RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The role of early tracheostomy as an intervention for critically ill COVID-19 patients is unclear. Previous reports have described prolonged intensive care stays and difficulty weaning from mechanical ventilation in critically ill COVID-19 patients, particularly in those developing acute respiratory distress syndrome. Pre-pandemic evidence on the benefits of early tracheostomy is conflicting but suggests shorter hospital stays and lower mortality rates compared to late tracheostomy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of early tracheostomy compared to late tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, which comprises CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv, as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 14 June 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSI) evaluating early tracheostomy compared to late tracheostomy during SARS-CoV-2 infection in critically ill adults irrespective of gender, ethnicity, or setting. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs and the ROBINS-I tool for NRSIs. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for outcomes of our prioritized categories: mortality, clinical status, and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay. As the timing of tracheostomy was very heterogeneous among the included studies, we applied GRADE only to studies that defined early tracheostomy as 10 days or less, which was chosen according to clinical relevance. MAIN RESULTS: We included one RCT with 150 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and 24 NRSIs with 6372 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. All participants were admitted to the ICU, orally intubated and mechanically ventilated. The RCT was a multicenter, parallel, single-blinded study conducted in Sweden. Of the 24 NRSIs, which were mostly conducted in high- and middle-income countries, eight had a prospective design and 16 a retrospective design. We did not find any ongoing studies. RCT-based evidence We judged risk of bias for the RCT to be of low or some concerns regarding randomization and measurement of the outcome. Early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in overall mortality (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.29; RD 67 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 178 fewer to 108 more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). As an indicator of improvement of clinical status, early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation (MD 1.50 days fewer, 95%, CI 5.74 days fewer to 2.74 days more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). As an indicator of worsening clinical status, early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in the incidence of adverse events of any grade (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.13; RD 47 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 164 fewer to 102 more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence); little to no difference in the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.23 to 5.20; RD 3 more per 1000, 95% CI 30 fewer to 162 more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the studies reported need for renal replacement therapy. Early tracheostomy may result in little benefit to no difference in ICU length of stay (MD 0.5 days fewer, 95% CI 5.34 days fewer to 4.34 days more; 1 study, 150 participants; low-certainty evidence). NRSI-based evidence We considered risk of bias for NRSIs to be critical because of possible confounding, study participant enrollment into the studies, intervention classification and potentially systematic errors in the measurement of outcomes. We are uncertain whether early tracheostomy (≤ 10 days) increases or decreases overall mortality (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.43 to 5.00; RD 143 more per 1000, 95% CI 174 less to 1218 more; I2 = 79%; 2 studies, 719 participants) or duration to liberation from mechanical ventilation (MD 1.98 days fewer, 95% CI 0.16 days fewer to 4.12 more; 1 study, 50 participants), because we graded the certainty of evidence as very low. Three NRSIs reported ICU length of stay for 519 patients with early tracheostomy (≤ 10 days) as a median value, which we could not include in the meta-analyses. We are uncertain whether early tracheostomy (≤ 10 days) increases or decreases the ICU length of stay, because we graded the certainty of evidence as very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low-certainty evidence that early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in overall mortality in critically ill COVID-19 patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation compared with late tracheostomy. In terms of clinical improvement, early tracheostomy may result in little to no difference in duration to liberation from mechanical ventilation compared with late tracheostomy. We are not certain about the impact of early tracheostomy on clinical worsening in terms of the incidence of adverse events, need for renal replacement therapy, ventilator-associated pneumonia, or the length of stay in the ICU. Future RCTs should provide additional data on the benefits and harms of early tracheostomy for defined main outcomes of COVID-19 research, as well as of comparable diseases, especially for different population subgroups to reduce clinical heterogeneity, and report a longer observation period. Then it would be possible to draw conclusions regarding which patient groups might benefit from early intervention. Furthermore, validated scoring systems for more accurate predictions of the need for prolonged mechanical ventilation should be developed and used in new RCTs to ensure safer indication and patient safety. High-quality (prospectively registered) NRSIs should be conducted in the future to provide valuable answers to clinical questions. This could enable us to draw more reliable conclusions about the potential benefits and harms of early tracheostomy in critically ill COVID-19 patients.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Neumonía Asociada al Ventilador , Adulto , Humanos , Enfermedad Crítica , SARS-CoV-2 , Traqueostomía/efectos adversos , Estudios Multicéntricos como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine approved for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). This led to widespread implementation, although the available evidence remains inconsistent. This update aims to fill current knowledge gaps by identifying, describing, evaluating, and synthesising all evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on the effects of remdesivir on clinical outcomes in COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of remdesivir and standard care compared to standard care plus/minus placebo on clinical outcomes in patients treated for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv) as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies, without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 31 May 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included RCTs evaluating remdesivir and standard care for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to standard care plus/minus placebo irrespective of disease severity, gender, ethnicity, or setting. We excluded studies that evaluated remdesivir for the treatment of other coronavirus diseases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach for outcomes that were reported according to our prioritised categories: all-cause mortality, in-hospital mortality, clinical improvement (being alive and ready for discharge up to day 28) or worsening (new need for invasive mechanical ventilation or death up to day 28), quality of life, serious adverse events, and adverse events (any grade). We differentiated between non-hospitalised individuals with asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection or mild COVID-19 and hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs with 11,218 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and a mean age of 53.6 years, of whom 5982 participants were randomised to receive remdesivir. Most participants required low-flow oxygen at baseline. Studies were mainly conducted in high- and upper-middle-income countries. We identified two studies that are awaiting classification and five ongoing studies. Effects of remdesivir in hospitalised individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19 With moderate-certainty evidence, remdesivir probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.06; risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 6 more; 4 studies, 7142 participants), day 60 (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.05; RD 35 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 73 fewer to 12 more; 1 study, 1281 participants), or in-hospital mortality at up to day 150 (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.03; RD 11 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 25 fewer to 5 more; 1 study, 8275 participants). Remdesivir probably increases the chance of clinical improvement at up to day 28 slightly (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.17; RD 68 more per 1000, 95% CI 37 more to 105 more; 4 studies, 2514 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It probably decreases the risk of clinical worsening within 28 days (hazard ratio (HR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.54 to 0.82; RD 135 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 198 fewer to 69 fewer; 2 studies, 1734 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Remdesivir may make little or no difference to the rate of adverse events of any grade (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.18; RD 23 more per 1000, 95% CI 46 fewer to 104 more; 4 studies, 2498 participants; low-certainty evidence), or serious adverse events (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.07; RD 44 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 96 fewer to 19 more; 4 studies, 2498 participants; low-certainty evidence). We considered risk of bias to be low, with some concerns for mortality and clinical course. We had some concerns for safety outcomes because participants who had died did not contribute information. Without adjustment, this leads to an uncertain amount of missing values and the potential for bias due to missing data. Effects of remdesivir in non-hospitalised individuals with mild COVID-19 One of the nine RCTs was conducted in the outpatient setting and included symptomatic people with a risk of progression. No deaths occurred within the 28 days observation period. We are uncertain about clinical improvement due to very low-certainty evidence. Remdesivir probably decreases the risk of clinical worsening (hospitalisation) at up to day 28 (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.75; RD 46 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 57 fewer to 16 fewer; 562 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We did not find any data for quality of life. Remdesivir may decrease the rate of serious adverse events at up to 28 days (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.70; RD 49 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 60 fewer to 20 fewer; 562 participants; low-certainty evidence), but it probably makes little or no difference to the risk of adverse events of any grade (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.10; RD 42 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 111 fewer to 46 more; 562 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We considered risk of bias to be low for mortality, clinical improvement, and safety outcomes. We identified a high risk of bias for clinical worsening. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence up to 31 May 2022, remdesivir probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality or in-hospital mortality of individuals with moderate to severe COVID-19. The hospitalisation rate was reduced with remdesivir in one study including participants with mild to moderate COVID-19. It may be beneficial in the clinical course for both hospitalised and non-hospitalised patients, but certainty remains limited. The applicability of the evidence to current practice may be limited by the recruitment of participants from mostly unvaccinated populations exposed to early variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus at the time the studies were undertaken. Future studies should provide additional data on the efficacy and safety of remdesivir for defined core outcomes in COVID-19 research, especially for different population subgroups.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , SARS-CoV-2 , Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como AsuntoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Evidence-based infectious disease and intensive care management is more relevant than ever. Medical expertise in the two disciplines is often geographically limited to university institutions. In addition, the interconnection between inpatient and outpatient care is often insufficient (eg, no shared electronic health record and no digital transfer of patient findings). OBJECTIVE: This study aims to establish and evaluate a telemedical inpatient-outpatient network based on expert teleconsultations to increase treatment quality in intensive care medicine and infectious diseases. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (February 2017 to January 2020) to establish a telemedicine inpatient-outpatient network among university hospitals, hospitals, and outpatient physicians in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany. Patients aged ≥18 years in the intensive care unit or consulting with a physician in the outpatient setting were eligible. We provided expert knowledge from intensivists and infectious disease specialists through advanced training courses and expert teleconsultations with 24/7/365 availability on demand respectively once per week to enhance treatment quality. The primary outcome was adherence to the 10 Choosing Wisely recommendations for infectious disease management. Guideline adherence was analyzed using binary logistic regression models. RESULTS: Overall, 159,424 patients (10,585 inpatients and 148,839 outpatients) from 17 hospitals and 103 outpatient physicians were included. There was a significant increase in guideline adherence in the management of Staphylococcus aureus infections (odds ratio [OR] 4.00, 95% CI 1.83-9.20; P<.001) and in sepsis management in critically ill patients (OR 6.82, 95% CI 1.27-56.61; P=.04). There was a statistically nonsignificant decrease in sepsis-related mortality from 29% (19/66) in the control group to 23.8% (50/210) in the intervention group. Furthermore, the extension of treatment with prophylactic antibiotics after surgery was significantly less likely (OR 9.37, 95% CI 1.52-111.47; P=.04). Patients treated by outpatient physicians, who were regularly participating in expert teleconsultations, were also more likely to be treated according to guideline recommendations regarding antibiotic therapy for uncomplicated upper respiratory tract infections (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.16-1.56; P<.001) and asymptomatic bacteriuria (OR 9.31, 95% CI 3.79-25.94; P<.001). For the other recommendations, we found no significant effects, or we had too few observations to generate models. The key limitations of our study include selection effects due to the applied on-site triage of patients as well as the limited possibilities to control for secular effects. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine facilitates a direct round-the-clock interaction over broad distances between intensivists or infectious disease experts and physicians who care for patients in hospitals without ready access to these experts. Expert teleconsultations increase guideline adherence and treatment quality in infectious disease and intensive care management, creating added value for critically ill patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03137589; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03137589.
Asunto(s)
Pacientes Ambulatorios , Telemedicina , Adolescente , Adulto , Cuidados Críticos , Enfermedad Crítica/terapia , Manejo de la Enfermedad , HumanosRESUMEN
Warm ischaemia is usually induced by the Pringle manoeuver (PM) during hepatectomy. Currently, there is no widely accepted standard protocol to minimise ischaemia-related injury, so reducing ischaemia-reperfusion damage is an active area of research. This systematic review and meta-analysis focused on inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) as an early inflammatory response to hepatic ischaemia reperfusion injury (HIRI) in mouse- and rat-liver models. A systematic search of studies was performed within three databases. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were subjected to qualitative and quantitative synthesis of results. We performed a meta-analysis of studies grouped by different HIRI models and ischaemia times. Additionally, we investigated a possible correlation of endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) and nitric oxide (NO) regulation with iNOS expression. Of 124 included studies, 49 were eligible for the meta-analysis, revealing that iNOS was upregulated in almost all HIRIs. We were able to show an increase of iNOS regardless of ischemia or reperfusion time. Additionally, we found no direct associations of eNOS or NO with iNOS. A sex gap of primarily male experimental animals used was observed, leading to a higher risk of outcomes not being translatable to humans of all sexes.
Asunto(s)
Hepatopatías , Daño por Reperfusión , Animales , Humanos , Isquemia/metabolismo , Hígado/metabolismo , Hepatopatías/metabolismo , Masculino , Ratones , Óxido Nítrico/metabolismo , Óxido Nítrico Sintasa de Tipo II/metabolismo , Óxido Nítrico Sintasa de Tipo III/metabolismo , Ratas , Reperfusión , Daño por Reperfusión/metabolismo , Isquemia TibiaRESUMEN
The Corona pandemic is a clear demonstration of the need for an alternative to face-to-face medicine. This demand makes telemedicine the tool of choice. In the preliminary stage of the Virtual Hospital North Rhine-Westphalia (VKh), tele-intensive care consultation services have contributed to both a benefit in terms of care and a benefit for individual patients. The task now is to roll out and use digitally-supported intensive-care networks across the board, including throughout Europe. The goal of telemedicine is to ensure comprehensive patient care - also across sector boundaries of the healthcare system - and to improve quality. Tele-intensive care is already an evidence-based added value and addresses current and future challenges such as resource shortage and citizen-centered care. The Virtual Hospital NRW is a telemedical network structure that is unique in Germany. It provides telemedical services from expert centers in a quality-assured and comprehensive manner for general hospitals as well as for outpatient players. Telemedical services help to overcome rigid sector boundaries and to optimize treatment processes. As a result, service-differentiated care networks are goal-oriented. The medium-term perspective could be cross-border network structures. Medical expertise and also intensive care data, both from care and research, could thus be used throughout Europe. In October 2021, the Aachen Expert Center reported on its first 112 telemedically co-managed COVID-19 patients as part of the preliminary stage of the virtual hospital. With a lethality rate of 34.2% in the group of ventilated severely ill COVID-19 patients and a transfer rate of 8%, high-quality care close to the patient's home was achieved through tele-intensive medical consultation services.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Telemedicina , COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/terapia , Cuidados Críticos , Predicción , Alemania/epidemiología , HumanosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Although the current coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic demonstrates the urgent need for the integration of tele-ICUs, there is still a lack of uniform regulations regarding the level of authority. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the impact of the level of authority in tele-ICU care on patient outcomes. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and Web of Science from inception until August 30, 2020. STUDY SELECTION: We searched for randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing standard care plus tele-ICU care with standard care alone in critically ill patients. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors performed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Mean differences and risk ratios were calculated using a random-effects model. DATA SYNTHESIS: A total of 20 studies with 477,637 patients (ntele-ICU care = 292,319, ncontrol = 185,318) were included. Although "decision-making authority" as the level of authority was associated with a significant reduction in ICU mortality (pooled risk ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71-0.94; p = 0.006), we found no advantage of tele-ICU care in studies with "expert tele-consultation" as the level of authority. With regard to length of stay, "decision-making authority" resulted in an advantage of tele-ICU care (ICU length of stay: pooled mean difference, -0.78; 95% CI, -1.46 to -0.10; p = 0.14; hospital length of stay: pooled mean difference, -1.54; 95% CI, -3.13 to 0.05; p = 0.06), whereas "expert tele-consultation" resulted in an advantage of standard care (ICU length of stay: pooled mean difference, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.10-0.53; p = 0.005; hospital length of stay: pooled mean difference, 0.58; 95% CI, -0.04 to 1.21; p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to expert tele-consultations, decision-making authority during tele-ICU care reduces mortality and length of stay in the ICU. This work confirms the urgent need for evidence-based ICU telemedicine guidelines and reveals potential benefits of uniform regulations regarding the level of authority when providing tele-ICU care.
Asunto(s)
Toma de Decisiones Clínicas , Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Telemedicina , Enfermedad Crítica/mortalidad , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de SaludRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Remdesivir is an antiviral medicine with properties to inhibit viral replication of SARS-CoV-2. Positive results from early studies attracted media attention and led to emergency use authorisation of remdesivir in COVID-19. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the effects of remdesivir as a treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of remdesivir compared to placebo or standard care alone on clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection, and to maintain the currency of the evidence using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (which comprises the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and medRxiv) as well as Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Emerging Sources Citation Index) and WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions. We conducted the searches on 16 April 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included RCTs evaluating remdesivir for the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection in hospitalised adults compared to placebo or standard care alone irrespective of disease severity, gender, ethnicity, or setting. We excluded studies that evaluated remdesivir for the treatment of other coronavirus diseases. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess risk of bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane RoB 2 tool for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for outcomes that were reported according to our prioritised categories: all-cause mortality at up to day 28, duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation, duration to liberation from supplemental oxygen, new need for mechanical ventilation (high-flow oxygen or non-invasive or invasive mechanical ventilation), new need for invasive mechanical ventilation, new need for non-invasive mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen, new need for oxygen by mask or nasal prongs, quality of life, adverse events (any grade), and serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs with 7452 participants diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection and a mean age of 59 years, of whom 3886 participants were randomised to receive remdesivir. Most participants required low-flow oxygen (n=4409) or mechanical ventilation (n=1025) at baseline. We identified two ongoing studies, one was suspended due to a lack of COVID-19 patients to recruit. Risk of bias was considered to be of some concerns or high risk for clinical status and safety outcomes because participants who had died did not contribute information to these outcomes. Without adjustment, this leads to an uncertain amount of missing values and the potential for bias due to missing data. Effects of remdesivir in hospitalised individuals Remdesivir probably makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.06; risk difference (RD) 8 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 21 fewer to 7 more; 4 studies, 7142 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Considering the initial severity of condition, only one study showed a beneficial effect of remdesivir in patients who received low-flow oxygen at baseline (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.66, 435 participants), but conflicting results exists from another study, and we were unable to validly assess this observations due to limited availability of comparable data. Remdesivir may have little or no effect on the duration to liberation from invasive mechanical ventilation (2 studies, 1298 participants, data not pooled, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether remdesivir increases or decreases the chance of clinical improvement in terms of duration to liberation from supplemental oxygen at up to day 28 (3 studies, 1691 participants, data not pooled, very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether remdesivir decreases or increases the risk of clinical worsening in terms of new need for mechanical ventilation at up to day 28 (high-flow oxygen or non-invasive ventilation or invasive mechanical ventilation) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.24; RD 29 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 68 fewer to 32 more; 3 studies, 6696 participants; very low-certainty evidence); new need for non-invasive mechanical ventilation or high-flow oxygen (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.98; RD 72 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 118 fewer to 5 fewer; 1 study, 573 participants; very low-certainty evidence); and new need for oxygen by mask or nasal prongs (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.22; RD 84 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 204 fewer to 98 more; 1 study, 138 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that remdesivir may decrease the risk of clinical worsening in terms of new need for invasive mechanical ventilation (67 fewer participants amongst 1000 participants; RR 0.56, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.77; 2 studies, 1159 participants; low-certainty evidence). None of the included studies reported quality of life. Remdesivir probably decreases the serious adverse events rate at up to 28 days (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.90; RD 63 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 94 fewer to 25 fewer; 3 studies, 1674 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain whether remdesivir increases or decreases adverse events rate (any grade) (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; RD 29 more per 1000, 95% CI 82 fewer to 158 more; 3 studies, 1674 participants; very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the currently available evidence, we are moderately certain that remdesivir probably has little or no effect on all-cause mortality at up to day 28 in hospitalised adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection. We are uncertain about the effects of remdesivir on clinical improvement and worsening. There were insufficient data available to validly examine the effect of remdesivir on mortality in subgroups depending on the extent of respiratory support at baseline. Future studies should provide additional data on efficacy and safety of remdesivir for defined core outcomes in COVID-19 research, especially for different population subgroups. This could allow us to draw more reliable conclusions on the potential benefits and harms of remdesivir in future updates of this review. Due to the living approach of this work, we will update the review periodically.
Asunto(s)
Adenosina Monofosfato/análogos & derivados , Alanina/análogos & derivados , Antivirales/uso terapéutico , Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , Adenosina Monofosfato/uso terapéutico , Alanina/uso terapéutico , Sesgo , COVID-19/mortalidad , Causas de Muerte , Intervalos de Confianza , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Humanos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Oxígeno/administración & dosificación , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Respiración Artificial , SARS-CoV-2 , Desconexión del VentiladorRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The role of vitamin D supplementation as a treatment for COVID-19 has been a subject of considerable discussion. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of vitamin D supplementation for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether vitamin D supplementation is effective and safe for the treatment of COVID-19 in comparison to an active comparator, placebo, or standard of care alone, and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 11 March 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies investigating preventive effects, or studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following prioritised outcome categories: individuals with moderate or severe COVID-19: all-cause mortality, clinical status, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events, and for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease: all-cause mortality, development of severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We identified three RCTs with 356 participants, of whom 183 received vitamin D. In accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) clinical progression scale, two studies investigated participants with moderate or severe disease, and one study individuals with mild or asymptomatic disease. The control groups consisted of placebo treatment or standard of care alone. Effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease We included two studies with 313 participants. Due to substantial clinical and methodological diversity of both studies, we were not able to pool data. Vitamin D status was unknown in one study, whereas the other study reported data for vitamin D deficient participants. One study administered multiple doses of oral calcifediol at days 1, 3 and 7, whereas the other study gave a single high dose of oral cholecalciferol at baseline. We assessed one study with low risk of bias for effectiveness outcomes, and the other with some concerns about randomisation and selective reporting. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge (313 participants) We found two studies reporting data for this outcome. One study reported no deaths when treated with vitamin D out of 50 participants, compared to two deaths out of 26 participants in the control group (Risk ratio (RR) 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.13). The other study reported nine deaths out of 119 individuals in the vitamin D group, whereas six participants out of 118 died in the placebo group (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.04]. We are very uncertain whether vitamin D has an effect on all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (very low-certainty evidence). Clinical status assessed by the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (237 participants) We found one study reporting data for this outcome. Nine out of 119 participants needed invasive mechanical ventilation when treated with vitamin D, compared to 17 out of 118 participants in the placebo group (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.13). Vitamin D supplementation may decrease need for invasive mechanical ventilation, but the evidence is uncertain (low-certainty evidence). Quality of life We did not find data for quality of life. Safety of vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease We did not include data from one study, because assessment of serious adverse events was not described and we are concerned that data might have been inconsistently measured. This study reported vomiting in one out of 119 participants immediately after vitamin D intake (RR 2.98, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.30). We are very uncertain whether vitamin D supplementation is associated with higher risk for adverse events (very low-certainty). Effectiveness and safety of vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19 and asymptomatic or mild disease We found one study including 40 individuals, which did not report our prioritised outcomes, but instead data for viral clearance, inflammatory markers, and vitamin D serum levels. The authors reported no events of hypercalcaemia, but recording and assessment of further adverse events remains unclear. Authors administered oral cholecalciferol in daily doses for at least 14 days, and continued with weekly doses if vitamin D blood levels were > 50 ng/mL. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the benefits and harms of vitamin D supplementation as a treatment of COVID-19. The evidence for the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation for the treatment of COVID-19 is very uncertain. Moreover, we found only limited safety information, and were concerned about consistency in measurement and recording of these outcomes. There was substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity of included studies, mainly because of different supplementation strategies, formulations, vitamin D status of participants, and reported outcomes. There is an urgent need for well-designed and adequately powered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with an appropriate randomisation procedure, comparability of study arms and preferably double-blinding. We identified 21 ongoing and three completed studies without published results, which indicates that these needs will be addressed and that our findings are subject to change in the future. Due to the living approach of this work, we will update the review periodically.
Asunto(s)
Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , Calcifediol/administración & dosificación , Colecalciferol/administración & dosificación , Vitaminas/administración & dosificación , 25-Hidroxivitamina D 2/sangre , Corticoesteroides/uso terapéutico , Adulto , Azitromicina/uso terapéutico , Sesgo , COVID-19/sangre , COVID-19/mortalidad , Causas de Muerte , Ceftriaxona/uso terapéutico , Quimioterapia Combinada , Humanos , Hidroxicloroquina/uso terapéutico , Persona de Mediana Edad , Calidad de Vida , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Deficiencia de Vitamina D/diagnósticoRESUMEN
The German health care system faces the great challenge of ensuring high-quality and comprehensive health care in the future as the shortage of physicians continues to grow. Telemedicine-supported healthcare networks, which guarantee access to specialized medical expertise close to the patient's home and tailored to their needs, and thus to high-quality patient-centered treatment, could provide a solution. The TELnet@NRW best-practice project provides a blueprint for expert teleconsultations and put them into practice. TELnet@NRW demonstrated that expert teleconsultations improve interdisciplinary exchange and thus increase quality and efficiency in healthcare. With the widespread telemedical network as a new structure of the healthcare system, TELnet@NRW enabled a more efficient use of existing resources. TELnet@NRW was funded in the first phase of the Innovation Fund. The experts from the two university hospitals in Aachen and Münster provided daily expert teleconsultations to the 17 cooperating hospitals and two physician networks. A 24/7/365 availability was provided, accompanied by training for doctors and nursing staff aimed at improving evidence-based care. Communication took place via an encrypted audio-video conferencing system and the certified data exchange platform FallAkte Plus. The aim of TELnet@NRW was to establish a cross-sectoral telemedical network as a new digital form of care. A total of > 150â000 patients were included. With TELnet@NRW, a major step towards future-proof healthcare was taken, and for us this means providing patients with high-quality care close to patients' homes. This is currently being used as the conceptual basis for the Virtuelles Krankenhaus NRW as a possible solution for the continuation of former project services.
Asunto(s)
Mejoramiento de la Calidad , Telemedicina , Cuidados Críticos , Atención a la Salud , Humanos , Calidad de la Atención de SaludRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) dysfunction is frequent in the critically ill but can be overlooked as a result of the lack of standardization of the diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. We aimed to develop a research agenda for GI dysfunction for future research. We systematically reviewed the current knowledge on a broad range of subtopics from a specific viewpoint of GI dysfunction, highlighting the remaining areas of uncertainty and suggesting future studies. METHODS: This systematic scoping review and research agenda was conducted following successive steps: (1) identify clinically important subtopics within the field of GI function which warrant further research; (2) systematically review the literature for each subtopic using PubMed, CENTRAL and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; (3) summarize evidence for each subtopic; (4) identify areas of uncertainty; (5) formulate and refine study proposals that address these subtopics; and (6) prioritize study proposals via sequential voting rounds. RESULTS: Five major themes were identified: (1) monitoring, (2) associations between GI function and outcome, (3) GI function and nutrition, (4) management of GI dysfunction and (5) pathophysiological mechanisms. Searches on 17 subtopics were performed and evidence summarized. Several areas of uncertainty were identified, six of them needing consensus process. Study proposals ranked among the first ten included: prevention and management of diarrhoea; management of upper and lower feeding intolerance, including indications for post-pyloric feeding and opioid antagonists; acute gastrointestinal injury grading as a bedside tool; the role of intra-abdominal hypertension in the development and monitoring of GI dysfunction and in the development of non-occlusive mesenteric ischaemia; and the effect of proton pump inhibitors on the microbiome in critical illness. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence on GI dysfunction is scarce, partially due to the lack of precise definitions. The use of core sets of monitoring and outcomes are required to improve the consistency of future studies. We propose several areas for consensus process and outline future study projects.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedad Crítica/terapia , Enfermedades Gastrointestinales/diagnóstico , Cuidados Críticos/métodos , Cuidados Críticos/tendencias , Enfermedad Crítica/epidemiología , Diagnóstico por Imagen/métodos , Europa (Continente)/epidemiología , Enfermedades Gastrointestinales/fisiopatología , Humanos , Estado Nutricional/efectos de los fármacos , Estado Nutricional/fisiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Chronic heart failure is one of the most common medical conditions, affecting more than 23 million people worldwide. Despite established guideline-based, multidrug pharmacotherapy, chronic heart failure is still the cause of frequent hospitalisation, and about 50% die within five years of diagnosis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of ivabradine in individuals with chronic heart failure. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CPCI-S Web of Science in March 2020. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO ICTRP. We checked reference lists of included studies. We did not apply any time or language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials in which adult participants diagnosed with chronic heart failure were randomly assigned to receive either ivabradine or placebo/usual care/no treatment. We distinguished between type of heart failure (heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction or heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction) as well as between duration of ivabradine treatment (short term (< 6 months) or long term (≥ 6 months)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data, and checked data for accuracy. We calculated risk ratios (RR) using a random-effects model. We completed a comprehensive 'Risk of bias' assessment for all studies. We contacted authors for missing data. Our primary endpoints were: mortality from cardiovascular causes; quality of life; time to first hospitalisation for heart failure during follow-up; and number of days spent in hospital due to heart failure during follow-up. Our secondary endpoints were: rate of serious adverse events; exercise capacity; and economic costs (narrative report). We assessed the certainty of the evidence applying the GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 studies (76 reports) involving a total of 19,628 participants (mean age 60.76 years, 69% male). However, few studies contributed data to meta-analyses due to inconsistency in trial design (type of heart failure) and outcome reporting and measurement. In general, risk of bias varied from low to high across the included studies, with insufficient detail provided to inform judgement in several cases. We were able to perform two meta-analyses focusing on participants with heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and long-term ivabradine treatment. There was evidence of no difference between ivabradine and placebo/usual care/no treatment for mortality from cardiovascular causes (RR 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.11; 3 studies; 17,676 participants; I2 = 33%; moderate-certainty evidence). Furthermore, we found evidence of no difference in rate of serious adverse events amongst HFrEF participants randomised to receive long-term ivabradine compared with those randomised to placebo, usual care, or no treatment (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.00; 2 studies; 17,399 participants; I2 = 12%; moderate-certainty evidence). We were not able to perform meta-analysis for all other outcomes, and have low confidence in the findings based on the individual studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence of no difference in cardiovascular mortality and serious adverse events between long-term treatment with ivabradine and placebo/usual care/no treatment in participants with heart failure with HFrEF. Nevertheless, due to indirectness (male predominance), the certainty of the available evidence is rated as moderate.
Asunto(s)
Fármacos Cardiovasculares/uso terapéutico , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/tratamiento farmacológico , Ivabradina/uso terapéutico , Sesgo , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/efectos adversos , Fármacos Cardiovasculares/economía , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/mortalidad , Quimioterapia Adyuvante , Enfermedad Crónica , Tolerancia al Ejercicio/efectos de los fármacos , Femenino , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/mortalidad , Humanos , Ivabradina/efectos adversos , Ivabradina/economía , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Placebos/uso terapéutico , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Volumen SistólicoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Sepsis is a major health care problem with high morbidity and mortality rates and affects millions of patients. Telemedicine, defined as the exchange of medical information via electronic communication, improves the outcome of patients with sepsis and decreases the mortality rate and length of stay in the intensive care unit (ICU). Additional telemedicine rounds could be an effective component of performance-improvement programs for sepsis, especially in underserved rural areas and hospitals without ready access to critical care physicians. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to evaluate the impact of additional daily telemedicine rounds on adherence to sepsis bundles. We hypothesized that additional telemedicine support may increase adherence to sepsis guidelines and improve the detection rates of sepsis and septic shock. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, observational, multicenter study between January 2014 and July 2015 with one tele-ICU center and three ICUs in Germany. We implemented telemedicine as part of standard care and collected data continuously during the study. During the daily telemedicine rounds, routine screening for sepsis was conducted and adherence to the Surviving Sepsis Campaign's 3-hour and 6-hour sepsis bundles were evaluated. RESULTS: In total, 1168 patients were included in this study, of which 196 were positive for severe sepsis and septic shock. We found that additional telemedicine rounds improved adherence to the 3-hour (Quarter 1, 35% vs Quarter 6, 76.2%; P=.01) and 6-hour (Quarter 1, 50% vs Quarter 6, 95.2%; P=.001) sepsis bundles. In addition, we noted an increase in adherence to the item "Administration of fluids when hypotension" (Quarter 1, 80% vs Quarter 6, 100%; P=.049) of the 3-hour bundle and the item "Remeasurement of lactate" (Quarter 1, 65% vs Quarter 6, 100%, P=.003) of the 6-hour bundle. The ICU length of stay after diagnosis of severe sepsis and septic shock remained unchanged over the observation period. Due to a higher number of patients with sepsis in Quarter 5 (N=60) than in other quarters, we observed stronger effects of the additional rounds on mortality in this quarter (Quarter 1, 50% vs Quarter 5, 23.33%, P=.046). CONCLUSIONS: Additional telemedicine rounds are an effective component of and should be included in performance-improvement programs for sepsis management.
Asunto(s)
Sepsis/terapia , Telemedicina/métodos , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
Nutrition support is a necessary therapy for critically ill cardiac surgery patients. However, conclusive evidence for this population, consisting of well-conducted clinical trials is lacking. To clarify optimal strategies to improve outcomes, an international multidisciplinary group of 25 experts from different clinical specialties from Germany, Canada, Greece, USA and Russia discussed potential approaches to identify patients who may benefit from nutrition support, when best to initiate nutrition support, and the potential use of pharmaco-nutrition to modulate the inflammatory response to cardiopulmonary bypass. Despite conspicuous knowledge and evidence gaps, a rational nutritional support therapy is presented to benefit patients undergoing cardiac surgery.
Asunto(s)
Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Cardíacos/métodos , Enfermedades Cardiovasculares/dietoterapia , Consenso , Apoyo Nutricional/tendencias , Adulto , Humanos , Comunicación Interdisciplinaria , Internacionalidad , Metabolismo/fisiología , Estado NutricionalRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Despite substantial improvements in myocardial preservation strategies, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is still associated with severe complications. It has been reported that remote ischaemic preconditioning (RIPC) reduces reperfusion injury in people undergoing cardiac surgery and improves clinical outcome. However, there is a lack of synthesised information and a need to review the current evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of remote ischaemic preconditioning in people undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, with or without valve surgery. SEARCH METHODS: In May 2016 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science. We also conducted a search of ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We also checked reference lists of included studies. We did not apply any language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs in which people scheduled for CABG (with or without valve surgery) were randomly assigned to receive RIPC or sham intervention before surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We calculated mean differences (MDs), standardised mean differences (SMDs) and risk ratios (RR) using a random-effects model. We assessed quality of the trial evidence for all primary outcomes using the GRADE methodology. We completed a 'Risk of bias' assessment for all studies and performed sensitivity analysis by excluding studies judged at high or unclear risk of bias for sequence generation, allocation concealment and incomplete outcome data. We contacted authors for missing data. Our primary endpoints were 1) composite endpoint (including all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction or any new stroke, or both) assessed at 30 days after surgery, 2) cardiac troponin T (cTnT, ng/L) at 48 hours and 72 hours, and as area under the curve (AUC) 72 hours (µg/L) after surgery, and 3) cardiac troponin I (cTnI, ng/L) at 48 hours, 72 hours, and as area under the curve (AUC) 72 hours (µg/L) after surgery. MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 studies involving 5392 participants (mean age = 64 years, age range 23 to 86 years, 82% male). However, few studies contributed data to meta-analyses due to inconsistency in outcome definition and reporting. In general, risk of bias varied from low to high risk of bias across included studies, and insufficient detail was provided to inform judgement in several cases. The quality of the evidence of key outcomes ranged from moderate to low quality due to the presence of moderate or high statistical heterogeneity, imprecision of results or due to limitations in the design of individual studies.Compared with no RIPC, we found that RIPC has no treatment effect on the rate of the composite endpoint with RR 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.25); 2 studies; 2463 participants; moderate-quality evidence. Participants randomised to RIPC showed an equivalent or better effect regarding the amount of cTnT release measured at 72 hours after surgery with SMD -0.32 (95% CI -0.65 to 0.00); 3 studies; 1120 participants; moderate-quality evidence; and expressed as AUC 72 hours with SMD -0.49 (95% CI -0.96 to -0.02); 3 studies; 830 participants; moderate-quality evidence. We found the same result in favour of RIPC for the cTnI release measured at 48 hours with SMD -0.21 (95% CI -0.40 to -0.02); 5 studies; 745 participants; moderate-quality evidence; and measured at 72 hours after surgery with SMD -0.37 (95% CI -0.59 to -0.15); 2 studies; 459 participants; moderate-quality evidence. All other primary outcomes showed no differences between groups (cTnT release measured at 48 hours with SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.06; 4 studies; 1792 participants; low-quality evidence and cTnI release measured as AUC 72 hours with SMD -0.17, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.14; 2 studies; 159 participants; moderate-quality evidence).We also found no differences between groups for all-cause mortality after 30 days, non-fatal myocardial infarction after 30 days, any new stroke after 30 days, acute renal failure after 30 days, length of stay on the intensive care unit (days), any complications and adverse effects related to ischaemic preconditioning. We did not assess many patient-centred/salutogenic-focused outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that RIPC has a treatment effect on clinical outcomes (measured as a composite endpoint including all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction or any new stroke, or both, assessed at 30 days after surgery). There is moderate-quality evidence that RIPC has no treatment effect on the rate of the composite endpoint including all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction or any new stroke assessed at 30 days after surgery, or both. We found moderate-quality evidence that RIPC reduces the cTnT release measured at 72 hours after surgery and expressed as AUC (72 hours). There is moderate-quality evidence that RIPC reduces the amount of cTnI release measured at 48 hours, and measured 72 hours after surgery. Adequately-designed studies, especially focusing on influencing factors, e.g. with regard to anaesthetic management, are encouraged and should systematically analyse the commonly used medications of people with cardiovascular diseases.
Asunto(s)
Puente de Arteria Coronaria , Válvulas Cardíacas/cirugía , Precondicionamiento Isquémico/métodos , Adulto , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Área Bajo la Curva , Causas de Muerte , Femenino , Humanos , Precondicionamiento Isquémico/efectos adversos , Precondicionamiento Isquémico/mortalidad , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Infarto del Miocardio/epidemiología , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Accidente Cerebrovascular/epidemiología , Troponina I/metabolismo , Troponina T/metabolismoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Validated composite outcomes after complicated cardiac surgery are poorly established. Therefore, the authors evaluated a novel composite endpoint, persistent organ dysfunction (POD)+death, which is defined as any need for life-sustaining therapies or death at any time within 28 days from surgery. DESIGN: Secondary analysis extracted from a large-scale prospective randomized trial of critically ill cardiac surgery patients. SETTING: Multi-institutional, university hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Ninety-five cardiac surgery patients with complicated postoperative courses. INTERVENTIONS: Cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: At 28 days following surgery, the prevalence of POD was 15%, and 23% of patients had died (POD+death = 38%). Patients alive with POD at day 28 exhibited a significantly higher extent of organ injury and longer ICU (33 v 7 days; p<0.001) and hospital lengths of stay (49 v 21 days; p<0.001) compared to patients without POD at day 28. At 3 and 6 months, quality-of-life scores (by Short Form 36 questionnaire) showed a significantly reduced rating for most components in patients with POD at day 28 compared to those without POD. The 6-month mortality rate was 21% among patients alive with POD at day 28 compared to 5% among patients alive without POD (p = 0.05). The calculated number of patients needed per arm to detect a 25% relative risk reduction for mortality alone was 762 compared to 386 per arm for POD+ death. CONCLUSIONS: POD+death at day 28 following cardiac surgery may be a valid composite endpoint and offers statistical efficiencies in terms of sample size calculations for cardiac surgical trials.
Asunto(s)
Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Cardíacos/efectos adversos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Cardíacos/mortalidad , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Insuficiencia Multiorgánica/mortalidad , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/mortalidad , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Femenino , Mortalidad Hospitalaria/tendencias , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Insuficiencia Multiorgánica/diagnóstico , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/diagnóstico , Estudios Prospectivos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Cardiac surgery encompasses various stimuli that trigger pro-inflammatory mediators, reactive oxygen species and mobilization of leucocytes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of xenon on the inflammatory response during cardiac surgery. METHODS: This randomized trial enrolled 30 patients who underwent elective on-pump coronary-artery bypass grafting in balanced anaesthesia of either xenon or sevoflurane. For this secondary analysis, blood samples were drawn prior to the operation, intra-operatively and on the first post-operative day to measure the pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines interleukin-6 (IL-6), interleukin-8/C-X-C motif ligand 8 (IL-8/CXCL8), and interleukin-10 (IL-10). Chemokines such as C-X-C motif ligand 12/ stromal cell-derived factor-1α (CXCL12/SDF-1α) and macrophage migration inhibitory factor (MIF) were measured to characterize xenon's perioperative inflammatory profile and its impact on migration of peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMC). RESULTS: Xenon enhanced the postoperative increase of IL-6 compared to sevoflurane (Xenon: 90.7 versus sevoflurane: 33.7 pg/ml; p = 0.035) and attenuated the increase of IL-10 (Xenon: 127.9 versus sevoflurane: 548.3 pg/ml; p = 0.028). Both groups demonstrated a comparable intraoperative increase of oxidative stress (intra-OP: p = 0.29; post-OP: p = 0.65). While both groups showed an intraoperative increase of the cardioprotective mediators MIF and CXCL12/SDF-1α, only MIF levels decreased in the xenon group on the first postoperative day (50.0 ng/ml compared to 23.3 ng/ml; p = 0.012), whereas it remained elevated after sevoflurane anaesthesia (58.3 ng/ml to 53.6 ng/ml). Effects of patients' serum on chemotactic migration of peripheral mononuclear blood cells taken from healthy volunteers indicated a tendency towards enhanced migration after sevoflurane anaesthesia (p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to sevoflurane, balanced xenon anaesthesia triggers pro-inflammatory effects and suppresses the anti-inflammatory response in cardiac surgery patients even though the clinical significance remains unknown. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This clinical trial was approved by the European Medicines Agency (EudraCT-number: 2010-023942-63) and at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT01285271 ; first received: January 24, 2011).
Asunto(s)
Anestésicos por Inhalación/efectos adversos , Puente de Arteria Coronaria/métodos , Inflamación/inducido químicamente , Éteres Metílicos/efectos adversos , Xenón/efectos adversos , Ensayos de Migración de Leucocitos , Quimiocina CXCL12/sangre , Puente de Arteria Coronaria/efectos adversos , Humanos , Inflamación/etiología , Interleucina-10/sangre , Interleucina-6/sangre , Interleucina-8/sangre , Leucocitos Mononucleares/efectos de los fármacos , Oxidación-Reducción/efectos de los fármacos , SevofluranoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Citizens can represent a relevant key resource in health care, for example by actively practicing preventive health care and managing their own health care needs. In Germany, the role of citizens in the health care system has not yet been defined. Therefore, the aim of this study is, as a first step, to determine what is meant by "citizen-centred healthcare", since there is, as yet, no clear definition. METHODS: Between September and November 2022, semi-structured expert interviews were conducted with representatives from the fields of politics and self-administration and service providers and, with their consent, recorded and transcribed. A category system was developed inductively and deductively based on Mayring's content analysis. Using this, two members of the project team coded the interviews independently of each other using the QCAmap software. After a replication check of the deviations, the content could then be analyzed. RESULTS: A total of nâ¯=â¯10 interviews were conducted (nâ¯=â¯3 service providers, nâ¯=â¯2 self-administration, nâ¯=â¯5 politicians). The analysis revealed two different understandings of citizen-centred healthcare. Some of the experts understand citizen-centred healthcare as care that is provided close to home and easily accessible for citizens. The others interpret the term as care where citizens take on an active role. All interviewees saw the lack of health literacy among citizens as a key challenge. The social imbalance, which creates an inequality of opportunity in the involvement of citizens, was also mentioned several times. Opportunities were generally understood as the possibility of conserving resources and maintaining health. The analysis shows that there is still a lack of solutions that specifically address these challenges as well as the implementation of citizen-centred health care. DISCUSSION: The expert interviews demonstrate that there are two fundamentally different understandings of citizen-centred healthcare and how it should be established in Germany. Future research should therefore pursue the goal of developing a definition of "citizen-centred health care" by expert consensus. This can then form the basis for concrete, future goals for action. There was consensus among the experts regarding the problems that need to be considered in this context. Factors such as citizens' lack of health literacy and social imbalance should therefore be given more attention in the future.
Asunto(s)
Programas Nacionales de Salud , Humanos , Alemania , Política , Atención Dirigida al Paciente , Entrevistas como Asunto , Participación de la Comunidad , Atención a la Salud/organización & administraciónRESUMEN
The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment, also known as SOFA score, was introduced to assess organ dysfunction of critical ill patients. However, understanding the impact of missing SOFA scores in randomized controlled trials and how this affect the validity and applicability of the SOFA score as a surrogate endpoint for predicting mortality has been a matter of interest. To address this, a secondary analysis of a systematic review was conducted to quantify the relationship between SOFA scores and the prediction of mortality in critically ill adults in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The systematic review being referred to included 87 RCTs with a total of 12,064 critically ill patients. This analysis focused on missing SOFA score data in relation to the length of stay on the intensive care unit (ICU) and the methods used to handle missing data. SOFA score measurements from the included studies were categorized into three time frames: Early (t ≤ 4 days), Intermediate (t = 5-10 days) and Late (t > 10 days) measurement. Only one study reported a complete data set for calculating the SOFA score for an Early measurement. When considering all methods used to address missing data, 32% of studies still had missing data for Early measurements, and this percentage increased to 64% for Late measurements. These findings suggested that, over time, the number of studies with incomplete data sets has been increasing. The longer a patient is treated on the ICU, the higher the number of missing data which can impact the validity of SOFA score analyses. There was no clear trend towards a specific method for compensating missing data. An exemplary calculation demonstrated that ignoring missing data may lead to an underestimated variability of the treatment effect. This, in turn, could bias the interpretation of study results by policy- and clinical decision-makers. Overall, there are several limitations that need to be considered when using SOFA score as a surrogate endpoint for mortality. When employed as an outcome, the SOFA score is frequently missing and most studies do not adequately describe the amount or nature of missing data, or the methods used to handle missing data in the analysis.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedad Crítica , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos , Tiempo de Internación , Puntuaciones en la Disfunción de Órganos , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Humanos , Enfermedad Crítica/mortalidad , Enfermedad Crítica/terapia , Unidades de Cuidados Intensivos/estadística & datos numéricos , Tiempo de Internación/estadística & datos numéricos , Revisiones Sistemáticas como AsuntoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: We present the 'COVID-19 evidence ecosystem' (CEOsys) as a German network to inform pandemic management and to support clinical and public health decision-making. We discuss challenges faced when organizing the ecosystem and derive lessons learned for similar networks acting during pandemics or health-related crises. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Bringing together 18 university hospitals and additional institutions, CEOsys key activities included research prioritization, conducting living systematic reviews (LSRs), supporting evidence-based (living) guidelines, knowledge translation (KT), detecting research gaps, and deriving recommendations, backed by technical infrastructure and capacity building. RESULTS: CEOsys rapidly produced 31 high-quality evidence syntheses and supported three living guidelines on COVID-19-related topics, while also developing methodological procedures. Challenges included CEOsys' late initiation in relation to the pandemic outbreak, the delayed prioritization of research questions, the continuously evolving COVID-19-related evidence, and establishing a technical infrastructure. Methodological-clinical tandems, the cooperation with national guideline groups and international collaborations were key for efficiency. CONCLUSION: CEOsys provided a proof-of-concept for a functioning evidence ecosystem at the national level. Lessons learned include that similar networks should, among others, involve methodological and clinical key stakeholders early on, aim for (inter)national collaborations, and systematically evaluate their value. We particularly call for a sustainable network.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: At the end of 2021, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) expanded its approval for the recombinant human interleukin-1 (IL-1) receptor antagonist Anakinra for the treatment of COVID-19 patients with elevated soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR). However, the role of Anakinra in COVID-19 remains unanswered, especially in patients receiving different forms of respiratory support. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review is to assess the safety and effects of Anakinra compared to placebo or standard care alone on clinical outcomes in adult hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (comprising MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, medRxiv, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CCSR)) and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease database to identify completed and ongoing studies from inception of each database to December 13, 2021. Since then, we monitored new published studies weekly up to June 30, 2022 using the CCSR. We included RCTs comparing treatment with Anakinra to placebo or standard care alone in adult hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection. RESULTS: We included five RCTs with 1,627 patients (nAnakinra = 888, ncontrol = 739, mean age 59.63 years, 64% male). Random-effects meta-analysis was used to pool data. We found that Anakinra makes little or no difference to all-cause mortality at up to day 28 compared to placebo or standard care alone (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.64-1.45; RD 9 fewer per 1000, 95% CI 84 fewer to 104 more; 4 studies, 1593 participants; I2 = 49%; low certainty of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Anakinra has no effect on adult hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection regarding mortality, clinical improvement and worsening as well as on safety outcomes compared to placebo or standard care alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration Number: CRD42021257552.