An International Survey of the Management of Atrial Fibrillation in Critically Unwell Patients.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the current management of new-onset atrial fibrillation and compare differences in practice regionally. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. SUBJECTS: Critical care attending physicians/consultants and fellows. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 386 surveys were included in our analysis. Rate control was the preferred treatment approach for hemodynamically stable patients (69.1%), and amiodarone was the most used antiarrhythmic medication (70.9%). For hemodynamically unstable patients, a strategy of electrolyte supplementation and antiarrhythmic therapy was most common (54.7%). Physicians responding to the survey distributed by the Society of Critical Care Medicine were more likely to prescribe beta-blockers as a first-line antiarrhythmic medication (38.4%), use more transthoracic echocardiography than respondents from other regions (82.4%), and more likely to refer patients who survive their ICU stay for cardiology follow-up if they had new-onset atrial fibrillation (57.2%). The majority of survey respondents (83.0%) were interested in participating in future studies of atrial fibrillation in critically ill patients. CONCLUSIONS: Significant variation exists in the management of new-onset atrial fibrillation in critically ill patients, as well as geographic variation. Further research is necessary to inform guidelines in this population and establish if differences in practice impact long-term outcomes.

Sepsis-induced coagulopathy is associated with new episodes of atrial fibrillation in patients admitted to critical care in sinus rhythm.

Background: Sepsis is a life-threatening disease commonly complicated by activation of coagulation and immune pathways. Sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) is associated with micro- and macrothrombosis, but its relation to other cardiovascular complications remains less clear. In this study we explored associations between SIC and the occurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in sinus rhythm. We also aimed to identify predictive factors for the development of AF in patients with and without SIC. Methods: Data were extracted from the publicly available AmsterdamUMCdb database. Patients with sepsis and documented sinus rhythm on admission to ICU were included. Patients were stratified into those who fulfilled the criteria for SIC and those who did not. Following univariate analysis, logistic regression models were developed to describe the association between routinely documented demographics and blood results and the development of at least one episode of AF. Machine learning methods (gradient boosting machines and random forest) were applied to define the predictive importance of factors contributing to the development of AF. Results: Age was the strongest predictor for the development of AF in patients with and without SIC. Routine coagulation tests activated Partial Thromboplastin Time (aPTT) and International Normalized Ratio (INR) and C-reactive protein (CRP) as a marker of inflammation were also associated with AF occurrence in SIC-positive and SIC-negative patients. Cardiorespiratory parameters (oxygen requirements and heart rate) showed predictive potential. Conclusion: Higher INR, elevated CRP, increased heart rate and more severe respiratory failure are risk factors for occurrence of AF in critical illness, suggesting an association between cardiac, respiratory and immune and coagulation pathways. However, age was the most dominant factor to predict the first episodes of AF in patients admitted in sinus rhythm with and without SIC.

Landiolol and Organ Failure in Patients With Septic Shock: The STRESS-L Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Patients with septic shock undergo adrenergic stress, which affects cardiac, immune, inflammatory, and metabolic pathways. ß-Blockade may attenuate the adverse effects of catecholamine exposure and has been associated with reduced mortality. Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of landiolol in patients with tachycardia and established septic shock requiring prolonged (>24 hours) vasopressor support. Design, Setting, and Participants: An open-label, multicenter, randomized trial involving 126 adults (≥18 years) with tachycardia (heart rate ≥95/min) and established septic shock treated for at least 24 hours with continuous norepinephrine (≥0.1 µg/kg/min) in 40 UK National Health Service intensive care units. The trial ran from April 2018 to December 2021, with early termination in December 2021 due to a signal of possible harm. Intervention: Sixty-three patients were randomized to receive standard care and 63 to receive landiolol infusion. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the mean Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score from randomization through 14 days. Secondary outcomes included mortality at days 28 and 90 and the number of adverse events in each group. Results: The trial was stopped prematurely on the advice of the independent data monitoring committee because it was unlikely to demonstrate benefit and because of possible harm. Of a planned 340 participants, 126 (37%) were enrolled (mean age, 55.6 years [95% CI, 52.7 to 58.5 years]; 58.7% male). The mean (SD) SOFA score in the landiolol group was 8.8 (3.9) compared with 8.1 (3.2) in the standard care group (mean difference [MD], 0.75 [95% CI, -0.49 to 2.0]; P = .24). Mortality at day 28 after randomization in the landiolol group was 37.1% (23 of 62) and 25.4% (16 of 63) in the standard care group (absolute difference, 11.7% [95% CI, -4.4% to 27.8%]; P = .16). Mortality at day 90 after randomization was 43.5% (27 of 62) in the landiolol group and 28.6% (18 of 63) in the standard care group (absolute difference, 15% [95% CI, -1.7% to 31.6%]; P = .08). There were no differences in the number of patients having at least one adverse event. Conclusion and Relevance: Among patients with septic shock with tachycardia and treated with norepinephrine for more than 24 hours, an infusion of landiolol did not reduce organ failure measured by the SOFA score over 14 days from randomization. These results do not support the use of landiolol for managing tachycardia among patients treated with norepinephrine for established septic shock. Trial Registration: EU Clinical Trials Register Eudra CT: 2017-001785-14; isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN12600919.

PIM-COVID study: protocol for a multicentre, longitudinal study measuring the psychological impact of surviving an intensive care admission due to COVID-19 on patients in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Psychological distress is common in intensive care unit (ICU) survivors and is anticipated in those who were treated for severe COVID-19 infection. This trainee-led, multicentre, observational, longitudinal study aims to assess the psychological outcomes of ICU survivors treated for COVID-19 infection in the UK at 3, 6 and/or 12 months after ICU discharge and explore whether there are demographic, psychosocial and clinical risk factors for psychological distress. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Questionnaires will be provided to study participants 3, 6 and/or 12 months after discharge from intensive care, assessing for anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress symptoms, health-related quality of life and physical symptoms. Demographic, psychosocial and clinical data will also be collected to explore risk factors for psychological distress using latent growth curve modelling. Study participants will be eligible to complete questionnaires at any of the three time points online, by telephone or by post. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The PIM-COVID study was approved by the Health Research Authority (East Midlands - Derby Research and Ethics Committee, reference: 20/EM/0247). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05092529.

Study protocol: A systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the influence of coagulopathy and immune activation on new onset atrial fibrillation in patients with sepsis.

BACKGROUND: New onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is the most common arrhythmia affecting critically ill patients with sepsis. NOAF is associated with increased intensive care unit mortality, increased hospital mortality, development of heart failure and increased risk of permanent atrial fibrillation and thromboembolic events such as stroke. The pathophysiology of NOAF has been outlined, however, a knowledge gap exists regarding the association between abnormalities in coagulation and immune biomarkers, and the risk of developing NOAF in patients with sepsis. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol describes a systematic review and meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guideline (PRISMA-P) and the Meta-Analyses and Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies guideline (MOOSE). We will conduct the literature search in Medline, Scopus and Cochrane Library. We will include studies that report data in adult patients (>18 years) with sepsis that develop NOAF. We will extract data from studies that report at least one coagulation or immune biomarker. Risk of bias will be assessed by using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Risk of Bias 2 tool (RoB2) for non-randomized and randomized trials respectively. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be utilized in assessing the quality of evidence. DISCUSSION: This systematic review and meta-analysis will explore the scientific literature regarding the association between coagulation and immune activation in critically ill patients with sepsis, who develop NOAF. The findings will add to the existing knowledge base of NOAF in sepsis, highlight areas of uncertainty and identify future areas of interest to guide and improve management strategies for NOAF. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration details. CRD42022385225 (PROSPERO).

Who to escalate during a pandemic? A retrospective observational study about decision-making during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Optimal decision-making regarding who to admit to critical care in pandemic situations remains unclear. We compared age, Clinical Frailty Score (CFS), 4C Mortality Score and hospital mortality in two separate COVID-19 surges based on the escalation decision made by the treating physician. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all referrals to critical care during the first COVID-19 surge (cohort 1, March/April 2020) and a late surge (cohort 2, October/November 2021) was undertaken. Patients with confirmed or high clinical suspicion of COVID-19 infection were included. A senior critical care physician assessed all patients regarding their suitability for potential intensive care unit admission. Demographics, CFS, 4C Mortality Score and hospital mortality were compared depending on the escalation decision made by the attending physician. RESULTS: 203 patients were included in the study, 139 in cohort 1 and 64 in cohort 2. There were no significant differences in age, CFS and 4C scores between the two cohorts. Patients deemed suitable for escalation by clinicians were significantly younger with significantly lower CFS and 4C scores compared with patients who were not deemed to benefit from escalation. This pattern was observed in both cohorts. Mortality in patients not deemed suitable for escalation was 61.8% in cohort 1 and 47.4% in cohort 2 (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Decisions who to escalate to critical care in settings with limited resources pose moral distress on clinicians. 4C score, age and CFS did not change significantly between the two surges but differed significantly between patients deemed suitable for escalation and those deemed unsuitable by clinicians. Risk prediction tools may be useful in a pandemic to supplement clinical decision-making, even though escalation thresholds require adjustments to reflect changes in risk profile and outcomes between different pandemic surges.

Repair of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in COVID-19 by Stromal Cells (REALIST-COVID Trial): A Multicenter, Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial.

Rationale: Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) may modulate inflammation, promoting repair in coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Objectives: We investigated the safety and efficacy of ORBCEL-C (CD362 [cluster of differentiation 362]-enriched, umbilical cord-derived MSCs) in COVID-19-related ARDS. Methods: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind, allocation-concealed, placebo-controlled trial (NCT03042143), patients with moderate to severe COVID-19-related ARDS were randomized to receive ORBCEL-C (400 million cells) or placebo (Plasma-Lyte 148). The primary safety and efficacy outcomes were the incidence of serious adverse events and oxygenation index at Day 7, respectively. Secondary outcomes included respiratory compliance, driving pressure, PaO2:FiO2 ratio, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. Clinical outcomes relating to duration of ventilation, lengths of ICU and hospital stays, and mortality were collected. Long-term follow-up included diagnosis of interstitial lung disease at 1 year and significant medical events and mortality at 2 years. Transcriptomic analysis was performed on whole blood at Days 0, 4, and 7. Measurements and Main Results: Sixty participants were recruited (final analysis: n = 30 received ORBCEL-C, n = 29 received placebo; 1 participant in the placebo group withdrew consent). Six serious adverse events occurred in the ORBCEL-C group and three in the placebo group (risk ratio, 2.9 [95% confidence interval, 0.6-13.2]; P = 0.25). Day 7 mean (SD) oxygenation index did not differ (ORBCEL-C, 98.3 [57.2] cm H2O/kPa; placebo, 96.6 [67.3] cm H2O/kPa). There were no differences in secondary surrogate outcomes or in mortality at Day 28, Day 90, 1 year, or 2 years. There was no difference in the prevalence of interstitial lung disease at 1 year or significant medical events up to 2 years. ORBCEL-C modulated the peripheral blood transcriptome. Conclusion: ORBCEL-C MSCs were safe in subjects with moderate to severe COVID-19-related ARDS but did not improve surrogates of pulmonary organ dysfunction.

Development of Core Outcome Sets for trials on the management of Atrial fiBrillAtion in Critically Unwell patientS (COS-ABACUS): a protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in critically unwell patients. New-onset AF (NOAF) affects 5%-11% of all admissions and up to 46% admitted with septic shock. NOAF is associated with increased morbidity, mortality and healthcare costs. Existing trials into the prevention and management of NOAF suffer from significant heterogeneity making comparisons and inferences limited. Core outcome sets (COS) aim to standardise outcome reporting, reduce inconsistency between trials and reduce outcome reporting bias. We aim to develop an internationally agreed COS for trials of interventions on the management of NOAF during critical illness. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Stakeholders including intensive care physicians, cardiologists and patients will be recruited from national and international critical care organisations. COS development will occur in five stages: (1) Outcomes included in trials, recent systematic reviews and surveys of clinician practice and patient focus groups will be extracted. (2) Extracted outcomes will inform a two-stage e-Delphi process and consensus meeting using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. (3) Outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) will be identified from the literature and a consensus meeting held to agree OMI for core outcomes. (4) Nominal group technique will be used in a final consensus meeting to the COS. (5) The findings of our COS will be published in peer-reviewed journals and implemented in future guidelines and intervention trials. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the University of Liverpool ethics committee (Ref: 11 256, 21 June 2022), with a formal consent waiver and assumed consent. We will disseminate the finalised COS via national and international critical care organisations and publication in peer-reviewed journals.

Learning from stakeholders to inform good practice guidance on consent to research in intensive care units: a mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVES: Obtaining informed consent from patients in intensive care units (ICUs) prior to enrolment in a study is practically and ethically complex. Decisions about the participation of critically ill patients in research often involve substitute decision makers (SDMs), such as a patient's relatives or doctors. We explored the perspectives of different stakeholder groups towards these consent procedures. DESIGN AND METHODS: Mixed-methods study comprising surveys completed by ICU patients, their relatives and healthcare practitioners in 14 English ICUs, followed by qualitative interviews with a subset of survey participants. Empirical bioethics informed the analysis and synthesis of the data. Survey data were analysed using descriptive statistics of Likert responses, and analysis of interview data was informed by thematic reflective approaches. RESULTS: Analysis included 1409 survey responses (ICU patients n=333, relatives n=488, healthcare practitioners n=588) and 60 interviews (ICU patients n=13, relatives n=30, healthcare practitioners n=17). Most agreed with relatives acting as SDMs based on the perception that relatives often know the patient well enough to reflect their views. While the practice of doctors serving as SDMs was supported by most survey respondents, a quarter (25%) disagreed. Views were more positive at interview and shifted markedly depending on particularities of the study. Participants also wanted reassurance that patient care was prioritised over research recruitment. Findings lend support for adaptations to consent procedures, including collaborative decision-making to correct misunderstandings of the implications of research for that patient. This empirical evidence is used to develop good practice guidance that is to be published separately. CONCLUSIONS: Participants largely supported existing consent procedures, but their perspectives on these consent procedures depended on their perceptions of what the research involved and the safeguards in place. Findings point to the importance of explaining clearly what safeguards are in place to protect the patient.

In-Hospital Mortality of Sepsis Differs Depending on the Origin of Infection: An Investigation of Predisposing Factors.

Sepsis is a heterogeneous syndrome characterized by a variety of clinical features. Analysis of large clinical datasets may serve to define groups of sepsis with different risks of adverse outcomes. Clinical experience supports the concept that prognosis, treatment, severity, and time course of sepsis vary depending on the source of infection. We analyzed a large publicly available database to test this hypothesis. In addition, we developed prognostic models for the three main types of sepsis: pulmonary, urinary, and abdominal sepsis. We used logistic regression using routinely available clinical data for mortality prediction in each of these groups. The data was extracted from the eICU collaborative research database, a multi-center intensive care unit with over 200,000 admissions. Sepsis cohorts were defined using admission diagnosis codes. We used univariate and multivariate analyses to establish factors relevant for outcome prediction in all three cohorts of sepsis (pulmonary, urinary and abdominal). For logistic regression, input variables were automatically selected using a sequential forward search algorithm over 10 dataset instances. Receiver operator characteristics were generated for each model and compared with established prognostication tools (APACHE IV and SOFA). A total of 3,958 sepsis admissions were included in the analysis. Sepsis in-hospital mortality differed depending on the cause of infection: abdominal 18.93%, pulmonary 19.27%, and renal 12.81%. Higher average heart rate was associated with increased mortality risk. Increased average Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) showed a reduced mortality risk across all sepsis groups. Results from the LR models found significant factors that were relevant for specific sepsis groups. Our models outperformed APACHE IV and SOFA scores with AUC between 0.63 and 0.74. Predictive power decreased over time, with the best results achieved for data extracted for the first 24 h of admission. Mortality varied significantly between the three sepsis groups. We also demonstrate that factors of importance show considerable heterogeneity depending on the source of infection. The factors influencing in-hospital mortality vary depending on the source of sepsis which may explain why most sepsis trials have failed to identify an effective treatment. The source of infection should be considered when considering mortality risk. Planning of sepsis treatment trials may benefit from risk stratification based on the source of infection.

Development of a Risk Prediction Model for New Episodes of Atrial Fibrillation in Medical-Surgical Critically Ill Patients Using the AmsterdamUMCdb.

The occurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) represents clinical deterioration in acutely unwell patients and leads to increased morbidity and mortality. Prediction of the development of AF allows early intervention. Using the AmsterdamUMCdb, clinically relevant variables from patients admitted in sinus rhythm were extracted over the full duration of the ICU stay or until the first recorded AF episode occurred. Multiple logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for AF. Input variables were automatically selected by a sequential forward search algorithm using cross-validation. We developed three different models: For the overall cohort, for ventilated patients and non-ventilated patients. 16,144 out of 23,106 admissions met the inclusion criteria. 2,374 (12.8%) patients had at least one AF episode during their ICU stay. Univariate analysis revealed that a higher percentage of AF patients were older than 70 years (60% versus 32%) and died in ICU (23.1% versus 7.1%) compared to non-AF patients. Multivariate analysis revealed age to be the dominant risk factor for developing AF with doubling of age leading to a 10-fold increased risk. Our logistic regression models showed excellent performance with AUC.ROC > 0.82 and > 0.91 in ventilated and non-ventilated cohorts, respectively. Increasing age was the dominant risk factor for the development of AF in both ventilated and non-ventilated critically ill patients. In non-ventilated patients, risk for development of AF was significantly higher than in ventilated patients. Further research is warranted to identify the role of ventilatory settings on risk for AF in critical illness and to optimise predictive models.

PROcalcitonin and NEWS2 evaluation for Timely identification of sepsis and Optimal use of antibiotics in the emergency department (PRONTO): protocol for a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Sepsis is a common, potentially life-threatening complication of infection. The optimal treatment for sepsis includes prompt antibiotics and intravenous fluids, facilitated by its early and accurate recognition. Currently, clinicians identify and assess severity of suspected sepsis using validated clinical scoring systems. In England, the National Early Warning Score 2 (NEWS2) has been mandated across all National Health Service (NHS) trusts and ambulance organisations. Like many clinical scoring systems, NEWS2 should not be used without clinical judgement to determine either the level of acuity or a diagnosis. Despite this, there is a tendency to overemphasise the score in isolation in patients with suspected infection, leading to the overprescription of antibiotics and potentially treatment-related complications and rising antimicrobial resistance. The biomarker procalcitonin (PCT) has been shown to be useful in specific circumstances to support appropriate antibiotics prescribing by identifying bacterial infection. PCT is not routinely used in the care of undifferentiated patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs), and the evidence base of its optimal usage is poor. The PROcalcitonin and NEWS2 evaluation for Timely identification of sepsis and Optimal (PRONTO) study is a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in adults with suspected sepsis presenting to the ED to compare standard clinical management based on NEWS2 scoring plus PCT-guided risk assessment with standard clinical management based on NEWS2 scoring alone and compare if this approach reduces prescriptions of antibiotics without increasing mortality. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PRONTO is a parallel two-arm open-label individually RCT set in up to 20 NHS EDs in the UK with a target sample size of 7676 participants. Participants will be randomised in a ratio of 1:1 to standard clinical management based on NEWS2 scoring or standard clinical management based on NEWS2 scoring plus PCT-guided risk assessment. We will compare whether the addition of PCT measurement to NEWS2 scoring can lead to a reduction in intravenous antibiotic initiation in ED patients managed as suspected sepsis, with at least no increase in 28-day mortality compared with NEWS2 scoring alone (in conjunction with local standard care pathways). PRONTO has two coprimary endpoints: initiation of intravenous antibiotics at 3 hours (superiority comparison) and 28-day mortality (non-inferiority comparison). The study has an internal pilot phase and group-sequential stopping rules for effectiveness and futility/safety, as well as a qualitative substudy and a health economic evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial protocol was approved by the Health Research Authority (HRA) and NHS Research Ethics Committee (Wales REC 2, reference 20/WA/0058). In England and Wales, the law allows the use of deferred consent in approved research situations (including ED studies) where the time dependent nature of intervention would not allow true informed consent to be obtained. PRONTO has approval for a deferred consent process to be used. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and presented at scientific conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN54006056.

Can Beta-D-Glucan testing as part of the diagnostic pathway for invasive fungal infection reduce anti-fungal treatment costs?

We performed a cost comparison of the current diagnostic and treatment pathway for invasive fungal infection (IFI) versus a proposed pathway that incorporates Beta-D-Glucan (BDG) testing from the NHS perspective. A fungal pathogen was identified in 58/107 (54.2%) patients treated with systemic anti-fungals in the Critical Care Department. Mean therapy duration was 23 days (standard deviation [SD] = 22 days), and cost was £5590 (SD = £7410) per patient. Implementation of BDG tests in the diagnostic and treatment pathway of patients with suspected IFI could result in a mean saving of £1643 per patient should a result be returned within 2 days. LAY SUMMARY: Invasive fungal infection increases the risk of death in very sick people. So, treatment is started before test results are known. Beta-D-Glucan (BDG) test is faster than standard blood culture tests. We estimate that using BDG tests in how patients are diagnosed could save about £1643 per patient.

Management of new onset atrial fibrillation in critically unwell adult patients: a systematic review and narrative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: New onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is the most common arrhythmia affecting critically unwell patients. NOAF can lead to worsening haemodynamic compromise, heart failure, thromboembolic events, and increased mortality. The aim of this systematic review and narrative synthesis is to evaluate the non-pharmacological and pharmacological management strategies for NOAF in critically unwell patients. METHODS: Of 1782 studies, 30 were eligible for inclusion, including 4 RCTs and 26 observational studies. Efficacy of direct current cardioversion, amiodarone, ß-adrenergic receptor antagonists, calcium channel blockers, digoxin, magnesium, and less commonly used agents such as ibutilide are reported. RESULTS: Cardioversion rates of 48% were reported for direct current cardioversion; however, re-initiation of NOAF was as high as 23.4%. Amiodarone was the most commonly reported intervention with cardioversion rates ranging from 18% to 96% followed by ß-antagonists with cardioversion rates from 40% to 92%. Amiodarone was more effective than diltiazem (odds ratio [OR]=1.91, P=0.32) at cardioversion. Short-acting ß-antagonists esmolol and landiolol were more effective compared with diltiazem for cardioversion (OR=3.55, P=0.04) and HR control (OR=3.2, P<0.001). CONCLUSION: There was significant variation between studies with regard to the definition of successful cardioversion and heart rate control, making comparisons between studies and interventions difficult. Future RCTs comparing individual anti-arrhythmic agents, in particular magnesium, amiodarone, and ß-antagonists, and studying the role of anticoagulation in critically unwell patients are required. There is also an urgent need for a core outcome dataset for studies of new onset atrial fibrillation to allow comparisons between different anti-arrhythmic strategies. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019121739.

Standard- versus intermediate-dose enoxaparin for anti-factor Xa guided thromboprophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

The prevalence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) is high in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Dosing of Low Molecular Weight Heparin (LMWH) for thromboprophylaxis in patients with severe COVID-19 is subject to ongoing debate.In this brief report, we describe our study where we retrospectively examined the efficacy of standard- versus intermediate-dosing of enoxaparin in attaining and maintaining accepted prophylactic levels of anti-Factor Xa (anti-FXa) in critically ill patients with COVID-19.We collected data for all patients with confirmed COVID-19 who were treated with enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis in a single Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in the United Kingdom between 31st March and 16th November 2020. Standard-dose of enoxaparin was 40 mg subcutaneously once daily for patients with normal renal function and body weight between 50 and 100 kg; the intermediate-dose was 40 mg subcutaneously twice daily. Anti-FXa peak concentrations between 0.2-0.4 IU/ml were considered appropriate for thromboprophylaxis.Age, sex, weight, Body Mass Index, APACHE II score, ICU length of stay, initial P/F ratio and creatinine were not statistically significantly different between standard- and intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis cohorts. In the standard-dose group, the median initial anti-FXa level was 0.13 (interquartile range 0.06-0.18) compared to 0.26 (0.21-0.33) in the intermediate-dose cohort (p < 0.001). On repeated measurement, in the standard dose cohort, 44 of 95 (46%) anti-FXa levels were < 0.2 IU/ml compared with 24 of 132 (18%) levels in the intermediate-dose cohort even after dose-adjustment. There was one radiologically confirmed pulmonary embolism (PE) on computed tomography pulmonary angiogram during hospital admission in each cohort.Our study supports starting intermediate-dose thromboprophylaxis for critically ill patients with COVID-19 to achieve anti-FXa levels in the accepted thromboprophylactic range although further study is required to investigate whether anti-FXa guided thromboprophylaxis is safe and effective in reducing the incidence of VTEs in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Strategies to enhance recruitment and consent to intensive care studies: a qualitative study with researchers and patient-public involvement contributors.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical trials and studies in intensive care units (ICUs) have complex consent processes and often encounter problems in recruiting patients. By interviewing research team members about the challenges in critical care research, we aimed to identify strategies to enhance recruitment and consent to ICU studies. METHODS: Semistructured interviews with UK-based researchers (N=17) and patient-public involvement (PPI) contributors (N=8) with experience of ICU studies. Analysis of transcripts of audio-recorded interviews drew on thematic approaches. RESULTS: Seven themes were identified. Participants emphasised the need for substitute decision-making processes in critical care studies, yet some researchers reported that research ethics committees (RECs) were reluctant to approve such processes. Researchers spoke about the potential benefits of research without prior consent (RWPC) for studies with narrow recruitment windows but believed RECs would not approve them. Participants indicated that the activity of PPI contributors was limited in critical care studies, though researchers who had involved PPI contributors more extensively were clear that their input when designing consent processes was important. Researchers and PPI contributors pointed to resource and staffing limitations as barriers to patient recruitment. Researchers varied in whether and how they used professional consultees as substitute decision-makers, in whether they approached families by telephone to discuss research and in whether they disclosed details of research participation to bereaved relatives. CONCLUSION: Critical care research could benefit from RECs having expertise in consent processes that are suited to this setting, better staffing at research sites, more extensive PPI and an evidence base on stakeholder perspectives on critical care research processes. Guidance on professional consultee processes, telephoning relatives to discuss research, RWPC and disclosure of research participation to bereaved relatives could help to harmonise practice in these areas and enhance recruitment and consent to critical care studies.

Natural history, trajectory, and management of mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients in the United Kingdom.

PURPOSE: The trajectory of mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is essential for clinical decisions, yet the focus so far has been on admission characteristics without consideration of the dynamic course of the disease in the context of applied therapeutic interventions. METHODS: We included adult patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) within 48 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission with complete clinical data until ICU death or discharge. We examined the importance of factors associated with disease progression over the first week, implementation and responsiveness to interventions used in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and ICU outcome. We used machine learning (ML) and Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) methods to characterise the evolution of clinical parameters and our ICU data visualisation tool is available as a web-based widget ( https://www.CovidUK.ICU ). RESULTS: Data for 633 adults with COVID-19 who underwent IMV between 01 March 2020 and 31 August 2020 were analysed. Overall mortality was 43.3% and highest with non-resolution of hypoxaemia [60.4% vs17.6%; P < 0.001; median PaO2/FiO2 on the day of death was 12.3(8.9-18.4) kPa] and non-response to proning (69.5% vs.31.1%; P < 0.001). Two ML models using weeklong data demonstrated an increased predictive accuracy for mortality compared to admission data (74.5% and 76.3% vs 60%, respectively). XAI models highlighted the increasing importance, over the first week, of PaO2/FiO2 in predicting mortality. Prone positioning improved oxygenation only in 45% of patients. A higher peak pressure (OR 1.42[1.06-1.91]; P < 0.05), raised respiratory component (OR 1.71[ 1.17-2.5]; P < 0.01) and cardiovascular component (OR 1.36 [1.04-1.75]; P < 0.05) of the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score and raised lactate (OR 1.33 [0.99-1.79]; P = 0.057) immediately prior to application of prone positioning were associated with lack of oxygenation response. Prone positioning was not applied to 76% of patients with moderate hypoxemia and 45% of those with severe hypoxemia and patients who died without receiving proning interventions had more missed opportunities for prone intervention [7 (3-15.5) versus 2 (0-6); P < 0.001]. Despite the severity of gas exchange deficit, most patients received lung-protective ventilation with tidal volumes less than 8 mL/kg and plateau pressures less than 30cmH2O. This was despite systematic errors in measurement of height and derived ideal body weight. CONCLUSIONS: Refractory hypoxaemia remains a major association with mortality, yet evidence based ARDS interventions, in particular prone positioning, were not implemented and had delayed application with an associated reduced responsiveness. Real-time service evaluation techniques offer opportunities to assess the delivery of care and improve protocolised implementation of evidence-based ARDS interventions, which might be associated with improvements in survival.

A Systematic Review of Anticoagulation Strategies for Patients with Atrial Fibrillation in Critical Care.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia in critically ill patients. There is a paucity of data assessing the impact of anticoagulation strategies on clinical outcomes for general critical care patients with AF. Our aim was to assess the existing literature to evaluate the effectiveness of anticoagulation strategies used in critical care for AF. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and PubMed databases. Studies reporting anticoagulation strategies for AF in adults admitted to a general critical care setting were assessed for inclusion. RESULTS: Four studies were selected for data extraction. A total of 44,087 patients were identified with AF, of which 17.8 to 49.4% received anticoagulation. The reported incidence of thromboembolic events was 0 to 1.4% for anticoagulated patients, and 0 to 1.3% in nonanticoagulated patients. Major bleeding events were reported in three studies and occurred in 7.2 to 8.6% of the anticoagulated patients and in up to 7.1% of the nonanticoagulated patients. CONCLUSION: There was an increased incidence of major bleeding events in anticoagulated patients with AF in critical care compared with nonanticoagulated patients. There was no significant difference in the incidence of reported thromboembolic events within studies between patients who did and did not receive anticoagulation. However, the outcomes reported within studies were not standardized, therefore, the generalizability of our results to the general critical care population remains unclear. Further data are required to facilitate an evidence-based assessment of the risks and benefits of anticoagulation for critically ill patients with AF.

Hypercoagulopathy in Severe COVID-19: Implications for Acute Care.

COVID-19 was first described in late 2019 and has since developed into a pandemic affecting more than 21 million people worldwide. Of particular relevance for acute care is the occurrence of COVID-19-associated coagulopathy (CAC), which is characterised by hypercoagulability, immunothrombosis and venous thromboembolism, and contributes to hypoxia in a significant proportion of patients. This review describes diagnosis and treatment of CAC in the emergency department and in intensive care. We summarise the pathological mechanisms and common complications of CAC such as pulmonary thrombosis and venous thromboembolic events and discuss current strategies for thromboprophylaxis and therapeutic anti-coagulation in the acute care setting.