialistas, representantes do Ministério da Saúde e metodologistas, integra essa diretriz. Foi utilizado o método de elaboração de diretrizes rápidas, tomando por base a adoção e/ou a adaptação de recomendações a partir de diretrizes internacionais existentes (GRADE ADOLOPMENT), apoiadas pela plataforma e-COVID-19 RecMap. A qualidade das evidências e a elaboração das recomendações seguiram o método GRADE. RESULTADOS: Foram geradas 16 recomendações. Entre elas, estão recomendações fortes para o uso de corticosteroides em pacientes em uso de oxigênio suplementar, para o uso de anticoagulantes em doses de profilaxia para tromboembolismo e para não uso de antibacterianos nos pacientes sem suspeita de infecção bacteriana. Não foi possível fazer uma recomendação quanto à utilização do tocilizumabe em pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 em uso de oxigênio, pelas incertezas na disponibilidade e de acesso ao medicamento. Foi feita recomendação para não usar azitromicina, casirivimabe + imdevimabe, cloroquina, colchicina, hidroxicloroquina, ivermectina, lopinavir/ ritonavir, plasma convalescente e rendesivir. CONCLUSÃO: Até o momento, poucas terapias se provaram efetivas no tratamento do paciente hospitalizado com COVID-19, sendo recomendados apenas corticosteroides e profilaxia para tromboembolismo. Diversos medicamentos foram considerados ineficazes, devendo ser descartados, de forma a oferecer o melhor tratamento pelos princípios da medicina baseada em evidências e promover economia de recursos não eficazes.

Vitamin C-based regimens for sepsis and septic shock: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

PURPOSE: to critically appraise and synthesize the evidence on the effects of vitamin C-based regimens for patients with sepsis or septic shock. METHODS: a broad search was performed on May 2021 to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing vitamin C-based regimens as adjuvant therapy for adults with sepsis or septic shock. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias table to assess the methodological quality of the included RCTs and the GRADE approach to evaluate the evidence certainty. RESULTS: We included 20 RCTs (2124 participants). Evidence from low to very low certainty showed that vitamin C compared to placebo may reduce all-cause mortality up to 28 days (relative risk [RR] 0.60, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.80, 4 RCTs, 335 participants). Considering the other comparisons (vitamin C alone or combined with thiamine and/or hydrocortisone, compared to placebo, standard care or hydrocortisone), there were a little to no difference or very uncertain evidence for adverse events, SOFA score, ICU length of stay, acute kidney injury, mechanical ventilation- and vasoactive drugs-free days up to 28 days. CONCLUSION: Further RCTs with higher methodological quality, an increased number of participants and assessing clinically relevant outcomes are needed to provide better decision-making guidance. PROSPERO REGISTER: CRD42021251786.

Antivirals for adult patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 infection: A randomized, Phase II/III, multicenter, placebo-controlled, adaptive study, with multiple arms and stages. COALITION COVID-19 BRAZIL IX - REVOLUTIOn: protocol and statistical analysis plan. / Antivirais para pacientes adultos hospitalizados com infecção por SARS-CoV-2: Um estudo de Fase II/III, randomizado, multicêntrico, controlado por placebo, adaptativo, com múltiplos braços e estágios. COALITION COVID-19 BRAZIL IX - REVOLUTIOn: protocolo e plano de análise estatística.

Repurposed drugs are important in resource-limited settings because the interventions are more rapidly available, have already been tested safely in other populations and are inexpensive. Repurposed drugs are an effective solution, especially for emerging diseases such as COVID-19. The REVOLUTIOn trial has the objective of evaluating three repurposed antiviral drugs, atazanavir, daclatasvir and sofosbuvir, already used for HIV- and hepatitis C virus-infected patients in a randomized, placebo-controlled, adaptive, multiarm, multistage study. The drugs will be tested simultaneously in a Phase II trial to first identify whether any of these drugs alone or in combination reduce the viral load. If they do, a Phase III trial will be initiated to investigate if these medications are capable of increasing the number of days free respiratory support. Participants must be hospitalized adults aged ≥ 18 years with initiation of symptoms ≤ 9 days and SpO2 ≤ 94% in room air or a need for supplemental oxygen to maintain an SpO2 > 94%. The expected total sample size ranges from 252 to 1,005 participants, depending on the number of stages that will be completed in the study. Hence, the protocol is described here in detail together with the statistical analysis plan. In conclusion, the REVOLUTIOn trial is designed to provide evidence on whether atazanavir, daclatasvir or sofosbuvir decrease the SARS-CoV-2 load in patients with COVID-19 and increase the number of days patients are free of respiratory support. In this protocol paper, we describe the rationale, design, and status of the trial. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04468087.

Os medicamentos reaproveitados são importantes em contextos de recursos limitados porque as intervenções estão mais rapidamente disponíveis, já foram testadas com segurança em outras populações e são, em geral, mais baratas. Os medicamentos reaproveitados são uma solução eficaz, especialmente para doenças emergentes, como a COVID-19. O estudo REVOLUTIOn visa avaliar três medicamentos antivirais reaproveitados: atazanavir, daclatasvir e sofosbuvir, já utilizados em pacientes infectados pelo HIV ou pelo vírus da hepatite C, em um estudo randomizado, controlado por placebo, adaptativo, multibraço e em múltiplos estágios. Os medicamentos serão testados simultaneamente em um ensaio de Fase II para primeiro identificar se algum deles, isoladamente ou em combinação, reduz a carga viral. Se reduzirem, será iniciado um estudo de Fase III para investigar se tais medicamentos são capazes de aumentar o número de dias sem suporte respiratório. Os participantes devem ser adultos hospitalizados com idade ≥ 18 anos com início dos sintomas ≤ 9 dias e saturação de oxigênio ≤ 94% em ar ambiente ou necessidade de oxigênio suplementar para manter saturação de oxigênio > 94%. O tamanho total esperado da amostra varia entre 252 e 1.005 participantes, dependendo do número de estágios que serão concluídos no estudo. Assim, o protocolo é aqui descrito em detalhes, juntamente do plano de análise estatística. Em conclusão, o estudo REVOLUTIOn foi concebido para fornecer evidências se o atazanavir, o daclatasvir ou o sofosbuvir reduzem a carga viral de SARS-CoV-2 em pacientes com COVID-19 e aumentam o número de dias em que os pacientes ficam sem suporte respiratório. Neste artigo de protocolo, descrevem-se a fundamentação, o desenho e a situação do ensaio. Identificador do ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04468087.

Statistical analysis of a cluster-randomized clinical trial on adult general intensive care units in Brazil: TELE-critical care verSus usual Care On ICU PErformance (TELESCOPE) trial. / Plano de análise estatística de um ensaio clínico randomizado em cluster em unidades de terapia intensiva geral adulto no Brasil: TELE-critical care verSus usual Care On ICU PErformance (TELESCOPE).

OBJECTIVE: The TELE-critical Care verSus usual Care On ICU PErformance (TELESCOPE) trial aims to assess whether a complex telemedicine intervention in intensive care units, which focuses on daily multidisciplinary rounds performed by remote intensivists, will reduce intensive care unit length of stay compared to usual care. METHODS: The TELESCOPE trial is a national, multicenter, controlled, open label, cluster randomized trial. The study tests the effectiveness of daily multidisciplinary rounds conducted by an intensivist through telemedicine in Brazilian intensive care units. The protocol was approved by the local Research Ethics Committee of the coordinating study center and by the local Research Ethics Committee from each of the 30 intensive care units, following Brazilian legislation. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials. gov (NCT03920501). The primary outcome is intensive care unit length of stay, which will be analyzed accounting for the baseline period and cluster structure of the data and adjusted by prespecified covariates. Secondary exploratory outcomes included intensive care unit performance classification, in-hospital mortality, incidence of nosocomial infections, ventilator-free days at 28 days, rate of patients receiving oral or enteral feeding, rate of patients under light sedation or alert and calm, and rate of patients under normoxemia. CONCLUSION: According to the trial's best practice, we report our statistical analysis prior to locking the database and beginning analyses. We anticipate that this reporting practice will prevent analysis bias and improve the interpretation of the reported results.ClinicalTrials.gov registration: NCT03920501.

OBJETIVO: O ensaio TELE-critical Care verSus usual Care On ICU PErformance (TELESCOPE) visa avaliar se uma intervenção complexa por telemedicina em unidades de terapia intensiva, que se concentra em rondas multidisciplinares diárias realizadas por intensivistas a distância, reduzirá o tempo de permanência na unidade de terapia intensiva em comparação com os cuidados habituais. MÉTODOS: O TELESCOPE é um ensaio nacional, multicêntrico, controlado, aberto, randomizado em cluster. O estudo testa a eficácia de rondas multidisciplinares diárias realizadas por um intensivista por meio de telemedicina em unidades de terapia intensiva brasileiras. O protocolo foi aprovado pelo Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa local do centro coordenador do estudo e pelo Comitê de Ética em Pesquisa local de cada uma das 30 unidades de terapia intensiva, de acordo com a legislação brasileira. O ensaio está registado no ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03920501). O desfecho primário é o tempo de internação na unidade de terapia intensiva, que será analisado considerando o período basal e a estrutura dos dados em cluster, sendo ajustado por covariáveis predefinidas. Os desfechos exploratórios secundários incluem a classificação de desempenho da unidade de terapia intensiva, a mortalidade hospitalar, a incidência de infecções nosocomiais, o número de dias sem ventilação mecânica aos 28 dias, a taxa de pacientes que recebem alimentação oral ou enteral, a taxa de pacientes sob sedação leve ou em alerta e calmos e a taxa de pacientes sob normoxemia. CONCLUSÃO: De acordo com as melhores práticas do ensaio, divulgamos nossa análise estatística antes de bloquear a base de dados e iniciar as análises. Esperamos que essa prática de notificação evite o viés das análises e aprimore a interpretação dos resultados apresentados.Registro no ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03920501.

Lung perfusion during veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in a model of hypoxemic respiratory failure.

BACKGROUND: Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) provides blood oxygenation and carbon dioxide removal in acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, during ECMO support, the native lungs still play an important role in gas exchange, functioning as a second oxygenator in series with ECMO. The hypoxic vasoconstriction mechanism diverts regional blood flow within the lungs away from regions with low oxygen levels, optimizing ventilation/perfusion matching. ECMO support has the potential to reduce this adaptive pulmonary response and worsen the ventilation/perfusion mismatch by raising venous oxygen partial pressure. Thus, the objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of ECMO on regional pulmonary perfusion and pulmonary hemodynamics during unilateral ventilation and posterior lung collapse. METHODS: Five Agroceres pigs were instrumented, monitored and submitted to ECMO. We used the Electrical Impedance Tomography (EIT) to evaluate lung ventilation and perfusion in all protocol steps. Effects of ECMO support on pulmonary hemodynamics and perfusion involving two different scenarios of ventilation/perfusion mismatch: (1) right-lung selective intubation inducing collapse of the normal left lung and (2) dorsal lung collapse after repeated lung lavage. Data including hemodynamics, respiratory, lung perfusion/ventilation, and laboratory data over time were analyzed with a mixed generalized model using the subjects as a random factor. RESULTS: The initiation of ECMO support provided a significant reduction in Mean Pulmonary Artery Pressure (PAPm) in both situations of ventilation/perfusion mismatch. However, distribution of lung perfusion did not change with the use of ECMO support. CONCLUSIONS: We found that the use of ECMO support with consequent increase in venous oxygen pressure induced a significant drop in PAPm with no detectable effect on regional lung perfusion in different scenarios of ventilation/perfusion mismatch.