Saudi Critical Care Society clinical practice guidelines on the prevention of venous thromboembolism in adults with trauma: reviewed for evidence-based integrity and endorsed by the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine.

BACKGROUND: To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in adults with trauma in inpatient settings. METHODS: The Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) sponsored guidelines development and included 22 multidisciplinary panel members who completed conflict-of-interest forms. The panel developed and answered structured guidelines questions. For each question, the literature was searched for relevant studies. To summarize treatment effects, meta-analyses were conducted or updated. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then the evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework was used to generate recommendations. Recommendations covered the following prioritized domains: timing of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis initiation in non-operative blunt solid organ injuries; isolated blunt traumatic brain injury (TBI); isolated blunt spine trauma or fracture and/or spinal cord injury (SCI); type and dose of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis; mechanical VTE prophylaxis; routine duplex ultrasonography (US) surveillance; and inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs). RESULTS: The panel issued 12 clinical practice recommendations-one, a strong recommendation, 10 weak, and one with no recommendation due to insufficient evidence. The panel suggests starting early pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis for non-operative blunt solid organ injuries, isolated blunt TBIs, and SCIs. The panel suggests using low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) over unfractionated heparin (UFH) and suggests either intermediate-high dose LMWH or conventional dosing LMWH. For adults with trauma who are not pharmacologic candidates, the panel strongly recommends using mechanical VTE prophylaxis with intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC). The panel suggests using either combined VTE prophylaxis with mechanical and pharmacologic methods or pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis alone. Additionally, the panel suggests routine bilateral lower extremity US in adults with trauma with elevated risk of VTE who are ineligible for pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis and suggests against the routine placement of prophylactic IVCFs. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue any recommendation on the use of early pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in adults with isolated blunt TBI requiring neurosurgical intervention. CONCLUSION: The SCCS guidelines for VTE prevention in adults with trauma were based on the best available evidence and identified areas for further research. The framework may facilitate adaptation of recommendations by national/international guideline policymakers.

Saudi Critical Care Society clinical practice guidelines on the prevention of venous thromboembolism in adults with trauma: reviewed for evidence-based integrity and endorsed by the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine

To develop evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention in adults with trauma in inpatient settings. The Saudi Critical Care Society (SCCS) sponsored guidelines development and included 22 multidisciplinary panel members who completed conflict-of-interest forms. The panel developed and answered structured guidelines questions. For each question, the literature was searched for relevant studies. To summarize treatment effects, meta-analyses were conducted or updated. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, then the evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework was used to generate recommendations. Recommendations covered the following prioritized domains: timing of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis initiation in non-operative blunt solid organ injuries; isolated blunt traumatic brain injury (TBI); isolated blunt spine trauma or fracture and/or spinal cord injury (SCI); type and dose of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis; mechanical VTE prophylaxis; routine duplex ultrasonography (US) surveillance; and inferior vena cava filters (IVCFs). The panel issued 12 clinical practice recommendations­one, a strong recommendation, 10 weak, and one with no recommendation due to insufficient evidence. The panel suggests starting early pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis for non-operative blunt solid organ injuries, isolated blunt TBIs, and SCIs. The panel suggests using low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) over unfractionated heparin (UFH) and suggests either intermediate­high dose LMWH or conventional dosing LMWH. For adults with trauma who are not pharmacologic candidates, the panel strongly recommends using mechanical VTE prophylaxis with intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC). The panel suggests using either combined VTE prophylaxis with mechanical and pharmacologic methods or pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis alone. Additionally, the panel suggests routine bilateral lower extremity US in adults with trauma with elevated risk of VTE who are ineligible for pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis and suggests against the routine placement of prophylactic IVCFs. Because of insufficient evidence, the panel did not issue any recommendation on the use of early pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in adults with isolated blunt TBI requiring neurosurgical intervention. The SCCS guidelines for VTE prevention in adults with trauma were based on the best available evidence and identified areas for further research. The framework may facilitate adaptation of recommendations by national/international guideline policymakers.

Neuromuscular blocking agents in acute respiratory distress syndrome: updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

PURPOSE: Existing clinical practice guidelines support the use of neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); however, a recent large randomized clinical trial (RCT) has questioned this practice. Therefore, we updated a previous systematic review to determine the efficacy and safety of NMBAs in ARDS. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE (October 2012 to July 2019), the Cochrane (Central) database, and clinical trial registries ( ClinicalTrials.gov , ISRCTN Register, and WHO ICTRP) for RCTs comparing the effects of NMBA as a continuous infusion versus placebo or no NMBA infusion (but allowing intermittent NMBA boluses) on patient-important outcomes for adults with ARDS. Two independent reviewers assessed the methodologic quality of the primary studies and abstracted data. RESULTS: Seven RCTs, including four new RCTs, met eligibility criteria for this review. These trials enrolled 1598 patients with moderate to severe ARDS at centers in the USA, France, and China. All trials assessed short-term continuous infusions of cisatracurium or vecuronium. The pooled estimate for mortality outcomes showed significant statistical heterogeneity, which was only explained by a subgroup analysis by depth of sedation in the control arm. A continuous NMBA infusion did not improve mortality when compared to a light sedation strategy with no NMBA infusion (relative risk [RR] 0.99; 95% CI 0.86-1.15; moderate certainty; P = 0.93). On the other hand, continuous NMBA infusion reduced mortality when compared to deep sedation with as needed NMBA boluses (RR 0.71; 95% CI 0.57-0.89; low certainty; P = 0.003). Continuous NMBA infusion reduced the rate of barotrauma (RR 0.55; 95% CI 0.35-0.85, moderate certainty; P = 0.008) across eligible trials, but the effect on ventilator-free days, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU-acquired weakness was uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistency in study methods and findings precluded the pooling of all trials for mortality. In a pre-planned sensitivity analysis, the impact of NMBA infusion on mortality depends on the strategy used in the control arm, showing reduced mortality when compared to deep sedation, but no effect on mortality when compared to lighter sedation. In both situations, a continuous NMBA infusion may reduce the risk of barotrauma, but the effects on other patient-important outcomes remain unclear. Future research, including an individual patient data meta-analysis, could help clarify some of the observed findings in this updated systematic review.

Quality of life reported by survivors after hospitalization for Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS).

INTRODUCTION: Data are lacking on impact of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among survivors. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey of MERS survivors who required hospitalization in Saudi Arabia during 2016-2017, approximately 1 year after diagnosis. The Short-Form General Health Survey 36 (SF-36) was administered by telephone interview to assess 8 quality of life domains for MERS survivors and a sample of survivors of severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) without MERS. We compared mean SF-36 scores of MERS and non-MERS SARI survivors using independent t-test, and compared categorical variables using chi-square test. Adjusted analyses were performed using multiple linear regression. RESULTS: Of 355 MERS survivors, 83 were eligible and 78 agreed to participate. MERS survivors were younger than non-MERS SARI survivors (mean ± SD): (44.9 years ±12.9) vs (50.0 years ±13.6), p = 0.031. Intensive care unit (ICU) admissions were similar for MERS and non-MERS SARI survivors (46.2% vs. 57.1%), p = 0.20. After adjusting for potential confounders, there were no significant differences between MERS and non-MERS SARI survivors in physical component or mental component summary scores. MERS ICU survivors scored lower than MERS survivors not admitted to an ICU for physical function (p = 0.05), general health (p = 0.01), vitality (p = 0.03), emotional role (p = 0.03) and physical component summary (p < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Functional scores were similar for MERS and non-MERS SARI survivors. However, MERS survivors of critical illness reported lower quality of life than survivors of less severe illness. Efforts are needed to address the long-term medical and psychological needs of MERS survivors.