Effects on health-related quality of life of interventions affecting survival in critically ill patients: a systematic review.

Survival has been considered the cornerstone for clinical outcome evaluation in critically ill patients admitted to intensive care unit (ICU). There is evidence that ICU survivors commonly show impairments in long-term outcomes such as quality of life (QoL) considering them as the most relevant ones. In the last years, the concept of patient-important outcomes has been introduced and increasingly reported in peer-reviewed publications. In the present systematic review, we evaluated how many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted on critically ill patients and reporting a benefit on survival reported also data on QoL. All RCTs investigating nonsurgical interventions that significantly reduced mortality in critically ill patients were searched on MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus and Embase from inception until August 2021. In a second stage, for all the included studies, the outcome QoL was investigated. The primary outcome was to evaluate how many RCTs analyzing interventions reducing mortality reported also data on QoL. The secondary endpoint was to investigate if QoL resulted improved, worsened or not modified. Data on QoL were reported as evaluated outcome in 7 of the 239 studies (2.9%). The tools to evaluate QoL and QoL time points were heterogeneous. Four interventions showed a significant impact on QoL: Two interventions improved survival and QoL (pravastatin in subarachnoid hemorrhage, dexmedetomidine in elderly patients after noncardiac surgery), while two interventions reduced mortality but negatively influenced QoL (caloric restriction in patients with refeeding syndrome and systematic ICU admission in elderly patients). In conclusion, only a minority of RCTs in which an intervention demonstrated to affect mortality in critically ill patients reported also data on QoL. Future research in critical care should include patient-important outcomes like QoL besides mortality. Data on this topic should be collected in conformity with PROs statement and core outcome sets to guarantee quality and comparability of results.

Effect of Continuous Epinephrine Infusion on Survival in Critically Ill Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Epinephrine is frequently used as an inotropic and vasopressor agent in critically ill patients requiring hemodynamic support. Data from observational trials suggested that epinephrine use is associated with a worse outcome as compared with other adrenergic and nonadrenergic vasoactive drugs. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials to investigate the effect of epinephrine administration on outcome of critically ill patients. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane central register were searched by two independent investigators up to March 2019. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria were: administration of epinephrine as IV continuous infusion, patients admitted to an ICU or undergoing major surgery, and randomized controlled trials. Studies on epinephrine administration as bolus (e.g., during cardiopulmonary resuscitation), were excluded. The primary outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up available. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent investigators examined and extracted data from eligible trials. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 5,249 studies were assessed, with a total of 12 studies (1,227 patients) finally included in the meta-analysis. The majority of the trials were performed in the setting of septic shock, and the most frequent comparator was a combination of norepinephrine plus dobutamine. We found no difference in all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up available (197/579 [34.0%] in the epinephrine group vs 219/648 [33.8%] in the control group; risk ratio = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.82-1.10; p = 0.49; I = 0%). No differences in the need for renal replacement therapy, occurrence rate of myocardial ischemia, occurrence rate of arrhythmias, and length of ICU stay were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Current randomized evidence showed that continuous IV administration of epinephrine as inotropic/vasopressor agent is not associated with a worse outcome in critically ill patients.

A Systematic Review and International Web-Based Survey of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Perioperative and Critical Care Setting: Interventions Reducing Mortality.

The authors aimed to identify interventions documented by randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reduce mortality in adult critically ill and perioperative patients, followed by a survey of clinicians' opinions and routine practices to understand the clinicians' response to such evidence. The authors performed a comprehensive literature review to identify all topics reported to reduce mortality in perioperative and critical care settings according to at least 2 RCTs or to a multicenter RCT or to a single-center RCT plus guidelines. The authors generated position statements that were voted on online by physicians worldwide for agreement, use, and willingness to include in international guidelines. From 262 RCT manuscripts reporting mortality differences in the perioperative and critically ill settings, the authors selected 27 drugs, techniques, and strategies (66 RCTs, most frequently published by the New England Journal of Medicine [13 papers], Lancet [7], and Journal of the American Medical Association [5]) with an agreement ≥67% from over 250 physicians (46 countries). Noninvasive ventilation was the intervention supported by the largest number of RCTs (n = 13). The concordance between agreement and use (a positive answer both to "do you agree" and "do you use") showed differences between Western and other countries and between anesthesiologists and intensive care unit physicians. The authors identified 27 clinical interventions with randomized evidence of survival benefit and strong clinician support in support of their potential life-saving properties in perioperative and critically ill patients with noninvasive ventilation having the highest level of support. However, clinician views appear affected by specialty and geographical location.

A Systematic Review and International Web-Based Survey of Randomized Controlled Trials in the Perioperative and Critical Care Setting: Interventions Increasing Mortality.

OBJECTIVE: Reducing mortality is a key target in critical care and perioperative medicine. The authors aimed to identify all nonsurgical interventions (drugs, techniques, strategies) shown by randomized trials to increase mortality in these clinical settings. DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature followed by a consensus-based voting process. SETTING: A web-based international consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred fifty-one physicians from 46 countries. INTERVENTIONS: The authors performed a systematic literature search and identified all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) showing a significant increase in unadjusted landmark mortality among surgical or critically ill patients. The authors reviewed such studies during a meeting by a core group of experts. Studies selected after such review advanced to web-based voting by clinicians in relation to agreement, clinical practice, and willingness to include each intervention in international guidelines. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The authors selected 12 RCTs dealing with 12 interventions increasing mortality: diaspirin-crosslinked hemoglobin (92% of agreement among web voters), overfeeding, nitric oxide synthase inhibitor in septic shock, human growth hormone, thyroxin in acute kidney injury, intravenous salbutamol in acute respiratory distress syndrome, plasma-derived protein C concentrate, aprotinin in high-risk cardiac surgery, cysteine prodrug, hypothermia in meningitis, methylprednisolone in traumatic brain injury, and albumin in traumatic brain injury (72% of agreement). Overall, a high consistency (ranging from 80% to 90%) between agreement and clinical practice was observed. CONCLUSION: The authors identified 12 clinical interventions showing increased mortality supported by randomized controlled trials with nonconflicting evidence, and wide agreement upon clinicians on a global scale.

Nonsurgical Strategies to Reduce Mortality in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: An Updated Consensus Process.

OBJECTIVE: A careful choice of perioperative care strategies is pivotal to improve survival in cardiac surgery. However, there is no general agreement or particular attention to which nonsurgical interventions can reduce mortality in this setting. The authors sought to address this issue with a consensus-based approach. DESIGN: A systematic review of the literature followed by a consensus-based voting process. SETTING: A web-based international consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: More than 400 physicians from 52 countries participated in this web-based consensus conference. INTERVENTIONS: The authors identified all studies published in peer-reviewed journals that reported on interventions with a statistically significant effect on mortality in the setting of cardiac surgery through a systematic Medline/PubMed search and contacts with experts. These studies were discussed during a consensus meeting and those considered eligible for inclusion in this study were voted on by clinicians worldwide. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eleven interventions finally were selected: 10 were shown to reduce mortality (aspirin, glycemic control, high-volume surgeons, prophylactic intra-aortic balloon pump, levosimendan, leuko-depleted red blood cells transfusion, noninvasive ventilation, tranexamic acid, vacuum-assisted closure, and volatile agents), whereas 1 (aprotinin) increased mortality. A significant difference in the percentages of agreement among different countries and a variable gap between agreement and clinical practice were found for most of the interventions. CONCLUSIONS: This updated consensus process identified 11 nonsurgical interventions with possible survival implications for patients undergoing cardiac surgery. This list of interventions may help cardiac anesthesiologists and intensivists worldwide in their daily clinical practice and can contribute to direct future research in the field.

Beyond the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines: a systematic review of interventions affecting mortality in sepsis.

INTRODUCTION: Sepsis-related mortality is decreasing over time after the introduction of "Surviving Sepsis Campaign" Guidelines in 2004. The last Guidelines version collects 93 recommendations, but several interventions supported by randomized evidence of mortality reduction are not included. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We performed a systematic review of all randomized controlled trials reporting a statistically significant mortality reduction in septic patients and compared the identified studies to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines 2021 to highlight discrepancies. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified 83 randomized controlled trials (58 interventions) influencing mortality in sepsis. Only 9/58 of these interventions were included in the Guidelines: lactate measurement and lactate-guided hemodynamic management, procalcitonin-guided antibiotics discontinuation, balanced crystalloids as first choice fluids, albumin infusion, avoidance of starches, noradrenaline as first line vasopressor, vasopressin as an adjunctive vasopressor to noradrenaline, neuromuscular blocking agents in moderate-severe sepsis-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome, and corticosteroids use. Only 11/93 Guidelines recommendations were supported by randomized evidence with mortality difference. Five of the interventions with survival benefit in literature (vitamin C, terlipressin, polymyxin B, liberal transfusion strategy and immunoglobulins) were recommended to avoid in the Guidelines, while 44 interventions were not mentioned, including three interventions (esmolol, omega 3, and external warming) with at least two randomized controlled trials with a documented survival benefit. CONCLUSIONS: Several discrepancies exist between the randomized controlled trials with mortality difference in septic patients and the latest Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines. This systematic review can be of help for improving future guidelines and may guide research on specific promising topics.

Effect of adjunctive vitamin C, glucocorticoids, and vitamin B1 on longer-term mortality in adults with sepsis or septic shock: a systematic review and a component network meta-analysis.

We aimed to compare the effects of vitamin C, glucocorticoids, vitamin B1, combinations of these drugs, and placebo or usual care on longer-term mortality in adults with sepsis or septic shock. MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO-ICTRP were searched. The final search was carried out on September 3rd, 2021. Multiple reviewers independently selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing very-high-dose vitamin C (≥ 12 g/day), high-dose vitamin C (< 12, ≥ 6 g/day), vitamin C (< 6 g/day), glucocorticoid (< 400 mg/day of hydrocortisone), vitamin B1, combinations of these drugs, and placebo/usual care. We performed random-effects network meta-analysis and, where applicable, a random-effects component network meta-analysis. We used the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis framework to assess the degree of treatment effect certainty. The primary outcome was longer-term mortality (90-days to 1-year). Secondary outcomes were severity of organ dysfunction over 72 h, time to cessation of vasopressor therapy, and length of stay in intensive care unit (ICU). Forty-three RCTs (10,257 patients) were eligible. There were no significant differences in longer-term mortality between treatments and placebo/usual care or between treatments (10 RCTs, 7,096 patients, moderate to very-low-certainty). We did not find any evidence that vitamin C or B1 affect organ dysfunction or ICU length of stay. Adding glucocorticoid to other treatments shortened duration of vasopressor therapy (incremental mean difference, - 29.8 h [95% CI - 44.1 to - 15.5]) and ICU stay (incremental mean difference, - 1.3 days [95% CI - 2.2 to - 0.3]). Metabolic resuscitation with vitamin C, glucocorticoids, vitamin B1, or combinations of these drugs was not significantly associated with a decrease in longer-term mortality.

Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) in Italian Patients: Gender Differences in Presentation and Severity.

BACKGROUND: In the first wave of the novel coronavirus (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) infections, Italy experienced a heavy burden of hospital admissions for acute respiratory distress syndromes associated with the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Early evidence suggested that females are less affected than males. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the gender-related differences in presentation and severity among COVID-19 patients admitted to IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective observational study included all patients admitted to the hospital between February 25 and April 19, 2020, with a positive real-time reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction for COVID-19. The following data were collected: date of admission, gender, age and details of intensive care unit admission and outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 901 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to the hospital and provided consent for the study. Of these, 284 were female (31.5%). The percentage of admitted female patients significantly increased over time (25.9% of all admissions in the first half of the study period vs. 37.1% in the second half; P < 0.001). Females accounted for 14.4% of all COVID-19 intensive care unit admissions. There was no gender-based difference in the overall hospital mortality: 20.1% for females and 19.2% for males (P = 0.8). CONCLUSIONS: In our hospital, which was in the epicenter of the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic in Italy, female patients were few, presented late and were less critical than male patients.

Angiotensin II infusion and markers of organ function in invasively ventilated COVID-19 patients.

Objective: The use of angiotensin II in invasively ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is controversial. Its effect on organ function is unknown. Design: Prospective observational study. Setting: Intensive care unit (ICU) of a tertiary academic hospital in Milan, Italy. Participants: Adult patients receiving mechanical ventilation due to COVID-19. Interventions: Use angiotensin II either as rescue vasopressor agent or as low dose vasopressor support. Main outcome measures: Patients treated before angiotensin II was available or treated in an adjacent COVID-19 ICU served as controls. For data analysis, we applied Bayesian modelling as appropriate. We assessed the effects of angiotensin II on organ function. Results: We compared 46 patients receiving angiotensin II therapy with 53 controls. Compared with controls, angiotensin II increased the mean arterial pressure (median difference, 9.05 mmHg; 95% CI, 1.87-16.22; P = 0.013) and the PaO2/FiO2 ratio (median difference, 23.17; 95% CI, 3.46-42.88; P = 0.021), and decreased the odds ratio (OR) of liver dysfunction (OR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.09-0.94). However, angiotensin II had no effect on lactate, urinary output, serum creatinine, C-reactive protein, platelet count, or thromboembolic complications. In patients with abnormal baseline serum creatinine, Bayesian modelling showed that angiotensin II carried a 95.7% probability of reducing the use of renal replacement therapy (RRT). Conclusions: In ventilated patients with COVID-19, angiotensin II therapy increased blood pressure and PaO2/FiO2 ratios, decreased the OR of liver dysfunction, and appeared to decrease the risk of RRT use in patients with abnormal baseline serum creatinine. However, all of these findings are hypothesis-generating only. Trial registration:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04318366.

Awake Proning as an Adjunctive Therapy for Refractory Hypoxemia in Non-Intubated Patients with COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Failure: Guidance from an International Group of Healthcare Workers.

Non-intubated patients with acute respiratory failure due to COVID-19 could benefit from awake proning. Awake proning is an attractive intervention in settings with limited resources, as it comes with no additional costs. However, awake proning remains poorly used probably because of unfamiliarity and uncertainties regarding potential benefits and practical application. To summarize evidence for benefit and to develop a set of pragmatic recommendations for awake proning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, focusing on settings where resources are limited, international healthcare professionals from high and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) with known expertise in awake proning were invited to contribute expert advice. A growing number of observational studies describe the effects of awake proning in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia in whom hypoxemia is refractory to simple measures of supplementary oxygen. Awake proning improves oxygenation in most patients, usually within minutes, and reduces dyspnea and work of breathing. The effects are maintained for up to 1 hour after turning back to supine, and mostly disappear after 6-12 hours. In available studies, awake proning was not associated with a reduction in the rate of intubation for invasive ventilation. Awake proning comes with little complications if properly implemented and monitored. Pragmatic recommendations including indications and contraindications were formulated and adjusted for resource-limited settings. Awake proning, an adjunctive treatment for hypoxemia refractory to supplemental oxygen, seems safe in non-intubated patients with COVID-19 acute respiratory failure. We provide pragmatic recommendations including indications and contraindications for the use of awake proning in LMICs.

Fast reshaping of intensive care unit facilities in a large metropolitan hospital in Milan, Italy: facing the COVID-19 pandemic emergency

At the end of 2019, the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) outbreak spread from China all around the world, causing thousands of deaths. In Italy, the hardest hit region was Lombardy, with the first reported case on 20 February 2020. San Raffaele Scientific Institute ­ a large tertiary hospital and research centre in Milan, Italy ­ was immediately involved in the management of the public health emergency. Since the beginning of the outbreak, the elective surgical activity of the hospital was rapidly reduced and large areas of the hospital were simultaneously reorganised to admit and assist patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In addition, the hospital became the regional referral hub for cardiovascular emergencies in order to keep ensuring a high level of health care to non-COVID-19 patients in northern Italy. In a few days, a COVID-19 emergency department was created, improving the general ward capacity to a total number of 279 beds dedicated to patients with COVID-19. Moreover, the number of intensive care unit (ICU) beds was increased from 28 to 72 (54 of them dedicated to patients with COVID-19, and 18 to cardiology and cardiac surgery hub emergencies), both converting pre-existing areas and creating new high technology spaces. All the involved health care personnel were rapidly trained to use personal protection equipment and to manage this particular category of patients both in general wards and ICUs. Furthermore, besides clinical activities, continuously important research projects were carried out in order to find new strategies and more effective therapies to better face an unprecedented health emergency in Italy.

Vitamin C therapy for patients with sepsis or septic shock: a protocol for a systematic review and a network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Vasoplegia is common and associated with a poor prognosis in patients with sepsis and septic shock. Vitamin C therapy in combination with vitamin B1 and glucocorticoid, as well as monotherapy in various doses, has been investigated as a treatment for the vasoplegic state in sepsis, through targeting the inflammatory cascade. However, the combination effect and the relative contribution of each drug have not been well evaluated. Furthermore, the best combination between the three agents is currently unknown. We are planning a systematic review (SR) with network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the different treatments and identify the combination with the most favourable effect on survival. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include all randomised controlled trials comparing any intervention using intravenous vitamin C, vitamin B1 and/or glucocorticoid with another or with placebo in the treatment of sepsis. We are interested in comparing the following active interventions. Very high-dose vitamin C (≥12 g/day), high-dose vitamin C (≥6 g/day), vitamin C (<6 g/day); low-dose glucocorticoid (<400 mg/day of hydrocortisone (or equivalent)), vitamin B1 and combinations of the drugs above. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up within 1 year but 90 days or longer postrandomisation. All relevant studies will be sought through database searches and trial registries. All reference selection and data extraction will be conducted by two independent reviewers. We will conduct a random-effects NMA to synthesise all evidence for each outcome and obtain a comprehensive ranking of all treatments. We will use the surface under the cumulative ranking curve and the mean ranks to rank the various interventions. To differentiate between the effect of combination therapies and the effect of a component, we will employ a component NMA. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This SR does not require ethical approval. We will publish findings from this systematic review in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and present these at scientific conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018103860.

Noninvasive ventilation during left atrial appendage closure under sedation: Preliminary experience with the Janus Mask.

Background: Percutaneous left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) is indicated in subjects with atrial fibrillation who cannot receive oral anticoagulants. This procedure requires transesophageal echocardiography guidance and is usually performed under general anesthesia. The Janus Mask is a new device designed to allow upper endoscopic procedures during noninvasive ventilation (NIV). Aims: This study aims to assess the possibility of performing LAAO under sedation and NIV. Setting: Cardiac electrophysiology laboratory. Design: Case-control study. Materials and Methods: Data from 11 subjects undergoing LAAO under sedation and NIV with the Janus Mask were retrospectively collected. Procedure duration, outcomes, and physicians' satisfaction were compared with those of 11 subjects who underwent LAAO under general anesthesia in the same period. Statistical Analysis: Univariate analysis and analysis of variance for between-groups comparison. Results: The 11 subjects treated with sedation experienced a good outcome, with a high degree of satisfaction from the medical team. An increase in arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the Janus group (45 [43-62] mmHg vs. 33 [30-35] mmHg in the general anesthesia group, P < 0.001) led to a transient pH decrease 45 min after the beginning of the procedure (7.30 [7.18-7.36] vs. 7.40 [7.39-7.46], P = 0.014). No differences in arterial partial pressure of oxygen, FiO2, and hemodynamic parameters were observed. The subjects' conditions at discharge from the recovery room were comparable. No difference in procedure duration was registered. Conclusions: LAAO procedure under sedation and NIV through the Janus Mask is safe and feasible. This strategy might represent a valuable alternative to manage such a compromised and fragile population.

Halogenated Agents and Cardiovascular Surgery: Has Mortality Really Decreased?

Halogenated anesthetic agents (desflurane, isoflurane and sevoflurane) may have cardioprotective properties at therapeutic doses against myocardial intraoperative ischemia-reperfusion injury. Cardioprotection mechanisms are related to mitochondrial and anti-apoptotic signaling pathways. Experimentals and human studies have proven that their use may reduce morbidity and mortality in the setting of cardiac surgery, including a reduction in myocardial infarct size and mechanical ventilation needs. In contrast, total intra-venous propofol based anesthesia may be detrimental. In the present review, we show the rationale for the perioperative use of halogenated anesthetics based on mechanisms of action, experimental research and human studies. Considerations and major concerns regarding their use, the present evidence for their use in other areas, such as major non-cardiac surgery and intensive care unit patients, and future perspectives are also discussed.

Interventions affecting mortality in critically ill and perioperative patients: A systematic review of contemporary trials.

PURPOSE: Confounders in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting significant effects on mortality in critically ill patients using non-surgical techniques have not been systematically explored. We aimed to identify factors unrelated to the reported intervention that might have affected the findings and robustness of such trials. METHODS: We searched Pubmed/MEDLINE for all RCTs on any non-surgical interventions reporting an effect on unadjusted mortality in critically ill patients between 1/1/2000 and 1/12/2015. We assessed: the number needed to treat/harm (NNT or NNH), sample size, trial design (blinded/unblinded, single or multinational, single or multicenter (sRCT or mRCT)), intention to treat (ITT) analysis, and countries of origin. RESULTS: Almost half of RCTs were sRCTs. Median sample size was small, and 1/3 were not analyzed according to ITT principle. Lack of ITT analysis was associated with greater effect size (p=0.0028). Harm was more likely in mRCTs (p=0.002) and/or in blinded RCTs (p=0.003). Blinded RCTs had double sample size (p=0.007) and an increased NNT/NNH (p=0.002). Finally, mRCTs had higher NNT (p=0.005) and NNH (p=0.02), and harm was only detected in studies from Western countries (p=0.007). CONCLUSIONS: These observations imply that major systematic biases exist and affect trial findings irrespective of the intervention being studied.