Low Versus High Blood Pressure Targets in Critically Ill and Surgical Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Hypotension is associated with adverse outcomes in critically ill and perioperative patients. However, these assumptions are supported by observational studies. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aims to compare the impact of lower versus higher blood pressure targets on mortality. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Scholar from inception to February 10, 2024. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials comparing lower versus higher blood pressure targets in the management of critically ill and perioperative settings. DATA EXTRACTION: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up available. This review was registered in the Prospective International Register of Systematic Reviews, CRD42023452928. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 2940 studies identified by the search string, 28 (12 in critically ill and 16 in perioperative settings) were included totaling 15,672 patients. Patients in the low blood pressure target group had lower mortality (23 studies included: 1019/7679 [13.3%] vs. 1103/7649 [14.4%]; relative risk 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.99; p = 0.03; I2 = 0%). This corresponded to a 97.4% probability of any increase in mortality with a Bayesian approach. These findings were mainly driven by studies performed in the ICU setting and with treatment lasting more than 24 hours; however, the magnitude and direction of the results were similar in the majority of sensitivity analyses including the analysis restricted to low risk of bias studies. We also observed a lower rate of atrial fibrillation and fewer patients requiring transfusion in low-pressure target groups. No differences were found in the other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Based on pooled randomized trial evidence, a lower compared with a higher blood pressure target results in a reduction of mortality, atrial fibrillation, and transfusion requirements. Lower blood pressure targets may be beneficial but there is ongoing uncertainty. However, the present meta-analysis does not confirm previous findings and recommendations. These results might inform future guidelines and promote the study of the concept of protective hemodynamics.

What do we know about eligible organ donors? Analysis of data from a local Registry.

BACKGROUND: The imbalance between supply and demand for organ donations remains a hot topic for international debate. Brain-dead organ donors (DBDs) constitute the majority of organ donations in Poland. OBJECTIVES: To identify the factors that guided intensivists in qualifying a brain-dead patient as a potential organ donor, and whether the factors that significantly influenced the decision to qualify constituted an actual contraindication. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective study based on data from the Silesian ICU Registry from 2010-2020 and publicly available information from Poltransplant. We compared the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients diagnosed with brain death who were identified as eligible and ineligible organ donors. RESULTS: Out of 25,465 patients enrolled in the Silesian ICU Registry, brain death was diagnosed in 385 (1.51%) study participants, and 61 of the records were excluded due to data incompleteness. In the remaining group (n = 324), there were 201 men and 123 women. Of them, only 180 study participants were reported as eligible donors (55.5%). Six patients had absolute contraindications to organ donation. CONCLUSIONS: A relatively small number of patients diagnosed with brain death were qualified by intensivists as eligible organ donors, with a limited number of medical factors influencing this decision. This means that other non-medical factors may affect the qualification of DBDs for organ procurement.

Adverse Effects Related to Corticosteroid Use in Sepsis, Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, and Community-Acquired Pneumonia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We postulate that corticosteroid-related side effects in critically ill patients are similar across sepsis, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and community-acquired pneumonia (CAP). By pooling data across all trials that have examined corticosteroids in these three acute conditions, we aim to examine the side effects of corticosteroid use in critical illness. DATA SOURCES: We performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention library of COVID research, CINAHL, and Cochrane center for trials. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared corticosteroids to no corticosteroids or placebo in patients with sepsis, ARDS, and CAP. DATA EXTRACTION: We summarized data addressing the most described side effects of corticosteroid use in critical care: gastrointestinal bleeding, hyperglycemia, hypernatremia, superinfections/secondary infections, neuropsychiatric effects, and neuromuscular weakness. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 47 RCTs (n = 13,893 patients). Corticosteroids probably have no effect on gastrointestinal bleeding (relative risk [RR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.87-1.34; absolute risk increase [ARI], 0.3%; moderate certainty) or secondary infections (RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.89-1.05; absolute risk reduction, 0.5%; moderate certainty) and may have no effect on neuromuscular weakness (RR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.03-1.45; ARI, 1.4%; low certainty) or neuropsychiatric events (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.82-1.74; ARI, 0.5%; low certainty). Conversely, they increase the risk of hyperglycemia (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.11-1.31; ARI, 5.4%; high certainty) and probably increase the risk of hypernatremia (RR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.29-1.96; ARI, 2.3%; moderate certainty). CONCLUSIONS: In ARDS, sepsis, and CAP, corticosteroids are associated with hyperglycemia and probably with hypernatremia but likely have no effect on gastrointestinal bleeding or secondary infections. More data examining effects of corticosteroids, particularly on neuropsychiatric outcomes and neuromuscular weakness, would clarify the safety of this class of drugs in critical illness.

Risk Factors of Postoperative Acute Pancreatitis and Its Impact on the Postoperative Course after Pancreaticoduodenectomy-10 Years of Single-Center Experience.

BACKGROUND: Clinically relevant acute postoperative pancreatitis (CR-PPAP) after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) is a complication that may lead to the development of local and systemic consequences. The study aimed to identify risk factors for CR-PPAP and assess the impact of CR-PPAP on the postoperative course after PD. METHODS: The study retrospectively analyzed data from 428 consecutive patients who underwent PD at a single center between January 2013 and December 2022. The presence of increased amylase activity in plasma, above the upper limit of normal 48 h after surgery, was checked. CR-PPAP was diagnosed when accompanied by disturbing radiological features and/or symptoms requiring treatment. We investigated the relationship between the occurrence of CR-PPAP and the development of postoperative complications after PD, and possible predictors of CR-PPAP. RESULTS: The postoperative follow-up period was 90 days. Of the 428 patients, 18.2% (n = 78) had CR-PPAP. It was associated with increased rates of CR-POPF, delayed gastric emptying, occurrence of intra-abdominal collections, postoperative hemorrhage, peritonitis, and septic shock. Patients who developed CR-PPAP were more often reoperated (37.17% vs. 6.9%, p < 0.0001)) and had increased postoperative mortality (14.1% vs. 5.74%, p < 0.0001). Soft pancreatic parenchyma, intraoperative blood loss, small diameter of the pancreatic duct, and diagnosis of adenocarcinoma papillae Vateri were independent risk factors for CR-PPAP and showed the best performance in predicting CR-PPAP. CONCLUSIONS: CR-PPAP is associated with an increased incidence of postoperative complications after PD, worse treatment outcomes, and an increased risk of reoperation and mortality. Pancreatic consistency, intraoperative blood loss, width of the duct of Wirsung, and histopathological diagnosis can be used to assess the risk of CR-PPAP. Amylase activity 48 h after surgery > 161 U/L is highly specific in the diagnosis of CR-PPAP.

Reporting SOFA in research: we should always present each of the SOFA subscores.

INTRODUCTION: The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score is the sum of 6 components, each representing one organ system with dysfunction classified on a 4-point scale. In research, usually by default, the total SOFA score is taken into account, but it may not reflect the severity of the condition of the individual organs. Often, these values are expected to predict mortality. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this study, we reanalysed 2 cohorts of critically ill elderly patients to explore the distribution of SOFA subscores and to assess the between-group differences. Both cohorts were adjusted to maintain similarity in terms of age and the primary cause of admission (respiratory cause). RESULTS: In total, 910 (non-COVID-19 cohort) and 551 patients (COVID-19 cohort) were included in the analysis. Both cohorts were similar in terms of the total SOFA score (median 5 vs. 5 points); however, the groups differed significantly in 4/6 SOFA subscores (respiratory, neurological, cardiovascular, and coagulation subscores). Moreover, the cohorts had different fractions of organ failures (defined as a SOFA subscore ≥ 3). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis revealed significant differences in SOFA subscores between the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 respiratory cohorts, highlighting the importance of considering individual organ dysfunction rather than relying solely on the total SOFA score when reporting organ dysfunction in clinical research.