Building on a novel bootstrapping modelling technique to predict region-wide critical care capacity requirements over the next decade.

We have previously described an open-source data-driven modelling technique that has been used to model critical care resource provision as well as expanded to elective surgery and even whole-hospital modelling. Here, we describe the use of this technique to model patient flow and resource use across the West Yorkshire Critical Care Network, with the advantage that recommendations can be made at an individual unit level for future resource provision, taking into account changes in population numbers and demography over the coming decade. We will be using this approach in other regions around the UK to help predict future critical care capacity requirements.

Reduced critical care demand with early CPAP and proning in COVID-19 at Bradford: A single-centre cohort.

Background: Guidance in COVID-19 respiratory failure has favoured early intubation, with concerns over the use of CPAP. We adopted early CPAP and self-proning, and evaluated the safety and efficacy of this approach. Methods: This retrospective observational study included all patients with a positive COVID-19 PCR, and others with high clinical suspicion. Our protocol advised early CPAP and self-proning for severe cases, aiming to prevent rather than respond to deterioration. CPAP was provided outside critical care by ward staff supported by physiotherapists and an intensive critical care outreach program. Data were analysed descriptively and compared against a large UK cohort (ISARIC). Results: 559 patients admitted before 1 May 2020 were included. 376 were discharged alive, and 183 died. 165 patients (29.5%) received CPAP, 40 (7.2%) were admitted to critical care and 28 (5.0%) were ventilated. Hospital mortality was 32.7%, and 50% for critical care. Following CPAP, 62% of patients with S:F or P:F ratios indicating moderate or severe ARDS, who were candidates for escalation, avoided intubation. Figures for critical care admission, intubation and hospital mortality are lower than ISARIC, whilst critical care mortality is similar. Following ISARIC proportions we would have admitted 92 patients to critical care and intubated 55. Using the described protocol, we intubated 28 patients from 40 admissions, and remained within our expanded critical care capacity. Conclusion: Bradford's protocol produced good results despite our population having high levels of co-morbidity and ethnicities associated with poor outcomes. In particular we avoided overloading critical care capacity. We advocate this approach as both effective and safe.

Risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with direct oral anticoagulants: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Direct oral anticoagulants are increasingly used for a wide range of indications. However, data are conflicting about the risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding with these drugs. We compared the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with direct oral anticoagulants, warfarin, and low-molecular-weight heparin. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE and Embase from database inception to April 1, 2016, for prospective and retrospective studies that reported the risk of gastrointestinal bleeding with use of a direct oral anticoagulant compared with warfarin or low-molecular-weight heparin for all indications. We also searched the Cochrane Library for systematic reviews and assessment evaluations, the National Health Service (UK) Economic Evaluation Database, and ISI Web of Science for conference abstracts and proceedings (up to April 1, 2016). The primary outcome was the incidence of major gastrointestinal bleeding, with all gastrointestinal bleeding as a secondary outcome. We did a Bayesian network meta-analysis to produce incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). FINDINGS: We identified 38 eligible articles, of which 31 were included in the primary analysis, including 287 692 patients exposed to 230 090 years of anticoagulant drugs. The risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding with direct oral anticoagulants did not differ from that with warfarin or low-molecular-weight heparin (factor Xa vs warfarin IRR 0·78 [95% CrI 0·47-1·08]; warfarin vs dabigatran 0·88 [0·59-1·36]; factor Xa vs low-molecular-weight heparin 1·02 [0·42-2·70]; and low-molecular-weight heparin vs dabigatran 0·67 [0·20-1·82]). In the secondary analysis, factor Xa inhibitors were associated with a reduced risk of all severities of gastrointestinal bleeding compared with warfarin (0·25 [0.07-0.76]) or dabigatran (0.24 [0.07-0.77]). INTERPRETATION: Our findings show no increase in risk of major gastrointestinal bleeding with direct oral anticoagulants compared with warfarin or low-molecular-weight heparin. These findings support the continued use of direct oral anticoagulants. FUNDING: Leeds Teaching Hospitals Charitable Foundation.