Rationale and design for a cluster randomized quality-improvement trial to increase the uptake of evidence-based therapies for patients at high cardiovascular risk: The BRIDGE-Cardiovascular Prevention trial.

BACKGROUND: Translating evidence into clinical practice in the management of high cardiovascular risk patients is challenging. Few quality improvement interventions have rigorously evaluated their impact on both patient care and clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The main objectives are to evaluate the impact of a multifaceted educational intervention on adherence to local guidelines for the prescription of statins, antiplatelets and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers for high cardiovascular risk patients, as well as on the incidence of major cardiovascular events. DESIGN: We designed a pragmatic two arm cluster randomized trial involving 40 clusters. Clusters are randomized to receive a multifaceted quality improvement intervention or to routine practice (control). The multifaceted intervention includes: reminders, care algorithms, training of a case manager, audit and feedback reports, and distribution of educational materials to health care providers. The primary endpoint is the adherence to combined evidence-based therapies (statins, antiplatelet therapy and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers) at 12 months after the intervention period in patients without contra-indications for these medications. All analyses follow the intention-to-treat principle and take the cluster design into account using linear mixed logistic regression modeling. SUMMARY: If proven effective, this multifaceted intervention would have wide utility as a means of promoting optimal usage of evidence-based interventions for the management of high cardiovascular risk patients.

An international cluster-randomized quality improvement trial to increase the adherence to evidence-based therapies for acute ischemic stroke and transient ischemic attack patients: Rationale and design of the BRIDGE STROKE Trial.

BACKGROUND: Translating evidence into clinical practice in the management of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and transient ischemic attack (TIA) is challenging especially in low- and middle-income countries. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to assess the effect of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention on adherence to evidence-based therapies for AIS and TIA patients care. DESIGN: We designed a pragmatic, 2-arm cluster-randomized trial involving 36 clusters and 1624 patients from Brazil, Argentina, and Peru. Hospitals are randomized to receive a multifaceted quality improvement intervention (intervention group) or to routine care (control group). The BRIDGE Stroke multifaceted quality improvement intervention includes case management, reminders, health care providers' educational materials (including treatment algorithms), interactive workshops, and audit and feedback reports. Primary outcome is a composite adherence score to AIS and TIA performance measures. Secondary outcomes include an "all or none" composite end point to performance measures, the individual components of the composite end points, and clinical outcomes at 90 days following admission (stroke recurrence, death, and disability measured by the modified Rankin scale). SUMMARY: The BRIDGE Stroke Trial is an international pragmatic evaluation of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention. If effective, this intervention could be potentially extended widely to improve the quality of care and outcomes of patients with AIS or TIA.

Organizational factors associated with target sedation on the first 48 h of mechanical ventilation: an analysis of checklist-ICU database.

BACKGROUND: Although light sedation levels are associated with several beneficial outcomes for critically ill patients on mechanical ventilation, the majority of patients are still deeply sedated. Organizational factors may play a role on adherence to light sedation levels. We aimed to identify organizational factors associated with a moderate to light sedation target on the first 48 h of mechanical ventilation, as well as the association between early achievement of within-target sedation and mortality. METHODS: This study is a secondary analysis of a multicenter two-phase study (prospective cohort followed by a cluster-randomized controlled trial) performed in 118 Brazilian ICUs. We included all critically ill patients who were on mechanical ventilation 48 h after ICU admission. A moderate to light level of sedation or being alert and calm (i.e., the Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale of - 3 to 0) was the target for all patients on mechanical ventilation during the study period. We collected data on the type of hospital (public, private, profit and private, nonprofit), hospital teaching status, nursing and physician staffing, and presence of sedation, analgesia, and weaning protocols. We used multivariate random-effects regression with ICU and study phase as random-effects and correction for patients' Simplified Acute Physiology Score 3 and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment. We also performed a mediation analysis to explore whether sedation level was just a mediator of the association between organizational factors and mortality. RESULTS: We included 5719 patients. Only 1710 (29.9%) were on target sedation levels on day 2. Board-certified intensivists on the morning and afternoon shifts were associated with an adequate sedation level on day 2 (OR = 2.43; CI 95%, 1.09-5.38). Target sedation levels were associated with reduced hospital mortality (OR = 0.63; CI 95%, 0.55-0.72). Mediation analysis also suggested such an association, but did not suggest a relationship between the physician staffing model and hospital mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Board-certified intensivists on morning and afternoon shifts were associated with an increased number of patients achieving lighter sedation goals. These findings reinforce the importance of organizational factors, such as intensivists' presence, as a modifiable quality improvement target.

Rationale and design of the Statins Evaluation in Coronary procedUres and REvascularization: The SECURE-PCI Trial.

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence suggests that acute treatment with statins reduce atherosclerotic complications, including periprocedural myocardial infarction, but currently, there are no large, adequately powered studies to define the effects of early, high-dose statins in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and planned invasive management. OBJECTIVES: The main goal of Statins Evaluation in Coronary procedUres and REvascularization (SECURE-PCI) Trial is to determine whether the early use of a loading dose of 80 mg of atorvastatin before an intended percutaneous coronary intervention followed by an additional dose of 80 mg 24 hours after the procedure will be able to reduce the rates of major cardiovascular events at 30 days in patients with an ACS. DESIGN: The SECURE-PCI study is a pragmatic, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial planned to enroll around 4,200 patients in 58 different sites in Brazil. The primary outcome is the rate of major cardiovascular events at 30 days defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, nonfatal acute myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, and coronary revascularization. SUMMARY: The SECURE PCI is a large randomized trial testing a strategy of early, high-dose statin in patients with ACS and will provide important information about the acute treatment of this patient population.

Effect of Loading Dose of Atorvastatin Prior to Planned Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events in Acute Coronary Syndrome: The SECURE-PCI Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effects of loading doses of statins on clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and planned invasive management remain uncertain. Objective: To determine if periprocedural loading doses of atorvastatin decrease 30-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in patients with ACS and planned invasive management. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial conducted at 53 sites in Brazil among 4191 patients with ACS evaluated with coronary angiography to proceed with a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) if anatomically feasible. Enrollment occurred between April 18, 2012, and October 6, 2017. Final follow-up for 30-day outcomes was on November 6, 2017. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive 2 loading doses of 80 mg of atorvastatin (n = 2087) or matching placebo (n = 2104) before and 24 hours after a planned PCI. All patients received 40 mg of atorvastatin for 30 days starting 24 hours after the second dose of study medication. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was MACE, defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, and unplanned coronary revascularization through 30 days. Results: Among the 4191 patients (mean age, 61.8 [SD, 11.5] years; 1085 women [25.9%]) enrolled, 4163 (99.3%) completed 30-day follow-up. A total of 2710 (64.7%) underwent PCI, 333 (8%) underwent coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and 1144 (27.3%) had exclusively medical management. At 30 days, 130 patients in the atorvastatin group (6.2%) and 149 in the placebo group (7.1%) had a MACE (absolute difference, 0.85% [95% CI, -0.70% to 2.41%]; hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.69-1.11; P = .27). No cases of hepatic failure were reported; 3 cases of rhabdomyolysis were reported in the placebo group (0.1%) and 0 in the atorvastatin group. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with ACS and planned invasive management with PCI, periprocedural loading doses of atorvastatin did not reduce the rate of MACE at 30 days. These findings do not support the routine use of loading doses of atorvastatin among unselected patients with ACS and intended invasive management. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01448642.

Effect of Lung Recruitment and Titrated Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) vs Low PEEP on Mortality in Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: The effects of recruitment maneuvers and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration on clinical outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remain uncertain. Objective: To determine if lung recruitment associated with PEEP titration according to the best respiratory-system compliance decreases 28-day mortality of patients with moderate to severe ARDS compared with a conventional low-PEEP strategy. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized trial conducted at 120 intensive care units (ICUs) from 9 countries from November 17, 2011, through April 25, 2017, enrolling adults with moderate to severe ARDS. Interventions: An experimental strategy with a lung recruitment maneuver and PEEP titration according to the best respiratory-system compliance (n = 501; experimental group) or a control strategy of low PEEP (n = 509). All patients received volume-assist control mode until weaning. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality until 28 days. Secondary outcomes were length of ICU and hospital stay; ventilator-free days through day 28; pneumothorax requiring drainage within 7 days; barotrauma within 7 days; and ICU, in-hospital, and 6-month mortality. Results: A total of 1010 patients (37.5% female; mean [SD] age, 50.9 [17.4] years) were enrolled and followed up. At 28 days, 277 of 501 patients (55.3%) in the experimental group and 251 of 509 patients (49.3%) in the control group had died (hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.42; P = .041). Compared with the control group, the experimental group strategy increased 6-month mortality (65.3% vs 59.9%; HR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.38; P = .04), decreased the number of mean ventilator-free days (5.3 vs 6.4; difference, -1.1; 95% CI, -2.1 to -0.1; P = .03), increased the risk of pneumothorax requiring drainage (3.2% vs 1.2%; difference, 2.0%; 95% CI, 0.0% to 4.0%; P = .03), and the risk of barotrauma (5.6% vs 1.6%; difference, 4.0%; 95% CI, 1.5% to 6.5%; P = .001). There were no significant differences in the length of ICU stay, length of hospital stay, ICU mortality, and in-hospital mortality. Conclusions and Relevance: In patients with moderate to severe ARDS, a strategy with lung recruitment and titrated PEEP compared with low PEEP increased 28-day all-cause mortality. These findings do not support the routine use of lung recruitment maneuver and PEEP titration in these patients. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01374022.

Effect of a Quality Improvement Intervention With Daily Round Checklists, Goal Setting, and Clinician Prompting on Mortality of Critically Ill Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

IMPORTANCE: The effectiveness of checklists, daily goal assessments, and clinician prompts as quality improvement interventions in intensive care units (ICUs) is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a multifaceted quality improvement intervention reduces the mortality of critically ill adults. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This study had 2 phases. Phase 1 was an observational study to assess baseline data on work climate, care processes, and clinical outcomes, conducted between August 2013 and March 2014 in 118 Brazilian ICUs. Phase 2 was a cluster randomized trial conducted between April and November 2014 with the same ICUs. The first 60 admissions of longer than 48 hours per ICU were enrolled in each phase. INTERVENTIONS: Intensive care units were randomized to a quality improvement intervention, including a daily checklist and goal setting during multidisciplinary rounds with follow-up clinician prompting for 11 care processes, or to routine care. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: In-hospital mortality truncated at 60 days (primary outcome) was analyzed using a random-effects logistic regression model, adjusted for patients' severity and the ICU's baseline standardized mortality ratio. Exploratory secondary outcomes included adherence to care processes, safety climate, and clinical events. RESULTS: A total of 6877 patients (mean age, 59.7 years; 3218 [46.8%] women) were enrolled in the baseline (observational) phase and 6761 (mean age, 59.6 years; 3098 [45.8%] women) in the randomized phase, with 3327 patients enrolled in ICUs (n = 59) assigned to the intervention group and 3434 patients in ICUs (n = 59) assigned to routine care. There was no significant difference in in-hospital mortality between the intervention group and the usual care group, with 1096 deaths (32.9%) and 1196 deaths (34.8%), respectively (odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.82-1.26; P = .88). Among 20 prespecified secondary outcomes not adjusted for multiple comparisons, 6 were significantly improved in the intervention group (use of low tidal volumes, avoidance of heavy sedation, use of central venous catheters, use of urinary catheters, perception of team work, and perception of patient safety climate), whereas there were no significant differences between the intervention group and the control group for 14 outcomes (ICU mortality, central line-associated bloodstream infection, ventilator-associated pneumonia, urinary tract infection, mean ventilator-free days, mean ICU length of stay, mean hospital length of stay, bed elevation to ≥30°, venous thromboembolism prophylaxis, diet administration, job satisfaction, stress reduction, perception of management, and perception of working conditions). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among critically ill patients treated in ICUs in Brazil, implementation of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention with daily checklists, goal setting, and clinician prompting did not reduce in-hospital mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01785966.

Aortic pulse wave analysis and functional capacity of heart transplantation candidates: a pilot study.

We compared cardiovascular parameters obtained with the Mobil-O-Graph and functional capacity assessed by the Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) before and after Heart Transplantation (HT) and also compared the cardiovascular parameters and the functional capacity of candidates for HT with a control group. Peripheral and central vascular pressures increased after surgery. Similar results were observed in cardiac output and pulse wave velocity. The significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) postoperatively was not followed by an increase in the functional capacity. 24 candidates for HT and 24 controls were also compared. Functional capacity was significantly lower in the HT candidates compared to controls. Stroke volume, systolic, diastolic, and pulse pressure measured peripherally and centrally were lower in the HT candidates when compared to controls. Despite the significant increase in peripheral and central blood pressures after surgery, the patients were normotensive. The 143.85% increase in LVEF in the postoperative period was not able to positively affect functional capacity. Furthermore, the lower values of LVEF, systolic volume, central and peripheral arterial pressures in the candidates for HT are consistent with the characteristics signs of advanced heart failure, negatively impacting functional capacity, as observed by the lower DASI score.

In-Hospital influenza vaccination to prevent cardiorespiratory events in the first 45 days after acute coronary syndrome: A prespecified analysis of the VIP-ACS trial.

BACKGROUND: Influenza vaccination prevents major cardiovascular events in individuals presenting a recent acute coronary syndrome (ACS), however the early effect of an in-hospital double-dose vaccination strategy remains uncertain. METHODS: The VIP-ACS was a randomized, pragmatic, multicenter, open-label trial with a blinded-adjudication endpoint. Patients with ACS ≤ 7 days of hospitalization were randomized to an in-hospital double-dose quadrivalent inactivated influenza vaccine (double-dose) or a standard-dose influenza vaccine at 30 days post-randomization. The primary endpoint was a hierarchical composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for unstable angina, hospitalization for heart failure, urgent coronary revascularization, and hospitalization for respiratory infections, analyzed with the win ratio (WR) method in short-term follow-up (45-days after randomization). RESULTS: The trial enrolled 1,801 patients (≥18 years old). Median participant age was 57 years, 70 % were male. There were no significant differences between groups on the primary hierarchical endpoint: there were 5.7 % wins in the double-dose in-hospital group and 5.5 % wins in the standard-dose delayed vaccination group (WR: 1.03; 95 % CI: 0.70---1.53; P = 0.85). In a sensitivity analysis including COVID-19 infection in the hospitalizations for respiratory infections endpoint, overall results were maintained (WR: 1.03; 95 % CI 0.71---1.51; P = 0.87). Results were consistent for major cardiovascular events only (WR: 0.82; 95 % CI: 0.48---1.39; P = 0.46). No serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSION: In patients with recent ACS, in-hospital double-dose influenza vaccination did not significantly reduce cardiorespiratory events at 45 days compared with standard-dose vaccination at 30 days post-randomization.

COVID-19-associated coagulopathy and acute kidney injury in critically ill patients.

OBJECTIVE: The incidence of thrombotic events and acute kidney injury is high in critically ill patients with COVID-19. We aimed to evaluate and compare the coagulation profiles of patients with COVID-19 developing acute kidney injury versus those who did not, during their intensive care unit stay. METHODS: Conventional coagulation and platelet function tests, fibrinolysis, endogenous inhibitors of coagulation tests, and rotational thromboelastometry were conducted on days 0, 1, 3, 7, and 14 following intensive care unit admission. RESULTS: Out of 30 patients included, 13 (43.4%) met the criteria for acute kidney injury. Comparing both groups, patients with acute kidney injury were older: 73 (60-84) versus 54 (47-64) years, p=0.027, and had a lower baseline glomerular filtration rate: 70 (51-81) versus 93 (83-106) mL/min/1.73m2, p=0.004. On day 1, D-dimer and fibrinogen levels were elevated but similar between groups: 1780 (1319-5517) versus 1794 (726-2324) ng/mL, p=0.145 and 608 (550-700) versus 642 (469-722) g/dL, p=0.95, respectively. Rotational thromboelastometry data were also similar between groups. However, antithrombin activity and protein C levels were lower in patients who developed acute kidney injury: 82 (75-92) versus 98 (90-116), p=0.028 and 70 (52-82) versus 88 (78-101) µ/mL, p=0.038, respectively. Mean protein C levels were lower in the group with acute kidney injury across multiple time points during their stay in the intensive care unit. CONCLUSION: Critically ill patients experiencing acute kidney injury exhibited lower endogenous anticoagulant levels. Further studies are needed to understand the role of natural anticoagulants in the pathophysiology of acute kidney injury within this population.

The II Brazilian Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 Joint Guidelines of the Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia and Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia.

OBJECTIVE: To update the recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: Experts, including representatives of the Ministry of Health and methodologists, created this guideline. The method used for the rapid development of guidelines was based on the adoption and/or adaptation of existing international guidelines (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) and supported by the e-COVID-19 RecMap platform. The quality of the evidence and the preparation of the recommendations followed the GRADE method. RESULTS: Twenty-one recommendations were generated, including strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen and conditional recommendations for the use of tocilizumab and baricitinib for patients on supplemental oxygen or on noninvasive ventilation and anticoagulants to prevent thromboembolism. Due to suspension of use authorization, it was not possible to make recommendations regarding the use of casirivimab + imdevimab. Strong recommendations against the use of azithromycin in patients without suspected bacterial infection, hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, and lopinavir + ritonavir and conditional recommendations against the use of ivermectin and remdesivir were made. CONCLUSION: New recommendations for the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 were generated, such as those for tocilizumab and baricitinib. Corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are still recommended, the latter with conditional recommendation. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and to promote resource economy.

A nationwide survey on health resources and clinical practices during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. / Estudo nacional sobre recursos da saúde e práticas clínicas durante o início da pandemia da COVID-19 no Brasil.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate clinical practices and hospital resource organization during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. METHODS: This was a multicenter, cross-sectional survey. An electronic questionnaire was provided to emergency department and intensive care unit physicians attending COVID-19 patients. The survey comprised four domains: characteristics of the participants, clinical practices, COVID-19 treatment protocols and hospital resource organization. RESULTS: Between May and June 2020, 284 participants [median (interquartile ranges) age 39 (33 - 47) years, 56.3% men] responded to the survey; 33% were intensivists, and 9% were emergency medicine specialists. Half of the respondents worked in public hospitals. Noninvasive ventilation (89% versus 73%; p = 0.001) and highflow nasal cannula (49% versus 32%; p = 0.005) were reported to be more commonly available in private hospitals than in public hospitals. Mechanical ventilation was more commonly used in public hospitals than private hospitals (70% versus 50%; p = 0,024). In the Emergency Departments, positive endexpiratory pressure was most commonly adjusted according to SpO2, while in the intensive care units, positive end-expiratory pressure was adjusted according to the best lung compliance. In the Emergency Departments, 25% of the respondents did not know how to set positive end-expiratory pressure. Compared to private hospitals, public hospitals had a lower availability of protocols for personal protection equipment during tracheal intubation (82% versus 94%; p = 0.005), managing mechanical ventilation [64% versus 75%; p = 0.006] and weaning patients from mechanical ventilation [34% versus 54%; p = 0.002]. Finally, patients spent less time in the emergency department before being transferred to the intensive care unit in private hospitals than in public hospitals [2 (1 - 3) versus 5 (2 - 24) hours; p < 0.001]. CONCLUSION: This survey revealed significant heterogeneity in the organization of hospital resources, clinical practices and treatments among physicians during the early COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil.

OBJETIVO: Avaliar as práticas clínicas e a organização dos recursos hospitalares durante o início da pandemia da COVID-19 no Brasil. METÓDOS: Foi realizado um estudo transversal multicêntrico. Um questionário on-line foi disponibilizado a médicos dos serviços de emergência e das unidades de terapia intensiva que atendiam pacientes com COVID-19. O questionário contemplava quatro aspectos: perfil dos participantes, práticas clínicas, protocolos de tratamento da COVID-19 e organização dos recursos hospitalares. RESULTADOS: Entre maio e junho de 2020, 284 participantes (56,3% homens), com idade mediana de 39 (intervalo interquartil de 33 - 47), responderam ao questionário; 33% eram intensivistas e 9% eram especialistas em medicina de emergência. Metade dos respondentes trabalhava em hospitais públicos. Verificou-se que a ventilação não invasiva (89% versus 73%; p = 0,001) e a cânula nasal de alto fluxo (49% versus 32%; p = 0,005) encontravam-se mais frequentemente disponíveis em hospitais privados do que nos públicos. A ventilação mecânica foi mais frequentemente utilizada em hospitais públicos do que em privados (70% versus 50%; p = 0,024). Nos serviços de emergência, a pressão positiva expiratória final foi mais frequentemente ajustada de acordo com a saturação de oxigênio, enquanto nas unidades de terapia intensiva, a pressão positiva expiratória final foi ajustada de acordo com a melhor complacência pulmonar. Nos serviços de emergência, 25% dos respondentes não sabiam como ajustar a pressão positiva expiratória final. Comparativamente aos hospitais privados, os hospitais públicos tiveram menor disponibilidade de protocolos para Equipamentos de Proteção Individual durante a intubação traqueal (82% versus 94%; p = 0,005), o manejo da ventilação mecânica (64% versus 75%; p = 0,006) e o desmame dos pacientes da ventilação mecânica (34% versus 54%; p = 0,002). Finalmente, os pacientes passaram menos tempo no serviço de emergência antes de serem transferidos à unidade de terapia intensiva em hospitais privados do que em hospitais públicos (idade mediana de 2 (1 - 3) versus idade mediana de 5 (2 - 24) horas; p < 0,001). CONCLUSÃO: Este estudo revelou heterogeneidade considerável entre os médicos em termos de organização dos recursos hospitalares, práticas clínicas e tratamentos durante o início da pandemia da COVID-19 no Brasil.

Brazilian Psychiatric Association Consensus for the Management of Acute Intoxication. General management and specific interventions for drugs of abuse.

OBJECTIVE: To present the Brazilian Psychiatric Association's Consensus for the Management of Acute Intoxication. METHODS: A group of experts selected by the Brazilian Psychiatric Association searched for articles in the MEDLINE (by PubMed) and Cochrane Database, limited to human studies and acute intoxication. Groups reviewed these materials for appropriateness to the topic and the quality of the work. To perform a table of agreed recommendations at the end of the systematic review, a survey using the Delphi method was conducted. Three survey rounds were conducted to develop a consensus. RESULTS: Support for intoxication may start with Initial Management: Resuscitation/Life Support/Differential Diagnosis. For that, the group proposed these orders of assessment: A (airway), B (breathing), C (circulation), D.1. (disability), D.2. (differential diagnosis), D.3. (decontamination), D.4. (drug antidotes), E (enhanced elimination). Then, the group of experts presented specific interventions for the main drugs of abuse. CONCLUSIONS: The approach to intoxication with drugs of abuse is complex and requires systematic protocols. The group of experts suggested the adoption of the classic use in welcoming the patient of the A-B-C-D-E technique with constant investigation of this patient until reaching a specific conduct and with the support to remit the picture. The group of experts believes that this document, at this time, can help psychiatric, general, and emergency doctors deal with psychiatric emergency episodes due to acute intoxication.

Brazilian guidelines for the treatment of outpatients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. A joint guideline of the Brazilian Association of Emergency Medicine (ABRAMEDE), Brazilian Medical Association (AMB), Brazilian Society of Angiology and Vascular Surgery (SBACV), Brazilian Society of Geriatrics and Gerontology (SBGG), Brazilian Society of Infectious Diseases (SBI), Brazilian Society of Family and Community Medicine (SBFMC), and Brazilian Thoracic Society (SBPT).

BACKGROUND: Several therapies have been used or proposed for the treatment of COVID-19, although their effectiveness and safety have not been properly evaluated. The purpose of this document is to provide recommendations to support decisions about the drug treatment of outpatients with COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: A panel consisting of experts from different clinical fields, representatives of the Brazilian Ministry of Health, and methodologists (37 members in total) was responsible for preparing these guidelines. A rapid guideline development method was used, based on the adoption and/or adaptation of recommendations from existing international guidelines combined with additional structured searches for primary studies and new recommendations whenever necessary (GRADE-ADOLOPMENT). The rating of quality of evidence and the drafting of recommendations followed the GRADE method. RESULTS: Ten technologies were evaluated, and 10 recommendations were prepared. Recommendations were made against the use of anticoagulants, azithromycin, budesonide, colchicine, corticosteroids, hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine alone or combined with azithromycin, ivermectin, nitazoxanide, and convalescent plasma. It was not possible to make a recommendation regarding the use of monoclonal antibodies in outpatients, as their benefit is uncertain and their cost is high, with limitations of availability and implementation. CONCLUSION: To date, few therapies have demonstrated effectiveness in the treatment of outpatients with COVID-19. Recommendations are restricted to what should not be used, in order to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and to promote resource savings by aboiding ineffective treatments.

Brazilian Guidelines for the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19: Joint guideline of Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia. / Diretrizes Brasileiras para o tratamento farmacológico de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19: Diretriz conjunta da Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência, Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira, Associação Médica Brasileira, Sociedade Brasileira de Angiologia e Cirurgia Vascular, Sociedade Brasileira de Infectologia, Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia e Sociedade Brasileira de Reumatologia.

OBJECTIVE: Several therapies are being used or proposed for COVID-19, and many lack appropriate evaluations of their effectiveness and safety. The purpose of this document is to develop recommendations to support decisions regarding the pharmacological treatment of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 in Brazil. METHODS: A group of 27 experts, including representatives of the Ministry of Health and methodologists, created this guideline. The method used for the rapid development of guidelines was based on the adoption and/or adaptation of existing international guidelines (GRADE ADOLOPMENT) and supported by the e-COVID-19 RecMap platform. The quality of the evidence and the preparation of the recommendations followed the GRADE method. RESULTS: Sixteen recommendations were generated. They include strong recommendations for the use of corticosteroids in patients using supplemental oxygen, the use of anticoagulants at prophylactic doses to prevent thromboembolism and the nonuse of antibiotics in patients without suspected bacterial infection. It was not possible to make a recommendation regarding the use of tocilizumab in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 using oxygen due to uncertainties regarding the availability of and access to the drug. Strong recommendations against the use of hydroxychloroquine, convalescent plasma, colchicine, lopinavir + ritonavir and antibiotics in patients without suspected bacterial infection and also conditional recommendations against the use of casirivimab + imdevimab, ivermectin and rendesivir were made. CONCLUSION: To date, few therapies have proven effective in the treatment of hospitalized patients with COVID-19, and only corticosteroids and prophylaxis for thromboembolism are recommended. Several drugs were considered ineffective and should not be used to provide the best treatment according to the principles of evidence-based medicine and promote economical resource use.

OBJETIVOS: Há diversas terapias sendo utilizadas ou propostas para a COVID-19, muitas carecendo de apropriada avaliação de efetividade e segurança. O propósito deste documento é elaborar recomendações para subsidiar decisões sobre o tratamento farmacológico de pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 no Brasil. MÉTODOS: Um grupo de 27 membros, formado por especialistas, representantes do Ministério da Saúde e metodologistas, integra essa diretriz. Foi utilizado o método de elaboração de diretrizes rápidas, tomando por base a adoção e/ou a adaptação de recomendações a partir de diretrizes internacionais existentes (GRADE ADOLOPMENT), apoiadas pela plataforma e-COVID-19 RecMap. A qualidade das evidências e a elaboração das recomendações seguiram o método GRADE. RESULTADOS: Foram geradas 16 recomendações. Entre elas, estão recomendações fortes para o uso de corticosteroides em pacientes em uso de oxigênio suplementar, para o uso de anticoagulantes em doses de profilaxia para tromboembolismo e para não uso de antibacterianos nos pacientes sem suspeita de infecção bacteriana. Não foi possível fazer uma recomendação quanto à utilização do tocilizumabe em pacientes hospitalizados com COVID-19 em uso de oxigênio, pelas incertezas na disponibilidade e de acesso ao medicamento. Foi feita recomendação para não usar azitromicina, casirivimabe + imdevimabe, cloroquina, colchicina, hidroxicloroquina, ivermectina, lopinavir/ ritonavir, plasma convalescente e rendesivir. CONCLUSÃO: Até o momento, poucas terapias se provaram efetivas no tratamento do paciente hospitalizado com COVID-19, sendo recomendados apenas corticosteroides e profilaxia para tromboembolismo. Diversos medicamentos foram considerados ineficazes, devendo ser descartados, de forma a oferecer o melhor tratamento pelos princípios da medicina baseada em evidências e promover economia de recursos não eficazes.

Organizational factors associated with adherence to low tidal volume ventilation: a secondary analysis of the CHECKLIST-ICU database.

BACKGROUND: Survival benefit from low tidal volume (VT) ventilation (LTVV) has been demonstrated for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and patients not having ARDS could also benefit from this strategy. Organizational factors may play a role on adherence to LTVV. The present study aimed to identify organizational factors with an independent association with adherence to LTVV. METHODS: Secondary analysis of the database of a multicenter two-phase study (prospective cohort followed by a cluster-randomized trial) performed in 118 Brazilian intensive care units. Patients under mechanical ventilation at day 2 were included. LTVV was defined as a VT ≤ 8 ml/kg PBW on the second day of ventilation. Data on the type and number of beds of the hospital, teaching status, nursing, respiratory therapists and physician staffing, use of structured checklist, and presence of protocols were tested. A multivariable mixed-effect model was used to assess the association between organizational factors and adherence to LTVV. RESULTS: The study included 5719 patients; 3340 (58%) patients received LTVV. A greater number of hospital beds (absolute difference 7.43% [95% confidence interval 0.61-14.24%]; p = 0.038), use of structured checklist during multidisciplinary rounds (5.10% [0.55-9.81%]; p = 0.030), and presence of at least one nurse per 10 patients during all shifts (17.24% [0.85-33.60%]; p = 0.045) were the only three factors that had an independent association with adherence to LTVV. CONCLUSIONS: Number of hospital beds, use of a structured checklist during multidisciplinary rounds, and nurse staffing are organizational factors associated with adherence to LTVV. These findings shed light on organizational factors that may improve ventilation in critically ill patients.

Position Statement: Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation of Patients with Confirmed or Suspected COVID-19 - 2020. / Posicionamento para Ressuscitação Cardiopulmonar de Pacientes com Diagnóstico ou Suspeita de COVID-19 ­ 2020.

Care for patients with cardiac arrest in the context of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has several unique aspects that warrant particular attention. This joint position statement by the Brazilian Association of Emergency Medicine (ABRAMEDE), Brazilian Society of Cardiology (SBC), Brazilian Association of Intensive Care Medicine (AMIB), and Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA), all official societies representing the corresponding medical specialties affiliated with the Brazilian Medical Association (AMB), provides recommendations to guide health care workers in the current context of limited robust evidence, aiming to maximize the protection of staff and patients alike. It is essential that full aerosol precautions, which include wearing appropriate personal protective equipment, be followed during resuscitation. It is also imperative that potential causes of cardiac arrest of particular interest in this patient population, especially hypoxia, cardiac arrhythmias associated with QT prolongation, and myocarditis, be considered and addressed. An advanced invasive airway device should be placed early. Use of HEPA filters at the bag-valve interface is mandatory. Management of cardiac arrest occurring during mechanical ventilation or during prone positioning demands particular ventilator settings and rescuer positioning for chest compressions which deviate from standard cardiopulmonary resuscitation techniques. Apart from these logistical issues, care should otherwise follow national and international protocols and guidelines, namely the 2015 International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) and 2019 American Heart Association (AHA) guidelines and the 2019 Update to the Brazilian Society of Cardiology Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Guideline.

Coagulation profile of COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU: An exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: Coagulation abnormalities in COVID-19 patients have not been addressed in depth. OBJECTIVE: To perform a longitudinal evaluation of coagulation profile of patients admitted to the ICU with COVID-19. METHODS: Conventional coagulation tests, rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM), platelet function, fibrinolysis, antithrombin, protein C and S were measured at days 0, 1, 3, 7 and 14. Based on median total maximum SOFA score, patients were divided in two groups: SOFA ≤ 10 and SOFA > 10. RESULTS: Thirty patients were studied. Some conventional coagulation tests, as aPTT, PT and INR remained unchanged during the study period, while alterations on others coagulation laboratory tests were detected. Fibrinogen levels were increased in both groups. ROTEM maximum clot firmness increased in both groups from Day 0 to Day 14. Moreover, ROTEM-FIBTEM maximum clot firmness was high in both groups, with a slight decrease from day 0 to day 14 in group SOFA ≤ 10 and a slight increase during the same period in group SOFA > 10. Fibrinolysis was low and decreased over time in all groups, with the most pronounced decrease observed in INTEM maximum lysis in group SOFA > 10. Also, D-dimer plasma levels were higher than normal reference range in both groups and free protein S plasma levels were low in both groups at baseline and increased over time, Finally, patients in group SOFA > 10 had lower plasminogen levels and Protein C ​​than patients with SOFA <10, which may represent less fibrinolysis activity during a state of hypercoagulability. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 patients have a pronounced hypercoagulability state, characterized by impaired endogenous anticoagulation and decreased fibrinolysis. The magnitude of coagulation abnormalities seems to correlate with the severity of organ dysfunction. The hypercoagulability state of COVID-19 patients was not only detected by ROTEM but it much more complex, where changes were observed on the fibrinolytic and endogenous anticoagulation system.

Covid-19 telescreening in SUS users with risk conditions: case report.

This case report aims to describe the conception and preliminary data of the implementation of a telescreening and telemonitoring program of covid-19 for users of the Unified Health System with risk conditions. A system of telerscreening was implemented through which undergraduate students in the health area contact patients by telephone, according to periodicity and predefined criteria, to monitor the evolution of the condition. In eight weeks, 2,190 attempts at remote contact were made with individuals from five health units. The effective number of individuals monitored at the time this writing is 802.

Recommendations for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) of patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

The care for patients suffering from cardiopulmonary arrest in a context of a COVID-19 pandemic has particularities that should be highlighted. The following recommendations from the Brazilian Association of Emergency Medicine (ABRAMEDE), the Brazilian Society of Cardiology (SBC) and the Brazilian Association of Intensive Medicine (AMIB) and the Brazilian Society of Anesthesiology (SBA), associations and societies official representatives of specialties affiliated to the Brazilian Medical Association (AMB), aim to guide the various assistant teams, in a context of little solid evidence, maximizing the protection of teams and patients. It is essential to wear full Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for aerosols during the care of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and it is imperative to consider and treat the potential causes in these patients, especially hypoxia and arrhythmias caused by changes in the QT interval or myocarditis. The installation of an advanced invasive airway must be obtained early and the use of High Efficiency Particulate Arrestance (HEPA) filters at the interface with the valve bag is mandatory; situations of occurrence of CPR during mechanical ventilation and in a prone position demand peculiarities that are different from the conventional CPR pattern. Faced with the care of a patient diagnosed or suspected of COVID-19, the care follows the national and international protocols and guidelines 2015 ILCOR (International Alliance of Resuscitation Committees), AHA 2019 Guidelines (American Heart Association) and the Update of the Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Care Directive of the Brazilian Society of Cardiology 2019.

A atenção ao paciente vítima de parada cardiorrespiratória em um contexto de pandemia de COVID-19 possui particularidades que devem ser ressaltadas. As seguintes recomendações da Associação Brasileira de Medicina de Emergência (ABRAMEDE), Sociedade Brasileira de Cardiologia (SBC), Associação de Medicina Intensiva Brasileira (AMIB) e Sociedade Brasileira de Anestesiologia (SBA), associações e sociedades representantes oficiais de especialidades afiliadas a Associação Medica Brasileira (AMB), têm por objetivo orientar as diversas equipes assistentes, em um contexto de poucas evidências sólidas, maximizando a proteção das equipes e dos pacientes.É fundamental a paramentação completa com Equipamentos de Proteção Individual (EPIs) para aerossóis durante o atendimento de Parada Cardiorrespiratória (PCR), e imperativo que se considerem e tratem os potenciais causas nesses pacientes, principalmente hipóxia e arritmias causadas por alterações no intervalo QT ou miocardites. A instalação de via aérea invasiva avançada deve ser obtida precocemente e o uso de filtros High Efficiency Particulate Arrestance (HEPA) na interface com a bolsa-válvula é obrigatório; situações de ocorrência de PCR durante a ventilação mecânica e em posição pronada demandam peculiaridades distintas do padrão convencional de PCR. Frente ao atendimento de um paciente com diagnóstico ou suspeito de COVID-19, o atendimento segue em acordo com os protocolos e diretrizes nacionais e internacionais 2015 ILCOR (Aliança Internacional dos Comitês de Ressuscitação), Diretrizes AHA 2019 (American Heart Association) e a Atualização da Diretriz de Ressuscitação Cardiopulmonar e Cuidados de Emergência da Sociedade Brasileira de Cardiologia 2019.